I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator Daschle. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed…
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator Daschle.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The amendment offered on my behalf and that of the Democratic leader concerns a country, regrettably, that does not get a lot of attention in the Senate. In recent months--and rightfully so--we have focused intently on Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, Colombia, Pakistan, and many other countries scattered around the globe. Our close neighbor and critical friend to the south, Mexico, too often receives little, if any, attention.
In some respects, the lack of attention may be a good thing. Last Sunday, for example, Mexico held midterm elections that resulted in President Fox's party losing 40 seats in the Mexican Congress in an election that was uniformly recognized as free and fair. It was not too long ago that elections in Mexico would have been front-page news in the United States, and the news would have not been good. In all likelihood, the reports would have told of rigged elections and another power grab by the long-ruling PRI.
So the lack of attention to our friend Mexico is in one sense good news, but in a much larger sense it is a serious problem. The legislation we consider today will authorize billions of dollars for countries, regions, and programs around the world. But we will do very little for the country with whom we share a 2,000-mile border--Mexico.
That is a disappointment, especially in light of that hopeful South Lawn ceremony with President Fox less than 2 years ago with our President. This amendment makes one simple thing very clear: what happens in Mexico is in the national security interests of our country. We should be doing more to help Mexicans who are working hard to help themselves. I believe President Bush summed it up very well last year when he said: ``The United States has no more important relationship in the world than the one we have with Mexico. Good neighbors work together and benefit from each other's successes.'' I agree with our President. It is a special relationship with great economic importance to both nations. But I am disappointed that the President has not backed up his words with action.
Mexico is now the second largest trading partner we have. It is among the top 10 export markets for 43 of our States. It is the ninth largest economy in the world. But this special relationship we share with Mexico is in desperate need of repair. As we have turned our attention away from Mexico in recent years, economic troubles within the country have grown increasingly serious.
A few years ago, Mexico seemed on the verge of an economic breakthrough. Today, however, Mexico's growth rate is half of what it was in the mid-1990s. This has hurt both their nation and our Nation. Mexico has a poverty rate of almost 40 percent. There are a little over 100 million people in Mexico. That means almost 40 million Mexicans live in poverty. Fifty-three percent of all Mexicans--more than 50 million people--have an annual income of less than $1,400. Twenty-three percent of all Mexicans have an annual income of less than $720. That is less than $2 a day. Income distribution within the country remains especially unequal, and unemployment and underemployment continue to hamper our southern neighbor.
The problems are especially acute in rural areas of Mexico, which have been chronically underdeveloped and underfunded. Rural poverty remains one of the most persistent and serious economic problems facing Mexico. This rural economic crisis threatens the health and well-being of people in Mexico and puts our own economy and security in jeopardy.
Take, for example, coffee growing. Coffee growers in Mexico thrived just a short time ago. They became an indispensable component of Mexico's rural economy. But they have seen the price of their crop drop by 70 percent in just 5 years. These failing commodity prices have led many of these farmers to seek another crop to feed their families. What is that crop? Opium poppies, which are used to make heroin that ultimately makes its way into our country.
I understand that when people have no money, when their families are hungry, and when their livelihood is vanishing before their eyes--think of
Mexico's coffee growers--they look for other ways to survive. Some grow poppies, but others take unbelievable risks to come to America.
Now, I am opposed to illegal immigration. I think everyone should comply with the law. But it has to tear at your heartstrings to see people who are so desperate that they risk their lives to come across the Rio Grande River. They freeze to death in the mountain passes; they die in the deserts of Arizona, New Mexico, and California trying to come to America. They pay what little money they have to demons who tell these people, ``We have a way for you to get to America.'' They cram innocent Mexicans in boxcars and trucks, and subject them to inhumane conditions. This is an all-to-familiar scene that takes the lives of too many innocent human beings.
So while I am opposed to illegal immigration, I understand why desperate people do everything in their power to try to come to America. They risk their lives to cross our border illegally. This places additional strains on our border security officers, who are already overextended. Those who manage to sneak past the Border Patrol and survive the desert and the mountain passes arrive here with few, if any, job skills, so they take any job they can find. They compete for jobs with those who are here legally and tax our social services.
Clearly, this crisis in rural Mexico is not only the business of Mexico; it is our business, too. Should we be concerned about what has gone on in Iraq? Of course we should. Should we be concerned about what is going on in Afghanistan? Of course we should. Should we be concerned about what is going on in Pakistan today? Bangladesh? India? Of course we should. Should the President of the United States be in Africa today? Of course he should.
I traveled to Africa last August. It is an eye opener. As the world's only superpower, we have tremendous obligations. The President is going to commit this Congress to new obligations as he makes his trip around Africa. We have an obligation to do our best to live up to the commitments our President makes as he travels throughout the world.
I do not in any way denigrate what we have done and what we are doing around the rest of the world. I am criticizing what we have failed to do. We have ignored Mexico, and that is wrong. We must remember that what goes on in Mexico concerns our Nation, because in today's world, problems like drugs and poverty do not grind to a halt at our borders. The Rio Grande River is not sufficient to stop the flow of illegal drugs into our country. The Rio Grande River is not sufficient to stop the poverty that comes across our borders in the form of illegal immigration that taxes our social services, our law enforcement officers and our educational system.
But we also share many positive things with Mexico. We have a shared history, a shared culture, even a shared language--I have three sons who speak fluent Spanish. Mexican Americans have helped shape our great Nation. Twenty million people of Mexican ancestry live in the United States today, an increase of 53 percent from ten years ago.
Mr. President, if you still doubt that we have a shared culture with Mexico, look at Nevada. What does the word ``Nevada'' mean? In Spanish it means ``snowcapped.'' ``Las Vegas,'' what does that mean? In Spanish it means ``the meadows.''
In the State of Nevada, which is the fastest growing State in our Nation, Mexican Americans now account for more than 15 percent of the population. That is a 300 percent increase since the early 1990s. Overall, we have seen a 53 percent increase in our country's Mexican American population, but in Nevada it has been 300 percent. That doesn't take into consideration the approximately 5 percent of the population in our state who came from Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, and other places in Central and South America. So as you can see, Mr. President, the connections between our two nations are real.
But I want to do more than talk about this relationship. Actions speak louder than words. It is time this Congress acted. I want to follow through on President Bush's promise to work, and work together with Mexico. I want to address the very real crisis affecting Mexico's rural communities.
Some of my colleagues have said: Your amendment has some merit, but won't it cost too much money? Well, this legislation we are dealing with here in the Senate today is worth billions of dollars. I think our neighbor to the south deserves part of that largesse.
In recent years we have helped many countries around the world in their hour of need, whether through economic or military assistance. The American people have responded time and time again to crises in far corners of the world. Surely we can answer the call to help our largest trading partner and close ally. I don't think we have a choice. That is why I am proposing this plan to help Mexico lift herself up.
This amendment will not drop money on Mexico's doorstep and hope it gets spent wisely. No, we are not doing that. Any expert who is familiar with what is going on in Mexico will tell you one thing--that the way to stop illegal immigration from that country is to give Mexicans an opportunity to succeed in their own economy. That is what this amendment is all about. And so we are proposing a plan to help Mexico lift herself up by providing the resources for a program to spark redevelopment in rural areas. This amendment would authorize $100 million for microcredit lending, small business entrepreneurial development, aid to small farmers who have been affected by the collapse of prices, and support for Mexico's private property ownership system, which is in bad need of repair.
President Fox is confronted with problems all over Mexico, but none are more difficult than those of rural Mexico. Commodity prices have fallen through the floor--not only coffee, but others, as well. Mexico's young people are fleeing its historic farming areas for Mexico City.
Mexico City is the largest city in the world, with 21 million people at last count. It is also the most polluted city in the world. I went there and met with State Department officials. Our State Department officials receive hazard pay for living in Mexico City, but not because anybody is shooting at them. They receive it because the city's air is so detrimental to their health. And each day, more desperate people come to this overcrowded, polluted city from rural Mexico. The country is trading its rural future for increased unemployment in Mexico City. That is a bad switch.
Let me talk briefly about each of the provisions of this amendment. First, microcredit lending programs have been enormously successful throughout the world. The goals of these programs are to provide small loans to nontraditional sectors of the economy that would ordinarily not be supported by the main financial institutions of the country. Flexible repayment procedures and low interest rates are hallmarks of microcredit enterprises.
Our distinguished chairman of this committee has had such a significant impact on the world as a result of his involvement in this committee on which he serves, the Foreign Relations Committee. There are programs that have his name attached to them. The first one that comes to almost everyone's mind, of course, is Nunn-Lugar, which was a program that was introduced by two great statesmen--Nunn from Georgia, Lugar from Indiana--to work on a problem in the former Soviet Union that seemed to be unsolvable. Nunn-Lugar made tremendous strides in the direction of solving the problems we had with nuclear programs in the former Soviet Union.
So I say to my distinguished Chair of this committee, I know the Senator from Indiana understands and has seen examples of how a few dollars, with our microlending programs in other countries, have been magnified and have helped individuals and regions and entire countries.
That is what we are trying to do here.
The evidence of microcredit lending clearly suggests that a small amount of money can have a huge impact on an economy by helping significantly in villages and rural communities and with small businesses. These programs ought to be rolled out to rural parts of Mexico, as they have been in other parts of the world where the need for such innovative lending was clear. My amendment would start this process.
Second, there is a lot of business activity just above the microenterprise
level which large banks and financial institutions simply won't support because of lack of collateral or creditworthiness. These are typically small businesses and entrepreneurs who are trying to get started and who many times do not even have money for further training. This amendment supports efforts to boost programs directed at small businesses and entrepreneurial development, which is critical for maintaining a diversified and balanced rural economy. When small businesses and entrepreneurs leave the rural communities for larger Mexican cities or even the United States, that spells the beginning of the end for parts of rural Mexico.
The third part of this amendment would implement programs to help the Mexican farmers who have been hurt by the falling prices of coffee and other commodities. On average, Mexican coffee farmers are being paid 70 percent less than they were just 5 years ago. As a result, these once thriving farmers and farmhands are seeking work in larger cities.
But when they come to these larger cities, they do not check into an apartment with air-conditioning or inside toilets. They cannot stop at the 7-Eleven and buy something for dinner. They live in shantytowns-- homes made of cardboard. We all have seen shantytowns. It is disgraceful that people have to live that way. But many of the 21 million people living in Mexico City live in shantytowns. Agencies should be helping rural farmers to keep cultivating their usual crops, so they don't turn to illegal crop production or become desperate and abandon rural Mexico entirely.
Finally, the fourth component of this amendment--and I believe it is an important part--is to support private property ownership in rural communities, and to do it through increased mortgage financing.
If you want to sell your home in this country, it is very simple. If someone wants to buy it, they go to a title company. They go to somebody who has abstract deeds, and they run that through the legal process to find out if you really own that home, and if you do, whether there are any liens against your property in the way of debt which you haven't paid. By the time that person sells that home, the person who buys it knows everything about that real estate he wants to buy from you. You can't do that in most places in Mexico. They have no legal system to do that.
If you live in rural Mexico and you own a home, you live in that home for the rest of your life. You can't borrow money to fix it up. It is worth nothing because you can't sell it. It is, in effect, debt capital in more ways than one.
Sound and secure property rights are a fundamental part of any market economy. But the framework of property rights in Mexico is in a state of disrepair. The lack of security in property transactions has resulted in a substantial decrease in the availability of credit.
For example, mortgage financing funds only about 40 percent of new households in Mexico. Why? No one will lend money to people who do not own homes or have liens against a home. Families do not have equity in their homes, and the homes can't easily be sold unless cash is paid upfront. The impact of all this is particularly severe in rural communities, where the only alternative to living in the same dilapidated home for the rest of your life is to flee to a big city. The United States should act expeditiously in this area to help Mexico get its property rights back on track. We can do that today by passing this amendment.
So to summarize, Mr. President, the four components of this amendment are microcredit lending, small business and entrepreneurial development, assisting small farms, and supporting an enhanced system of private property ownership.
As I indicated earlier, some of my colleagues have already said this will cost too much money. I agree that it will cost a lot of money, even by Washington standards. But I also recognize that Mexico is in a dire crisis. Mexico is our friend, and it is in our interest to help Mexico. By doing this, we will help Americans as well as Mexicans.
I recognize that immigration and drug trafficking from Mexico present a real problem for the United States. I have talked about that. Especially for States, such as Nevada, that are on the front line of this battle, it is a very difficult problem.
I don't think this is a typical aid package. As I mentioned earlier, it is no handout. It is a commitment to free-market-based programs that will spur long-term development and growth in rural areas of Mexico. It is not only the right thing to do, but it also will have a positive impact on the United States by reducing the strain upon our society caused by illegal immigration and the deadly flow of drugs. Furthermore, a stronger and more economically sound Mexico will be a better trading partner for the United States. The better off Mexico is economically, the better off we are, because we will have a greater opportunity to sell them products we develop here.
I have always supported aid to Mexico. Others have objected to it and said it is not necessary, but I have always supported it. It was necessary then, and it is necessary now. It is in our humanitarian interests, our economic interests and our security interests. That is why I say we have to make these investments in Mexico today. If we can afford to help so many other countries in the world, we ought to be able to help our friend with whom we share so much and with whom we share a 2,000-mile border.
As President George W. Bush said:
We have no more important relationship in the world than
the one we have with Mexico.
This amendment will prove whether the United States will do more than just talk about our relationship with Mexico. As I said earlier, are we going to talk, or are we going to act? Actions speak louder than words.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This is so important for our country and for the country of Mexico.
I yield the floor.
I am. I would like 5 minutes more in which to speak.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
Mr. President, let me just say that I have already stated in my remarks the great admiration I have for the distinguished chair of this committee. He is a good man, a good Senator, but I certainly disagree with the statements he made that this matter was not brought before the committee in the form of an amendment. I have not been here as long as the Senator from Indiana but I have been here quite a while, and I understand that not all Senators have the opportunity, if they do not serve on a committee, to offer amendments.
I know Senator Biden and Senator Lugar do the best they can to bring a bill they think is responsible before the Senate. But had I been on the committee--which I am not--I would have offered an amendment such as this. I do not think there is a higher priority we have, not only from our security interests but from the simple merit of any proposal, than this one right here. I think it is very important that we recognize Mexico.
I am now one of the senior members of the Appropriations Committee, and I do not quite understand why we are being so frugal with Mexico. We are not so frugal with other countries. I think Mexico deserves this. I ask Members of the Senate to understand there is no budget point of order against what I am doing. If this were an appropriations bill or had some budget implications other than that, that might be the case, but Senators can vote for this amendment. If the appropriators can't find enough money, then fine, that is the appropriators' problem.
This body has a leading role to play in foreign affairs. We cannot be dictated to by the administration. President George Bush is President George Bush; he is not King George Bush. We have three separate but equal branches of Government: the judicial, the legislative, and the executive; and we are equal. I have a different philosophy than the President about what we should do for Mexico. He believes we should talk about it and not do a great deal about it. I believe actions speak louder than words. Now, maybe I am wrong but that is how I feel, and I have a right to feel that way.
I am 1 of 100 Senators. If the Senators want to walk in here and say thumbs down to Mexico, I think it is too bad for this Senate but they are going to have an opportunity to vote to help our neighbor.
Congress has a leading role to play in foreign affairs. We cannot defer to what the State Department wants to do. The State Department, directed by this administration, has not done a good job in taking care of Mexico. It has been all talk. There are some who have written, since the elections in Mexico a few days ago, that the reason President Fox took a drubbing in the elections is because the United States has not done anything to help Mexico.
Maybe, when this bill goes to conference, there should be some rearranging. If this amendment is adopted, maybe the people who serve on these committees in the House and the Senate will have to do some rearranging of priorities but that is what we do in conference all the time.
I think anything we can do to help the Mexican people is a direct help for us. Anything we can do to stop people from being forced to leave--Mr. President, people do not suddenly say in Mexico: Well, I guess I'm going to head for the United States. I haven't anything better to do. They are driven to the United States out of poverty, out of desperation. This amendment will allow these people to stay home. It will help Mexico City. It will help stop the tremendous flow of people into that city, the largest city in the world.
This is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do morally. It is the right thing to do for the security of the Nation--I mean the security of this Nation. It means more than just less crime, less burden on our education system, our health services, but it is economic security in many other ways. This is good for both countries.
I respect my friend from Indiana, the distinguished chairman of the committee. I can't believe that in his heart he believes there is anything wrong with this amendment. I ask my friends to support it.
I have nothing more to say.
I would be happy to enter an agreement with the Senator that at 11:30 today the Reid-Daschle amendment would be voted on. I would like an up-or-down vote on the amendment, and there would be no second-degree amendments in order. I so ask unanimous consent.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, the Senator from Washington has offered this very timely amendment. We have spoken to the two managers of the bill. We are awaiting instructions from the leadership as to whether we would have a vote following the amendment that is pending, the Reid-Daschle amendment.
In the meantime, Senator Allen and Senator Harkin wish to offer an amendment, and Senator Clinton and Senator Wyden. Senator Allen wishes to speak, he said, for 5 minutes; is that correct?
And Senator Wyden and Senator Clinton wish to speak for 5 minutes. We could do that and make that just right for about an 11:30 vote.
Let's get this resolved first.
Mr. President, that would put us to 5 after. Senator Murray asks for 5 minutes to respond. We have Senator Allen who wishes to speak for 10 minutes, Senator Harkin for 5 minutes, and then we have Senator Clinton for 5 minutes and Senator Wyden for 5 minutes, and that puts us at 25 to the hour. Then I am sure we can have the vote at 11:35 a.m. or 11:40 a.m. and get everyone in to speak.
I ask that the Senator from Washington be given the opportunity to have her amendment seconded so she can have a vote on it; Otherwise, we will just go into a quorum call. I have the floor. We ought to vote on her amendment at some time agreed to by the leadership.
We understand that. We understand it will be on or in relation to the Murray amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that when we go to the Allen-Harkin amendment, the Murray amendment be set aside temporarily and that he be allowed to speak for 10 minutes and Senator Harkin for 5 minutes, and that following his remarks, as in morning business, the Senators from Oregon and New York be recognized for 5 minutes each; that we then go to Senator Nickles and Senator Murray and finish debate on her amendment.
I ask sometime that Senator Harkin be recognized for up to 10 minutes to speak on the amendment. He is in the Chamber, and that is fine. I ask if Senator Harkin would have any objection to our passing the amendment and then he be recognized to speak on the amendment that is approved. We have a UC we are trying to get through.
Reserving the right to object.
I remind everyone that Senators Clinton and Wyden have already been recognized in a previous order to speak for up to 10 minutes. They will each take 5 minutes. I also ask that the Senator from Maryland be recognized for 5 minutes. He has called and wishes to speak. I also ask that there be no second-degree amendment in order prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington. Part of this consent, if everyone uses their time, would bump up the vote for a few minutes but not much.
We would accept that.
Mr. President, since 9/11 we have had to refocus on the issue of national security. The amendment before the Senate deals with our national security in a very direct way. This amendment deals directly with our neighbor with whom we share a 2,000-mile border, Mexico. This amendment would help the poorest of the poor in rural Mexico. The four components of the amendment are, No. 1, it would establish a microcredit lending program; No. 2, it would establish programs to assist rural Mexican small businesses; No. 3, it would assist small rural farmers; No. 4, it would establish a system of private property ownership. This is not a typical aid package, not a handout, but a commitment to a free market society to spur economic development. This is $1 for every Mexican. It doesn't sound like too much to me. Mexico is our friend, our neighbor. They deserve our support. Anyone who votes against this amendment should never ever again complain about illegal immigration.
Irresponsibility is not helping our neighbor.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.
I move to reconsider the vote.
I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye''.
I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.
Reserving the right to object, Senator Biden is not on the floor. His staff has said Senator Biden has not had a chance to look all these over.
Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
The Senator indicated we have spent basically a day, a half day yesterday and so far today, on the State Department authorization. All Democrats want to finish this bill. I think the leader would acknowledge that. We had our policy meeting today and our caucus luncheon Tuesday. I remind the leader--the majority leader is in the Chamber also--we spent 2 days this week on a bill that everyone knew, when it came up, was going nowhere. We all believe this bill is going somewhere--has the opportunity to go somewhere. I hope the two leaders would work to move it forward.
I know the Democratic leader feels that way. I think it would be a shame, for lack of a better description, after all the work we have done on this--as the Democratic leader has announced, we have a list that is a good list, nearly complete. We could complete this legislation. We can't complete it in a matter of hours, but I think we could complete it in a matter of a day or so.
Mr. President, we on this side have worked with the ranking member of the committee, and we have a list of Democratic amendments we want to go in order.
I would like to announce those for the benefit of the Senate.
I apologize. I thought that had been done.
Mr. President, the amendments offered on this side are amendments by Senator Biden, Senator Schumer, Senator Kennedy, Senator Stabenow, Senator Dorgan, Senator Harkin, and Senator Dodd, in that order. So everyone understands--we have a lot of people shuffling around--that will be the order of amendments by Democratic Senators.
It is Clinton and Schumer. I apologize for that.
Following the Biden amendment?
Right now?
I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) would vote ``yea.''