Mario Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, again, before I yield back, as Mr. Curbelo just mentioned, this is not an issue of travel. This is not an issue of the overriding policy. This is not an issue of even arguing whether President Obama has been a good negotiator or a horrible negotiator on anything. This is about whether we want to condone, permit, accept, in violation of everything that the United States stands for, the trafficking of stolen property, property illegally confiscated from American citizens. If you support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, you are supporting, you are condoning, you are assisting, you are helping trafficking and the profiting on property that was stolen from Americans. This cannot stand. This should not stand. I would respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I know the gentleman is very committed and has worked awfully hard. I look forward to working with him on this. Again, I know how passionate he is about this, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, the bill that is in front of us is a responsible bill that adheres to the budget caps set by law and passed by this body. We set priorities in this bill, and we made targeted cuts to overhead, salaries, expenses, and also duplicative programs, Mr. Chairman. Many programs are also held at last year's level or below. Again, we made some tough decisions. The problem is, when you are doing, frankly, an across-the-board cut with this amendment, it would have some, frankly--and I know it is well intentioned--it would have some harmful effects on the priorities set by the Members of this House. Again, we have cut programs, but based on hearings, on meetings, on discussions, and on careful reviews of, again, the budget justifications and also the audits. This amendment, and I know it is very well intentioned, would hit, for example, air traffic control operations and cause unnecessary flight delays. It could hurt our most vulnerable populations by, for example, affecting assistance to over 50,000 residents, including elderly and disabled populations. Now, I am not telling you that there are not areas that can be reduced. We have done that. As a matter of fact, we have been in debate, and we have heard a lot of debate about some people saying that we have done too much of that. But we have done so after hours and hours of deliberations, of talking, of conversations, of study, and of hearings. So, again, I know it is a well-intended amendment, and I am a huge admirer of the sponsor of this amendment, but I have to respectfully urge a ``no'' vote precisely because of the time we have spent to make the right reductions as opposed to across-the-board reductions. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I just want to once again repeat what I said a little while ago. I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work. It is evident that he spends the time and he does his homework. I am greatly appreciative of that. I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the Department of Transportation from making a Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing loan that exceeds $600 million, as the chairman said. Now, I know that $600 million, frankly, is a lot of money, and it sounds like a lot of money because it is; but when we are dealing with financing of railroad projects, it is just really not. This low loan ceiling is way too restrictive, and it would eliminate valuable projects, by the way, including some safety projects from being even considered for a loan. It has really far-reaching effects, and it could impact, frankly, every railroad entity in America. For example, there are railroads that are using this RRIF loan for positive train control--for positive train control. So, again, it is unduly restrictive. I think it could have some far- reaching, negative effects. So I would respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote. I cannot support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. All in Florida received a private activity bond allocation to issue these bonds. There is no provision in this particular section of U.S. Code that requires a passenger rail project to achieve 150 miles per hour. This amendment would prevent DOT from taking any potential further steps on this very, very important project. If for some reason, let's say the project needed a small extension, DOT could not process it. Now, the passenger rail line that would link Miami to Orlando, frankly, is an important project to the State of Florida and one that I fully support, Mr. Chairman. We have to remember it is being done by the private sector. So I don't think that we should be looking at creating any unnecessary restrictions, any barriers or uncertainty for this project as it moves forward. It is a project--potentially, I think, the first of its kind in the country--where you have the private sector assuming most, if not almost all, of the risk. You have the private sector who is going to be involved in it. The numbers can't be made up, cooked or anything, because it is the private sector who is doing this and who will ultimately be held accountable by their shareholders. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I will have to oppose this amendment. I am actually concerned about the potential unintended consequences of this amendment. We don't know all of the potential impacts of this amendment, from safety to capacity to, frankly, the effect on local economics. We have made in this bill an effort not to legislatively direct specific flight restrictions or flight paths. As you can well imagine, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of these issues out there, but we have made the decision to not do that. And again, we just don't know all of the potential unintended consequences, so I would respectfully have to urge a ``no'' vote. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of things that, by the way, you will notice, at very few times actually deal with language in the mark, the language in the bill. By the way, for example, that this is going to hurt American jobs. To argue, Mr. Chairman, that American companies will benefit from trafficking in stolen property that was stolen from American companies I think is probably the definition of an oxymoron, number one. Number two, there is a lot of obfuscation. The language in the bill doesn't say that Americans can't travel. The language says that they cannot use trafficking in, make a profit from, property that was stolen from Americans. Stolen from Americans. So I understand that the gentleman says that his property rights record is as good as any, but, Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill deals with a specific issue, and one specific issue alone: Should we condone, should we allow, should we permit, should we encourage the trafficking, the profiting from stolen property--property that was confiscated from Americans, whether there are certified claims or not. If you support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, you are saying it is okay for folks to traffic in property that was stolen from Americans, illegally stolen from Americans. I think, frankly, that is a sad day. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, just a couple things from the debate that we have heard. The sponsor of the amendment talked about that this may be a personal issue for some. Mr. Chairman, let me be very frank and very clear: this is not a personal issue. Let me also talk about what the language in the bill does that this amendment is trying to take out. It doesn't deal with the overriding issue of policy versus whether we like the President's policy or not. It deals with one specific issue and one specific issue only, Mr. Chairman: whether we should condone, whether we should approve, whether we should permit the trafficking of confiscated--in other words, stolen--property. When the gentleman from my side of the aisle said that, you know, this is an issue about traveling to other countries, when we travel to Russia, we should be able to do that, that is fine. But is he also saying, which is what this amendment says, that we should condone the use of stolen, confiscated property, property that was stolen and confiscated illegally from Americans? So if you support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, what you are saying is it is okay to do business on property that was stolen from Americans. Now, I can understand having differences of opinion on overall policy, but the language in the mark deals specifically with confiscated--in other words, stolen--properties from Americans. For the life of me, I would never understand how anybody can justify doing business on confiscated, stolen property and then try to obfuscate the issue talking about policy, which is not what is in the mark. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), a distinguished gentlewoman from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I also need to first recognize and thank the sponsor of the amendment. I am grateful that he is so vigilant as the Federal Government does have a tendency to overregulate and to, frankly, sometimes do so, I would say, irresponsibly. However, in this case, I have to oppose his amendment. We have seen some horrific accidents recently associated with crude oil, and I think most Americans would agree that we need to do what we can in a reasonable fashion to try to stop that from happening. While I am grateful for the sponsor of the amendment for always being vigilant on making sure the government doesn't overregulate, in this case, again, I respectfully have to oppose his amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield back the balance of my time.