Mario Diaz-Balart

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my vote on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for the Conference Report on S. Con. Res. 70, the Budget Resolution. I have always strongly supported the current ban and worked to protect Florida's beaches by helping to enact Public Law 109-432. With the energy needs our Nation is facing, other States may decide to explore for more energy sources and I support their right to drill off of their coasts if that is what they choose to do.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, last night, I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee and it was turned down. It was not even allowed to be brought up today, and it will not be brought up on this bill. And what is this amendment that the majority feared so much, that they won't even have it discussed on the floor of the House? It would have simply increased the property tax deduction for homeowners. Now, look, all of us in Florida have received calls, letters, faxes from constituents asking for relief from their property taxes. Now we all know that ad valorem taxes are not a Federal issue. We don't control property taxes, but there's something that we can do right now to help the American people and that is increasing this deduction for property taxes. We can do that right now. Is it that crazy? Well, no. On April 10 of 2008, 84 Senators from both sides of the aisle voted to do just this, to increase the deduction, to help people to be able to afford their mortgages. It would benefit everybody. It would benefit the economy, in particular all Americans who are struggling to pay their mortgages. You see, Madam Speaker, there is no good reason to not allow this commonsense amendment to be discussed, to be debated on the floor of the House. There's no good reason to not allow other commonsense amendments to be discussed. Why are people so scared, so afraid of just debating ideas on the floor of the House? Again, for that reason, Madam Speaker, I obviously will have to object to this rule.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Katie Edwards who will be inducted into the Dade County Farm Bureau's distinguished Hall of Fame on Saturday April 26, 2008. For more than four years, Katie has served as the Executive Director of the Dade County Farm Bureau. In that capacity, she has been a solid and steady voice advocating for the more than 4,000 members she represents. Under Katie's exceptional leadership, the Dade County Farm Bureau received the President's Award from the Florida Farm Bureau Federation in 2004 and 2007. Katie has focused her efforts on a variety of issues facing South Florida's diverse agricultural industry. She has consistently promoted and supported the economic viability of agriculture, the competitiveness for specialty crops, the need for agricultural disaster following numerous hurricanes, and increased funding for mitigating the risks associated with invasive pests and diseases. This fall, Katie will start law school at Florida International University, where she plans to stay true to her passion and concentrate on agricultural law. Though her shoes will be difficult to fill, I know she has a made a lasting impact on the Dade County Farm Bureau. I urge all my colleagues to join me in congratulating Katie Edwards on her induction into the Hall of Fame.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for your steadfast leadership on this issue, your leadership is really common sense to a system, a city that is, frankly, broken. Washington is broken. You know, there are so many, many examples that we can show that Washington is, frankly, broken. It's stuck in this sort of like a perverse dance, frankly, of taking one step forward to help the taxpayer and 3 or 4 steps backwards in hurting the taxpayer. I would like to give you an example, just one of those examples that when the American people see what is going on here, of course, they say Washington is broken. Of course, they say that there is no common sense in Washington. Look, what are the good moments? One of the fine moments is when the economy starts slowing down, this Congress, on a bipartisan level, got together, and in a bipartisan level made the determination that the way to get the economy moving again was how, was how? It was to lower taxes. That debate took place, and it was very clear, on a bipartisan level, Congress decided, House and the other party, the other body, both parties to lower taxes in order to incentivize the economy. It was actually a good moment for this Congress. But then what happened just days after that? Just days after this Congress lowers taxes on the American people by $107 billion, because we understand that lowering taxes helps the economy, helps the American people, small businesses and families. Just days after that, the majority party comes to this floor with a budget that raises taxes, increases taxes by $683 billion over 5 years. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a mathematician to understand if everybody agrees, both parties, that lowering taxes by $103 billion is something that would help the economy, and that's what we did, doesn't it seem logical that days later coming back and passing a budget that increases taxes, not to the level of that, making up for that $103 billion, no, no, no, increases it by $683 billion over 5 years. Of course people look at Washington and say what are you guys thinking? Don't tell me that you are helping the economy by lowering taxes by $100 billion and then, days later, think that we are going to be surprised, we are not going to understand that you then propose raising almost $700 billion on the same taxpayer, that you are lowering taxes because it helps the economy. If there is an agreement, a bipartisan agreement, that lowering taxes by $100 billion helps the economy, which there is, is it that hard to understand that the flip side of that is that if you raise taxes by $700 billion it hurts the economy? Yet that's what this Congress did over the objections of those of us that are speaking here, and many others, but that's what the majority party did. So, again, why is it that Congress has the lowest number, frankly, approval rating since probably these things have been counted? Because they must think we are nuts, because they must think we are totally, absolutely, insane and crazy and have absolutely no idea what we are doing. Again, I may not be the smartest guy in the whole world, but it doesn't take the smartest guy in the whole world, as you know, to understand that if there is a bipartisan consensus that lowering taxes in a year, $100 billion helps the economy. There should be a consensus that raising taxes by $700 billion for 5 years would do just the opposite. Oh, no, because our desire, the majority's desire to just tax and spend and tax and spend, just, frankly, goes above and beyond any common sense, any logic, any sense of reality. I just want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for your leadership, because you have not stopped fighting for the taxpayer, for the small family, for families, for small businesses, for farmers, for the people, real life, not D.C. D.C. is broken. Again, thank you for your common sense. Thank you for your fight for the taxpayer. I also need to add to that. One of the people that I frankly most admire in this process is Congressman Ryan of Wisconsin, who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee, who understands the budget better than, frankly, anybody else, and who has taught me so, so much. Mr. Conaway brings to this process something that is so greatly needed, which is common sense. I thank the three of you. Look again, yes, frankly the American people have reason to be skeptical, when they see that we lower taxes on one side because we say it's in a healthy economy, and then, days later, the majority raises taxes way above that and pretends that it's not going to have an effect, hoping that people will not learn the truth. But the problem is that that truth is out there, and people's pocketbooks are going to be hit really, really hard.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank the gentleman. If I may?

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Frankly, that was one of the saddest days that I have experienced in this process, because, you know, there is so much rhetoric that's thrown around here. We hear the rhetoric, that, oh, no, these are tax cuts on the wealthy. Then you and others came up with a specific amendment to say, no, no, let's just talk about the issue. Let's take rhetoric off the table for a second. Let's not be partisan. Let's just look at the issue. Let's see if there is something that we can agree on. Those amendments were brought to the committee. Those amendments were, as you just mentioned, the per child tax credit, and then we kept hearing, but those are tax cuts on the wealthy. I remember the argument and the discussion, again, not only the wealthy get married. Tax cuts, remember the 10 percent bracket.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Individuals that are the working poor that now earn so little that they don't pay Federal income tax, and they should not, are now going to be required to start paying Federal income taxes. But they say those are tax cuts on the wealthy. It's not the wealthy. When you cut to the chase, you get the most smoke and mirrors, and we were able to bring these individual amendments to the committee. The sad part, the reason I say that was really sad, is because those amendments are defeated on a partisan vote, on a partisan vote, amendments to keep the taxes low. If you have children, amendments to make sure that people who are working poor, that have a hard time paying for gasoline and paying for groceries and don't pay Federal income tax, because they are so poor right now, still don't have to pay them. They voted against those amendments. There is a reason why people are skeptical and people don't believe what comes out of Washington. Frankly, they have a very good reason to have that attitude.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I agree, and I will conclude.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. This is just not that complicated. The question is: Is government here to help serve the people? Or are the people here on this planet and in this country to help fund government exclusively? And that is the battle. We hear that time and time again when we try to reduce taxes on working people, working families, they say you are going to hurt government if you don't allow us to increase taxes. Hurt government? Excuse me, since when is the role of the government just to milk people as much as it possibly can. Again, there is a reason why the rankings of this Congress are the lowest they have ever been. I guess some think nobody is watching; and, therefore, we can say we support tax cuts and even sometimes file legislation, and then vote against amendments on the budget to lower taxes, the per child tax credit, the death penalty and the marriage penalty so you don't have to pay more just because you are married. Even the death tax. Quoting the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), as partisan as this process is, can we not at least agree that there should be no taxation without respiration? No, not in this process. In this process with the people in control now, they are going to milk the taxpayer and spend every penny, and when that is spent, they are going to look in the cushions of people's homes to see if there are loose quarters and take those as well because government knows best because there is no money we can't spent. And, frankly, the American people know better. They are wise. I thank all of you, particularly the gentlewoman from Tennessee for your leadership and bringing commonsense to this process.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. And I will try to see if I can make this answer understood. In the first place, obviously no country would benefit more from not having a nuclear Iran.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. If the gentleman will yield again, and I will try to answer it again. Your bill does not deal with Iraq. It does not affect Iraq. If you don't like the answer, that's one thing, but that's what the answer is.

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

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Not as it concerns with this bill.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. What I'm telling the gentleman--

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. You're asking if it's ``yes'' or ``no.'' The answer is ``no.''

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Will the gentleman yield for a one- word answer?

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Would the gentlemen yield?

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Iraq is not eligible under this bill.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit is frankly very simple. All it basically says is that countries that have business relationships with Iran are not eligible to be considered under this debt relief program. Let me repeat that. This motion to recommit is frankly very, very simple. It just states the following, that countries that have a business relationship with Iran are not eligible to be considered under this debt relief program. Now, the underlying bill in front of us today has a very noble goal, Madam Speaker. It is to work comprehensively to ensure that poor countries that have heavy international debt are able to relieve these debts through certain responsible actions. But the question is, should we separate these goals, these noble goals, from our broader foreign policy interests? The Iranian regime, we all know, has a very active program to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and therefore, it makes it one of the most dangerous regimes in the entire world. In addition, Madam Speaker, as we heard just recently, just last week from General Petraeus, we are increasingly concerned by the Iranian terrorist regime's efforts on behalf of terrorist elements in Iraq and elsewhere. The lives of our troops are at stake, and any country that assists Iran economically should not benefit from the bill in front of us today. Our country, obviously the United States, does not have diplomatic or financial ties to Iran, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that countries that choose to participate in our debt relief program should shatter whatever economic ties they currently have with that terrorist regime. And if they don't have them now, if they don't have those ties now, they clearly should not develop them as long as they want or expect debt relief from us through this program. Let's send the right message today, Madam Speaker. Americans are very generous and responsible in regard to the treatment of countries that owe us great debt. But we are also extremely concerned with the very dangerous actors abroad, around this world. So that's why, Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask to pass this motion to recommit today and make sure that our friends abroad appreciate how seriously we take this matter. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, your bill, as you know, specifically deals with countries that owe the United States right now. You're talking about a hypothetical, whether one country in the future.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Yes, in its current form.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.