DOCSLIB.ORG

Puerto Rico Hearing Committee on Energy And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

S. HRG. 109–796 PUERTO RICO HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON THE REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE ON PUERTO RICO’S STATUS NOVEMBER 15, 2006 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 33–148 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:56 Mar 02, 2007 Jkt 109796 PO 33148 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\DOCS\33148.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JIM BUNNING, Kentucky FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Staff Director JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel BOB SIMON, Democratic Staff Director SAM FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel JOSH JOHNSON, Professional Staff Member AL STAYMAN, Democratic Professional Staff Member (II) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:56 Mar 02, 2007 Jkt 109796 PO 33148 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 P:\DOCS\33148.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS Page Acevedo-Vila´, Hon. Anı´bal, Governor of Puerto Rico ............................................ 24 Berrı´os Martı´nez, Rube´n, President, Puerto Rican Independence Party ............ 33 Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 2 Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from North Carolina ....................................... 9 Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 9 Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico ..................................... 1 Fortun˜ o, Hon. Luis G., Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, U.S. House of Representatives ................................................................................................ 29 Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana ........................................ 37 Marshall, C. Kevin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Coun- sel, Department of Justice ................................................................................... 14 Martinez, Hon. Mel, U.S. Senator from Florida .................................................... 3 Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey ...................................... 7 Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................... 6 APPENDIXES APPENDIX I Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 49 APPENDIX II Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 71 (III) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:56 Mar 02, 2007 Jkt 109796 PO 33148 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 P:\DOCS\33148.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM VerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:56 Mar 02, 2007 Jkt 109796 PO 33148 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 P:\DOCS\33148.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM PUERTO RICO WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2006 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici, chairman, presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO The CHAIRMAN. Please come to order. Thank you, everyone. Mr. Marshall, are you all alone? You’re alone at the table, but are you otherwise? There is nobody that will sit with you? I’m just kidding. It just looks kind of strange, but we’ll see what happens here. Thank you to everybody for coming. We’re glad to have you here in the U.S. Senate. I’m sorry we don’t have one of our new rooms, but this is the best we have and we hope that it is adequate. With that, let me open, and let me then go to Senator Bingaman and then to Senator Martinez, recently honored with an appoint- ment by the President as chairman of the Republican National Committee, for which we congratulate you. With that, let me suggest that we are here at a hearing on a re- port from the President’s task force on Puerto Rico’s status. The committee shall come to order. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Decem- ber 2005 report from the President’s task force on Puerto Rico’s Status. I am pleased to convene this important hearing to discuss the White House report. I appreciate the attendance of our wit- nesses and that many elected public officials from Puerto Rico have traveled long distances to join us here today. Thanks to all of you. Before beginning, I want to express my gratitude for all those serving in the Armed Forces from Puerto Rico. I also want to com- mend those living in Puerto Rico that make their voices heard in local referenda, dealing with their political status. As I understand it, it is not uncommon to have more than 75 percent of the popu- lous vote on referenda dealing with options of political status. Puer- to Ricans deserve an opportunity to be consulted regarding their future and its relationship—their relationship with the U.S. and I will work as closely as I can with all parties involved prior to pro- ceeding with any status change. I am pleased that the White House issued the task force report. This is an important first step in understanding the non-territorial forms of government for Puerto Rico. No matter how we proceed, (1) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:56 Mar 02, 2007 Jkt 109796 PO 33148 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\33148.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM 2 we ultimately need to be assured that the majority of the people of Puerto Rico will have their voice heard. I want the witnesses, who have come here today, I want them to know how grateful we are and I look forward to hearing their testimony. Now, before I introduce the witnesses that are going to testify, let me yield to who today is the ranking member but will be chair- man in a couple of weeks, 3 or 4 weeks. But we’ll go as it is and we’ll yield to the ranking member. That’s Senator Bingaman, my co-colleague from New Mexico. Senator Bingaman. STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ap- preciate you having this important hearing. I’m pleased that the committee will have the opportunity here in the final days of this 109th Congress to receive testimony on the report of the Presi- dent’s task force on Puerto Rico’s Status. Over the years, this committee has put many hours into hearings and the consideration of legislation, but enactment has often been frustrated by a lack of consensus in the Congress and in Wash- ington and in Puerto Rico. In recent years, there have been devel- opments that may have changed that political dynamic. For exam- ple, the United States has dramatically reduced its military pres- ence on the island. Second, the possessions tax credit has been fully phased out. And third, the free association relationships have been established with three nations in the Pacific. More recently, this report, that Mr. Marshall is going to testify about, from President Bush’s task force has reaffirmed legal posi- tions which seem to me well founded and that were provided to the committee several years ago by the Clinton administration. In two of those findings in particular I would allude to, the current rela- tionship with Puerto Rico is based on the territorial clause and sec- ond, that the mutual consent provisions in the new commonwealth proposal cannot be accommodated under the U.S. Constitution. However, with respect to the report’s recommendations for legisla- tion, I think it is too early to determine if there is sufficient con- sensus in the House and the Senate and also whether there is a commitment by this administration to move forward with legisla- tion. This is an issue of great importance to the people of Puerto Rico. They deserve an opportunity to be consulted. Today is an oppor- tunity to hear what the prospects for consensus are and I will con- tinue to work with you and consult closely with others here on the committee and officials from Puerto Rico and the administration before we proceed. So thank you again for having the hearing. I look forward to hearing the witnesses and continuing to work with you on this issue. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Bingaman. Now we have some additional members of the panel who have arrived. On our side, we have distinguished Senator Martinez and it’s note- worthy that we have two additional Senators on the Democratic VerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:56 Mar 02, 2007 Jkt 109796 PO 33148 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\33148.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM 3 side, one a new member—not the newest, but a new member from Colorado, Senator Salazar. It’s always a privilege. I’m sure we will hear some insightful questions from you about this situation. And then we have Senator Menendez. He’s newly elected also, so we congratulate you, for the record, on your election and we’re glad that you were able to make it here with us today, Senator. Thank you very, very much. I think the rules would now say we go to Senator Martinez, and then to the Democratic side, to Senator Menendez.
Recommended publications
  • Cancel Culture: Posthuman Hauntologies in Digital Rhetoric and the Latent Values of Virtual Community Networks

    Cancel Culture: Posthuman Hauntologies in Digital Rhetoric and the Latent Values of Virtual Community Networks

    CANCEL CULTURE: POSTHUMAN HAUNTOLOGIES IN DIGITAL RHETORIC AND THE LATENT VALUES OF VIRTUAL COMMUNITY NETWORKS By Austin Michael Hooks Heather Palmer Rik Hunter Associate Professor of English Associate Professor of English (Chair) (Committee Member) Matthew Guy Associate Professor of English (Committee Member) CANCEL CULTURE: POSTHUMAN HAUNTOLOGIES IN DIGITAL RHETORIC AND THE LATENT VALUES OF VIRTUAL COMMUNITY NETWORKS By Austin Michael Hooks A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Master of English The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga, Tennessee August 2020 ii Copyright © 2020 By Austin Michael Hooks All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT This study explores how modern epideictic practices enact latent community values by analyzing modern call-out culture, a form of public shaming that aims to hold individuals responsible for perceived politically incorrect behavior via social media, and cancel culture, a boycott of such behavior and a variant of call-out culture. As a result, this thesis is mainly concerned with the capacity of words, iterated within the archive of social media, to haunt us— both culturally and informatically. Through hauntology, this study hopes to understand a modern discourse community that is bound by an epideictic framework that specializes in the deconstruction of the individual’s ethos via the constant demonization and incitement of past, current, and possible social media expressions. The primary goal of this study is to understand how these practices function within a capitalistic framework and mirror the performativity of capital by reducing affective human interactions to that of a transaction.
  • Tongass National Forest

    Tongass National Forest

    S. Hrg. 101-30, Pt. 3 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 987 *&< TO AMEND THE ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT, TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST AS WILDERNESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES FEBRUARY 26, 1990 ,*ly, Kposrretr PART 3 mm uwrSwWP Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Boston P«*5!!c y^rary Boston, MA 116 S. Hrg. 101-30, Pr. 3 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PAEKS AND FORESTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 987 TO AMEND THE ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT, TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST AS WILDERNESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES FEBRUARY 26, 1990 PART 3 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 29-591 WASHINGTON : 1990 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana, Chairman DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado DON NICKLES, Oklahoma KENT CONRAD, North Dakota CONRAD BURNS, Montana HOWELL T.
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 18 August 2015

    General Assembly Distr.: General 18 August 2015

    United Nations A/70/194 General Assembly Distr.: General 18 August 2015 Original: English Seventieth session Request for the inclusion of a supplementary item in the agenda of the seventieth session Observer status for the International Conference of Asian Political Parties in the General Assembly Letter dated 11 August 2015 from the representatives of Australia, Cambodia, Japan, Nepal, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General We, the undersigned, have the honour to request, in accordance with rule 14 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the inclusion in the agenda of the seventieth session of the General Assembly a supplementary item entitled “Observer status for the International Conference of Asian Political Parties in the General Assembly”. The International Conference of Asian Political Parties (ICAPP) was launched in Manila, the Philippines, in September 2000 to build bridges of political cooperation and to establish networks of mutual benefit among mainstream political parties in Asia, both ruling and in opposition. Over its first decade, ICAPP has grown steadily in both membership and influence. As of June 2015, ICAPP ’s membership has reached more than 360 eligible political parties in 52 States and 1 territory in Asia. After establishing fraternal linkages and cooperation with the Permanent Conference of Political Parties in Latin America and the Caribbean (COPPPAL) in 2008, ICAPP has also been undertaking efforts to reach out to the political parties in other continents, and successfully helped political parties in Africa establish the Council of African Political Parties (CAPP) in 2013.
  • Hugo Cores Former Guerrillas in Power:Advances, Setbacks And

    Hugo Cores Former Guerrillas in Power:Advances, Setbacks And

    Hugo Cores Former Guerrillas in Power: Advances, Setbacks and Contradictions in the Uruguayan Frente Amplio For over 135 years, Uruguayan politics was essen- tially a two party system. There had been other “small parties” including socialist parties, commu- nist parties or those inspired by Christian groups but all of them garnered little electoral support. Within the two principal political parties that competed for power, however, there were factions within each that could be considered to a greater or lesser extent progressive, anti-imperialist, and/or committed to some kind of vision of social justice. For the most part, the working class vote tended to gravitate towards these progressive wings within the domi- nant parties. The Twentieth Century history of the Uruguayan left would have been very distinct had pragmatism prevailed, an attitude that was later called the logic of incidencia by leaders of the Independent Batllist Faction (CBI – Corriente Batllista Independiente). Indeed, what sense did it make during the 1920s, 30s, 40s and 50s to be a socialist, communist, or Christian Democrat when if all taken together, they failed to reach even 10% of the vote? When the “theorists” of the CBI spoke of the “logic of incidencia, they referred to the idea that voting and cultivating an accumulation of left forces within the traditional political parties was a viable strategy to 222 • Hugo Cores have an organised impact upon the state apparatus, establishing positions of influence from within. The intent of the CBI itself to pursue such a strategy ultimately failed and disintegrated or became absorbed within the ranks of political support given to the Colorado Party of Sanguinetti.1 To remain outside of the traditional political parties, in contrast, meant that the opposition would be deprived of incidencia.
  • Congressional Committees Roster

    Congressional Committees Roster

    HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Provided below are House and Senate Committee membership rosters with jurisdiction over health programs as of Friday, November 17, 2006. At the time of this printing, only the Senate Democrats have released their Committee assignments. Assignments for the House Committees will not take place until December when Congress reconvenes in the lame-duck session. However, most Members of Congress who were on the Committees before the election will continue to serve. Members whose names are crossed out will not be returning in the 110th Congress. Members whose names are underlined, indicates that they have been added to the Committee. Senate Appropriations Committee Majority Minority Robert C. Byrd, WV - Chair Thad Cochran, MS - Rnk. Mbr. Daniel K. Inouye, HI Ted Stevens, AK Patrick J. Leahy, VT Arlen Specter, PA Tom Harkin, IA Pete V. Domenici, NM Barbara A. Mikulski, MD Christopher S. Bond, MO Harry Reid, NV Mitch McConnell, KY Herbert H. Kohl, WI Conrad Burns, MT Patty Murray, WA Richard C. Shelby, AL Byron L. Dorgan, ND Judd Gregg, NH Dianne Feinstein, CA Robert F. Bennett, UT Richard J. Durbin, IL Larry Craig, ID Tim P. Johnson, SD Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX Mary L. Landrieu, LA Mike DeWine, OH Jack Reed, RI Sam Brownback, KS Frank Lautenberg NJ Wayne A. Allard, CO Ben Nelson, NE Senate Budget Committee Majority Minority Kent Conrad, ND - Chair Judd Gregg, NH - Rnk. Mbr. Paul S. Sarbanes, MD Pete V. Domenici, NM Patty Murray, WA Charles E. Grassley, IA Ron Wyden, OR Wayne A. Allard, CO Russ Feingold, WI Michael B.
  • Bio for Jeff.Docx

    Bio for Jeff.Docx

    Jeff Bingaman was born on October 3, 1943. He grew up in the southwestern New Mexico community of Silver City. His father was a chemistry professor and chair of the science department at Western New Mexico University. His mother taught in the public schools. After graduating from Western (now Silver) High School in 1961, Jeff attended Harvard University and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in government in 1965. He then entered Stanford Law School where he met, and later married, fellow law student Anne Kovacovich. Upon earning his law degree from Stanford in 1968, Jeff and Anne returned to New Mexico. They have one son, John. After law school Jeff spent one year as an assistant attorney general and eight years in private law practice in Santa Fe. Jeff was elected Attorney General of New Mexico in 1978 and served four years in that position. In 1982 he was elected to the United States Senate. He was re- elected to a fifth term in the Senate in 2006. At the end of that term he chose not to seek re- election and completed his service in the Senate on January 3, 2013. At the time of his retirement from the Senate he was Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He also served on the Finance Committee, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Joint Economic Committee. In April of 2013 he began a year as a Distinguished Fellow with the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford Law School. In the fall of 2015 he taught a seminar on national policy and the Congress in the Honors College at the University of New Mexico.
  • THE AMERICAN POWER All- Stars

    THE AMERICAN POWER All- Stars

    THE AMERICAN POWER All- Stars Scorecard & Voting Guide History About every two years, when Congress takes up an energy bill, the Big Oil Team and the Clean Energy Team go head to head on the floor of the U.S. Senate -- who will prevail and shape our nation’s energy policy? The final rosters for the two teams are now coming together, re- flecting Senators’ votes on energy and climate legislation. Senators earn their spot on the Big Oil Team by voting to maintain America’s ailing energy policy with its en- trenched big government subsidies for oil companies, lax oversight on safety and the environment for oil drilling, leases and permits for risky sources of oil, and appointments of regulators who have cozy relationships with the industry. Senators get onto the Clean Energy Team by voting for a new energy policy that will move Amer- ica away from our dangerous dependence on oil and other fossil fuels, and toward cleaner, safer sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and sustainable biomass. This new direction holds the opportunity to make American power the energy technology of the future while creating jobs, strengthening our national security, and improving our environment. Introduction Lobbyists representing the two teams’ sponsors storm the halls of the Congress for months ahead of the votes to sway key players to vote for their side. The Big Oil Team’s sponsors, which include BP and the American Petroleum Institute (API), use their colossal spending power to hire sly K-Street lobbyists who make closed-door deals with lawmakers, sweetened with sizable campaign contribu- tions.
  • Political Attitudes and the Ideology of Equality: Differentiating Support for Liberal and Conservative Political Parties in New Zealand

    Political Attitudes and the Ideology of Equality: Differentiating Support for Liberal and Conservative Political Parties in New Zealand

    C. Sibley, M. Wilson Political Attitudes and the Ideology of Equality: Differentiating support for liberal and conservative political parties in New Zealand Chris G. Sibley University of Auckland Marc S. Wilson Victoria University of Wellington A new scale summarizing the central and core elements of a social Treaty of Waitangi, and affirmative representation of individual versus group-based entitlement to resource- action policy in the months leading allocations in New Zealand (NZ) is presented. Item content for the Equality up to the 2005 NZ general election Positioning Scale was drawn from qualitative analyses of the discourses of (Johansson, 2004; Kirkwood, Liu, & NZ’s citizens, its political elites, and the media. As hypothesized, equality Weatherall, 2005; Sibley, Robertson, positioning differentiated between Pakeha (NZ European) undergraduates & Kirkwood, 2005). Consistent with who supported liberal versus conservative political parties.People these observations, we argue that who positioned equality as group-based tended to support the Labour ideologies of equality and issues of and Green parties and those who positioned equality as meritocracy who gets what were central to the NZ tended to support the National and NZ First parties. Regression models 2005 election campaign in much the predicting political party support in the two months prior to the 2005 NZ same what that ideologies of national general election demonstrated that the effects of equality positioning security and the war on terrorism were on political party preference were unique, and were not explained by central to election campaigns in the universal (Study 1: Big-Five Personality, Social Dominance Orientation, United States (US) that occurred at Right-Wing Authoritarianism, liberalism-conservatism) or culture-specifi c; around the same time.
  • Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

    Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

    Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress R. Sam Garrett Specialist in American National Government June 7, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32933 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress Summary The United States acquired the islands of Puerto Rico in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. In 1950, Congress enacted legislation (P.L. 81-600) authorizing Puerto Rico to hold a constitutional convention and in 1952, the people of Puerto Rico ratified a constitution establishing a republican form of government for the island. After being approved by Congress and the President in July 1952 and thus given force under federal law (P.L. 82-447), the new constitution went into effect on July 25, 1952. Puerto Rico is subject to congressional jurisdiction under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Over the past century, Congress passed legislation governing Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States. For example, residents of Puerto Rico hold U.S. citizenship, serve in the military, are subject to federal laws, and are represented in the House of Representatives by a Resident Commissioner elected to a four-year term. Although residents participate in the presidential nominating process, they do not vote in the general election. Puerto Ricans pay federal tax on income derived from sources in the mainland United States, but they pay no federal tax on income earned in Puerto Rico. The Resident Commissioner may vote in committees but is not permitted to vote in, or preside over, either the Committee of the Whole or th the House in the 112 Congress.
  • Observatorio Electoral De COPPPAL Misión De Observación

    Observatorio Electoral De COPPPAL Misión De Observación

    Observatorio Electoral de COPPPAL Misión de Observación Elecciones Federales y Locales de México 2021 El Observatorio Electoral de la Conferencia Permanente de Partidos Políticos de América Latina y el Caribe (COPPPAL) fue debidamente acreditada como misión de observación por el Instituto Nacional Electoral, y desplegó una misión encabezada por el senador chileno José Miguel Insulza, coordinada por la Directora del Observatorio Electora de la COPPPAL, Dolores Gandulfo, e integrada por más de 40 observadores de distintos países de América Latina (Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Bolivia, Panamá, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Perú, Venezuela, República Dominicana, Haití, Aruba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Honduras, Colombia, El Salvador, y Belice). Consideraciones previas del proceso electoral El proceso electoral 2020-2021 en México es de gran relevancia para el país por varios motivos, entre los que se encuentra: a) la simultaneidad de elecciones federales y locales en las 32 entidades federativas - refleja la gran escala de la elección -; b) la cantidad de ciudadanos y ciudadanas registrados en el padrón electoral para acudir a las urnas - con un importante aumento respecto a procesos electorales anteriores -; c) la realización de elecciones en tiempos de pandemia, que no deja de presentar desafíos; d) el contexto sociopolítico de crisis económica social y alta polarización política en el que se encuentra el país; e) es la primera vez que se aplican una serie de cambios normativos tales como la paridad de género en todos los cargos y cuotas para distintas poblaciones, mecanismos contra la violencia política de género, la posibilidad de reelección de diputaciones federales y el voto por internet desde el extranjero, y f) el recrudecimiento de la violencia política, entre otros.
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present

    CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present

    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
  • Guide to Theecological Systemsof Puerto Rico

    Guide to Theecological Systemsof Puerto Rico

    United States Department of Agriculture Guide to the Forest Service Ecological Systems International Institute of Tropical Forestry of Puerto Rico General Technical Report IITF-GTR-35 June 2009 Gary L. Miller and Ariel E. Lugo The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Authors Gary L. Miller is a professor, University of North Carolina, Environmental Studies, One University Heights, Asheville, NC 28804-3299.