Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of legislation reforming the MTB, or the miscellaneous tariff benefit process. I am pleased to help this legislation advance. It is my hope that this bill will soon be on the President's desk. As many will remember, a dark cloud hung over the Congress with regard to the practice of earmarking in early 2009. The feeding at the earmark trough had long since expanded to the point of ridiculousness. Earmarks exploded to their annual record of $29 billion in 2006. They were long a problem before that, but it had become much, much worse at that time. Congress had become accustomed to powerful Members getting a large chunk of the earmark pie, and rank-and-file Members would fight over the scraps. We saw less and less true oversight as more and more spending was doled out in congressional back rooms. It wasn't just spending on earmarks that we didn't have good oversight on. It was the entire Federal budget. It was largely a problem because so much of our time in Congress was spent doling out earmarks and making sure that every Member got a few and that they were scattered around. We really gave up on the oversight that we should have been conducting. At the same time, earmarks opponents had ample opportunity to shame the process by highlighting bridges to nowhere, teapot museums, and the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame, for example, receiving these earmarks. But attention on the issue focused sharply in early February of 2009, when reports surfaced that a lobbying firm specializing in defense appropriations had been raided by the FBI. The New York Times noted that the firm ``set up shop at the busy intersection between political fund-raising and taxpayer spending, directing tens of millions of dollars in contributions to lawmakers, while steering hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks contracts back to his clients.'' The cloud over Congress darkened even further with suggestions of pay-to-play straw-man contributions, the reimbursing of employees for political contributions, and pressuring others for political giving. In quick succession, both the House and the Senate rightly put in place a moratorium over all earmarks, a ban that has remained intact ever since. While we gladly said goodbye to the bad old days of congressional porkbarrel spending, we soon found out that there were several things that Congress only knew how to do through earmarking. This included the so-called miscellaneous tariff benefits, or MTBs. MTBs are provisions that, when signed into law, provide tariff and duty relief for imports that are not domestically produced. The historic MTB process benefited from a consensus-driven process administered by the International Trade Commission that, for the most part, set it apart from the much ridiculed Federal largesse doled out by earmarking. Unfortunately, the original process also required that an original bill be introduced by a Member of Congress--a specific bill for a specific tariff reduction, often to benefit a particular for- profit company. I have long held that doing away with these individual bills and establishing an MTB process that relies on the ITC to accept and review proposals over which Congress has final say would be preferable. Such an approach would both comply with the earmark moratorium while providing taxpayers a measure of confidence that undue influence was not being inappropriately exerted. I am pleased to have the opportunity to work with both House and Senate leadership and with members of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means on moving such a proposal forward. To be clear, my goals of being an original cosponsor of the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 and vocally supporting moving forward with legislation reforming the MTB process is twofold. First and foremost, cutting tariffs is the right thing to do. In fact, I would support permanent tariff reductions as a means of furthering the benefits of free trade and lightening the burden on U.S. producers. In addition, the longer we go without being able to move forward with MTB bills, the more threatened the earmark moratorium is. I wish I could say that all Members of Congress are willing to permanently walk away from this wayward process of congressional earmarking, but that is not the case. Those wishing to go back to the bad old days will use any excuse to support ending the earmark moratorium. Reforming the MTB process not only provides a path for much needed tariff relief and a modicum of confidence for taxpayers, but it is also good for the long-term survival of the earmark moratorium. I am pleased to be a part of this effort moving forward. The House companion legislation passed with overwhelming support. I believe there were only two dissenting votes in the House. It is my hope that the Senate will soon follow suit. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 9, 2016, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, it has been nearly 9 months since the United States had an ambassador to Mexico. The President's nominee to that post, Roberta Jacobson, is eminently qualified, as all of us know, to serve in that position. However, she has been waiting for the Senate to confirm her since the Foreign Relations Committee reported her nomination to the Senate in November of last year with a vote of 12 to 7. Yesterday I took to the floor to talk about our important trade relationship with Mexico. That is not the only reason finalizing this nomination is so critical. The bilateral work on migration, security, and border issues of the United States and Mexico requires top-level leadership at our Embassy in Mexico City. It is critical for the United States to have an ambassador to ensure cooperation on border security issues and to identify threats to our national security. We continue to engage Mexico in disrupting organized criminal networks that facilitate human trafficking. According to Mexico's National Institute of Migration, Mexico apprehended more than 190,000 migrants in 2015, including nearly 19,000 unaccompanied minors, children, better known as UACs. This is a significant increase from 2014, when 127,000 migrants, including just over 11,000 UACs, were apprehended. It is clear these complex issues require top-level diplomacy, and we would benefit from an experienced leader who can navigate the nuances of these regional relations. In addition to these migration issues, the United States and Mexico need to address security challenges from transnational drug trafficking. As we hear all too often, we are witnessing an increase in heroin use leading to rising levels of violence and heroin-related deaths. While the United States and Mexico are cooperating on a strategy to fight heroin, this represents a priority that requires the leadership of an ambassador. We need someone in place as our top diplomat in Mexico with experience with Mexican security and with law and to engage the most senior Mexican Government officials on the narcotics issues. In addition, there are specific ongoing cases that necessitate having an ambassador in place to ensure that our Nation's interests are being represented. As I said yesterday, Mexico represents one of our most important bilateral relationships. It is clear the longer the United States goes without having an ambassador to Mexico, the greater our partnership will suffer. There is simply no reason to go any longer without an ambassador to Mexico when we have someone as qualified as Roberta Jacobson. I come with good news; that is, it is my understanding that a deal--an agreement--is in the works that will ultimately lead to the successful confirmation later this week. As such, I will not be making a unanimous consent request today, but I intend to come here as long as it takes, to keep up the pressure and to monitor this process, to ensure that it has a successful resolution. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, it has been nearly 9 months since the United States had an Ambassador to Mexico. The President's nominee to that post, Roberta Jacobson, is eminently qualified for the post. The Arizona Republic noted in an editorial from March that ``she's qualified, respected and needed to do an important job.'' They are right. For more than 20 years, Ms. Jacobson has been immersed in the regional, political, economic, and security issues related to the Western Hemisphere. In fact, as part of her extensive background, she served for a time as Director of the Office of Mexican Affairs at the State Department. She is obviously fluent in Spanish and has earned the respect of her colleagues. She served for 3 years as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Canada, Mexico, and NAFTA issues within the Bureau of Western Hemisphere--experience that would later serve the United States well given that Mexico is America's third largest trading partner, with bilateral trade totaling more than half a trillion dollars. However, she has been waiting for the Senate to confirm her nomination since the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported it to the Senate in November of last year by a vote of 12 to 7. It should be incomprehensible to anyone around the country to have a post of the top diplomat to one of our most important bilateral relations open for this long, but for Arizonans, it is particularly baffling. Arizona alone enjoyed a trade relationship with Mexico of nearly $17 billion last year. On the export side, Arizona exports about $9 billion in goods and services to Mexico every year, which, according to the Arizona Republic, ``accounts for 41 percent of the state's exports, and four times more than our state exports to our next biggest trading partner, Canada.'' According to the Arizona-Mexico Commission: With an economy that now surpasses $1.3 trillion, Mexico ranks as one of the top 20 economies in the world. Mexico's economy has been increasingly focused on manufacturing, particularly since the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. More than $1 billion in goods are exchanged between the United States and Mexico every day. But the U.S.-Mexico relationship is about more than just our economies; transportation issues, security threats, and natural resource management are just some of the fronts on which we cooperate with Mexico. The Arizona Republic notes that ``the Arizona Department of Transportation recently signed a memorandum of understanding to study ways to improve the trade corridor that spans the border.'' Arizona alone shares six ports of entry with Mexico, and Phoenix's Sky Harbor Airport facilitates 122 flights a week to and from Mexico. All of this cooperation requires a close partnership between our two countries. The longer the United States goes without having an Ambassador to Mexico, the greater that partnership will suffer. To my knowledge, the holdup in this process is not based on any concrete concerns with the qualifications of this specific nominee. She enjoys overwhelming support. There is no reason not to move forward with this nomination. If there is opposition, then Members should have the opportunity to express it. As such, I will be asking unanimous consent for a time agreement with a rollcall vote on her confirmation. There is simply no reason we should not have an Ambassador to Mexico when we have a candidate as qualified as Roberta Jacobson. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 365; that there be 30 minutes for debate only on the nomination equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I plan to return frequently for as long as it takes to shed a light on this nomination and to make sure it moves forward, so I expect to be here tomorrow to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Flake amendment No. 3820, which would lower the construction appropriation for the U.S. Corps of Engineers by just under $69 million and eliminate funding for environmental infrastructure projects. Ostensibly, the Corps of Engineers uses these funds to build water supply, water treatment, and wastewater projects. I am not here to argue against the need for environmental infrastructure projects. There are a great many municipalities that consider these projects essential and have made an effort to fund them on their own. That is usually done through a combination of utility bills and municipal bonds. Typically, the users pay for this. However, despite the fact that these projects have traditionally been funded by State and local governments, Federal support is actually duplicative. The Federal Government already offers resources for similar projects through the EPA. Specifically, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs provide States with low-interest loans based on the merits of these projects and the needs of the communities. Taxpayers deserve better than to be expected to provide the U.S. Corps of Engineers $69 million it never asked for to fund projects they already support in a program that has been described by many as a slush fund for parochial interests. That is certainly how the program started years ago. Frankly, it has never seemed clear that the Corps of Engineers understands how these projects fit into its mission. Because of a years-old congressional carve-out, these environmental undertakings are not subject to the environmental studies, economic analyses, and cost-effectiveness standards that are required for more traditional Corps projects. As far as I can tell, there is really no rhyme or reason as to how one project gets funding over another. With a national debt of over $19 trillion, it is time that we get a little more serious about putting our fiscal house in order. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and eliminate this duplicative funding. Mr. President, I wish to say a couple words about Reid-Heller amendment No. 3805. I support the Colorado River System Conservation Program. Voluntary efforts like these in Arizona are estimated to have kept Lake Mead at about 3 feet higher than it would have been otherwise. Not coincidentally, last week the Bureau of Reclamation announced that at the end of this year, Lake Mead is predicted to be 3 feet above the level that would trigger a shortage declaration. What I want to make sure happens is that any conserved water actually stays in Lake Mead and keeps these levels up above the shortage declaration area. I note that this amendment simply authorizes funds to go to the conservation program. I hope that before this money is actually spent, we can develop assurances that the water will go to its intended purpose. The Lower Colorado River Basin States have developed such language, and I look forward to ensuring that our Federal dollars are well spent in this area. Amendment No. 3820 to Amendment No. 3801 Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3820 and ask unanimous consent that it be reported by number.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, this amendment would simply cut $69 million in unrequested funding for Corps of Engineers projects. This is kind of the outgrowth of the bad old days when we had earmarks, when all of this funding came about. We now have an earmark ban, but some of the funding still goes to some projects that have not even been requested. If we have a debt of $19 trillion and a deficit of $500 billion, it is time that we actually make some cuts somewhere. I would submit that this is a place ripe for cutting.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Sandy Ledy, a dedicated Senate staff member who will retire after more than two decades of public service in my office. Soon after being elected to the Senate in 1994, Senator John Kyl was wise enough to offer Sandy--a standout campaign volunteer--a job on his new staff. Sandy was given two options: She could work as a staffer in Washington, DC, or she could serve in Arizona and serve as John Kyl's military case worker. Sandy knew she couldn't pass up an opportunity to serve those who serve our Nation. It was an easy decision for Sandy and a fortuitous one for Arizona's military servicemembers, veterans, and their families. Sandy's genuine passion for our military service men and women, combined with her meticulous approach to her work, has made her an invaluable staffer. Sandy is well-versed in all things military, from regulations, to benefits, to the service academies. Her vast knowledge has ensured that Arizona's military service men and women have had nothing but the best assistance for more than the past two decades. Her reputation preceded her, and when I was elected as Senator in 2012, I had an easy decision of my own--offering Sandy a job on my staff. Thankfully, she said yes. Sandy is probably best known around the State as the point person for service academy nominations. Her understanding of that process and what it takes for a student to be an excellent nominee has helped so many students fulfill their dreams of attending one of our prestigious service academies. Her focus on preparation and attention to detail has turned what can be a very daunting task into a seamless production, resulting in countless nominations and appointments to the service academies. While we all marvel at Sandy's meticulousness, it is her compassion and calm demeanor that make her such an asset. This is never more evident than when she is working with students and parents in the long and complicated process of applying to attend one of these service academies. Beyond her work on behalf of the military, she is an active and cherished member of her community in Cave Creek, AZ. She is a member of her church choir, a regular volunteer at the Cave Creek Museum, and a longtime swim coach, sometimes judging local meets. But there is no better testament to Sandy's example as a public servant than her two children, Amy and Joe. Amy is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy who herself recently retired after a career in the military. Joe served in the U.S. Marine Corps. They have made her the proud grandmother of three, and she is looking forward to spending a well-deserved retirement looking after those grandkids. Sandy, thank you for more than 20 years of dedicated public service in the Senate and, in particular, for the 4 years of stellar service as a member of my staff. Your knowledge and passion will be greatly missed. I wish you well in your retirement. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2016, at 9:15 a.m.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2016, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Enabling Advanced Reactors and a Legislative Hearing on S. 2795, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.''

Mr. FLAKE. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Flake amendment No. 3556. The amendment is simple. It simply strikes the newly added prohibition in the Visa Waiver Program on citizens of Visa Waiver Program countries who are also dual nationals of certain other countries, such as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Syria. To be clear, this amendment keeps in place all other provisions added to the Visa Waiver Program to improve the security of the program, such as requiring greater information sharing. However, the dual national provision does not provide any meaningful security benefit and, instead, is a detriment to the country and the vast majority of dual nationals who provide a great benefit to the United States. The problem with the dual national prohibition is twofold. It is both imprecise in its application, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to administer. One reason the prohibition is imprecise is because it prevents travel under the program regardless of travel history. For example, a dual national of Iran who is prohibited from using the Visa Waiver Program need not have ever been to Iran to be prohibited. In fact, there is no clear definition of who qualifies as a dual national, and it demonstrates how this prohibition is impossible to administer. Many groups have pointed out that there is no international agreement on the rules of nationality, and that many people are dual nationals even if they do not wish to be. For example, there is no automatic way to relinquish one's Iranian nationality. It can only be accomplished if the individual is allowed to do so by the Iranian Council of Ministers and fulfills a number of requirements, including the completion of national military service. Does this sound likely or possible for an individual who has never resided in Iran? Now, the administration has recently stated that they will determine each potential visitor's nationality on a case-by-case basis. According to them, ``the U.S. government need not recognize another country's conferral of nationality if it determines that nationality to be `nominal.' '' They also said ``DHS assesses whether an individual is a national of a country based on an individual's relationship to that country, such as if an individual maintains allegiance to that country.'' However, the administration would not specify what counts as ``maintains allegiance.'' These examples show that the Visa Waiver Program is gaining nothing when it comes to actual security, and, instead, unfairly prohibits individuals' participation based on meaningless standards. Furthermore, of greatest concern is the potential for reciprocal treatment of U.S. citizens. Just today, the European Commission asked European Union governments and European lawmakers to suggest what actions the Commission might take due to the lack of visa waivers for some EU citizens. Now, while there are a number of concerns when it comes to reciprocity, this dual nationality provision has not gone unnoticed. Specifically, the Commission stated: ``In parallel to discussing full visa reciprocity, the Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of the changes in the Visa Waiver Program.'' After expressing concerns about the negative consequences of these changes on ``bona fide EU travelers,'' the Commission invited the United States to consider the Equal Protection in Travel Act of 2016 in order to mitigate restrictions imposed on dual nationals. This amendment is that act. I agree that we should mitigate these restrictions on dual nationals and mitigate the chances of reciprocal treatment for U.S. citizens. The U.S. passport is the most powerful in the world, and we need to ensure it remains that way. We should not threaten that status for a provision that is both imprecise and impossible to administer. I hope we can have a vote on this amendment, and I hope my colleagues can support it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words on this subject, and I thank the senior Senator from Arizona for all the work he has put into this. As he has mentioned, we have heard from thousands of residents in the Phoenix area who have been impacted. This language is important because in September of 2014, the FAA instituted new flight path changes for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport without adequately engaging the community and the stakeholders. These flight paths, as Senator McCain said, have greatly impacted residents in the surrounding areas. We have heard from them with concerns about both the noise and the frequency of these flights. Section 5002 of the FAA reauthorization bill would simply approve the FAA's process for instituting new flight paths. The fact that this language is retroactive is especially important because of what we have mentioned. Communities in Phoenix have already been negatively impacted by these recent flight path changes. This language would create a process to review those changes and to require the FAA to consult with airports and to determine steps to mitigate the negative effects, including the consideration of new or alternative flight paths. Going forward, this language would ensure that communities and airports have the opportunity to fully engage with the FAA before these flight paths changes are made. Again, I commend Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for including this critical language. I hope that it is supported. We have support for this amendment. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, last month we reached a milestone in the continuing reform of our policy toward Cuba. The United States and Cuba completed a bilateral air service agreement that is key to ensuring the continued travel of Americans to the island. The newly minted air services agreement will, for the first time in 50 years, provide scheduled air service between the United States and Cuba, including 20 daily flights to Havana and 10 daily flights to other Cuban airports. As someone who believes that all Americans should have a chance to see a living museum of a failed socialistic experiment, I look forward to the day when all Americans can use Web sites they are familiar with to make reservations, even with their frequent flyer miles, to book flights to Havana and elsewhere in Cuba. Clearly, there is interest on our side of the Florida Strait. With easing of regulatory restrictions, authorized travel to Cuba by Americans has increased by more than 50 percent in just one year. Freedom to travel between the two countries will continue to open cultural and economic ties, benefiting the Cuban people and Americans alike. While I ardently support everyone's right to travel to Cuba, key to the success will be ensuring that the initial flights being awarded by the Department of Transportation provide for the continued and expanded ability of the Cuban American community to travel to the island via regular air service. This should include adequate regular service to accommodate the growing demand from the largest and closest Cuban American population located in Miami-Dade County. In addition, having traveled to Cuba multiple times over the years, I hope that the Department closely evaluates the complexity of operating there and ensures that those selected to operate these routes are up to the task--those with experience. A failure-to-launch scenario would represent a critically missed opportunity represented by the potential of successfully scheduled air services between the United States and Cuba. We can't afford to let this opportunity go to waste. I have long supported efforts to restore the rights of American citizens to travel to Cuba and have introduced legislation to lift the statutory ban on travel, along with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. I am pleased to say that our legislation continues to gain bipartisan support. As the situation changes on the ground with developments like regular air service, direct air service, and scheduled air service, I hope that thousands upon thousands of Americans will visit Cuba and Congress will do the right thing when it comes to changing our outdated law. I yield back, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, after decades of isolation, we are seeing a measured shift in our policy toward Cuba. We have resumed diplomatic relations, expanded travel opportunities, lifted caps on financial assistance between families, and eased trade restrictions. I congratulate the administration for spearheading these changes. It took courage to embark on this path. These policy changes are supported by the vast majority of Cuban Americans. They are applauded by sector after sector of the U.S. business community, and they are welcomed by Americans at large, but still it took someone to lead and President Obama did. I applaud him and his administration for doing so. Make no mistake, conditions are improving for the Cuban people because of these changes. There are some who do not fully appreciate the meaningfulness of this opening to Cuba. They maintain that we have somehow offered concessions to the Cuban Government without benefit to the United States or to the Cuban people. Some contend that we have moved prematurely when human rights issues remain unresolved in Cuba. To be clear, human rights abuses persist in Cuba. We all seek to remedy these abuses. Yet extending 50 years as the Cuban Government's convenient scapegoat for the failure of socialism is unlikely to yield gains in human rights in the future any more than our policies have done in the past. Instead, this opening to Cuba takes full advantage of the opportunities presented by the failures of socialism. Recognizing the inherent right of Americans to travel to Cuba isn't a concession to dictators. It is an expression of freedom. It is Americans who are penalized by our travel ban, not the Cuban Government. During my first visit to Cuba in 2001, I told the Cuban Foreign Minister in a meeting in Havana that I was attempting to lift the U.S. travel ban. I added, if the Cuban Government didn't improve its human rights effort, I would seek to lift the entire trade embargo. It was taken as an attempt at humor, of course, but for me it was no joke. I have always believed that denying Americans the ability to travel to and trade with Cuba has done more to extend dictatorial rule on that island than any other policy we could have adopted. For far too long U.S. administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have insisted that U.S. measures, such as ending the travel ban or easing the trade embargo, must be met by moves by the Cuban Government to improve the human rights condition of the citizenry. I understand this instinct, but I will submit that ending the travel ban and easing the trade embargo, even when done unilaterally, leads to better human rights conditions in Cuba. Milton Friedman wrote that economic freedom is ``an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.'' Far from being concessions to dictators, changes in our policy toward Cuba are reinforcing and advancing opportunities for Cubans in the private sector. Citizens who are totally dependent on government for their livelihood are subject to the whims of all-powerful leaders in a way that those who are economically independent are not. In a very real sense in Cuba, the economic agenda is the human rights agenda. Recognizing its precarious economic position in recent years, the cash-strapped Castro regime has laid off thousands of government workers and expanded legal opportunities in the private sector. This has given way to a dramatic rise in the number of entrepreneurs on the island who are running restaurants, bed and breakfasts, taxi services, barbershops, beauty salons, and much more. In fact, it is estimated that as many as one-third of Cuba's 5 million workers are now operating in Cuba's private sector. This exponential expansion of Cuba's entrepreneurial class would not have happened were it not for U.S. policy changes in 2009 that has led to an explosion of travel and remittances among Cuban Americans. Some suggest that remittances to the island are responsible for 70 to 80 percent of the capital used in small businesses in Cuba. Recent changes to U.S. regulations allowing for additional travel and remittances have further expedited the expansion of the private sector in Cuba. Additional regulatory changes, such as allowing the so-called people-to-people exchanges to be conducted on an individual as opposed to a group basis, would propel this movement even further. Again, this entrepreneurial expansion in Cuba has not only given scores of Cubans a better quality of life, it has lessened their dependence on the Cuban Government in a way that has improved their human rights condition. The recent bilateral air service agreement also represents a key piece to ensuring the continued travel of Americans to the island. This agreement will, for the first time in 50 years, provide scheduled air service between the United States and Cuba. Frequent and regular travel between the two countries will continue to open economic ties, and it will lead to private sector economic opportunities on the island. I should note that the administration has done just about all that its authority permits to affect change on the island. In the coming months, it will be up to Congress to take the next steps. I hope that we--particularly those of us on this side of the aisle who believe so strongly in the value of free markets and free enterprise--will remember these principles as we promote democracy and human rights in Cuba. Margaret Thatcher famously said: ``There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.'' This statement is as true in Cuba as it is anywhere in the world. It is my hope that this principle will guide our actions as we endeavor to promote freedom and liberty in Cuba. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, it has now been 7 months since the United States has had an Ambassador to Mexico. As we all know, Mexico is our third largest trading partner. Bilateral trade totals more than half a trillion dollars. There is more than $1 billion in two-way trader exchanges between the United States and Mexico every day. The border States obviously enjoy a close relationship and robust trade with Mexico. My home State of Arizona exports about $9.2 billion in goods every year. Arizona has expanded its trade relationship with Mexico by reopening a trade office in Mexico City. Mexico has reciprocated by opening an office in Arizona. Yet, for more than half of the year, we have not had a representative in place with the Mexican Government to deal with issues of mutual cooperation, issues of importance and concern. The bilateral relationship between the United States and Mexico is not the only issue of importance, obviously, between our two countries. Transportation issues, security threats, national resource management, and environmental issues are just a few of the fronts on which we can cooperate with Mexico, and such cooperation requires a close partnership between our countries. The longer we go without an Ambassador there, the more this partnership will suffer. The relationship between the United States and Mexico has historically been important, and previous administrations have acknowledged this by appointing top-notch candidates to serve as our envoy to Mexico. The current nominee to serve in Mexico is no exception to this historical trend. As a career member of the Senior Executive Service, Roberta Jacobson has spent more than three decades working on Latin American policy for Presidents on both sides of the aisle. She is obviously fluent in Spanish. She has earned the respect of her colleagues. I can attest to her professionalism and her experience. She was reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 12 to 7 in November; yet the post with Mexico City remains open 3 months later. Our relationship with Mexico is far too important to let this post go vacant any longer, particularly when we have a qualified candidate who has been vetted by the Foreign Relations Committee and reported to the Senate with a majority of its members. I urge the Senate to take up this matter expeditiously. I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Lee amendment No. 3023, which places commonsense limitations on the ability of the executive branch to unilaterally lock up large swaths of public land. Specifically, the amendment provides Congress and the applicable State legislatures a 3-year window to approve Presidentially declared national monuments, ensuring that land use decisions finally have the input from the impacted States. Arizona knows all too well the effects of restrictive Federal land designations. Like most Western States, a significant portion of Arizona is under Federal ownership. Arizona leads the Nation with a total of 21 national parks and monuments. Like most, our Federal land is a mix of single-purpose lands set aside for recreation and multiple- use lands providing opportunities for grazing, mining, and timber production. The ability to use these lands for multiple purposes is critical; however, a national monument designation can take away that opportunity with one stroke of the President's pen. It is also worth noting that a monument designation has the potential to change the character of the water rights associated with Federal lands--an outcome I am working to prevent with separate stand-alone legislation. There is a real concern that the President will take unilateral action to increase the Federal Government's ownership of Federal lands. In fact, one recent proposal would lock up another 1.7 million acres right in Arizona to create yet another national monument. That is an area larger than the entire State of Delaware. The negative impact of such a land grab would likely extend to activities such as hunting, livestock grazing, wildfire prevention, mining, and other recreation activities. Last March Senator McCain and I sent a letter to the President urging him to not unilaterally pursue this monument designation. This sentiment is echoed by a large number of individuals throughout Arizona, including State and local officials, several municipalities, and a wide range of sportsmen's groups. The Lee amendment would give these stakeholders a voice in the monument designation process, and I am happy to be a cosponsor and to support this amendment on the floor today. I also look forward to considering several amendments I have submitted on this legislation as well regarding safeguarding hydropower production, reimbursing national parks after a government shutdown occurs, and creating a database to increase transparency for WAPA customers. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.