[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10586-S10590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   AUGUST 2005 CODEL TO LATIN AMERICA

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, from August 14 to the 22, I traveled to 
Latin America to investigate first hand important issues relating to 
national security, immigration and the war on drugs. I would like to 
share the details of this trip and some of the insights I gained with 
my colleagues.
  On Sunday, August 14, we flew to Havana, Cuba. Upon our arrival we 
drove to the U.S. Mission where we met with James Cason, our chief of 
mission, and members of his staff. I started off the meeting by asking 
my hosts if Cuba could help the U.S. combat the smuggling of illegal 
drugs into our country. Mr. Rod Rojas of the U.S. Coast Guard, who 
currently serves as the U.S. Drug Interdiction Specialist based in 
Havana, noted that there is a good working relationship between the 
Coast Guard and the Cuban Border Guard on drug issues. It primarily 
takes the form of the Cubans sharing information with the United States 
as to suspicious ships passing through its territorial waters. The 
United States then interdicts these ships when they cross into U.S. 
waters. While the number of such reports has fallen in recent years, 
Mr. Rojas believes that this is a testament to the success of Cuban 
efforts: now that they know they will be reported, drug smugglers seem 
to be avoiding Cuban waters.
  These reports confirm my long-held view that we should be working 
more closely with Cuba on drug interdiction efforts. This is why since 
2001 I have sought to include language in the Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill to fund joint drug interdiction efforts between our 
two countries. This language is in the Senate version of the fiscal 
year 2006 bill, and I intend to press to secure its retention in the 
bill through conference.
  From this positive report on the drug interdiction situation, our 
conversation turned to a troubling report on the current human rights 
situation in Cuba. Mr. Cason told us that there has been a 
deterioration of human rights in Cuba in recent years as Castro has 
cracked down on political dissidents. In 2003, Castro jailed 75 
dissidents and has thus far released fewer than 20 from this group. 
These arrests were followed by others including the arrest of over 30 
dissidents earlier this year. In addition to arrests, Castro has begun 
to employ other atrocious practices including having dissidents 
assaulted on the streets and generating demonstrations at the homes of 
dissidents to prevent them from stepping outside.
  This repression has spread to the economic realm as well. In the late 
1990s, Castro had opened a very limited window to free enterprise in 
Cuba by issuing licenses for private businesses. Had this trend 
continued, Cuba could have followed the path of China and Vietnam 
towards a limited market economy and higher living standards. Instead, 
Castro has abandoned this liberalization and cut back the number of 
licenses for private business. Both politically and economically, there 
are signs that Cuba is going backwards.
  Finally, our conversation turned to the issue of immigration. In an 
effort to provide a legal outlet for immigration and avoid the massive 
boatlifts of the past, the United States allows 20,000 Cubans to 
legally immigrate every year. This number includes family 
reunifications, visas given out by

[[Page S10587]]

lottery, and approximately 5,000 visas granted to individuals accorded 
refugee status because they are found to face persecution if they 
remain in Cuba. Yet this legal outlet is still overwhelmed by the 
desire to leave Castro's Cuba: every year thousands of Cubans who 
cannot secure these visas still come to the U.S. by sea and, 
increasingly, overland via Mexico.
  On Monday, August 15, we returned to the airport in the morning and 
flew an hour and a half from Havana down to our military base at 
Guantanamo Bay. Upon arrival we were met by White House Counsel Harriet 
Miers, Department of Defense General Counsel Jim Haynes, and a 
contingent of my Judiciary Committee staff. The base commander, MG Jay 
Hood, greeted us all and loaded us into a boat for the trip across the 
inlet from the airstrip to the operational center of the base.
  Our visit began with a briefing by General Hood and members of his 
staff about many of the individuals being held and interrogated at 
Guantanamo and what they were learning from them. The briefing also 
reviewed the many cases on record of individuals we released from 
Guantanamo who immediately returned to the ranks of the terrorists once 
free. This briefing was an important reminder of the difficult balance 
that must be struck in our handling of these detainees. While we must 
strive for fair processes, we must remember that the individuals we are 
dealing with are often our most vicious enemies.
  After our briefing, we drove to a mess hall for lunch where I had the 
opportunity to meet a number of Pennsylvanians who are serving with 
distinction at the base. We then visited one of the buildings used for 
interrogation and met with a group of interrogators who have been 
assigned to work with the Saudi prisoners. The interrogators informed 
us that their progress was slow. I asked these interrogators about the 
tactics they used. They were adamant that they did not use coercive 
tactics. They added that such tactics do not work. On the contrary, 
they told us that they have found the most effective method of 
interrogation to be developing a relationship with a detainee, treating 
him with respect, and winning him over through positive reinforcement.
  On August 1, the New York Times ran a front page story detailing the 
allegations of two senior prosecutors at Guantanamo that the trial 
system for detainees had ``been secretly arranged to improve the 
chances of conviction and to deprive defendants of material that could 
prove their innocence.'' After our tour of the base, I questioned 
General Hood, DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes, and Brigadier General 
Thomas Hemingway of the DoD Office of Military Commissions about these 
allegations and other complaints about the military justice system. 
White House Counsel Miers was present. Since our conversation was 
classified, I will not comment in this forum on what was said. After 
this meeting we returned to Havana.
  On Tuesday, August 16, we returned to the U.S. Mission to meet with 
two brave Cuban dissidents: Vladimiro Roca and Martha Roque. Mr. Roca 
is the President of the Social Democratic Party of Cuba. Knowing that I 
would meet with President Castro later in my trip, I felt it important 
to meet with the dissidents so that I would hear from both sides. I 
learned after my visit that the Governor of Nebraska, who was in town 
at the same time I was, also met with Castro but declined to meet with 
the dissidents.
  Since political parties are banned in Cuba, Mr. Roca's ``party'' has 
only 35 members. Mr. Roca was jailed by Castro for 5 years from 1997 to 
2002 for criticizing his government. Yet Mr. Roca continues to speak 
out and to criticize the regime. Although free, Mr. Roca has been the 
subject of intimidation and demonstrations designed to keep him from 
leaving his home.
  Like Mr. Roca, Ms. Roque has also been jailed for expressing her 
strong anti-Castro views. She spent 3 years in jail from 1997 to 2000. 
Upon her release from prison she immediately returned to her activism. 
In 2003, she was arrested for a second time while attending an anti-
Castro demonstration and sentenced to twenty years in jail. One year 
and five months into her term, Ms. Roque suffered a heart attack and 
was released.
  While both Mr. Roca and Ms. Roque had trials, neither process sounds 
as if it was worthy of the name. According to Mr. Roca, he was told 
prior to his trial what the verdict and sentence would be. Mr. Roca and 
Ms. Roque are not alone. They inform me that there are still 81 
prisoners of conscience languishing in Cuban jails for doing nothing 
more than exercising a right to free speech that their government 
refuses to recognize.
  Following this meeting we drove to a luncheon meeting with President 
Fidel Castro. I had met with Castro during two prior visits to Cuba in 
1999 and 2002 and found the experience to be worthwhile. As before, I 
found Castro to be an engaging host. He has an easy wit and enjoys a 
good-natured exchange. Yet beneath the joking was a serious 
undercurrent. Having just come from a meeting with dissidents, I 
pressed Castro to release the political prisoners in his jails. Castro 
tried to shift the topic of conversation from his prisoners by bringing 
up the case of five Cubans convicted of spying in the U.S. whose 
convictions were recently overturned by the 11th Circuit. I suggested 
to Castro that far from being an example of American wrongdoing, this 
kind of fair process is exactly the type of justice he should be 
offering to his own people. I also pressed Castro to open his country 
to democracy and dissent. He listened, but my exhortations obviously 
had no effect.
  Much of Castro's conversation focused on his efforts to provide 
health care to third world countries. Castro discussed this topic at 
length, and it quickly became clear that he believes this effort will 
be his central legacy. Cuba, a country of 11 million, has 70,000 
doctors due to Castro's early emphasis on providing medical care to his 
own people. Castro has in recent years started sending thousands of 
these doctors abroad to help serve the underprivileged. Venezuela is 
the leading recipient of this medical largesse and hosts the majority 
of Cuba's overseas medical corps. According to Castro, Cuban doctors in 
Venezuela live and work in the slums and provide crucial medical care 
to those who would otherwise go without. For example, Castro told us 
that 6,000 Cuban eye doctors will perform 100,000 eye operations on 
poor Venezuelans this year. In addition to providing care, Castro told 
us that his doctors also provide an education, teaching Venezuelans to 
be doctors both in Venezuela and in Cuba. Castro then read off to us a 
list of the many countries in which Cuban doctors are living and 
serving from East Timor to Haiti and including many African and Latin 
American countries.

  It must be noted that Castro's motives are not entirely altruistic. 
Our Embassy in Caracas informed me that in exchange for these medical 
services he is given a generous supply of free oil and his doctors are 
paid a subsidy which is remitted back to the state. Yet it is doubtful 
that Castro's arrangements with poorer countries such as Haiti bring 
similar financial rewards. While there is much to criticize about 
Castro and his regime, this humanitarian effort is to be respected. To 
underscore the personal importance of this effort to him, Castro ended 
his discourse by stating that ``history will vindicate us.''
  When we left Castro we proceeded to the airport and flew to Caracas, 
Venezuela. On Wednesday, August 17, we had breakfast with our 
Ambassador in Caracas, William Brownfield. Mr. Brownfield is a career 
diplomat with an obvious passion for his work and a deep knowledge of 
his subject. Ambassador Brownfield sets forth a pragmatic approach to 
Venezuela. While fundamental differences exist between our two 
countries, he argues, we can and must cooperate on those issues where 
we share an agenda, namely oil and drugs.
  On oil, Venezuela lacks the infrastructure to refine more than one-
fourth of the oil it produces. Venezuelan oil is heavier than most and 
needs special refineries, and these refineries are located in the 
United States. In addition, Venezuela is relatively close to the United 
States when compared to other United States suppliers and other 
Venezuelan markets. Thus continued cooperation on oil is imperative for 
both nations.
  Secondly, both nations share an interest in combating drugs. There 
have been some recent conflicts over the specifics of fighting drugs. 
Only a week

[[Page S10588]]

before our trip, President Chavez announced that he was suspending all 
cooperation with our DEA. The United States, in turn, suspended the 
visas of three high ranking Venezuelan law enforcement officials. Yet 
beneath the conflict, the shared interests and goals remain and can 
serve as a motivation to overcome these differences and proceed with 
the important work of drug interdiction.
  The Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, has been criticized for 
governing in an anti-democratic fashion. While in Caracas, I wanted to 
hear directly from those who held this view and arranged a meeting with 
an activist named Alejandro Plaz and one of his associates. Mr. Plaz is 
the President of Sumate, a Venezuelan non-governmental organization 
dedicated to electoral observation and what he calls ``democratic 
observation''--i.e. monitoring the leading indicators of a healthy 
democracy such as human rights and freedom of speech. These activities 
have stirred the ire of President Chavez's regime. Mr. Plaz has been 
charged with conspiracy to destroy the Republican system in Venezuela 
and if convicted would face 8 to 16 years in prison. The core element 
of the allegation of ``conspiracy'' is that Mr. Plaz accepted a $31,000 
grant from the National Endowment for Democracy. The Venezuelan 
Government argues that since teaching about democracy is a political 
activity, and since political activities cannot be funded from abroad, 
Mr. Plaz has violated the law. By all accounts, however, including an 
analysis conducted by the American Bar Association, this is a political 
trial aimed to intimidate a man perceived to be a political opponent.
  Mr. Plaz also detailed how Chavez loyalists in the legislature used a 
simple majority vote to change the rule requiring a supermajority to 
amend certain basic laws of the nation. Having thus lowered the 
threshold, the legislature has used simple majorities to expand the 
number of seats on the Supreme Court and pack these seats with Chavez 
loyalist as well as to fill the election boards with Chavez loyalists.
  We next drove to the Venezuelan foreign ministry where we met with 
Venezuelan Foreign Minister Ali Rodriguez Araque and the Venezuelan 
Minister of Interior and Justice Jesse Chacon. Foreign Minister Araque 
started things on a positive note by stating that despite the 
differences which the United States and Venezuela may have in the 
political sphere, our two nations have many shared interests in oil and 
drug interdiction and must emphasize our commonalities. Interior 
Minister Chacon picked up on the theme of drug interdiction and went on 
at some length about Venezuela's efforts to fight the use of its 
territory as a transit point for Columbian drugs. According to the 
Minister, Venezuelan authorities seized 57 tons of cocaine and heroin 
in 2004 and 42 tons in 2003. He then spent some time discussing the 
recent controversy between our DEA agents in Venezuela and the 
Venezuelan government. He set forth his government's side of the story, 
and focused on alleged inappropriate actions by our DEA agents 
including the use of ``controlled deliveries'' to ship illegal drugs 
out of Venezuela in contravention of Venezuelan law.

  Immediately following this meeting, we drove to Miraflores Palace 
where I met with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. We were joined by 
the two Ministers with whom I had previously met as well as U.S. 
Ambassador Brownfield. President Chavez began the meeting with an 
extended discussion about the importance of drug interdiction to both 
of our countries. He noted that drugs are a destabilizing force in the 
countries victimized by them. He then spoke about the deteriorating 
relations between the United States and Venezuela. He expressed concern 
in particular about statements coming from the U.S. government that he 
is trying to destabilize Latin America. He also said he is concerned 
about his U.S. ambassador's lack of access to the White House and high 
ranking executive branch officials.
  Chavez commented about having met President Clinton on three 
occasions, one of which was at the United Nations. President Chavez 
believed that his relations with President Clinton were good and would 
like to see similar relations with President Bush. President Chavez 
also spoke about Venezuela's oil resources and his plans for billions 
of dollars of investments to increase oil production.
  After the President's extensive opening statement, I responded that 
good relations between the United States and Venezuela are very 
important to both countries. I told the President that we appreciate 
his help in stopping the flow of drugs from Columbia and South America. 
I also noted the importance of Venezuelan oil to the United States and 
the world. I expressed my view that United States. companies would be 
willing to invest substantial sums to improve Venezuelan oil production 
and help them produce oil for the world and help Venezuela generate 
revenue money to fight poverty. I then took up the dispute between 
Venezuelan narcotics officers and the DEA and suggested that all facts 
should be put on the table to determine exactly what occurred so that 
both parties are then in a position to decide what steps could be taken 
to resolve the dispute. President Chavez said that this was a good idea 
and that consideration ought to be given to having a new agreement on 
drug interdiction.
  President Chavez later spoke at some length about President Castro 
and his efforts to provide extensive medical personnel to Venezuela. 
Chavez commented that Castro had discussed my meetings with Castro and 
thought that they were productive. Chavez then returned to the topic of 
oil and pointed out that a Venezuelan company, presumably Citgo, had 
13,000 gas stations and 8 refineries in the United States. He then 
reiterated his concern about statements from the U.S. regarding 
Venezuela destabilizing Latin America. Chavez said that public opinion 
in Venezuela was running against the United States because of these 
statements.
  At the conclusion of our meeting, President Chavez agreed that it 
would be useful for his Foreign Minister and Minister of the Interior 
to meet with our Ambassador the following week to try to resolve United 
States/Venezuela differences on drug enforcement. Previously, all of 
our Ambassador's efforts to arrange such a meeting had been rejected.
  On Thursday, August 18 we flew to Liberia, Costa Rica. Our first 
meeting that afternoon focused on the drug issue. We sat down with Paul 
Knierim, our top DEA agent in Costa Rica, and his Costa Rican 
counterpart, Allen Solano, who is the Director of the Costa Rican Drug 
Control Police. Although no drugs are grown or processed in Costa Rica, 
the nation and the rest of Central America serve as a crucial transit 
route for smugglers bringing South American drugs to the markets in 
North America and Europe.
  Drugs are transported overland on Costa Rica's roads, by sea through 
both its Pacific and Caribbean territorial waters, as well as over 
Costa Rica's airspace in private planes and on passenger jets. These 
operations are often sophisticated. In one smuggling ring that was 
uncovered, re-fueling ships met the smuggling boats at fixed points 
along the Costa Rican coast so that the boats would not have to risk 
detection by coming ashore.
  The region faces its own set of issues. The Trans American Highway, 
an important overland route for drugs, passes through this region and 
has been the site of increased drug traffic in recent years. Also, the 
Daniel Oduber international airport outside of Liberia has seen growing 
passenger traffic in recent years, especially to and from the United 
States, as the local tourist industry and real estate markets have 
developed. This increased traffic provides an opportunity for smugglers 
to blend into the crowd. Thus authorities have found that drug 
traffickers are sending more smugglers on the planes to transport drugs 
northward. These ``mules'' typically transport the drugs by placing 
them in latex and swallowing them, a practice which can prove fatal if 
the latex bags break.
  I was pleased to learn that in Costa Rica cooperation between our DEA 
and the local authorities is excellent. We have five of our agents 
stationed in country where they work with the Costa Ricans to 
investigate and interdict drug shipments. Success is difficult. Mr. 
Knierim of our DEA told me that they know they are having an impact, 
since their actions force the smugglers to change their tactics. But he 
also realizes that they have not been able to defeat the smugglers. The 
battle continues.

[[Page S10589]]

  Later in my visit, I met with Dr. Rolando Herrero, a leading cancer 
researcher who has been a pioneer in the exploration of the connection 
between viral infections and cancer. In particular, in a series of 
studies conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s, Dr. Herrero 
demonstrated a connection between the Human Papiloma Virus, HPV, a 
sexually transmitted disease, and cervical cancer. Having proven this 
connection, Dr. Herrero is now conducting a trial of an HPV vaccine 
that could prevent the spread of the virus and thus significantly lower 
the incidence of cervical cancer. This vaccine trial received $5 
million in NIH funding through the National Cancer Institute this year. 
Given the prevalence of the HPV virus among sexually active young 
Americans, and the enormous expense of pap smears and treatments, this 
trial has obvious importance for the protection of women's health in 
the U.S.
  Dr. Herrero has conducted his studies, including the current vaccine 
trial, in the Guanacaste Province in northwest Costa Rica. He explained 
that because of the relative stability of the local female population 
aged 18-25, this region allows for the extensive yearly follow up that 
would not be possible in the more mobile societies of America and 
Europe. As a result of his extensive prior work in the region, Dr. 
Herrero also has an impressive infrastructure in place to allow for 
effective follow-up studies by a highly professional team of 150 
scientists and health care workers who know the local population and 
its habits well.
  Finally, we drove to the offices of Mr. Bernardo Rojas, the Director 
of Ecodesarollo, a private company which has been given a concession 
from the Costa Rican government to develop an area known as the 
Papagayo Peninsula on the Pacific Coast of northern Costa Rica. The 
work being done by Mr. Rojas and this innovate public/private 
partnership can serve as a model for other countries wishing to develop 
their tourism industry while preserving the environment and respecting 
local populations.
  Specifically, the Ecodesarollo Company has been given the rights to 
develop and manage an 840 hectare peninsula for a period of 49 years, 
with a right to renew the concession for another 49 years. In return, 
however, the company must meet a series of significant requirements. 
First, it must build 9 hotels and 3 golf courses in this area within a 
28-year period which began in 1999. To date, two hotels and one golf 
course have been built to very impressive standards and have begun 
attracting tourists from around the world.
  While conducting extensive construction, the developers are required 
to preserve the environment. They must preserve 70 percent of the green 
areas and set aside two conservation zones. They have also put into 
place extensive water treatment and recycling and a project to 
repopulate the local forests with local species of plants. The 
developers have focused on the prevention of forest fires with great 
success. Before the project began, there were 18 consecutive years of 
forest fires during the dry season. Since development began, there have 
been six dry seasons without any fires.
  Finally, they must assist the local population. The company is 
required to build 2,000 residential units in the region. It must also 
provide additional funding and programs to the local schools and 
colleges.
  While in Costa Rica I learned that the day after my meeting with 
Venezuela's President Chavez, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made 
some critical comments about the Venezuelan leader during a visit to 
Peru. I was concerned that Mr. Rumsfeld's rhetoric had the potential to 
erode the progress we had made with President Chavez during our visit. 
Accordingly, I wrote to Secretary Rumsfeld and informed him of my 
meeting with Chavez and my belief that a window of opportunity had been 
opened to resolve our disagreement with Venezuela over drug 
interdiction policy. I suggested that, at least for the time being, we 
should have a moratorium on adverse comments about Venezuela.
  Our next and final destination was Mexico City, Mexico. Given our 
long common border, Mexico presents the greatest challenges and 
opportunities in the war on drugs and terror and on the immigration 
issue. Good relations with Mexico are crucial to both of our nations, 
and I was very glad for the opportunity to learn about these issues 
first hand.
  On my first morning in Mexico we were met at our hotel by our 
Ambassador, Antonio Garza. Prior to his assignment to Mexico, 
Ambassador Garza was elected Railroad Commissioner of Texas and 
appointed by then Governor Bush to be Texas's Secretary of State. 
Ambassador Garza has a detailed knowledge of the issues facing our two 
countries, and I believe he is serving us very well in Mexico.
  From the hotel we drove to the Mexican Foreign Ministry for a 
breakfast with a group of Mexican government officials to discuss the 
two most important issues before us: drugs and immigration. The group 
included Geronimo Gutierrez, Mexico's Under Secretary of Foreign 
Relations for North America, and Eduardo Medina Mora, the Director of 
Mexico's Center for National Security Investigations, Mexico's 
equivalent of the CIA.
  I began our breakfast by asking my hosts about the problem of the 
drug cartels and the recent violence in Nuevo Laredo, a town just south 
of the border with Texas, where rival cartels have been fighting each 
other in the streets with machine gins and rocket launchers. Mr. Mora 
informed us that the Mexican authorities have successfully prosecuted 
the leaders of some of the country's largest drug cartels, including a 
major cartel in Baja, California and the Gulf Cartel operating south of 
Texas. I was also informed that the U.S. has been providing crucial 
assistance in this effort. We have helped to train, equip and fund a 
new, professional Federal police force to replace its corrupt and 
inefficient predecessor. The new force currently stands at 7,000 
members. According to Mr. Mora, the next big challenge facing the 
Mexicans in the war on drugs is to replicate at the state and local 
level what they have accomplished at the Federal level by replacing 
ineffective and/or bribed police forces with professional police forces 
capable of winning the fight against the cartels. I was informed that 
the U.S. can be helpful in this effort much as we were in building the 
Federal police by providing money, equipment and training.
  Extradition of drug lords to the U.S. is a key component in this 
fight against the drug cartels. Mexican prisons fail to deter the drug 
lords, and there are stories of many who, through bribes, have been 
able to get everything they need to manage their empires from behind 
bars. I have been told repeatedly, however, that Mexican drug lords are 
terrified by the prospect of being jailed in U.S. prisons where they 
serve hard time.
  Unfortunately, the Mexican courts have created a serious impediment 
to extradition to the U.S. Like many European countries, Mexico is 
opposed to the death penalty and will not extradite an individual to 
the U.S. if that individual may face the death penalty upon conviction. 
Yet the Mexican courts have extended this policy in a unique way. Three 
years ago the Mexican Supreme Court held that life imprisonment without 
the possibility of parole is the equivalent of the death penalty since 
the prisoner will die in jail, and therefore a prisoner who would face 
a life sentence in the U.S. cannot be extradited. Other Mexican courts 
have gone so far as to declare that a 20-year sentence is the 
equivalent of the death penalty when imposed on a 60-year old convict, 
since someone of that age will likely die in prison.
  My Mexican hosts expressed displeasure with these court decisions and 
tell me they will seek their review. Still, despite these setbacks, 
extraditions are at their highest level ever, exceeding thirty a year 
in recent years. I suggested to my Mexican counterparts that we in the 
Judiciary Committee can work with our Department of Justice and local 
prosecutors to encourage them to file charges in a way that will 
facilitate extradition. U.S. prosecutors have secured the extradition 
of murderers from Europe by taking the death penalty off the table, and 
we can take similar steps to alleviate the concerns of the Mexicans. 
For example, Mexican law allows for a sentence as long as sixty years 
in the case of ``aggravated homicide.'' Thus if U.S. prosecutors agree 
not to seek a penalty greater than 60-years imprisonment, or to seek 
life imprisonment but with the

[[Page S10590]]

possibility of parole, it may well facilitate the extradition while 
still providing a serious sentence for the offenders.
  On the immigration front my hosts assured me that Mexico is making a 
serious effort to reduce the traffic of illegal immigrants from Mexico 
into the United States. These efforts are largely focused on limiting 
the flow of illegals from third countries as opposed to the flow of 
Mexicans themselves. Before they seek to illegally enter the United 
States, hundreds of thousands of would-be immigrants from South and 
Central American must first illegally enter Mexico. But Mexico is 
cracking down on these illegals and is deporting them back to their 
home countries in large numbers. I was informed that last year the 
Mexicans deported over 200,000 such illegals. The Mexicans are also 
requiring visas for visitors from countries such as Brazil and Ecuador 
who did not previously need them.
  The Mexicans have also agreed to permit the U.S. to implement an 
interior repatriation program. Typically, when we catch an illegal 
immigrant, we deposit them on the other side of our border with Mexico 
where they are tantalizingly close to the United States and likely to 
try again to enter. Under the interior repatriation program, we fly 
those illegals who wish it all the way back to their home towns and 
villages. Once home, far away from the border, they are far less likely 
to try again. So far, this program has returned 13,000 illegal 
immigrants to their homes in Mexico.
  From the Mexican Foreign Ministry we drove to the United States 
Embassy, where I was greeted by over 30 representatives of the Embassy 
and other U.S. agencies for a briefing on our drug and counter-terror 
efforts. This briefing largely confirmed what I had learned earlier in 
the day from the Mexican officials. Larry Holifield, the regional 
director of the DEA for Mexico and Central America, described the great 
cooperation between our DEA and their Mexican counterparts, including 
permission to conduct wiretaps and joint operations where vetted 
Mexican police units act on U.S. intelligence tips to take down members 
of the drug cartels. He and others spoke about the help we have 
provided to the Mexicans in building their police force and how 
effective this has been.
  Greg Stephens of the Department of Justice confirmed that the 
Mexicans are getting better on extradition. As of 6 years ago the 
Mexicans had never extradited a Mexican citizen to the United States 
Last year the Mexicans extradited 34 people to the United States and 
are on track to extradite a similar number this year. Renee Harris of 
U.S. Customs and Border Control spoke about the internal repatriation 
program and agreed that it was working, although she would like to see 
more help from the Mexican government in publicizing the program to its 
citizens. In response to my question about what more we can to stem the 
flow of illegal immigrants, Ms. Harris responded with a familiar 
refrain: we can provide more technology, equipment and training.
  Following this meeting, we drove to the offices of the Mexican 
President, Vicente Fox. Before our meeting with the President began, I 
had the opportunity to sit down with Mexican Attorney General Daniel 
Francisco Cabeza de Vaca. I asked Attorney General Cabeza de Vaca about 
the extradition issue and if it would help if we agreed not to seek a 
sentence of longer than 60 years for anyone extradited to the United 
States from Mexico. The Attorney General thought this would help, and 
told me that he had discussed this topic directly with Attorney General 
Gonzales. He also believed that the problematic Supreme Court decision 
would be reviewed.
  I asked the attorney General about the situation in Nuevo Laredo, and 
he expressed confidence that the situation was improving. He told me 
that the Federal Government had sent over 1,500 police to the city and 
that some important arrests were made just last week. He praised the 
sharing of intelligence with the United States which has helped them to 
identify and detain targets. He said there were two phases to combating 
the violence in Nuevo Laredo. The first phase was to ensure the 
permanent presence of the Federal police and the army in the City. This 
has already been accomplished. The second phase was to improve local 
law enforcement and create a new and professional local police force 
which was not owned by the cartels. He expected to see a reduction in 
the level of violence very soon. The Attorney General also asked for my 
assistance in the matter. He told me that the warring cartels were 
using very high powered weapons, including 50 caliber machine guns and 
rocket launchers, and that these weapons were coming from the United 
States. I agreed to contact the ATF to see what could be done to stem 
the flow of such illegal weapons to Mexico.
  Next I was received by President Vicente Fox. Fox started off our 
meeting by telling me that it is vital for the United States, Canada 
and Mexico to work together on a variety of problems including 
immigration, counter narcotics, and terrorism. He noted that our three 
nations were losing jobs to Asia and needed to work jointly to bolster 
our economies.
  On the issue of violence in Nuevo Laredo and elsewhere, the President 
told me that Mexico has both a short term and a long-term approach. In 
the short term, Mexico has jailed 40,000 members of the drug cartels in 
a 4-year period. Among those in prison are six of the country's major 
drug lords. The President complained, however, that even while in jail 
some drug lords have been able to continue to run their syndicates by 
bribing prison guards for access to telephones and other means of 
communication. Fox then spoke in more general terms about the problem 
of police corruption at the local level. He noted that police earn a 
salary of $600 a month but are offered bribes in the thousands. In 
Nuevo Laredo alone, 1,100 policemen were fired from their jobs last 
month for corruption. The Federal Government has moved 1,000 policemen 
into the area to stem the violence.
  In the long term, President Fox told us that he is trying to foster 
greater cooperation between the Mexican Federal Government and the 
Mexican states. To do so would require passage of legislation that has 
long been pending in the Mexican Congress. President Fox's party 
controls neither house of Congress and so far this legislation has not 
been enacted. To emphasize the importance of better cooperation from 
local police, President Fox pointed out that there are approximately 
400,000 local police and only 10,000 Federal police. He also noted that 
approximately 95 percent of all crime consists of violation of state 
and local laws, while only 5 percent is Federal.
  On the issue of extradition, President Fox told me that he would like 
to extradite more criminals to the United States but is limited by what 
his Supreme Court has done. While he would like to see this opinion 
overruled, he is sensitive not to take any action which would be 
counter productive. But he is working hard in the fight against drugs. 
He told me that earlier that day he spent 2 hours with his counter 
narcotics experts. He plans to meet with the governors of Arizona and 
New Mexico to discuss the states of emergency that they have declared 
in response to the influx of illegal drugs and immigrants.
  On the violence in Nuevo Laredo, President Fox stated that the cause 
was the fight between rival drug cartels for control of the city. He is 
using his military in Nuevo Laredo. I told President Fox that I was not 
optimistic that the war over the drug cartels could be won having 
observed the problems in Colombia since the early 1980s and having now 
seen the problems in Venezuela and Costa Rica. I asked the President if 
he felt that war was winnable. President Fox replied that it would be 
very difficult to win the war on drugs as long as the demand for drugs 
remains strong. But he believes that the fight must continue.

                          ____________________