Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I stand today, I guess, as a pig at a wedding here between those who want to fund the program that probably ought to be defunded and those who want to fund it more than it is being funded at current. The President said that we ought to hold the line at about $35 million. The OMB analyzed the MEP and said, ``Ultimately firms should be willing to pay for the cost of services that contribute to profitability if they determine the services are worth it.'' That is what we as Republicans ought to stand for, and instead we are saying let us help them out some more. For those who do not believe this is corporate welfare, I would suggest that you do go to the Web site, which says MEP is a nationwide network of not-for-profit centers in over 400 locations nationwide whose sole purpose is to provide small and medium-sized manufacturers with the help they need to succeed. Well, I would suggest that if a business is having trouble succeeding, it is probably because there is not a market for its good or services or its competitors are doing it better. Now, is it our role as government to actually try to go in and help them out? I would say yes, but we ought to do it by little more of what the gentleman suggested was benign neglect. I think our small and medium-sized businesses out there are crying for a little benign neglect when it comes to government in terms of lesser taxes and less regulation. Let us give them more of what we have been over the past couple of years, which is lower taxes, less regulation, and let them compete on their own. Now, I come from Arizona where we are long-suffering in terms of professional football. The Cardinals had fewer rushing touchdowns last year than they have in years past. What are we to do? Dispatch a government team or a bunch of experts to tell them how they can have more rushing touchdowns and compete a little more, put a little more fannies in the seats? I do not think we are going to do that, but reading this, I think, What is next? If we are going to do it for manufacturing, why not professional sports? I would say it is time to back away. Government's role is to provide a conducive regulatory and tax environment and then please stay out of the way, particularly in times of human deficits, $400 billion deficit this year, and we are increasing spending on this program. I would urge a rejection of the bill.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Flake-Davis-Emerson-Delahunt amendment simply prohibits the enforcement on the new Department of Commerce restrictions published June 22 of this year. These new restrictions added to the list of items prohibited in the sending of gift parcels, namely, clothing, personal hygiene items, seeds, fishing equipment, soap-making equipment, and veterinary medicine and supplies. As I read through the new list, it occurs to me that these items would promote self-sufficiency among Cubans. The rationale in the new regulations, however, seems to promote a dependency of Cubans on their oppressive government, the same government that has deprived them of freedom for the past 45 years. To quote the Federal Register that contains these new restrictions: ``Such parcels decrease the burden on the Cuban regime to provide for the basic needs of its people.'' By prohibiting these items from being sent to Cuba, we are, in fact, promoting dependence of these people on a dictator. This amendment would simply take us back to June 21 of this year, at which point several restrictions were already in place. The message of this amendment is that it is unreasonable for our government to prevent Americans from sending clothes, personal hygiene items, seeds, et cetera to people in Cuba who are struggling under the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Withholding of such items will have little affect on Castro and a significant effect on individuals who already struggle for the basics. This amendment would also prevent the enforcement of the new restriction that says gift parcels can only be sent once a month per household instead of once a month per individual. Again, why should we limit the help that Cuban Americans can send to their families? Finally, it would prevent the enforcement of the new restriction that says travelers are only allowed to carry 44 pounds of luggage, another way to limit the amount of help that can be sent to struggling families. In Cuba, the average salary is about $10 a month. When a Cuban family receives simple household items in a parcel, it can save its limited income and spend it on food and other necessities. It is hard to think of an economic sanction that does more harm to the welfare of families in Cuba or does more to make the United States seem mean-spirited towards families who already have the misfortune to live under Communism. We Republicans have diverse views on the Cuban embargo, but we are united on family values; and we should stand up for them here. As President Reagan said in 1984, ``We must be careful, in reacting to actions by the Soviet Government, not to take out our indignations on those not responsible.'' I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is what we are doing here. We are taking it out on those who are not responsible. The United States should not be targeting economic sanctions directly against Cuban families, nor should we take away from Cuban Americans the right that all immigrants have, to help loved ones who are left behind. I urge support of the Flake-Davis-Emerson-Delahunt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to say again, this is not about travel. This is about the freedom of Cuban Americans to send packages of soap and clothing and personal hygiene items to their families in Cuba. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to the gentleman from Massachusetts. I just wanted to clarify what the rule actually says. The rule we are seeking to amend states this rule removes seeds, clothing, personal hygiene items, veterinary medicine and supplies, fishing equipment and supplies, and soap-making equipment from the list of commodities that may be sent to Cuba in gift parcels. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to the gentleman from Idaho. I would just say that let us do stand for freedom, let us allow Cuban Americans to observe the freedom that they have to send personal hygiene items and food, medicine, and clothing to their family members in Cuba. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, up until most recently, this has been an enlightening discussion. I think it is unfortunate that those who seek to enhance the freedom of individuals to decide whether or not they can send their families services or goods, that is considered racist or that is considered patronizing or condescending. Nothing can be further from the truth. We are simply allowing freedom. It would be the ultimate irony if we allow Fidel Castro, as William F. Buckley said in a column today, it would be the ultimate irony if we allow Fidel Castro to impinge on the rights of Americans. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and just to say again that we had the opportunity, myself and the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) of the Committee on Resources, to travel with Secretary Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, to the Marshall Islands earlier this year, and were able to meet with the President and others. I know they appreciate this gesture, and we have no greater friend than the Marshall Islands.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the United States and the Marshall Islands share deep bonds of history and friendship. We have enjoyed the uniquely close alliance over the past half century. The ties between us stretch back to World War II when we struggled together to liberate the Marshall Islands from Japanese occupation. During the intervening decades, these bonds of blood have grown into an abiding alliance. The Congress reaffirmed that alliance late last year when we approved the amended Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which extended the strategic and economic ties between our two countries. When the Marshallese people adopted their Constitution in 1979, they formed a democratic government, committed to the rule of law and individual liberty. It was a critical development in their transition from the U.S.-administered trust territory into a sovereign independent nation. The people of the United States saw our shared ideals of freedom and democracy take root among our friends in the Pacific; and when full sovereignty followed in 1986, we gained a stalwart ally in the community of nations. I commend this effort to commemorate that event and our continuing alliance with the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which deserves our unanimous support. Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity a couple of times now to visit the Marshall Islands, once years ago and again this January, and to be able to visit with President Note and other members of the Parliament and other ministers as well and to visit a couple of the islands and to witness the friendship firsthand with the Marshallese people. It is significant to note that nearly a hundred Marshallese citizens have actually been serving with our Armed Forces in Iraq and other theatres of war. They have been a very staunch ally of ours, and I think it is also significant to note that in the United Nations, the United States has no better friend and ally than the Marshallese. The Marshall Islands votes with the United States 99 percent of the time. That is something that is not shared with any other country or nation. So we owe a debt of gratitude to the Marshallese people; and to recognize them for the adoption of their Constitution 25 years ago, I think, is a significant step. It means a lot to them, and it should mean a lot to us. There is also another reason that it is important that we recognize the Marshall Islands for what they do and have done for us in the past. Our nuclear testing dates back to the 1950s when we did Operation Bravo and in other operations where we tested nuclear devices, and the Marshallese people have cooperated and helped us in that regard for over a half century; and for that we owe a debt of gratitude. From the military base at Kwajalein, I was able to see our base there and see what we are currently doing today; and it is a great operation there, and we have the full cooperation of the Marshallese, which makes it much easier to accomplish what we need to. They have been a stable democracy in the Pacific for over 25 years, and this is due in part to the fact that the United States during the U.N. trusteeship period fulfilled its commitment to promote democratic self-government and self-determination for the Marshall Islands. These efforts led to the establishment of local self-government, and this culminated in a constitutional convention in which delegates representing the people of the Marshall Islands proposed that they be constituted as a self-governing nation. This happened, and in 1979 the people of the Marshall Islands adopted their own Constitution and declared themselves a republic. This Constitution established a parliamentary governmental system with separation of powers and a bill of rights guaranteeing democracy, freedom, and limited government for the Marshallese people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 410) recognizing the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and recognizing the Marshall Islands as a staunch ally of the United States, committed to principles of democracy and freedom for the Pacific region and throughout the world, as amended.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) I am pleased to speak to a bill introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). The measure authorizes an increase in the Eisenhower Fellows Trust Fund that was established in 1992. The proceeds of this trust fund finance this well-respected exchange program. The increase will be directed towards programs in the Middle East. The Eisenhower Fellowships is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization created in 1953 to honor President Eisenhower. Eisenhower Fellowships promote international understanding and productivity through the exchange of information and ideas among emerging leaders throughout the world. The program brings rising leaders from other countries to the United States and sends American counterparts abroad with a custom designed program for each participant. The fellowship program seeks to create a network of leaders whose ties to one another and the United States may foster peace, productivity and progress. This is accomplished by creating programs that enhance the capacities of men and women leaders likely to have an impact on their nation's development. Programs are designed to build on the individual's professional skills as well as develop contacts within the United States. These experiences are devoted to the growth of the individual Fellows, to the advancement of their effectiveness as leaders, and to their ability to contribute to progress and reconciliation among diverse groups. The advantage to the United States in such interaction affords our citizens the opportunity to understand the aims, achievements and problems of different countries through meeting proven young leaders of these countries. In closing, the Eisenhower Fellowships promote international understanding and productivity through the exchange of information, ideas and perspectives among emerging leaders throughout the world. This is important and useful to our future as a member of the globalized society. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2121) to amend the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 to authorize additional appropriations for the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund, and for other purposes.