Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Thank you. Madam Speaker, I utilized the opportunity of the rules to rise to a question of personal privilege due to the statements attributed in the press that I mentioned before to a spokesperson, which I stated and restated I believe were totally uncalled for and unacceptable. I thank all of you for having listened to me with such courtesy. It is for someone who arrived as a 4-year-old refugee with his family fleeing oppression, an extraordinary moment in the midst of the sadness of the day, and the offense that I felt, it is an extraordinary moment to be able to rise and invoke the rules of the House to seek the attention of the representatives of this extraordinary Nation. So I thank each and every one of you for your patience and your courtesy. At this point, after thanking Mr. Dreier, thanking Mr. Blunt, and thanking the majority leader for their kind words, I simply end remembering a friend who everyone in this room can agree enriched our lives. My son mentioned the other day this week when we were talking about the sad news, he said, Dad, do you remember when I was a little kid and you wanted me to get my posture up, what you would tell me? I will never forget, he told me. Lantos. Your posture. That is one of the first things that impressed me about Tom Lantos, even before I learned about his zealous extraordinary commitment to the oppressed everywhere where people are still longing to be free. So let us all then end this recollection of what I believe was a very unfortunate moment remembering someone who we can all agree was extraordinary, enriched our lives, and was a great Member of Congress and a great American. Thank you all very much.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues about Carlos Martin Gomez, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba who continues his struggle to bring human rights and dignity to the people of Cuba. In 2000 Cuban regime thugs arrested Mr. Martin for ``desecrating'' the thug-in-chief Fidel Castro. How exactly does one desecrate a tyrannical despot? In Mr. Martin's case by going to the Jose Marti Airport and calling out loud for the end of Fidel Castro's oppression of the Cuban people. Such a brave act earned Mr. Martin a 4-year sentence in the gulag. The regime may have thought they could quiet Mr. Martin's calls for the end to the dictatorship by throwing him into a prison to suffer under unbearable conditions. But Mr. Martin would not let the walls of the gulag suffocate his continued calls for a free Cuba. Because of his continued crusade to bring freedom to the Cuban people, the regime added somewhere between 14 years and 37 years to his sentence. Now the dictatorship is trying a different tactic to silence Mr. Martin, they are refusing to provide him with adequate medical care after a fish bone got caught in his throat. According to his sister, Mr. Martin has lost considerable weight as he is only able to ingest liquids due to his untreated throat condition. Despite the gangster tactics and heinous threats against him, Mr. Martin refuses to back down and be silenced by the totalitarian regime. He still bravely continues to demand human rights and dignity for the Cuban people. On November 5, 2007, Mr. Martin released the following statement for the Cuban people from his prison: Cuba is a big prison which the regime has filled with prisons, poverty, famine and disease. The communist thugs have subjected us to this for 48 years. Hopefully, soon we will see freedom in the beautiful land of our birth, and that nobody has to flee . . . I reiterate my affection, respect and love, from the No. 3 cell of the Melena del Sur prison, in Havana province, to all who in one form or another, struggle for the independence and freedom of Cuba. Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that Carlos Martin Gomez is locked in a filthy dungeon for calling for human rights and freedom for the Cuban people. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Carlos Martin Gomez and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of our colleagues the unjustified arrest of yet another dissident, Juan Pedroso Esquivel, by the totalitarian dictatorship in Cuba. Recently dictatorship thugs working to stifle free speech raided Mr. Pedroso's home after someone in the city of Colon posted stickers declaring ``CAMBIO,'' meaning change in Spanish. The regime charged Mr. Pedroso on January 7 with the crime of possessing ``subversive propaganda.'' It is not known yet how long a sentence Mr. Pedroso will face for this so-called crime. This may be because the tyrannical regime is attempting to scare other peaceful political dissenters by making an example with the unjust arrest of Mr. Pedroso. Mr. Pedroso is a member of the Pedro Luis Boitel Democratic Party. He has a long history of nonviolent political dissent and has previously faced time inside the repressive gulags of the Cuban tyranny. Even outside prison the regime's thugs have repeatedly harassed Mr. Pedroso. According to reports, in September 1998, Mr. Pedroso was threatened by the despotic chief of police in San Jose de los Ramos, Matanzas province. The policeman publicly said that he had orders to shoot Mr. Pedroso in the head and then a few days later said he had his gun ready. A few months later Mr. Pedroso was summoned to the headquarters of the Sistema Unico de Vigilancia y Proteccion, SUVP, Unified Vigilance and Protection System, where he was told that he needed to stop his human rights work and ``get a job'' or he would be charged with the crime of ``dangerousness.'' However, Mr. Pedroso was unable to find employment because of his past peaceful political activities. One week later, he was arrested and ``convicted'' of ``dangerousness'' and received a two-year sentence in the gulag. My colleagues, it is unconscionable that someone can be sent to a gulag just because a dictatorship suspected he was posting stickers with the word ``CAMBIO.'' Why are they so afraid of the word ``change''? What has them so scared of such a simple and peaceful word? What they are really scared of is anyone in any way challenging their tenuous grip on the Cuban people and putting a spotlight on their condemnable, abhorrent treatment of the Cuban people. Madam Speaker, the arrest of Mr. Pedroso is yet another example of the totalitarian dictatorship's total disregard for human rights in that enslaved island. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Juan Pedroso Esquivel and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to again remind my colleagues about Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba. The reason I rise once again to bring attention to Dr. Garcia Paneque's imprisonment is because I have been told that his medical condition in Castro's gulag has seriously deteriorated. Dr. Garcia Paneque is a surgeon by training, an independent journalist and a member of the Cuban Independent Medical Association. As a director of the independent news agency Libertad, and administrator of the Carlos J. Finlay independent library in Las Tunas, Cuba, Dr. Garcia Paneque has devoted his life to exposing the truth about the horrors inflicted upon the Cuban people by the dictatorship in Havana. On March 18, 2003, the totalitarian Cuban regime began an island-wide crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy activists in order to stifle nonviolent political dissent. As part of the crackdown the regime arrested Dr. Garcia Paneque and charged him with ``acts against the independence or territorial integrity of the state'' because of his work with the unofficial Cuban Medical Association. Just weeks after his arrest, in what was nothing more than a farce of a judicial proceeding, Dr. Garcia Paneque was sentenced to 24 years in the totalitarian gulag. The real reason he was arrested is that he is a supporter of freedom and democracy who has worked to expose the depraved horror that is the Cuban tyranny. Since his initial incarceration in the subhuman conditions of the tyranny's totalitarian dungeons, Dr. Garcia Paneque's weight has dropped from a healthy 190 pounds to an emaciated 100 pounds. Since last year prison authorities at the Las Mangas Prison have not allowed Dr. Garcia Paneque access to fresh air or sunlight. According to his mother, Dr. Garcia Paneque suffers from dizziness due to a serious episode of diarrhea and profuse rectal bleeding and may be suffering from a duodenal ulcer. It is reported that the bleeding is a complication related to an eating disorder known as Malabsorption Syndrome, which he developed in prison. The condition does not allow food he ingests to nourish his body. Dr. Garcia Paneque's health while languishing in a hellish dungeon has been a point of constant concern for some time now. In June Dr. Garcia Paneque was diagnosed with a kidney tumor and pneumonia. As a result of the pneumonia, he suffers from pleural effusion of the right lung and constant chest colds. Yet as Dr. Garcia Paneque's condition continues to deteriorate, his jailers have refused to allow him consultation with doctors not affiliated with the prison or even provide him adequate medical care. Madam Speaker, this is a textbook case of how the Cuban totalitarian regime treats prisoners of conscience who dare speak the truth and call for democracy and human rights. But this cruel and inhumane treatment is not confined to those inside the regime's gulags. Since Dr. Garcia Paneque's arrest, his wife and four young children faced intense harassments and attacks by angry mobs on their home. They have since fled Cuba and were granted asylum in the United States. His wife says that Dr. Garcia Paneque ``takes great comfort from his Bible . . . which he reads every day.'' While his wife says his physical health continues to suffer, his ``spiritual health is strong.'' On October 24, 2007, Dr. Garcia Paneque's wife and his daughter Shirlen were received and honored by President George W. Bush at the White House, where the President publicly called upon the regime to release Dr. Garcia Paneque forthwith. Even though Dr. Garcia Paneque has endured constant physical and psychological torture at the hands of regime thugs, he continues to demand human rights and dignity for the people of Cuba. He is languishing in the squalor of the infernal gulag at the whim of a merciless tyrant, simply because he believes in freedom, truth, democracy, and human rights for the people of Cuba. Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that journalists and physicians like Dr. Garcia Paneque are locked in dungeons for writing the truth. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Jose Luis Garcia Paneque before his prison sentence turns into a death sentence.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Raudel Martinez Gomez, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Martinez Gomez is a member of the Plantados Movement for Cuban Freedom. He along with fellow dissidents Victor Yunier Ferenandez Martinez and Joenny Alonso Asiz, were arrested in February 2006 for a crime the Cuban dictatorship calls ``dangerousness.'' In sham trials they were each convicted, with Mr. Martinez Gomez sentenced to 3 years in prison. Unfortunately, his imprisonment for what is really political dissent is nothing new for his family. While Mr. Martinez Gomez was facing trial before the dictatorship's facade of a judicial system, his father was imprisoned in a Cuban gulag for nothing more than participating in a peaceful pro-democracy protest outside the French embassy in Havana. The Cuban regime released his father this past May without formally charging him with any crime. Shortly after his father's arrest, the local chief of the so-called ``Committee for the Defense of the Revolution'' came to the home Mr. Martinez Gomez shared with his father. Mr. Martinez Gomez was forced out of his home along with his wife, who was 7 months pregnant at the time. But these local vigilance committee goons were not content with forcing Martinez Gomez and his pregnant wife from their home, they wanted to add insult to injury. So they sent a group of ruffians to shout insults and obscenities at Martinez Gomez and his wife as they left the home they had known for the last 11 years. What exactly did Mr. Martinez Gomez do to cause his conviction for the so-called crime of ``dangerouness?'' This is impossible to fully know in the totalitarian circus of present day Cuba but perhaps the regime was afraid of the courage repeatedly demonstrated by Mr. Martinez Gomez. Madam Speaker, this is just another condemnable occurrence in the constant pattern of brutality by the totalitarian tyranny just 90 miles from our shores. And yet, though the tyranny has attempted to stop Mr. Martinez Gomez, he will never cease in his commitment to freedom for Cuba. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate release of Raudel Martinez Gomez and all prisoners of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Carlos Jesus Menendez Cervera, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Menendez Cervera is a member of the Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CCDHRN), Executive Secretary of the Social Democratic Party and an interim director of the Independent Libraries Project. He is a peaceful pro-democracy activist who believes that Cuba must be free, that all Cubans must be free to learn, free to worship, and free to enjoy human rights and the Rule of Law. Accordingly, Mr. Menendez Cervera has been targeted by the totalitarian regime. Because of his steadfast belief in freedom and democracy, Mr. Menendez Cervera has been harassed and detained numerous times. In February 2007 Mr. Menendez Cervera was detained and thrown into a police vehicle after he was seen exiting the U.S. Interests Section's Center for Information Services. He was locked inside the vehicle and interrogated for nearly an hour before being driven to a nearby police station. At the station, where a member of the Cuban political police further interrogated him, his short wave radio and a photocopy of a Miami Herald article he carried were confiscated. Regime thugs attempted to incriminate Mr. Menendez Cervera but he was eventually released. According to the CCDHRN, plainclothes members of the regime's secret police arrested Mr. Menendez Cervera on November 15, 2007. The CCDHRN said that Mr. Menendez Cervera was arrested when he entered the home of a well-known former prisoner of conscience, Mr. Hector Palacio, one of the ``Group of 75'' arrested as part of the Cuban dictatorship's heinous island-wide crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy activists in March 2003. Mr. Palacio, who was serving a 25-year sentence, was released from prison due to health concerns. Mr. Menendez Cervera represents the best of the Cuban nation, a nation that, though oppressed for 49 years by a totalitarian tyranny, has never stopped fighting for its freedom and for the Rule of Law. Madam Speaker, we must speak out and act against these arbitrary harassments and arrests, and the abominable disregard for human rights, human dignity, and human freedom just 90 miles from our shores. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Carlos Jesus Menendez Cervera and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here 80 days into the new fiscal year, and one appropriations bill has been signed into law. Today, we are here to consider hopefully the last piece of the appropriations puzzle, as well as yet another continuing resolution before the omnibus appropriations bill is sent to the President. What is so interesting about this process is that the omnibus bill that has finally come before the House in many ways is very similar to the proposals that the minority has advocated for months, and is very similar to what we predicted would, in fact, be the legislation that ultimately would become law. However, Madam Speaker, instead of working toward a compromise, a bipartisan resolution to this legislation, a bipartisan product, the majority decided to use the appropriations process to, in effect, score political points while funding for our troops in critical theaters of operation has been dangerously delayed. Now, the underlying amendment we will consider today will finally help bring our appropriations process to a close, and it will do so in a fiscally responsible manner, funding the Federal Government and funding our troops in critical theaters of operation without preconditions and without strings. These funds will allow for the progress that we have recently seen to continue to take hold. It will allow for our men and women in uniform to continue to do their job as they have done so, so effectively, in fact, so heroically for so long. I think commendation is due. I think congratulations is due to all who have worked on this process, and that congratulations I think is due to those on both sides of the aisle who have worked hard, have worked diligently, to come up with this final appropriations legislation work product that will fund the Federal Government for the next fiscal year, and especially, as I have said, will continue to fund in critical theaters of operation our men and women who are doing such an extraordinary job and who deserve our unrestricted support. There are very important, very important endeavors, efforts and projects that are funded in this appropriations bill, in this omnibus appropriations bill. We cannot, I believe, emphasize sufficiently, especially at this critical time, our support and the continued need of our support for our great ally and friend, Israel, that lives in an area of the world that is extremely dangerous. And while we have the benefit of thousands of miles between, for example, the state sponsor of terrorism in Iran, the regime in Iran, Madam Speaker, while we have thousands of miles physically separating us from that state sponsor of terrorism, our friend and ally, Israel, does not. And so I have always felt very strongly about our need to support Israel. The fact that this appropriations legislation includes the support that it does for our friend and ally, Israel, is something that I think is very important. And there are many, many aspects of this legislation that we, on a bipartisan basis, can be very proud of. And we, I think, will have further opportunity to discuss them. But today, I am told that there are some glitches that need to be worked out, and that the majority needs some time and the appropriators need some time on both sides of the aisle to work them out. So we will be hopefully seeing those glitches being resolved in the next minutes and hours. As we wait for those glitches to be resolved, we are cognizant of the fact that we are finally bringing to the floor the rule that will allow for consideration of the final legislative product on the appropriations for this year. With that in mind, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like, at this time, Madam Speaker, to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, my friend, Mr. Sessions of Texas.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this matter was debated previously. It is obviously a critically important piece of legislation. I made some points about it before. I am not going to repeat my points at this time. I hope we can move to other very pressing matters before us today. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule, while closing the loopholes we have found over the last few months. Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or a report or a statement there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress. However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill. The earmark rule is also not applicable when the majority uses a procedure to accept ``amendments between the Houses'' such as they plan to do with the underlying legislation. Because the energy bill is not a conference report, the bill will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule and the rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be contained in the legislation. I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, recently sent to House Rules Committee Chairwoman Slaughter which confirms what we have been saying since January that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.'' Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 2, 2007. Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have advised the committee that language waiving all points of order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI'' should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules, notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure requirements of clause 9. In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause 9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process. Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment'' to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment-- whether they be floor amendments during initial House consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of a special rule.) The question of order on September 25 involved a special rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It had no application to the motion in the first instance. Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no application to the amendment in the first instance, the special rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). The same would be true in the more common case of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text for the purpose of further amendment. Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment. In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the question whether a special rule waives the application of clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any application. In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all points of order except those arising under that rule--when none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its negative implication would be that such a point of order might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all points of order against provisions of an authorization bill except those that can only arise in the case of a general appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use language that yields a misleading implication. I appreciate your consideration and trust that this response is to be shared among all members of the committee. Our office will share it with all inquiring parties. Sincerely, John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian. This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule. I urge my colleagues to close this loophole in the earmark rule by opposing the previous question. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is our duty to do all we can to provide future generations a better world in which to live. Our Nation has made great strides in protecting human health and the environment, but there is still much more to do. We must continue to decrease carbon emissions and invest in multiple forms of energy-efficient technologies to help preserve the environment and lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources. For our national security, we must make investments to increase clean energy sources and increase domestic energy supplies. From 2001 to 2006, Republican-led Congresses invested nearly $12 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable domestic energy sources. They included the development of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, advanced hybrid and plug-in, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies. The underlying legislation, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, further promotes research and development into next-generation energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal and marine energy. Furthermore, it authorizes almost $3 billion for energy storage and development programs to make renewable energy sources more effective. But we must keep in mind that right now, alternative fuels will not eliminate the need for traditional energy sources, and without additional supply, the tight market conditions that have put pressure on prices are going to persist. I am pleased that incentives for the domestic production of oil and gas have been retained in this final legislation. These incentives are aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Removal of these incentives, which were included in earlier versions of this legislation, would have driven up the costs of oil and natural gas to American consumers even further and increased our dependence on foreign suppliers such as the strongman/clown in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. I am also pleased that a provision that would have taxed domestic oil companies at higher rates than the Chavez-controlled oil company was removed. This legislation also provides for the H-Prize. The H-Prize will award cash prices to individuals, universities and businesses making significant advances in the field of hydrogen energy. Hydrogen is a clean domestic energy source that produces no emissions other than water. The use of hydrogen as an energy source will simultaneously reduce dependence on foreign oil and emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Unfortunately, this bill has taken almost a year to make it to the President's desk because the majority decided to shut out the minority from deliberations for much of the year. When this bill first came before the House in the opening days of the 110th Congress, the majority blocked all amendments with a closed rule. In August when we considered H.R. 3221, the majority shut out over 90 amendments and allowed only five minority amendments out of 23 amendments. Just last week, we considered Senate amendments to H.R. 6, and once again the majority blocked the minority from providing amendments. If the majority had just decided to follow its campaign promise and allow the minority to participate in the formulation of this legislation, this bill could have been signed into law months ago. I would also point out that the majority brings this legislation to the floor as a Senate amendment instead of as a conference report. As such, it fits into one of the loopholes of the majority's earmark rule, just as it did last week. Because the earmark rule did not apply to the legislation last week, it wasn't possible to find out that the bill contained earmarks until after the bill passed the House. So we wonder if the legislation we are considering today also contains earmarks. Unfortunately, we will not know, because the legislation is not subject to the earmark rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.