Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of C.E. ``Pep'' Cooney, an Arizona television icon. Pep's career in broadcasting spanned more than 45 years, taking him from advertising to president to general manager at KPNX, where he led that station to its stature as the number one rated television station in the State. Pep's nightly commentaries, or ``Pep talks,'' made him one of Arizona's most recognizable figures. Pep was also the quintessential community leader. Whether he was lending his talents to the Valley Big Brothers, United Way, Boy Scouts, the Fiesta Bowl, or countless other organizations, Pep was constantly engaged in activities to benefit the Valley and the State of Arizona. When the history of Arizona is written, Pep Cooney and the institutions he help to build and maintain will be a prominent feature. It is a rare individual who can be successful with his career, while devoting so much time to his community. It is truly an exceptional individual who can succeed in these areas while putting his family first. Pep was admired and respected by his colleagues and community. Most importantly, however, Pep was adored by his family. As a neighbor and friend to some of Pep's children and grandchildren, I have had the good fortune to watch them together. Surely the youngest of Pep's grandchildren knew little of his career success or his standing in the community. They just knew that they were his priority. That, Mr. Speaker, is Pep Cooney's most enduring legacy. May it be ours as well.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this important amendment forward. We should not be in the business of limiting family charity. We should not tell Cuban Americans in this country how much they can send to their families in Cuba. As the situation now is, individuals in Cuba are only given a certain amount that they can get through the government ration card. That does not allow for some to have meat in their diet. Allowing individuals to send money to their families simply allows that basic necessity. Unless there is a child under the age of 7, for example, you are denied milk. There is no powdered milk available for families without children under 7. This allows Cubans as a humanitarian gesture to obtain that. Also, it should be mentioned, this is rarely enforced. I doubt anybody in opposition to the amendment believes that families sending in excess of $1,200 a year ought to be prosecuted. If we want respect for the law, let us bring the law into conformity with what is happening on a humanitarian basis.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Flake-McGovern-Emerson-Delahunt amendment is very simple. It prohibits any funds in this bill from being used to enforce the regulations that restrict United States citizens from traveling to Cuba. Under current law, ordinary Americans cannot travel to Cuba unless they fit into narrowly defined categories and endure an arduous bureaucratic application and screening process. In March of this year, while a sweeping crackdown in sentencing was going on in Cuba, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, under the direction of the State Department, eliminated the people-to-people category of travel licenses to Cuba. This is in direct opposition to the administration's stated intent to increase people-to-people contact with ordinary Cubans. My amendment would effectively end the travel ban and allow ordinary Americans to travel to Cuba and to take their ideals and values to ordinary Cubans. This is an issue of freedom for Americans. Let me repeat that. This is an issue of freedom for Americans. We allow for freedom of travel to North Korea, to Iran, to Syria and to other countries where the human rights records are despicable and where animosity toward the U.S. is the basic foreign policy. Restricting travel to Cuba is not only ineffective, it curbs the basic American freedom to travel and to export American ideals and values. This past March, the Castro regime carried out a sweeping crackdown on democracy and human rights activists, journalists, independent library operators and other dissidents who were exercising basic rights. Following the roundup of more than 80 people, they were subjected to summary trials that flew in the face of justice and were sentenced to several years in the horrible Cuban prisons. These prison sentences carried terms of up to 28 years and, given the health of some of these individuals, they are in effect death sentences. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) introduced a resolution that was quickly brought to the floor after this crackdown. Several of my Cuba Working Group colleagues and myself eagerly supported the Diaz-Balart resolution and joined him at these podiums in condemning the Castro regime and again demanding the release of Cuban political prisoners. The crackdown left many speculating about Castro's timing and his motives. Some expressed shock and utter disappointment, as if Castro had at some point turned away from being the oppressive dictator that he is. I do not think many of us were surprised because, sadly, Castro has been doing this kind of thing for over 40 years. There is an old saying, Mr. Chairman, ``if you want to keep getting what you're getting, just keep doing what you're doing.'' What we have been doing is isolating Cuba for more than 40 years. And what we have been getting is this kind of attitude from that regime. I do not think any of us ought to be surprised that Castro is not a reformed man. What we should not do is emulate Castro's heavy-handedness by curtailing the freedom of our own citizens. Critics suggest that allowing Americans to travel to Cuba will provide the Castro regime with the financial resources it needs to sustain itself, but that regime has had enough resources to sustain itself for over 40 years, including beyond the post-Soviet era in which many predicted a sure demise within only months. That regime will sustain itself without American travelers going there, but ordinary Cubans will continue to be deprived of contact with Americans. Whether we like it or not, Cuba's economic troubles will not lead to political instability. We should not base our policy on the hope that economic catastrophe will cause suffering, political unrest and ultimately political change. If we base our policy on this hope, we will be waiting a long, long time over and above the period that we have already waited. Instead, we ought to unleash the real source of American influence by allowing all Americans to travel freely to Cuba, just as Cuban-Americans are currently allowed to do. In July of this year, 12 Cubans who fashioned a 1951 Chevy into a boat nearly made it to America, but they were sent back to Cuba after State Department officials reportedly negotiated 10-year prison terms with the Cuban government for these individuals. Upon returning to Cuba, I understand that six were promptly sentenced to these 10-year terms. Keep in mind that this is our own State Department officials, the same ones who pore over applications for travel licenses and purport to know what is best for ordinary Americans who wish to travel to Cuba. Think about it. If you vote against this amendment, you are turning over your right as an American to travel to the same bureaucrats who do not have enough sense but to negotiate prison terms in Castro's jails for the Cubans it sends back to the island. Under Democratic and Republican administrations, it has been a bedrock principle of American foreign policy that travel is a device that opens closed societies. American travelers are our best ambassadors. They carry the idea of freedom to people in Communist countries. It is interesting to note that among the sentencing documents used by the Cuban government to consign nearly 80 political prisoners to jails in Cuba were written materials like Time Magazine, the Miami Herald, speeches by President Bush and other U.S. publications. These were considered subversive by the Castro regime. Cubans want contact with Americans. Cuban dissidents regularly tell us that they oppose the travel ban because they believe that American travelers have a positive impact in Cuba. It is time to listen to the Cuban people, and it is time to return to our basic American values. Americans deserve the freedom to travel to Cuba to see the island for themselves. I urge my colleagues to support the Flake-McGovern-Emerson-Delahunt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a man who has worked tirelessly on this issue for years.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. I just heard that those who support this amendment were silent when Castro jailed over 80 dissidents in Cuba just months ago. I would remind the gentleman from New Jersey that the same individuals who are here in support of this amendment came to the floor and argued on behalf of the Diaz-Balart amendment condemning Castro for this action. So we have stood firm, the Cuba Working Group, and others who support this amendment against the atrocities that have happened there. I also wanted to respond to whether or not this is a good use of taxpayer dollars to actually use these dollars to enforce the travel ban as opposed to actually wage the war on terrorism. The Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department currently spends between 10 and 20 percent of its resources actually enforcing the Cuba travel ban. This is the office charged with the task of tracking down al Qaeda money, to actually shutting down the international war on terrorism, the financial war; yet they are spending over 10 percent of its resources tracking down, in essence, grandmothers from Iowa who are going on a biking trip to Cuba or the gentleman from Washington who spent less than 24 hours in Cuba to scatter his parents' ashes at the churches they built in the 1950s. The man returned home to a fine, enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. I would submit that if we are serious about the war on terrorism then we will stop this charade of actually limiting Americans' ability to travel. Let us stipulate that Fidel Castro is a bad guy. He is a horrible guy, he is a thug, I have said it many times from this podium; but our hatred for Castro should not cause us to punch ourselves in the face, and that is what we are doing in essence here, by imposing upon the American people a ban on their right to travel. We simply should not do that. It has been mentioned through here that some of the dissidents actually support what we are doing and with regard to travel. I should note here that many do not. In fact, I would submit that a majority do not. As Oswaldo Paya has mentioned, the leader of the Varela Project and leading democracy activist said, we appeal to all foreigners who come to our country as tourists to show solidarity, to take part in demonstrations to support the opening up of Cuba. Members have mentioned that some people go to Cuba just to lay on the beaches of Varadero. This is certainly true. Some of them, however, go down to protest or some go down to take books to independent libraries. We do not know who is going to. We should not pretend that we know, and for us to pretend that we do makes us look like Fidel Castro. Let him do this. It is often submitted that if we lift this travel ban that surely Fidel Castro will impose his own. I have no doubt that he will, that he will try to limit those who are coming down to Cuba. He will try to determine who is a sunbather and who is a protestor. That is a policy befitting of Fidel Castro. It is not a policy befitting of this great country. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, has all time expired for the other side?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. I appreciate the comments from the other side. I would maintain that none of us really know when Fidel Castro is telling the truth and when he is not. I do not think that we should pretend that we do. I do not think we should even try. Therefore, we simply ought to adopt a policy that is right and consistent with our objectives. That is what ending the travel ban is all about. It is doing what is good policy regardless of whether we think Fidel Castro supports it or whether he does not. I should mention there are others that have called for an end to the travel ban, other dissidents. Oscar Espinosa Chepe has been cited here a couple of times. This is a man I met just weeks before he was imprisoned in what for him may be a life sentence. He said, ``When the travel of Americans to Cuba is approved, the struggle for democracy and freedom will by no means end. To the contrary, these measures create better conditions to achieve these objectives.'' That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to comport with the wishes of the dissident community in Cuba and to do what is right for us as well, to lift the ban on Americans to travel. We need today to strike a blow for freedom. We can do that by allowing Americans to travel freely as they wish. If it is freedom that we want for the Cuban people, let us start by exercising a little more of it ourselves by allowing our citizens to travel to Cuba and to take their values with them.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is real accountability. Portability is the best accountability.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would advise him that in reading the bill he will see that there are extensive reporting requirements in the bill.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. There has been a discussion about who wants these vouchers. Is there anybody who wants them? I can tell you I just left a meeting in the Rayburn Building, just a few yards away, where there are a few dozen D.C. parents who want these vouchers, who are waiting, pleading, hoping that the vote is right today. One of them gave me this letter written by a little girl named Lapria Johnson. She is 8 years old. She was born as what they call a drug baby. Her mother took drugs while she was pregnant. Lapria was born and her grandmother was told that she would never read. This is a letter that she just wrote: ``My name is Lapria and I go to Holy Temple Christian Academy. The Washington Scholarship Fund is the only way I can read. I am 8 years old. I have a lot of problems I was born with. Public school said I could not read. I read and my math is great. My handwriting is not so good. But I have an A in reading and an A in math.'' I can tell you that her handwriting is better than mine and she is one that will benefit from this. There are kids all over like Lapria that will benefit from this if we will simply let them. We need to let them. Washington Scholarship My name is Lapria and I go to Holy Temple Christian Academy. W.SF. is the only way I can read. I am 8 years old I have a lot of problems I was born with. public school said I would not read. I read and my, my math is great my handwriting is not so good but I have A in reading and A im math Lapria Johnson.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I am pleased to be here for this debate, and I was pleased to hear the gentleman from Illinois recognize the primacy of our involvement here, that the Constitution does grant the U.S. Congress authority to move on matters such as this for the District of Columbia. I have found it interesting to listen to the debate and to listen about this amendment in particular. This amendment is based on the premise that no one in the District of Columbia wants to have a voucher to travel to anything other than a public school, and we have heard that argument again and again and again from the other side, nobody wants this program. On this side, polls are quoted. There were 57 percent, 60 percent, 75 percent, various numbers of people who want to see this program move ahead. I say the only way to settle it is to offer them, and if it is true as the gentlewoman who offered this amendment proposes, that nobody wants these vouchers, then nobody will accept them, nobody will take them. An affirmative action has to be taken for a voucher to be used. They are imposed on no one. They simply have to be used by a parent. So if it is the case that nobody wants them, that the parents of the District of Columbia do not want to have vouchers, this appropriation of funds will have no effect because the money simply will not be spent. But if it is, as is the case as we maintain, that there are parents who do want them, then they will be used. So it is up to the parents. I found it strange in the hearings leading up to this on the bill that I offered, and then later on the bill that we had before us, both times those on the other side of the aisle stood and said parents in D.C. do not want vouchers, and each time the parents lined up at the back of the room said otherwise. Parents, lined up outside in the hall, said otherwise. I say if my colleagues really believe in choice, that parents ought to have that choice, then let us put this to the test, allow this to go forward. If it is the case that parents do not want them, they simply will not be used; but if they do want them, they will. So it is up to the parents in the District of Columbia. I applaud those who have helped put this bill together and to put it on the floor today.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned how we feel about accountability. The ultimate accountability is portability, the ability to move to a different school if you do not like the school you are attending now. That is the ultimate accountability and that is what this provides.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to conclude a series of commentaries I have been making on illegal immigration and to find a solution to the Nation's current immigration woes. We in Arizona feel this in particular. Over the past 8 months, I have been working with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) to put together a comprehensive foreign worker program, a temporary worker program, which recognizes the way people organize and order their own lives, that recognizes that we need a rational policy to deal with the situation that we have along our Nation's borders. We need to understand that we not only need to deal with those who want to come to our country to work on a temporary basis, but for those who are here illegally as well, and find a solution that will both encourage those who are here illegally to come out from under the woodwork, and to come into a legal framework and to provide an opportunity for those who wish to come and fill our Nation's labor needs to do so. I am pleased that this will be introduced today, and I encourage my colleagues to look at it and join us in the debate and ultimately support it.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It has been a great debate tonight. I am not supporting this bill because I believe that it will lower drug prices substantially in the long term. I do not believe that it will. But what it will do is, as has been pointed out earlier tonight, it will force some of the other countries who have been freeloading off of us for far too long to pay some of the costs of R&D to develop these medicines for the future. That is important. I want to also read this. From ``The Wealth of Nations,'' Adam Smith addressed this issue. He said: ``To narrow competition can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax on the rest of their fellow citizens.'' The absurd tax has been paid by Americans for far too long. It ought to be shared by the rest of the world to pay for the cost of research and development.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, for the past few weeks, I have come to the floor of the House of Representatives to address an issue that I believe has to be addressed with a comprehensive legislative solution. The issue is illegal migration and our current immigration policies. Madam Speaker, this is certainly a very complex issue. Unfortunately, it involves a historical policy of turning a blind eye to the reality of the demand for workers for certain jobs in this country. Our migration policy has also not done a very good job of recognizing the way that people organize and lead their lives. We must recognize that the U.S. economy and standard of living are better than that of Mexico. Mexicans migrate to the United States not simply because wages are higher, but because Americans are willing to hire them. The demand for these workers will not diminish for the foreseeable future. In a recent report published by Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute, we know that the Labor Department has reported that the largest growth in absolute numbers of jobs will be in those categories that require ``short-term on-the-job training'' of 1 month or less. In fact, of the top 30 categories with the largest expected job growth between 2000 and 2010, more than half fall into that least- skilled category. These are all occupations where low-skilled immigrants can be expected to help meet the rising demand for workers. Across the U.S. economy the Labor Department estimates that the total number of jobs requiring only short-term training will increase from 51 million in 2000 to 61 million in 2010. That is a net increase of 7.7 million jobs. Meanwhile, the supply of American workers suitable for such work continues to fall because of an aging workforce and rising education levels. The median age of U.S. workers continues to increase as baby boomers approach retirement age. From 1990 to 2010, the median age for the American worker is expected to rise from 37 years to 41 years. Further, younger and older American workers alike are now more educated. The share of adult native-born men without a high school diploma has plunged from 54 percent in 1960 to just 9 percent in 1998. During the same period, the share of workers with college degrees has gone up from 11 percent to 30 percent. Certainly we recognize the fastest growing occupations in the next decade in percentage terms will require high degrees of skill and education. But as the economy continues to pick up steam, we have to recognize the realities of labor market demands. The demand for lower- skilled workers is growing while the American workforce is aging and increasingly well-educated. Madam Speaker, I would argue that it is no coincidence that the number of low-skilled jobs in this country is expected to grow by more than 700,000 a year. That is precisely the number of new illegal immigrants that the Federal Government now estimates are entering the U.S. job market every year. If this is not an affirmation of this power of the market, and simple supply and demand, I do not know what is. We have to consider that for an illegal worker, the prospect of unemployment in the United States is far more expensive than a similar situation in his or her home country. If jobs are not available, the treacherous journey across the border is simply not worth the risk. To conclude, permitting immigrants to enter the country as part of a temporary worker program will eliminate a huge segment of the illegal traffic coming across and within our borders. At the same time, such a strategy will recognize that our economy continues to expand, and, as such, the expansion will require new workers.