[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 26, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H1343-H1351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT TO AGREE TO CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT 
 ESTABLISHING A BORDER ENVIRONMENT COOPERATION COMMISSION AND A NORTH 
                       AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 254) to authorize the President of the United States to 
agree to certain amendments to the Agreement between the Government of 
the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican 
States concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation 
Commission and a North American Development Bank, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 254

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO AGREE TO CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE 
                   BORDER ENVIRONMENT COOPERATION AGREEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Part 2 of subtitle D of title V of Public 
     Law 103-182 (22 U.S.C. 290m--290m-3) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 545. AUTHORITY TO AGREE TO CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE 
                   BORDER ENVIRONMENT COOPERATION AGREEMENT.

       ``The President may agree to amendments to the Cooperation 
     Agreement that--
       ``(1) enable the Bank to make grants and nonmarket rate 
     loans out of its paid-in capital resources with the approval 
     of its Board; and
       ``(2) amend the definition of `border region' to include 
     the area in the United States that is within 100 kilometers 
     of the international boundary between the United States and 
     Mexico, and the area in Mexico that is within 300 kilometers 
     of the international boundary between the United States and 
     Mexico.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--Section 1(b) of such public law is 
     amended in the table of contents by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 544 the following:

``Sec. 545. Authority to agree to certain amendments to the Border 
              Environment Cooperation Agreement.''.

     SEC. 2. ANNUAL REPORT.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit annually to the 
     Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and

[[Page H1344]]

     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a written 
     report on the North American Development Bank, which 
     addresses the following issues:
       (1) The number and description of the projects that the 
     North American Development Bank has approved. The description 
     shall include the level of market-rate loans, non-market-rate 
     loans, and grants used in an approved project, and a 
     description of whether an approved project is located within 
     100 kilometers of the international boundary between the 
     United States and Mexico or within 300 kilometers of the 
     international boundary between the United States and Mexico.
       (2) The number and description of the approved projects in 
     which money has been dispersed.
       (3) The number and description of the projects which have 
     been certified by the Border Environment Cooperation 
     Commission, but yet not financed by the North American 
     Development Bank, and the reasons that the projects have not 
     yet been financed.
       (4) The total of the paid-in capital, callable capital, and 
     retained earnings of the North American Development Bank, and 
     the uses of such amounts.
       (5) A description of any efforts and discussions between 
     the United States and Mexican governments to expand the type 
     of projects which the North American Development Bank 
     finances beyond environmental projects.
       (6) A description of any efforts and discussions between 
     the United States and Mexican governments to improve the 
     effectiveness of the North American Development Bank.
       (7) The number and description of projects authorized under 
     the Water Conservation Investment Fund of the North American 
     Development Bank.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO UNITED STATES 
                   SUPPORT FOR NADBANK PROJECTS WHICH FINANCE 
                   WATER CONSERVATION FOR TEXAS IRRIGATORS AND 
                   AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS IN THE LOWER RIO GRANDE 
                   RIVER VALLEY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) Texas irrigators and agricultural producers are 
     suffering enormous hardships in the lower Rio Grande River 
     valley because of Mexico's failure to abide by the 1944 Water 
     Treaty entered into by the United States and Mexico;
       (2) over the last 10 years, Mexico has accumulated a 
     1,500,000-acre fee water debt to the United States which has 
     resulted in a very minimal and inadequate irrigation water 
     supply in Texas;
       (3) recent studies by Texas A&M University show that water 
     savings of 30 percent or more can be achieved by improvements 
     in irrigation system infrastructure such as canal lining and 
     metering;
       (4) on August 20, 2002, the Board of the North American 
     Development Bank agreed to the creation in the Bank of a 
     Water Conservation Investment Fund, as required by Minute 308 
     to the 1944 Water Treaty, which was an agreement signed by 
     the United States and Mexico on June 28, 2002; and
       (5) the Water Conservation Investment Fund of the North 
     American Development Bank stated that up to $80,000,000 would 
     be available for grant financing of water conservation 
     projects, which grant funds would be divided equally between 
     the United States and Mexico.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) water conservation projects are eligible for funding 
     from the North American Development Bank under the Agreement 
     Between the Government of the United States of America and 
     the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the 
     Establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission 
     and a North American Development Bank; and
       (2) the Board of the North American Development Bank should 
     support qualified water conservation projects which can 
     assist Texas irrigators and agricultural producers in the 
     lower Rio Grande River Valley.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO UNITED STATES 
                   SUPPORT FOR NADBANK PROJECTS WHICH FINANCE 
                   WATER CONSERVATION IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 
                   AREA.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Board of the North 
     American Development Bank should support--
       (1) the development of qualified water conservation 
     projects in southern California and other eligible areas in 
     the 4 United States border States, including the conjunctive 
     use and storage of surface and ground water, delivery system 
     conservation, the re-regulation of reservoirs, improved 
     irrigation practices, wastewater reclamation, regional water 
     management modeling, operational and optimization studies to 
     improve water conservation, and cross-border water exchanges 
     consistent with treaties; and
       (2) new water supply research and projects along the Mexico 
     border in southern California and other eligible areas in the 
     4 United States border States to desalinate ocean seawater 
     and brackish surface and groundwater, and dispose of or 
     manage the brines resulting from desalination.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO UNITED STATES 
                   SUPPORT FOR NADBANK PROJECTS FOR WHICH FINANCE 
                   WATER CONSERVATION FOR IRRIGATORS AND 
                   AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS IN THE SOUTHWEST UNITED 
                   STATES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Irrigators and agricultural producers are suffering 
     enormous hardships in the southwest United States. The border 
     States of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas are 
     suffering from one of the worst droughts in history. In 
     Arizona, this is the second driest period in recorded history 
     and the worst since 1904.
       (2) In spite of decades of water conservation in the 
     southwest United States, irrigated agriculture uses more than 
     60 percent of surface and ground water.
       (3) The most inadequate water supplies in the United States 
     are in the Southwest, including the lower Colorado River 
     basin and the Great Plains River basins south of the Platte 
     River. In these areas, 70 percent of the water taken from the 
     stream is not returned.
       (4) The amount of water being pumped out of groundwater 
     sources in many areas is greater than the amount being 
     replenished, thus depleting the groundwater supply.
       (5) On August 20, 2002, the Board of the North American 
     Development Bank agreed to the creation in the bank of a 
     Water Conservation Investment Fund.
       (6) The Water Conservation Investment Fund of the North 
     American Development Bank stated that up to $80,000,000 would 
     be available for grant financing of water conservation 
     projects, which grant funds would be divided equally between 
     the United States and Mexico.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) water conservation projects are eligible for funding 
     from the North American Development Bank under the Agreement 
     Between the Government of the United States of America and 
     the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the 
     Establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission 
     and a North American Development Bank;
       (2) the Board of the North American Development Bank should 
     support qualified water conservation projects that can assist 
     irrigators and agricultural producers; and
       (3) the Board of the North American Development Bank should 
     take into consideration the needs of all of the border states 
     before approving funding for water projects, and strive to 
     fund water conservation projects in each of the border 
     states.

     SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL SENSES OF THE CONGRESS.

       (a) It is the sense of the Congress that the Board of the 
     North American Development Bank should support the financing 
     of projects, on both sides of the international boundary 
     between the United States and Mexico, which address coastal 
     issues and the problem of pollution in both countries having 
     an environmental impact along the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of 
     Mexico shores of the United States and Mexico.
       (b) It is the sense of the Congress that the Board of the 
     North American Development Bank should support the financing 
     of projects, on both sides of the international boundary 
     between the United States and Mexico, which address air 
     pollution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) 
each will control 20 minutes.

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim time in opposition, 
please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Is the gentleman from Texas 
opposed to the motion?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to H.R. 254. So it is my 
understanding that my colleague from Ohio would then be controlling the 
entire 20 minutes in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio does qualify for 
the time in opposition.
  The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) is recognized.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 254, a bill that makes 
critical changes to the operation of the North American Development 
Bank. I would like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
for his hard work on this piece of legislation and for building broad 
bipartisan support for the bill.
  H.R. 254 was approved by voice vote in the Committee on Financial 
Services and is identical to legislation approved by the body in the 
107th Congress. This bill is supported by the administration and is 
part of the President's priorities to improve conditions along our 
border with Mexico.

[[Page H1345]]

  The NADBank was created through the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, or NAFTA Accord, of 1994 and was funded equally by the 
United States and Mexico. The purpose of the NADBank is to respond to 
concerns that the increase in commerce along the border region would 
result in a rise in pollution.
  This is a commendable goal and the NADBank is well funded to reach 
this goal. It has over $450 million in paid-in capital and a total 
lending capacity of $2.7 billion; yet over the past several years, the 
NADBank has only approved the disbursement of $59 million in funds.
  The changes we make today in the NADBank will allow this institution 
to fulfill its mission of financing environmental infrastructure 
projects along the U.S.-Mexico border without resulting in any 
additional cost to the American taxpayer.
  H.R. 254 will allow the NADBank to make below-market-rate loans for 
qualified projects. This is an important change and will permit this 
institution to truly assist this region by offering its products to the 
largest number of qualified environmental infrastructure projects.
  In addition, H.R. 254 extends the area of operation to 300 kilometers 
from the border into Mexico. This expansion of the operating area will 
allow the NADBank to approve more worthy projects.
  This bill also contains several important senses of the Congress 
which were crafted with the input of Members from several border States 
affected by the NADBank. This section calls for the NADBank to play 
close attention to water conservation, coastal pollution and air 
pollution projects. Finally, H.R. 254 will require the Treasury 
Department to report to Congress annually on the operations of the 
bank.
  This bill will go a long way to help build upon the close 
relationship between the U.S. and Mexico and will improve the 
environmental conditions along the border.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                Washington, DC, February 26, 2003.

    Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 254--North American 
    Development Bank and Border Environment Cooperation Commission 
                             Authorization

       The Administration strongly supports passage of H.R. 254, 
     which authorizes key reforms of the North American 
     Development Bank (NADB) and the Border Environment 
     Cooperation Commission (BECC). Since taking office, President 
     Bush has worked closely with Mexico's President Fox to make 
     these institutions more effective in addressing the critical 
     environmental needs of the communities of the U.S.-Mexico 
     border region and, thus, improve the quality of life for the 
     region's 12 million residents. To achieve these goals, the 
     two Presidents agreed on a package of NADB/BECC reforms in 
     March 2002.
       H.R. 254 will enable the United States to move forward to 
     implement two of the most important NADB/BECC reforms. The 
     bill would allow the NADB to make its financing more 
     affordable by allowing it to make grants and non-market rate 
     loans out if its paid-in capital. H.R. 254 also would 
     authorize the geographic expansion of NADB/BECC activity in 
     Mexico, which would allow the institutions to address 
     important environmental issues that may affect communities on 
     both sides of the border, but whose origin may lie outside 
     their currently defined region of operation.
       Passage of H.R. 254 will demonstrate the United States' 
     strong bilateral cooperation with Mexico and commitment to 
     environmental protection, and would strengthen the ability of 
     the NADB and the BECC to perform their important 
     environmental mission. The Administration urges its passage.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation with mixed 
feelings, because the need for environmental remediation along the 
border is extraordinary; and I wish to express my deepest respect for 
my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gonzalez), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), and those who have 
worked to bring this matter to the floor.
  I rise in opposition because I really do not believe this should come 
to us under a suspension. I think that the issues concerning us all out 
of NAFTA, and NADBank in particular, deserve the full engagement of 
this Congress. And I think Members should pay attention to this 
legislation that was brought up very quickly and out of a single 
committee, a committee on which I do not serve, and this is my only way 
of informing the membership of issues at stake relating to NADBank and 
adjustment to NAFTA.
  As an appropriator in this Congress, I have to express the view that 
NADBank in and of itself deserves a very, very close look by Congress 
because if we look back to NADBank's establishment, it had a very 
curious beginning. It existed only as a side agreement that was tacked 
on to the original NAFTA trade agreement that was passed by a narrow 
margin here in Congress in 1993.
  NADBank was sort of an afterthought. I can remember the gentleman 
from California who helped negotiate it, but it never had a separate 
debate in this Congress. Its functions, its operations have never been 
separately debated here, and now we are asking for amendments to 
something we have never had a full debate on in this Congress.
  NADBank's shortcomings are vast, and it operates in a most unusual 
and atypical fashion, outside the normal jurisdictions of our Committee 
on Appropriations. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) 
mentioned it has a half a billion dollars of capitalization. Some of it 
came from the general revenues of the United States, the people of our 
country, and the remainder from the people of Mexico; but even though 
it has a half a billion dollars of capitalization, it comes in the form 
of several pieces that wash through various appropriations 
subcommittees. It has no real home. Some might say its jurisdiction is 
segmented. Others might say it truly is haphazard and hard to get your 
arms around. The American people deserve better.
  Indeed, NADBank operationally as a bank is a moving target, looking 
for a home in the Federal Government. It technically resides in the 
Department of Treasury. Yet its loan and grant authorities float 
mysteriously between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Small 
Business Administration, and a growing role for the Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA, which all manage to somehow, in ways unknown to 
Congress, subsidize the activities of NADBank.
  What we do not know about NADBank far surpasses what, in fact, any 
individual Member of Congress might know. I know that Members who live 
along the border have a horrible environmental problem that they are 
dealing with. I have seen the cesspools being created by industrial 
production and agricultural production with no funds for environmental 
remediation.
  We tried to build environmental provisions into the original NAFTA. 
They were rejected. They were rejected and now, with the billions of 
dollars of commerce occurring across the border, who is being asked to 
pay for the environmental remediation? Not the companies creating the 
damage, but the taxpayers of the United States of America.
  This is a chart showing the trade deficit with Mexico. Before NAFTA's 
signing, we had a positive balance with Mexico, both ways. Since 
NAFTA's passage, every single year we have moved as a Nation into 
deeper and deeper trade deficit with the nation of Mexico, as well as 
Canada. We have lost over three million jobs in this country due to 
NAFTA; and the people of Mexico have had their wages cut in half, and 
now 250 million jobs in northern Mexico and those maquiladoras are 
moving to China where the wages are even cheaper.
  We ought to revisit NAFTA. It is 10 years since its passage and 
millions and millions of people are being harmed. Indeed, the most 
harmed, in my opinion, are the peasants coming off the ejido system in 
Mexico who have no voice and no representation, and they deserve it in 
this highest Chamber of our government.
  NADBank should realistically deal with these adjustments and it does 
not. We should not just have a suspension bill that deals with two or 
three small provisions. We should deal with the fundamentals of this 
agreement and the giant holes that are in it.
  In the United States, in a State like my own--and here is a current 
chart of this showing our unemployment--the dark green covers counties 
in our State with the highest rates of unemployment. One of the five 
top States in the

[[Page H1346]]

Union to lose jobs because of NAFTA, most recently Dixon Ticondaroga 
Pencil and Crayon Company in Sandusky, Ohio, and also Phillips 
Electronics, in Ottawa, Ohio, over 2000 more jobs have relocated to 
Mexico.

  We know a lot about NAFTA and its impact, and yet we look at the 
NADBank regulations and which counties have they helped with all the 
job loss in Ohio? Well, they picked one here and they picked one here 
and they picked one here to try to give a minimal amount of assistance. 
But there is no regularity, frankly no real help. NAFTA's NADBank has 
no regularity with which it deals with the huge job loss that these 
trade deficits represent.
  The bill that is before us expands the area of eligibility for 
NADBank, as my colleagues rightly wish to do, by about 200 additional 
kilometers down into Mexico. But it does absolutely nothing to provide 
support to the thousands of communities across our Nation that have 
also lost jobs to Mexico.
  My problem is NADBank's reach is not great enough. In fact, the part 
of the bank with the least staff and support, called CAIP, C-A-I-P, the 
Community Adjustment and Investment Program, has just experienced the 
resignation of its director and the Bush Administration has proposed no 
funding for future grants.
  As an appropriator, I want to help the NADBank for all of America. 
NADBank will not let me help it, and this debate will not let me find 
an appropriate way in which to pay for the adjustment that is so 
essential not just in Ohio but in California, in Tennessee, Oregon, 
south Florida and so many other places that have lost jobs because of 
NAFTA.
  So the problem with NADBank is not the limited area of Mexico where 
more of our tax dollars will be used to remediate environmental 
disasters, because NAFTA is silent on the environment, but the fact 
that NADBank's reach is too limited. It ought to reach to places like 
Detroit and Sandusky, Ohio, and east Tennessee's and South Carolina's 
textile belts, in south Florida, in Galesburg, Illinois, where Maytag 
just announced it is shutting down and moving to Mexico, and south 
Chicago's loss of Brach's candy and Buffalo, New York, with the loss of 
Trico corporation.
  Indeed, NADBank in the last 2 fiscal years has issued only six direct 
loans: three in the border area, two in North Carolina, and one in 
Virginia. Imagine, six loans and thousands of lost companies in this 
country and millions of lost jobs after 10 years. NADBank has far too 
little to show for its existence. With half a billion dollars, what has 
it been doing?
  So I would say to my colleagues who have absolutely wholesome and 
extraordinarily important concerns here today in trying to extend 
NAFTA's environmental provisions through NADBank to cover a larger 
proportion of Mexico's to our border countries problems, look at the 
fundamentals. I think the administration wants to piecemeal with this 
suspension bill and find ways to try to fix an agreement that 
fundamentally needs a broader look.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this suspension bill 
today in order that we can have that broader debate. We need so many 
adjustments in NADBank and NAFTA.
  First, we need an agricultural adjustment provision. Part of the 
illegal immigration coming into our country is because there are no 
agricultural provisions under NAFTA, and NADBank is absolutely 
unrealistic in the manner in which it deals with the exodus in the 
Mexican countryside. NAFTA is a huge continental disaster for them. 
Indeed, people's lives are being lost every day because we choose to 
ignore their pain. Let us be voices for the most powerless people on 
this continent.
  We need a continental labor registration system for agricultural 
labor. It is wrong what happened to those 14 people in that truck in 
Omaha dying because they were brought up here as bonded workers. We 
need a continental solution to that travesty.
  In terms of the environment, why should the taxpayers of our country 
be asked to pay for the damage these corporations are doing? The 
corporations involved in this border trade, they ought to pay, because 
they are the ones creating the mess. We have done the very same kind of 
program here in our own country to let those responsible pay for the 
environmental damage that they are doing.
  In terms of NADBank, to help our communities readjust whether they 
are Illinois, whether they are Ohio, whether they are California, let 
us look at a NADBank that can function to meet the reality of the job 
loss across this Nation and harm across our continent.

                              {time}  1400

  Today we are being asked with this suspension to just take the tail 
on the dog. I am asking the Congress to embrace the dog. This is my 
only opportunity to do it. On the 10th anniversary of NAFTA, can we not 
finally be adults and recognize the continental situation that we, as 
elected officials at the highest levels of our government, have a 
responsibility to remediate? It is time. It is time.
  I realize that the bill that is before us technically is much more 
narrowly cast, but it is our only vehicle. Give a few more weeks, a few 
more opportunities for Members to weigh in. I think we could create a 
measure that truly, on NAFTA's 10th anniversary, would help our 
continent deal with the pain and suffering of workers in our Nation and 
continent.
  And by the way, the Department of Labor has made the decision not to 
count the workers in our country who are losing their jobs because of 
NAFTA today. That has now been stopped. What kind of a system is this? 
What kind of government is this? We have a responsibility to displaced 
workers to certify their communities for eligibility for programs like 
NADBank we must know where those jobs are being lost. So many pieces of 
this continental puzzle need to be put together in a tidy package. We 
are not presented with that package today.
  So I would just for the purposes of colloquy end my formal remarks 
now, in the event some of my colleagues, such as the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) or the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) or the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) wish to comment at this point. 
This is just an awfully important question for our continent. We are 
the people who can make life better. It is our time. It is our watch. 
We ought to make it better for people who do not have voice in this 
Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted 
to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) is 
recognized.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank my colleague from Illinois for this opportunity.
  Of course, I rise in strong support for passage of H.R. 254. I have 
great admiration for my colleague from Ohio who stands in opposition to 
254 today, but we do have a fundamental difference of opinion. This 
piece of legislation was not intended in any way to revisit, reopen, 
recast, or rescind the North American Free Trade Agreement, the treaty 
itself; rather, it is to improve an institution that was created to 
assist in any problems that would be encountered as a result of the 
treaty itself. And that is where we stand today.
  This is a bill to authorize the President to agree to certain 
amendments to the binational agreement establishing the North American 
Development Bank. H.R. 254 was passed by the House Committee on 
Financial Services on February 13 by voice vote. Last October, H.R. 
5400, a bill exactly like 254, passed the House by unanimous consent. 
So I will remind my colleagues, Members of this House, that we are 
revisiting a piece of legislation that was passed by unanimous consent 
in the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to take up H.R. 
5400, necessitating its resubmission in this Congress.
  This bill is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 11 Members of 
Congress, almost all representing districts along the United States/
Mexican border. I do wish to express my sincere thanks to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley),

[[Page H1347]]

chairman of the Committee on Financial Services; chairman of the 
Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter); the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders); and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 
on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity; as well as to 
the former ranking member of the full committee, Mr. LaFalce, who 
retired last session, for their cooperation and hard work in making 
today a reality and, hopefully, finally, in passing this bill once more 
and allowing the Senate the opportunity to pass it.
  Mr. Speaker, NADBank was created pursuant to NAFTA. It is an 
investment in water, wastewater, and other public infrastructure along 
the United States/Mexican border. The bank is headquartered in my 
district, the 20th Congressional District of Texas, and provides 
conventional loan financing, below market-rate financing, and grants 
for communities located near the United States/Mexican border to help 
fund their water, wastewater, and other infrastructure needs. 
Additionally, NADBank manages an institutional development program that 
provides training to local officials on both sides of the border on how 
to effectively manage public utilities.
  Since I arrived in Congress, I have heard so many Members use the 
phrase ``not letting perfect be the enemy of the good.'' I never 
thought I would resort to that, but today I will because that is what 
is happening here. NADBank is the only development bank specifically 
dedicated to the infrastructure needs of the United States/Mexican 
border. It meets a specific public financing need that has long been 
neglected by both Washington and Mexico City. Whether or not one is a 
supporter of the NAFTA treaty it is hard to argue with the purpose of 
NADBank, which is to provide critical financing and training for 
infrastructure improvements in disadvantaged United States and Mexican 
border communities.
  Mr. Speaker, in a minute I will be yielding to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), whose district borders Mexico. I 
will agree with my colleague from Ohio that NADBank has not fulfilled 
its true mission due to certain restrictions that Congress has 
neglected, or by not having the authority to really have any say with 
Treasury. Treasury has been in charge. This is the answer. This is the 
fix. This is the fine-tuning we have been seeking for so long. Never 
has this been meant to be an instrument to reopen the debate on NAFTA. 
This is an essential piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gonzalez) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I like and respect my friend and colleague from Ohio. I 
heard the gentlewoman from Ohio say that NADBank has too little to 
show, and my response to her is that those of us who live on the 
southwest border want to correct what is wrong with the NADBank in the 
way that it has operated and done so poorly in these last few years.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 254, the North 
American Development Bank reauthorization bill. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for all his hard work in 
shepherding this bill through the legislative process. I also want to 
thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their assistance in bringing this bill to 
the floor for consideration.
  As the Congressman from the 15th District of Texas, which includes 
the U.S./Mexico border region, my constituents are directly affected by 
the work of the North American Development Bank and are vitally 
interested in reforms badly needed that will improve the NADBank.
  I was born and raised in south Texas between Brownsville and Laredo. 
This region is the front door to Mexico. I have seen the skyrocketing 
48 percent population increase from just 1990 to 2000. I have witnessed 
the huge export business between Texas and Mexico increase 202 percent 
from 1993 to 2000, and that increase has reached $68 million of exports 
in the year 2000.
  NADBank was originally passed in 1994 and enacted in 1995. It was 
created to gain congressional passage of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. The bank was to be a working partner in helping border 
communities deal with water treatment facilities and environmental 
problems that would result from the increased trade that was expected. 
The bank's purpose was to help the border communities cope with the 
problems created by NAFTA.
  Unfortunately, despite large amounts of available capital, the bank 
has funded only a small number of infrastructure projects along the 
U.S./Mexico border because it was limited to offering only market-rate 
loans. The need along this southwest border is too great for the bank 
to have money sitting idle. H.R. 254 fixes the problem by allowing 
NADBank to offer low-interest loans and grants to border communities 
like the ones I represent to fund critical infrastructure projects so 
that we can have the quantity of water and quality of water that we 
need for the sustainable growth of our area.
  This authorization bill is not perfect. I assure my colleagues that 
if it improves the NADBank with the corrections that we make here, 
everyone will be very happy.
  In closing, I want to say that the bank has not worked well up until 
now, but I know that with these reforms it can live up to the promise. 
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 254.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the sponsor of this legislation.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) 
has explained very well why this legislation is before us. In fact, we 
passed it last October in the previous Congress in the same form. He 
mentioned the cosponsorship of practically everybody whose district is 
along the border, and I appreciate very much the support of my 
colleagues on the committee.
  Actually, the comments of the gentlewoman from Ohio about NAFTA are 
not a surprise to us, but practically nothing related to NAFTA is 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, now the Committee on Financial Services. The only thing 
really that is, is the NADBank, and it was created to take into account 
some of the concerns with the passage of NAFTA.
  During that debate, some Members were concerned about perceived lax 
enforcement of environmental laws by Mexico that could create a 
competitive advantage and give U.S. businesses incentive to relocate to 
Mexico. In fact, the support of some Members of Congress for NAFTA was 
partially contingent upon identification of a structure to finance 
border projects.
  Now, in order to address the inadequacies of the NADBank, which the 
other gentleman from Texas has alluded to and given some details on, 
Presidents Bush and Fox formed a binational working group that held a 
series of discussions with States, communities, and other stakeholders 
in the border region with the purpose of generating plans to reform and 
strengthen the performance of the NADBank and the BECC. As a result of 
that working group, Presidents Bush and Fox came forth with a joint 
agreement announced in Monterrey, Mexico, in March of 2002. The 
recommendations and requirements of agreement are in this legislation.
  With respect to the first legislative change, the administrations's 
rationale about the bank's current financial framework is having a 
limited impact in regions with high poverty rates, so adjustments were 
made in that respect. The change in jurisdiction was at the request of 
the Mexican President, but agreed to as appropriate by President Bush. 
So what we are doing here is to try to take the reforms that everyone 
in the region seems to agree are necessary for the NADBank to 
adequately address the infrastructure problems, particularly 
environmental infrastructure problems that are created by increased 
industrialization and population growth in the region.
  So, my colleagues, I think, can feel very comfortable in supporting 
this legislation. It makes the changes the two Presidents requested. It 
does nothing to disadvantage American firms. In fact, it addresses some 
of the concerns

[[Page H1348]]

that the opponents of NAFTA had in the first place.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio briefly.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate very much appreciate the 
gentleman yielding just for a question.
  It is my understanding that the Community Adjustment and Investment 
Fund, CAF, which is within NADBank, is basically zeroed out in this 
proposal, which means that it will have no money. And this is the 
portion of the bank that deals with loans and grants to the nonborder 
regions.
  Could someone please clarify for me whether my understanding is 
correct? And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I believe the 
gentlewoman's understanding is incorrect as with respect to this 
legislation. This legislation makes no reductions in that area. If 
there are reductions, it would be by executive budget, and I am not 
familiar if that is the case or not.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we have passed this legislation 
before. It is appropriate. It puts in place the agreements of the two 
Presidents. It has the support of all the border region persons in this 
room, with the exception of two, and I do not know how they stand, but 
I have heard no opposition from them to this point. So I urge support 
and approval of the legislation.

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do represent the entire California-Mexico border, so I 
am a border Congressman; and I must say, we have some difficulties with 
the proposed legislation. The gentlewoman from Ohio, and I am sorry 
that it had to take someone from the hinterlands to explain to us that 
this whole issue of NAFTA and NADBank need to be discussed by this body 
in a far more important way than a bill on suspension that gives us 10 
minutes to debate. The gentlewoman is entirely correct. And just 
because it is only the NADBank that falls within the jurisdiction of 
the Banking Committee is no reason to limit this House from a fuller 
discussion. The Banking Committee can in fact go in with other 
committees and have that discussion. The gentlewoman was absolutely 
right: jobs have been lost, millions, because of NAFTA.
  I live in San Diego, California, a community impacted by NAFTA. Did 
the community adjustment investment fund or NADBank do anything for our 
community? No. Is it going to do anything with the proposed reforms? I 
do not know. But I am very wary.
  When NAFTA was passed, there was no infrastructure put in place to 
realize some of its benefits. For example, in San Diego, California, 
3,000 trucks a day now cross the border from Mexico to the United 
States. There is no highway that takes those 3,000 trucks from the 
border crossing to the interstate highway system. I have been trying to 
get it built for the last 10 years. We have a city street that takes 
those trucks; it is one of the most dangerous roads in America. Has 
NADBank helped that? No. The environment which NADBank was limited to 
before these reforms, the maquiladoras which NAFTA brought to the 
border, hundreds of them, employing thousands of Mexican workers, do 
not have to abide by any of the environmental rules that we establish. 
So they end up dumping their toxic materials in the gullies and ravines 
in Mexico. You know where that ends up? I got 50 million gallons, now 
millions of gallons in the last few years of raw sewage floating 
through my district in the Tijuana River to the Pacific Ocean. In 
Imperial County to the east of San Diego, there are millions of gallons 
of raw sewage flowing through the New River, then the Alamo River, to 
the Salton Sea. Did NADBank take care of anything there? Nothing.
  Those same maquiladoras brought Mexican workers to the border. What 
did it pay them? No increase in wages. In fact, wages fell. And do you 
know what happened when the folks who came to the Maquilas who thought 
they were going to get high wages and did not? What happened? Illegal 
immigration to America. Did NADBank do anything to help us with that? 
Nothing.
  Two power plants have just opened up in Mexicali, Mexico, to service 
the needs of California, power needs. Did they have to follow the 
environmental rules of our community? No. Can the border patrol stop 
air pollution? No. Did NADBank help us solve any of that? No.
  I agree that the folks who have worked on this, this is a step 
forward. I do not have any doubts about that. The lower-than-market 
interest rates which prevented really any loans from being made is 
absolutely necessary. The expansion of the definition of what projects 
would be accepted is obviously a very important step forward. But there 
is a backwards step that you ought to have maybe said something about 
in your legislation.
  As I understand it, the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission, 
the board of that and the board of NADBank are being merged. BECC was 
one of the few places where you had any community input, and now we are 
not going to have any. San Diego and Tijuana had virtually no input. 
Mexicali and Calexico in Imperial County had no input. El Paso, no 
input. Brownsville, no input. Where is the community input for the 
reform bank that you are putting in? We at the border communities, and 
I will tell you even more the inland communities, if I may say so, need 
to have input into what is going on with the NADBank. It is not serving 
our communities. I do not see any step forward that will change that.
  Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of Treasury when I asked him a few years 
ago, and this was in a previous administration, how was NADBank doing, 
he had no idea. It has been put in a corner somewhere because of an 
attempt to get a few votes for NAFTA. It was set up to do nothing, and 
it fulfilled those expectations. I do not see any reforms really that 
will make NADBank work for America and American workers. I thank the 
gentlewoman for allowing us to have this debate.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Many of the shortcomings that both my dear friends from Ohio and 
California have pointed out are actually remedied by this bill. The 
answer is before us. Is it a complete answer? We never have a complete 
answer in any one piece of legislation; but this is definitely a start, 
and it is a meaningful one. My colleague from California poses the 
question, Where is the input? The input is in H.R. 254 because we as 
Members of the House of Representatives will finally have a voice. It 
will not simply be Treasury in the executive branch determining the 
parameters and the programs and the activities of NADBank. We will 
finally have something to say about it, so that my colleague from Ohio 
and my colleague from California will have a voice. That is what this 
piece of legislation is all about.
  If someone sees this as an opportunity to relegislate NAFTA, I cannot 
do anything about that; but that is not what it does. It does not 
attempt to do that in any shape or form. But this is the answer that 
those that speak today in opposition are seeking. We all are in 
agreement. If this bill does not pass, it is only the House of 
Representatives that remains irrelevant to NAFTA and to the NADBank. 
That will be the end result.
  I ask again, please consider this piece of legislation carefully, 
understand its merits, and you will vote for it. I ask each and every 
one of my colleagues to join us, all of us along the border, all of us 
from the border States that are so heavily impacted, to do something 
about the consequences of NAFTA but in a positive and constructive 
manner.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to 
assure the gentlewoman from Ohio, there is nothing that deauthorizes a 
program in our legislation and nothing that specifically authorizes 
additional funds. And to the gentleman from California, this 
legislation does not merge the two entities that concerns him.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains for 
the majority and the party in opposition.

[[Page H1349]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flake). The gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Mrs. Biggert) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a well-crafted bill that helps the North 
American Development Bank to accomplish its stated goal of improving 
the wastewater treatment, solid waste management and potable water 
supply in America's Mexico border region more efficiently. In 
California over the last 2 decades, the population has grown by more 
than 30 percent while the water supply has increased by only 2 percent. 
But as California's thirst for water increases, the number of available 
sources for drinking water is shrinking. This is why I support the 
North American Development Bank's mission of providing clean and safe 
water to all of America's southern border areas, particularly to the 
already overtaxed southern California area.
  I was able to contribute to this legislation by adding a provision 
that directs the North American Development Bank's support for 
qualified water conservation projects in southern California which will 
help to reduce the overall burden on a State whose water resources are 
already stretched dangerously thin. California currently leads the 
country in desalination, conjunctive use, recycling and water 
conservation efforts so the money invested in our part of the country 
gets an excellent return on investment.
  I urge support for this broad, nonpartisan initiative to recognize 
that qualified water conservation and supply projects are important to 
southern California and deserve the support of the North American 
Development Bank.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), who is such an expert on this.
  Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, just quickly, the fact that this legislation does not 
say anything about the merged boards of BECC and NADBank, you could 
have said something about it. Just because you did not, do not 
criticize the fact that this is a backwards step. If you want to move 
forward, then change that, too. And we need to have the support of the 
Chair and those who are supporting this bill for some money for the 
community adjustment investment fund. It has been zeroed out by the 
administration.
  So, yes, there are some reforms here. The question is how much money 
are we going to give it and how much community input are we going to 
allow. A report to Congress on a yearly basis does not allow the 
community input that this board needs.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleagues, particularly those along the border, for 
engaging in this debate today. I would just like to place on the Record 
information from the Community Adjustment and Investment Program headed 
in San Antonio, Texas, from NADBank that says Congress has zeroed out 
future funding for the Community Adjustment and Investment Program. The 
Bush budget contains no money, no appropriated dollars for the program 
to help in the nonborder areas of the United States.
  I would beg my colleagues who are supporting this, please look beyond 
just the border and even for the border, recognize who is making the 
pollution and who should pay for it. But please do not disenfranchise 
communities across our country that are losing jobs.
  I will end with this story. One of the companies that has just left 
my district in Sandusky, Ohio, Dixon Ticonderoga, one of the workers 
just committed suicide. The head of that company called me and said, 
Congresswoman, we're going to leave you a building, an empty hulk. I 
said, well, sir, all I've got is NADBank. So I called NADBank about 2 
weeks ago and I said, they're leaving us an empty hulk. What can we do 
with a loan or grant program to create something, some type of economic 
activity inside that building? And the answer was, We have no funds. So 
we are talking here about only one square on a very large board.
  I urge my colleagues to please withdraw this bill today. Let us work 
together and put language in there that helps all of the United States 
and all of North America, all of North America that has been so badly 
harmed by NAFTA, including agricultural adjustment provisions, so that 
no Mexican worker will die in this country because there is not a labor 
registration system across this continent that gives them the dignity 
of a work card where they cannot be bonded and sold by those coyotes 
all across this continent. There are huge problems that NADBank could 
be the vehicle to solve. Please vote ``no,'' or withdraw this bill 
today in order that we bring something back to this Congress that can 
help us perfect an agreement that is badly flawed.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ose), another member of the Committee on Financial 
Services.
  Mr. OSE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I 
rise in support of the bill. In California, as in many of the other 
border States, we are working with our friends to the south to try and 
address many things. One of the things in this bill that I was so 
pleased to be part of with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), and the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter) was trying to give some direction to NADBank about 
expanding the things that they could invest in.
  Specifically, we have a problem in California where discharge of 
wastewater and the like from some of the facilities south of the border 
flows into the Pacific Ocean, then by virtue of currents and tides goes 
north on the beach and eventually gets to the point where it spoils our 
beaches. There are many in this body who would argue that we need to 
delay and defer and not take action on this. However, frankly, one of 
our greatest assets in California is our beaches. It is my intention, 
and I am grateful for the support from other parts of the country, to 
try and do something to frankly address the issue of pollution hitting 
the beach in California. The language that we proposed and that my 
colleagues supported and that is now in the bill directs the NADBank to 
take this issue seriously and to address it when considering future 
projects.
  Secondly, my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), 
talked about water issues being a key element for California's success. 
The provision that he has placed in the bill directs NADBank to 
incorporate water development issues in their deliberations. I am 
pleased by that because, as he said, we have had population growth 
there of around 30 percent, but water supply growth of only about 2. I 
ask support of the bill.

                              {time}  1430

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these 
changes to the NADBank and join me in voting to approve H.R. 254.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer some context for our debate 
today surrounding the NADBank as it relates to my district in South 
Texas.
  I support NADBank and believe it is an important part of border 
development, particularly the small rural communities like San Benito 
and La Feria in South Texas. Hopefully, NADBank will continue to work 
with these municipalities to maximize their infrastructure.
  But NADBank's recent decision to offer grants and resources in terms 
that are twice as favorable to Mexico, over injured South Texas 
farmers, is very troubling to me. Very briefly, it was Mexico's non-
compliance--for over a decade--with a 1944 treaty that apportions the 
waters of the Rio Grande that bankrupted hundreds of South Texas 
farmers and precipitated the need for NADBank to offer assistance--
however late--to those injured by Mexico's action.
  Here's what has troubled me about this; there are 2 primary reasons:
  First, NADBank is offering up to 50 percent of the cost of irrigation 
projects to South Texas farmers in grants and the balance in low-
interest loans, while making the same assistance available to Mexican 
agricultural interests at 100 percent grants. Since the actions of 
Mexico were the instigation of the injury to South Texas farmers, it is 
galling that NADBank is giving Mexican farmers 100 percent of the cost 
of their projects in grant funding, while South Texans are getting half 
that.
  Secondly, the entire reason NADBank has a package offering relief to 
farmers for irrigation needs is the enormous, permanent injury to

[[Page H1350]]

South Texas farmers directly due to Mexico's violation of the 1944 
treaty. I have been perplexed as to the reason that all four border 
states have access to the relief package. If the injury was to South 
Texas farmers, then that is who should be the target of the relief.
  Of note, this bill does recognize several important things for the 
first time: Mexico is in default of the 1944 Water Treaty; Mexico has 
accumulated 1.5 million acre feet of water debt to the U.S.; and the 
NADBank Board should support projects in the lower Rio Grande Valley.
  While NADBank is an important part of border development, the 
decision to give South Texas farmers--injured by Mexico's deliberate 
action--half what they are offering to Mexican farmers is a step in the 
wrong direction. Part of the problem with this policy is that it was 
formulated in Washington and dictated to San Antonio by officials in 
the Departments of Treasury, State, and the Environmental Protection 
Agency. When Washington dictates decisions to states and local 
governments without their input, those decisions are more likely to 
inspire anger and resentment than gratitude.
  I ask my colleagues to remember this action and to encourage NADBank 
to re-think the wisdom of how they are distributing funds under this 
program.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in support 
of H.R. 254, which will amend the law that established the North 
American Development Bank. The needs along the U.S.-Mexico border are 
ever increasing. Population growth is rapid, estimated at more than 100 
percent in the next 20 years. Today about 11 to 12 million people live 
along the border. By 2020, 22 million people will reside in the region. 
On the U.S. side of the border, the per capita income is 79 percent of 
the national average. Four of the ten poorest counties in the United 
States are along the U.S.-Mexico border.
  In October of 1993, the United States and Mexico agreed to a new 
institutional structure to promote border environmental cleanup. The 
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) authorized the 
establishment of the North American Development Bank (NADBank) and the 
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) which work jointly to 
address some of the many environmental problems caused by free trade 
between Mexico and the United States. The primary focus of these two 
organizations has been to address the water and waste water needs of 
communities in the border region. And appropriately so: it is estimated 
that $8 billion would be required to address needs for sewage 
treatment, drinking water, and municipal solid waste infrastructure 
projects along the border over the next decade. The BECC is directed to 
help border states and communities coordinate and design environmental 
infrastructure projects, and to certify projects for financing, while 
the NADBank evaluates the financial feasibility of projects certified 
by the BECC and provides financing as appropriate.
  Despite the creation of the NADBank to provide loans to finance 
border environmental infrastructure projects, grants from the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have accounted for the vast 
majority of funding provided through the NADBank thus far.
  As I expressed to the House Financial Services Committee last May, 
the financing provided by NADBank is often at too high of an interest 
rate to be affordable by many impoverished communities. I am pleased 
that enough of my colleagues recognized this problem, which led to the 
introduction of this legislation in the 107th Congress and its 
reintroduction this year.
  This bill will allow for the NADBank to come closer towards reaching 
its full potential by allowing for non-market rate loans and grants to 
be made towards water and waste management infrastructure.
  In order to expand the capacity of both institutions to address 
important binational environmental needs, this bill will expand the 
geographic scope for BECC and NADBank operations in Mexico from 100 
kilometers to 300 km from the border. The geographic limit in the 
United States will remain unchanged at 100 km from the border. There is 
no doubt that the area encompassed within 100 km from the border is the 
area with the most dire needs. However, infusing additional funds 
within 300 km of the border on the Mexican side makes sense in helping 
build infrastructure and expanding the economy on Mexico's northern 
border. Assisting Mexico with infrastructure development needs in its 
northern border region will eventually relieve some of the pressure on 
the U.S. side of the border by providing opportunities for Mexican 
residents in Mexico.
  The welcome changes this bill brings to the NADBank are a first step 
towards expanding the NADBank's role in financing infrastructure 
improvements along the U.S.-Mexico Border. In the future, I hope that 
the NADBank will be further authorized to finance any public 
infrastructure need along the border that can not be financed by 
conventional means. For example, in addition to needing water and 
sewage infrastructure, colonias are in desperate need of paved roads 
and a reliable energy supply. These communities suffer from a host of 
dire living conditions which should not be tolerated in our country.
  I would like to thank my colleagues in the House Financial Services 
Committee for their work in moving this important piece of legislation 
to the floor so quickly in this Congress and look forward to working 
with them in the future to bring additional needed assistance to the 
U.S.-Mexico border region. I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of 
H.R. 254.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 254, an 
important piece of legislation which makes changes to the operation of 
the North American Development Bank. These changes were negotiated by 
the United States and Mexico after President Bush and Mexican President 
Fox met to discuss ways to improve border conditions between our 
countries. The NADBank has been in operation for nearly 10 years, and 
is equally capitalized by both the U.S. and Mexico. However, in this 
time period the NADBank has made only a few loans while having over 
$450 million in paid-in capital and a total lending capacity of $2.7 
billion.
  I would like to commend my colleague, Mr. Bereuter, for crafting this 
bill with input from both sides of the aisle and from Members 
representing each of the Border States. H.R. 254 contains the key 
changes requested by the Administration which will result in more 
NADBank programs without any increased costs to the taxpayers. The 
changes will allow the NADBank to finance projects further into Mexico 
from the U.S. border and will permit below-market rate loans and grants 
to be used for projects on either side of the border. Additionally, the 
bill contains a requirement for the Treasury Department to report 
annually to Congress on the operations and disbursements of the 
NADBank. Several sections express the sense of Congress as to what 
types of projects the NADBank should pursue. These include water 
conservation, coastal conservation and air pollution projects. This 
bill is identical to H.R. 5400 which was approved by the House in the 
107th Congress.
  The NADBank is an important tool for financing environmental 
infrastructure projects on the border between the U.S. and Mexico. The 
changes we consider today will increase the ability of the NADBank to 
fulfill its mission and improve the environmental conditions along the 
border region while making it a stronger and more effective 
institution.
  It is critical that the U.S. and Mexico work in close cooperation to 
improve environmental conditions along the border region. This 
institution and the changes we consider today will do just that. This 
bill has been requested by the President, negotiated by the 
Administration, and approved by voice vote in the Financial Services 
Committee. I strongly urge my colleagues to support these changes to 
the NADBank and join me in voting to approve H.R. 524.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 254. This 
legislation will reauthorize the North American Development Bank 
(NADBank) and allow NADBank to make grants and loans to improve water 
supplies and the environment along the border at more flexible rates. 
As I travel my district, which includes approximately 800 miles of the 
U.S-Mexico border, I am repeatedly reminded of the tremendous need for 
potable water, wastewater treatment, and municipal solid waste 
management.
  Many towns in my district have directly benefitted from the 
investment brought by NADBank over the years. In Del Rio, the 
construction of a potable water treatment plant, the replacement of 
water pumping facilities and a potable water ground storage tank was 
recently completed with the help of NADBank financing. In Eagle Pass, 
NADBank is currently financing the replacement of two water treatment 
plants and the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant. Thanks 
to NADBank investment, water distribution lines and wastewater 
collection lines will be installed and water storage facilities built 
to serve 15 colonias surrounding Laredo in the near future. Uvalde 
recently benefitted from NADBank financing of landfill expansion and 
equipment purchases for efficient operation.
  Many of these important projects would not have been possible were it 
not for NADBank investment. Thanks to this investment, environmental 
conditions and living standards along the border have been dramatically 
improved.
  I urge the House to pass this legislation so that these communities 
and other like them may continue to reap the benefits of NADBank 
investment.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flake). The question is on the motion

[[Page H1351]]

offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 254.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________