Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Miami-Dade College on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Since opening its doors in 1960, it has served as an exemplary institution of higher learning for the residents of Miami- Dade County. A leader among Florida's institutions, it became the first integrated junior college giving students of all races and ethnicities the opportunity to seek a higher education. Since implementing these policies, it has maintained its commitment to diversity, boasting a student population hailing from 178 countries. Miami-Dade College's diversity extends to its broad areas of studies offering more than 300 major areas of study and a variety of degrees. Offering students associate, bachelor's degrees, and short term certificates, the Miami-Dade College has the largest enrollment of any college or university in the United States, and has awarded more associate degrees than any other college. Miami-Dade College also stands out by offering an affordable, comprehensive, education to individuals of all incomes as well as backgrounds. Thirty-nine percent of its student body, lives below the Federal poverty level and 61 are defined as low income. Speaking to Miami-Dade College's commitment to students in low-income families, it currently receives the highest number of Pell Grant awards. South Florida, which, I am honored to represent, owes a debt to Miami-Dade College for providing quality affordable education to our community. It is an honor to represent Miami-Dade College and again I congratulate it on its 50th anniversary.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam 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. I would like to take a minute first to thank Cesar Gonzalez. He is my rules associate, general counsel, legislative director. This is the last rule we are going to be working on together. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, who is aware of Cesar's talent, has made what I consider a very wise decision in hiring Cesar as his chief of staff. So we are not going to be working on rules together, but we will always be friends. And I am deeply grateful for his friendship and for the extraordinary assistance that he has given to me and our office and our constituents during all of the time that he has honored us by working with us. So Cesar, thank you. Madam Speaker, yesterday the majority brought to this floor the first fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill. I know it's almost August, but that's the case. The first appropriations bill was brought to the floor yesterday by the majority. And they brought it forth under a restrictive process that blocks Members on both sides of the aisle from introducing amendments. And today the majority continues that process, that unfortunate process, with yet another restrictive rule, this time on the second appropriations bill that they are bringing to the floor, the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. And they bring it forth with a rule that allows 24 of the 108 amendments that were submitted to be debated. That's 22 percent of the amendments submitted. As you know, Madam Speaker, that used to not be the case. Always throughout the history of the Republic, appropriations bills have been brought forth under open rules. And you know, Madam Speaker, we have been here for some years now, sometimes the process of debate on appropriations bills got unruly and long and frustrating. But that's the way democracy's supposed to work. So the way that for centuries we've worked out that process, Congress has worked out that process, is that, you know, the chairman and the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on the floor, after a while, after days, they come together with a unanimous consent agreement and they limit debate. The Congress, we limit debate by unanimous consent. That's the way it's worked out. You know, you don't close the process at the beginning--at least we didn't before. Starting last year, this majority decided to, however. And that's unfortunate. Now, under the traditional process that was followed since the beginning of the Republic, no one from the majority leadership or the Rules Committee got to pick and choose what amendments the House could debate on appropriations bills as long as they were germane. In other words, as long as they were connected, the issue was connected to the bill at hand. Now, that's what an open rule is, an open process. And as I say, it's been the tradition of the Congress of the United States to debate appropriations bills under an open process, under open rules. I outline what an open rule is because it's been so long since the House has considered an open rule. And I am sorry for our new Members, because they have never experienced an open rule. But that's why I outlined what an open rule process is. The last time we saw one on an appropriations bill was July 31, 2007, almost exactly 3 years ago to the day. Even on that bill the majority then came back and closed the process. But at least they initially came to the floor with an open rule 3 years ago on an appropriations bill. For a nonappropriations bill, February 8, 2007, the month after they took the majority. That was their last open rule, the last open rule that this majority permitted to the Membership in this Congress. You know, that's sad. But especially it's unnecessary. But there is extraordinary power in the majority, obviously, and our friends on the majority side are showing us every day. They exercise that power. You know, it's a record that no one should be proud of, but it is the legacy of this majority. Now, what is the reason for the majority to use such a restrictive process? Last year they told us that it was to curb the consideration of amendments in order to move the process forward in a timely manner because they wanted to avoid an omnibus appropriations bill, but they didn't. We still had an omnibus appropriations bill and it was 2 weeks before Christmas. As I said last year, as I said yesterday, as I say now, this process is unjust and it's unnecessary. It was a mistake last year. It was a mistake yesterday. It's a mistake today. It's a colossal mistake that the majority will come to regret. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the Republican whip.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It's my privilege, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Georgia, my classmate--it's amazing how the years have passed--John Linder.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the great leader from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the great leader from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to my friend from the Rules Committee, the leader from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my dear friend from California, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend from New York once again for his courtesy. I think this has been a good debate. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, the Congressional Budget Office released a report titled ``Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis.'' The report sounded an alarm on the Federal Government's out- of-control debt and the consequences if we fail to address the debt. It said, ``Growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels.'' And we are seeing in other countries in the world that this is not a theoretical problem. I mean, this is a very serious, practical problem that can devastate countries and truly hurt people. And so we have to realize that as a Nation we have to change course. I know that is going to require bipartisanship, and I hope that we see it soon, but we're not seeing it yet, and it's very worrisome. On the contrary, the path we are on is, as the Congressional Budget Office has said, not supportable. So one way to help reign in Federal spending--and of course none of this is going to be pleasant, but it's necessary, and I know that action that's required is approaching because it is necessary--but one way is to cut spending that is not absolutely necessary, that can be considered wasteful. Over the last week, participants in Minority Whip Cantor's YouCut initiative voted on programs for us to bring to this floor for cutting. To date, participants in that program have voted to cut $120 billion in spending. This week, the participants in that program voted to cut the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit program. That program allows eligible taxpayers to receive a portion of their earned income tax throughout the year in their paychecks. There was a recent audit of the program that found that 80 percent of the recipients did not comply with at least one program requirement, another 20 percent had invalid Social Security numbers and thus may not have been eligible for the credit, and 40 percent failed to file the annual tax return required to reconcile the credit. Suffice it to say that, as a result, the program is susceptible to waste and abuse, and cutting it would save more than $1 billion. So I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a vote on that issue, on cutting the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit program. I would like to remind the membership that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not preclude consideration of the underlying legislation before us today, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. 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. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Maine, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Each year Congress undertakes its duty to fund the government through what is commonly known as the appropriations process. The appropriations process usually begins with the consideration of a budget. The budget sets the parameters of congressional spending for the upcoming year, allowing the Appropriations Committee to begin assembling the 12 appropriations bills. But for the first time since the Congressional Budget Act was passed in 1974, the House of Representatives has failed to even vote on a budget because of what some suspect may be an attempt by the majority to protect their Members from a vote that would increase what are already record budget deficits. Yet the dysfunction does not end with the majority's abandonment of one of the most basic duties of governing. It continues today with the consideration of the first appropriations bill, the Fiscal Year 2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. It says, ``No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of the appropriations made by law; and a regular statement of account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.'' The Congress' constitutional obligation under Article I, section 9, clause 7 has traditionally manifested itself in an open appropriations process. That process allows every Member of the House to propose any amendments--any amendments that are germane--to the 12 appropriations bills. That's the way it's been done, certainly since I've been here, and I know for decades and decades and generations before. Yet, last year the majority decided to close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills. I came to the floor to oppose that procedure last year, and I stated that I felt that the majority's decision to block debate on amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle was unnecessary and it was unfair, unjust. I thought it was a mistake. I said the majority would come to regret that mistake. Today, on the very first appropriations bill of this year, the majority has once again decided to close down the appropriations process, and that's unfortunate. Last year we were told that the majority was taking this unprecedented step in order to move the appropriations bills to the Senate so that Congress could avoid an omnibus appropriations bill. What happened was just the opposite. Despite the fact that the Military Construction-VA bill did in fact pass both the House and the Senate, the Democratic leadership never allowed the bill to go to conference, and instead that MILCON-VA appropriations bill was wrapped up in an omnibus appropriations bill-- contrary to the reasoning that had been given by the majority. So what is this year's reason? I believe that it is so that the majority can again use a restrictive process on appropriations bills so the leadership, the majority leadership, has the ability to pick and choose which amendments the House will consider. Although I strenuously disagree with the manner in which the majority leadership has decided to close the appropriations process once again, and in this case it has allowed only 14 out of 35 amendments, I do wish to congratulate my friends, Chairman Chet Edwards, Ranking Member Zach Wamp and Mr. Crenshaw for their bipartisan work on the underlying legislation that is undoubtedly very important. We owe our military veterans and their families an extraordinary debt of gratitude for their service and their sacrifices as a people, not just as a Congress. I think we have to ensure that our veterans and their families, who bear sacrifices and hardships as well, receive all the benefits and assistance to which they are entitled and that they deserve. The underlying legislation that has been agreed to, it has been drafted in a fair and bipartisan manner, provides crucial funding for military construction and for housing, for quality-of-life projects for our troops and their families. The legislation includes a total of $141.1 billion in both mandatory and discretionary funding for these agencies. Of this, approximately $120 billion is dedicated to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The underlying legislation continues our commitment to the brave men and women who sacrifice so much to keep the Nation safe, supporting our servicemembers on base, deployed abroad, and to care for them when they come home. The Pentagon recognized two important projects to south Florida, which were included in the President's budget and received funding in the underlying legislation. This legislation provides $41 million to construct a permanent headquarters for Special Operations Command South. Currently Special Operations Command South is headquartered at Homestead Air Force Reserve Base. Headquarters personnel are supported by temporary, leased trailers. The trailers were not intended to support the headquarters mission beyond 3 years, and they require significant repairs for continued use. The project in this legislation will consist of a command and control building with a secure compartmentalized information facility, sensitive items storage, standby generator, and general purpose administrative areas. It will include anti-terrorism measures to protect military personnel stationed there and will be able to withstand--and this is very important--a category 5 hurricane. And, Mr. Speaker, as you know in Homestead, we had a category 5 hurricane the year I was elected to Congress. Hopefully we won't see that again. But it's important that this facility be able to withstand such force. I am pleased that this legislation also includes funding for construction of a new commissary to be located at the Southern Command Headquarters in Doral, in the congressional district that I am honored to represent. Construction of this commissary will greatly benefit the over 13,000 military personnel and retirees within 20 miles of SOUTHCOM and the thousands more beyond. It will greatly reduce the high cost of living in south Florida for these men and women, and it will improve their quality of life. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, Mr. Buyer from Indiana.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier from California. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a brilliant new Member of this House from Hawaii (Mr. Djou).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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.