Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Thanking my friend Mr. Arcuri for his courtesy, 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. 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 would like to thank my friend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for the time. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Eight years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Republican-led Congress passed legislation that provided over $1.3 trillion in tax relief by, among others, gradually increasing the exemption for the estate tax while decreasing the tax rate itself. As part of that legislation, the estate tax, also known as the death tax, is set to disappear next year. The underlying bill would undo the repeal of the death tax and instead bring back the tax, extend the estate tax rate of 45 percent, and include an unindexed exemption. I believe these are excessively high rates of taxation, especially when we realize that the tax is imposed at the end of a lifetime of work on which taxes were paid throughout the stages in which income was made. It is wrong, I believe, to tax individuals who have spent their entire lives working to provide their families with some financial security, and so that's why I oppose the underlying legislation. This double taxation, which is really what we're talking about today, I believe is destructive to family-owned businesses and farms, which are often torn apart or need to be liquidated entirely just to pay those burdensome taxes at the time of death. Americans who work hard and pay taxes all of their lives I don't think should be punished for responsibly saving with yet another tax when they pass away. When the country has double-digit unemployment, the current majority in Congress is threatening small businesses, the engines of economic growth and job creation in the Nation, with even higher tax burdens. Small businesses are often struggling to survive, to meet payroll and avoid layoffs, and yet this is another example, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that the majority time and time again is proposing legislation that hampers the ability of small businesses to thrive and to hire new workers. It's unfortunate that the majority feels that they can continuously impact, hit small businesses with tax after tax and expect them to survive and thrive and retain their workers. That's not the way the economy works. Even if small business owners do not receive an estate tax bill, they still spend resources on estate tax compliance. According to a recent survey of small and medium-sized manufacturers, those small businesses spend an average of $94,000 on fees and estate planning costs in preparation for an estate tax bill. Imagine what a small business, Mr. Speaker, could do with that money. They could invest it in their company to grow their business. They could add more workers. Instead, the majority prefers placing more and more burdens. And this is but one example, the legislation being brought forth to the floor today, of the majority's incessant endeavor to place more and more burdens on the engines of our economic growth. Small businesses are responsible for 60 to 80 percent of all new net jobs that were created in the last decade. If the majority continues with their current policies, if they continue on this track of placing more and more burdens on small business, the unemployment rate is going to continue to rise. I think what we should be doing is everything possible to lower unemployment, to spur investment and job growth. That's where we should be heading. So I believe what we should be doing is extending the repeal of the death tax. And many of us in this Congress, especially on this side of the aisle, we feel very strongly on this issue. Short of passing the permanent repeal, which I support, at the very least I think we should enact legislation that sets a reasonable rate, provides an appropriate exemption amount, and indexes that amount for inflation. We already saw with the alternative minimum tax what not indexing is capable of doing when Congress acts in that manner. So, unfortunately, the bill does nothing of what I just said, a reasonable rate and indexing an exemption amount. Yet we on our side of the aisle will not be able to have a debate on legislation, on a proposal to do just that, to index an exemption amount and set a reasonable rate indefinitely into the future. We won't be able to do that because the majority again is closing down the process, shutting down debate. They promised to do quite the opposite, as you know, Mr. Speaker. So let's contrast what the current majority is doing today with the estate tax rule that we passed when we were in the majority. That rule allowed our distinguished colleague Mr. Pomeroy to offer his substitute amendment. Today we in the minority will be treated much differently. We will not be given the opportunity that we gave the current majority and Mr. Pomeroy. We will not be allowed to debate our substitute proposal. We will not be afforded a vote on our alternative legislation. The difference in treatment is not an isolated incident but the standard operating procedure for this majority. They continuously close down the process. They shut out Members from both sides of the aisle from being able to introduce and have debated their amendments, and I think it is unfortunate. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), my distinguished friend and colleague from the Rules Committee.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 30 more seconds.

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 yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend from Texas, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade ranking member, Mr. Brady.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my dear friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the courtesy, and my friend, Mr. Polis, for his courtesy and all those who have participated in this debate. And I think the essence of the contrast of ideas that has been shown today is that we on this side of the aisle believe that we should be focused like a laser on job creation. I think Mr. Hensarling said it very well, Will this legislation create jobs? We don't think so. As a matter of fact, we are convinced that it will continue to take the country in the wrong direction with regard to employment. Unemployment continues to rise, and the majority brings more regulation, more taxes, and further stifles small business at a time when we should be encouraging jobs. Mr. Speaker, we believe, as the overwhelming majority of the American people do, that Members should have the ability to read bills before they vote on them. It really shouldn't be an issue because that was promised by the distinguished Speaker during the campaign when the majority was campaigning to take the majority. And even on her Web site, you'll read Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills before floor consideration. But that hasn't been the case. I remember when the Rules Committee-- at 3 in the morning we were handed a 900-page amendment to the so- called cap-and-trade energy legislation that we had to vote on simply hours afterward. And the American people were rightfully outraged about examples such as that. That's why there's legislation that's been filed by a bipartisan group that has 182 Members that have signed, right up there, right in front of you, Mr. Speaker, a discharge petition to have legislation brought to the floor requiring at least 72 hours before the legislation has to be voted on by this House. So that's why today I'm asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can consider that legislation, bipartisan legislation by Congressmen Baird and Culberson. It's not going to interrupt the death tax debate, the estate tax bill, because if the motion passes, the motion I'm making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days. So we can vote on the estate tax bill and then, once we're done, consider that legislation requiring the 72 hours. 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. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a leader in my community, Miami-Dade County Police Department Director Bobby Parker. After serving honorably in the Army, Director Parker joined the Miami-Dade Police Department in 1976 and worked his way up the ranks, culminating in his promotion to director in April, 2004. The Miami-Dade Police Department is the eighth-largest in the Nation, with over 4,700 personnel, serving almost 2.5 million residents and countless visitors to our community. Under Director Parker's leadership, the department has been at the forefront of effective law enforcement, and he's implemented numerous programs that have had a major effect in ensuring the safety and quality of life of our citizens. Director Parker retired from the department earlier this month. His leadership and vision will be sorely missed, but his standard of excellence will surely carry on. On behalf of a grateful community, I wish to thank Director Parker for his outstanding service and wish him well in his future endeavors. May you long enjoy your retirement with family and friends, Director Bobby Parker.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, the international press, including almost all the press in the United States, continues to ignore the suffering of the oppressed people of Cuba. Yes, there are exceptions, such as the National Review's Jay Nordlinger, the premier defender of human rights in the American press, or The Miami Herald's Juan Tamayo or Wilfredo Cancio, and occasionally there are other dignified exceptions. But the almost totality of the U.S. press systematically ignores what goes on in Cuba. Despite 50 years of tyranny there, despite Cuba being 90 miles from our shores, despite hundreds of prisoners of conscience languishing in dungeons simply because of their peaceful advocacy for freedoms, including freedom of the press, which should not be denied to any people, and thousands of others imprisoned for crimes which are only illegal in the totalitarian fiefdom of a demented despot--crimes like ``dangerousness'' or ``illegally attempting to leave the country''--the press continues to ignore the reality of Cuba. Their irresponsibility in doing so is absolutely indefensible. Jewish friends have told me that they understand what I'm talking about when I refer to the concept of the nonperson. For countless generations, for 1,800 years, Jews were subject to exile, to pogroms, persecution, discrimination. And their suffering was ignored in countries throughout the world. They were nonpersons. When their suffering was not ignored it was often minimized or ridiculed. Jews know that the recovery of their homeland, the establishment of their state in 1948 was absolutely necessary. That was the only way to guarantee the end of the nonperson status, to guarantee an end to pogroms, to discrimination, to persecution. Cubans have been stateless nonpersons for over 51 years. Their suffering is systematically ignored. Their unity of purpose is continuously questioned or ridiculed. Even the torture of their heroes, of the heroic political prisoners, is ignored. Martha Beatriz Roque, a respected economist, leading Cuban dissident and former political prisoner who was only released from prison so that she would not die due to her many illnesses in prison and embarrass Castro, she is close to death in Havana due to complications arising from a hunger strike that she's engaged in. Dozens of other brave dissidents are also on hunger strikes in the home of one of Cuba's other extremely respected pro-democracy leaders, Vladimiro Roca. Cubans, unlike the Jews, have not yet recovered their state. They will. But they haven't yet. I ask the press, Madam Speaker, the media to please cease treating Cuba's pro-democracy activists as though they didn't exist. Stop treating Martha Beatriz Roque as a nonperson. Why do you continue to absolutely ignore Cuba's brave prisoners of conscience? Why don't you at least write about the elderly prisoners of conscience in Cuba, such as Hector Maseda Gutierrez or Arnaldo Ramos Lauzurique, or about the severely handicapped prisoners of conscience such as Miguel Galvan Gutierrez, or most especially about the gravely ill Cuban prisoners of conscience in the gulag such as Ariel Sigler or Normando Hernandez or Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, or Dr. Alfredo Pulido Lopez, or Pedro Arguelles Moran? Members of the press, have you no conscience? Do not continue to treat the suffering oppressed people of Cuba and their heroes as nonpersons. Please, do your duty.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Congress needs to make reforms to expand health care coverage so that everyone in this great Nation has health insurance. The problem with the legislation the majority is bringing to the floor today is that it will seriously and unnecessarily hurt our economy. It will cause severe job losses, and that's most unfortunate. The Republican alternative has some very good aspects. It will expand health care coverage to millions who currently do not have it, and it does not include the fatal flaw in the Democrats' bill--massive tax increases on small businesses; tax increases and regulations that will kill jobs. The Republican alternative allows small businesses to pool together, allows people to buy insurance across State lines. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it actually brings down the cost of health care premiums. The Democrats' bill will raise taxes, according to the CBO by over $700 billion and cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. It will make much worse our economic situation, increase unemployment, take the country in the wrong direction at a time when unemployment is already over 10 percent. Especially, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that there is a bipartisan consensus in this Nation on the need to increase access to health insurance to those who do not have it today, it is sad that this destructive legislative product is being brought to the floor.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for the time. In 2006, Mr. Speaker, as part of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security the authority to promulgate risk-based security performance standards for chemical facilities that use or store chemicals. I am glad that Mr. Lungren of California is here, because he was intimately involved with the legislation that ultimately became law. The DHS subsequently issued the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), requiring chemical facilities to report the types and amounts of chemicals housed on sites. The legislative authority for CFATS was scheduled to sunset this year in October. The underlying bill, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, makes permanent the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to regulate security at chemical plants. I believe it's important to address the sunsetting of the existing CFATS program at the Department of Homeland Security. However, I have concerns that this bill fails to enhance our security and, at a time when we are facing 10 percent unemployment, perhaps even higher unemployment in the future, that it could endanger economic recovery. Of particular concern is the IST, the inherently safer technology, provisions included in this legislation. IST allows the Federal Government to mandate the use of certain chemicals and technologies regardless of the efficiency and effectiveness of the IST. This was all the more worrisome when a witness from the Department of Homeland Security testified that the Department employs no specialists with IST expertise and that there is no future funding planned. Now, I first learned how IST may hurt job creation and how, in fact, it may increase unemployment from a small business in my district, Allied Universal Corporation, that operates a chemical manufacturing facility. I was informed that the IST is an attempt by the Federal Government to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to a complicated and disparate sector of our economy. It will cost Allied alone, this corporation that employs people in my community, hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and in staff time alone. It is not a good use of resources. It has no tangible benefit as manufacturing struggles to survive in this economy. Furthermore, the underlying bill reduces existing protections on information regarding chemical facilities, and it reduces the penalties for the disclosure of security information. These regulations that we are talking about today were thoughtfully included following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The primary responsibility, Mr. Speaker, of our government is to protect the citizenry. By making chemical facilities less secure, we endanger the security of our neighborhoods and of our communities. By easing penalties for unlawfully disclosing sensitive information, we increase our vulnerability. To make matters worse, the majority includes these provisions in a bill that is supposed to help prevent attacks. As I said before, I am glad Mr. Lungren is here. He can explain the process by which the current regulations came into being, the amount of discussion, negotiation, and consensus that led to those regulations coming into effect, and really how unfortunate now this attempt at an imposition of further or different regulations is. Mr. Speaker, later this week the Congress is expected to consider health care bills. I would like to take this moment to compare today's rule on the chemical facility bill with the rule expected on the health care bills. Today's rule allows 10 amendments, five from the majority and five from the minority, on a bill that costs approximately $900 million. Although the rule is not open, it's important to admit that the rule allows some debate on the underlying issues. The rule expected later this week on the health care legislation will probably include an amendment written by the Speaker. Perhaps that's the only amendment that will be allowed. We'll see. And that bill spends about $1.3 trillion, I believe. It seems that the more money Congress spends, the more likely we seem to have a closed debate process. And that, I believe, is contrary to the way the majority promised to run this House. On the opening day of the 110th Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee came to the floor and said that the new majority would ``begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge was echoed in a document written by the distinguished Speaker called a New Direction for America, where she stated, and, by the way, the statement is still on her Web site: ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.'' After contrasting today's rule with the expected health care rule in a few days, today's rule might look fair, but really it's not. It blocks amendments from both sides of the aisle from receiving a full and fair debate on the House floor that was, as I pointed out, promised by the Speaker. During the hearing in the Rules Committee, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, made a motion to allow an open rule on this legislation that's being brought to the floor; in other words, a rule that would allow all Members the ability to offer any amendment for a vote by the full House. If the Rules Committee had approved the motion, it would have been their first open rule this Congress. Unfortunately, the motion was voted down by a majority on the Rules Committee. The majority used to criticize us when we were in the majority for not allowing more open rules. They have offered none. This rule that is bringing the underlying legislation to the floor today also gives the majority the authority to allow consideration of bills under suspension of the rules until Saturday. Suspension bills, as you know, Mr. Speaker, are usually noncontroversial bills, but the suspension authority has in the past been used to pass bills with obviously minimal debate and sometimes as a way to block the minority from offering amendments or a motion to recommit. Now, in the past, a senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee referred to that process as ``outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business. It effectively curtails our responsibilities and rights as serious legislators.'' It's interesting how it's wrong when they're in the minority, but once they're in the majority, it's right. Allied Universal Corporation, Miami, FL, October 23, 2009. Re H.R. 2868. Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Diaz-Balart: My company is a small business as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. It operates a chemical manufacturing and distribution facility in your district (8350 NW 93 Street, Miami, FL). employing individuals and providing materials to a number of industries critical to our nation's and state's economy and public health. I am writing to express my opposition to H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act, which will be scheduled for a House floor vote within days. This legislation will make significant changes to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), which took effect just two and a half years ago. Security is a major priority for Allied Universal Corp. We are members of the Chlorine Institute and National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD). which requires our participation in the Responsible Distribution Process, an environmental, health. safety. and security management program. My company has spent substantial resources on security upgrades in recent years. and will continue to do so going forward under the current CFATS regulations. I do not embellish when I state that a significant amount of our company's capital budget and personnel time has been spent on security improvement projects. and will continue to be spent as Allied works to address the Department of Homeland Security's identified security risks for our facility. I am concerned that H.R. 2868 is too prescriptive and includes requirements that are not appropriate for all facilities. Security is very important, but a command and control type regulation would not benefit the nation let alone the thousands of businesses that must comply with the regulation. For example, the requirement to conduct an assessment of inherently safer technologies (1ST). or Methods to Reduce the Consequences of a Terrorist Attack, could easily cost my company hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and staff time. This is not a good use of resources for a chemical manufacturing and distribution facility like mine, which stocks products based on our customers' needs and operates on extremely tight margins. I am also concerned about other mandates in the bill and the fact that state and local measures are not preempted, which is critical for a national security program. No federal preemption would cause much confusion, not to mention additional staff time and resources that could otherwise be allocated to other pressing needs (i.e. one state may have stricter regulations, causing my company to allocate more resources to the facility in that state rather than say a facility in a state with less restrictions. but more significant security concerns or risks such as a high population area). Therefore, I urge you to oppose H.R 2868 unless the following changes are made: (1) All 1ST assessment and implementation mandates must be removed. (2) Specific requirements regarding drills, employee and union involvement in SVA and SSP development, and other areas must be removed. A Risk Based Performance Standards approach should be continued as in the current CFATS regulations. (3) The federal standards must preempt state and local requirements. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or would like more details on how H.R. 2868 would impact my company. Sincerely, Robert Namoff, Chairman of the Board. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as Dr. King said in my favorite of his speeches, longevity has its place. And in Congress we have some Members who have been here for many years. I would like to yield to one such distinguished Member who was here for many years, then left us but then returned, which is even more unusual. But he has the historical knowledge with regard to this legislation, which, by the way, was in this decade that he worked on and that led to the regulations that the majority seeks to amend drastically, change drastically today. I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished friend from California, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I recognize the gentleman for an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)