Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the time.

And I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I sincerely believe the majority will come to regret this decision to close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills.

Yesterday, the House passed an already unorthodox rule that broke the precedent. It was restrictive. And pursuant to that rule, 127 amendments were filed by Members of this House.

After debate on the first Republican amendment, the first one, the majority decided to halt consideration of the legislation, and called an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee, which began at 10:45 p.m. last night.

In response to that first Republican amendment, the majority is now bringing forth this rule that will block consideration of most of the amendments that were made in order under the previous rule proposed by the majority and passed by this House. So all those Members who followed the rule previously passed and filed their amendments by the deadline will be left without the chance to represent the interests of their constituents.

I think this rule is unjust. I think it's unnecessary. I think the majority's making a big mistake.

During yesterday's late-night meeting, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee cited the large number of amendments that were preprinted pursuant to the previous rule as a reason for shutting down the appropriations process. He went on to cite what he considers to be his obligation to move the appropriations bills on schedule. As a matter of fact, he was kind enough to hand out to the members of the Rules Committee this copy of a proposed schedule.

I understand his concern. But the reason, precisely, for the high number of amendments that were filed yesterday was because the majority had abandoned the use of the traditional open appropriations rule, and they had required Members to pre-print their amendments, and that forced Members to submit all of the amendments that they conceivably thought they might wish to introduce, to consider, rather, even if they eventually did not plan to offer them.

Under the previous rule, Members were also barred from making germane amendments to their amendments, changes to their amendments, so Members submitted duplicative amendments to cover all possible angles.

Members have an obligation to their constituents to represent them on appropriations bills and to represent the interests of their communities.

Now, yes, even though over 120 amendments were set for debate, the reality, Madam Speaker, is that we never would have considered all of those amendments. Members were hedging their bets. They were submitting duplicative amendments that, in most instances, they didn't plan to actually offer for debate.

Mr. Burton, for example, came before the Rules Committee last night. We were there till almost 2 in the morning, and he testified that he had submitted a number of amendments, but he only was going to ask for one of the amendments to be actually debated.

So I ask, Madam Speaker, if the majority really believed that the minority was using dilatory tactics, why did they stop debate after the first minority amendment and call for an emergency Rules meeting?

They should have followed the advice of my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Perlmutter, and allowed debate to continue last night and proceeded to work through the amendments. Instead, after one minority amendment, they halted the floor process so that the Rules Committee could meet late last night.

Now, by the time the meeting was over at almost 2 a.m., the House could have actually considered already a number of the amendments, and most likely could have agreed by unanimous consent, which is the tradition on appropriations bills, to limit time on remaining amendments and the debate time.

If, after debating for a reasonable amount of time, the majority sincerely came, then, to the conclusion that the minority was using dilatory tactics, the majority then could have called the Rules Committee to seek a structured rule.

Instead, the majority gave up after just one minority amendment and immediately decided to use the heavy hand of the Rules Committee to close down the deliberative process. So I wonder if they really had any intention at all to follow through on their initial call for Members to be allowed to offer amendments that were preprinted in the Congressional Record.

Now, under the rule that we're considering at this time, only 22 specific amendments chosen by the majority are made in order. The rule also calls for the Appropriations ranking minority member to decide which 10 additional earmark-related amendments will be considered. So the majority is bucking the decision to the minority on which of their amendments they will block.

The minority must now have to silence our own Members even though it was not our decision to limit amendments. I think that really is unfortunate by the majority. If the majority wants to block amendments, they should have the courage to say whose amendments they wish to block.

So, Madam Speaker, I think, today, we're witnessing a sad page in the history of this body. I think we're witnessing a day that, without doubt, will come to be regretted by the majority.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee (Mr. Wolf).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow an open rule consistent with tradition and with fairness.

I urge my colleagues to consider what we are about to do and to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can uphold our tradition of allowing free and open debate on appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, I believe if not, the majority will come to regret this decision and close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills.

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

Again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can uphold the tradition of openness on appropriations bills and fairness.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise today in opposition to this unorthodox rule brought forth by the majority. It continues the precedent the majority set last year when they decided to no longer allow the House to consider appropriations rules with open rules and instead use a restrictive rule that requires Members to preprint any proposed amendments in the Congressional Record.

So this is a restrictive rule, even though the majority calls it an open rule with a preprinting requirement. It was not long ago when the majority felt quite differently. At the end of 2004, the current distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, then a member of the minority and ranking member of the Rules Committee, released a report called, ``Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy.'' On Page 26 of the report the chairwoman said that she considers rules with preprinting requirements, like today's rule, restrictive and not

open. Why exactly is this a restrictive rule? Let, me, again, quote the chairwoman's 2004 report. ``A preprinting requirement blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the course of debate.''

For example, Mr. Speaker, Members will be blocked from offering germane changes to their own amendments if an issue surfaces during debate, or if there is a minor drafting error. That is why, during yesterday's rules hearing, I made a motion to modify the rule to allow Members who have preprinted their amendments, as specified in this rule, to make germane modifications to such amendments. My commonsense amendment was defeated by a straight party-line vote.

I will provide you an example, Mr. Speaker, why I believe my amendment was important. During last year's consideration of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, Representative Buyer submitted an amendment for consideration. However, the amendment had a drafting error and did not comply with one of the rules of the House.

Once Congressman Buyer realized the problem, he asked unanimous consent to change his amendment to achieve its original purpose, and also to comply with the rules of the House. However, the majority blocked his unanimous consent request.

If the bill had been considered under an open rule, Representative Buyer could simply have introduced a new amendment. But, just like the bill being brought to the floor today, that bill was not considered under an open rule, and Members were blocked from making germane changes to their amendments, unless they received concurrence of every Member through a unanimous consent agreement.

Yesterday, during the hearing on the supplemental appropriations bill, the Rules Committee ranking member, Mr. Dreier, attempted to ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, how the majority would handle another occurrence like occurred last year with the Buyer amendment.

But when Mr. Dreier began asking his question, the Rules Committee chairwoman did not allow Mr. Dreier from going forward with the question. The Rules Committee chairwoman explained her ruling by saying, the hearing on the underlying legislation was complete, and the committee was now considering the supplemental funding bill; a bill that is an appropriations bill just like the underlying legislation. And yet, the chairwoman found that asking the Appropriations chairman about the upcoming appropriations process during a hearing on an appropriations bill was inappropriate. I think that was unfortunate.

Please let me quote Chairwoman Slaughter's report from 2004. Restrictive rules block ``duly elected Members of Congress the opportunity to shape legislation in a manner that they believe is in the best interest of their constituents and the Nation as a whole.'' They also block, and I continue quoting, ``the full and free airing of conflicting opinions.''

Mr. Speaker, I will insert the relevant parts of the chairwoman's report into the Record.

If the rule was restrictive under the majority's definition in 2004, why is it not the same today?

What makes this restrictive rule more unfortunate is that the House has a long tradition of allowing open rules on appropriations bills in order to allow each Member the ability to offer germane amendments without having to preprint their amendment or receive approval from the Rules Committee.

Other than the recent use by the majority to restrict debate on appropriations bills, we have to look back nearly 15 years to the last time a restrictive rule was used. So this is not a one-time aberration but, in fact, the way the majority plans to continue to consider all of the appropriations bills this year.

So I believe that the majority is really not only subverting the rights of every Member, and also bipartisan and open debate on appropriations bills, but I think they're setting a dangerous precedent that is unfortunate. Excessive partisanship is unnecessary and unfortunate.

Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy

A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic

Process in the 108th Congress.

Compiled by the House Rules Committee Minority Office

The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member

4. Rules with Pre-Printing Requirements are not ``Open

Rules''

During the 108th Congress, the Rules Committee reported out

four rules with a so-called ``pre-printing'' requirement.

This provision requires Members to submit their amendments

for publication in the Congressional Record, in accordance

with clause 8 of Rule XVIII, on the day preceding floor

debate of the legislation. While the majority optimistically

calls such rules ``modified open rules,'' we consider them

``restrictive'' rules and have scored them as such in the

appendices attached to this report.

While we concede that considering a bill with a pre-

printing requirement is less restrictive than the more common

tactic of limiting amendments to those printed in the Rules

Committee report; \31\ there is a significant difference

between an open rule and a rule with a pre-printing

requirement. A pre-printing requirement forces Members to

reveal their amendments in advance of floor consideration,

something that may assist the floor managers, but can

disadvantage the Member offering it. In addition, a pre-

printing requirement blocks any amendment proposal that might

emerge during the course of the debate. When Chairman Dreier

was in the minority, he made the following statement about

the preprinting requirement during debate on a rule on

national, service legislation: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ According to our records, 50% (64) of the non-conference

report/non-procedural rules reported by the Committee in the

108th Congress were rules restricting debate to amendments

printed in the Committee report. In the ``Additional Views''

they filed in the 102nd Congress Survey of Activities

Republican Rules Committee members, including Chairman

Dreier, complained this type of restrictive rule had become

``a favored method of the majority.'' Under this procedure,

the Rules Committee ``selectively determines which

[amendment] to make in order and which may not be offered on

the floor. Usually, the amendments made in order are subject

to strict time limits, as opposed to open debate under the

five-minute rule, and are not subject to amendment. On rare

occasions the Rules Committee has allowed all amendments

submitted to be offered, but this is the exception, not the

rule.'' H. Rept. 102-1101, 102nd Survey, p. 109.

``This rule also requires amendments to be printed in the

Congressional Record. That might not sound like much, but it

is another bad policy that belittles the traditions of House

debate. If amendments must be preprinted, then it is

impossible to listen to the debate on the floor, come up with

a new idea to improve the bill, and then offer an amendment

to incorporate that idea. Why do we need this burdensome

preprinting process? Shouldn't the committees that report

these bills have a grasp of the issues affecting the

legislation under their jurisdiction? Again, Mr. Speaker, I

think we can do better.\32\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Congressional Record July 20, 1993, p. H4820. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We agree with Chairman Dreier's statement that the purpose

of the amendment process on the floor is to give duly elected

Members of Congress the opportunity to shape legislation in a

manner that they believe is in the best interest of their

constituents and the nation as a whole. It is not to help the

foor manager with his or her job. A majority interested in

allowing ``the full and free airing of conflicting opinions''

would allow at least some House business to occur in an open

format---in a procedural framework that allows Members to

bring their amendments directly to the floor for discussion

and debate under the five-minute rule.\33\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ As we have noted above, most appropriations bills are

debated under technically open rules, but amendments are

subject not just to the normal restrictions of germaneness,

but also a number of other restrictions set out in rule XXI

and in the Congressional Budget Act. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Republicans Expanded the Consideration of Suspension Bills to Crowd

Out Real Deliberation in the House

Another aspect of the disturbing trend towards curtailing

real deliberation on controversial issues in the House has

been the Republican leadership's tendency to devote more and

more floor time to debating bills under the suspension of the

rules. In the 108th Congress, standing House Rule XV

permitted the House to consider bills under suspension of the

rules on Mondays and Tuesdays, and during the last six days

of a session of Congress. The suspension procedure allows for

40 minutes of debate, requires a two-thirds vote for a bill

to pass, and allows no amendments except by the floor

manager.

The ostensible purpose of the suspension day procedure is,

as the Republican majority describes it in one of its

Parliamentary Outreach newsletters, ``to dispose of non-

I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield again to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend Mr. Arcuri for his courtesy and all who have participated in the debate on the rule for bringing this appropriations bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow Members who have preprinted their amendments, as specified in the rule, to make germane modifications to their amendments.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this restrictive rule we are considering today will not allow Members from amending their own amendments, even if they are simply trying to correct a minor drafting error or make changes to the amendment to comply with the rules of the House. One of the reasons we have so many amendments filed is because Members have filed duplicative amendments to avoid the possibility of errors such as this.

In order to make sure an amendment complies with the rules of the House, Members must consult with four different offices: the Office of the Legislative Counsel, the Parliamentarian, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Budget Committee. If any of those offices find an issue with an amendment, then the Member has to make changes to the amendment. This becomes particularly difficult when Members are only given an average of 2 legislative days to draft their amendments and consult all the relevant offices and make changes and then consult with the offices again. Given this scenario, it is quite plausible that a Member didn't have enough time and included a

minor drafting error and that, for example, is not caught until it is too late. We saw it last year with an amendment by Mr. Buyer on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. So as to not have a repeat of that unfortunate incident, I propose to change the rule to allow Members to make germane changes to their amendments.

I remind Members that by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting to kill or to delay the underlying Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Members will be given the opportunity to make changes to their amendments if necessary.

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 back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 2009 Omnibus.

Commerce, Justice, Science

Requesting Member: Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Bill Number: H.R. 2847, the FY2010 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act

Account: Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Miami-Dade County Public Schools

Address of Requesting Entity: 1450 NE Second Avenue, Miami, FL 33132

Description of Request: I have secured $600,000 to upgrade law enforcement equipment for the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Police Department. In their mission to protect the children of our community, the MDCPS Police Department has increasingly turned to new technologies. In 2005, laptop computers were purchased through grants and installed in officer's vehicles. These upgrades allow officers to decrease paper-based work by 80% and spend considerably more time at the public schools.

Requesting Member: Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Bill Number: H.R. 2847, the FY2010 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act

Account: Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Florida Venture Foundation

Address of Requesting Entity: 782 NW LeJeune Road, Suite 348, Miami,

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

First I would like to say a word about the session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, OAS, held last week. It was an embarrassment. Fidel Castro in Cuba wants the U.S. to apologize to him for having kept the U.S. market and its millions of tourists and billions of dollars in financing from him and for having denied him full diplomatic recognition for decades.

He also wants the international community to kneel before him and apologize, which is what the OAS did last week. Fidel Castro has been recruiting advocates, spies, defenders, cronies, and servants for years. The ideological and psychological fascination and dependency that Hugo Chavez has on Fidel Castro has allowed Castro to utilize Chavez's billions of petro dollars to purchase many important defenders. It is part of the public record that a suitcase of Chavez cash heading to Mrs. Kirchner in Argentina was recently intercepted by authorities before reaching its intended destination.

Castro has purchased advocates and spies through the years via the always-present threat of blackmail after trips to totalitarian Cuba, where the regime tapes visitors in compromising situations, as confirmed by Interior Ministry defector Roberto Hernandez del Llano and Cuban counterintelligence defector Major Roberto Ortega.

Castro also serves as a banker for illicit money possessed by those who seek to avoid detection by the anti-laundering mechanisms set up by the international community. It matters not if the money's source is political corruption or narcotrafficking.

Through his mastery of the semantic of anti-American Marxism- Leninism, he has also conned others into being his spies. No other state sponsor of terrorism--no other state, in fact--has had more spies arrested and convicted in the United States in the last decades as Fidel Castro's dictatorship.

Let us remember Ana Montes, one of the top analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency who was arrested in 2001 and subsequently convicted of espionage in Federal court and whose treason led to the deaths of many, including U.S. Special Forces Sergeant

Gregory Fronius. And just last week, Walter and Gwendolyn Myers, a long-term State Department official and his wife with access to classified documents, were arrested for spying for their beloved hero, the Cuban tyrant.

Hugo Chavez's absolute dependency on Fidel Castro for every major decision, even for his phrases and gestures in international forums, is unprecedented. While the Soviet Union used to send Castro economic aid and also orders and instructions, Chavez sends Castro billions of dollars and receives orders from him.

What the world witnessed, first at the April Summit of the Americas and then at last week's meeting of the OAS, was a culmination of years of preparation in the purchase and cultivation of advocates and defenders by Fidel Castro. Castro's defenders know full well that chapter II, article 3d of the Charter of the Organization of American States requires the existence of representative democracy in all of the countries of our hemisphere and that the Inter-American Democratic Charter of 2001 carefully spells out the collective steps to be taken when an American republic's democracy is even threatened. They know that Cuba, under Castro, was the only country in our hemisphere where free elections have not been held in over 50 years and where dungeons are full of nonviolent political prisoners who are subjected to hell on Earth each day of their lives. They know that under Castro Cuba is a personal island-estate, a ranch, a personal landholding or homestead, a totalitarian fiefdom owned by one man with a brother who enjoys the title of head of State and carefully carries out his brother's orders.

At the OAS meeting of last week, we witnessed an example of the Obama administration's diplomatic incompetence and its appeasement of the enemies of the United States. The administration went along and agreed to violate the OAS Charter and the OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter in an action that constituted a grotesque and unmerited betrayal of the oppressed people of Cuba.

The Obama administration says that the OAS resolution was a great victory because even though paragraph 1 of the ``resolved'' clause unilaterally lifted the exclusion of the Cuban military dictatorship, in paragraph 2, the dictatorship was allowed to initiate a process of dialogue to reenter the OAS in accordance with the practices, purposes, and principles of the OAS. In other words, in the first sentence, the OAS ripped up and threw in the garbage can the practices, purposes, and principles of the OAS, including its charter and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. And then in the next sentence, it invited the Cuban military dictatorship back in in accordance with the practices, purposes, and principles of the OAS. Some victory. I mention this in the context of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act because the American taxpayer should not be paying for almost 60 percent of the putrid embarrassment which is the OAS.

I recognize that on funding international organizations, the administration will get its way, just like the Bush administration would get its way whenever someone in the OAS would propose ending the exclusion of the Cuban military dictatorship and the administration would simply say, That's a nonstarter. But here is the heart of the issue with regard to U.S.-Cuba policy: The U.S. Congress must continue to condition access by the Cuban regime to the billions of dollars in U.S. tourism and massive investment in trade financing to the liberation of all political prisoners, without exceptions; the legalization of all political parties, without exceptions, labor unions and the press; and the scheduling of multiparty elections. That is critical leverage for a democratic transition to take place in Cuba when Fidel Castro dies, for he is the ultimate source of absolute personal totalitarian power in that enslaved island, like a modern day Caligula or Nero, and that moment is approaching.

We must keep in mind the effect of unilateral concessions such as last week's shameful OAS action on Fidel Castro. How does he react to such unilateral concessions? The repression is more intense than ever; the brutality, more savage than ever. The alliance with Chavez, the Iranian dictatorship, the Syrian regime, Middle Eastern terrorists, and with the North Korean dictatorship is closer than ever. That is what must be kept in mind about unilateral concessions to the Cuban military dictatorship.

Now, specifically with regard to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, earlier in the year Secretary Clinton testified before the House Foreign Relations Committee that she had challenged the State Department to reform and innovate and save taxpayer dollars. I found the Secretary's statement to be quite appropriate. Unfortunately, the majority has decided to ignore that challenge and instead today has brought forth legislation that authorizes increased spending by 35 percent without increased transparency, accountability, and efficiency.

This legislation will also increase U.S. taxpayer funding authorized for the United Nations by nearly one-third without requiring the United Nations to undertake necessary reforms to improve efficiency and stop blatant corruption.

While failing to place accountability standards in this bill, the majority decided to include provisions in the Pakistan Assistance Act-- which is also being brought to the floor with this one rule--that will micromanage U.S. policy toward Pakistan. In a letter to the Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen wrote that ``the degree of conditionality and limitations on security assistance to Pakistan'' in the legislation ``severely constrains the flexibility necessary for the executive branch and the Department of Defense given the fluid and dynamic environment that exists in Pakistan.''

This rule bringing forth two pieces of legislation limits the number of amendments that the House will be allowed to debate. Out of the 85 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, the majority decided to make 27 amendments in order. I understand that the majority has a responsibility to move legislation and manage the time on the floor, but if we look at the amendments the majority made in order, they do not fully address the scope and range of issues of concern to House Members. For example, amendments that would prohibit funds from being used by the State Department to encourage U.S. courts to dismiss claims brought against European insurance companies to recover compensation from Holocaust-era insurance policies, or, for example, to re-list the North Korean tyranny as a state sponsor of terrorism were prohibited from being debated.

I don't understand why the majority blocks a debate on such important amendments. I don't know if they're afraid of debate or protecting the Members from tough votes or afraid of the democratic process, or all of the above.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point made by the distinguished chairman as to the strings on the military aid to Pakistan, I hope and expect that that will be engaged in during the debate with the ranking member, who very clearly in the Rules Committee pointed out that the strings are still excessive.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Yes.

Thank you.

I yield 2 minutes again to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the ranking member, Mr. Dreier.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for the time. And I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I'd like to remember and ask the House to recall that today is June 4. Twenty years ago a massacre occurred in Beijing. Thousands of students and other pro-democracy activists were murdered. Subsequently, they were rounded up, those who had not been murdered, who had been in the square, and thrown in dungeons and tortured. And so it's been 20 years, but we cannot forget.

The regime is still in power there. They haven't had much reason to regret their murders and their systematic oppression of the people. But over you, in something that distinguishes this Congress, we read the words ``In God We Trust.'' And I do. I trust that justice will be done, and that those who committed the murders at Tiananmen Square in June of 1989 will be brought to justice. We can never forget, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the rule being brought forth today, bringing forth important legislation to the floor today, in order to protect our transportation systems after the cowardly attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law on November 19, 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. That legislation created the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, improving

aviation security and restoring public confidence in air travel.

The underlying legislation that's being brought forth today for consideration by the Congress, by this rule, authorizes $7.6 billion in appropriations for the TSA during the fiscal year 2010, and provides a 6 percent across-the-board increase for fiscal year 2011.

In their report to Congress, the 9/11 Commission criticized the existing process for allocation of Federal homeland security grants. The report recommended that, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities,'' and that the distribution of the grants ``should not remain a program for general revenue sharing.'' I have long worked to make certain that homeland security assistance follows the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and that funds are distributed through risk-based assessments. As such, I am pleased that this legislation requires TSA to update Congress on its implementation of a risk-based system for allocating security resources.

The underlying legislation would establish an Aviation Security Advisory Committee to assist and make recommendations to the Secretary with issues pertaining to aviation security. It also establishes an Air Cargo Working Group to provide recommendations for the implementation of the cargo screening initiatives proposed by the TSA to meet the 100 percent air cargo screening mandates set forth in the ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act.''

I am pleased there is a provision that provides for the reimbursement of airports that took the initiative and used their own funding to install explosive detection systems after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Those airports installed the systems after receiving assurances from the Federal Government that they would be reimbursed for these expensive yet very important protection systems. Unfortunately, after all these years, we're still waiting for the Federal Government to provide the promised reimbursement. I congratulate our colleague, Mr. Bilirakis, for having this important provision included in the legislation.

While I plan to support the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker, I must express concerns that the legislation was really rushed to the floor by the majority. On such an important issue as the safety of our transportation systems, one would think the majority would want the input of the very agency affected by the legislation. And yet it decided it was more important to move forward than to wait until the administration, the new administration, had selected a TSA administrator who could provide Congress the necessary input and new ideas on how Congress can improve the agency. So the majority, it can be said, used excessive haste to rush the bill to the floor.

On Thursday, May 14, the majority announced that the House would consider the Transportation Security Administration reauthorization bill the week of May 18. However, at the time of the announcement, the legislative language of the bill was nowhere to be found.

The majority kept the text, as you know upon which amendments are based or can be based, hidden under lock and key until late on Monday, May 18. And just as they released the text, they set a hard and fast deadline of 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20, for Members to submit their amendments. What this did was give Members, in effect, one business day to read the legislation that reauthorizes the TSA and draft and submit amendments. The majority justified their short amendment deadline by saying that the Rules Committee was going to meet the next day, Thursday, to report a rule for amendments, with the idea that the bill would be on the floor on Friday, May 22.

But the House decided to leave for the Memorial Day district work period on Thursday evening, without considering the TSA bill, and rather than allowing Members more time to review the bill, the majority pushed ahead, eliminating the opportunity for Members to further review the legislation and propose amendments to improve it.

I bring this up, Mr. Speaker, because it is not an anomaly on the majority's part, but it's business as usual. Since the majority took power in Congress in January 2007, Members have been given an average of one business day or less to submit amendments than we did when we were in the majority.

And that's important because it's important for people here representing their constituents to have time to read legislation before having to introduce amendments to try to improve the legislation.

I am pleased that the majority agreed to allow an amendment that I introduced in the Rules Committee for consideration. However, there were other amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle that were blocked.

For example, the majority blocked an amendment by Representative Souder that would require the TSA to place all of the detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility on the no-fly list, an amendment that I'm sure would have overwhelming support on the floor.

So I would simply urge the majority to allow an open process, as it promised in its campaign, and not just on noncontroversial legislation such as this one. This is legislation, in terms of the merits of the legislation, it was brought forth in a bipartisan manner within the committee. The chairman, Mr. Thompson, is known to work in a very respectful and bipartisan manner with all of the members of his committee, and I think all of us are grateful for that and commend him for it.

So I would urge, though, that not only on noncontroversial legislation but also on upcoming, for example, health care and climate change legislation, that openness be allowed in the House. It's important. It's, I think, required by the spirit of the democratic process. So both of these upcoming pieces of legislation, energy, health care, they will obviously have far-reaching consequences for our constituents and for the economy, and so I would hope that on such important issues the majority does not block the opportunity for Members of the House to bring forth their amendments seeking to improve the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to a distinguished colleague who works ceaselessly for the security of the American people. Unfortunately, a very important amendment that he came to the Rules Committee on to be made in order, was denied on a party line vote by the majority, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

I yield 3 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield again 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who is extremely concerned about this issue, and rightfully so.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend if he has any other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to thank everybody who has participated in this debate. I think it's been very fruitful, and I think it's been important.

I mentioned before that when I first spoke on this legislation that process is important because it affects fairness, obviously, but it also affects legislation. We are dealing today--we are bringing to the floor legislation that I am sure will pass by an overwhelming majority on a bipartisan basis. It's important legislation. It's been drafted through the committee process in a bipartisan fashion, and that's commendable.

I mentioned that on legislation like this--and quite frankly, also, on legislation that's coming to the floor soon that's more controversial--openness, as much as possible, is advisable. We saw an amendment described by Mr. Souder that is important because it basically, as it was explained by Mr. Souder, his interventions would take out of the hands of the President the ultimate determination of whether somebody currently held at the detention center in Guantanamo could be placed or not on the No Fly List, and it would say that automatically those people would be on the No Fly List. And that's important. It's an example of why process is important because being denied--Mr. Souder is being denied the opportunity to present the amendment. I think that's unfortunate.

Anyway, as I say, the underlying legislation is one that I'm certain will pass with great bipartisan support. And again, I reiterate my gratitude to all colleagues who have debated on the rule, and, obviously, I look forward to the debate on the underlying legislation.

Having said that, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his consideration and another clear demonstration of bipartisanship on this House floor.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that is a matter of simple fairness to airports that are installing congressionally mandated In- Line Explosive Detection Systems, known as EDS.

Airports that were offered TSA discretionary funding for EDS projects in 2008 were not treated equally. This was due to funding language that, in effect, pitted airports against each other, depending upon who was awarded in fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2007 appropriations.

In the fall of 2008, TSA had funding at its disposal from fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 to distribute EDS reimbursement funds. Some airports received Federal discretionary grants for 90 percent of the costs of installing the EDS for airport baggage systems from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations. At the same time, other airports were given grants for 75 percent of their costs from fiscal year 2007 appropriations. Both of these awards were distributed at the same time, in the fall of 2008.

Miami International Airport, which is located in the district that I am honored to represent, and several other large airports around the country fell into the 75 percent category, and these airports are now at a competitive disadvantage which increases costs to the airlines and, of course, to the flying public who ultimately pays the bills.

The TSA and the OMB made an arbitrary funding decision. They picked winners and losers based on no known criteria. This amendment simply restores fairness to TSA's discretionary funding of EDS projects and assures that these critical airport security projects can be completed in a timely basis.

Again, I'd like to thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King and their staffs for working with my office to perfect this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back.

I'd like to thank my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr.

Arcuri) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, south Florida has a rich and proud flying history. Aviation's entry into south Florida came in 1911 when the Wright brothers delivered a biplane for Miami's 15th anniversary celebration.

After World War I, the city rapidly developed as an aviation center. By 1928, Pan American Airways had moved its headquarters to Miami, followed soon by Eastern Airlines and National Airlines.

In 1937, Amelia Earhart took off from Miami Airport in Hialeah on her final fateful around-the-world flight.

During World War II, Miami transformed into a training base and departure point for the theaters of war. Following the victory, commercial aviation experienced an explosion in growth and development, and Miami International Airport rose to prominence. Today, that airport continues to be one of the busiest in the Nation and a major gateway to the Americas.

In 2008, almost 34 million passenger passed through Miami International Airport. Almost half of them were international passengers.

MIA is not only a hub for international travel, it also plays an integral role in global trade. The airport is among the Nation's top air cargo handlers, with almost 2 million tons handled last year, and a record 2.1 million tons processed in 2006. Also, MIA handled nearly 80 percent of all air cargo imports and exports between the United States and Latin America.

Because it is both an international hub for passengers and cargo, the airport provides the south Florida community with an economic contribution of over $26 billion annually, generating almost 300,000 jobs, almost $700 million in Federal aviation tax revenue, and almost $1 billion dollars in State, county and municipal tax revenue.

However, if MIA is going to continue to play such an important role as a trade gateway, it obviously must continue to grow. The airport is currently in the midst of a $6.2 billion capital improvement program that has made progress. It's had some problems, but it's made progress, despite costly delays and large cost increases.

This capital program, when completed in 2011, will expand the terminal and concourses by over 3.9 million square feet, for a total of 7.4 million square feet, with added cargo facilities increasing from 2.7 million square feet of space and 17 buildings to nearly 3.5 million square feet and 20 cargo processing buildings.

If U.S. air travel is to continue its fundamental role in our economy, we have to make certain that we have the safest, most modern and efficient transportation system in the world. By reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration funding and safety oversight programs, the underlying legislation that is being brought to the floor takes an important step toward that goal.

H.R. 915 helps airports meet the challenges of congestion and delays by, among other things, authorizing over $16 billion for the Airport Improvement Program. That program provides grants to airports to help them with capacity and infrastructure problems.

The bill also provides over $13 billion for facilities and equipment programs to expedite the deployment of the Next Generation Air Transportation System, and to assist airports in repairing, replacing and upgrading existing equipment and facilities.

Currently, there is a contract dispute between the air traffic controllers and the Federal Aviation Administration. Now, I admire air traffic controllers. They are highly trained, hardworking professionals. I'm honored to know those who are in south Florida, the air traffic controllers, and I'm very proud of them. I'm very proud of them for their extraordinary work and their dedication. Under great pressure, with no room for error, they manage our skies and keep the traveling public safe. I'm pleased that the distinguished chairman has acknowledged the dispute and taken steps to resolve the issue.

Although I support the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker, very important underlying legislation, I must oppose the rule that is bringing it to the floor because it blocks, that rule blocks a complete and fair debate unnecessarily, once again and unfortunately, once again.

The rule brought forth by the majority today forbids the House from considering amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle. Yes, it allows four out of six Republican amendments that were introduced in the Rules Committee, but it blocks, it prohibits, a total of 21 amendments. Some of those amendments are bipartisan amendments, and most are amendments from the majority party. I may not have voted for all those amendments that were blocked by the majority on the Rules Committee, but I certainly believe that this House should have had the opportunity to debate them, to consider them, and to vote on all the amendments.

I don't know why, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure why the majority, each time a bill comes up for consideration under a rule, it consistently, the majority consistently blocks amendments from debate. Why? Why is the majority blocking amendments? Is it that they're afraid of debate? Are they afraid of losing the vote on some amendments? Are they protecting their Members from what they consider to be tough, difficult votes? Are they afraid of the democratic process? Or is it all of the above?

I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my dear friend and colleague and the fact that he shares also my admiration for the air traffic controllers and my support for the measures to increase their quality of life and to recognize the extraordinary work that they do each day and the importance of the extraordinary work that they do each day.

With regard to the fact that when he was in the minority he experienced some of his amendments being denied, I've also had that experience. Obviously, it's a lot more challenging to be in the minority than it is to be in the majority. Of course, I'm always hopeful because, in the next bill that's going to be considered by the Rules Committee, I'm going to introduce another amendment. So there's hope. There's hope. I never lose hope that there will be additional fairness in the next rule.

I say to my good friend Mr. Arcuri--and he is my friend, as Mr. Hastings is--that, yes, I recognize, on this particular rule a significant number of Republican amendments were made in order. What I fail to understand is the logic in opening up the process on legislation, especially on legislation that obviously enjoys almost consensus support. I recognize the obligations of the majority to frame debate here and to organize the floor. I recognize that. I had the privilege for many years of being on the Rules Committee in the majority. We've had closed rule after closed rule after closed rule, not in this case, as this is a structured rule where there have been more amendments authorized, but the amount of very strictly organized rules and especially the amount of closed rules has been really extraordinary and, I think, unnecessary. That's the point that I've been making.

I would inquire of Mr. Arcuri if he has any additional speakers.

We thought we did, but we don't. So at this point we will be urging a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the adoption of the rule.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is important, and it's going to enjoy great bipartisan support, but we think that the process of debate should have been fully open, so that's why we'll be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question as well as on the rule.

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

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

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

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

I rise today because it is the 107th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Cuba. May 20, 1902.

Most people, Mr. Speaker, think that independence of the Republic of Cuba was obtained from Spain. It was not. The fight was against Spain for almost 100 years. Hundreds of thousands of heroic Cubans lost their lives. Then, the United States intervened to help Cuba in 1898. And this Congress was instrumental in making certain that after there was pacification--and obviously Spanish colonialism had been expelled--that the Republic of Cuba would be possible.

The United States voluntarily left Cuba. Withdrew. Granted Cuba its independence by withdrawing. May 20, 1902.

So, today is an anniversary of a very important occasion. It's a sad anniversary, because 50 years ago the Cuban Republic fell in the hands of a demented serial killer, a demonic mass murderer, Fidel Castro. And he continues to rule. He has been ill for some years and so he has granted some titles of power to his brother. But he continues to be the absolute, personal, total dictator of the totalitarian circus that oppresses the Cuban people.

There are hundreds of recognized prisoners of conscience-- journalists, librarians, teachers, lawyers, physicians; people who simply have expressed their point of view that they want to see Cuba free. They're in the dungeons. And there are thousands of others who are there as well because they violated so-called laws that would not and do not exist in democratic nations. They're imprisoned for things such as dangerousness. Untold thousands thus are political prisoners in Cuba, suffering in the gulag because they have bothered that demonic mass murderer in some way, because they seek freedom, those political prisoners.

Now the system, the totalitarian system that has lasted 50 years, is rotten to the core, Mr. Speaker. Not only does it have the abject opposition, rejection of the entire people, in consensus fashion, the entire nation, but it's putrefied. It's absolutely rotten. And that system is in effect a corpse that is unburied.

So, when the dictator does finally die, that circus, that system, totalitarian, oppressive system will die with them. We have seen, in recent examples in very personalized dictatorships, whether it's Franco in Spain or Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, it's a matter of months or years. Their systems die with them. That's what we're going to see in Cuba.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Congressional Record a very important letter and list of signatories received just a few days ago. It was sent to the Organization of American States because there's this pathetic, grotesque effort to readmit the Cuban military dictatorship that's lasted 50 years into the inter-American system, including the Organization of American States. And 300 dissidents have signed this letter.

These are the heroes of Cuba; mostly young people, many of them wearing bracelets like this, calling for change. They're the future of Cuba. And I recommend to my colleagues and the American people--and I will put it on my Web site--that they see the names of the future leaders of democratic Cuba.

To the Organization of American States

Republic of Cuba, May 15, 2009

We, members of the Cuban democratic opposition, along with

our brothers in the Resistance who are exiled, consider it

necessary to address you in the name of our people's

sovereign democratic aspirations.

We contemplate how a call for the readmission of the

longest-lived and most oppressive of Latin American

dictatorships to has been raised in the Latin American

region, which, as if were not enough, the Castro dictatorship

itself has reviled. It is a painful contradiction for the

complete normalization of all ties with this tyrannical

regime and the diplomatic acceptance of despotic rule on our

Island to be proposed precisely on the 50th anniversary of

the advent of totalitarianism in Cuba.

Cuba has not been separated from the OAS. It is the

tyrannical regime which violates the public liberties of

Cubans that has been separated. It is the Cuban nation which

has continued to belong to this organization in symbolic

tribute to the thousands of Cubans who have paid harshly for

their democratic resistance against this regime.

Nevertheless, what worries us most is not the affront which

would be committed against our rights by accepting the

dictatorship which oppresses us as an equal in terms of the

fundamental values of its democratic neighbors, but rather

the damage that would be inflicted on the hemisphere itself.

It has cost great pain and sacrifice to banish

dictatorships from our Latin America. To ignore the Inter

American Democratic Charter, and specifically articles 1, 2,

and 3 which state:

Article 1--The peoples of the Americas have a right to

democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote

and defend it.

Article 2--The effective exercise of representative

democracy is the basis for the rule of law and of the

constitutional regimes of the member states of the

Organization of American States.

Article 3--Essential elements of representative democracy

include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental

freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance

with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair

elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as

an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the

pluralistic system of political parties and organizations,

and the separation of powers and independence of the branches

of government.

To readmit the totalitarian Castro regime to the OAS would

mean opening the door to every kind of future despotism for

the region, and would portend grave and unpredictable

consequences for the millions of human beings who are part of

the Latin American community.

We ask you, in the name of the very values of civilization,

not to take this step. To do so would be to lower our

American democratic community to the level of totalitarian

barbarism. The 1962 Resolution expresses a clear democratic

principle: there can be no democratic tolerance for the

institutionalized violation of human rights embodied

totalitarian, Marxist-Leninist regimes.

The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, an

institution affiliated to the OAS, has been one of the most

serious and consistent institutions to document the

atrocities committed by the Castro dictatorship against its

own people.

Furthermore, we consider that the free Cuban nation would

leave through the same door that the Castro regime may

potentially be admitted to the OAS.

Consideramos ademas que por la misma puerta que entraria la

dictadura castrista al ser admitida potencialmente por la

OEA, saldria la nacion cubana libre.

Embrace the Cuban people. Condemn its dictatorship. Do not

reinstate the Castro regime in the Latin American democratic

community; open the doors of the OAS to the Cuban civil

society that non-violently struggles for democratic

transformation.

Signatures:

1. Adailsa Emilia Calderon Castillo, Liliana Morfis Nunez,

Colegio de Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin

2. Adis Noris Cruz Viamonte, Movimiento de Resistencia

Civica Pedro Luis Boitel, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos

Humanos de Cuba, Holguin.

3. Aide Viamontes Marquez, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

4. Alberto Gonzalez Sardinas, Partido Pro Derechos Humanos,

Ciudad de La Habana.

5. Alberto Reyes Morales, Plantados, Coalicion Central

Opositora.

6. Alcides Rivera Rodriguez, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

7. Alejandrina Garcia de la Riva, Dama de Blanco, esposa

del prisionero politico Diosdado Gonzalez Marrero, Matanzas.

8. Alejandro Dominguez Merino, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin

9. Alejandro Tur Valladares, Jagua Press, Coalicion Central

Opositora. Cienfuegos.

10. Alexis Carrillo Llanos, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos

Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de Cuba,

Holguin.

11. Alexis Munoz Calvo, Partido Cubano Democrata Cristiano,

Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

12. Alfredo Borroa Gallo, Partido por Derechos Humanos

Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Alianza Democratica

Oriental, Holguin.

13. Alfredo Pozo Carbonell, Movimiento Cristiano de Cuba,

Holguin.

14. Amado Ruiz Moreno, Partido Democratico 30 de Noviembre

Frank Pais, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

15. Ana Margarita Perdigon Brito, Coalicion Central

Opositora, Sancti Spiritus.

16. Ana Rosa Alfonso Arteaga, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Coalicion Central Opositora.

Villa Clara.

17. Andres Fernando Bilbao Garces, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

18. Angel Batista Vega, Partido por Derechos Humanos de

Cuba Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov.

19. Angel Luis Santiesteban Rodes, Presidio Politico Pedro

Luis Boitel, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos Humanos.

20. Aniceto Mena Contreras, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Coailicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

21. Antonia Rodriguez Mirabal. Activista de Derechos

Humanos, Villa Clara.

22. Antonio Arias Torres, periodista independiente del

Centro de Informacion Hablemos Press, Proyecto Comunitario

Alegrias Infantiles, Ciudad de La Habana.

23. Aramilda Contreras Rodriguez, Movimiento Feminista por

los Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Coalicion Central Opositora.

Villa Clara.

24. Ariel Gonzalez Cendina, Consejo de Relatores de

Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Ciudad de La Habana.

25. Armando Gonzalez Benitez, Partido del Pueblo Cubano,

Ciudad de La Habana.

26. Armando Llanez Govin, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

27. Arnaldo Esposito Zaldivar, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

28. Arnoldo Batista Batista, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

29. Asnay Sauri Ibarra, Partido Liberal de Cuba, Coalicion

Central Opositora.

30. Barbara Jimenez Contreras, Consejo de Relatores de

Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Movimiento Femenino Martha Abreu,

Villa Clara.

31. Barbara Ortiz Piris, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

32. Belkis Mena Contreras, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Coalicion Central Opositora.

Villa Clara.

33. Benigno Perez Santiesteban. Fundacion Cubana de

Derechos Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de

Cuba, Holguin.

34. Bernardo Rogelio Arevalo Padron, ex prisionero politico

y de conciencia, Cienfuegos.

35. Bienvenido Pedigon Pacheco, Partido Democratico 30 de

Noviembre Frank Pais, Coalicion Central Opositora. Sancti

Spiritus.

36. Blas Fortun Martinez, Coalicion Central Opositora.

Villa Clara.

37. Caridad Burunate Gomez, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Partido Pro Derechos Humanos Afiliado a la Fundacion

Andrei Sajarov.

38. Caridad Caballero Batista, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Alianza Democratica Oriental.

Holguin.

39. Carlos Artiles Perez, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

40. Carlos Cordero Paez, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Movimiento Mario Manuel de la Pena.

41. Carlos Lescalle Silva, Centro de Informacion Hablemos

Press, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de Cuba,

Ciego de Avila.

42. Carlos Luis Pineda Moreno, Partido Democratico 30 de

Noviembre Frank Pais, Manzanillo, Granma.

43. Carlos Manuel Cardenas Gonzalez, Centro de Informacion

Hablemos Press, Ciudad de La Habana.

44. Carlos Manuel Gonzalez Rodriguez, Movimiento de

Resistencia Civica Pedro Luis Boitel, Consejo de Relatores de

Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Holguin.

45. Carlos Manuel Hernandez Reyes, Alianza Democratica

Oriental, Guantanamo.

46. Carlos Michael Morales Rodriguez, Coalicion Central

Opositora. Villa Clara.

47. Carlos Palacios Gonzalez, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Holguin.

48. Carlos Rio Garcia, periodista independiente, Consejo de

Relatores de Derechos Humanos, Pinar del Rio.

49. Carlos Zaldivar Palacios, Liliana Morfis Nunez, Colegio

de Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

50. Carmen Char Faez, Liliana Morfis Nunez, Colegio de

Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

51. Celestino Hernandez Gutierrez, Movimiento Civico

Nacionalista Cubano, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa

Clara.

52. Celso Pena Velis, Liliana Morfis Nunez, Colegio de

Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

53. Cesar Gonzalez Figueredo, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

54. Clara Marta Fonseca Quevedo, Partido Pro Derechos

Humanos, Ciudad de La Habana.

55. Cristian Toranzo Fundichely, Movimiento Cubano de

Jovenes por la Democracia.

56. Damaris Moya Portieles, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Coalicion Central Opositora.

Villa Clara.

57. Damaris Velazquez Arevalo, Movimiento Cristiano de

Cuba, Holguin.

58. Damian Diaz Napoles, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

59. Daniel Miguel Benitez Romero, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Holguin.

60. Dayami Ortiz Molina, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos

Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de Cuba,

Holguin.

61. Dayami Romero Ortiz, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

62. Deikel Arias Pena, Movimiento Cristiano de Cuba,

Holguin.

63. Delmides Fidalgo Lopez, Movimiento Cristiano de Cuba,

Holguin.

64. Delvis Martinez Alvides, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos

Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de Cuba,

Holguin.

65. Dervis Martinez Alvides, Partido Pro Derechos Humanos

Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Alianza Democratica

Oriental, Holguin.

66. Diego Sevila Martinez, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes por

la Democracia, Guantanamo.

67. Diosiris Santana Perez, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

68. Dixan Saavedra Prats, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Alianza Democratica Oriental. Holguin.

69. Dixy Carreno Llanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos

Humanos, Holguin.

70. Donaida Perez Paseiro, periodista independiente

Coalicion Central Opositora.

71. Doraiza Correoso, Presidio Pedro Luis Boitel, Alianza

Democratica Oriental, Santiago de Cuba.

72. Eddy Rodriguez Cabrejas, Sindicato Obrero Independiente

Victoria, Las Tunas.

73. Edelmira del Carmen Quinones Abraham, Movimiento

Feminista por los Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Alianza

Democratica Oriental, Holguin.

74. Eisy Marrero Marrero, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos

Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de Cuba,

Camaguey.

75. Elaine Vargas Betancourt, Sindicato Obrero

Independiente Victoria, Las Tunas.

76. Elia Rosa Moreno, Partido Democratico 30 de Noviembre

Frank Pais, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

77. Emerida Hastie Perez, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Alianza Democratica Oriental,

Holguin.

78. Emilio Bringas Evora, Partido por Derechos Humanos

Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Matanzas.

79. Ernesto Borges Perez, Partido por la Unidad Democratica

Cristiana de Cuba, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos

de Cuba, Ciudad de La Habana.

80. Ernesto Jesus Jacome Hernandez, Partido por Derechos

Humanos de Cuba afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov,

Provincia Habana.

81. Ernesto Mederos Arrozarena, Presidio Politico Pedro

Luis Boitel, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

82. Esperanza de la Paz Sanchez, Movimiento Feminista por

los Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Alianza Democratica

Oriental, Holguin.

83. Esteban Pena Vera, Movimiento Cristiano de Cuba,

Holguin.

84. Esteban Rodriguez Oliva, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

85. Esteban Sander Suarez, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Alianza Democratica Oriental.

86. Eulicer Serrano Mayo, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Holguin.

87. Eusebio Pereta Godoy, Partido Liberal Cubano.

88. Felix Reyes Gutierrez, Bibliotecas Independientes,

Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

89. Fidel de Jesus Novoa Chavez, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

90. Francisco Rangel Manzano, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Partido por Derechos Humanos Afiliado a la Fundacion

Andrei Sajarov.

91. Francisco Safuser, Partido por Derechos Humanos de Cuba

afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Ciudad de la Habana.

92. Francisco Santiago Guerrero Gonzalez, Colegio de

Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

93. Frank Reyes Lopez, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis Boitel,

Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

94. Froilan Guardado de la Torre, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

95. Gaspar Batista Gonzalez, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

96. George Perdigon Brito, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Coalicion Central Opositora. Sancti Spiritus.

97. Gerardo Leiva Hidalgo, Partido por Derechos Humanos

Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Alianza Democratica

Oriental, Holguin.

98. Gerardo Paez Diaz, Partido Accion Consultadora

Democratica, Provincia Habana.

99. Geraudis Palacio Esposito, Partido por Derechos Humanos

Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Alianza Democratica

Oriental, Holguin.

100. Gertrudis Ojeda Suarez, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks. Holguin.

101. Guillermo del Sol Perez, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

102. Guillermo Farinas Hernandez, Cubanacan Press,

Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

103. Guillermo Figueredo Rivero, Sindicato Obrero

Independiente Victoria, Las Tunas.

104. Guillermo Perez Yera, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

105. Gustavo Quintana Rodriguez, Movimiento Cristiano de

Cuba, Holguin.

106. Hector Lopez Perez, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes por

la Democracia, Guantanamo.

107. Heriberto Santorio Leiva, Alianza Democratica

Oriental.

108. Higiniio Gonzalz Rodriguez, Movimiento de Resistencia

Civica Pedro Luis Boitel, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos

Humanos de Cuba, Holguin.

109. Hugo Damian Prieto Blanco, Consejo de Relatores de

Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Ciudad de La Habana.

110. Idalberto Gonzalez Gomez, Movimiento Civico

Nacionalista Cubano, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa

Clara.

111. Idalmis Desdin Salgueiro, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks. Holguin.

112. Idalmis Nunez Reinoso, Presidio Pedro Luis Boitel,

Alianza Democratica Oriental, Santiago de Cuba.

113. Idania Yanes Contreras, presidente Coalicion Central

Opositora. Villa Clara.

114. Ilais Menendez Leand, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Alianza Democratica Oriental.

115. Ileana Hermita Rodriguez, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

116. Ilsysi Varona Bermudez, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

117. Ines Maria Lopez Sanchez, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Guantanamo.

118. Inima Marcos Mondeja, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Circulos Municipalistas.

119. Iris Tamara Perez Aguilera, presidente Movimiento

Feminista por los Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Coalicion

Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

120. Isidoro Marrero Fernandez, Alianza Democratica

Oriental.

121. Ismael Bermudez Periche, Liliana Morfis Nunez, Colegio

de Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Holguin.

122. Ismael Fernandez Perez, Liliana Morfis Nunez, Colegio

de Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Holguin.

123. lzmaris Salomon Carcaces, periodista independiente,

Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos, Ciudad de La

Habana.

124. Jannis Alibet Marrero Morales, Fundacion Cubana de

Derechos Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de

Cuba, Holguin.

125. Janny Morales Hernandez, Partido Pro Derechos Humanos

Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Alianza Democratica

Oriental, Holguin.

126. Jesus Cordero Suarez, Conductores de Bicitaxis, Ciudad

de La Habana.

127. Jorge Alberto Rustan Hinojosa, Partido Cubano

Democrata Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos,

Camaguey.

128. Jorge Corrales Ceballos, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Alianza Democratica Oriental, Guantanamo.

129. Jorge Gonzalez Valazquez, Movimiento Cristiano de

Cuba, Holguin.

130. Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez'', Presidio Politico

Pedro Luis Boitel, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

131. Jorge Luis Gonzalez Rodriguez, Movimiento de

Resistencia Civica Pedro Luis Boitel, Consejo de Relatores de

Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Holguin.

132. Jorge Luis Ortiz Tamayo, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos

Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de Cuba,

Holguin.

133. Jorge Luis Rivas Marin, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Holguin.

134. Jorge Luis Santiesteban Rode, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Holguin

135. Jorge Toledo Figueroa, Partido Liberal de Cuba,

Coalicion Central Opositora.

136. Jose Avalos Perez, Director de la Biblioteca

Independiente ``Henry Reever'', Ciudad de La Habana.

137. Jose Felix Rodriguez Rodriguez, Confederacion Obrera

Nacional Independiente, Pinar del Rio.

138. Jose Hernandez Lopez, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos

Humanos de Cuba, Circulos Democraticos Municipalistas,

Matanzas.

139. Jose Luis Cabrera Cruz, Movimiento Cristiano de Cuba,

Holguin.

140. Jose Luis Ortiz Tamayo, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Alianza Democratica Oriental. Holguin.

141. Jose Marino Ortiz Molina, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Alianza Democratica Oriental. Holguin.

142. Jose Paez Fuentes, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes por la

Democracia, Guantanamo.

143. Jose Verdecia Diaz, Colegio de Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba,

Holguin.

144. Juan Alberto de Ia Nuez Ramirez, Fundacion Cubana de

Derechos Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de

Cuba, Cienfuegos.

145. Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva, Consejo de Relatores de

Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Ciudad de La Habana.

146. Juan de Dios Medina Vazquez, Partido Liberal de Cuba,

Coalicion Central Opositora.

147. Juan Luis Rodriguez Desdin, Presidio Politico Pedro

Luis Boitel, Alianza Democratica Oriental. Holguin.

148. Juan Miguel Escalona Grass, Partido Pro Derechos

Humanos Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Alianza

Democratica Oriental, Holguin.

149. Juan Miguel Gonzalez Marrero, Presidio Politico Pedro

Luis Boitel, Partido Pro Derechos Humanos Afiliado a la

Fundacion Andrei Sajarov.

150. Juan Miguel Martorell Leiva, Sindicato Obrero

Independiente Victoria, Las Tunas

151. Juan Oriol Verdecia Evora, Partido pro Derechos

Humanos Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov. Holguin.

152. Juan Rafael Santiesteban Marrero, Liliana Morfis

Nunez, Colegio de Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba; Holguin.

153. Juan Ramon Rivero Despaigne, Movimiento Cubano de

Jovenes por la Democracia, Santiago de Cuba.

154. Juan Sacarias Verdecia, Alianza Democratica Oriental.

155. Julian Enrique Martinez Baez, Secretario General del

Partido Pro Derechos Humanos de Cuba afiliado a la Fundacion

Andrei Sajarov, Provincia Habana.

156. Julio Arsemio Zaldivar de la Torre, Liliana Morfis

Nunez, Colegio de Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Holguin

157. Julio Pena Martinez, Movimiento Cristiano de Cuba,

Holguin.

158. Julio Romero Munoz, Movimiento Solidario Expresion

Libre, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

159. Julio Sarmiento Pineda, Partido Democratico 30 de

Noviembre Frank Pais, Manzanillo, Granma.

160. Karel Caballero Pimentel, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

161. Kenia Sanchez Ramayo, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Holguin.

162. Lazara Barbara Cendina Recarte, Consejo de Relatores

de Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Ciudad de La Habana

163. Leonardo Fernandez Cutino, Movimiento 10 de diciembre,

Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

164. Leonardo Morejon Sorra, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

165. Leticia Ramos Herreria, Consejo de Relatores de

Derechos Humanos, Movimiento Femenino Martha Abreu, Matanzas.

166. Libertad Acosta Diaz, esposa del ex prisionero

politico y de conciencia Bernardo Arevalo Padron, Cienfuegos.

167. Liliana Bencomo Menendez, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

168. Liliana Morfis Nunez, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

169. Liliana Morfis Nunez, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Holguin.

170. Lisandra Domibguez Mora, Movimiento Cristiano de Cuba,

Holguin.

171. Lissete Zamora Carrandi, periodista independiente,

Coalicion Central Opositora, Villa Clara.

172. Lizardo Vargas Gonzalez, Movimiento Cristiano de Cuba,

Holguin.

173. Loreto Hernandez Garcia, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

174. Luciano Vera Leiva, Movimiento Cristiano de Cuba,

Holguin.

175. Luis Gonzalez Medina, Partido pro Derechos Humanos de

Cuba afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Provincia

Habana.

176. Luis Julian Baez Sierra, Partido Democratico 30 de

Noviembre Frank Pais, Manzanillo, Granma

177. Luis Miguel Gonzalez Leiva, Partido Liberal de Cuba,

Coalicion Central Opositora.

178. Luis Orlando Quintana Rodriguez, Movimiento Cristiano

de Cuba, Holguin.

179. Luz Maria Barcelo Padron, Partido pro Derechos Humanos

de Cuba afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Provincia

Habana.

180. Magaly Norvis Otero Suarez, periodista independiente

Agencia ALAS, Ciudad de La Habana.

181. Maikel Verdecia Torres, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos

Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de Cuba,

Holguin.

182. Maiky Martorell Mayans, Sindicato Obrero Independiente

Victoria, Las Tunas.

183. Mailet Sierra Pupo, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Holguin.

184. Maite Verdecia Torres, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel.

185. Manuel Gonzalez Miranda, Movimiento de Resistencia

Civica Pedro Luis Boitel, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos

Humanos de Cuba, Holguin.

186. Manuel Gonzalez Rodriguez, Movimiento de Resistencia

Civica Pedro Luis Boitel, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos

Humanos de Cuba, Holguin.

187. Manuel Martinez Leon, Circulos Democraticos

Municipalistas, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de

Cuba, Holguin.

188. Marcelina Lara Morales, Consejo Nacional por los

Derechos Civiles, Movimiento Feminista por los Derechos

Civiles Rosa Parks, Coalicion Central Opositora. Villa Clara.

189. Marcos Antonio Fuster Ciguenza, Movimiento Cubano de

Jovens por la Democracia, Santiago de Cuba.

190. Marcos Pupo Ramirez, Movimiento Cristiano de Cuba,

Holguin.

191. Margarito Broche Espinosa, Consejo de Relatores de

Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Villa Clara.

192. Maria de la Caridad Noa Gonzalez, Consejo de Relatores

de Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Villa Clara.

193. Maria Esther Blanco Aguirre, Dama de Blanco, esposa

del prisionero politico Prospero Gainza Aguero, Holguin.

194. Maria Lopez Baez, Fotoreportera del Centro de

Informacion Hablemos Press, Ciudad de La Habana.

195. Maria Magdalena Moreno Cadenas, Partido Democratico 30

de Noviembre Frank Pais, Manzanillo, Granma.

196. Mariano Hernandez Creag, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Guantanamo.

197. Mariano Vera Espinosa, Movimiento Cristiano de Cuba,

Holguin.

198. Mario Camoira Aguilera, Partido Pro Derechos Humanos

Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Alianza Democratica

Oriental, Holguin.

199. Mario Hechavarria Driggs, periodista independiente,

Ciudad de La Habana.

200. Maritza Ross Morrieta, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Holguin.

201. Marlene Bermudez Sardinas, Asamblea para Promover la

Sociedad Civil en Cuba, Bibliotecas Independientes, Camaguey.

202. Marlon Guillermo Martorell Quinonez, Colegio de

Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Sindicato Obrero

Independiente Victoria, Holguin.

203. Marta Diaz Rondon, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Alianza Democratica Oriental.

Holguin.

204. Mayelin Mendez Rivas, Sindicato Obrero Independiente

Victoria, Las Tunas.

205. Maylin Katiusca Sanchez Ramayo, Liliana Morfis Nunez,

Colegio de Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

206. Mayra Morejon, Partido por la Unidad Democratica

Cristiana de Cuba, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos

de Cuba, Ciudad de La Habana

207. Melba Santana Ariz, Dama de Blanco, esposa del

prisionero politico Rodolfo Dominguez Batista, Las Tunas

208. Mercedes Fresneda Castillo, Circulos Democraticos

Municipalistas, Partido por la Unidad Democratica Cristiana

de Cuba, Ciudad de La Habana.

209. Michel Oliva Lopez, Plantados, Coalicion Central

Opositora.

210. Miguel Angel Lopez Herrera, Movimiento Cubano de

Jovenes por la Democracia, Guantanamo.

211. Miguel Carmenate Batista, Partido Liberal de Cuba.

212. Miguel Lopez Santos, Partido Democratico 30 de

Noviembre Frank Pais. Ciudad de La Habana.

213. Miguel Martorell Quinones, Sindicato Obrero

Independiente Victoria, Las Tunas.

214. Milagros Rondon Leiva, Fraternidad de Ciegos

Independientes de Cuba, Ciego de Avila.

215. Mildred Nohemi Sanchez Infante, Movimiento Cubano de

Jovenes por la Democracia, Holguin.

216. Milena Rodriguez Pelayo, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Alianza Democratica Oriental,

Holguin.

217. Nelson Ramon Pena Camejo, Movimiento Cristiano de

Cuba, Holguin.

218. Nestor Rodriguez Lobaina, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Alianza Democratica Oriental.

219. Nestor Rodriguez Lobaina, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Alianza Democratica Oriental, Guantanamo.

220. Niober Garcia Fournier, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Guantanamo.

221. Noelia Pedraza Jimenez, Consejo de Realtores de

Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Dama de Blanco, Villa Clara.

222. Norberto Gomez Paz, Sindicato Obrero Independiente

Victoria, Las Tunas.

223. Odalina Cruz Ricardo, Sindicato Obrero Independiente

Victoria, Las Tunas.

224. Orestes Rodriguez Bustamante, Corriente Martiana,

Provincia Habana.

225. Osmani Cobas Rodriguez, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Guantanamo.

226. Osvaldo Rams de la Cruz, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Santiago de Cuba.

227. Pedro Enrique Martinez Machado, Consejo de Relatores

de Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Santiago de Cuba.

228. Pedro Gonzalez Rodriguez, Movimiento de Resistencia

Civica Pedro Luis Boitel, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos

Humanos de Cuba, Holguin.

229. Pedro Luis Olivera Martinez, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

230. Pedro Maga Zaldivar, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Holguin.

231. Prudencio Napoles Hidalgo, Fraternidad de Ciegos

Independientes de Cuba, Ciego de Avila.

232. Quirenia Cossio Fonseca, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Santiago de Cuba.

233. Rafael Meneses Pupo, prisionero politico, Presidio

Politico Pedro Luis Boitel.

234. Rafael Santiesteban Marrero, Partido Pro Derechos

Humanos Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Alianza

Democratica Oriental, Holguin.

235. Ramon Reyes Orama, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Alianza Democratica Orienta, Holguin.

236. Ramona Sanchez Ramirez, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Guantanamo.

237. Raul Borges Alvares, Partido por la Unidad Democratica

Cristiana de Cuba, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos

de Cuba, Ciudad de La Habana.

238. Raul Hipoli Leiva, Sindicato Obrero Independiente

Victoria, Las Tunas.

239. Raul Hipoli Miranda, Sindicato Obrero Independiente

Victoria, Las Tunas.

240. Raul Luis Garcia Tirado, Partido Liberal de Cuba.

241. Raul Luis Risco Perez, ex prisionero politico,

Presidio Politico Pedro Luis Boitel, Movimiento Solidario

Expresion Libre, Pinar del Rio.

242. Raul Menendez Martinez, ex prisionero politico del

Presidio Politico Historico, Villa Clara.

243. Raul Parada Ramirez, Centro de Informacion Hablemos

Press, Cienfuegos.

244. Reina Luisa Tamayo Danger, Dama de Blanco, madre del

prisionero politico Orlando Zapata Tamayo, Holguin.

245. Reinaldo Cabalet Del Risco, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

246. Reinaldo Rivera Fasli, Liliana Morfis Nunez, Colegio

de Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

247. Reinaldo Villafana Villavicencio, Movimiento 24 de

febrero, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

248. Ricardo Gonzalez Cendina, Consejo de Relatores de

Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Ciudad de La Habana.

249. Ricardo Pupo Sierra, Plantados, Coalicion Central

Opositora, Cienfuegos.

250. Roberto de Jesus Guerra Perez, Centro de Informacion

Hablemos Press, Ciudad de La Habana.

251. Roberto Escalona Blanco, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos

Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de Cuba,

Holguin.

252. Roberto Marrero La Rosa, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

253. Roberto Pupo Sierra, Partido Liberal de Cuba,

Coalicion Central Opositora.

254. Roberto Yoel Fonseca Rojo, Partido Democratico 30 de

Noviembre Frank Pais, Manzanillo, Granma.

255. Rodolfo Dominguez Batista, prisionero politico y de

conciencia, Las Tunas.

256. Rodolfo Ramirez Cardoso, Movimiento Linea Pacifica

Democratica, Ciudad de La Habana.

257. Rogelio Tavio Lopez, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes por

la Democracia, Guantanamo.

258. Rogelio Tavio Ramirez, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Guantanamo.

259. Rolando Rodriguez Lobaina, Movimiento Cubano de

Jovenes por la Democracia, Alianza Democratico Oriental,

Guantanamo.

260. Rosaida Ramirez Matos, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Guantanamo.

261. Rosina Gonzalez Cruz, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

262. Ruben Ignacio Nunez San Miguel, Partido Democratico 30

de Noviembre Frank Pais, Manzanillo, Granma.

263. Ruperto Perez Zayas, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

264. Sahili Navarro Alvarez, Dama de Blanco, hija del

prisionero politico Felix Navarro Rodriguez, Matanzas.

265. Sandra Guerra Perez, Centro de informacion Hablemos

Press, Provincia Habana.

266. Sandra Rey Moreno, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Coalicion Central Opositora,

Villa Clara.

267. Santa Lilian Rodriguez Rodriguez, Movimiento de

Resistencia Civica Pedro Luis Boitel, Consejo de Relatores de

Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Holguin.

268. Santos Alberto Escalona Blanco, Fundacion Cubana de

Derechos Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de

Cuba, Holguin.

269. Segundo Rey Cabrera Gonzalez, Comite Cubano Pro

Derechos Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de

Cuba, Sancti Spiritus.

270. Solicito Mena Contreras, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Coalicion Central Opositora, Villa Clara.

271. Sonia Alvarez Campillo, Dama de Blanco, esposa del

prisionero politico Felix Navarro Rodriguez, Matanzas.

272. Tamara Carmenate Betancourt, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

273. Tania Maseda Guerra, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos

Humanos de Cuba, Ciudad de La Habana.

274. Tatiana Murillo Guerra, Partido Democratico 30 de

Noviembre Frank Pais, Manzanillo, Granma.

275. Tatiana Parra Perez, Liliana Morfis Nunez, Colegio de

Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba, Hoguin.

276. Teofilo Alvarez Gil, Circulos Democraticos

Municipalistas, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos Humanos,

Camaguey.

277. Victor Kindelan Sanchez, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Holguin.

278. Virgilio Mantilla Arango, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos

Humanos, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

279. William Alexis Reyes Mir, prisionero politico,

Presidio Politico Pedro Luis Boitel.

280. William Rodriguez Paredes, Movimiento 24 de febrero,

Provincia Habana.

281. Wladimir Aguilera Portelles, Partido Pro Derechos

Humanos Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Alianza

Democratica Oriental, Holguin.

282. Wladimir Hall de la Torre, Partido Pro Derechos

Humanos Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Alianza

Democratica Oriental, Holguin.

283. Yaite Dianellis Cruz Sosa, Movimiento Feminista por

los Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks.

284. Yamila Sofia Saumell Naranjo, Partido Democratico 30

de Noviembre Frank Pais, Manzanillo, Granma.

285. Yamisleidy Portilla Olivera, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

286. Yanoski Echevarria Rodriguez, Partido Cubano Democrata

Cristiano, Unidad Camagueyana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey.

287. Yoan Alexis Mir Torres, Colegio de Pedagogos

Independientes de Cuba, Holguin.

288. Yoan Alexis Mis Torres, Partido Pro Derechos Humanos

Afiliado a la Fundacion Andrei Sajarov, Alianza Democratica

Oriental, Holguin.

289. Yoandri Naoski Ricardo Mir, Presidio Politico Pedro

Luis Boitel, Holguin.

290. Yoandris Beltran Gamboa, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Guantanamo.

291. Yoandris Duran Sanchez, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes

por la Democracia, Holguin.

292. Yordan Velazquez Rodriguez, Movimiento Cristiano de

Cuba, Holguin.

293. Yorkis Rodriguez Dominguez, Movimiento Cristiano de

Cuba, Holguin.

294. Yorledis Duvalon Guivert Ortiz, Movimiento Cubano de

Jovenes por la Democracia, Santiago de Cuba.

295. Yudalmis Fernandez Martinez, Consejo de Relatores de

Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Circulos Democraticos

Municipalistas, Matanzas.

296. Yudelmis Fonseca Rondon, Movimiento Feminista por los

Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks, Holguin.

297. Yudisleidis Saavedra Sanchez, Movimiento Cubano de

Jovenes por la Democracia, Holguin.

298. Yumisleidy Fonseca Rondon, Fundacion Cubana de

Derechos Humanos, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de

Cuba, Holguin.

299. Yunieski Garcia Lopez, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis

Boitel, Coalicion Central Opositora, Villa Clara.

300. Yurisander Gomez Hernandez, Movimiento Cristiano de

Cuba, Holguin.

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

The condition of our public schools is increasingly becoming a troubling issue. Parents, students, and teachers feel that many schools are increasingly overcrowded, unsafe, and obsolete, detracting from student performance.

The deteriorating conditions in many schools has forced school systems throughout the Nation to spend progressively more of their budgets on school renovations and construction projects instead of on students and teachers.

Today, the House of Representatives is set to consider H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill will direct the Secretary of Education to make grants and low- interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, modernization, or repair of public educational facilities. These funds will help school systems pay for renovations and construction projects so that they can dedicate more of their budgets to improving the education of our Nation's students.

It also requires the funds to be used only for projects that meet certain green standards, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, known as LEED; Energy Star, or an equivalent State or local standard.

One of the central tenets of the majority party's campaign both in 2006 and in 2008 was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. For example, the distinguished Speaker said, We promise the American people that we would have the most honest and open government--and we will. However, that promise has yet to come to fruition, as the majority has consistently blocked an open process through their control of the Rules Committee.

A prime example of how they have consistently stymied openness and bipartisanship can be seen by looking at the virtual absolute lack of open rules that they have allowed since they took control of the House of Representatives in 2006. In nearly 2\1/2\ years, the majority has allowed one open rule--and that was over 2 years ago.

Instead of fulfilling their campaign promise, the majority consistently closes the amendment process and keeps Members from offering amendments to important legislation.

Earlier this year, the majority rushed through some of the largest and most significant pieces of legislation through a closed rule process, including the nearly $800 billion so-called stimulus and the over $400 billion so-called omnibus appropriations bills.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I bring up this lack of an open process and the continued use of the closed rule by the majority because later today the Rules Committee is expected to meet to consider yet another closed rule for fiscal year 2009, the War Supplemental Appropriation Act. That legislation will provide over $90 billion to fund the Department of Defense and related programs.

Now it is time that the majority lives up to its campaign promise and allows an open debate process. It's not

enough to allow amendments on generally noncontroversial legislation like the one we bring to the floor today that authorizes over $6 billion for school construction. They should allow an open process, Mr. Speaker, on, for example, the over $90 billion supplemental appropriations bill that we will consider later this week, and on energy and health care legislation expected to be taken up in the coming weeks.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will my friend yield?

I was talking about the process that does not permit amendments on the floor. That's what we're referring to when we talk about closed rules.

The fact that there were earmarks in the bill is a separate debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, in case there was some confusion, we have not alleged that this is a closed rule. This is a rule that is known as a ``structured rule'' that permits, authorizes, some amendments to be debated and made other amendments not in order, in other words, did not authorize other amendments. We heard Mr. Kirk, for example, of Illinois, who had an amendment, proposed an amendment before the Rules Committee, and he explained it in detail. It was a bipartisan amendment. And it was not authorized. It was not made in order for debate today.

What we are pointing out is that on legislation like this, for example, that has passed the House before, that today will likely pass the House again with a bipartisan vote, it really does not seem logical, and Mr. Kirk was quite eloquent in describing it, that ideas brought forth by Members are not allowed to be considered by the House.

And with regard to closed rules, I pointed out that the rules that allow any Member to propose an amendment and have it debated, those are, as you know, Mr. Speaker, called ``open'' rules. And the majority, both in 2006 and 2008, promised an open process in their campaigns. In 2\1/2\ years, they have allowed one open rule. So that is a major contrast with the promise. The reality contrasts quite dramatically with the promise.

At this point, I would yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for their participation as well, obviously, as my friends and colleagues from our side of the aisle.

As I stated before, this is legislation that has passed before. It passed with some bipartisanship. There is some legitimate substantive debate on the underlying legislation, but I think more objection, certainly, on our part to the unfortunate nature in which the way the process, the debate in the House has been closed down unnecessarily by the majority. We had an example today, an amendment that was brought before the Rules Committee with bipartisan authorship, and yet it was not allowed for discussion and consideration by the full membership, and that is unnecessary and unfortunate.

Having said that, we will consider without any doubt this legislation even though I think the rule that brings it to the floor should have been an open rule, and the majority would have thus had an opportunity to double its record of open rules. Since they took the majority about 2\1/2\ years ago, they have allowed one open rule. That is something I would have never expected. I would have never expected. Certainly it is very different from the promise made to the American people of an open process. It is unfortunate.

But we move forward. Thank you for listening, Mr. Speaker, and for your fairness in guiding this process as always.

Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have the honor of co-chairing the Florida delegation along with my friend, Congressman Alcee Hastings.

I rise to inform my colleagues that our good friend, the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Bill Young, the longest-serving Republican in the House and the dean of the Florida Delegation, has just cast his recorded vote number 20,000 in the House of Representatives.

It is, indeed, a small and select group, Mr. Speaker, of distinguished Members in the history of the House of Representatives who have reached that important milestone.

Bill Young was first elected in 1970 to the Congress. He cast his first recorded vote in January 1971. His vote total would be even higher today had the House not waited until 1973 to institute electronic voting.

He cast his vote number 10,000 on November 18, 1991, to give approval to the conference report on the fiscal year 1992 defense authorization bill, which I believe is fitting, considering that he has devoted his career on the Appropriations Committee to the well-being of the men and women who serve our Nation in the Armed Forces.

It has been my deep honor to serve with him. And I ask all of you, as I now yield to my dear friend, colleague and cochairman, Mr. Hastings, for all of us to congratulate Bill on this extraordinary achievement.

I yield to the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California, the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Speaker PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for giving us this opportunity, he and Mr. Hastings, to express our appreciation to a great leader for our country.

Here he is, modestly sitting in the furthest corner of the House-- well, it is his regular spot--but a person we all seek out, wherever he sits or wherever he is standing for his advice and his guidance.

Speaking from the standpoint of a member of the Appropriations Committee, when Mr. Young was our distinguished chairman, I know everyone who served at that time on the committee agrees that he was a great chairman and that he listened to his members very carefully, that he moderated the debate, that the dignity he brought to that chairmanship was something that made us all proud on both sides of the aisle. And whatever the outcome, we knew that he would give everyone a chance to make his or her case.

I wish to associate myself with all the other remarks that were made about Mr. Young. Oh, my goodness. Thousands and thousands of votes.

But I also want to point out that all of us who care about our troops, our men and women in uniform, and particularly those who are harmed in the service of our country, not only of Mr. Young but his wife Beverly, who has been an angel in meeting the needs of our troops. Mr. Young officially on duty here, Beverly on a day-to-day basis, bringing comfort and refreshment to our troops.

They are living examples of what we say in the military, that on the battlefield, we will leave no soldier behind, and when they come home, we will leave no veteran behind.

My thanks to Mr. Young for what you do to protect America, what you have done to advance the debate, and for your ongoing service to our country. I know I speak for everyone here when I say we are proud, each and every one of us, to call you ``colleague.''

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And thank you, our dear friend, Bill Young.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay respects to a friend who passed away this weekend, Sarvelio del Valle. Sarvelio del Valle was the director of the sports department, sports broadcaster, and commentator for Radio Mambi, WAQI in Miami. He was also so much more.

A lifelong journalist, he possessed an unparalleled knowledge of sports and sports history. And he was also the personification of cordiality, grace, good humor, patriotism, decency, and friendship.

To his beloved wife, Yaya, and his entire family, my most sincere condolences. I will greatly miss Sarvelio del Valle. And like his many friends and the countless thousands who were his devoted listeners, I will never forget him.

May God bless the soul of my friend, Sarvelio del Valle.