Mario Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Victor Rolando Arroyo Carmona, a prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Arroyo is vice-president of the group Forum for Reform as well as a member of the Union of Independent Cuban Journalists and Writers. Mr. Arroyo is a leading pro-democracy activist and has been a constant target of the totalitarian regime. Because of his peaceful activism for freedom and democracy, Mr. Arroyo has been harassed, beaten, and imprisoned in Castro's abhorrent gulag. According to Human Rights Watch, in January 1995, Mr. Arroyo was beaten and thrown in prison for nine days after organizing a ceremony to commemorate the birth of Jose Marti. In 1996, he was sentenced to eighteen months in the totalitarian gulag and held in a ``tapiada'' cell--a narrow, dark and extremely humid cell--for ``disrespecting'' the government. In January 2000, Mr. Arroyo was charged with ``hoarding'' and sentenced to eighteen months in the gulag for organizing a toy drive and distributing toys to needy Cuban children. In October 2000, he was beaten by the dictatorship's goons on three separate occasions. In October 2001, rocks and bottles containing flammable chemicals were thrown at the home where Mr. Arroyo lives with his wife and children. Despite these horrifically repressive intimidation tactics, despite being locked in the totalitarian gulag for distributing toys to needy children, Mr. Arroyo has never stopped demanding freedom and democracy for the Cuban people. Even with first hand knowledge of the brutal, inhumane, consequences of depicting the true reality of the totalitarian regime, Mr. Arroyo has bravely continued to write the truth about Castro's nightmarish oppression. In 2002, Human Rights Watch awarded Mr. Arroyo a Hellman-Hammet grant in recognition of his courage in the face of political persecution. This prestigious grant is awarded annually to writers around the world who have been targets of political persecution. On March 18, 2003, as part of the tyrant's brutal March 2003 crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy activists, Mr. Arroyo was arrested by Castro's agents of repression. After a sham trial, Mr. Arroyo was sentenced to 26 years in the totalitarian gulag. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Arroyo supports basic human rights for all Cubans. Despite being beaten, harassed, and now, once again, languishing in the grotesque, totalitarian, squalor of Castro's gulag, he is fervently committed to the cause of freedom. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate release of Victor Rolando Arroyo Carmona and every prisoner of conscience suffering in the totalitarian gulags of the nightmare called the Castro regime.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is a huge difference. It is true that we are in control, but the difference is that when the Republicans bring up ways to cut waste, fraud and abuse, leaders of your party say that that is irresponsible. I mentioned that quote a little while ago. The difference is that when we see waste, fraud and abuse, we try eliminate it, we try to cut it. That is what this budget does. The difference is that when you see waste, fraud and abuse, you want to stack on top, you want to pile on, and you want to increase taxes on every single hardworking American. That is the difference.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I had a point to make, but I just heard the distinguished gentleman right now complain about the size of the debt, and this is what I was saying a little while ago. Just last week he voted, along with his colleagues, to increase the debt that he is complaining about by billions and billions and billions of dollars. Hey, which one is it? They cannot have it both ways. Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to bring up was that we just heard a little while ago a Member from the Democratic Party talk about, I guess my colleagues pretty much heard on the floor, he agreed that the Alternative Minimum Tax increase the Democrats gave us years ago was a mistake because they said it was a tax on the rich. Now we know that it is not, and yet they continue to do the same thing. They complain. They are saying that they only want to raise taxes on the rich. Let me give my colleagues an idea. The facts are that they want to raise taxes on 52,000 farms. Those are not rich, 230,000 partnerships under S Corporations, which are small businesses, by the way, the job creators in this country; those are not the rich. Seven hundred thirteen thousand who pay self-employment tax and then from that they pay salaries because they have the business; they are sole proprietors of their business. Just like they were wrong when they said the Alternative Minimum Tax was for the rich, now when they say that they only want to increase taxes on the rich. It is not true. They once again want to increase taxes on every single living American.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for not yelling. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget asked a few minutes ago why our Democratic colleagues keep yelling, and I think they hope that all their yelling will drown out how wrong they are on the facts. But let us talk about what those facts actually are. This Republican budget is a fiscally responsible budget. It has no tax increases over the next 5 years. It makes the current tax cuts permanent on the American working people, and it cuts the deficit in half over the next 4 years. But what we hear from the Democrat side is double-talk, talking from both sides of their mouths. And sometimes you even hear talking from both sides of the mouth from the same individual on the same issue. Let me give you some examples of that. The very talented Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, ``The Republicans are spending like there's no tomorrow.'' But then he also, same person, mind you, again, the distinguished, talented Democratic whip then says as a reaction to the gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. Nussle) alternative proposal to cut 1 percent in waste, fraud and abuse, he says, again, I repeat, cutting 1 percent of waste, fraud and abuse would be ``senseless and irresponsible.'' Same human being, same issue. Let us look at what the Democrats have proposed, and I think it is important, the facts. Again, that is why I am not screaming, because we have the facts on our side of the issue. Last year Democrats proposed alternatives to major pieces of legislation that would have added almost a trillion dollars to the deficit, and yet America just heard the other side, the Democrats complaining about too much spending in some areas. But they propose almost a trillion dollars to the deficit, increase to the deficit. They then this year, now the facts are that in the Committee on the Budget they proposed increased spending. These are actual amendments, these are facts. Look it up; it is easy to find, increased spending of $28.6 billion in just fiscal year 2005. And here is the kicker: They proposed raising taxes on the hard- working American people by $28.9 billion. That is more than half the entire budget of the State of Florida. That is this year in committee alone, and yet then they say that we are spending too much money or the deficit is too large. That is why they scream, because the facts are what they are trying to drown out. Democrats' amendments would have increased spending by almost $36 billion and increased taxes by $53.6 billion over the next 5 years. These are the facts that when you cut through all the loud yelling and screaming of the Democrats, good rhetoric, the facts are, the bottom line is, that they are trying to increase taxes massively on the American people. They are drastically trying to increase the taxes on every single American person in this country, hard-working people. The budget that we have in front of us has tax cuts, does not increase taxes, makes them permanent. Those are the facts.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing the proposal that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) just mentioned because so far, the only proposals that have been put forward by the Democrats in committee have been billions and billions and billions of additional spending and billions of tax increases. So I am looking forward to seeing if, in fact, his proposal will be different. Mr. Speaker, last week in the Committee on the Budget, by the way, the Democrats proposed raising taxes three times and increase spending by over $13 billion in their first five amendments to the budget resolution. Mr. Speaker, they had only just begun. Tonight, in the Committee on the Budget that we finished a little while ago, they presented numerous more amendments increasing spending by billions more and increasing taxes on the hard-working American people by billions more. The final tally: stay tuned, because we will be bringing that to our colleagues in the next few days. Now, why do Democrats want to raise, insist on raising, the American people's taxes to pay for more waste, fraud, and abuse in Washington? I say that because let me read my colleagues some examples. A recent GAO report found that bureaucrats at the Department of Agriculture were using taxpayer-funded purchase cards for premium satellite and cable TV packages, including charges for pornographic movies, thousands of dollars charged to the taxpayers. By the way, this one I could not understand: fish costumes, web of life costumes, and a hand-switched salmon tent, $12,000 that the taxpayers paid for those. Very expensive, it must have been a really nice aquarium for $3,000, a billiard table; and yet the Democrats insist on trying to raise the taxes of the hard- working American people in this country. And that is the difference. They insist on trying to raise taxes, and their proposals show that. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are trying to solve this problem alone. During the last year's budget resolution, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) tried to eliminate just 1 percent of waste, fraud, and abuse by cutting spending by 1 percent. The esteemed minority whip said of that proposal that that was senseless and irresponsible to try to cut just 1 percent of waste, fraud, and abuse. What they proposed was not agreed to, but they proposed billions of dollars of tax increases and billions of dollars of more government expenditures. President Bush is working on implementing the President's management agenda, a performance-based system that seeks to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse and has got nothing, nothing but opposition from the members of the minority party. This year, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) once again is providing an avenue in the budget to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Democrats will likely, unfortunately, oppose those efforts as well, and likely, once again, as they have done tonight and as they did last week, will propose billions of dollars in more spending and billions of dollars of tax increases on the hard-working Americans in this country. While Republicans are making great strides in cleaning up wasteful spending, Mr. Speaker, Democrats continue aggressively with this love affair of trying to raise the taxes on the hard-working American taxpayer.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, since I was elected to Congress, I have heard endless rhetoric from those on the other side of the aisle about the economy, tax cuts and the deficit. Unfortunately, when the political fog clears, it appears that our Democratic friends are more concerned with rhetoric than they are with results. Democrats have come to the floor and spoken about an ``exploding deficit'' that will ``haunt our children for years to come.'' One Democrat has even referred to the deficit as ``immoral.'' However, their record speaks much larger than their endless rhetoric. For example, the Democrats have proposed approximately $890 billion in alternatives to major legislation considered on the House floor last year. This would have added almost one trillion dollars to the deficit. But before the chamber could clear, I am sure those Democrats were back on the floor yelling about deficit levels. During the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution, Democrats had another great opportunity to focus on the deficit and responsible spending. The Budget Committee proposed a one percent reduction in non-defense spending in order to reduce the vast amount of waste, fraud and abuse so prevalent throughout the federal government. This proposal did not receive a single vote by a Democrat on the committee. Unfortunately, the deficit is not the only economic issue where Democrats are strong on rhetoric, but absent on results. This chamber has been the venue for many Democrats complaining about the President's tax cuts. Democrats have called the President's tax relief plan ``reckless tax cuts for the rich'' and even a ``fraud and a failure.'' Unfortunately, when addressing President Bush's tax relief plan, there are no facts that Democrats fail to misrepresent. The accusation that this tax relief is a tax cut for the rich is the most often and obvious misrepresentation of the facts. Democrats not only voted against this tax relief, but some have even advocated rescinding the President's entire tax relief package. Let us take a look at what would happen had those Democrats been able to rescind the President's tax relief. Reinstate nine million low-income Americans back on the tax rolls. Reinstate the marriage penalty. Cut in half the $1,000 per child tax credit. Raise taxes on education savings by 75 percent. Eliminate income tax deduction for paying college tuition. Raise the capital gains tax by 25 percent and 50 percent for lower income families. Increase the double tax of dividends by as much as 62 percent. Reinstate the death tax. Reduce the adoption credit and the dependent care credit. Eliminate emergency tax relief to areas affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001. Not only do some of our Democrat friends fight tax relief, they only propose one alternative: raise taxes on hard-working American people. Their talking points may avoid the facts, but raising taxes is the only economic policy Democrats have put forth. In fact, Democrats have proposed raising taxes ten times in the House and fifteen times in the Senate over the last year. This record speaks for itself. It is important, as well, to highlight the reasons why their rhetoric about the President's tax relief has been proven wrong. They claim--as I have mentioned--that the President's tax relief was only ``for the rich.'' I would guess they assume that low and middle income families are not affected by the marriage penalty, small family farmers are not affected by the death tax and middle-income parents are not affected by the adoption tax credit. It also appears that they have forgotten that the President's tax relief took millions of low-income Americans off the tax rolls all together. Democrats have also claimed that the tax relief passed by this Congress will create no stimulus for jobs. It is clear that economic developments have silenced that argument, but it is important to highlight why. According to the Department of Commerce, three million fewer Americans would be working today if the tax relief plan were not signed into law. Gross Domestic Product would also be as much as 3.5 to 4% lower by the end of 2004. How can Democrats claim that job creation hasn't happened when 112,000 new jobs were created in January and 366,000 jobs have been added over the past five months? How can they claim that the President's tax relief plan is not creating jobs when the unemployment rate has had the fastest seven month decline in nearly a decade? These are the facts and the facts seem to stand in stark contrast to the rhetoric we hear from the Democrats when it comes to economic policy. Now the Democrats are fighting to allow the tax relief to expire. Although Democrats try to avoid it, this policy is a tax increase. If the 2001 and 2003 tax relief acts were to expire now, it would raise taxes by an average of $1,544 for 109 million taxpayers in 2003, according to the Department of Commerce. While rhetoric may have led some to believe otherwise, Democrats have clearly outlined a plan over the last year that would not only contribute almost one trillion dollars to the deficit, but would also raise taxes on the American families. These are the facts and the records certainly highlight those facts. We are at a crucial point in economic policy--as spending-driven deficits and burdensome taxes are clearly affecting American families. This resolution will address the deficit, spending and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. This stands in stark contrast to the reckless spending and taxing advocated by the Democrats. As we debate the budget, I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in reducing the deficit--not by proposing almost a trillion dollars in additional spending, but focusing on reductions in programs that are wasteful, duplicative or outdated. Furthermore, I encourage Democrats to oppose the large increases that only foster high deficits, while helping to reduce the burden of the tax code on American families--not by raising taxes--but through common sense tax relief. Republicans have focused on results--the economy is rebounding, the trend of job creation is increasing, homeownership is at record levels and GDP and consumer confidence is steadily growing. I ask my Democrat friends to stop the rhetoric and begin focusing on results.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Washington Waste Watchers, and I just listened to one of my esteemed colleagues from Texas speak about instances of waste in Federal Government and why some of us have such a hard time understanding and believing why it is so easy for our good friends, the Democrats, to constantly ask for massive tax increases while we see the waste that goes on in the Federal Government. I just would like to read portions of a memo from the Inspector General of the Department of Energy dated March 2003. It is an audit report regarding the transfer of excess personal property from the Nevada test site to the community reuse organization. Mr. Speaker, during the 1990s, as a result of changes in program direction of the Department, the Department of Energy downsized or reconfigured a number of different facilities, including this State of Nevada test site. To mitigate any economic damages or impacts, Congress then authorized the Department to transfer excess personal property and provide aid to these local civic development organizations that are commonly known as CROs. These transfers, and that is what the memo says, these transfers were based on the express understanding that the property was to be excess to department needs, obviously, and also the memo then further states, despite the realization that the transfers might be made at less than fair market value, the Department was to receive, obviously, the Department was to receive reasonable consideration from these CROs for said personal property. Mr. Speaker, I want to kind of talk about some of the results, though, of the audit. The audit disclosed that Nevada's personal property transfers practices, I am quoting, ``did not strike an appropriate balance between the efforts to assist community development and the need to assure,'' and this is the part that I just, again, I insist, when you read things like that, you wonder why the Democrats insist with such passion to raise the taxes on hard-working American taxpayer. Because this says, again, that there was no balance, no appropriate balance between the efforts to assist community development and the need to assure that the Federal taxpayers received reasonable consideration for property transferred to the local CROs. In fact, the audit says, we found that the taxpayers were frequently shortchanged in this process. Yet, the Democrats want to raise the hard-working American people's taxes to do more of this kind of thing. The audit continues, it says, In February 2002, a rig was, a drill rig was sold to the local CRO for $50,000 that is now being offered for sale by an out-of-state equipment broker for $3.9 million. You better believe the taxpayer was shortchanged and, yet, the Democrats insist on wanting to raise the taxes of the American people. It said that this group transferred hundreds of pieces of equipment, including trucks, office machines and trailers, purchased, by the way, by taxpayers, to the CROs for $1 per transfer. And this is the part which is even harder to believe, Mr. Speaker. It said, it provided laboratory equipment to the CRO that was needed at another department site, ultimately causing the Department to spend $2.5 million to replace the equipment that they had basically given away. Another $2.5 million to purchase that equipment a second time because it was given away. Nothing happens. Now, the President is trying to change that, and he is aggressively trying to change that. We are going to have a debate tomorrow in the Committee on the Budget where we are going to try to stop this abuse. We are going to try to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. I hope that our dear friends on the Democratic side this year, for a change, do not propose amendments to raise taxes, to increase spending, but will join us in trying to cut waste, protect the American taxpayer. I do not have great faith, because they have not done so. That is not in their culture and their tradition. I hope they do so, because the American taxpayer is fed up with waste, fraud, and abuse. They want help in cutting that waste, fraud, and abuse. All of us are going to have a great opportunity tomorrow in the Committee on the Budget in the markup. I hope our dear friends on the Democratic side will not side with the constant increases of taxes, and will side with us to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, to seriously try to control that part of the budget, not increase taxes, not increase spending, spending more money, more good over bad over good over bad money, but will join us to not raise taxes as they have always wanted to do, but instead will join us to keep the taxes low, to keep the child credits intact, to keep the death penalty tax from going up. As one of our colleagues said, there at least should be no taxation without respiration. And they will have an opportunity tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, let us see what they will do. I hope that they will join us in fighting for the taxpayer, not fighting for more waste and more tax increases.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we have heard tonight the plight of Dr. Oscar E. Biscet Gonzalez and the situation that he finds himself in today, in a dungeon where he is not able to receive light and barely has enough air to breathe, where he has been placed with another person who is a violent person to see if that violent person can do harm to Dr. Biscet. Why is he serving under those conditions? Because he has asked for the one thing that the Castro dictatorship, just 90 miles away from the United States, that that thug fears the most. What Dr. Biscet continues to ask for is freedom. That is it. Freedom to associate, freedom of religion and freedom to speak out and elect one's leaders; and for that, he has been sentenced to 25 years in prison. There are those that apologize for the Castro dictatorship, and they say we have to normalize relationships with the Castro dictatorship and we should treat Castro as if we were dealing with the government of Costa Rica or Paraguay because he is not that bad. He is ailing. He is an older, ailing individual; and, therefore, we should treat him nicely, while he has people like Dr. Biscet and many others rotting in prison because all they want is to be free. As my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) said, Where is the outrage? From time to time we see miniseries on those expensive movie networks glorifying Castro, showing him as a great leader. Where is the news coverage of Dr. Biscet and the story of Dr. Biscet's suffering? Where are the stories of any of the other political prisoners suffering in Castro's prisons? Where are they? Why does the press refuse to cover the plight of these people? Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the press has total indifference, that still gives excuse after excuse as to why we need to deal with Castro as if he were a normal human being, not the animal or the murderer that he is, despite all that, we will continue to speak out because the Cuban people deserve to be free and the American people understand more than anybody else how valuable freedom is, which is why the American people have always stood fast and have always supported people like Dr. Biscet. And until the day that Dr. Biscet is free, we will continue to speak, despite those that want to apologize for Castro, and despite those who want to help the regime and go to Cuba to have sexual tourism with little boys and little girls, we will continue to speak up for those that cannot be heard, and they will ultimately win. They will ultimately be heard, and the Cuban people will be free and the American people will feel very proud that they stood by the people of Cuba in their darkest moments by not treating Castro as if he were a normal human being, by keeping the pressure and making sure that the world understands that Castro is what he is: he is a crazy, sick, senile, murdering animal. And until the day he is gone, we will continue to speak for those like Dr. Biscet who cannot speak.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for again his leadership. I think it is worth restating. We hear it time and time again all the rhetoric that, I hear it every day, Republicans are cutting taxes on the rich. I think it is worth restating and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) mentioned that some of the high-profile Democratic leaders around this country, some of them said they want to get rid of all the tax cuts they propose. I want to talk about what those were, what those are, what are some of those so-called rich people that the Democrats want to raise taxes on. And, again, if that were to happen, if they were to succeed, it would reinstate nine million low-income Americans back on the tax rolls. Those are low-income Americans that are now not paying Federal income taxes at all because of the previous tax cuts. It would reinstate the marriage penalty. Again, I repeat, I guess they think only rich people get married. It is a wakeup call. Not only rich people get married. It would cut in half the $1,000 per child tax credit. I am not going to comment on that. It would raise taxes on education savings by 75 percent. It would eliminate the income tax deduction for paying for college tuition. It would increase a double tax of dividends by as much as 62 percent. It would eliminate the small, I emphasize it would eliminate the small business expense again for small businesses. It would reinstate the death tax, and it would eliminate the emergency tax relief to areas affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001. That is what is at stake here. That is what we are talking about. Those are the tax cuts that before I got elected a majority of this Congress, Republicans, fought for, the President fought for and successfully got. That is why we have seen the economic growth. Those are the tax cuts that we better believe that I think the American people deserve, again, because I believe it is their money. It is their money. They have the right to keep a little bit more of their money, and if somebody thinks that those 9 million low income Americans who are now not paying Federal income tax are rich, they have the right to think so. Like I repeat, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who I respect, has the right to feel that we are not at war. I just respectfully say that they are wrong. We do not have a lot of time, but I know that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) wants to leave us with some last remarks.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, you know the numbers do not lie. Here they are. My colleague mentioned them, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) mentioned them, 7.2 GDP increase, the highest rate of growth in 19 years. By the way, I never heard our good friends from the other side of the aisle say we were wrong, we were wrong in suggesting and proposing tax increases as a solution, we were wrong in proposing legislation that would have increased the deficit by almost $1 trillion. And yet they say that they are concerned about the deficit. All of us are concerned about the deficit. And we believe that one of the ways to lower the deficit, clearly, is to create economic growth and to incentivize the private sector to create economic growth. Our good friends on the other side, the Democrats, let me quote the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), he said, quote, ``I see public debt climbing through the roof,'' end of quote. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) said, quote, ``The Bush economic blueprint, the House GOP plan is also fiscally irresponsible,'' we have talked about that a little while ago, ``because the debt it would create, saddling our children with debt and hurting long-term economic growth.'' And, yet, that party proposed increasing the debt that they are saying is high. We would all agree that we want to control that debt, the deficit, but they say that this, what the leadership of that party proposes, this year alone increases to the deficit of almost $1 trillion. You know, they may get upset at me because I am bringing up some of these facts, but I think one cannot deny the facts. One cannot deny that the President's tax cut proposal package, that this House, because of the leadership of this House, the majority leadership, is working. And they cannot deny that they propose amendments to increase the deficit by almost $1 trillion.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Well, I think the facts bear that out. That is why, again, if you listen carefully you might even hear, you might hear that crunching of people's mouths because they are eating their words. They are chewing those words. And one person who has been a leader and an inspiration to a lot of us here, trying to bring fiscal sanity to this, and obviously the President has been leading that charge, and the leadership here, but one of the Members in this freshman class that has done an incredible job is the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), the person who understands the importance of controlling spending, who understands the importance of controlling the size of the deficit, and who understands that the way to increase the economy, to make this economy grow, is not by taking more and more money from the American taxpayer. And I thank him for joining us here. I would yield to the gentleman now.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Let me, if I may, the gentleman is reminding us and me of what the situation was. It was absolutely right. That is why it is even more remarkable what the President and the majority in this Congress were able to do. More remarkable because we are dealing with the effects of 9-11, the effects of 9-11 when we all know what a travesty and a tragedy that was. We are dealing with the dot-com crash, as the gentleman mentioned. We are dealing with the scandals in Wall Street. And yet, despite all those things, because the President had a plan, a fiscally responsible plan, the economy is picking up. Despite all of these things, despite the fact that we are at war, and I know that some people do not believe we are at war. The esteemed Democratic leader whom I respect and I am going to paraphrase it, I do not have the quote with me on the floor, she said something to the effect of, I do not feel that we are at war. She has the right to not feel that we are at war, but the reality is that we are at war, that we were attacked. And despite the fact that we are at war, because of the efforts of the President, because of his sound leadership, because of his truly sound leadership, because the leadership in this House and the majority party of this House and the majority of the Members, this House voted for that stimulus package that, again, our good friend on the Democratic side said, it is not going to work. I think maybe thinking the economy has taken such a huge hit because of 9-11, because of the crash of dot-coms that no way, nothing can work. This President had a sound policy. It was approved by this House, by this Congress; and it is working. And without that tax relief, without those tax relief packages of 2001 and 2003, 1.5 million Americans would be out of work right now. Right now. Those are people that would not be working. Was it worthwhile taking all the heat, taking all the political heat to make sure that we produced, that the economy grew to produce those 1.5 million jobs? Ask those 1.5 million Americans if it was worthwhile. The tax relief package of 2001 contributed nearly $400 billion in growth in 2002, again, despite our dear friends on the Democratic side claiming that the tax program did not work, quote/unquote as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) said. And again, since 2003 the tax relief plan, initial claims for employment insurance have declined by more than 10 percent since then. It is real. It works. We knew it was going to work; and we also knew, we clearly also knew that the Democrats' answer to the problem, which was massive tax increases and massive additions to the deficit, would have been a total disaster. And so I for one am not apologetic. I for one am not apologetic when I say I am proud that I was part of a small part of making sure that the Federal Government took just a little bit less of the American hardearned taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. When the gentleman was speaking right now, one thing that hit me and it hits me every time I listen to the gentleman and other colleagues on the Republican side, and I listen to our colleagues on the Democratic side, the gentleman just said that it is the people's money. And yet when we listen to the Democrats, they say we are giving, that the government is giving to the people. A gift. We are giving tax cuts. We are giving away this money. In other words, government, we, being government, is giving away this money. Wait a second. Since when did government create it? Did government produce it? Where does that money come from? The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and I have had those conversations time and time again. We share a frustration when we hear those debates. That may be one of the reasons that when we are sitting on the Committee on the Budget and the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) had a proposal to cut just 1 percent in waste, fraud and abuse, we can recall that not one single Democrat, not one, could even make the mistake of voting to cut 1 percent of waste, fraud and abuse. Of course not. Because it is not the people's money in their eyes. It is government's money. So if we waste it, if we throw it away on credit cards, whatever we do, it does not matter. There is more where that comes from. That is why they proposed between the House and the other Chamber, 25 times they proposed increasing taxes. Why? Because it is the government's money. The people are here, it seems they believe, to serve government. The people are like a cow that we milk, that government milks. That is the only purpose. And that is a frustrating thing I hear all the time. And that is why I love to hear what I just heard from the three gentlemen that no, it is not. It is not government's money. It is the people's money. And that is why I am not ashamed, I am not embarrassed when we support initiatives to allow the people to keep a little bit more of their money. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) mentioned that it is a tiny percent of the budget that we are dealing with, but that tiny percent allows the American people to creat economic growth in a way that we have not seen in many, many years. And I do not know if the gentleman share those frustrations that I do.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Again, he is absolutely right. The bottom line, the tax cuts are working. It is doing what our esteemed colleagues on the Democratic side said time and time again it would not happen, it would not work. It is working. Those tax cuts are working. We mentioned who are receiving those tax cuts that so many want to repeal, and I also want to mention one last time their alternatives. Their alternative to the tax cut, their alternative to letting the American people keep a little more money that is working, their alternatives are what they propose, as I mentioned it before, to raise taxes 25 times. If we combine this chamber and the other chamber, 25 times to raise taxes. That is their alternative, and they also proposed alternatives to major legislation this year alone that would have added $890 billion to the deficit. The good thing is, thank God in a democracy we have alternatives, and the majority of this House went along with the President's alternative. Cut taxes on the American people, cut taxes on small business, cut taxes on the hardworking taxpayer of the country. The results, alas, no big surprise, economy is rebounding. It is rebounding strongly. So I am very grateful for the President's leadership.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak about an issue that is a huge priority for the Republican majority in this House, and also, Mr. Speaker, a huge priority for the President of the United States, and that is the United States of America's economy and where we are with our economy right now. Ever since I got elected, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, has not been a long time, time and time again I have heard from our dear friends in the Democratic Party how the tax cuts that the President of the United States was pushing for and that this Congress approved were not working, and they were not going to work, Mr. Speaker. They were impossibilities. They could never work. They were not based on any sound policy. And the quotes go on and on and on, how again there is just no way that it was going to work, because it was irresponsible, because it was ludicrous, because it did not make sense, because, I even heard some people say, because you hurt government when you take government's money away. Think about that. I actually heard that. I am paraphrasing it, but I heard a statement just like that on the floor of the House. It is going to hurt government to take that money, government's money, away, by giving it in tax cuts, by giving away government's money in tax cuts, Mr. Speaker. We clearly have some serious differences with our friends in the other party. One of the main differences, Mr. Speaker, is a pretty basic realization, and that is this, that every single dollar that we are dealing with here, every single dollar that we debate on this floor, every single dollar that this government spends, Mr. Speaker, is not the government's money; it is money that the government takes from the hard-working American taxpayer. It is their money. It is their money that we are spending. It is not the government's money. Yet, when the President and this Congress said we have to incentivize this economy, because the President was not happy with how the economy is going, he felt and we felt, the majority, that we had to do better, we had to do a better job to make sure that more Americans had jobs, Mr. Speaker, that every American that wants a job should be able to find one, so this President had a very ambitious program to incentivize the economy, I repeat, we heard every single possible statement that you could possibly hear as to how it was not going to work. Let me read a couple of quotes. I am not going to bore you with all the quotes, you have heard them before. For example, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) said, ``This is not reasonable. This is haphazard and this is reckless.'' I love this one. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) stated, ``The tax cut program did not work.'' Mr. Speaker, let me just see if I understood this. He said that the tax cut program, i.e., taking less money from the taxpayer, the government taking a little bit less of the taxpayer's hard-earned money, he said would not work and did not work to incentivize this economy. But you know what happened, Mr. Speaker. After all the rhetoric was stated on the floor of this House and in committee and in the Committee on the Budget and many other committees, after all that rhetoric, something very interesting happened, Mr. Speaker. The economic numbers came in, and what did those economic numbers show? Did they show that the tax cuts that the President proposed and that the majority of this Congress worked so hard to pass, did those economic numbers show that the tax cuts did not work? Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. Let me say, and I know the American people have heard a lot about this recently, because even some friends in the press have had to admit now that it is working, that the tax cuts are working, that taking less money from the hard-working American taxpayer is doing what the President said it was going to do, and it was going to incentivize the economy. Let me just read you some numbers. Gross domestic product, the GDP, increased from an annual rate of 3.3 percent in the second quarter due to the tax cuts to a rate of 7.2 percent in the third quarter, the highest rate of growth in almost two decades. There has been, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know if you have heard it, a lot of chewing, a lot of good friends on the Democratic side chewing their words, eating their words, because the facts are here. It is working. Let me give you a couple other statistics. Spending on big ticket items like cars and the such increased by an unbelievable 26.9 percent in the third quarter; 26.9 percent in the third quarter. If you listen carefully, you will hear it; more chewing, more chewing of their words, because, remember, these were the tax cuts that were not going to work. These were the tax cuts that were not going to incentivize the economy. 26.9 percent on big ticket items in this quarter. Consumer spending, Mr. Speaker, on nondurables, like food and clothing, increased by 7.9 percent, the best since 1976. And the chewing continues. The chewing by the Members of that side of the aisle continues, eating those words when they said no, taking more money from the people is what we need to do; raising taxes is what we need to do to incentivize the economy, and, again, doing what this President said we needed to do and what the majority of this Congress wanted to do and got passed was not going to work. But the numbers, Mr. Speaker, do not lie. Here they are. Mr. Speaker, business spending on equipment and software increased by 15.4 percent, the largest increase since the first quarter of the Year 2000. Listen to the chewing. Listen to the chewing, more words on that side of the aisle being eaten, because they said it was not going to work. Again, I repeat, what they said we had to do was increase taxes on the American people. As a matter of fact, the members of the Democratic Party proposed 25 increases in taxes this year alone. Between this Chamber and the other Chamber, 25 times they proposed increasing the American taxpayers' burden. They proposed raising the taxes on the hard-working Americans, to send it up to D.C., because tax cuts were not going to work, were not going to incentivize the economy. Mr. Speaker, homeownership rates, which is something that I think is so crucial, was up to 68.4 percent in the third quarter, the largest ever, the largest homeownership rate ever. And the initial weekly jobless claims data continues to improve, Mr. Speaker. Look, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that one needs to have a better economy to get more jobs. If we do not have a better economy, we are not going to get more jobs. So it is not rocket science that we are starting to see that the weekly jobless claim data continues to improve. For the past 4 weeks, jobless claims have been below 400,000. Still too many, but again, because of this President's leadership, because of the leadership of the majority of this House, Mr. Speaker, because this House, along with the President, decided to take less money from the hard-working American taxpayers, the economy is starting to rebound, and it is doing so in a way that many people said was impossible. Many people, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, who are now, I can hear it, I can almost hear in the background, eating their words. Consumer confidence is up 4.1 points from previous months. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is the issue; and the crux of the issue is twofold. Number one, it is not the government's money; it is the people's money. When we let the people keep a little bit more of their money, Mr. Speaker, that is not a gift. Government is not giving those people anything, Mr. Speaker; government is taking a little bit less of the people's money so that they can spend it on their children, on their kids' education, on savings, on whatever they want, because it is their money. It is their money to start with. And on top of that, what happens is that the economy begins to grow and the GDP begins to grow. So, Mr. Speaker, I have a number of dear friends and colleagues who are joining me here today, and if I could, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling). He has done an incredible job in the time that he has been elected as one of the founding members of the Washington Waste Watchers, a man who has shown incredible leadership fighting waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman brought up really, really good points. One of the things that he mentioned, and I think it is true, and I think when we think about it, it is amazing. The gentleman mentioned how some of these very high-profile Democratic leaders want to repeal all of the tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts; and then they call it all sorts of different things. We have seen it: they say, cutting taxes on the rich. But let me read what some of those tax cuts they want to repeal are, because one of the things that some of our colleagues hate is when we speak with the facts in hand. Some of those are, if they were to be successful, that means that we would reinstate 9 million low-income Americans back on the tax rolls. These are Americans, low-income Americans that are now not paying Federal income tax because of the Bush tax plan. And what the Democrats are saying, if they were to succeed on that, that those high-profile leaders the gentleman mentioned, that those 9 million low-income Americans would get back on the tax rolls and would have to start paying taxes, low-income Americans. Are those the rich who they say that we should not cut their taxes? It would reinstate the marriage penalty, the marriage penalty. Is that for the rich? Do only rich people get married in this country? I mean, I do not know. Maybe I am learning something. No. No. It would reinstate the marriage penalty. It would cut in half the $1,000 per child tax credit. Do only rich people have children in this country? So they would then cut in half that tax cut, $1,000 tax cut. And do they insinuate? No. They say that the tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts are tax cuts on the wealthy. Excuse me? Cut in half the $1,000 per child tax credit? Maybe it is news to the Democrats, but not only rich people have children. It would raise taxes on education savings by 75 percent; by 75 percent. Dealing with rich people here? No. It would eliminate the income tax deduction for paying for college tuition. I know that it sounds hard to believe, but it would eliminate the income tax deduction for paying for college tuition. That is what they want to eliminate. Those are the tax cuts that they say are for the rich? No. No. No. Get real. They would increase a double tax on dividends by as much as 62 percent. They would reinstate the death tax. I do not know. Maybe only the rich die. Maybe they think that only the rich die. No. They would reinstate the death tax. They would eliminate the emergency tax relief to areas affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001. They would also do that. They can claim, they can say, they can state whatever they want to. These are the facts. The facts are that the President's tax cut proposal is working, that this Congress's leadership, making sure that that passed, has made, has created serious economic growth. And the reality is when they talk about eliminating all of Bush's tax cuts, they are not talking about eliminating tax cuts for the rich, they are talking about these tax cuts. And the hardworking Americans paid a lot of money. They sent a lot of money up to Washington. It is their money. My colleagues know what the President believes and what we believe, Mr. Speaker, that if you allow the American people to keep some of their money, good things happen. He was right. He was proven right. The leadership in this House was proven right. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), who not only is a Congressman, but I think we also have to thank him for his previous service to this country. As Members know he was a colonel in the United States Marines. He makes us proud. I think all of us feel proud to have him as a colleague here in Congress.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I once again want to talk a little about the Washington Waste Watchers and the work that a number of us are trying to do to root out waste in Washington. The examples are just one after another; but one that hit me, I think like a ton of bricks, was the $814,000 in salary and bonuses for a Head Start executive director in Kansas. Yet, Mr. Speaker, when we bring these up, our good friends on the Democratic side of the aisle have only one solution. What is their solution? Do they join us when the chairman of the Committee on the Budget proposes to cut 1 percent in waste, fraud, and abuse? No, they propose increased taxes on the American people. When we see a $470,000 grant to study individuals, now, listen to this, drinking alcohol while watching pornography, do we get the Members of the other side of the aisle coming forward to say we want to help cut waste, fraud, and abuse? No, they propose to increase taxes on the American people. When we see, for example, the Impact Aid funds intending to go to schools in South Dakota that were instead used, some of them, to purchase real estate, to purchase a Lincoln Navigator and a Cadillac Escalade, do we get our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle to say we want to support you in cutting this waste? No, they propose increasing taxes, 25 times just this year alone.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I, once again, want to speak a little bit on the cause the Washington Waste Watchers is trying to get done and that is to highlight and try to get rid of some of the everlasting waste in the Federal Government, waste of the taxpayer's money that the Federal Government seems so apt at doing so well. Mr. Speaker, for example, the postal service managers received over $500 million in incentive awards for allegedly improving financial performance when, in fact, all indicators showed at the same time that the financial performance had actually declined. And, yet, we still gave that $500 million because of the performance which, again, the same performance had declined. The examples are just never-ending. For example, the EPA had no knowledge whatsoever of the work that a certain EPA applicant was going to perform, but still awarded that same applicant with a $700,000 grant even though it did not know what it was for, Mr. Speaker. HUD paid the full amount of $227,000, Mr. Speaker, for a project even though that same project that it was paying for, the full project, one- third of the project had only been completed. And, yet, the entire sum went out. Again, no accountability whatsoever. And nothing seems to happen. The public housing authority in Bridgeport, Connecticut, received an extra $750,000 in operating subsidies during the year 2000, while incurring $300,000, Mr. Speaker, in unnecessary utility expenses for units that had been vacant for years. Again, these are not new issues. And, yet, the Democrats, Mr. Speaker, still insist on trying to raise the taxes of the hard-working American people to do more of this. You see, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has grown at an uncontrollable size. And the Democrats insist on raising the taxes on the hard-working Americans to do more of this, of throwing good money after bad and bad money after good and good money after bad. Because it is not once, it is over and over and over. And their solution, Mr. Speaker, is it is not a problem, there is more money where that comes from. The American people will take more money out of their hard-earned dollars, take it out of their pockets, send it to D.C. so D.C. can continue to do what it has done year after year after year. I am encouraged, Mr. Speaker, by the President's new initiative to try to curtail this. But let me tell my colleagues what I am a little bit discouraged about, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government loses almost $20 billion before it can even waste it. When the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, had an amendment in the committee after we see the amount of money that is wasted, he said let's cut 1 percent, just 1 percent on waste, fraud and abuse. Mr. Speaker, how many votes were there from our distinguished friends of the Democratic party for the motion of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to cut just 1 percent of waste, fraud and abuse? Zero. Not one. Because, again, they believe in raising taxes. Take the money from the hard-working American people. They all keep sending it up here so they can come up and the money can come up here and the Federal Government can continue to waste it. Mr. Speaker, again I will continue to highlight this waste. I am going to continue to thank the President for the initiatives that he has taken to change this, and we are going to continue to highlight it. And we have already filed some legislation, and we are going to file more legislation in order to try to change this culture of spending and of misspending to the culture of fiscal responsibility. In the meantime, I would ask my friends in the other party to change their attitude from just asking for more money, for asking for more taxes and increases in taxes, and help us change this attitude that the President is trying to change, and we are going to continue to try to change.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with my colleague more. He just quoted our leader the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and yet we have just heard for an hour our good friends on the Democrat side wailing into the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), saying that he said things, and again, they did not bring out quotes because they do not have them, saying that he said something that he did not say. He said exactly what the gentleman just quoted. Let me quote, and I am going to read part of the quote that my colleague had up here a little while ago when he had the distinguished minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), when she says ``Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspections process.'' Mr. Speaker, I think this is important. She also said, and these are her words, ``The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people.'' To me, it is kind of almost overwhelming when our good friends in the other party just from one day to another totally do a 180 to what they said. Of course, they try to put words in our mouths, in the President's mouth that he did not say, that the majority leader did not say, and that is why we did not hear a quote on the floor from the Democrats stating what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has been very clear. He is not questioning the Democrats' motives. He is questioning their policies, but here the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said what the United States responsibility is, and yet with her own votes, she has not done anything. She has done absolutely nothing to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction which she said the United States had a responsibility to do, or to minimize the danger of our troops which she said the United States had a responsibility to do, or to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. No. She voted against authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq. On the floor a little while ago from our friends in the minority party, we heard them say, well, some of our troops do not have sufficient body armor. It is a serious wording. We need to make sure they are prepared, but then they vote against the $60 billion to give our troops the necessary equipment to wage this war against terrorism. That is what we are talking about here. I have heard of people speaking through two sides of their mouth, but two sides are not enough. There are more sides of a mouth on that side of the aisle than there are seats on that side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, and again, what we are talking about here is the policy, the policy. What we then heard also was an hour of personal attacks, yes, personal attacks with innuendos and saying things because they could not quote them, saying that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said things he did not say. That should not surprise us, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Chair is from the wonderful State of California, and just in his wonderful State, they had an election, and I could not help but notice the smear campaign that the new Governor-elect had to endure. I heard him say that it was the puke politics, the smear politics. He said, ``This is puke politics.'' It seems to be the modus operandi. It seems to be the way that our good friends in the Democratic party get taught when they go to campaign school, and again, what is important is that we cut through the rhetoric and look at the policy, not the puke politics, the policy. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) mentioned how this President is leading this country in this war against terrorism. The gentleman from South Carolina said it very eloquently. We did not pick this war; we were bombed. Our people were assassinated in cold blood. We did not pick this war, and we did not have an option but to now defend ourselves, and we do not have an option but to win this war. And yes, those that want to have the politics of appeasement, I will throw out another Winston Churchill quote. He said that appeasement was like feeding an alligator, hoping that you last. You know something, that alligator has already struck. Thank God we have a leader in the White House that understands we are at war. I want to quote another thing that the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of California, the minority leader, said about the war. She said, ``I don't really consider ourselves at war,'' May 6, 2002. She has the right to not consider ourselves at war, but I for one, Mr. Speaker, will not forget the Americans who have died in the embassies abroad, in the USS Cole, in Somalia and in 9/11. This country is at war. We will not forget. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said that we will not be divided, and that we are at war, and that we will not be fighting among ourselves. Frankly, I am a little bit upset of what I just heard over the last hour which were personal attacks. Personal attacks were leveled at the majority leader in that puke politics that we saw so evident in California. Having heard all that, Mr. Speaker, I know and I am confident that because we have the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) as our leader and because we have George W. Bush in the White House, know, we do realize that we are at war. We do realize that there is a lot at stake, and those that want to hide their heads in the sand like an ostrich, including in violation of their own words, when the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said, ``The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people,'' despite having to not argue, despite the fact that she is not arguing these are her words, I am confident because of the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the White House we are going to win this war that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) does not think we are in. We are going to win it because this country has stood up to every single challenge. This country will not stand by and let its children die with impunity, be murdered with impunity. We are at war. The President understands it. The American people understand it. If the minority leader does not understand, it is her right and our right to disagree.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, a great challenge lies before this Congress as we debate a supplemental spending package for the reconstruction of Iraq. American forces bravely liberated an oppressed population from decades of terror and the evil rule of Saddam Hussein's regime. While freedom may have been born on the streets of Iraq after the fall of the regime, its long-term survival clearly depends on our commitment to help the Iraqi people establish a government and infrastructure that will allow freedom and democracy to grow. History highlights situations where wars may have been won, but long- term peace and security clearly was not. In the 1980's, for example, the United States helped Afghanistan defeat the Soviets, but failed to follow through to ensure long-term security and stability. Just 20 years later, Afghanistan's governing body--the Taliban--protected and housed Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network. Abandoning Iraq without ensuring stability will only provide opportunities for terrorists and extremists to eliminate Iraq's hopes for freedom and democracy. This will ultimately bring a greater threat to the United States and our allies. America's commitment to freedom and democracy is unwavering. The soldiers that bravely liberated the Iraqi people and brought an end to an evil regime, demonstrated this commitment to freedom and democracy that America has fought for throughout its history. We must not turn our backs on the very principles this nation fought for. We must not return the Iraqi people to a state that sponsors terrorism, lacks all regard for human rights and poses an international threat to peace. As Members of Congress we must support measures that will ultimately protect America and the American people. Along with President Bush's support, this body has passed major initiatives to protect Americans since September 11. The authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein's regime was one such initiative. However, those efforts--and the successes since the fall of the regime--will be meaningless if we abandon Iraq and allow for similar regimes to emerge. Initiatives to protect Americans must exist far beyond our borders. Threats to our security are developed far from our borders and should be addressed long before they have a chance to reach one of our major cities. We must not allow Iraq to become another breeding ground for anti-American terrorist dictators that will not only abuse its people, but also seek to destroy the United States. Some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed concerns with this reconstruction package. Such hesitation is reminiscent of similar hesitation on this very floor in 1947, while the House and Senate were debating the Marshall Plan after the conclusion of World War II. At that time, some Members had concerns that the Marshall Plan was expensive, poor policy and would ultimately fail. One Senator claimed that the American people ``are thoroughly disgusted with the whole program, when they know anything about it, or when it is explained to them, and when they understand that it may lead to the destruction of the United States.'' Another Senator stated that ``the Truman-Marshall Plan will be no more successful than our previous adventures in foreign policy.'' One Member of the House even referred to the plan as a ``campaign of propaganda.'' As history recorded, the Marshall Plan became one of the most successful foreign policies in American history. We were able to secure an unstable region of the world, build long-term international relations and ensure the security of America and our allies. A comprehensive assistance program was essential in securing the stability of Europe, especially Germany. Had America and our allies walked away from Europe after we fought to liberate it, destabilization would have certainly been a consequence. Like the Marshall Plan, our reconstruction package seeks to ensure the long-term stability of a region that plays a major role in the security of America. We must ensure that future generations are not faced with the same threatening regimes we have faced. The only way to make that assurance, however, is to help rebuild a nation that has been significantly damaged by a government which had no regard for its own citizens. I proudly stand in support of this initiative, which will create long-term stability in Iraq and will ensure that a terrorist regime will never re-emerge. We own this to the people of Iraq and to all Americans--here and abroad--that must be protected from every threat to their security and safety. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for this legislation, which will protect our troops, the principles of freedom and democracy, and will ultimately eliminate a major threat to the United States that has existed for decades.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as part of the Washington Waste Watchers, I want to highlight, once again, the waste in the Federal Government. Over the last 4 years the Department of Agriculture spent over $5 billion in food stamp improper payments. This could have paid for over a year of food stamps for over 3 million low-income Americans. Improper payments alone last year could have paid for a year of food stamps for close to 800,000 low-income Americans, Mr. Speaker. And yet our friends the Democrats still want to raise your taxes to pay for more of this? Mr. Speaker, Democrats are worried about spending more money to protect our troops and to provide for America's long-term security, but they have no problem in spending money to give benefits to ineligible recipients. We have to get our priorities right, Mr. Speaker. Let us fight waste, fraud, and abuse. We ask our friends in the other party to help us in our long term security and not do anything to not fund our troops abroad.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to direct the attention of Congress to a statement made by a great Cuban pro- democracy leader, Sylvia G. Iriondo, at the September 24th meeting ``Americans for a Democratic Cuba'' in the Rayburn House Office Building here in the U.S. Capitol. Mrs. Iriondo is an inspiration to all freedom loving people because of her work as the President of Mothers and Women Against Repression (MAR). Originally founded in 1994, MAR gives a voice to the thousands of oppressed pro-democracy activists who live under Castro's totalitarian regime. Mrs. Iriondo was also one of the brave souls in the sky on the fateful day of February 24, 1996 when the Castro dictatorship's fighter jets shot down two civilian aircraft, murdering three U.S. citizens and a resident of the United States, members of the Brothers to the Rescue organization. Through her charity, experience and steadfast commitment to democratic ideals, Mrs. Iriondo has earned the right to be heard by the United States Congress and I hope my colleagues take the time to read her testimony. Mr. Speaker, I would personally like to thank Mrs. Iriondo and the extraordinary women that are part of MAR for the great work they do to draw attention to the plight of the prisoners of conscience who suffer in Castro's gulag and for the exemplary leadership Mrs. Iriondo provides as the President of Mothers and Women Against Repression. I thank her for her efforts and I trust that one day very soon she and I will witness a free Cuba. I ask that her remarks be included in the Congressional Record at this time. Statement Made by Sylvia G. Iriondo, Americans for a Democratic Cuba-- Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, D.C., September 24, 2003 Good afternoon. I am most grateful for this opportunity to highlight the most recent wave of repression unleashed by Castro's regime that culminated in the arbitrary arrests, summary trials and long prison sentences of up to 28 years for more than 75 prodemocracy leaders, independent journalists and human rights' activists, as well as in the summary executions of three young Cuban men who attempted to flee the island in search of freedom. This brutality did not go unnoticed. For the first time in more than four decades of systematic human rights violations in Cuba, other voices from around the world--aside from our voices--were vigorously raised in condemnation of these deplorable actions. The international community could not believe that these peaceful activists were incarcerated and sentenced to more than 1,400 collective years in prison for speaking their minds; using faxes, cameras and typewriters; distributing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the Cuban people and for openly meeting with foreign dignitaries and other activists. The horrendous conditions under which these political prisoners serve their sentences in Castro's jails are well- documented: isolated cells infested by rats, contaminated water, rancid food, poor hygiene, no adequate sanitary facilities, absence of ventilation, and minimal medical assistance to many political prisoners. This is nothing new. It has been happening 90 miles from U.S. shores for the last 44 years. The list of crimes and abuses is extensive and a continuation of a policy established since 1959 by a regime intent on remaining in power--at all costs--through repression. Among those arrested and sentenced in the most recent wave of repression, there is a Cuban woman: Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello. This 58-year old woman is an independent economist who helped establish the Independent Cuban Economists' Institute and who heads the Assembly to Promote Civil Society in Cuba, a coalition of more than 350 organizations representing a wide political spectrum that calls for the fundamental freedoms and rights of the Cuban people. Martha Beatriz was again arrested on March 20, 2003--(she had previously served a three and one half years' sentence for being the co-author of a document entitled ``The Homeland Belongs to Us All''). At the time of her most recent arrest, Martha Beatriz was participating in a peaceful hunger strike calling for the liberation of Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet and all Cuban political prisoners. Martha Beatriz was sentenced to 20 years in prison after a ``mock'' trial and confined to the ``Manto Negro'' prison in the province of Havana. In July, she was transferred to the Carlos J. Finlay Military Hospital in the capital of Cuba, with chest pains, high-blood pressure, numbness and disorientation, among other things. As of this date, she remains confined to this hospital/prison, where she does not receive the necessary independent medical attention that she urgently requires. We fear for her life, as we fear for the lives of many other Cuban political prisoners who are being denied medical attention. (It is a common practice for the Castro regime to withhold medical attention to political prisoners as a form of torture). We have initiated an international campaign for the immediate liberation of Martha Beatriz and all Cuban political prisoners, and created a website under www.marthabeatriz.info. In one of the last statements made by Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello prior to her recent incarceration she stated, ``we exhort all governments of the civilized world not to prolong the agony of the Cuban people; not to finance the tyranny; not to support them; that they condemn the tourist apartheid; that they condemn the exploitation of the laborers, the prostitution of our youth, the traffic of stolen properties, the plundering of the Cuban nation. The solidarity that is required today with those in Cuba and in exile who advocate for freedom is very important to all''. Lifting the sanctions and restrictions now will provide a much-needed lifeline to finance Castro's regime that would help prolong its stay in power at the expense of the Cuban people. On behalf of Martha Beatriz and the organization I represent, Mothers and Women Against Repression, I would like to thank those members of Congress who recently voted in solidarity with the democratic aspirations of the Cuban people by voting against the Flake amendment in the Treasury Postal Appropriations bill. We call on the Senate to defeat this amendment and we are grateful to President Bush for his commitment to veto the bill should the amendment prevail after conference. Lastly, I want to share with you a short documentary that our organization produced after Castro's latest crackdown on Cuba's peaceful democratic opposition movement, entitled ``Repression''. It is but just one more reason on why sanctions and restrictions on Castro's regime should not be lifted--until all political prisoners are freed; there is freedom of the press and assembly, and internationally supervised free elections are scheduled. The Cuban people deserve no less.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, while the Democrats continue to want to raise the taxes on the hard-working Americans, or when they keep proposing, as they did this year, over a $1 trillion increase, or close to $1 trillion, $890 billion increase, to be precise, on the already, I think, large deficit, thank God the President, though, has released the President's agenda that we are all familiar with, which outlines a plan to clean up this mess of just waste, fraud, and abuse that exists and is rampant here in Washington and that has always been rampant here in Washington. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) eloquently mentioned some issues that should concern all Americans as to how Washington wastes America's taxpayers' money. I am reminded of all of the cases, case after case, of fraud, waste, and abuse that continue to happen, including money that is just absolutely lost in this huge bureaucracy. In 1999 the Army, for example, took an inventory of its assets and found that, check this out, 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, I do not know how you lose 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin-command launch units for which it had no record, had no records for them. That same year, GAO identified more than $3 billion in inventory that the Navy had ``lost in transit.'' How do you lose $3 billion of inventory in transit? The GAO also found $400,000 in computer purchases that the Department of Education had not recorded in the property records. By the way, 200,000 of those computers could never be located. Yet, I repeat, the Democrats insist on raising the taxes on the hard- working Americans, because there is not enough money. There is not enough money if you want to lose more money, if you want to throw away more money, if you want to splurge more money; but there is clearly more than enough money to do what we need to do here, as long as we get a little bit more responsible. I commend the President for his efforts. Mr. Speaker, the Inspector General at the Department of Veterans Affairs alone has identified more than 5,500 possible cases of individuals who may be defrauding the Veterans Administration by receiving benefits intended for veterans, these are benefits that are intended for benefits, but for people who are dead. Mr. Speaker, 5,500. Fourteen thousand, almost 14,000 incarcerated veterans have been paid about $100 million, and these are not small sums, $100 million in benefits that they were clearly not eligible for. And yet the Democrats insist on coming up with proposal after proposal and budget after budget that raises the taxes of the hard-working Americans in this country. To do more of this? Over $100 million, another $100 million in improper payments of missed Medicare beneficiaries who rely on them. Over the last 4 years, by the way, for example, the Department of Agriculture has spent $5.13 billion in improper payments, improper payments intended to go to food stamp beneficiaries. Yet, the Democrats say, there is not enough money, and they insist on trying to raise the taxes on the hard-working Americans of this country. Mr. Speaker, that is why, with a number of my colleagues, we have come up with the Washington Waste Watchers to not only highlight the fact, not that Washington has enough money, but that we have too much money, and that there is not enough accountability. We commend the President for his steps in the right direction, and we are going to continue to let the American people know where their money is being spent and, in many cases, misspent. And, no, we are not going to support raising taxes. We are going to support changing the culture up here from a culture of waste, of fraud, and abuse to a culture of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak today but I felt compelled after I heard some remarks by one of our distinguished colleagues from the other party about the spending that the United States is proposing to do in Iraq and his concerns for the deficit situation in the United States of America. And I share his concern for the deficit, but I need to clarify some facts if we are concerned about the deficit, and then we must be consistent. Madam Speaker, that same party in this Congress, and this is my first term here, has proposed amendments to major pieces of legislation that would have increased the deficit by $890 billion. Members heard me right, almost a trillion dollars of an increase on top of the deficit that exists right now. And yet in the Committee on the Budget when the chairman proposed a 1 percent cut, just a 1 percent cut in waste, fraud and abuse, Madam Speaker, the distinguished members of the other party all, 100 percent of them, voted no. The chairman did not get one single vote to cut just 1 percent in waste, fraud and abuse in that committee. Is it because there is no waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government? Is the Federal Government so efficiently run that we cannot find 1 percent in waste, fraud and abuse? Madam Speaker, I have been mentioning lots of examples as part of the Washington Waste Watchers Group that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) and I created with a number of our colleagues, but let me mention a couple of small examples to illustrate how much waste exists. For example, Medicaid alone paid $1.6 million to a Wisconsin transportation company for multiple round-trip billings for people that were dead or that were hospital-bound that were not moving anywhere. There is a lot more. The Veterans Affairs inspector general has identified over 5,500 possible cases of individuals who may be defrauding the government by receiving benefits intended for veterans who have died, who are dead, who are not there, who do not exist. Totally fraudulent. Again, that is money that does not go to the real veterans that deserve it. Over the past 5 years, 6,733 fugitives have been arrested for illegally receiving food stamps. By the way, 1,500 of those were drug offenders, 31 were murders, 45 were sex offenders and child molesters, and hundreds were wanted for assault and robbery, and yet they received benefits they are not qualified for. And yet some will say it is not enough to cut 1 percent in waste, fraud and abuse, and we see what they request as opposed to that, and we hear time and time again, the Democrats keep saying we have to raise taxes. We have to raise taxes because there is not enough money, because the Federal Government is run so efficiently that we cannot cut 1 percent of waste, fraud and abuse. Madam Speaker, the facts do not bear that out. The Federal Government does waste people's money. The Federal Government loses almost $20 billion a year that just evaporates, they do not know where it is. The Federal Government cannot even misspend it because it is lost. And then they still say, the Democratic side, that we have to raise the hard- working American taxpayer's taxes because there is no waste, fraud and abuse. Madam Speaker, the American people know better. We can and we must cut waste, fraud and abuse; and clearly, the days of raising taxes on the American people have to be over, and they are.

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, the Washington Waste Watchers have been hard at work locating a vast range of government waste, fraud, and abuse. Unfortunately, these examples have not been hard to find, Madam Speaker. For some, however, examples of wasted taxpayers' money does not slow down their efforts to raise taxes. We have got a spending problem here in Washington; and waste, fraud, and abuse is a huge part of why we have that problem. For example, $366 million, $366 million in Pell grant awards was improperly disbursed because applicants understated their income on their applications last year. That resulted in over 84,000 Pell grants lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. And the Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for more of this? The Veterans Affairs Inspector General, Madam Speaker, estimates that roughly 14,000 incarcerated veterans have been paid about $100 million nationwide because the Department has no method of identifying prisoners, never has, $100 million in wasted benefits that missed going to the needy, truly needy veterans in order to line the pockets of Washington's bureaucracy. And the Democrats, Madam Speaker, want to raise taxes to pay for more of this? Over the last 4 years, the Department of Agriculture spent a total of $5.13 billion in food stamp overpayments. That is $5.13 billion wasted instead of helping low-income families who are unable to put food on their table. And again Democrats insist on wanting to raise the taxes of the hard-working American people to do more of this? We do not need to raise taxes to improve government benefit programs; but Madam Speaker, we have to be willing to reach into the pockets of the bureaucracy and stop that system from spending the checks of our taxpayers' money. Accounting schemes that send people to jail in the private sector do not even impact a normal promotion schedule for the bureaucracy in the Federal Government. It is not an issue here. See, it is time to hold those people responsible for wasting taxpayers' money; but we have got to be committed to fixing the broken systems, not just pouring more and more tax money from the hard-working people to keep the same programs going exactly the same and wasting the same amount of money as the Democrats would suggest. The American taxpayers are not fooled, Madam Speaker. They know that their hard-earned tax dollars have paid for $106 billion in Medicare improper payments since 1996. Their dollars have paid for $233 million in improper payments within the Veterans Compensation and Benefit program. Their tax dollars have even bought a pet dog for a member of the bureaucracy with a government charge card. Billions of dollars are lost every single year to waste, fraud, and abuse. Taxpayers are sending their money here to Washington only to find that it is being wasted; and the Democrats again still want to raise their taxes, saying there is not enough money up here. There is a clear path, Madam Speaker, to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse throughout this Federal Government. We must find savings and not tolerate, I repeat, not tolerate, any level of wasted taxpayer dollars. Democrats have chosen to oppose those efforts time and time again and fight to raise taxes in order to pay for more of this business as usual. Every week, Madam Speaker, the Washington Waste Watchers will keep reminding every person, every person in this Chamber of the impact of government waste, fraud, and abuse, not only to the taxpayers, Madam Speaker, but also to the beneficiaries who do not receive the benefits that they do deserve. Again, we will also remind our friends on the other side of the aisle that their constant attempts to raise taxes will only result in billions of additional dollars being lost to waste, fraud, and abuse at the expense of the hard-working American taxpayer.