Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Richard (Dick) Rechtien and his business, Rechtien International Trucks, which received the prestigious honor of the International Circle of Excellence Award for 2009. The Circle of Excellence Award is awarded by the international dealer organization of Navistar, Inc., and honors international truck dealerships that achieve the highest level of dealer performance with respect to operating and financial standards, market representation, and most importantly, customer satisfaction. It is the highest honor a dealer principal can receive from the company. Rechtien International Trucks was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Miami. Under his leadership, it has grown into one of the preeminent truck dealerships in the Southeast and the entire nation, with 188 employees and four dealer locations, including Miami, Riviera Beach, Fort Pierce and Broward County. Dick has served as chairman of the International Dealer Council and of the Florida Trucking Association, and as co-chair of numerous dealer advisory groups for Navistar. With this most recent award, Rechtien International will now receive the Circle of Excellence Award, under Dick's leadership, a total of 23 times. Through his commitment to hard work and outstanding customer service, he has built an economically vital business of which he can be justly proud. Madam Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join with me in congratulating Dick Rechtien for his record of accomplishment and for his many contributions to our South Florida community.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my dear friend Mr. Roskam for the time, and I simply rise to join my voice in praise and commendation for all those who have made possible that this resolution come to the floor. I think it speaks very highly of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, there is no more generous nation in the world than the American Nation, the American people. One sees that generosity time and time again. As Mr. Blumenauer mentioned, we just saw an extraordinary outpouring of generosity toward the people of Haiti, and then we have seen another tragedy, and the American people, with regard to Chile, are demonstrating once again that extraordinary generosity. So I think it is so appropriate, and that is why I rise to commend all of those that have made this resolution possible, to accelerate the deduction for the donations that Americans have made, extend that policy with regard to Haiti and to make it possible with regard to the donations that are being made or have been made or will be made for those who have suffered in Chile. Our hearts and our prayers go out to those who suffer in both of those neighbor, friendly nations. They are wonderful people, great friends of the United States. Remembering the victims, I think the Congress, by this action today, not only takes a step that is consistent with the generosity of the American people, but I think makes a very commendable act. So I simply wanted to join my voice of commendation for all of those who have made this possible.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday the Iraqi people went to the polls to vote in their latest national parliamentary elections. Millions of Iraqis voted at thousands of voting stations throughout the country. The democratic process is succeeding in Iraq. The people there, despite extraordinarily difficult challenges, are able to express themselves in free elections. Sunday was a good day for the future of Iraq. Those elections would not have taken place but for the decision of President Bush in 2007 to send over 20,000 surge troops to Iraq in order to establish, ``a unified democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself.'' Those elections would not have been possible but for the sacrifices of our troops and their families. Just 4 months ago, Mr. Speaker, President Obama announced a surge strategy for Afghanistan. He committed 30,000 additional forces to a counterinsurgency strategy that I believe will help to strengthen the government in Afghanistan's security forces, as the surge did in Iraq. Since President Obama's announcement, we've seen considerable results. For example, last month, our troops began what is known as the Marjah offensive. The joint offensive with the Afghan National Army and coalition partners has pushed the Taliban out of Marjah and has allowed the Afghan government to take control of significant areas that were previously controlled by the Taliban. This offensive is what General David Petraeus, the commander of the United States Central Command, has described as the ``initial salvo'' in a 12- to 18-month campaign to defeat the Taliban. Now I have had and I continue to have, Mr. Speaker, disagreements with policies of President Obama, but I have said privately, I have said publicly, and I reiterate here today, that in the case of Afghanistan, President Obama has demonstrated great responsibility and a sense of the national security interest of the United States. He deserves our support. Just as our military is making tangible progress, like the Marjah offensive demonstrates, just as this is occurring, many of our colleagues in the majority party now feel that it is time to withdraw from Afghanistan. The resolution that we are set to debate today would require the President to withdraw our troops in 30 days. I believe that that would be precipitous. I believe that precipitously withdrawing our troops would be reckless. I believe it would allow the Taliban to regain control of Afghanistan and thereby provide criminal groups such as al Qaeda with carte blanche to run terrorist training camps and plan terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies. I would remind my colleagues that it was the safe harbor and support that the Taliban gave bin Laden which allowed him to plan the September 11, 2001, attacks from Afghanistan against this country. A reconstituted Taliban will undoubtedly do the same and will pose a significant and grave risk to the national security of the United States. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must never allow Afghanistan to once again fall into the hands of terrorists whose sole purpose is to destroy the United States and to kill innocent civilians. Precipitous withdrawal would not only be dangerous, I believe, to our national security, but would constitute a mortal blow to the Afghan people, who are relying on our support. Although they have far to go, Afghanistan has made demonstrable progress. But if this resolution were to become U.S. policy, all the improvements made by the Afghan people would disappear. Afghans would no longer be given the chance to vote in elections. The Taliban would rule by the edict of terror. It would mean the return of a nightmarish tyranny to Afghanistan. Women would see the rights they have gained disappear as the Taliban once again made women noncitizens and banned young girls, who for the first time are learning to read, from schools. Mr. Speaker, I believe that now is not the time to turn our backs on the Afghan people. It is not the time to counter the mission of our troops, especially when they are engaged in the first major offensive of President Obama's reaffirmed counterinsurgency strategy. Let us send a message to the terrorists that the United States is committed to our mission to prevent the return to power of the Taliban. Let us soundly defeat this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a good discussion today. And I think it is appropriate to have it. I certainly hope that the result is clear, and that this Congress today strongly and in a bipartisan way rejects the resolution that is being brought forth. It would be a grave mistake for us to allow the Taliban to regain power in Afghanistan. Sometimes the lessons of history may be a little bit more difficult to explain. In this case, when the Taliban was in power they opened the country up to training camps for terrorists to attack the United States. That was in 2001. It is not ancient history. So I hope we don't forget the lessons of history. In addition, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, our Armed Forces with our coalition allies and the Afghan armed forces are in the midst of the first major offensive in President Obama's new strategy. So I think it would be a grave mistake if this Congress does not clearly and emphatically reject the resolution today. Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, The United States and Australia share a longstanding relationship that has allowed the two nations to cooperate on many international issues. Due to the strength and depth of this relationship, the United States has relied on the support of our ally Australia in many of our mutual international objectives. This relationship continues to be strengthened through the cooperation of our two governments and through the cultural exchanges that occur between our nations. Developed by Erik Federing in 1999, the Uni-Capitol Internship Program enables a select group of young Australian students to experience the work of the United States Congress. It is through Mr. Federing's tireless efforts that this year, twelve exceptional Australian students are participating in internships in different Congressional offices. I have had the opportunity to work with three Australian students during the past five years and their professionalism and work ethic has been extraordinary. This year my office worked with another student from the Uni-Capitol Internship Program, Matthew Robertson. Matthew is a third year law student at Deakin University in Melbourne Australia. He applied to the program with the hope to learn more about the American government. Matthew's extensive knowledge of the Australian government and legal system enhances his understanding of the American legislative process. During his time at my office he had the opportunity to attend Committee hearings, briefings, perform legislative research, and prepare memos for my staff and myself. His professionalism in the office and willingness to handle any task that was assigned to him were outstanding. It has truly been a pleasure to have Matthew in the office. I am certain that my colleagues were similarly impressed with the work done by the eleven other Australian students in the program. I rise to commend the Uni-Capitol Internship Program for its work to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Australia; and offer Matthew my thanks for a job well done.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I rise today to inform my colleagues that a great Cuban hero, Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who is a prisoner of conscience in the gulag of the Castro brothers, is in critical condition and near death. Forty-two years old, Orlando Zapata has been active in the Cuban pro- democracy movement for many years. Already a political prisoner in 2003, he was released by Castro for 14 days before being imprisoned once again and sentenced to 25 years in the gulag, in March 2003. A colleague and partner in the struggle for freedom of Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, Orlando Zapata personifies the best of mankind. And the fact that he is near death at this moment in the Castros' gulag points to the profoundly criminal nature of that grotesque totalitarian criminal regime. His condition and fate are the Castro brothers' doing. If he dies, his blood will be on Castro's hands.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last week, the Department of Labor, Madam Speaker, reported that Americans filed 473,000 jobless claims in the week ending February 13. That is an increase of 31,000 more claims than the previous week. It is truly unfortunate that the number of jobless claims continues to rise 1 year after the passage of the massive so-called ``stimulus bill.'' Take, for example, the district that I am honored to represent. According to Recovery.gov, the administration's stimulus Web site, the stimulus bill spent $185 million to create 310 jobs. That was at a cost of $600,000 per job. Now, Madam Speaker, what worries me even more than the $1 trillion so-called ``stimulus bill'' is the fact that it continues the process of adding to our national debt at a time when we can least afford it. It is expected that the deficit, in large part due to the waste of money in the stimulus bill, is set to hit a record $1.6 trillion. The U.S. economy is dangerously close to the catastrophic precipice of uncontrollable debt. We must urgently alter Washington's fiscal course before the American middle class, as we know it, is relegated to the history books. Why do I mention the stimulus and the state of our economy? To point out that, while our economy continues to stumble and to stutter and as jobless claims rise, the majority has decided to pass legislation that would recognize Native Hawaiians as a sovereign governing entity. Now, just 2 months ago, the distinguished Speaker declared that her party should be judged on the issue of ``jobs, jobs, jobs.'' How does the bill before us today have anything to do with job creation? I understand that this is the last week in Congress for my good friend, one of the most respected Members of this House, Representative Abercrombie. I know I join all Members of the House in thanking him for his great work as a Member of this House and also for his friendship. As I say, I have great respect for him. Last night, he testified before the Rules Committee about his work on the underlying legislation. He told us that he first began working on this issue when he was in the Hawaii legislature in 1974. It was very clear from his testimony that this is a very important issue for him, and I congratulate him for his hard work. Yet there is an undeniable issue here that I have made reference to that was pointed out in terms of its importance to the American people by a recent opinion research poll which found that 84 percent of Americans think that Congress has not done enough for the creation of jobs. I think what the majority is doing today will simply reinforce that belief by the American people. Madam Speaker, I thank the majority for their uncharacteristic generosity in allowing the House to debate both of the Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration. Unfortunately, over a year into this Congress, the purportedly most open and bipartisan Congress in history, the majority has yet to allow even one open rule. That's quite unfortunate, but yet it is business as usual for the majority to continue to claim bipartisanship while working to block full and open debate. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Over the next 2 days, the House is set to consider three separate bills that would approve and ratify tribal claims to water rights made by the White Mountain Apache tribe in Arizona and the Pueblos of Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, Tesuque, and Taos in New Mexico. The bills would also restore and protect some environmentally sensitive land and watersheds, and require the maintenance of the water systems in question until they are conveyed to the respective tribes. I support these bills when the McClintock amendments are included because I believe that the settlements will bring long-term certainty and stability to the respective tribes and water users in the affected areas. Mr. Speaker, last night the majority in the Rules Committee decided to allow for consideration all three of the amendments submitted to the three bills we are set to consider this week. I wish to thank them for their uncharacteristic generosity in allowing minority amendments. These important amendments would prevent the bill from taking effect until the Attorney General assures Congress in writing that the settlements in these bills would represent a net benefit to the U.S. taxpayer based on the costs and risks of litigation and the odds the tribes would prevail in the litigation. I believe these amendments are important because they require the Attorney General to conduct a cost- benefit analysis of the settlements and make sure that they are fiscally responsible before the settlement funds can be paid. Now, I assume that the other side of the aisle will highlight that this rule allows debate on all of the amendments which were submitted to the Rules Committee, but it restricts any and all possible further amendments from consideration. It is not an open rule. The majority campaigned on a promise to allow open and bipartisan debates in Congress, yet this year they have yet to allow even one open rule. That is correct, not one open rule. And that, Mr. Speaker, includes even the traditionally open appropriations process. They could have changed that glaring and unfortunate statistic by allowing an open rule on the underlying, uncontroversial bill, but the majority in the Rules Committee decided to continue to make this the most closed Congress in history. Now, let's look at the possible reasons the majority on the Rules Committee decided to vote against an open rule for these bills. Could it be that there is not enough time on the House schedule this week? Well, the House, until last night, was scheduled to be in session until Friday. And this rule, as proposed, only allows for a total of 3\1/2\ hours of total debate time for all three bills and all three amendments. Even though we are now scheduled to leave on Thursday, we still have more than enough time to complete the three bills with an open rule. I sincerely doubt that an open rule would garner more than a handful of amendments. It would allow the majority to say for the first time, and to prove, at least offer some evidence, that they are living up to their pledge to run an open Congress. I believe the real reason is that the majority is afraid of an open debate even on uncontroversial bills, and so they restrict debate consistently. It has become their standard operating procedure to close debate in the House. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Well, it is not a question of talking points, it is a question of fact. We will move on. I at this point yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes, to my distinguished friend from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Well, Mr. Speaker, we saw last night that the blame game no longer works. And if we want to look at the past, we will see that when we cut taxes, we made it a reality; the recession after 9/11 was the shortest recession in history. Now, unfortunately, the policies that are being followed now are totally different. They're increasing debt massively. The deficit as a percentage of GDP after TARP--that I opposed, but it can be said that it was a bipartisan decision, TARP--after TARP, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was 4 percent. Today, 1 year after the Democrats took the Presidency and they had already taken the House and the Senate, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is almost 12 percent, Mr. Speaker. We are running in a dangerous direction, heading toward a collision with a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportion. But, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats just don't get it. They don't see it. The American people sent a message last night that they had better, but it still remains to be seen if they received the message. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my distinguished friend from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as we wait for the Republican leader, let me say that I have enjoyed this debate. These are noncontroversial bills that are being brought to the floor, and yet they're important. And, also, there are issues that have been brought out and that will be brought out now. I will oppose the previous question to bring out the issue that Mr. Buchanan talked about and bring it to a floor vote this morning. Since the Democrats regained the majority in the House, I have heard a number of Members come down to the floor and quote Supreme Court Justice Brandeis that sunshine is said to be the best disinfectant. I think that quote is fitting. It's fitting today considering, as Mr. Buchanan pointed out, that as we speak, the majority is drafting, behind closed doors with no sunshine in sight, health care legislation that will affect every American. So I think the question is begged, what is going on behind those closed doors? We don't know. We do not even know who is at the table. The American people deserve to know what is going on behind closed doors. We need to bring sunlight, sunshine, into a process that is shrouded with secrecy. That is why I, along with a bipartisan group of 163 Members of this House, have cosponsored House Resolution 847, a resolution by my friend and colleague, Representative Buchanan, that expresses the sense of the House that any meetings held to determine the final contents of sweeping health care legislation be held in public view and not behind closed doors. Mr. Buchanan pointed out the fact that C-SPAN has offered, in fulfillment of a campaign promise by the President, to be present at the negotiations. Now, in order to help bring in sunshine to a process that the majority continues to hide from public view, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and allow the House to continue the Buchanan transparency resolution. This vote will give Members of the majority a chance to live up to their promise, as the distinguished Speaker said, ``to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.'' Madam Speaker, I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize consideration of the water rights bills and of the settlement bills that are being brought to the floor today; but I wish to make clear that the motion I am making provides for the separate consideration of the Buchanan transparency resolution within 3 days so we can vote on the water rights bills and then, once we are done, so that we can consider the Buchanan transparency resolution, H. Res. 847. I have been informed that the Republican leader will not be coming down to the floor at this time. 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, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the Iraqi authorities not to forcibly remove Camp Ashraf residents from the home where they have lived for over twenty years. International human rights groups such as Amnesty International have warned that forcibly relocating the Camp Ashraf residents will put the Iranian opposition group ``at risk of arbitrary arrest, torture or other forms of ill-treatment, and unlawful killing.'' On July 29 of this year, I spoke out against the brutal attack that began on July 28 carried out by Iraqi security forces who were acting at the behest of the Iranian regime. The Iraqi security forces rolled over unarmed Camp Ashraf residents with tanks and beat them with sticks, killing at least nine residents and injuring many more. An injustice of this magnitude must not happen again. If the Iraqi government forcibly moves these residents from their Camp Ashraf home, it will be breaking its promise to the United States and violating its obligations under international law. When these Iranian exiles voluntarily surrendered their weapons to U.S. forces in 2003, they did so in exchange for a promise that the U.S. would protect them. When the United States withdrew from the Camp Ashraf region, the United States and Iraq signed an agreement that the Iraqi government would continue to ensure their safety. Furthermore, Camp Ashraf residents are also shielded by international law because they are ``protected persons'' under Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This attempt to move the Camp Ashraf residents to a remote prison in the middle of the deserts appears to be an ugly attempt by the Iraqi government to appease the Iranian regime. Groups such as Amnesty International warn that it may even lead to their forcible return to Iran. If returned to Iran, these members of the Iranian opposition would face almost certain torture and even death. Madam Speaker, I call on the Iraqi government to keep its promise to the United States and uphold its obligations under international law. Attempting to mollify the tyrannical, illegitimate Iranian regime at the expense of these pro-democracy activists would be a tragic mistake. I call on the Iraqi government to ensure the protection that these exiles were promised and to which they are entitled under international law.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, Senator Bob Menendez gave an important speech last Thursday, December 10, opposing concessions to the dictatorship of Cuba. In his speech Senator Menendez read out loud an open letter which had been sent by one of Cuba's true heroes--a giant of the resistance to the Cuban tyranny--Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez,'' here photographed with his wife, Yris Perez Aguilera, a letter to the titular Cuban dictator, Raul Castro, on Tuesday, December 8. ``Mr. Raul Castro,'' Antunez wrote, ``for months now my wife Yris Tamara Perez Aguilera and I have been kept in extrajudicial house arrest by your political police. Mr. Dictator, let me ask you some questions that may help clarify some doubts for those fellow countrymen of mine who may at some point have had hope your government would reduce the repression or even carry out democratic openings. ``What do you feel when you incite or allow people who call themselves men to beat and drag through the streets women like Damaris Moya Portieles, Maria Diaz Rondon, Ana Alfonso Arteaga, Sara Marta Fonseca, Yris Perez and now more recently the blogger Yoani Sanchez? ``How can you sleep after your subordinates cruelly beat, more than once, Idania Yanez Contreras while she was pregnant? ``How can you and your government talk about the battle of ideas, when ideas constantly face repression with beatings and arrests and years of imprisonment? ``Maybe your followers will not dare respond, but I who am in the long list of those who do not fear you, will answer: ``You act like that because you are a cruel man, insensitive to the pain and suffering of others; because, loyal to your anti-democratic and dictatorial vocation, you are convinced that dictatorships such as yours can only sustain themselves by fear and torture, and that even the most minimal of openings can end the only thing that interests you: staying in power. ``And finally, speaking of my case in particular, I will respond to you without the need to first ask of you the motives for such focused repression against my person.'' Antunez, by the way, Madam Speaker, now 45 years old, was a political prisoner for 17 years until 2007. He continued to write, ``Your government and its lackey-repressive forces cannot forgive my two great and only crimes. First, that for almost two decades of torture and cruelties during my unjust and severe imprisonment, you were not able to break my dignity and my position as a political prisoner. Second, because despite all the violence and harassment--and above all the risk of returning to prison--I have decided to not abandon my country, where I will continue fighting for a change I believe to be as necessary as it is inevitable.'' Signed, in the City of Placetas, by Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez'', Tuesday, December 8. On Friday, December 11, Antunez and his wife, Yris Perez Aguilera, she is a heroine, were violently arrested. The doctrine of Fidel Castro's hero Adolf Hitler was again devoutly followed: ``The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.'' ``This is kidnapping,'' yelled Yris. ``Long live human rights,'' shouted Antunez as they were being beaten and taken away by the Castros' political police on Friday. I condemn the brutal arrest of these two heroes by the Castros' cowardly thugs. The days of the Castros' racist totalitarian tyranny in Cuba are coming to an end. Those who have collaborated with the violence and brutality of the racist regime will face justice and eternal shame. Antunez, Yris Perez Aguilera, her brother, Mario Perez Aguilera, Oscar Elias Biscet, Darsi Ferrer and many other heroic political prisoners of Cuba will be elected the leaders of free Cuba. That change is as necessary as it is inevitable. Because of heroes like Antunez and Yris Perez Aguilera, the day of freedom in Cuba is approaching.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The underlying legislation of H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009, extends for 1 year a number of noncontroversial, temporary tax- relief provisions that are set to expire at the end of this year. These provisions will benefit individual taxpayers, students, teachers, small businesses, and other companies that invest in research and development. While I support these temporary tax-relief extensions, I believe that these tax provisions should be made permanent, or that at the very least they should be extended for more than 1 year. For example, the bill includes a 1-year extension of the sales tax deduction. This provision is very important in Florida, the State that I'm honored to represent, because without this deduction, Floridians would end up paying significantly more taxes to the Federal Government than the taxpayers with similar profiles in different States. These year-to-year extensions, while better than no extension, fail to provide the predictability and the certainty that small businesses and families need to plan their budgets. Leaving these important tax- relief provisions to the last minute, also, I believe, is most unfortunate. It unnecessarily places an additional burden on families and small businesses that are already struggling in this economy. I also oppose the inclusion in this legislation of a permanent tax to pay for temporary tax relief. The bill would raise the tax rate on investment gains received from an investment services partnership interest, which is currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent, to a rate as high as 35 percent at the end of 2010, and then the tax will rise to 39 percent. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this is a tax on Wall Street venture funds; but as our friend, Congressman Kevin Brady, explained last night when he testified before the Rules Committee, about half of that tax will be paid by real estate partnerships that build apartments, homes and shopping centers in our communities. Those real estate partnerships invest in new infrastructure in our communities and they help create jobs in the construction industry. Yet once this tax hits those partnerships, they may very well reconsider their investment decisions and abandon their partnerships for other investments, further hurting our communities and hampering possible economic recovery. The construction industry has been hit very hard, Mr. Speaker, in the community that I am honored to represent, and too many jobs have been lost. What we need to be doing is providing incentives for job growth and investment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, we are doing the opposite with this legislation. During his first inaugural address, President Reagan said, It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work, work for us, not over us, stand by our side, not right on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. The legislation being brought to the floor today will not do what President Reagan said we need to do. With unemployment at 10 percent and an economy struggling to recover, this is not the time to raise taxes, particularly a tax on capital investments that help create jobs. This new tax will discourage the entrepreneurial risk-taking that our economy desperately needs right now in order to create new jobs. Mr. Speaker, for centuries the United States prospered because we have been the safest place in the world to invest. It was good for business to invest in the United States, to create new businesses, in other words, to create jobs in the United States. We are moving away from that philosophy that made this country the most prosperous Nation in the history of the world. Because of that, our economy will continue to suffer. We are moving away from that. Just yesterday the President, for example, called for increased capital investments in small businesses. Yet here we are today, ironically, increasing taxes on capital investments that could help small businesses grow and provide them the capital to hire new workers. During yesterday's Rules Committee hearing, we heard testimony from my friend and distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Cao) regarding a proposed amendment that he wished to have the House debate today. His amendment would extend the time for making low-income housing credit allocations under the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act by 2 years. According to Mr. Cao, this extension is needed to preserve the availability of financing for affordable housing projects in the Gulf States. This amendment is just another example of Mr. Cao's thoughtful efforts continuously on behalf of his constituents. Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee decided that once again they would block all amendments from consideration, including Mr. Cao's, as well as amendments submitted for consideration by Mr. Brady, Mr. Reichert and Mr. Geoff Davis of Kentucky. It's unfortunate the majority continuously closes down the process and blocks consideration of amendments. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they campaigned on the promise of openness. They said they would open this process as it had never before been opened, that there would be a transparency that had never before been seen; and what we have seen is exactly the opposite. They have closed the process like never before. The majority should have allowed consideration of all the amendments to the legislation that were submitted before the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Louisiana, an extraordinarily thoughtful member of this House, Mr. Cao.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we believe, as the overwhelming majority of Americans do, that Members of Congress should have the ability to read bills before they vote on them. It shouldn't be an issue, frankly, because the majority and the distinguished Speaker during the campaign, the political campaign, said that they would have the most open Congress in history and that Members would have at least, should have at least, 24 hours to examine bills before those bills are considered on the floor. But that hasn't been the case. I remember in the Rules Committee one early morning at 3 a.m. we were handed a 900-page amendment, called the manager's amendment, to energy legislation, the so-called cap-and-trade legislation that we considered a few hours later, just a few hours later here on the floor of the House. No one had any opportunity to vote on that legislation. And then we had similar situations with very significant and extensive pieces of legislation. So the American people were, I think, rightfully so, outraged when they saw those examples of very important and extensive pieces of legislation being brought to the floor without Members of Congress being able to even read them. And they should really be posted online so that not only Members of Congress but the American people in general could read them. That's why legislation has been filed by a bipartisan group of 182 Members that have signed right there, right at that desk in front of you, Mr. Speaker, a discharge petition, it's called. They go up there and they sign. I signed. 182 Members have signed the discharge petition to bring to the floor legislation saying that Members should have 3 days, that there should be 72 hours, once it's filed, before legislation is brought to a vote on the floor. So that's why I am asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so that we can consider that legislation that 182 Members have gone to the desk there and signed, bipartisan legislation by Congressmen Baird and Culberson. It would not interrupt this legislation that is being brought to the floor at this time, the tax extenders legislation, because if the motion passes, the motion I'm making, it provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days. So we could vote on the tax extender bill and then, once we have done that, consider that legislation requiring the 72-hour timeframe for Members to be able to study legislation and, quite frankly, for the American people to read legislation before it's voted on. 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.