Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my good friend. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a great leader from the State of Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, before finishing my remarks, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for the time, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, next month we are set to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, in the beginning of its mission ``to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.'' Since then, NASA has sent men to the moon, established a permanent human presence in space aboard the International Space Station, sent robots to explore Mars for signs of life, and launched the Hubble Telescope that revolutionized astronomy by providing unprecedented deep and clear views of the universe. One can only imagine what NASA will accomplish in the next 50 years as we begin working building a permanent base on the moon and eventually sending astronauts to explore Mars and beyond. Since the creation of the Kennedy Space Center in 1962, as my good friend Mr. Hastings has explained, Florida has played an integral role supporting NASA's mission through a partnership between Florida's academic and business sectors. Florida will continue to play an important role as the space flights to the moon and Mars begin their journey of exploration at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. I am pleased that the underlying legislation, H.R. 6063, will continue this successful partnership. Three years ago, Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 which provided policy and programmatic guidance for NASA that made clear that NASA is and should remain a multi-mission agency, with a balanced portfolio of programs in space, aeronautics and human space flight, including human and robotic exploration beyond low Earth orbit. Today's legislation reaffirms those basic principles, while emphasizing the importance of NASA leadership and Earth observations and research, aeronautics research and development to address critical national needs, and an exploration program strengthened by international cooperation under strong United States leadership. The underlying legislation authorizes $20.21 billion in funding for fiscal year 2009. That is a 2.8 percent increase in investment from fiscal year 2008. As we all know, NASA intends to retire the shuttle fleet in 2010. The shuttle will be replaced with a 21st century exploration system, the Constellation Program, that will be cost-effective, reliable, versatile, and, most importantly, safe for our brave and brilliant astronauts. Until the Constellation Program is ready for lift off in 2015, we will be reliant upon Russia to ferry our crews and equipment to the International Space Station. NASA has agreements to pay Russia $760 million, and those costs could rise as high as $2.8 billion during the gap. To reduce our reliance on Russia, the bill authorizes an additional $1 billion to accelerate the development of the replacement Orion and Ares rockets and reduce the 5-year gap. Doing that will help retain thousands of well-paying aerospace, engineering and technician jobs and maintain American expertise in those areas. The legislation also fully authorizes the administration's request for the International Space Station to ensure its safety and long-term viability and funds additional shuttle missions, including one to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. The spectrometer is designed to search for unusual matter by measuring cosmic rays. Its experiments will help researchers study and unlock the mysteries of the formation of the universe. This legislation fully authorizes NASA's Education Program, which seeks to inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I believe it is vital to keep the United States competitive in science, math and engineering. Our children are our future, and by seriously funding math and science programs we ensure that our future generations will continue to excel, explore and discover. I would like to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall and Subcommittee Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Feeney for their bipartisan work in the Science Committee on this important reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that bipartisan spirit didn't make it past the doors of the Rules Committee, where the majority only allowed one Republican amendment, while allowing 10 Democratic amendments. It is a new ratio, 10 to 1. And that one Republican amendment is just a sense of Congress, while many of the Democratic amendments call for substantive changes in policy. One example of how the majority consistently blocks Republicans but allows Democratic amendments is illustrated with the disparate treatment of the Lampson and Gingrey amendments. The majority on the Rules Committee made in order the Lampson amendment exempting NASA from section 526(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act, and yet when Representative Gingrey submitted two amendments to the Rules Committee regarding the same issue, they were both rejected. So far this year, the majority on the Rules Committee has issued a record 54 closed rules, while only allowing one open rule. The majority had an opportunity yesterday to change their ways and provide an open rule for this legislation, thus doubling their amount of open rules, but instead they decided by a party-line vote that they are quite content blocking an open debate. An open debate on the NASA reauthorization would be particularly helpful in getting this legislation signed into law. Prior to the hearing in the Rules Committee, the administration issued its Statement of Administrative Policy, or SAP, as it is known. The SAP stated that the administration has several areas of concern with the legislation. By allowing an open debate process, we could vet the areas of concern so we can produce a bill that can be signed into law. However, the majority decided against an open and fair debate, and now this important reauthorization may be delayed. It didn't have to be like that. One of the central tenets of the Democrats' campaign in 2006 was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. On December 6, 2006, Speaker Pelosi reiterated her campaign promise. She said, and I quote, ``We promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will.'' Yet here we are, three-fourths of the way through the 110th Congress, and the majority has come forth with one open rule. What a shame that their promises were left on the campaign trail. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, June 10, 2008, Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 6063--National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (Rep. Udall (D) Colorado and 7 cosponsors) The Administration supports maintaining a strong national civil space science and aeronautics enterprise and is committed to advancing the quest for new knowledge, discovery, and exploration that is embodied in NASA programs and activities. However, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 6063 because it mandates specific Space Shuttle flights that greatly threaten NASA's ability to retire the Shuttle in 2010, an action that is critical to implementing the President's Vision for Space Exploration. In addition, the Administration has other serious objections to several provisions of H.R. 6063 that must be satisfactorily addressed prior to final congressional action on reauthorization legislation. The bill contains provisions that mandate two contingency logistics flights and an additional Shuttle flight for the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and require that these flights take place before Shuttle retirement, thus effectively superseding the 2010 Shuttle retirement date that is a critical step to enabling successful development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle as called for by the President's Vision for Space Exploration. Consistent with the Vision, the current Space Shuttle flight manifest is a measured and carefully balanced plan to allow the completion of the International Space Station (ISS), a safe and orderly retirement of the Shuttle, and the smooth transition of facilities and personnel to Exploration Systems programs by September 2010. The direction in this section would almost certainly result in several serious impacts and risks to NASA's exploration programs and other activities, including: (1) significantly increasing costs of the Shuttle program, not including potential recertification activities; (2) delaying the operational capability of the Orion CEV well beyond its current projected dates; (3) exacerbating transition challenges, including facilities and workforce; and (4) exposing astronaut crews to increased risks. In addition, statutorily mandating additional flights regardless of safety assessments and costs sets a dangerous and unwise precedent. The Space Shuttle must be retired by the end of 2010, and the NASA Administrator's authority to make the final determination on Shuttle flights based on safety considerations must be preserved. In addition, any increased cost of an additional Shuttle flight must be satisfactorily accommodated within the President's proposed discretionary spending total. The FY 2009 budget request of $17.6 billion is sufficient to achieve NASA's goals, and the additional $2.6 billion authorized in the bill above the President's request is inconsistent with the Administration's fiscal policies. Accordingly, the Administration opposes this increased authorization level. In addition, H.R. 6063 directs several specific activities under the assumption that additional funding will be appropriated, making it likely they will become unfunded mandates. Directing activities in this manner would severely disrupt the budgets for NASA's ongoing, carefully-balanced programs and Centers linked to other high-priority goals and activities. For this reason and in view of associated problematic policy implications, the following requirements should either be removed from the bill or appropriately modified: (1) carrying out an additional procurement for Commercial Orbital Transfer Services (COTS) crew capabilities, and mandating that NASA purchase commercial services regardless of cost; (2) establishing an Exploration- related technology research and development program that would draw funding away from the Orion CEV, delaying its availability; (3) establishing a cross-cutting technology development program within the Science Mission Directorate at a level of five percent of the Directorate's budget; (4) requiring the continued operation and utilization of the ISS by the United States after 2016, without first mitigating significant budget implications in the outyears; and (5) prescribing specific roles and responsibilities regarding NASA's work with various advisory and external review committees and other Federal agencies that the Administration believes would be problematic and duplicative of already well-established roles and responsibilities. The Administration also is concerned with the proposed wording of certain provisions and strongly urges that these provisions be modified before passage of the bill. For example, the direction in the bill to limit NASA's ability to dispose of Space Shuttle-related hardware is likely to severely disrupt ongoing Shuttle retirement and transition activities. Similarly, the specific wording of other provisions in H.R. 6063, including requiring all space observatories to be serviceable regardless of practicality; overly-prescribed aeronautics research goals; and unproductive astronaut health surveys could lead to serious unintended consequences, including greatly increased costs to carry out these mandates. The Administration calls on Congress to modify these provisions to provide NASA sufficient flexibility to make programmatic and management decisions as necessary. In addition, the bill directs NASA to initiate discussions with foreign nations on ``space traffic management.'' This provision directly infringes upon the President's authority to conduct foreign affairs. The United States already actively promotes international cooperation to enhance spaceflight safety and supports consideration of voluntary transparency and confidence building measures in appropriate venues under the leadership of the Department of State, with appropriate assistance from the Department of Defense. These provisions accordingly should be removed. A similar objectionable provision is contained in the bill's section governing ``exploration crew rescue.'' Finally, in addition to the significant concerns highlighted above that must be satisfactorily addressed prior to final congressional action, the Administration has an overarching concern about the highly prescriptive nature of the bill and the significant number of reports and studies that this legislation would require. The Administration understands the need for timely information for Congress to conduct its oversight responsibilities; however, the burden that would be placed on various agencies of the Executive Branch, including NASA, is of concern. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to modify these aspects of the bill. The President does not threaten to veto the legislation. He enumerates in this statement a number of concerns with the legislation and finalizes the statement by saying that the administration looks forward to working with Congress to modify these aspects of the bill. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished colleague from Michigan, whose father was an aeronautical engineer and always has demonstrated great leadership on the issue of NASA and cutting-edge space technology, Mrs. Miller.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, just over 2 years ago, now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement: ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubber-stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican Big Oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.'' Madam Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 a gallon today instead of over $4 a gallon. Reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront the high price of gasoline, just over a month ago the newspaper Investor's Business Daily in an editorial said that this Congress ``is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.'' Madam Speaker, I include for the Congressional Record the editorial from the Investor's Business Daily. [From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008] Congress Vs. You We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy. The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from understanding how free markets and supply and demand really work. Sad, but true. So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide- ranging press conference Tuesday. ``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately, on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.'' Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of congressional energy inaction, including: Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted, estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so your representative can raise campaign cash. Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique'' fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price spikes. Congress has done nothing about this. Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants-- the same as a decade ago--producing just 19 percent of our total energy. (Many European nations produce 40 percent or more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural gas. Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy situation worse. These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add more than a million barrels of new demand each and every year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand growing 40 percent by 2030, including a 28 percent increase in the U.S. Americans who are worried about the direction of their country, including runaway energy and food prices, should keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress. The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election. Today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act introduced by Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, which would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, precisely. In order to be able to take up legislation to give a tax break to commuters for the expenses, their expenses, rising expenses, daily rising expenses of getting to and back from work, I am going to ask all of our distinguished colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can take a stand against these high fuel prices and begin to give commuters a break in this country. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, the House is set to consider H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill will direct the Secretary of Education to make grants and loans to local educational agencies for the construction, modernization or repair of public educational facilities. It also would require the funds to be used only for projects that meet certain green standards such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star, or an equivalent State or local standard. Tomorrow, we are scheduled to consider H.R. 5540, to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails Network. I spent last week, Mr. Speaker, meeting and speaking with constituents in my district about the issues that matter to them, and no one mentioned anything closely related to these two bills. Both of these bills may be important in their own right, but I believe there are other issues that are much more pressing, issues we should be debating. When Americans are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, we should be working on legislation to lower the cost of gasoline, increasing domestic energy exploration, reducing our reliance on unstable foreign energy. France produces over 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and there's a strong environmental movement in France. And yet the United States hasn't built a nuclear power plant in 30 years. When our military forces are running out of personnel, operation and maintenance funds, we should be working to bring bipartisan legislation to the President's desk that he can quickly sign and fund the troops. When the intelligence community is stripped of one of their key tools in the fight against international terrorism because the majority let the Protect America Act expire, we should be working to give our intelligence officials the tools they need to stop terrorist attacks. Instead, the majority has decided to work on a green schools bill and a water trails network reauthorization. These are not exactly the pressing issues facing Americans every day. These are not the issues our constituents want us working on today. One of the central tenets of the Democrats' campaign in 2006, Mr. Speaker, was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. On December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``we promised 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 the Rules Committee. A prime example of how they've consistently stymied openness and bipartisanship is by the number of open rules that they've allowed in the 110th Congress. We're three-quarters of the way through the 110th Congress, and so far the majority has allowed only one open rule. One open rule, Mr. Speaker, in 18 months. They had a chance to double to two the open rules last night, but by a party line vote they decided that they would once again use a restrictive rule process in making only four Republican amendments in order. They struck down 15 Republican amendments that had been introduced, including one from the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon. So much for the open process they promised. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I am so pleased that our colleague Dr. Price pointed out on issue after issue, whether it's ANWR exploration or coal-to-liquid or oil shale exploration or refinery increased capacity or on the issue of nuclear power. There is a strong environmental movement in France, but over 80 percent of their electricity is generated from nuclear power. Yet we haven't built a nuclear power plant in this country in over 30 years. It's time to face the issue of energy independence in this country. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, Mr. Speaker, we're asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question to be able to address the energy issue. If we're ever going to address it, it's time to start doing so with $4 a gallon gasoline. Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and insist that the energy issue be addressed seriously by voting ``no'' on the previous question. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished lady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first it's important to set the record straight. Ten years ago, this Congress passed drilling in the ANWR, and it faced a Presidential veto by then- President Clinton, and imagine if it hadn't faced a veto how much of a difference we would have been able to make. Now we're seeing the consequences of that, as Mr. Price of Georgia pointed out. Effort after effort that we've engaged in to try to increase the production of energy, the supply of energy has been opposed by the other side of the aisle and I think nowhere more dramatically than when we were able to pass legislation to have production in Alaska, and it was vetoed by the last President, a Democratic President. So these things have to be put on the record, Mr. Speaker, because now with $4 gas the record counts, and the record is of interest to all Americans, and it will be more and more of interest every day. Mr. Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, just over 2 years ago, now- Speaker Pelosi issued the following statement: ``With skyrocketing gas prices it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubber stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.'' Mr. Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 a gallon today. Yet here we are this week debating bills on green schools and watertrails network instead of working on legislation to reduce the price of gasoline and increase supply. Now, the price of gasoline is at $4 gallon now. Reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront that issue, just over a month ago the newspaper Investors Business Daily in an editorial said that this Congress ``is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.'' [From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008] Congress Vs. You We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy. The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from understanding how free markets and supply and demand really work. Sad, but true. So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide- ranging press conference Tuesday. ``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately, on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.'' Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of congressional energy inaction, including: Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted, estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so your representative can raise campaign cash. Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique'' fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price spikes. Congress has done nothing about this. Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants-- the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural gas. Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy situation worse. These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add more than a million barrels of new demand each and every year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S. Americans who are worried about the direction of their country, including runaway energy and food prices, should keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress. The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election. Today, I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, which would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses and require the Speaker of the House to submit a plan to lower gas prices. 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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Erick Jesus Valdes Alvarez, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba. At a time when the totalitarian regime is trying to gain acceptance from the international community by enacting smoke and mirror ``reforms'', we see that the repressive machine is still working hard to make every Cuban on the island suffer for having a mind of their own. Such a case is Mr. Valdes Alvarez. In November of 2007, Mr. Valdes Alvarez was categorized as a ``pre-criminal social danger'' for being a member of the Youth Movement for Democracy, a group that calls for the autonomy of the universities so that they become true places of thought and learning separated from the ideology and influence from the propagandist, totalitarian dictatorship. At that time Mr. Valdes Alvarez was sentenced to 3 years of forced labor, which is the totalitarian regime's idea of ``correctional work'' for those who associate themselves with groups that express free thinking. Although he escaped imprisonment, the ``probation'' imposed on him did not last half a year. On April 25 of this year his ``probation'' was revoked and he was arrested by agents of the tyranny. Mr. Valdes Alvarez, a young man of only 25 years of age, now sits in one of the prisons of Castro's gulag without being charged for any crime. What exactly did Mr. Valdes Alvarez do to cause his designation as ``dangerous'' and his cruel incarceration? This is impossible to fully know in the totalitarian circus of present day Cuba, but perhaps the regime was afraid of the courage and patriotism demonstrated by Mr. Valdes Alvarez. Mr. Valdes Alvarez represents the best of the Cuban people; a people that, through brutalized and oppressed for almost half a century, have never ceased to fight for their dignity and their freedom. Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that students like Mr. Valdes Alvarez are locked in dungeons for simply expressing a desire for freedom and an education free of indoctrination. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Erick Jesus Valdes Alvarez before his imprisonment turns into a death sentence, and of all the political prisoners in totalitarian Cuba.