Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leader. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, recently, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to host several veterans who survived the sinking of the USS Arizona in the attack on Pearl Harbor. I would like to briefly share an incredible story they told me about a true American hero named Joe George. On December 7, 1941, Joe was a 26-year-old Boatswain's Mate Second Class aboard the repair ship USS Vestal in Pearl Harbor, HI, moored alongside the USS Arizona. At 7:48 a.m., many sailors, including Joe, had finished their breakfast when the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service attacked Pearl Harbor. As we know, the Arizona suffered a direct hit by a Japanese bomb that detonated in the ship's powder magazine. The resulting explosion sank the ship and claimed the lives of 1,177 servicemembers. During the unimaginable chaos and carnage, Joe George displayed stunning composure and courage. Joe spotted six sailors trapped in the control tower of the sinking Arizona. These men were severely burned, and they were searching for a way to safety. The six wounded sailors were Seaman First Class Harold Kuhn, Seaman First Class Russell Lott, Gunner's Mate Third Class Earl Riner, Boatswain's Mate Second Class Alvin Dvorak, Seaman First Class Donald Stratton, and Fire Controlman Third Class Lauren Bruner. Upon seeing the men, Joe threw a heaving line between the Vestal and the Arizona to rescue the wounded sailors from the sinking ship. Suspended 40 feet in the air, the six sailors climbed 70 feet hand over hand across the rope to safety onboard the Vestal. These sailors did all this while enduring injuries so severe that two would succumb to their wounds in the weeks following the attack. As they struggled across the heavy line, Joe George remained close by, all the while encouraging the men to push on. The four sailors who survived their injuries each returned to serve with honor during World War II and then went on to live long lives. I spoke with two of them, and hearing about the injuries they had and that they still were able to return to service in the Second World War was amazing. Joe George's legacy of heroism will remain alive forever in the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of the four sailors who survived the infamous day, thanks to Joe George. Joe George was never awarded a medal for his role in the rescue of the six sailors, although his commanding officer commended his courageous actions. When I met with one of the Arizona survivors who was rescued by Joe, he told me, ``Joe George was never awarded anything for his bravery. He is no longer with us, but I believe in his memory he should be awarded the Navy Cross.'' Lauren Bruner was another survivor whom Joe saved. He said to me: The six of us would not have survived except for his courage, in spite of being at high risk himself. He fully deserves high commendations for his actions. I feel he should be recognized for this courage and presented the Navy Cross. In his own words, during an interview in 1978, Joe said: ``I'll tell you, the only thing I could tell you about that day . . . my conscience was my guide.'' Well, his conscience was that of a hero. We need more people like Joe George in this world. That is why I am committed to honoring Joe and why I rise today with the honor and privilege to submit a resolution honoring Joseph Leon George. Joe passed away in 1996, and it is long overdue that the Senate, the U.S. Navy, and a grateful nation honor the heroism of Boatswain's Mate Second Class Joseph Leon George. God bless Joe George, whose immense and astounding composure serves as an example of the men and women in uniform who follow in his wake. Let us never forget his heroism and sacrifice. I would like to also thank my colleagues Senators Gardner, Lee, Cotton, McCaskill, and Bennet for joining me on this resolution. I look forward to working with them on its swift adoption.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I come to the floor to pass the Wounded Officers Recovery Act. This legislation comes after last month's terrible shooting at the Republican practice for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. As many of you already know, U.S. Capitol Police DPD Special Agents Crystal Griner and David Bailey were both wounded in the line of duty as they successfully fought off and subdued the gunman. I witnessed firsthand the unbelievable bravery and heroism of the Capitol Police on that morning. It is not at all an exaggeration to say that, if not for their actions, I probably would not be here today. I and my colleagues certainly have a special place in our hearts for them and an appreciation for what they did on that fateful morning. It is a privilege to be able to help them out now. They had our backs, and now we need to have theirs. This bill amends the policies of the United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund to expand eligibility to include any U.S. Capitol Police employee who has been injured in the line of duty. This will enable Special Agents Griner and Bailey to access funds raised for victims of the congressional baseball practice shooting. Previously, the fund only allowed donated funds to be given to the families of officers killed in the line of duty. I am hopeful all of my colleagues will agree that this issue should rise above any partisan wrangling. Special Agents Crystal Griner and David Bailey have our gratitude, and we ought to be able to help them. I am grateful for their sacrifice. I hope we can speak with one voice in support of the brave men and women of the Capitol Police and pass this bill without delay. I wish to thank the cosponsors here in the Senate, including Senator Paul, Senator Donnelly, Senator Murphy, and all of those who played in the congressional baseball game, also, in the House, the managers of the Republican and the Democratic teams respectively, Joe Martin and Mike Doyle. The congressional baseball game is one of the best institutions in Congress, one of the most bipartisan institutions. We are able to raise a lot of money for needy causes as well as the Capitol Police. We want to make sure a lot of the money that was raised this year--a portion of that money--can go to these deserving individuals who helped us out in a very real way and saved our lives. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3298 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Flake amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, it has been 2 months since Ambassador Lighthizer notified Congress of the administration's intent to enter into negotiations with Mexico and Canada on the North American Free Trade Agreement. During that time, I launched something called NAFTA 4 AZ, which is an initiative to allow Arizonans to share their stories about how NAFTA has changed their lives for the better. I have heard from Arizonans across the State who work in a multitude of industries--from dairy farmers to call center employees--and the responses I have received are overwhelmingly positive. For example, Matt Mandel, who serves as chief operating officer for SunFed, a company based in Rio Rico, shared his personal story. Matt wrote: Fresh produce trade has kept my family working here in the State of Arizona for three generations. Arizona imports over 17 billion pounds of fresh, healthy fruits and vegetables-- bilateral trade between the United States and Mexico representing over $40 billion. Let's modernize NAFTA. Mignonne Hollis with the Arizona Regional Economic Development Foundation tweeted: NAFTA and our trade partners in Mexico have allowed us to grow the aerospace industry in southern Arizona, which is key to our economic development. Dairy farmer Jim Boyle notes: Most of our customers are local--right here in our State-- but our biggest customer outside of Arizona is Mexico. We ship daily loads of cheese, powder, and tank loads of cream all the way through Mexico. Please, let's keep NAFTA working for the American farmer. Other comments I have received through my website include statements like ``I have enjoyed a constant supply of fresh fruits and vegetables in these years of NAFTA. I have also noticed . . . how relatively inexpensive many household items have been since'' and ``We supply parts that cross the border multiple times before they reach final assembly in the U.S. Free trade is vital to our success and the success of our customers who not only get us where we need to go but protect our shores and vital interests.'' The Arizona Chamber of Commerce noted in its comments on NAFTA: Agreement is central to the State's economic prosperity. The NAFTA agreement, that is. Mexico is Arizona's leading trade partner. Canada is the State's second leading trade partner. In an interview focused on the NAFTA renegotiation process, the CEO of Arizona's Hispanic chamber stated: ``We know that Mexican nationals spend over a billion dollars a year in just Pima County.'' That is just one county. It is hardly surprising to hear such overwhelmingly positive support for NAFTA, considering the benefits it has had on Arizona's economy. NAFTA 4 AZ has helped to put on paper what Arizonans know all too well: NAFTA plays a critical role in supporting jobs, opportunity, and economic growth. It has been great to hear from people all over the State talking about how NAFTA has helped them and asking the administration to modernize NAFTA, not to end it. NAFTA 4 AZ submissions, as well as comments submitted to the USTR from Arizona stakeholders, share one common plea: Do not harm the trilateral structure and the reciprocal market access of NAFTA. Earlier this week the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative made public its negotiating objectives for NAFTA. Based on what the USTR released, it appears the administration has recognized the importance of this central tenet of NAFTA. I am pleased that it appears that the administration will seek to modernize NAFTA along the well-worn lines of what was negotiated for the now defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. I think we can all agree that addressing the issues of digital trade and intellectual property in the agreement, which is more than 20 years old, is the key to NAFTA's continued success. Let's modernize it, not end it. However, these negotiating objectives mark the next step in a long process that will have tremendous impact on Arizona's economy, for better or for worse. Unfortunately, the path forward for NAFTA remains uncertain and there is a long road to travel before we get to a place where the United States, Mexico, and Canada can all agree to an updated NAFTA. From the vegetable fields of Yuma to the warehouses in Nogales, to the small retailers along the southern border, to the hotels throughout the valley, to the ranches up north where I grew up in Snowflake, NAFTA is important to all Arizonans. I will review the administration's objectives closely as I continue to talk to Arizonans about what they need to ensure vibrant cross- border trading. I look forward to continued consultation between Congress and the administration as this process to modernize NAFTA moves forward. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Mr. Flake pertaining to the introduction of S. 1552 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FLAKE. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a critical subject too often overlooked by Congress. It is the Federal debt and our deficit. It is no secret that our national debt will soon surpass $20 trillion. To provide some context for that figure, $20 trillion represents the largest amount of debt ever owed by any nation in history. This fact, coupled with the fast-approaching end to our fiscal year, will leave Congress facing an unavoidable debt debate. Our looming debt and deficit are two of our country's most urgent challenges, but the legislative branch does not treat them like the crises they really are. Since January alone, Congress has added $284 billion to the debt over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that if Congress continues on its current path, deficits will increase dramatically over the next decade. Specifically, by 2027, the deficit will grow from 3.6 percent of the Nation's GDP to 5.2 percent of the Nation's GDP, totaling $1.4 trillion. Yet, as the National Debt Clock continues to click upward toward $20 trillion, the Federal Government continues to spend money that it simply does not have. If Congress continues to legislate in this current state of denial, one day soon, we may well wake up to discover that the financial markets have declared that the United States is no longer a good bet. We must also remember that Congress's failure to address this fiscal train wreck today will force our children and grandchildren to deal with its consequences tomorrow. Unless Congress can get this fundamental issue under control, nothing else will matter very much. There ought to be an option that allows taxpayers to take matters into their own hands. That is why today I am reintroducing the Debt Buy-Down Act. The Debt Buy-Down Act is a commonsense bill that allows taxpayers to rein in the national debt with the simple check of a box. If passed, this bill would require the IRS to include an option on individuals' tax forms that allow them to voluntarily designate up to 10 percent of their tax liabilities to go specifically toward reducing the national debt. The bill would then require Congress to reduce Federal spending by an amount equivalent to that designated by the taxpayers. If Congress fails to make these necessary spending reductions designated by taxpayers, then across-the-board spending cuts would be imposed. This is not a good way to reduce the Federal debt. The better way would be to make priorities as we consider our spending bills, but it is better than just letting these spending bills go and doing nothing. We ought to use a scalpel and go in and treat these programs as we should and make sure they are doing what they were intended to. If we cannot do that, then we need to take dramatic measures to get our debt and deficit under control. The Debt Buy-Down Act would protect Social Security benefits, benefits for those in the uniformed services, and payments for net interest on the national debt from being included in any of these across-the-board cuts. Simply put, in the absence of responsible Federal budget solutions, this bill allows taxpayers to take matters into their own hands. In 2014, Americans paid over $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes. If every one of these individuals had contributed 10 percent of their tax liability, Congress would have been required to have cut $137 billion in spending. While $137 billion does not solve our $20 trillion debt problem, it is certainly a good place to start. Congress has been so desensitized to the growing national debt that the word ``trillion'' does not even raise alarm bells anymore. In fact, after I introduced the Debt Buy-Down Act in 2010, I began sending a weekly, pun-laden press release to help put the then-$13 trillion national debt--just in 2010--into perspective. It was called ``So Just How Broke Are We?'' Maybe it is time to bring it back. So 7 years and $7 trillion in added debt later, just how broke are we today? We are so broke that, with our $20 trillion national debt, we could book 570,000 trips to the Moon on SpaceX. It is a pretty expensive excursion, but we could do it 570,000 times. We are so broke that, with our $20 trillion national debt, we could buy every seat at Chase Field in Phoenix for the next 22 million Arizona Diamondbacks games. Of course, that is just a ballpark figure, but it is the last pun. I promise. We are so broke that with our $20 trillion national debt we could buy 20 billion tickets to see Hamilton. My love of bad puns and jokes aside, instead of thinking about how $20 trillion could be spent, maybe we ought to start thinking about how $20 trillion could be saved. That is why I am calling on my colleagues to support the Debt Buy- Down Act and empower taxpayers to reduce the national debt. Just think, a simple check of a box would help save billions of dollars and preserve the strength of our national economy. It would save future generations from the consequences of our crippling national debt. At any rate, I hope this bill makes like the debt and grows a lot of interest.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a critical subject too often overlooked by Congress. It is the Federal debt and our deficit. It is no secret that our national debt will soon surpass $20 trillion. To provide some context for that figure, $20 trillion represents the largest amount of debt ever owed by any nation in history. This fact, coupled with the fast-approaching end to our fiscal year, will leave Congress facing an unavoidable debt debate. Our looming debt and deficit are two of our country's most urgent challenges, but the legislative branch does not treat them like the crises they really are. Since January alone, Congress has added $284 billion to the debt over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that if Congress continues on its current path, deficits will increase dramatically over the next decade. Specifically, by 2027, the deficit will grow from 3.6 percent of the Nation's GDP to 5.2 percent of the Nation's GDP, totaling $1.4 trillion. Yet, as the National Debt Clock continues to click upward toward $20 trillion, the Federal Government continues to spend money that it simply does not have. If Congress continues to legislate in this current state of denial, one day soon, we may well wake up to discover that the financial markets have declared that the United States is no longer a good bet. We must also remember that Congress's failure to address this fiscal train wreck today will force our children and grandchildren to deal with its consequences tomorrow. Unless Congress can get this fundamental issue under control, nothing else will matter very much. There ought to be an option that allows taxpayers to take matters into their own hands. That is why today I am reintroducing the Debt Buy-Down Act. The Debt Buy-Down Act is a commonsense bill that allows taxpayers to rein in the national debt with the simple check of a box. If passed, this bill would require the IRS to include an option on individuals' tax forms that allow them to voluntarily designate up to 10 percent of their tax liabilities to go specifically toward reducing the national debt. The bill would then require Congress to reduce Federal spending by an amount equivalent to that designated by the taxpayers. If Congress fails to make these necessary spending reductions designated by taxpayers, then across-the-board spending cuts would be imposed. This is not a good way to reduce the Federal debt. The better way would be to make priorities as we consider our spending bills, but it is better than just letting these spending bills go and doing nothing. We ought to use a scalpel and go in and treat these programs as we should and make sure they are doing what they were intended to. If we cannot do that, then we need to take dramatic measures to get our debt and deficit under control. The Debt Buy-Down Act would protect Social Security benefits, benefits for those in the uniformed services, and payments for net interest on the national debt from being included in any of these across-the-board cuts. Simply put, in the absence of responsible Federal budget solutions, this bill allows taxpayers to take matters into their own hands. In 2014, Americans paid over $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes. If every one of these individuals had contributed 10 percent of their tax liability, Congress would have been required to have cut $137 billion in spending. While $137 billion does not solve our $20 trillion debt problem, it is certainly a good place to start. Congress has been so desensitized to the growing national debt that the word ``trillion'' does not even raise alarm bells anymore. In fact, after I introduced the Debt Buy-Down Act in 2010, I began sending a weekly, pun-laden press release to help put the then-$13 trillion national debt--just in 2010--into perspective. It was called ``So Just How Broke Are We?'' Maybe it is time to bring it back. So 7 years and $7 trillion in added debt later, just how broke are we today? We are so broke that, with our $20 trillion national debt, we could book 570,000 trips to the Moon on SpaceX. It is a pretty expensive excursion, but we could do it 570,000 times. We are so broke that, with our $20 trillion national debt, we could buy every seat at Chase Field in Phoenix for the next 22 million Arizona Diamondbacks games. Of course, that is just a ballpark figure, but it is the last pun. I promise. We are so broke that with our $20 trillion national debt we could buy 20 billion tickets to see Hamilton. My love of bad puns and jokes aside, instead of thinking about how $20 trillion could be spent, maybe we ought to start thinking about how $20 trillion could be saved. That is why I am calling on my colleagues to support the Debt Buy- Down Act and empower taxpayers to reduce the national debt. Just think, a simple check of a box would help save billions of dollars and preserve the strength of our national economy. It would save future generations from the consequences of our crippling national debt. At any rate, I hope this bill makes like the debt and grows a lot of interest.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, rumor has it that on Friday the President will announce a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba. There are lots of different rumors about what that might entail. I thought I would talk for just a couple of minutes about the consequences of such action, what has been accomplished in Cuba, what our goals are, and what I think our goals should be. We have had a long policy of isolation with regard to Cuba. For more than 50 years, we tried to isolate the island and hoped the government would change somehow. It didn't. For more than 50 years, we have prohibited Americans from freely traveling to Cuba. We have had periods that the restrictions have gone down a bit and then up again, but by and large Americans have been prohibited, unless they fall into certain classes, to travel to Cuba. Then, when they are in Cuba, their travel around the island, the activities they undertake, are specifically prescribed by the U.S. Government. I always thought that certainly there is a place for economic sanctions. Sometimes they can help nudge countries or push countries toward a desired outcome--but a travel ban? You only impose a travel ban under extreme circumstances, such as when national security reasons dictate, and there hasn't, for a long time, been national security reasons for a travel ban. I have always thought that as an American citizen that if somebody is going to limit my travel, it ought to be a Communist, somebody from another country that wouldn't let me in, not my own government to tell me where I can and cannot travel. I think most Americans feel that way. I think we ought to first consider whom these sanctions are on. The sanctions we have had for so many years have not really been on Cubans; they have been on Americans. Gratefully, the previous administration lessened these restrictions or lessened the impact around them. Around 2008 or 2009, the last administration said that Cuban Americans should be able to travel freely at least. Prior to that, we had instances where Cuban Americans would have to decide, if their parents, for example, were still in Cuba and were aging, maybe their mother was infirm--they had to decide if my mother passes away, do I attend her funeral or if my father passes away within 3 years--see, it used to be that Cuban Americans were limited to travel to the island just once every 3 years. They had to decide whether to attend their mother's funeral or their father's funeral. What a terrible thing for our government to tell American citizens, that they have to choose whether to attend their father's funeral or their mother's funeral. What kind of a country is that? Why would we do that? Yet we did for a number of years. Gratefully, the last administration lifted restrictions on Cuban- American travel and at the same time lifted considerable restrictions on remittances, allowing money to flow more freely to relatives and others on the island. That coincided with the time the Cuban Government realized they couldn't employ every Cuban, not even at $20 a month, so they said: Go ahead and find another line of work in the private sector, run a bed and breakfast, have a private restaurant, have an auto repair facility or a beauty shop. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans have done so over the past 5 years, largely with seed capital provided by travel from Americans, particularly Cuban-American travel and remittances. So there was a situation where virtually no Cuban was employed in the private sector 5 years ago, but today as much as 25 percent of the Cuban workforce is now in the private sector. They have obviously more economic freedom. The average waiter in a Cuban private restaurant brings in $40 to $50 a day, while the average Cuban working for the Cuban Government brings in $20 to $30 a month. So there is significantly more economic freedom for those in the private sector in Cuba but also significantly more personal freedom as well. That is a good thing. That stands with the policy and goal we always had to increase freedom for the Cuban people. Now we hear that the administration may want to turn back some of that progress and say that Americans shouldn't be able to travel as freely or as frequently to Cuba. Some of the rumors say they will limit travel to once a year. We don't know if that will be for Cuban Americans or all Americans. By the way, it seems rather strange to have a policy that is ethnically based, where we say: You are a Cuban American, you can travel, but if you are another type of American, you can't. That just seems pretty un-American. We can't get back into a situation where a Cuban American, living in the United States, will have to choose whether they can attend their mother or their father's funeral. I hope we don't get back into that time. Another thing we ought to consider is that when Americans travel more freely, as they have been able to do under what is called a general license for individual travelers--that was one of the changes that was made in just the past couple of years--then individual American travelers tend to go to Cuba and stay in a bed and breakfast run by a private Cuban citizen, travel in private taxi cabs, frequent a private restaurant. My own family has done that. If we go back to the time when American travelers have to travel under a specific license or as a group, then those travelers will be pushed toward the Cuban hotels which are owned by the Cuban Government or military. Therefore, you have aided the Cuban Government more than the Cuban people. Under no system will you be able to cut off money completely from the Cuban Government or the private sector. There is leakage everywhere. That is how economies work. Why in the world do we have a policy where we directly benefit the Cuban Government by pushing American travelers to the hotels they own rather than the private homes owned by private Cuban citizens? It seems to me these policies, if they are going to come forward--and it seems that they might be--just go against the policies and the goals we have. Another thing we need to consider is that in the old times, when we had more restrictive policies on travel on Americans, those had to be enforced somehow. That falls upon the Office of Foreign Assets Control at Treasury. OFAC, you may have heard recently, is the office we charge to enforce our sanctions on Iran. We are putting new sanctions on Iran. They will be charged with enforcing those. They will be charged with enforcing sanctions on Russia and new sanctions on Russia as well. Sanctions on North Korea, again, falls to OFAC. Yet we are telling OFAC that now they are going to have to spend a considerable amount of time and resources and manpower tracking down people going to Cuba to see if they stick to their designated, approved itinerary, whatever that might be, whatever we think they ought to be doing there, rather than what they want to be doing there. That just seems foolish to me and a waste of money, time and resources, and wrongheaded priorities with regard to other priorities that we have on sanctions. We had situations in previous years that would simply be laughable if they weren't true, but I think the administration ought to consider that when we have a restrictive policy on travel, we are going to have situations that are just flat embarrassing to us. If that sounds crazy, it doesn't sound crazy to Joan Slote of San Diego, who traveled to Cuba in the year 2000 at the age of 72 with a Canadian company that organized cycling tours. She was fined $7,500 in the United States because she hadn't preapproved the itinerary and didn't follow the guidelines. She went through a Canadian company to do that. The subsequent fees totaled nearly $10,000. I think it was settled for something less, but why in the world are we sanctioning and fining a 72-year-old woman who went on a biking tour in Cuba. Consider the case of Cevin Allen in the State of Washington. He spent part of his childhood in Cuba, where his parents were missionaries. They built an Assembly of God Church in a town in southeastern Cuba. His parents died in 1987 in a house fire. Ten years later, Allen traveled to Cuba to scatter the ashes of his parents at the church they had built. He also brought a family Bible to give to the church's pastor. Cevin returned to the United States via Nassau, Bahamas, where he told U.S. agents he had just been to Cuba. He told them the reasons for his travel. His initial fine was $7,500. Do we really want to be fining people who are scattering the ashes of their parents? These aren't isolated incidents. This went on for a while. A woman from Indiana was fined for distributing Bibles in Cuba because her itinerary didn't include a trip to the beach. She went to the beach, I am told, to participate or to watch a baptism that was happening at that time. Why in the world would we try to limit that kind of travel? Yet that is what we would be doing if we go back to restricting travel. Maybe these rumors are overblown. Maybe we will not be imposing new restrictions on travel, but if we are, I hope the administration will consider these things. There is another rumor out there that we know that if we diminish American travel, therefore diminishing the amount of money that goes to these Cuban entrepreneurs who are running bed and breakfasts and private restaurants, then we can make up for it somehow by having some of our government agencies teach entrepreneurship classes. Anybody who has been in Cuba understands that Cubans who have survived on $20 a month for decades are more entrepreneurial than we will ever be. They don't need lessons in entrepreneurship, they need customers, and by denying Americans the freedom to travel to Cuba, we will be denying them customers, and they will be worse off. Their political freedom will be diminished. Their economic freedom will be diminished. Their personal freedom will be diminished. That is not what we want. Obviously, we want the Cuban Government to change. It has been disappointing, the rate of change. Why would we take it out on the Cuban people? Don't they have it tough enough with a Communist government that wants to control and keep that control as long as they can? Why don't we continue to help the Cuban people as they have been helped over the past couple of years? We also want to consider the cooperation we have with the Cuban Government with regard to issues such as drug interdiction, environmental cooperation, immigration enforcement. In the past couple of years, we had a lot of Cubans rafting to South Florida because of the wet foot, dry foot policy. We have had tens of thousands of Cubans crossing the Mexican border to make it to Arizona or Texas or California or New Mexico to claim or to be paroled into our system and ultimately perhaps to get citizenship. Because of agreements we have had and the diplomatic cooperation we have had over the past couple of years, and specifically over the past couple of months, we have been able to reach an agreement where we don't have that kind of migration and those kinds of issues. So there are tangible benefits to the diplomatic cooperation we have had. I am told we are not going to touch that; that we are not going to roll back. We have diplomatic relations and that is a good thing. We don't want to go back to the time where instead of an embassy, we had a special interests section in Cuba and the Cubans had one here. I hope the President of the United States and his Cabinet will consider these things as they make decisions on what to do on Cuba. There are changes to policy we can make, but I would argue they would be more in terms of further liberalizing travel. We have a bill that has been filed in the Senate with 55 cosponsors. It is a bipartisan bill to completely lift the travel ban and get rid of it completely. If such a measure is brought to the floor, I am confident there will be between 65 and 70 votes--maybe more--for such a bill. Instead, we seem to be going in the other direction or the administration is talking about going in the other direction. I hope they will reconsider. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Customs and Border Protection Hiring and Retention Act, or CBP HiRe Act. In recent years, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, has had a lot of trouble recruiting, hiring, and retaining personnel to adequately staff the border and our ports of entry. Today, CBP is nearly 1,000 officers below the mandated staffing levels. The Border Patrol, whose duty it is to secure 6,000 miles of borderlands, suffers from a shortage of more than 1,800 agents. These shortages persist, despite ample backing and funding from Congress and the threat they pose to both national security and trade-reliant communities and economies, particularly in my State of Arizona. This has been frustrating for border communities across the country, but it is especially problematic for Arizona, a State that depends on both border security and a lot of cross-border trade. For example, the Nogales port of entry in Southern Arizona is one of the busiest ports in the United States. It processes approximately $2.5 billion worth of produce each year. Arizona alone does about $15 billion in trade with Mexico alone, every year. Mexican shoppers spend about $8 million in stores in Arizona every day. However, the port currently is suffering from a 23-percent shortage of CBP officers. Our ports cannot effectively and efficiently facilitate the flow of commerce across the border without adequate staffing. One of the biggest challenges in both retaining and hiring new officers and agents for frontline positions has been the remoteness of CBP installations. CBP officers and border agents are often stationed in geographically remote and isolated locations. This likely contributes to the fact that, of those leaving the agency, nearly 30 percent of Border Patrol agents and over 10 percent of CBP officers are lost to other agencies. Massive staffing shortages aside, CBP is barely able to hire fast enough to fill the jobs left by departing agents and officers. So we have great needs that are not being filled, but we also have attrition we simply can't replace. In fact, CBP hires only 1 out of every 64 applicants for officer positions, and 1 out of every 113 applicants for Border Patrol agent positions. This means that less than 2 percent of applicants manage to get through CBP's hiring process. The situation at CBP today is simply unsustainable. Congress can't sit idly by as slow hiring rates and accelerating attrition threaten the security of our borders and the underpinnings of our economy. To that end, I am pleased to introduce my CBP HiRe Act with Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota. This legislation would streamline the hiring process and allow the CBP to finally bring more agents and officers into frontline positions. Importantly, this bill gives CBP new tools to recruit and retain personnel in remote and hard-to-fill locations. This includes special salary rates and recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives. In addition, the bill will eliminate bureaucratic redtape by giving CBP the authority to use direct-hire authority and to expedite the hiring of qualified applicants. Right now, the situation is that they have to deal with other Federal agencies and get virtually every incentive and program they want to approve and need to approve to hire more officers. They have to run it up the flagpole so many times with Federal agencies that it simply takes too long. Lastly, the bill prevents CBP from disclosing an applicant's polygraph results with another Federal agency or non-Federal employer. Challenges relating to the administering of the polygraph have resulted in approximately 65 percent of the individuals failing the test. Think about that. People who are in another law enforcement position, even those who have taken a polygraph before just a year or two prior-- many of them fear that a false positive on a polygraph exam might impact their ability to move to another Federal agency if that is disclosed. If you have a polygraph, which can't be used in courts of law because it is not perfect or nowhere near perfect, then Federal agencies shouldn't be able to forward that to other Federal agencies. It acts as a big disincentive for people to apply for these positions because a false positive on a polygraph exam might imperil their chances to work for another Federal agency or to work in law enforcement later in their career. This also creates a disincentive, as I mentioned, for individuals to want to be hired by CBP. In Arizona, safety and prosperity are inextricably linked to CBP's ability to secure the border and facilitate trade. The CBP HiRe Act will give CBP the tools and flexibility necessary to accomplish these missions. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan solution, and I look forward to seeing it move through the Senate without delay.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Customs and Border Protection Hiring and Retention Act, or CBP HiRe Act. In recent years, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, has had a lot of trouble recruiting, hiring, and retaining personnel to adequately staff the border and our ports of entry. Today, CBP is nearly 1,000 officers below the mandated staffing levels. The Border Patrol, whose duty it is to secure 6,000 miles of borderlands, suffers from a shortage of more than 1,800 agents. These shortages persist, despite ample backing and funding from Congress and the threat they pose to both national security and trade-reliant communities and economies, particularly in my State of Arizona. This has been frustrating for border communities across the country, but it is especially problematic for Arizona, a State that depends on both border security and a lot of cross-border trade. For example, the Nogales port of entry in Southern Arizona is one of the busiest ports in the United States. It processes approximately $2.5 billion worth of produce each year. Arizona alone does about $15 billion in trade with Mexico alone, every year. Mexican shoppers spend about $8 million in stores in Arizona every day. However, the port currently is suffering from a 23-percent shortage of CBP officers. Our ports cannot effectively and efficiently facilitate the flow of commerce across the border without adequate staffing. One of the biggest challenges in both retaining and hiring new officers and agents for frontline positions has been the remoteness of CBP installations. CBP officers and border agents are often stationed in geographically remote and isolated locations. This likely contributes to the fact that, of those leaving the agency, nearly 30 percent of Border Patrol agents and over 10 percent of CBP officers are lost to other agencies. Massive staffing shortages aside, CBP is barely able to hire fast enough to fill the jobs left by departing agents and officers. So we have great needs that are not being filled, but we also have attrition we simply can't replace. In fact, CBP hires only 1 out of every 64 applicants for officer positions, and 1 out of every 113 applicants for Border Patrol agent positions. This means that less than 2 percent of applicants manage to get through CBP's hiring process. The situation at CBP today is simply unsustainable. Congress can't sit idly by as slow hiring rates and accelerating attrition threaten the security of our borders and the underpinnings of our economy. To that end, I am pleased to introduce my CBP HiRe Act with Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota. This legislation would streamline the hiring process and allow the CBP to finally bring more agents and officers into frontline positions. Importantly, this bill gives CBP new tools to recruit and retain personnel in remote and hard-to-fill locations. This includes special salary rates and recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives. In addition, the bill will eliminate bureaucratic redtape by giving CBP the authority to use direct-hire authority and to expedite the hiring of qualified applicants. Right now, the situation is that they have to deal with other Federal agencies and get virtually every incentive and program they want to approve and need to approve to hire more officers. They have to run it up the flagpole so many times with Federal agencies that it simply takes too long. Lastly, the bill prevents CBP from disclosing an applicant's polygraph results with another Federal agency or non-Federal employer. Challenges relating to the administering of the polygraph have resulted in approximately 65 percent of the individuals failing the test. Think about that. People who are in another law enforcement position, even those who have taken a polygraph before just a year or two prior-- many of them fear that a false positive on a polygraph exam might impact their ability to move to another Federal agency if that is disclosed. If you have a polygraph, which can't be used in courts of law because it is not perfect or nowhere near perfect, then Federal agencies shouldn't be able to forward that to other Federal agencies. It acts as a big disincentive for people to apply for these positions because a false positive on a polygraph exam might imperil their chances to work for another Federal agency or to work in law enforcement later in their career. This also creates a disincentive, as I mentioned, for individuals to want to be hired by CBP. In Arizona, safety and prosperity are inextricably linked to CBP's ability to secure the border and facilitate trade. The CBP HiRe Act will give CBP the tools and flexibility necessary to accomplish these missions. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan solution, and I look forward to seeing it move through the Senate without delay.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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, in light of National Police Week, I rise today in support of our men and women serving in law enforcement. Police week is a good time for reflection and remembrance. It is a time to honor those who serve and protect us. While we honor our dedicated law enforcement officers this week, I want, specifically, to recognize those fallen officers who have given the ultimate sacrifice-- their lives--for our safety. In Arizona we lost three officers this year: Officer Leander Frank of the Navajo Nation Police Department, Officer David Van Glasser of the Phoenix Police Department, and Officer Darrin Reed of the Show Low Police Department. Today we honor the memory of these fallen heroes and pledge to never forget their sacrifice. While the work we do in Congress pales in comparison to the service of these brave men and women, it is my privilege to sponsor several pieces of legislation to support our law enforcement officers. I have joined with Senator Hatch to introduce the Rapid DNA Act, a bill that gives State and local law enforcement agencies a way to upload a suspect's DNA analysis to a Federal offender database for immediate identification. This immediate cross-hit within the Federal system will help officers at the local level to process criminals faster and more accurately. I have also teamed up with Senator Feinstein to introduce the bipartisan Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act. That legislation criminalizes the failure to report to law enforcement incidents of suspected child abuse in amateur athletics. In addition to helping prevent sexual abuse crimes, this bill will aid State and local law enforcement investigating allegations of child sexual abuse by providing them with more information faster. I have also supported Senator Cornyn's American Law Enforcement Heroes Act. That bill affirms a well-established practice of hiring veterans at the local level to serve as new law enforcement officers. Together, these bills will enhance law enforcement investigations and encourage better hiring practices for new law enforcement jobs. I also want to recognize the local police officers and sheriffs in Arizona, along with those on the border who are serving on the frontlines of immigration enforcement. These men and women put their lives on the line every time they go out on patrol. For them, immigration policy is not a hypothetical exercise. Despite the critical role these entities play in assisting their Federal partners with immigration enforcement, current Federal policy leaves them exposed to the threat of costly litigation. That is because third-party groups that oppose detention have threatened local agencies that choose to comply with valid detainer requests with lawsuits. Using punitive legal action to punish law enforcement for good-faith efforts to keep people safe is wrong. That is why a group of Arizona sheriffs came to me for help, and with their guidance, we drafted a bill requiring the Department of Homeland Security to protect State and local law enforcement entities from lawsuits that uphold valid detainer requests from ICE. This solution will enable officers to fulfill their law enforcement responsibilities without second-guessing whether or not to keep potentially dangerous criminal aliens in custody. It is a recognition that local law enforcement shouldn't be left to shoulder the burden of Washington's failure to secure our borders and to implement a workable enforcement policy. It has been my privilege to work on this effort with the Arizona Sheriffs Association, the Western States Sheriffs' Association, the Southwest Border Sheriff's Coalition, and the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition. I want especially to thank Sheriff Mascher of Yavapai County, Sheriff Daniels of Cochise County, Sheriff Wilmot of Yuma County, and Sheriff Clark of Navajo County for their work on this bill. To many, Police Week is an annual opportunity to recognize the service of the many selfless men and women in law enforcement, but it should also serve as a solemn reminder of the risks they take and the sacrifices they make day in and day out. It is for this that they have my support, my respect, and my thanks, and they have it year-round. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, immigration enforcement is one of the Federal Government's most essential responsibilities. It is also one of the most debated and rightly so. Those of us in this body need to ensure that Federal immigration laws secure our borders from criminal and terrorist threats and facilitate effective interior enforcement to keep citizens safe. At the same time, our laws must promote a system of legal immigration that encourages economic growth and opportunity, especially in border communities like those in my home State of Arizona, but while we debate these policies on the Senate floor, local police officers and sheriffs around the country are serving on the frontlines of immigration enforcement. These men and women put their lives on the line every time they go out on patrol. For them, immigration policy is not a hypothetical exercise, it is part of the day in and day out reality of serving in law enforcement. Throughout the country, local officers increasingly find themselves coming in contact with individuals who, after being apprehended for the commission of a crime, are determined to be in the country illegally. This is especially common in border States like Arizona. Once it is determined an individual in their custody is in the country illegally, that information is relayed to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. ICE can then send a request to local officials with instructions to hold that individual for up to 48 hours so they can be transferred to Federal custody. This is called a detainer request. The partnership between law enforcement authorities at all levels of government leverages vital information and resources in order to keep dangerous criminals off the streets. The Federal Government has no better partners in this effort than State and local law enforcement agencies from Arizona. Despite the critical role these entities play in assisting their Federal partners with immigration enforcement, current Federal policy leaves them exposed with the threat of costly litigation. That is because third-party groups that oppose detention have threatened local agencies that choose to comply with valid detainer requests. They are threatened with lawsuits. Using punitive legal action to punish law enforcement for good-faith efforts to keep people safe is simply wrong. We can have this policy debate without jeopardizing public safety and the ability of local law enforcement officers to do their job. That is why I am introducing the Support Local Law Enforcement Detainer Indemnity Act. This bill will require the Department of Homeland Security to protect State and local law enforcement entities from lawsuits that uphold valid detainer requests from ICE. This is called indemnification. It would allow officers to fulfill their law enforcement responsibilities without second-guessing whether to keep potentially dangerous criminal aliens in custody. Reforming our Nation's immigration policies is no easy task, let me tell you. It is slow, frustrating work in the Senate, but as we continue the debate, local law enforcement shouldn't be left to shoulder the burden as a result of Washington's failure to secure our borders and implement a workable enforcement policy. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation that will give State and local law enforcement the certainty of knowing the Federal Government has their back. I also thank local sheriffs across the State of Arizona who are really shouldering this burden and who came to me with this issue. They want to keep their community safe. They want to do what is right. It pains them to have to release someone they know is dangerous, but they can't expose themselves and their counties to the litigation that would come if something like this legislation is not put in place. So this is a response to a very real problem out there. I thank those like Sheriff Dannels, Cochise County, and Sheriff Mascher, Yavapai County, Sheriff Clark of Navajo County, Sheriff Wilmot of Yuma County, and many others who have been working on this issue, work on the frontlines, and do a lot of work that we are very appreciative of in Arizona.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, immigration enforcement is one of the Federal Government's most essential responsibilities. It is also one of the most debated and rightly so. Those of us in this body need to ensure that Federal immigration laws secure our borders from criminal and terrorist threats and facilitate effective interior enforcement to keep citizens safe. At the same time, our laws must promote a system of legal immigration that encourages economic growth and opportunity, especially in border communities like those in my home State of Arizona, but while we debate these policies on the Senate floor, local police officers and sheriffs around the country are serving on the frontlines of immigration enforcement. These men and women put their lives on the line every time they go out on patrol. For them, immigration policy is not a hypothetical exercise, it is part of the day in and day out reality of serving in law enforcement. Throughout the country, local officers increasingly find themselves coming in contact with individuals who, after being apprehended for the commission of a crime, are determined to be in the country illegally. This is especially common in border States like Arizona. Once it is determined an individual in their custody is in the country illegally, that information is relayed to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. ICE can then send a request to local officials with instructions to hold that individual for up to 48 hours so they can be transferred to Federal custody. This is called a detainer request. The partnership between law enforcement authorities at all levels of government leverages vital information and resources in order to keep dangerous criminals off the streets. The Federal Government has no better partners in this effort than State and local law enforcement agencies from Arizona. Despite the critical role these entities play in assisting their Federal partners with immigration enforcement, current Federal policy leaves them exposed with the threat of costly litigation. That is because third-party groups that oppose detention have threatened local agencies that choose to comply with valid detainer requests. They are threatened with lawsuits. Using punitive legal action to punish law enforcement for good-faith efforts to keep people safe is simply wrong. We can have this policy debate without jeopardizing public safety and the ability of local law enforcement officers to do their job. That is why I am introducing the Support Local Law Enforcement Detainer Indemnity Act. This bill will require the Department of Homeland Security to protect State and local law enforcement entities from lawsuits that uphold valid detainer requests from ICE. This is called indemnification. It would allow officers to fulfill their law enforcement responsibilities without second-guessing whether to keep potentially dangerous criminal aliens in custody. Reforming our Nation's immigration policies is no easy task, let me tell you. It is slow, frustrating work in the Senate, but as we continue the debate, local law enforcement shouldn't be left to shoulder the burden as a result of Washington's failure to secure our borders and implement a workable enforcement policy. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation that will give State and local law enforcement the certainty of knowing the Federal Government has their back. I also thank local sheriffs across the State of Arizona who are really shouldering this burden and who came to me with this issue. They want to keep their community safe. They want to do what is right. It pains them to have to release someone they know is dangerous, but they can't expose themselves and their counties to the litigation that would come if something like this legislation is not put in place. So this is a response to a very real problem out there. I thank those like Sheriff Dannels, Cochise County, and Sheriff Mascher, Yavapai County, Sheriff Clark of Navajo County, Sheriff Wilmot of Yuma County, and many others who have been working on this issue, work on the frontlines, and do a lot of work that we are very appreciative of in Arizona.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I have spoken a lot in recent years about how Arizona is quickly becoming one of our country's major tech hubs. From entrepreneurial startups to major technology companies, Arizona is supporting innovation like never before. In fact, it was just announced that Waymo, Google's self-driving car project, will be launching its first public trials of self-driving vehicles in the greater Phoenix area. But, today, the biggest news in tech isn't coming from publicly traded Silicon Valley companies. No, today, the talk of the tech world is the students from my alma mater, Snowflake Junior High School. That is because these students from my small hometown of Snowflake, AZ, just won the Samsung Solve for Tomorrow contest. This national contest tasks students from across the country with creating a solution to improve their local communities by using STEAM skills--Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math. The winning project from Mr. Eilertsen's students is something special. Snowflake students designed and constructed a low-cost animal detection system to prevent fatalities from vehicle collisions with wild animals. They were motivated by the fact that an estimated 200 people lose their lives each year in these collisions, which can be common around rural communities like Snowflake. The winning design consists of a 10-inch, weather-resistant motion sensor that blinks to warn drivers when a large animal is near. These durable, affordable sensors can be placed atop existing fence posts like the thousands that line roads all over rural Arizona. I had the opportunity to meet with these very bright students--2 of them from a class of, I believe, 23--and those 2 are in the Gallery today, along with their teacher Mr. Eilertsen. I had the opportunity to meet with them yesterday in my office and to hear all about this winning project. Let me tell my colleagues that they blew me away with their creativity, their knowledge, and, most of all, their desire to use the STEAM discipline to save lives. Think about how remarkable this project is. Here is a device that can actually save hundreds of lives and prevent harm to wildlife and to livestock. With the grit and ingenuity of a great startup, these students at Snowflake Junior High have shown the country that big ideas come from small towns. In recognition of their innovative project, the students won $150,000 in technology for their school and an additional $20,000 for having the most popular project on social media and with the public--not bad for some kids from Snowflake. Before I yield the floor, I would like to thank Mr. Eilertsen for all that he has done to inspire his students to think big and for making a victory in this Samsung competition possible. I would also like to thank all of the faculty and staff in Snowflake for their tireless work as educators. Finally, I would like to congratulate the students of Snowflake Junior High for their victory. I am confident that your project will save lives, and by winning this competition, you have provided your school with educational resources that will help students for years to come. To the winning students from Snowflake Junior High School: Congratulations. You make me proud to be a Lobo, and, as always, proud to come from Snowflake and proud to be an Arizonan.