[JPRT 106-75]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                  S. Prt.
 2d Session                 COMMITTEE PRINT                      106-75
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

 
                   THIRTY-NINTH MEXICO-UNITED STATES
                     INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE
                             PUEBLA, MEXICO

                             MAY 5-7, 2000

                               __________

                                 REPORT

                                 OF THE

                             UNITED STATES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                  AND

                                 SENATE

                              DELEGATIONS

                                     




    Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
      Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the 
      House of Representatives, respectively


                         --------------------------

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-637 CC                     WASHINGTON : 2001




RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana            JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska                PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon              CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota                 JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri              BARBARA BOXER, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee                ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

                   Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
                 Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director


                    THIRTY-NINTH MEXICO-UNITED STATES
                      INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE


                             SENATE DELEGATION

              Paul Coverdell (R-GA), Chairman, Senate Delegation
                            Frank Murkowski (R-AK)
                             Jeff Sessions (R-AL)


                              HOUSE DELEGATION

                 Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Chairman, House Delegation

Cass Ballenger, Vice Chairman (R-NC)  Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Charles Stenholm (D-TX)               Brian Bilbray (R-CA)
David Dreier (R-CA)                   Phil English (R-PA)
Thomas Ewing (R-IL)                   Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
Ed Pastor (D-AZ)                      Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)
Bob Filner (D-CA)                     Eni F.H. Faleomavaega 
Donald Manzullo (R-IL)                 (D-American Samoa)
                  



                           Senate Staff

Alex Albert, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Senator Coverdell

Julia Hart, Office of Interparliamentary Services, Office of the Secretary 
of the Senate

Roger Noriega, Senior Professional Staff Member, Committee on Foreign 
Relations

Chris Weld, Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Coverdell



                            House Staff

Sean Carroll, Democratic Professional Staff Member, Committee on 
International Relations

Imani Crawford, Staff Associate, Committee on International Relations

Everett Eissenstat, Legislative Director, Office of Rep. Kolbe

Shelly Livingston, Financial Administrator, Committee on International 
Relations

John Mackey, Investigative Counsel, Committee on International Relations

(ii)

  


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Letter of Transmittal............................................     v

Background and Composition of Delegations........................     1

Issues on the Agenda                                                  3

    Electoral Legislation and Processes..........................     3

    Commerce, Trade, and Investment..............................     5

    Narcotics Trafficking and Justice Issues.....................     7

    Migration Issues.............................................     9

    Border and Environment Issues................................    11

    Interparliamentary Meetings and Other Exchange Programs......    13

                                 (iii)

  


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                                 November 16, 2000.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives

Hon. Al Gore,
President, U.S. Senate
Gentlemen: Pursuant to Public Law 86-420, it is our privilege 
to transmit the report of the thirty-ninth annual meeting of 
the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Conference, which 
was held in Puebla, Mexico, during the period May 5 through May 
7, 2000.
    For thirty nine years, these meeting have helped to build 
bridges of understanding between Mexico and the United States. 
As Chairmen of the 2000 meetings, we are pleased to report to 
you that this valuable tradition was maintained with a renewed 
commitment to continued cooperation between our two countries.
    We continue to believe that these annual meetings, which 
have been held since 1961, serve as a useful forum for 
discussions and that they have a positive impact on relations 
between our two countries.
    Additionally, members of the U.S. delegation would like to 
acknowledge the great loss of Senator Paul Coverdell, chairman 
of the Senate delegation, who passed on before the printing of 
this report. His contributions to the Mexico-U.S. IPG working 
group will always be remembered.

            Sincerely,

                                     Jeff Sessions,
                                Chairman, Senate Delegation

                                         Jim Kolbe,
                                Chairman, House Delegation,

                                  (v)

                                     
               Background and Composition of Delegations

    U.S. participation in annual parliamentary conferences with 
Mexico was authorized by joint resolution (Public Law 86-420), 
approved April 9, 1960. The meetings are held alternatively in 
Mexico and the United States.
    Attending the Thirty-Ninth Mexico-United States 
Interparliamentary Conference held in Puebla, Mexico, May 5 
through May 7, 2000, were:


                             UNITED STATES


Attending from the U.S. Senate were:

                    Paul Coverdell (R-GA), Chairman
                       Frank H. Murkowski (R-AL)
                          Jeff Sessions (R-AL)


Attending from the U.S. House of Representatives were:

Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Chairman
Cass Ballenger, Vice Chairman (R-NC)
Charles Stenholm (D-TX)
David Dreier (R-CA)
Thomas Ewing (R-IL)
Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Donald Manzullo (R-IL)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Brian Bilbray (R-CA)
Phil English (R-PA)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa)


                                 MEXICO

Attending from the Mexican Senate were:

Martha I. Lara Alatorre, Co-President PRI
Martina Montenegro Espinoza PRI
Jose Luis Medina Aguilar PRI
Ricardo Garcia Cervantes PAN
Jose Ramon Medina Padilla PAN
Francisco J. Molina Ruiz PAN
Jorge Calderon Salazar PRD
Cuauhtemoc Sandoval Ramirez PRD
Adolfo Aguilar Zinzer IND


Attending from the Mexican Chamber of Deputies were:

Cesar Jauregal Robles, President PAN
Alfredo Phillips Olmedo PRI
Guillermo Barnes Garcia PRI
America Soto Lopez PRI
Miguel Quiros Perez PRI
Julio Faesler Carlisle PAN
Carlos Heredia Zubieta PRD
Ricardo Garcia Sainz PRD
Luis Patino Pozas PT
Aurora Bazan Lopez PVEM


Senate Staff (alphabetical):

Alex Albert, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Senator Coverdell
Julia Hart, Office of Interparliamentary Services, Office of the 
Secretary of the Senate
Roger Noriega, Senior Professional Staff Member, Committee on Foreign 
Relations
Chris Weld, Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Coverdell


House Staff:

Sean Carroll, Democratic Professional Staff Member, Committee on 
International Relations
Imani Crawford, Staff Associate, Committee on International Relations
Everett Eissenstat, Legislative Director, Office of Rep. Kolbe
Shelly Livingston, Financial Administrator, Committee on International 
Relations
John Mackey, Investigative Counsel, Committee on International 
Relations


Library of Congress:

Larry Storrs, Latin American Specialist, Congressional Research Service




                          Issues on the Agenda

                  Electoral Legislation and Processes

    With presidential and congressional elections approaching 
in both countries, the 39th Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary 
Conference opened with a discussion of each country's electoral 
processes and the prospects for the coming elections.
    Several members of the Mexican delegation explained that 
the Mexican elections of July 2, 2000, would be very 
comprehensive national elections, and would for the first time 
be completely supervised by independent electoral authorities. 
In this election, the voters would elect a new president, all 
500 members of the Chamber of Deputies, all 128 members of the 
Senate, two governors from the states of Guanajuato and 
Morelos, and a new Head of Government (Mayor) in the Mexico 
City Federal District. Presidential candidates are Vicente Fox 
for the conservative Alliance for Change, Francisco Labastida 
for the longruling and centrist Institutional Revolutionary 
Party (PRI), and Cuauhtemoc Cardenas for the leftist Alliance 
for Mexico. Several delegates indicated that their presidential 
candidates had excellent prospects, and some expressed hope 
that the election would lead to more equitable conditions in 
Mexico.
    Several delegates stated that the Mexican presidential 
elections in 1988 had been questionable or fraudulent, but that 
the country had evolved toward genuine democracy because of a 
number of electoral reforms in the 1990s. Central among these 
reforms was the creation of an independent and autonomous 
Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) headed by highly respected 
Counselors selected by the Congress, in which the incumbent 
Government plays no role, and the political parties have only a 
right to voice but not a right to vote in decisions. Other 
reforms included creation of the Federal Electoral Tribunal to 
resolve disputes, mechanisms to permit domestic and foreign 
groups to observe the elections, and public financing of 
campaigns, with 30% of the funding distributed among the 
parties equally, and 70% distributed on the basis of electoral 
strength in the previous election. Because of the formula for 
distributing funds, the opposition parties in coalitions would 
receive greater funding than the longruling party. Several 
delegates pointed out that opposition parties had elected 
governors and mayors in many states and cities, and that the 
opposition parties had won a majority in the Chamber of 
Deputies in the 1997 election.
    As a result of the various reforms, the members of the 
Mexican Congress are elected under a complex formula. Voters 
were to elect 500 members of the Chamber of Deputies for three 
year terms, with 300 elected by plurality in single-member 
districts, and 200 elected by proportional representation in 
five 40-member ``plurinominal'' districts. Voters would also 
elect 128 members of the Senate for six year terms, with 62 
(two from each state) elected by plurality, 32 elected from the 
first minority in each state, and 32 elected by national 
proportional representation.
    While nearly all Mexican delegates stated that they 
expected the coming elections to be the fairest in Mexico's 
history, a number expressed concern about the use of government 
resources and social programs to buy votes, especially in rural 
areas, where local chieftains also exercise coercion. Other 
delegates argued that the vote was secret in Mexico, that 
parties could be rewarded for developing good programs, that 
opposition parties control 11 of the 32 states, and that the 
electoral reforms had the support of all parties. One of the 
delegates mentioned that the Chamber of Deputies had created a 
commission of vigilance against the misuse of government 
resources to monitor allegations of this sort. Another delegate 
commented that the costs to fund the electoral institute's 
activities were excessive, more than the funds devoted to 
environmental programs in Mexico.
    A U.S. delegate stated that all Mexican political parties 
should be praised for the transition to democracy in Mexico. He 
praised the opposition parties for fighting for democracy, and 
praised the sections of the dominant party for accepting 
reform. He stated that the reforms were extensive, and not well 
enough understood in the United States.
    Several Mexican delegates mentioned an electoral reform, 
with support from opposition parties, that was not adopted in 
1999, namely a procedure to permit Mexicans living abroad to 
vote in the Mexican elections. Some suggested that there were 
over a million Mexicans in the United States with electoral 
credentials who would not be able to vote, unless they traveled 
to Mexico. Since Mexico does not use absentee ballots, some 
suggested that the voting could take place at Mexican 
consulates in the United States, while others suggested that 
the logistical problems had not been adequately resolved for 
this election. While some party members accepted absentee 
ballots, most supported some procedure for voting in person.
    Another Mexican delegate argued that the progress toward 
democracy in Mexico was a significant advance, but that it had 
largely neglected the 15 million indigenous peoples in the 
country. This delegate said that indigenous groups have called 
for the creation of an additional nationwide district, similar 
to those used in the distribution of Chamber and Senate seats, 
where indigenous peoples could be represented and focus 
attention on the extensive needs of these groups. Several U.S. 
delegates indicated that it was important for indigenous 
peoples to have representation, but that in the United States 
voting was on an individual basis, not on the basis of 
membership in any group.
    U.S. delegates explained that the U.S. election of November 
7, 2000, would elect a new president for a four year term (with 
possibility of one reelection), 435 representatives in the 
House of Representatives for two year terms, and one third of 
the 100 senators in the Senate for six year terms. He noted 
that the House and the Senate are currently controlled by the 
Republicans, while the Presidency is held by a Democrat. In the 
coming election the major candidates are George W. Bush and 
Albert Gore, with Bush leading in a close race. During the 
Republican convention in July, Bush would likely gain in the 
polls, and during the Democratic convention in August, Gore 
would likely gain. No single issue would determine the outcome, 
according to the delegates, although campaign financing reform, 
and programs for the disenfranchised were mentioned by some 
delegates as major topics. A spirited race for control of the 
House of Representatives was noted, where the Republicans 
currently have a narrow 6-vote advantage. California, New York, 
and Texas were mentioned as key battlefield states.
    Several delegates portrayed both U.S. presidential 
candidates as friendly toward Mexico, and one delegate 
mentioned that both are studying Spanish to appeal to important 
Hispanic constituencies. Another delegate mentioned the 
important role of women in the electoral contests with their 
views on education, crime, and other issues, and pointed out 
that Hispanic communities would play a large role in races in 
California, New York, Texas, and Florida.

                    Commerce, Trade, and Investment

    A U.S. delegate began the discussion of this topic by 
saying that after attending 20 interparliamentary meetings, 
some involving disagreements over Mexico's nationalization of 
banks and Mexico's policies toward Nicaragua and El Salvador, 
it was exciting in the new millennium to have a sense that free 
trade was now the wave of the future, with the North American 
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) being a key factor. He mentioned 
that Mexico had become the United States' second most important 
trading partner, and he asserted that many Mexicans were better 
off economically because of the increased trade. He mentioned 
the vote in the U.S. Congress to grant China normal permanent 
trade relations as another test of support for expanding trade.
    A Mexican delegate said that everyone favors increased 
trade, but a crucial issue is the division of the benefits in 
this trade. A study in Mexico had concluded that NAFTA had 
polarized society by increasing the concentration of income of 
the wealthy, and had exaggerated the differences between the 
regions in Mexico. He said it was curious that U.S. Secretaries 
of the Treasury say that Mexico's economy is doing well, but 
that the U.S. Attorney General requests additional funds to 
control undocumented immigration. He and others asserted that 
too much of the trade was intra-industry and related to the 
maquiladora operations (in bond, usually foreign- owned, border 
industries) where less than 20% of the production remains in 
Mexico. A U.S. delegate responded that it was the U.S. Congress 
that was demanding the hiring of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents 
per year, and was criticizing the Justice Department for 
failure to comply.
    Another Mexican delegate said that Mexico's economy was 
growing at a rate of 6% per year, and that there was a good 
trade and investment climate. He said that the demand for jobs 
in Mexico was growing and that wages were increasing. While 
admitting that there is serious poverty and inequality in 
Mexico, he said that the country needed trade and investment to 
stimulate economic growth and create new jobs.
    Still other Mexican delegates argued that the United States 
should provide compensatory financing to Mexico as the weaker 
partner under NAFTA, as was done for the poorer economies in 
the European Union experience, although another delegate stated 
that this was not expected. Several delegates mentioned that 
the newly-elected presidents in the two countries should 
develop a social policy for NAFTA and deal with labor and 
immigration rights under NAFTA. Reflecting a common sentiment, 
one Mexican delegate stated that a major objective of trade 
should be to improve the lives of people.
    U.S. delegates mentioned the main benefits of increased 
trade under NAFTA, but also mentioned adverse effects in 
several of their districts where key industries were being hurt 
by competition from Mexico or transfer of production to Mexico. 
One delegate stressed that NAFTA had given consumers in both 
countries greater quality of products and greater choice. 
Another delegate noted that the United States had gone from a 
trade surplus to a trade deficit with Mexico under NAFTA. 
Several delegates mentioned that trade with Mexico might be 
affected by growing U.S. trade with China, or by competition 
from African and Caribbean countries following the recent 
passage by Congress of legislation giving these two regions 
preferential trade benefits somewhat equivalent to NAFTA 
treatment. Other U.S. delegates noted that NAFTA was bringing 
the countries closer together, and that NAFTA had contributed 
to political change in Mexico. Another U.S. delegate noted that 
Mexico was improving its record of respect for intellectual 
property rights, and that there was some progress under the 
NAFTA side agreements on labor and environmental issues.
    Turning to more specific trade issues, Mexican delegates 
complained about U.S. postponement on safety grounds of NAFTA 
provisions that would give Mexican trucks access to U.S. 
highways, and the slowness of efforts to resolve this issue 
through NAFTA dispute settlement mechanisms. One U.S. delegate 
urged Mexican truckers to improve safety standards, and noted 
that there were inadequate resources at present to inspect 
foreign trucks, but that appropriations were being approved to 
rectify the situation. Mexican delegates argued that the 
postponement was largely political as a result of the political 
pressure of the Teamsters, and they found the inadequacy of 
funds to be an unsatisfactory explanation since the United 
States has been postponing implementation since 1995. One U.S. 
delegate pointed out that the Mexican trucking industry was not 
pressing the issue out of fear that U.S. trucks would operate 
in Mexico.
    Mexican delegates also complained about the continuing 
failure to resolve the tuna/dolphin issue between the 
countries. The United States lifted the embargo on Mexican tuna 
in April 2000, after procedures were worked out to insure that 
dolphins trapped in encircling nets were released without harm. 
Despite this action, a federal judge blocked the 
Administration's plan to loosen the standards of a 1990 law for 
the dolphin safe label, and Mexico was denied the benefit that 
it had been seeking. Mexican delegates asked for help from U.S. 
legislators to resolve this problem. A U.S. delegate said in a 
later session that legislation was in progress.
    Another issue raised by Mexican delegates was the flow of 
U.S. agricultural commodities to Mexico that were being 
subsidized by U.S. government programs. This was having a great 
impact on corn producers in Mexico in particular, and was said 
to be a reason for unemployment in certain areas, resort to 
drug trafficking activities, and migration to the United 
States. A U.S. delegate replied that hearings were being held 
on the subject, and he had expectations that some resolution 
would be forthcoming.
    Mexican delegates complained about long delays for products 
and people at border crossing points, and urged the United 
States to increase the number of personnel assigned to these 
tasks. U.S. delegates agreed that the delays were sometimes 
excessive, and noted that increased funding was being pursued.
    Some U.S. delegates criticized Mexico for going along with 
OPEC in oil production cutbacks, with the result that oil 
prices had increased considerably and were hurting the U.S. 
economy. Mexican delegates, while stating a preference for more 
stability in oil prices, argued that oil was crucial to 
Mexico's economy and especially to the federal budget. They 
said that oil prices in real terms were lower than 30 years ago 
and were not unreasonable.
    U.S. delegates also urged Mexican authorities to reduce 
Telmex's continuing dominant position in the telecommunications 
industry, in keeping with complaints by the U.S. Trade 
Representative. One U.S. delegate noted that the free play of 
the marketplace was necessary, or Mexico would cripple progress 
in this area.

                Narcotics Trafficking and Justice Issues

    Mexican and U.S. delegates agreed on the seriousness of 
drug trafficking and on the need for cooperation between the 
countries to deal with this issue. One U.S. delegate mentioned 
the Mexican Attorney General's request for FBI assistance in 
the search for graves from drug-related killings in the El 
Paso/Juarez area as an example that sends a message that the 
two countries are acting together. He also noted that a 
subgroup of Mexican interparliamentary members had been invited 
to El Paso and received briefings from U.S. agencies on drug, 
border, and trade issues. Another U.S. delegate mentioned 
advances in cooperation on law enforcement issues by the 
countries through the bilateral meetings of the High Level 
Contact Group on Narcotics Abuse, and the joint meetings of the 
countries' Attorneys General. Delegates from both sides 
emphasized that unilateral approaches would not be successful, 
and that finger-pointing was not productive. Several delegates 
suggested the need to honor law enforcement officials who have 
been killed in the battle against drugs, including the police 
chief of Tijuana murdered in February 2000, and the three 
Mexican anti-drug agents killed in April 2000 near Tijuana.
    Mexican delegates emphasized that demand for drugs in the 
United States was a key factor in drug trafficking. They called 
for the United States to devote more resources in this area, 
and to see drug trafficking issues in a broader context. Many 
U.S. delegates accepted this argument and called for greater 
attention to prevention and treatment of drug abuse, while some 
suggested that Mexico had a growing drug consumption problem 
that needed to be addressed. One Mexican delegate expressed 
concern that a number of Mexicans return from the United States 
with drug habits and with AIDS. He wanted to know how much the 
United States was spending to reduce drug consumption. Another 
Mexican delegate mentioned that the United States had a 
somewhat permissive attitude toward drug use, and that a number 
of US-made movies show drugs being consumed. Still another 
Mexican delegate noted that recent studies were showing an 
increase in U.S. drug production, particularly the newer 
designer drugs.
    Mexican delegates pointed out that the Mexican budget 
devoted to counter-narcotics efforts had increased more than 
100% in recent years, and they pointed to progress in recent 
years in a number of areas, including the arrest just days ago 
of Ismael Higuera Guerrero, a key lieutenant in the Tijuana 
cartel. A U.S. delegate noted that the share of Mexico's budget 
devoted to anti-drug purposes was greater than the U.S. share. 
Several Mexican delegates wondered why the United States was 
unable to more effectively control money laundering and drug 
trafficking activities within U.S. borders, and why concern 
with corruption seemed to be focused on foreign countries. A 
U.S. delegate replied that there were legal obligations to 
report suspicious transactions over $10,000, but that 
electronic transfers were making these requirements out of 
date. At the same time, a number of Mexican delegates called 
for the United States to provide more assistance to Mexico in 
dealing with money laundering activities and in discovering 
illicit use of chemical precursors.
    U.S. delegates argued that the United States was devoting 
considerable resources to drug control, and was providing 
extensive assistance to foreign countries, including many 
Andean countries and Mexico. They urged Mexico to accept 
shiprider agreements, to go beyond the token extraditions of 
druglords to the United States, and to take other measures to 
cooperate at the border, such as using sniffing dogs to deter 
transit of drugs. A Mexican delegate mentioned that Mexico had 
a list of requested extraditions as well.
    Many Mexican delegates objected to the U.S. drug 
certification requirement under which the President must 
certify annually whether a country is fully cooperating with 
the United States in drug control efforts. They mentioned that 
it was seen as a unilateral measure that did not contribute to 
cooperation, and they said that it was widely rejected by 
Mexican parties and public opinion. A number of U.S. delegates 
agreed that the certification process was not helpful and 
indicated that efforts were underway to make changes, while 
another delegate stated that U.S. citizens had demanded a 
review to make certain that their tax dollars were well spent. 
Many Mexican delegates urged the United States to rely upon a 
multilateral mechanism for evaluating drug control efforts, and 
many mentioned the Organization of American States' 
multilateral evaluation mechanism (MEM) as a possible model.
    Mexican delegates voiced concern about the implementation 
of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, enacted by 
the United States in 1999, which strengthened the President's 
authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 
(IEEPA) to block the assets in the United States of designated 
international drug traffickers and companies dealing with them. 
The delegates agreed that greater action needed to be taken 
against the druglords, but they viewed the new measure as a 
unilateral determination, without consultation with countries, 
that was lacking in due process safeguards. This raised the 
danger of mis-designation of kingpins and sanctions against 
companies innocently working with them. A U.S. delegate replied 
that the IEEPA legislation had been in effect since World War 
II, and was not contrary to international law. He said the 
President's powers under the act had been used against key drug 
traffickers in Colombia since 1995, and he was not aware of any 
mistakes in designation. With regard to other concerns, he 
noted that the legislation created a commission to review and 
report on due process issues.
    Mexican delegates stressed the United States' 
responsibility to control the flow of weapons and guns to 
Mexico, with several saying that 80% of the illegal weapons in 
Mexico come from the United States and contribute greatly to 
drug-related crime in the country. They viewed U.S. legislation 
on possession of weapons as very lax, compared to Mexico's 
laws, and suggested that the two countries have very different 
philosophies in this area. Mexicans called upon the United 
States to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit 
Arms Trafficking signed at the OAS in November 1997, and to 
adhere to its provisions. A U.S. delegate stated that many of 
the weapons entering Mexico were brought by so-called coyotes, 
people who smuggle undocumented aliens and illicit drugs into 
the United States, and then smuggle weapons back into Mexico. 
U.S. delegates also complained about the arrests of U.S. 
citizens in Mexico who have inadvertently brought guns into 
Mexican territory, and several mentioned the case of a U.S. 
Marine arrested in Tijuana when he went to pick up a friend. 
Mexican delegates indicated that legislation to reduce 
penalties for accidental introduction of weapons into Mexico 
was under consideration.

                            Migration Issues

     U.S. and Mexican delegates noted that the root of 
migration issues was the asymmetrical relationship between the 
countries, with differences in wages and living standards 
greater than at any other border in the world. While delegates 
from both countries emphasized the importance of consultation, 
and praised a number of agreements between the countries on 
migration issues, including the Binational Study on Migration 
and the Border Safety Campaign to reduce violence on the 
border, there were differences in approaches.
    Mexican delegates argued that undocumented migrants posed 
social and humanitarian problems, not criminal and law 
enforcement issues. They claimed that migrants were attracted 
by the demand for labor in the United States, and that the 
human rights of the migrants had to be respected at all times. 
With more than 300 million legal border crossings per year, it 
was impossible to control the flow, despite the recent efforts 
by the United States to expand the Border Patrol and to 
increase fencing and surveillance on the border. They argued 
that U.S. legislation had failed to impede immigration, but had 
forced migrants to take more remote and dangerous routes 
through the mountains and deserts, leading to a growing number 
of deaths in border areas. Some delegates called upon the 
United States to ratify and enforce the International 
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant 
Workers and Members of Their Families signed in 1990. Other 
delegates argued for seeing the border as a joint 
responsibility, and an opportunity for collective action.
    U.S. delegates stated that the United States was generous 
in receiving numerous legal immigrants each year, but that it 
was not prepared to have a completely open border with Mexico. 
One delegate called for acknowledgment of the distinction 
between legal and illegal migration, and recognition that 
illegal migrants were violating U.S. laws or regulations, and 
that they were trespassing on private property. One delegate 
wondered if Mexico accepted the right of the United States to 
enact its own immigration legislation, and he indicated that he 
felt that Mexico should discourage Mexicans from entering U.S. 
territory without proper documentation. He regretted the number 
of border crossing deaths, but noted that few if any of the 
deaths were caused by the Border Patrol. A delegate stated that 
he would seek legislation to require employers to examine more 
carefully the documents for workers as a way of discouraging 
immigration, but another delegate stated that such actions were 
presently prohibited, and still another delegate indicated that 
such measures had often led to discrimination against Hispanics 
in the past. Another delegate noted that dangerous and criminal 
activity was occurring at the border when smugglers prey upon 
migrants in various ways, including robbery and crowding them 
into trucks and trains, and when migrants dart across freeways. 
While some delegates emphasized the contribution of migrants in 
their communities, others noted that there was considerable 
frustration in many communities with the social welfare, 
education, and health costs of undocumented migrants.
    Mexican delegates were particularly disturbed by the recent 
reports of ranchers in southwestern Arizona taking matters into 
their own hands, and, in some cases, using weapons to detain 
and turn over migrants to the Border Patrol. They accused the 
ranchers of encouraging others to join them to ``hunt'' for 
migrants. They claimed that these actions were violations of 
the human rights of the migrants, and violations of U.S. law, 
as stated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 
They noted that this situation had led to numerous speeches in 
the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, and a resolution 
calling on Mexican legislators to raise the issue at the 
Interparliamentary Conference meetings and to report back to 
the legislature.
    U.S. delegates reported that Arizona had experienced a 
surge of migrants when efforts to control the border were 
successful in California, Texas, and other areas. One delegate 
said that 500,000 migrants had crossed into Arizona in two 
months through sparsely populated counties with only 90,000 
inhabitants. Migrants were coming through the ranch areas by 
the hundreds, cutting fences and leaving trash that can be 
dangerous to animals. He said the number of people engaged in 
so-called vigilante action was very small, and that evidence to 
prosecute these individuals was inadequate. The INS had said 
that this behavior could lead to criminal activity, and a 
number of U.S. officials had discouraged this behavior, and 
called upon people to leave law enforcement to legally 
designated authorities. He noted that there was a serious 
problem on the Arizona border when hospitals are forced to 
provide health care to migrants but there is no reimbursement.
    A number of delegates from both sides commented on the need 
for a structured program for migrants, especially agricultural 
workers, to enter the United States legally, something similar 
to the bracero program in the past. Several Mexican delegates 
suggested that a pilot program be adopted in areas where the 
needs were greatest, but a U.S. delegate emphasized that decent 
living conditions needed to be required. One U.S. delegate 
indicated that the U.S. economy was booming, and there was a 
need for labor, unlike the earlier period when immigration was 
a major political issue. He noted that the AFL-CIO had called 
for amnesty for undocumented workers and for repealing the 
immigration legislation that imposes sanctions on employers who 
hire them. Another U.S. delegate noted that the Congress would 
be voting shortly on legislation to increase the number of 
temporary professional workers and temporary agricultural 
workers under the H1B and H2A provisions.
    One U.S. delegate indicated that he had hosted a meeting of 
an interparliamentary subgroup of Mexican legislators to El 
Paso to focus on the challenges of the border, and he had found 
that discussion to be very useful. Another U.S. delegate 
offered to host a similar meeting in Arizona to focus on 
migration and border issues. Delegates from both countries 
stressed that continuing dialogue on the issues was crucial for 
mutual understanding. Several delegates indicated that an 
improvement in the living conditions in Mexico was the only 
long range solution to the problem, and delegates from both 
countries promised to work toward that end.

                     Border and Environment Issues

    A Mexican delegate began the discussion by saying that the 
border area was a complex place where the countries come 
together with vast asymmetries in resources, and where many of 
the bilateral issues intersect trade, drug trafficking, 
immigration, and environmental issues. This delegate expressed 
great hope for continuing dialogue on the border to make it a 
peaceful and cordial place, and called for greater 
environmental cooperation through mechanisms such as the Border 
Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North 
American Development Bank (NADBank). A U.S. delegate called for 
strict compliance with environment legislation in both 
countries, a matter of concern in his district. He asserted 
that the NAFTA environmental side agreement was starting to 
work, and that the countries were cooperating on migratory 
birds. He expressed hope that enforcement of environmental 
standards would be upgraded and that there would be no race to 
lower standards to attract industry. Another U.S. delegate said 
that air pollution and wildlife habitat issues between the 
countries were being adequately addressed. A Mexican delegate 
asserted that neither country could feel pride about the border 
because there are many disagreements there, and he urged 
greater cooperation to deal with the critical human issues.
    A U.S. delegate focused on the water shortage in Texas, and 
particularly upon the water debt of Mexico to the United States 
under a 1944 water-sharing treaty. He said that discussions 
with Texas water districts, the Mexican Ambassador to the 
United States, and with the Mexican and U.S. Commissioners of 
the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) had 
concluded that Mexico had failed to provide up to an 
accumulated amount of 1.4 million acre- feet of water under the 
terms of the 1944 treaty. Mexico had acknowledged its 
obligations under the treaty, but was having difficulty 
complying under the current drought conditions. He said that 
Mexico recently provided a certain amount of water for farmers 
in Laredo, McAllen and Brownsville for immediate needs, but he 
called upon Mexico to take action to eliminate the deficit over 
the five year cycle. He noted that a primarily agricultural 
area was in decline, and that unemployment was about 14%.
    A Mexican delegate said that Mexico is committed to end the 
water deficit completely, but he argued that the treaty permits 
modifications in amounts in time of drought. He also mentioned 
that the salinity of the Colorado River was so high that 
Mexican farmers were unable to grow cotton, and that proposed 
modifications of the All-American Canal would seriously damage 
Mexico. He urged the IBWC to deal with the issue, and suggested 
that the NADBank develop projects to help in these areas. 
Several other Mexican delegates mentioned that the planned 
modifications of the All-American Canal would have the effect 
of reducing the amount of quality water for Mexican farmers in 
the Baja California region, and they called for full 
consultations between the countries as required by the 1983 La 
Paz border and environment agreement.
    A U.S. delegate mentioned the problem of flows of sewage 
from rapidly growing Tijuana that were spoiling U.S. beaches 
near the border and discouraging tourism in his district. He 
said that the IBWC had taken inadequate action on the issue, 
and he suggested that some border communities were talking 
about boycotts against Tijuana. One Mexican delegate suggested 
a meeting of an interparliamentary subgroup on the issue, and 
other delegates pointed out that Tijuana already had an 
International Plant for treatment, and the new Tijuana Plant 
would soon enter into operation to resolve the problem of 
sewage flows. A U.S. delegate countered that despite the plants 
there have been closings of beaches near the border.
    Mexican delegates noted that Mexico had ratified the 1997 
Kyoto protocol to the 1992 U.N. Convention on Climate Control, 
and called upon the United States to do the same, and to reduce 
the high level emissions of greenhouse gases that may be 
causing global warming. They also called upon the United States 
to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to reduce 
fears in that area. A U.S. delegate replied that the United 
States is unwilling to ratify the Kyoto protocol, which would 
set binding limitations on greenhouses gases for industrialized 
countries, as long as the limitations do not apply to less 
developed countries as well. He mentioned that under these 
provisions, a plant in the United States that was exceeding 
allowable gas emissions could dismantle and move to Mexico 
where it would have no such legally binding limitations.
    A Mexican delegate expressed concern about the accidental 
and involuntary incursions of military forces from either 
country in poorly marked border areas. She mentioned an 
incident in March when a Mexican patrol entered U.S. territory 
and an armed confrontation was narrowly avoided. She noted that 
the Mexican Ambassador to the United States had immediately 
urged the IBWC to undertake a project to improve boundary 
markings along the border. A U.S. delegate remarked in the next 
session that this was a commendable project.

        Interparliamentary Meetings and Other Exchange Programs

    The conference ended with a session devoted to finding ways 
to strengthen the effectiveness of the interparliamentary 
meetings, and to sharing information on other exchange 
programs. A U.S. delegate noted that there had been an interim 
meeting of some interparliamentary conference members in Mexico 
in January, and he thought there should be a similar interim 
meeting in the United States in the future. He mentioned a 
useful interparliamentary staff exchange that took place in 
Mexico, but regretted that followup was lacking.
    The U.S. delegate noted that several delegates had 
mentioned the usefulness of a meeting of an interparliamentary 
subgroup on migration and border issues in El Paso, and he 
offered to host a meeting devoted to the same issues in Arizona 
so that delegates could talk to ranchers, migrants, health 
officials, and local residents on both sides of the border. He 
said that it would be useful to have a meeting of a subgroup on 
environmental issues, and he thought there had been an 
invitation to hold such a meeting in Tijuana.
    This delegate also mentioned that several U.S. legislators 
had invited Mexican students from the University of the 
Americas in Puebla to serve as interns in their congressional 
offices, and he suggested that additional exchanges of staff or 
interns would provide a better understanding of the operations 
of the respective congresses.
    A Mexican delegate stated that it would be useful for the 
group to meet more often, perhaps two or three times per year, 
whenever important topics arise, without major administrative 
staff. The group would not be expected to come up with 
agreements, but it would provide an input as the legislators 
deal with various issues. He welcomed the suggestions of 
interim meetings of interparliamentary subgroups dealing with 
environmental and migration issues, and thought that 
internships would be useful to better understand each country's 
congressional operations.
    This Mexican delegate reminded the legislators that the 
interparliamentary conference had decided in previous meetings 
to have more constant communication through email and the 
possible creation of a website that would show the agendas of 
the two congresses. He also suggested that there could be 
access to material prepared by the research services of the 
respective legislatures. A U.S. delegate stated that they were 
well on the way to having two separate websites, one for each 
congress, with links to each other, which was more practical 
than a single website.
    A U.S. delegate suggested that the interparliamentary 
meetings be extended by one day, and perhaps split up into 
subgroups on one of the days. A Mexican delegate suggested that 
they could invite experts to speak on pertinent topics similar 
to a U.S. congressional hearing. One U.S. delegate suggested 
the use of teleconferencing capabilities, and another 
encouraged greater academic student exchanges between the 
countries. Delegates on both sides indicated support for the 
many suggestions, particularly the various meetings of 
subgroups.
    A U.S. delegate suggested that it would be useful to 
examine the cooperative efforts of local communities. He 
mentioned one program in Georgia where a community had gone 
from being 4% Hispanic to 40% Hispanic and was having some 
difficulties in the school system. Turning this situation into 
an opportunity, local officials went to Monterrey, Mexico, and 
hired bilingual teachers who have proved to be very effective. 
This shows that the citizens of the two countries are 
cooperating in a whole range of activities.
    The conference concluded with thanks to the staff and to 
all participants from a U.S. delegate. He said that he looked 
forward to the next session, but he recognized that there would 
be many new faces in the Mexican delegation following the July 
2000 election because of Mexico's strict adherence to the 
principle of no reelection at all levels.

                                    

      
