Mario Diaz-Balart

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to again clarify that, right now, you can go to Cuba for educational purposes; you just have to get a license. So the only reason for this amendment is to symbolically tell the Castro anti-American dictatorship, terrorist dictatorship, that we like you. That is all this amendment does. Students can go to Cuba if they get a license. So despite the fact that the Castro regime continues to imprison and despite the fact that the Castro regime has murdered Americans, murdered American citizens, has American blood on his hands, this amendment would just like to give him a nice pat on the back and say, even though Americans can go with a permit, with a license to get education, go for educational purposes to Cuba, we want to give you a gift, Mr. Castro. Despite the fact that you murder Americans, we want to give you a gift, and here is a little token gift. Because, again, it is not going to happen. It is not going to pass the process, but we just want to show that we support that anti-American dictator who has American blood on his hands. It is a very sad statement. Again, fortunately, none of these issues ever happen. But, again, that is all this amendment is. It is to show that anti-American dictator, that terrorist 90 miles away, that this amendment supports, still supports that dictatorship. That is all this does, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing how history repeats itself. I was not here during the whole South Africa debates, but I heard them. During those South Africa debates, we had those who said we should do business as usual with South Africa to help the blacks in South Africa; that we should be able to do all sorts of business, and by the way, we did business with South Africa, business as usual, forever. Did it help the oppressed people under apartheid? No. And, Mr. Chairman, when those oppressed people had an opportunity to vote, finally, after many, many years, they did not support those that wanted to do business as usual; that talked about doing business as usual. They supported those that led the efforts to sanction the apartheid regime in South Africa. Many people on this floor, some who are still here, voted for sanctions against South Africa and yet vote to lift sanction against Cuba using the same argument. I saw just a month ago people on this floor who are against sanctioning the anti-American terrorist regime 90 miles away from the United States vote and speak for sanctions against China. It is interesting how this double standard is so prevalent. Again, history repeats itself. Those who said we should do business as usual in South Africa to help the oppressed were wrong, and when the oppressed people had an opportunity to speak, they showed how wrong they were. Dr. Biscet and others will have an opportunity to speak, and I think there will be a lot of red faces of those that say they are doing it to help the oppressed people. We do not help the oppressed people by helping to finance the oppressor.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am always intrigued when I hear about how the United States and measures that the United States can take to help liberate people who are oppressed is anti- family. I am also very intrigued when I do not hear that the cause of all of the problems that the Cuban people suffer from, it is only one individual and his regime, the Castro regime, the anti-American, terrorist regime. What is pro-family is helping the Cuban people liberate themselves from that regime. What is anti-family is a regime that has destroyed family, a whole Nation, a whole people. So measures that help that anti-family, pro-terrorist regime, measures that help that regime cannot be called pro-family. They are an anti-American terrorist regime. I am also frankly rather amused when I see letters. Last year I quoted a letter from a Member of Congress on this floor who just spoke right now, about his concern for Cuban Americans. You see, because let us keep that in mind, this amendment only affects Cuban Americans. That is it. Nobody else. And then this amendment, I guess as we had heard before, a little while ago, claims that it knows what is right for Cuban Americans better than Cuban Americans. We have heard that before. We have heard those similar debates on this floor year after year after year. Pretty soon we are going to hear, Some of my good friends are Cuban Americans. Well, the reality is this: There is a bipartisan group of us here who represent a majority of the Cuban Americans. Every 2 years we run for reelection, election or reelection, and we do not have to be shown a picture of one individual or two individuals. We represent the vast majority of Cuban Americans. We represent the vast majority of the family members of those people in Cuba. And I keep hearing about how others from other parts of the country seem to know what is right for this group of Hispanics. They know better than those Hispanics know. They know better than that minority group knows about what is best for them. Well, the reality, Mr. Chairman, is this: I repeat, there are four of us that represent the vast majority of Cuban Americans, the only people affected by this amendment, the only people affected by this amendment. And unanimously those four Members of Congress, one happens to be a Democrat, the other ones happen to be Republicans, all agree unanimously on what is right to help the Cuban people be free, what is right for Cuban Americans in this country. What is right for them is to not help the Castro regime by allowing it to get more money, to not help that anti-American terrorist regime by allowing it to get more money. My dear friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), who has always been on the right side of this issue on the major parts, said today, and I just want to make sure there is no confusion, that what we are talking about here is people cannot go to Cuba and stay at the expensive hotels. Well, wait a second. They could until the new measures put in place by President Bush. Until those new measures, yes, they could. So to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), I think he may be a little bit confused as to what this amendment does. If this amendment were to pass then, yes, people could go and travel as many times as they wanted to stay in the most expensive hotels, by the way, all of them run and owned by the Cuban military, by that oppressive military of that anti-American terrorist regime. If this amendment passes, what my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), said that is not happening would happen and could happen. I am amazed, Mr. Chairman, that people claim they know what is best for areas that are very far away from them and that they know what is best for certain groups, happens to be a Hispanic, large Hispanic group, that they know best. No, those Hispanics, the people that they elect are wrong. They do not know how to elect the right people, so it is up to somebody from way other parts of the country to tell those Hispanics, that minority group, what is really good for them. That is at best patronizing, and there could be some other words that could be used as well.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank the chairman for the quickness of this measure, this important measure. As we have heard before, when tough things happen, when the American people are suffering, is when the country truly shines. And we are seeing another example. We are seeing unity. We are seeing how the ranking member has been so generous with his time and also working with the chairman to make sure that this is a reality. The people who deserve and need the help get it as soon as possible. But I have to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank a number of people. President Bush, who from day one has been incredibly supportive and has led the relief effort. Governor Bush and his cabinet have done an incredible job. They have been on the field. The people from FEMA have been amazing. We run into them all over in Florida. I was with a group of them in Miami recently where the Governor was there as well. The Small Business Administration, the first responders, Mr. Speaker, police officers, firefighters, everybody who has come together to make sure that the suffering is minimized as much as possible, and I just want to thank everybody. And, of course, our guardian angel always, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations from our great State of Florida, who is always there leading every single fight for the people of Florida.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am actually glad that I am doing this now because the Speaker pro tempore is also from Florida, understands the Everglades very, very well, and has been a strong supporter of Everglades restoration. Let me just briefly talk about what this is. First, the district that I am privileged to represent includes the Everglades National Park. I spent much of my State legislative career assisting with the implementation of the Everglades restoration plan. This plan is showing extreme success, and this legislation before us today will greatly contribute to that success, to continuing that success. Mr. Speaker, the people of Florida have a strong commitment to the restoration of the Everglades. Not only is it a national treasure, a global treasure, really an international treasure, tourists from around the country and around the world come to experience the wonders, the beauty that is the Everglades. But the people of Florida as well as the taxpayers of the country have also put a lot of resources to try to make sure that the Everglades is as pristine as possible and gets back to as much of its natural state as is possible. This legislation will allow for the implementation of a component of the 1994 general reevaluation report that provided for the construction of a buffer and detention system along the eastern boundary of Everglades National Park. This system seeks to establish a hydraulic ridge to both prevent excess loss of seepage from the park and to reestablish the historical surface water flow from Northeast Shark River Slough to Taylor Slough. Again, as I mentioned before, these are not inexpensive propositions. These are not only expensive, they are also very time-consuming projects. Again, the people of the State of Florida, the State legislature in the State of Florida, the governor in the State of Florida and again previous governors as well but particularly this governor, Governor Jeb Bush, have shown that they are extremely committed to this effort; and again, the taxpayers, the State legislature and the governor have put in a lot of money to make sure that it is not just the Federal taxpayer, the Federal Government, that is contributing to this wonderful effort. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will authorize the exchange of approximately 1,054 acres between the South Florida Water Management District and the Everglades National Park to carry out the construction of the buffer and detention system. Currently, 2.5 miles of the detention and buffer system have been already constructed, and the Federal lands conveyed in this legislation are to be used by the South Florida Water Management District to construct the remaining 5.5 miles of the system. This is a vital part of the Everglades restoration that again, I repeat, that both the Federal Government has put a lot of emphasis, a lot of time, a lot of effort and a lot of money, and the State as well; not only the State but also the local taxpayers again through the water management district have also put up a lot of money, a lot of effort, a lot of time to try to get this done. This is a vital part of that restoration. I particularly need to thank the efforts of Chairman Pombo. Chairman Pombo has been just wonderful to work with on this. His staff has been great. My staff has been working with his staff. They have been extremely receptive, not only receptive but their in-depth knowledge of this national treasure has been wonderful to see. We have not had to educate them on something that those of us in Florida know and love so much. Chairman Pombo and his staff are so familiar with this project and it has been just a wonderful experience. Again, one of the things that I want to just reemphasize is that this is not a State of Florida project, that this is a national treasure. The Everglades is a national treasure that is also a threatened national treasure, an extremely delicate ecosystem, one that is vital for the entire State and I would then say for the entire Nation. When we think about the Everglades, we should not only think about that swampland that a lot of people just see in the airplanes when they are flying by, but we should also think about the impact that that has on, for example, Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, the Florida Keys, the reef system. It is all interconnected. The heart of that is a vital, clean, vibrant, alive Florida Everglades. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again Chairman Pombo and his staff for allowing me to bring this bill up here.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just heard from many of those who are against this legislation that things have gotten better in Vietnam, things are not great but have gotten better. Coincidentally, today there is a story by Reuters talking about how a 73-year-old man is in prison because he used the Internet to criticize the government of Vietnam. Whoa, things are getting real good over there. Another person was arrested and sentenced just last week for using the Internet. And what was that horrible crime? Oh, geez, for being critical about corruption in Vietnam and advocating for democratic reforms. Things are getting better in Vietnam. No, they are not. They have gotten worse. We can no longer just turn away and pretend things are not happening to the oppressed people of Vietnam. I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey for once again standing up for the oppressed, standing up for those people who are just trying to speak out a little bit, just a little bit, about the atrocities that are going on around the world, in this case in Vietnam. I thank him for doing this, for standing up for the oppressed, for those that would love just a little bit of freedom. We need to speak up for them as well. I support this.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, during the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Air Base in the Azores, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) led the Congressional delegation to that event. He did a masterful job. At that time, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) was also involved in that delegation; and I was privileged to join these two gentlemen in that trip. I was able to see firsthand the incredible cooperation that exists between the United States and Portugal. Also, the respect, the friendship, the close ties that the people of Portugal have with us here in the United States. I am incredibly grateful and all of us have to be incredibly grateful for the way that Portugal has been such a steadfast ally of the United States throughout many, many years. But particularly now in these very difficult times in this war against international terrorism, they have been strong allies. They have been courageous allies. I am extremely grateful to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) and also in particular to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for this opportunity to thank the people of Portugal for their leadership, for their courage, for their friendship in these very difficult times. When we need them the most, the people of Portugal said, we are here. We cannot forget. I want to thank these wonderful Members of Congress and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for giving us the opportunity to also say ``thank you.''

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on the exceptional relationship between Australia and the United States. On this day that we are voting on this Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Speaker, we should take a minute to express our gratitude, our deep gratitude, to the Australians for their support in the international war on terror. Their support in the aftermath of September 11, Mr. Speaker, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq is a testament, a very strong testament, again to the strength of this alliance between the two countries. The Australians have also been touched, unfortunately, tragically, by terrorism when 88 Australians died in the Bali bombings of 2002. Mr. Speaker, in friendship we will continue to reach out to them as they have to us. On this day we thank our mates down under for this friendship and commend them for their commitment to negotiating this Free Trade Agreement. Anyone, Mr. Speaker, anyone, who questions the strength of our alliance is, frankly, just out of touch or, to quote the famous slang used by our friends in Australia, they have ``too many kangaroos loose in the top paddock.''

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. When I was listening to the gentleman a little while ago and he was mentioning about how Mr. Kerry tries to portray himself as one of the regular folk and he was talking about how he, frankly, is one of the very privileged folk, I think that kind of explains, though, some of his votes and some of the things that he says after some of his votes. If the gentleman will recall that he voted against President Bush's tax relief plan in 2001 and also in 2003. By the way, that tax relief plan, i.e., in other words, government taking a little bit less of the people's money, it is not a gift that the government has given, just the government taking a little bit less of people's money, that is the reason why we are finally now in this economic upturn. And, again, they might try to scream and complain, but the bottom line is everybody has had to recognize that, because of that, the economy is doing much better. But then since it is working and since more people are getting jobs and since over a million jobs have been created in the last year because of the President's leadership, and then they said, well, but the President's tax cuts were tax cuts on the rich. And, Mr. Speaker, again, I am in awe of what I hear up here sometimes. I am new here. This is my first term, and I am sometimes in awe of what I hear up here. The tax cuts that the President proposed and this Congress passed, Senator Kerry, now, he would know what a tax cut on the rich is, obviously, because he is very wealthy, and nothing wrong with that, but I do not know about the State of Massachusetts. It is a different world. We know that the State of Massachusetts is a different world. It is the State that gave us John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. But, in Florida, everybody dies. In Florida, eventually everybody dies, and one of the tax cuts that this President supported, proposed and Senator Kerry voted against is the death tax. Again, I do not know about Massachusetts, but in the State of Florida not only the wealthy die. One of the tax cuts that Senator Kerry voted against, saying now that it is a tax cut on the rich, was the marriage penalty relief. Now, I do not know about other parts of the country, but in the State that I am privileged to represent here in Congress, which is Florida, not only the wealthy get married. Working people get married as well. And yet Senator Kerry voted against it, saying, oh, that is a tax cut on the rich. He voted against the child tax credit, for example. Now, again, I do not know about the State that he represents, the State where maybe everybody has nine houses that are worth millions of dollars, but in Florida where people work awfully hard, and I am pretty sure that throughout the country they do, not only do the wealthy get married, not only do the wealthy have children, not only do the wealthy die. A colleague of ours in Florida said that at least one would think that we could agree that there should be no taxation without respiration, at least, but, no, Senator Kerry believes that that is wrong, that we have to tax people when they get married, we have to tax people if they have children, we have to tax people if they have small businesses, and, yes, we even have to tax people after they are dead, after they are dead. And yet, Mr. Speaker, he keeps saying that those are tax cuts on the rich. I think maybe the explanation is what the gentleman was saying a little while ago, that he lives in a different place. I do have to admit, though, because I have seen a lot of things and I have heard a lot of things that to my point of view just do not make sense, like these are tax cuts on the rich, these tax cuts that I just mentioned, but maybe it is just a different world. I have to admit, though, that I give Senator Kerry credit, and I have heard this time and time again. One has got to give him credit for something that I, this humble servant, believed was impossible. When Senator Kerry has made Ted Kennedy the conservative senator of Massachusetts and when we look at the rankings, Senator Kerry is even more liberal, even more of an extreme left-winger than Senator Ted Kennedy. I did not think that was possible. Only Senator Kerry has been able to do so. And he has, by the way, picked a very charming, very eloquent man as his running mate, who is the fourth most liberal Member of the Senate. He could have gone and picked a number of people out there. No, he had to pick somebody that was almost as liberal as himself. Mr. Speaker, in that sense, the ticket of McGovern and Shriver, not since McGovern has there been a more left-wing extreme point of view put forward by the Democratic ticket as the ticket that is now in front of the American people. And, again, when they voted against repealing the death tax, when they voted to increase the child tax credit, in other words, when they voted against lowering taxes on families for their children, when they voted against the full marriage penalty relief, it goes to show us that, yes, it is absolutely true, hard to believe, that that ticket now is more left-wing and more liberal than even Ted Kennedy. It is hard to believe, but, yes, that ticket is more left-wing, more radical, more liberal, or at least equally to the ticket that McGovern headed in 1972, I believe, before my time, but it is hard to see a more left-wing extremist ticket, except for the one that the Democratic party has put forward.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. And, again, there are certain things that just boggle the mind. For example, he voted for giving the President authorization to go after Saddam Hussein, to take out Saddam Hussein, and then when our troops are on the field and when they are giving their all, including, unfortunately, their lives to protect our freedoms, to do the job that Senator Kerry himself voted to authorize, then he votes against the $87 billion to give them the equipment that they need on the field. That is that famous quote when he says, well, ``I voted for it before I voted against it.'' I guess he must have been embarrassed at his vote, but it gets worse now. There are so many reasons why he is the most extreme liberal left- winger since McGovern. He proposed gutting the intelligence budget, the intelligence budget by $6 billion, not long after the first World Trade Center bombing. And so, again, we see some of these votes, and we just do not understand. How is it possible? We never know where he is today. If we ask him today, he may have changed four or five times, but he clearly supported going into Iraq but then does not support giving our troops the equipment that they need. Now, that should not surprise us, because years earlier he tried to cut the intelligence budget, to really destroy the intelligence budget, and I have got some quotes of his that are just unbelievable. In the 1997 Congressional Record, May 1 quote, he said, ``Now that the struggle,'' the Cold War, in other words, ``is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?'' Excuse me? Why are we spending so much money on intelligence? Well, we know what happens when we do not prepare, when we are not strong and when we do not have adequate intelligence. Again, these are things that boggle the mind, and maybe part of the explanation is because he has seven homes. God bless him. I do not have a problem with that, but maybe that is why he thinks that cutting taxes on married people is cutting the tax on the rich. Maybe that is why he thinks when taxes are cut on people who die, estate taxes, that that is cutting taxes on the rich. Maybe that is why he believes that cutting taxes to small business is cutting taxes on the rich. It is not. It is cutting taxes on real American people, and when taxes are cut, we do not give anything. Government is not giving a gift. Government, all it is doing is taking a little bit less of the people's money. Is that wrong? No. It is the right thing to do morally, and it is also helping our economy.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. If the gentleman would yield, when one sees that, so he clearly likes raising taxes. He even supported a 50 percent gas tax, per gallon gas tax increase. Now I do not know about the gentleman, but in the State of Florida, gas is relatively expensive right now, and if the people out there think gas is too cheap, no problem, they have got a good person to vote for in November. That is Senator Kerry, who, again, has supported a 50 percent per gallon gas tax increase.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just heard that the dissidents in Cuba do not support the sanctions. That is just not correct. As a matter of fact, yesterday, Mr. Antunes, a black Cuban leader who has been in prison since he was 16 years old, imprisoned by that white Spanish son, and grandchildren of Spanish people, Spanish white people who have imprisoned mostly blacks, and again the blacks in prison like Dr. Biscet, like Mr. Antunes, all support these sanctions. Let me just tell Members who do not support the sanctions: Castro himself does not support sanctions, he supports this amendment as a matter of fact. But the primary reason we have heard today for this amendment, and we have heard it time and time again, is that the Cuban Americans are going to suffer. Those of us who represent the Cuban Americans do not know. The Cuban Americans, you see, according to this amendment, do not know what is right for them. No, those people, we have heard that before, those people do not know what is right for them. So, therefore, this amendment sponsored by people from Arizona and Massachusetts, very far-away places, this amendment knows what is best for that group of Hispanics and their families. There are two words for what this amendment is, Mr. Chairman, two words for an amendment that says those people, those Hispanics do not know what is right for them, so this amendment has to tell them what is right, two words, ``patronizing'' and ``racist''; you see, because the Cuban American people do know, Mr. Chairman, what is right for themselves and their families. The Cuban American people do know what is the right thing to do, which is why they do not support this amendment. They overwhelmingly support the President's smart, well- thought-out, responsible measures. Let us oppose this amendment that again tries to tell that group of Hispanics what is right for them, what is right for Cuban Americans. We who represent the Cuban Americans can tell you, they know what is right for them and their families, and they will tell Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from Texas, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who has also worked awfully hard on this legislation. But I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am a bit in awe of the work that the gentleman from Texas has done to get this bill this far. As has been said, many lives and billions of dollars are lost during hurricanes and tornadoes due to really poor mitigation techniques, from the structure of buildings to the planning of evacuation corridors. Hurricane Andrew, for example, in 1992 resulted in $26.5 billion in losses and 61 fatalities. Southern Dade County, by the way, Miami/Dade County, is still recovering from the effects of Hurricane Andrew. Hurricane Hugo in 1989 resulted in $7 billion in losses and 86 fatalities. I am fortunate to help represent the International Hurricane Research Center, a research center in Florida International University, which is directed by Dr. Leatherman. It was established after Hurricane Andrew. It serves as Florida's center for hurricane research, education, and outreach. Of course, their work really serves the entire Nation. The center has led research on everything from appropriate housing techniques to beach erosion and coastal vulnerability. Like many other wind-related institutions, the International Hurricane Research Center supports this legislation. The sponsor of this legislation was mentioning a number that did. This is one more, which I know the gentleman is aware of, and, again, it will make significant steps in mitigating the effects of wind-related hazards throughout the United States. This legislation, is a, I think, very important piece of legislation, and the gentleman from Texas has done an incredible job shepherding it through the process; and, again, I am in awe of the job that he has done. This legislation creates a National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program in order to improve understanding of windstorm impacts and develops implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures. This will use the vital research already done to implement a uniform policy that will ultimately lead to better-built office buildings, homes, structures, in order to lessen the impact of hurricanes and tornadoes and other wind-borne tragedies. It establishes a National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction. Again, this group will routinely assess the effectiveness of the program and make recommendations if any changes are needed down the road. The sponsor has been very key on making sure that there is strong oversight, and I want to thank the sponsor for his leadership there and not only on this issue but particularly on this issue, on this bill. And, again, I want to thank the sponsor, the gentleman from Texas, and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who also, I repeat, has done a lot of work. I am in awe of the work that has been done on this bill, and it is a privilege to support this bill here on the floor today.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and pleasure I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mrs. Frances Harriett Cobb Hart on her 75th Birthday. Mrs. Hart, a native Floridian, has given much of her life to serving her family, church, community, and nation. She is truly an exemplary American. Born on June 28, 1929, Mrs. Hart was born to Charles Ernest Cobb and Mary Elliott Cobb. As the daughter of citrus growers, Mrs. Hart spent much of her early life becoming acquainted with Florida's rich agricultural tradition. Not limited simply to citrus farming, Mrs. Hart's family raised both cattle and horses in a rural community once known as Cobb's Landing. After graduating from Wesleyan College in Macon, Georgia, Mrs. Hart married Methodist Pastor James Wynne Hart. Choosing to leave her Florida roots behind, Mr. and Mrs. Hart have spent much of their adult lives between the hills and mountains of East Tennessee and Western Carolina. An extremely active woman, Mrs. Hart was an avid athlete in her youth, often partaking in such physically strenuous activities as the amateur rodeo. In her maturity, Mrs. Hart has spent much of her time as a church historian and artisan. Throughout her life Frances has been an active member of her community, both willingly and unselfishly serving those around her. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Mrs. Frances Hart's birthday we also celebrate her legacy as a wife, mother, and community volunteer. For her endless contributions and uncompromising devotion to her family and community we are proud to honor Mrs. Frances Harriet Cobb Hart on her 75th birthday. Let us rise today to honor this great woman of strength, character, and moral standing.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was moved by this last speech. I really was. It was beautiful rhetoric and impressive rhetoric. But what I have learned here since I have been in D.C. is there are some Members of the Democratic Party who just will not let the facts confuse the issue. Let us look at some of those facts. You see, there is a huge difference, I agree with the gentleman from New York who has just spoken, there is a huge difference between the two parties; and these are the facts. The big difference is that our friends in the minority party will find every opportunity to raise the taxes of every living American. No, no, let me correct myself. Not only every living American, but they will even try to raise taxes of Americans who have died, at every single opportunity, including a nonbinding resolution that will do absolutely nothing, by the way, if it were to pass. But they just cannot help it. They have to try to raise taxes on every single hardworking American family and every single hardworking American business and every single small business, which are the ones that create the jobs in this country. This resolution would raise taxes by almost $19 billion, with a B, billion dollars in just 2005. It would increase spending by $14.2 billion next year. And according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this resolution, again which is nonbinding, would be equivalent to a tax increase of $4.62 on those families and those small businesses in this country. And, again, that would cause possibly the loss of 130,000 jobs. They keep saying, well, some of these people can afford that tax increase. But how about those 130,000 people who would lose their jobs if this were to happen? Can they afford more taxation? Can they afford this kind of resolution? The answer is no. But, you see, they are consistent. Democrats are consistent. They are consistent because they offered three amendments to the Republican budget that would have raised taxes by over $100 billion. They offered alternatives to major legislation just last year that would have added close to $1 trillion to the deficit. And yet their rhetoric is beautiful. Actually, it is very nice. Mine cannot compare with that. This is right off the page of Senator John Kerry: raise taxes, increase spending, decrease the family budget in order to grow the Federal budget, in order to hire more bureaucracy, more bureaucrats up here. American families and American small businesses do not need more tax employees. American families do not need more bureaucrats taking more money out of their hard-earned pockets to send to D.C. It is their money, not the government's money. What they need is for us to continue growing this economy. And the way to do it, and it has been proven, is cutting taxes, cutting taxes like we have done. That is why the economy is doing well. We do not need tax increases on every American. What we need is to, again, continue to have sound fiscal policy.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for years, the Democrats have offered a simple approach to the American economy: Increased taxes on the hard working American people. For starters, we voted down three proposals by the Democrats during the debate on the budget. Each would have raised taxes by over its $00 billion minimum to the American people. Last year Republicans rejected Democrats' alternatives to major legislation that would have added almost $1 trillion to the deficit, Mr. Speaker. Now I understand that they may be proposing a resolution to the floor calling for billions and billions of dollars of, again, increased taxes to the hard working American people. I hope, and this week we should have a chance, to reign in spending by voting in favor of the Spending Control Act and some amendments to that Act. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, Mr. Speaker, I have heard endless rhetoric by our friends the Democrats about the deficit, but at the end of the day, all they propose is more spending and more taxes. If they are serious, Mr. Speaker, about reducing the deficit, then they will join us voting yes on the Spending Control Act.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on June 13, 2004, the town of Immokalee, Florida lost one of its most admired and revered members of the community. At the age of 61, Mrs. Ann Olesky passed away nearly one week after undergoing major heart surgery. An avid environmentalist, Mrs. Olesky has been credited by many as the catalyst for the conception of the Lake Trafford restoration project. As part owner of the Lake Trafford Marina and Campground, Mrs. Olesky recognized the importance of maintaining and preserving South Florida's natural environmental habitat. Eight years ago, Mrs. Olesky realized that both the environment and the community would be best served if a large scale dredging and cleanup project were to be implemented at Lake Trafford. It was Mrs. Olesky's strong drive and commitment to Immokalee which ultimately drove her to embark on a grass roots campaign which culminated with the securing of funds for the project. In addition, Mrs. Olesky was well known through the community for her active role in civic and community life. During many Christmas celebrations, Mrs. Olesky could be seen taking part in Christmas Around the World, a yearly educational program that seeks to educate young children about the environment. Through these programs, Mrs. Olesky played an active role in raising community wide awareness of the environmental challenges facing South Florida. Mrs. Ann Olesky will be forever remembered by the people of Immokalee for her great devotion and love for the people and community of Immokalee. While sadly, Mrs. Olesky will be unable to see the completed fruit of her eight years of labor, it is without question that her efforts will be remembered for many generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in expressing my deepest sense of condolence to the family of Mrs. Ann Olesky, as well as to the people of Immokalee. Mrs. Ann Olesky will be greatly missed.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Let me first thank the gentleman from Texas for providing this insight here tonight. I was just listening to our friend from Indiana. He was mentioning the naysayers, the ones that constantly say that it is not going to work, that cutting taxes on the hardworking American people was not going to work. And then when it started working, they started saying, as he said, all right, it is working but it is not creating jobs. Then when it started creating jobs, as our friend from Indiana reminded us, they were saying, well, but they are not high paying jobs. He mentioned how that is just a fallacy. That is just not true. Let me give my colleagues some statistics from Florida. In Florida we are creating an incredible amount of jobs. Every single month the private sector in Florida is creating jobs. They are good paying jobs. Florida's economy is adding really good paying jobs. More than two- thirds of Florida's payroll job growth in April, by the way, was in industries that pay more than the national average. Those are the facts. Some people do not like the facts and do not let the facts confuse what they want to believe in the issue. But those are the facts. Let me just read some of the quotes that were said by our friends in the minority party before they started seeing the results that we are talking about today. They said, for example, May 9, 2003, the Jobs and Growth Act will neither create jobs nor grow the economy. Wrong. It created jobs and it grew the economy. The majority's reckless, irresponsible tax agenda. They said that on May 5. It was neither reckless nor irresponsible to have the private sector create more than 1 million jobs for hardworking Americans. They said again, May 9, 2003, to see how badly the Republican economic plan has failed all we have to do is look around. Well, look around. The tax cuts have worked. They are creating jobs. We have to do more. We are working to do more. Unfortunately, we are getting no help from our friends in the minority party because what do they propose? As opposed to cutting taxes, what did they propose? Let me tell my colleagues some specifics. They offered alternatives to major legislation just last year that would have added almost $1 trillion to the deficit. That was their answer. But that was not enough. They did not support tax cuts. What they did support and they proposed three alternative budgets on this floor, on this very floor, and each one of them raised more than $100 billion in additional taxes to the hardworking men and women in this country. Let me just state this very clearly. If you think that your taxes are too low, that the Federal Government is utilizing your money very efficiently and that you need to send more of your money up here, then you support what they propose. But that is not what works. What works is cutting taxes, allowing the hardworking people to keep more of their money. But then they say, when it is working, when jobs are being created, but those are tax cuts on the wealthy. That is how they try to excuse it. Let me read some of the issues, some of the tax cuts that they say are for the wealthy. Maybe I just represent kind of a different district, but one of those that they say is the marriage penalty repeal. Marriage penalty repeal. I do not know about in other parts of the country, but in Florida not only the wealthy get married. How about the death tax repeal? Oh, that is a tax cut on the rich. I do not know about other parts of the country, but in the State that I represent not only do rich people die. How about the reduction of taxes on education savings? That is on the wealthy? Not in my State, not in the State that I live. How about the small business expensing? Those are small businesses, not wealthy. How about the adoption tax credit? These are the things that they objected to because they are tax cuts on the wealthy. How about the dependent care credit? That is not tax cuts for the wealthy. Those are people that have dependents at home. How about a tax credit for employer-provided child care facilities for hardworking moms and dads so that they can go to work? That is not for the wealthy. And how about the emergency tax relief? Even this, emergency tax relief to areas affected by the attacks of 9/11. Those are for the wealthy? No, those are responsible tax cuts for hardworking men and women in this country who create jobs, who create wealth, who do not want to create more bureaucrats. They want to create more jobs, more wealth. It is working. I thank the President for his leadership. I also want to particularly thank the leadership in this House and also my dear friend from Texas who has led the fight to look for waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government. He is doing a great job. I want to thank him for allowing me this time today.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am here to really just first express my sorrow and my gratitude to the Reagan family. Through President Reagan's optimism and courage and strength, he carried this country from a state of what some people said was a state of malaise to further greatness. He understood and never apologized for his understanding that the United States was a source of good around the world, a source of freedom around the world. I recall when he said his famous remark about the evil empire how all of the experts said he could not say that, that he was wrong, that they were not bad. Well, he was right, and he tried and fought hard and worked hard to spread freedom across the globe, to strengthen the United States and, therefore, also strengthen our allies to spread freedom. He succeeded by tearing down the Berlin Wall, by tearing down the evil empire, by spreading freedom to millions of people around the globe. Mr. Speaker, I am here again in awe of the life of President Ronald Reagan, his achievements, his success in spreading freedom, his success in making this country what it is today. The greatness that we have achieved today, in great part, is due to the optimism, the greatness, the spirit of Ronald Reagan. We can never thank him enough.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again as a member of the Washington Waste Watchers. Mr. Speaker, as a result of Republican efforts, House committees spent a great deal of time last year finding wastes of taxpayer funds in Federal programs. Those efforts, as a matter of fact, highlighted over $85 billion in potential savings to the taxpayer. This year, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) passed a budget resolution in the Committee on the Budget that goes a long way toward reducing and actually eliminating some of the most outrageous examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. By the way, I have to also applaud President Bush for working on implementing the President's Management Agenda, a performance-based system that seeks to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. Mr. Speaker, we need to continue to work to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, because there is a lot more work that can be done. Let us just look at a couple of examples. Let us look at the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, where, again, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are sent to ensure that our environment is protected. Yet a recent EPA Inspector General report found that an environmental advocacy group received nearly $5 million in educational grants that it used to lobby the EPA between 1998 and 2001, despite the fact that that is illegal, it is illegal to use those funds to lobby. Another EPA audit found that they awarded a $700,000 grant without any knowledge of the work that the recipient was supposed to perform. They did not even know what it was for. Yet another audit found that for almost half of the grants reviewed, and this is a quote, the EPA did not even attempt to measure the project's outcomes. Yet the Democrats want to raise hard-working Americans' taxes to do more of this. The Inspector General also found that the EPA awarded a contract to an engineering firm that used some of those funds to host a golf day, but the Democrats want to raise your taxes to do more of this. As a matter of fact, last year, the Democrats offered alternatives to major legislation that would have added almost $1 trillion to the deficit. Let us make this very clear. The Democrat alternatives, all of their budget alternatives massively increased taxes. One of them increased taxes by $119 billion, the other one by $165 billion, and the third one by, again, a little bit over $165 billion in increased taxes on the hard-working Americans to do more of this. That is the difference, Mr. Speaker. While the Washington Waste Watchers, while the President, while the Republican majority is trying to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, the Democrats are trying to pile on, and they have this love affair with increased taxes. So, Mr. Speaker, while our friends, the Democrats, continue their love affair and continue to try to raise the taxes of the American people, those of us in the Washington Waste Watchers will continue to work with the President to try to root out that waste, fraud, and abuse and eliminate it as soon as possible.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Nelson Moline Espino, a prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Moline Espino is a pro-democracy activist working for freedom for the people of Cuba. He is the President of the Confederation of Democratic Workers of Cuba and a member of the 30 November party. Mr. Moline Espino has dedicated his energy and talents to liberating the oppressed people of Cuba from the tyrannical regime. As a leader in the struggle for freedom and human rights for the people of Cuba, Mr. Moline Espino has been a constant target for the dictator's thugs. According to Amnesty International, he has been harassed for his activities, called into a police station, and threatened with arrest if he did not abandon his struggle for human rights and workers rights. Because of his belief in freedom, Mr. Moline Espino was arrested as part of the tyrant's vicious crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy activists in March 2003. On March 20, he was detained and his home was searched. Eventually Mr. Moline Espino was ``indicted'' on charges that he had mixed with people dedicated to ``subversive'' activity. After a sham trial, he was sentenced to 20 years in the totalitarian gulag. Mr. Moline Espino is languishing in the inhuman squalor of Castro's totalitarian gulag. According to reports, since his trial in April 2003, he has again been ``tried and sentenced'' to an additional year on charges of ``disrespect''. Let us be clear, Mr. Moline Espino is locked in the grotesque inferno of totalitarian repression simply because he believes in democracy and human rights. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that peaceful pro-democracy activists are locked in a diabolical gulag 90 miles from our shore. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate release of Nelson Moline Espino and every prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to honor a truly patriotic and courageous American, who through his military and public service has come to exemplify true commitment to one's nation and community. Born in Homestead, FL, Mr. Nicolas R. Sincore graduated from Coral Shores High School in Tavernier. A proud American, Mr. Sincore served his country in various capacities, spending from 1948 to 1952 on active duty, and serving in the 11th Airborne Division, the 31st Infantry, and the 7th Division in Korea. After completing his tour of duty, Mr. Sincore enrolled at John A. Gupton College in Nashville, TN, where he excelled and earned a degree in Mortuary Science in 1959. Following a strong desire to fulfill his civic duty, Mr. Sincore was first elected to the city of Homestead's City Council in 1971 as vice mayor/councilman, and re-elected as vice-mayor/councilman again in 1975. One year later, Mr. Sincore was appointed Mayor and re-elected to that position until 1981. He was elected again in 1983, and was re- elected as councilman until November 2003. Mr. Sincore's commitment and dedication to serving the citizens of Homestead, is a testament of his great devotion and affinity towards the community. In addition to holding elected office, Mr. Sincore has served the city of Homestead through his leadership as the city's representative at both the Florida League of Cities and as a board member of the Florida Municipal Electric Association. Furthermore, Mr. Sincore has served as past commander of the American Legion Post 43, director of the Homestead/Florida City Chamber of Commerce and director of the Senior Citizens Club of Homestead. Mr. Nicholas Sincore's dedication and commitment to serving his community, his state, and his country deserves the highest praise and admiration. For many generations to come, the people of Homestead will continue to reap the benefits and rewards of Mr. Sincore's unparalleled devotion to his community. It is my distinct pleasure to honor Mr. Sincore before this body of Congress for his more than 30 years of service to the citizens of Florida and the city of Homestead.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, under today's law, every State, every single State, is guaranteed 90.5 percent of 93 percent of the transportation budget. And the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who, by the way, has been wonderful to work with, has said that he would like to work to improve that number, that he believes that the donor States should be a little bit improved. But the problem is that the bill that is in front of us today does not improve it. It makes it worse. It is no longer like current law that every State will get 93 percent of the transportation budget. No. Every State goes down to 90 percent of 84 percent of the entire budget. I am not the smartest guy in the world, but nobody can tell me that 90 percent of 93 is worse than 90 percent of 84. Not even in Washington can we make those numbers make sense. So this is a reality. If we believe that the donor States are paying too much, we should not hurt them worse. Let us be very clear about what the amendment does. The amendment does not do what all of us want it to do, make it better for the donor States. All the amendment does is keep it to current law so that every single State has exactly the same formula that we are living under today. Is that good enough? I do not think so. But, please, what makes no sense is to hurt every single donor State to provide projects that we keep hearing about of national significance that are not in the bill. It is a theory. It is not real. Those projects are not in the bill. So we do not know what we are buying, but every single donor State knows what it is losing. That is not fair.