[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1656-1663]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         OUR WESTERN HEMISPHERE

  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, just days before the start of the 110th 
Congress, I had the great honor of traveling to Bolivia, Peru, and 
Ecuador in South America with our majority leader, Harry Reid, as well 
as four of my other colleagues: Senator Judd Gregg from New Hampshire, 
Senator Bob Bennett from Utah, Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota, 
and Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. It was a great and wonderful trip 
for me for a number of reasons.
  First, my own view is that over the last decade, and perhaps even 
more, this country has not paid enough attention to our relationship 
with Latin America and South America. For me, there is a special bond 
and relationship because of my own history in the Southwest of the 
United States. My family founded the city of Santa Fe, NM, now 409 
years or four centuries ago. So before Plymouth Rock was founded or 
Jamestown was founded, my family was already living in what is now the 
northern part of the State of New Mexico.
  The place I come from still bears the same names that were put on 
those places by the Spaniards who settled northern New Mexico and 
southern Colorado. There is our ranch in the San Luis Valley. When you 
look around to the mountains to the east, those mountain ranges are 
called the Sangre de Cristo Mountains or the Blood of Christ range. The 
mountain ranges in the west at 14,000 feet are named after John the 
Baptist, the San Juan Mountains, and the river that runs through our 
ranch is called the Rio San Antonio, the Saint Anthony River. That 
history has always created a very special bond with our neighbors to 
the south in Mexico and Central America and Latin America.
  When Senator Reid and the delegation of six Senators went to South 
America, it was important for me because what we were doing as a 
collective group was making a strong statement to Latin America that 
they are our friends and that we will be working closely with Latin 
America to make sure that the bond and the relationship between the 
United States of America and those countries to the south is a bond 
that is strong and one that will continue.
  I also was very pleased with the fact that it was a bipartisan 
delegation. As we met in those countries with the Presidents of Bolivia 
and Ecuador, it was important that we were one voice, telling the 
leaders of those countries that we would find ways in which we would 
strengthen the relationship between the United States and those 
countries. That signalled a friendship and mutual interest on the part 
of the U.S. Government to those countries, and it was very important.
  I believe we need to recommit ourselves to strengthening our 
relationships with Latin America. I also believe our failure to do so 
will imperil the U.S. strategic interests in fighting terrorism, 
combating drugs, and helping democratic governments throughout Latin 
America.
  Over 45 years ago, there was another Senator taking on a new role in 
our Nation's history in this city, and at that time he reached out to 
Latin America with a program that he called the Alliance for Progress. 
On March 13, 1961, as the Cold War was beginning to mushroom, President 
John Kennedy launched the Alliance for Progress--known in Spanish 
throughout Latin America as la Alianza del Progreso--with a vision to 
create a strong and united Western Hemisphere of nations. On that 
momentous day, President Kennedy spoke with remarkable clarity about 
our country's connection with Latin America. He said:

       We meet together as firm and ancient friends, united by 
     history and experience and by our determination to advance 
     the values of American civilization. This world of ours is 
     not merely an accident of geography. Our continents are bound 
     together by a common history. And our people share a common 
     heritage--the quest for the dignity and the freedom of man.

  The effort of the Alliance for Progress was not as successful as 
President Kennedy wished. Indeed, over the next half century, we 
witnessed political upheaval in many of the Latin American countries, 
and we saw strained relationships between the United States and some of 
these nations. But the Alliance for Progress did work to establish good 
will among the people of the Americas, and we can learn from its 
shortcomings as we continue to move forward.
  As we enter 2007, I hope our six Senators have begun to shine a 
spotlight on our strategic alliance with Latin America. Under that 
spotlight, you will find the difficult and complex issues of 
international trade, immigration, and the battles we wage together 
against the awful scourge of drugs which affects the populations of 
those countries as well as ours. We also face the challenge of 
increasing economic opportunity and eliminating poverty in that part of 
the world.
  Our first stop in South America was in Bolivia, which is one of the 
poorest countries in this hemisphere, with one of the largest 
indigenous populations in Latin America. We met with Bolivia's 
President, Evo Morales, who was sworn in in 2006 as the country's first 
indigenous President in its history. We spoke with President Morales 
about his concerns relating to coca production and our concerns about 
coca production in Bolivia. We also spoke to him about the interest of 
Bolivia in extending the Andean trade preferences agreement. I believe 
it was a productive dialog, but we must continue the dialog if we are 
to build a stronger relationship with the country of Bolivia and keep 
Bolivia from going down a path which ultimately will end up in 
opposition to the interests of the United States.
  We also there met with the U.S. Agency for International Development 
and learned about the scope and impact of their projects in Bolivia. 
USAID is working to create economic opportunities and alleviate 
poverty, which is so important to improving the lives of the Bolivian 
population.
  In Ecuador, we met with President Correa, who was busy preparing for 
his January 15 inauguration. He took time to meet with us, assembling 
his Cabinet and talking about the importance of the relationship 
between Ecuador and the United States. President Correa pledged to shut 
down the drug trafficking that is occurring in and around Ecuador and 
also raised the need to extend the Andean trade preferences program.
  When we visited the LatinFlor flower farm, we saw firsthand the 
impact of this trade program. It is creating thousands upon thousands 
of jobs for the people of Ecuador and keeping people there from being 
recruited by drug traffickers or from having to flee poverty through 
illegal immigration into the United States.
  In Peru, we met with President Alan Garcia. The United States and 
Peru have long had a strong and lasting relationship.
  In fact, during World War II, as Senator Reid reminded the President 
of Peru, Peru provided our country with the strategic materials that 
were necessary to carry on the war and allowed the United States to set 
up military bases in Peru and take the fight on in the South Pacific.
  President Garcia is very interested in seeing the U.S.-Peru free 
trade agreement approved by the U.S. Congress. While questions have 
been raised about this agreement, I am hopeful and confident that we 
will work through those issues. I look forward to learning more about 
this agreement and some of the issues that have been raised by some 
Members about the labor and environmental provisions of the agreement. 
I admire President Garcia's interest in formulating fundamental and 
long-lasting change for the poor people of Peru, to improve education, 
nutrition, and basic health services.
  I hope Democrats and Republicans can work together to lift all of the 
peoples of the Western Hemisphere to a place of hope and opportunity, 
including those who live in the margins to

[[Page 1657]]

the south of us. So now it is time for the United States of America to 
meet the eyes of our Latin American neighbors and to ensure that the 
many countries sharing our hemisphere will bequeath to our children a 
common land and future for the people of all the Americas.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I also rise to discuss the recent 
meetings we held in South America. The nature of the meetings has been 
outlined by the Senator from Colorado and, obviously, the majority 
leader.
  I think I should start by saying that I admire the majority leader 
for putting together the delegation--and I appreciate having 
participated in it--which was bipartisan. More importantly, the 
majority leader chose as his first outreach in the area of foreign 
policy, in the sense of his taking the status of majority leader of the 
Senate, which is a significant status, to go to these countries in 
South America--countries which, regrettably, we probably haven't put as 
much energy and effort into as we should have over the years, and 
countries that are important to us in a variety of ways. So I think his 
choice of these three nations--important nations that are major players 
in our neighborhood--was significant and appropriate. I appreciated the 
chance to participate in it.
  In all three of these nations we are seeing significant change--
change which I sort of sense is in a historical context of repeating, 
in many instances, past actions. South America has, unfortunately, had 
a history of going from democracy to military leadership to populace 
leadership and then back to democracy. These three nations have all 
recently held very democratic elections, and they have elected very 
outspoken leaders, some of whose views I agree with and some of whose I 
definitely do not agree with. But they are in the vortex of a movement 
in Central and South America involving the question of populace 
socialism as presented by, in part, obviously, Fidel Castro and, more 
recently, President Chavez of Venezuela. We have seen in that sort of a 
populist, socialist movement, a distinct antagonism toward democracy. 
In fact, Cuba hasn't had an election in 40 years. I don't know whether 
we will see a real election in Venezuela again in the foreseeable 
future. So I think it was important for us to show the American spirit, 
which is committed democracy, liberty, and individual rights, and 
having an electoral process that works--to show that spirit by coming 
to these three nations that recently held elections and elected new 
leadership.
  There are a lot of issues involving these nations. Bolivia and 
Ecuador and Peru have significant questions relative to poverty. But 
there are three issues which dominate our relationship with them, which 
have been discussed already, and which we discussed with their 
leadership extensively at different levels, starting with the 
Presidency of those three countries. Of course, the first is the 
question of illegal drugs such as cocaine.
  I think it is rather difficult for us as a nation to go to a country 
such as Bolivia, which is exporting cocaine products mostly to Europe, 
or Ecuador and Peru, which export it here--it is hard to go to those 
countries because we don't come with clean hands. Basically, we are the 
demand. As long as we have the demand in this Nation, which is so 
overwhelming, somebody is going to supply that demand. So we have put 
these nations at risk by us having our demand for the use of these 
illegal drugs, especially cocaine. I feel compassion for these nations 
in that we have undermined them by our Nation putting so much pressure 
on them regarding illegal trafficking. You have to admire their 
leaders.
  It was great to travel with the Senator from Colorado and his wife. 
It was nice to have an American face that spoke pure Spanish. It gave 
us a presentation that immediately gave us identity with those nations. 
So it was wonderful to have the Senator and his wife there, especially 
for those of us who allegedly spoke Spanish when we were in college but 
never really did. Each one of these Presidents was totally committed to 
fighting illegal drugs. They recognize the harm it is doing to their 
nations. So we want to support them in that effort.
  Secondly is the issue of immigration, which again, to some degree, 
you can understand their problem, which is that they have people who 
want to support their families and they come to America to do that, and 
a fair number come illegally. How we deal with that as a country is a 
big issue for us and for those nations. Money coming back into those 
countries as a result of Ecuadorians or Peruvians working in America 
and sending money back significantly contributes to their economy. They 
want to have the ability for their people to come here legally. We want 
to structure a system to help them.
  The reason people are leaving those countries goes to the third 
issue, which is trade. They need good jobs in their country. There are 
products that they can provide in their countries which, in the classic 
context of comparative advantage, they can do better than we can. The 
same is true vice versa. In fact, we can do a lot of things better than 
they can. So open and free trade is something they want. Every one of 
those leaders wants open and free trade with the U.S, which is a very 
positive attitude on their part because we can produce more products 
that they need, with value added, and they can produce products we 
need. I suspect we will be in a surplus fairly quickly with each one of 
these countries if we go to a true free market. That will raise the 
standard of living down there, which will relieve, to some degree, the 
pressure for illegal immigration to the U.S.
  So it works to our benefit, and not only from the standpoint of 
trade. One of the interesting statistics I saw in Peru was that trade 
from New Hampshire increased 880 percent over the last 2 years--that 
increase of New Hampshire-produced goods going into Peru. We started at 
a very low base, but a couple of corporations I am familiar with have 
significantly expanded economic activity in Peru and, as a result, the 
opportunity. So there are two pending agreements, one of which we 
extended, the Indian Free Trade Agreement and Drug Enforcement Act, and 
the other the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement. I especially think we need 
to address the second one.
  Peru has a government that is more market oriented, that is not 
pursuing nationalization or quasi-nationalization of any foreign 
investors there, as has happened in Ecuador and Bolivia. Therefore, we 
should be sympathetic to that government. This agreement is not going 
to significantly expand issues that are international in the sense of 
the free trade bite, and we have those issues with China, obviously, 
and Southeast Asia. To the extent there are environmental and labor 
issues with other countries, that is not in play relative to Peru. That 
is not that big an economy. The Peruvian agreement has been caught up, 
unfortunately, in this bigger contest in the Congress, and in the 
popular opinion of American political culture, on the issue of the 
bigger issue of free trade. We should try to separate it and move the 
Peruvian Free Trade Agreement forward promptly, if we can, recognizing 
that it will significantly improve our relationship with Peru and, more 
importantly, be a statement in the part of the world that we need to 
have a statement that we are committed to market forces in the face of 
what is clearly not occurring in Venezuela, which is where you are 
seeing massive nationalization and a compression and flattening of 
market forces and a flattening of democratic forces, and that is an 
issue about which we need to be concerned.
  If we can assist Peru and Bolivia and Ecuador in being more 
economically successful in using a market-oriented model, that is going 
to undermine the capacity of Venezuela to export their form of populace 
socialism, which in the end is going to lead, if they are successful, 
to undermining the quality of life throughout South and Central 
America.

[[Page 1658]]

  So it was, in my opinion, a very worthwhile trip. I learned a great 
deal and met a lot of interesting people. We had the opportunity to 
meet extraordinary people who worked in our State Department. Each one 
is a very talented and dedicated person. The people in the Peace Corps 
are extraordinary. The people working in the AID and microlending 
projects are doing good work and, of course, the government officials 
of each country, including the incoming Presidents. It was very 
valuable. I congratulate the majority leader for pursuing it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I join with my colleagues who were part 
of the delegation to Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. I also salute the 
majority leader, Senator Reid, for making as his first trip as majority 
leader one to these countries in our hemisphere. I think it sent a very 
important signal to those countries that America is interested in them, 
that America cares about them, and that we want to improve relations 
with them. It did make an impression.
  In country after country, people told us they could not remember the 
last time a Senate delegation from the United States had come. They 
could not recall a delegation of this size and this significance 
coming. You could tell it made an impression.
  Now, why was it important to go? I believe it was important to go 
because, first, we see Mr. Chavez, the head of Venezuela, attempting to 
put together an anti-American bloc in our Southern Hemisphere. Even a 
casual observer can see that is being attempted.
  After going to these countries and meeting with the Presidents of 
each--President Morales, President Correa, President Garcia, and their 
cabinets--meeting with our Ambassadors in each of the countries--our 
outstanding Ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg, our Ambassador to 
Ecuador, Linda Jewell, who impressed us all with her professionalism, 
and our Ambassador to Peru, James Struble, deeply knowledgeable, 
someone who has had wide-ranging experience all around the world--I can 
tell my colleagues that one of my impressions from this trip was the 
absolute excellence of our Foreign Service people in each of these 
countries. They were superb.
  But I was also deeply impressed by how serious Mr. Chavez is about 
putting together an anti-American block. In one country, he is buying 
30 radio stations, putting up 30 radio stations to influence public 
opinion. In other countries, he had interceded in the elections--some 
directly, others indirectly--in order to try to achieve a result. In 
fact, in Peru, he went so far as to openly endorse the candidate who 
lost to Mr. Garcia.
  It is very clear, if one goes country to country--Bolivia, Peru, and 
Ecuador--that Mr. Chavez is working actively and, I might say, hand in 
glove with the Cubans, to try to influence outcomes there. We see, and 
have seen in recent weeks, Mr. Chavez take a series of steps, in terms 
of expropriation, that I think ought to send a message about his 
intentions.
  This delegation consisted of the majority leader, Senator Reid, 
Senator Durbin, the majority whip, Senator Bennett, at the time of the 
trip the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Senator Gregg, at 
the time of the trip chairman of the Budget Committee, and Senator 
Salazar, who really did light up the faces of people in these countries 
as he speaks such perfect Spanish. One could tell what a difference 
that makes. My wife speaks some Spanish as well. Of course, Senator 
Salazar's wife is very fluent in Spanish. One could see how it lit up 
people's faces when those three members of our delegation spoke 
Spanish.
  In addition to the question of Mr. Chavez and his plans to create an 
anti-American bloc there were other important reasons for this trip. On 
trade, we have the Andean Trade Preferences Act that will expire. It 
was only extended for 6 months in the last Congress. Make no mistake, 
that Trade Preferences Act is critically important to the economies of 
these three countries. Literally, hundreds of thousands of jobs in 
those countries are at stake if the Andean Trade Preferences Act is not 
extended.
  I know there is some controversy attached to it, but if one sees the 
potential outcomes of a failure to extend the Andean Trade Preferences 
Act, one can see that the pressure for more people to come to this 
country will intensify and intensify dramatically. That is not in our 
interest. We already have millions of people from these three countries 
who are in our country, many of them illegally. That is a fact. If we 
want millions more to come, one way to assure that is to turn a blind 
eye to what is needed for those countries to have a chance to suceed.
  In country after country--these three countries--we learned that half 
the people are living on less than $2 a day. We are talking millions of 
people living on less than $2 a day. We saw poverty that was akin to 
walking back into time. People are living at a level of subsistence 
that is almost unimaginable, certainly unimaginable in our country. We 
have areas of great poverty, but to see people living literally in 
hovels and huts without electricity, without a clean water supply, 
other than a river flowing by, without sewage, without anything other 
than the most meager subsistence kind of life is jolting. A dramatic 
proportion of their populations being in that condition sends a very 
sobering signal about the challenge facing this hemisphere. So I think 
it was very important that Senator Reid chose as his first trip to go 
to countries such as Bolivia. Bolivia is the second poorest country in 
our hemisphere. Only Haiti is poorer.
  One of the reasons we learned that delegations are not necessarily 
eager to go to these countries is because they are at 13,000 feet, 
11,000 feet, and it takes a little adjustment to get used to it. One 
spends part of the time walking around with a headache. These are not 
places that are the first on most people's list of where they want to 
go. The fact that Senator Reid chose this as the first place that he 
would take a delegation sent an important message.
  Not only do we have this challenge of Mr. Chavez in Venezuela and the 
question of the Andean Trade Preferences Act that runs out because it 
was only extended 6 months in the last Congress, we also have the free-
trade agreement with Peru pending. That is a controversial matter. We 
understand that. In the House and the Senate, that is a controversial 
matter. We have been assured by the trade ambassador's office that they 
will seek to negotiate some of the labor provisions of that agreement 
in order to make it more acceptable and have a greater chance of 
passage. I welcome that indication from the trade ambassador's office, 
and I hope they pursue it aggressively.
  Still another important reason for this delegation going to Bolivia, 
Ecuador, and Peru is, of course, most of the illicit drug traffic comes 
out of the Andean region. Bolivia is increasingly a factor. Most of 
their product has not come to the United States, as Senator Gregg 
indicated, but we all know that the drug trade, once it rears its ugly 
head, has spillover effects everywhere.
  Peru, obviously, is an important drug-trafficking location, and 
President Garcia assured us of his absolute commitment to fight the 
drug trade. In fact, they told us of a commitment they had made in 
their budget to spend their money combating illicit drug trade in their 
country because they recognize the toxic and corrosive effect it will 
have in their society.
  We should salute President Garcia for stepping to the plate and 
committing funds in a place that is very hard pressed for money, as we 
are in a different way, that they are committing their own money to 
combating the illicit drug trade and at some substantial risk to 
themselves. Let's be clear, those drug cartels are vicious, they are 
murderous, and they are not averse to taking lives from those who 
oppose them.
  I want to indicate one exchange we had that I believe gives an 
example of why it is important to do this kind of outreach.
  In Bolivia, we heard rumors, discussions that the Government there 
believed there was a plot by the United

[[Page 1659]]

States to destabilize the Morales Government. When we met with 
President Morales, I raised that issue with him. I said: We have heard 
repeatedly you have concerns that there is a move by our Government to 
destabilize yours. I was able to tell him that our delegation had 
quizzed all aspects of our Government very closely on that question 
before we went into the meeting with him, and we were assured in 
significant detail that there is no such plan by our Government to 
destabilize the Morales Government, that, in fact, there has been no 
discussion of any move to destabilize his Government.
  He became very animated at that point and went through a series of 
examples of events that told him or at least that gave him concern that 
perhaps there is a plot by our Government to destabilize them. He was 
very specific. He talked about an American who went into the country 
and set off bombs in La Paz last year. He gave as a second example of 
American students who had taken his picture when he was with President 
Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He believed that was perhaps part of an 
American Government enterprise to spy on him. He cited the example of 
his Vice President being denied boarding rights to an American 
airliner.
  He felt all of these events were indicators--at least indicators to 
him--that perhaps the United States was seeking to destabilize his 
Government.
  Ambassador Goldberg was able to go through each of these examples 
with him and give him answers as to why these events had nothing to do 
with the United States. In the case of the American who set off bombs 
in La Paz, this is somebody traveling on a world federalist passport, 
illegal documents, had nothing to do with the United States--in fact, 
was an unstable person and recognized as such by our Government.
  On the question of the pictures being taken of President Chavez and 
President Morales, our Ambassador indicated that these were people who 
were fans of the two and were simply tourists taking pictures.
  On the question of boarding being denied the Vice President on an 
American airline, the Ambassador was able to point out that our 
Government then moved to make it right by providing our aircraft so 
that the Vice President of Bolivia could make the trip to the United 
States.
  I believe this trip was important in sending a signal. It was an 
important chance to communicate clearly and directly our interest in 
the region and our desire to improve relations. I am not naive. I don't 
think one trip is going to change the course of history. We know that 
there are serious challenges on our Southern border, but reaching out, 
talking with people, indicating that we have an interest in improving 
relations, sending a signal that the majority leader of the Senate, in 
his first foreign trip, is coming to these countries--impoverished 
countries, countries that are not exactly on the list of countries that 
people might visit--I think was important and productive.
  I thank the majority leader for leading this delegation. I thank the 
other Members. My wife and I found it an exceptional group of people. 
The people who were on this delegation--Senator Reid, Senator Durbin, 
Senator Bennett, Senator Gregg, and Senator Salazar--did an exceptional 
job of representing this country.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, as we have a debate around here about 
ethics and congressional perks and all of the rest of those issues, I 
am interested to find some Members of my own party, at least in the 
other body, boasting that they do not even have a passport, that they 
are so focused on their jobs that they don't do any foreign travel at 
all. When I was a newly elected Senator, the then-Republican leader, 
Bob Dole, took me and a number of other freshmen up to New Jersey to 
spend a day with former President Richard Nixon. Whatever you might 
think of Richard Nixon, I think you might confess he had a grasp of 
foreign affairs that was perhaps unparalleled. And he will be 
remembered, along with his other problems, for his opening to China, 
for his level of detente with Russia, and the other things he did in 
the foreign affairs field.
  As we sat with him, one of the first things he said to us was: You 
cannot do your jobs as Senators if you do not travel. You need to be 
overseas. You need to be in these other countries. He said: I know the 
press will criticize you for it, but it is essential that you do it.
  I have taken his advice. I have discovered he was right. The press 
does criticize us for it. There were articles in the Washington Post 
saying: What are these people doing viewing Inca ruins on a holiday at 
taxpayer expense, as if the whole purpose was some kind of 
congressional junket. And there would sit some of my friends in the 
House, smug in their assurance they didn't even have a passport and 
they were never going to be criticized for doing this.
  The fact is, Nixon was right--not only for the things we learn when 
we travel but also for the messages we send when we travel. The 
majority leader had to go over the holiday period because his schedule 
was so full with other demands that this was the only time he could get 
away. I was honored and very much pleased when he asked me to come 
along. The fact that he made it a bipartisan delegation demonstrates 
his determination to make these trips have an impact both at home and 
abroad. It did have an impact on the six of us who were there. We have 
now come back with an understanding of trade issues in ways that you 
could not get reading a newspaper or, as one paper said: Why couldn't 
he find out these facts by getting on the telephone? Well, we went to a 
flower farm where it was pointed out to us, and we saw specific 
evidence, that the efforts to raise potatoes in Ecuador or corn or 
wheat may sound good in a political situation, as some Ecuadorian 
politicians are saying, but the climate and the altitude say they 
should be raising flowers. It gave a flavor to the whole question of 
free trade around the world when we realized the most efficient place 
to raise corn is in the Great Plains of the United States, and the most 
efficient place to raise baby's breath or roses is in the high 
altitudes and sunshine of Ecuador.
  The fellow who was running the plant said to us: All we are doing is 
harvesting the sunshine and sending it abroad, and these people have 
jobs which they would not otherwise have. And this soil and this 
altitude means raising corn would be crazy. So let the Americans raise 
corn and ship it to Ecuador, and let the Ecuadorians raise roses and 
ship them to us.
  Being there, seeing the plant, seeing the people at work, seeing the 
conditions they were under is worth 10,000 phone calls to have somebody 
try to explain it to us. But perhaps more importantly, on the political 
level, what Senator Conrad was talking about, showing up in three 
countries that have not seen a significant congressional delegation in 
anybody's memory was a big deal. The press was everywhere. We were on 
the front page of the newspapers. We were on all of the television 
stations. The Ecuadorians gave us each a Panama hat. The Panama hat is 
misnamed. It has always been produced in Ecuador, but for some reason 
it got labeled the Panama hat. I wore mine. I was not an important 
member of the delegation as far as title is concerned, but I got on 
television because I was wearing a Panama hat. The Ecuadorians took 
sufficient pride in that I found the cameras following me around, just 
to say here is a U.S. Senator who is wearing one of our local products. 
I don't know how much good that did, but it can't have done any harm.
  Senator Reid handled himself with his usual good taste and aplomb in 
all of the exchanges and all of the press opportunities he had. No 
matter how much the Presidents of some of these countries who have an 
anti-American background might resent the Americans, they could not, in 
the presence of six American Senators, including the Senate majority 
leader, not be impressed. They could not not be tempered in their 
attitudes toward the

[[Page 1660]]

United States. And some of these Presidents who have the reputation of 
anti-Americanism in the meetings with others in addition to us were 
very gracious, and then ultimately in the presence of these Senators, 
outgoing in their praise of the United States and their delight at 
having this kind of delegation. Every single Ambassador made it clear 
to us that by our being there, we made their jobs easier. We made their 
jobs better. We demonstrated an American interest.
  I was reminded when I was there on a congressional delegation of a 
statement I heard from the leader of a European country who opened the 
conversation by chiding us and saying: It has been too long since a 
Senator has been here. What is the matter? Aren't we important enough 
for you to come?
  Well, if a European country that sees Senators come through about 
every 6 months had that reaction when it had been over a year since a 
Senator came, how about a South American country that had never seen a 
Senator in the lifetime of that particular administration.
  So, again, we who were on the trip were well served by the things we 
learned. I have just given one quick example. My colleagues will give 
others. But just as importantly, the United States was well served in 
terms of the impact this kind of travel made on those countries that 
had not seen senatorial delegations.
  So I intend for the rest of my Senate career to follow Richard 
Nixon's advice when he said: You cannot do your job if you don't 
travel. And I would urge those who somehow think they can get a little 
cheap publicity in the United States by saying: I am above that, I 
don't accept all of that travel--you are being derelict in your duty.
  Nixon made one other comment. He said: Yes, I know the press will 
criticize you, but it makes great speech material when you get home. I 
hope that has been the case for those of us here today from whom the 
Senate has heard.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me thank my colleague from Utah for 
his remarks and for joining us on this trip, this official trip which 
Senator Reid, our majority leader, put together. Senator Bennett is 
correct. Members of Congress have to make a decision early in their 
career: Are they going to travel? I think it has been one of the most 
valuable experiences of my public life. I have made a point of always 
announcing in advance where I am going and why I am going, giving full 
disclosure so that people know. I can say without exception that every 
time I have taken a trip, carefully planned, I have come back with a 
better knowledge of the world and a better appreciation of our home.
  I have learned things on these trips I just could not appreciate 
reading in a book. I have met people on these trips who have changed my 
life. I don't say that loosely; I mean it.
  Over 15 years ago, I met a man in Bangladesh named Muhammad Yunus. We 
had gone to Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries on Earth. This 
economics professor took us out to show us that he was testing a 
concept from his economics class called micro credit. He believed--this 
professor believed--that if you loan a small amount of money to the 
poorest people on Earth, they would pay it back, and that that small 
amount of money would change their lives. A simple concept, but he was 
out to prove it would work, and he proved it over and over again until 
that concept reached 100 million people on the face of the Earth. That 
man was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I met Muhammad Yunus on 
an official trip. I have fought for micro credit ever since, and I 
consider him a real inspiration to my public life.
  The same is true about Africa. When I finally was able to go to 
Africa, looking at micro credit food programs, I was hit smack dab 
between the eyes by the global AIDS crisis. It changed my public 
service. I came back and established the first bipartisan global AIDS 
caucus on Capitol Hill and have fought every single year to fight for 
more money to fight this scourge, this epidemic of AIDS. We have now 
put together an additional $1 billion in money added to budgets, $1 
billion to be spent around the world saving lives. It has made a real 
difference, and it was the result of an official trip where I saw 
firsthand what AIDS was doing to that great continent of Africa.
  So I would say to my colleagues and my critics, I believe that 
Members of Congress should be compelled and required to travel overseas 
every single year and should account for their travel and account for 
their refusal to travel. We have to understand that these trips help us 
in public service, help to project the image of our country, and help 
us to reach a new level of understanding with leaders around the world. 
This trip was no exception.
  Why would we go to Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru? Of all places on 
Earth, why would we go there? The first trip by the majority leader, 
Harry Reid, was scheduled to this region of the world, and I know that 
many of the leaders down there were surprised, as well, to see us. It 
is one of the poorest places on Earth. Bolivia is the second poorest 
nation in our hemisphere next to Haiti. The people there struggle to 
survive, the majority of them on fewer than $2 a day.
  We met with indigenous Bolivian Evo Morales, now President of that 
country, elected in a free election. We fear that he will lean toward 
the Chavez model of government, and we hope he will be more open 
minded. This trip helped us to deliver a message. As Senator Conrad 
mentioned earlier, he has misgivings about his relationship with the 
United States. I think what we had to say to him in our meeting with 
him, and Senator Harry Reid's insistence that we respect the 
sovereignty of his nation, was important, a very important thing for 
him to see.
  Bolivia itself is a fascinating country in many respects--very 
entrepreneurial, with a sense of street justice which you don't find in 
many poor countries around the world. But I left there with a better 
understanding of the challenges facing them.
  Going on to Ecuador, there was a special meeting with the President-
elect, now President Rafael Correa. I felt a special attachment to 
President-elect Correa because in the year 2001 he received a Ph.D. in 
economics from the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana. We joked 
about it, and we joked about his experience living in the United 
States. That evening I got to meet his wife born in Belgium. She served 
as a special education teacher in Champagne, IL. I say that because 
those linkages between the United States and the new leadership of 
Ecuador are valuable. He saw America firsthand. He said to his friends 
in Ecuador: What I like about America is they don't ask you your 
mother's lineage. They just want to know who you are, not whether you 
come from some aristocratic stock.
  That is a good lesson to learn in America. It is a good lesson to 
apply around the world. It says a lot about us and our values.
  We went on to Peru as well. There aren't a lot of delegations that 
visit Peru. I am glad we did. President Garcia is a real friend. In 
World War II Peru was one of our earliest allies, and they are proud of 
it. Our standing with Peru as a nation couldn't be better, and it gets 
better by the year. It tells us, though, that we have critics around 
the world.
  First, let me say if someone stopped me on the streets of Chicago and 
said: Senator Durbin, why in the world did you go to Bolivia and 
Ecuador and Peru, I would ask them one question: Do you think narcotics 
are a problem in America? I know the answer. The answer is obvious: a 
big problem. Not just a problem for law enforcement but for families 
and children, a great expense and a great danger caused by these 
narcotics, and the Andean region of the world that we visited supplies 
100 percent of the cocaine that comes to the United States.
  When Senator Reid and Senator Bennett and others and I went to these 
countries, we sat down with our Ambassadors, we sat down with the Drug 
Enforcement Agency, we sat through classified briefings and talked 
about our cooperative efforts with these nations to stop this flow of 
narcotics.

[[Page 1661]]

 That is a priority for this Senator, and I am sure it is a priority 
for many others. By meeting and encouraging these leaders to continue 
to cooperate with the United States, I think it is going to help to 
make our Nation safer. When we hear firsthand from the President of 
Bolivia that he believes he is being shortchanged in bilateral 
assistance from the United States compared to other countries, it is a 
legitimate point and one that we brought home and one on which we will 
follow through. We want to make sure the flow of narcotics is reduced. 
We want to make America safer, reduce drug crime, and it starts with an 
understanding between Senators and leaders in these countries that we 
have the same goals.
  Let me say one thing before I turn it over to our majority leader. 
How do we project the image of the United States? We believe that five 
or six Senators bringing that message is an important part of it but a 
tiny part of it. When we visited Bolivia, Senator Reid, I believe, 
asked the question: What is the presence of Cuba in Bolivia? The answer 
is an important one for us to reflect on. Today, out of about 20,000 
medical doctors in Bolivia, 1,500 come from Cuba, another 5,000 
classroom teachers come from Cuba. When we asked, in Bolivia, our 
Ambassador what are we doing, he said the United States is making 
substantial investments in infrastructure. Stop for a moment and think 
about it. Which version of the world, which message, will have more 
impact: A message delivered to a person in Bolivia in a clinic or a 
classroom or a message delivered on a sign next to a stretch of 
concrete? Not to diminish the importance of infrastructure, but the 
fact is those Ambassadors of Mr. Castro's view of the world are going 
to have an impact on the people they help far beyond what impact we 
will have by building this infrastructure.
  Senator Reid makes it a point on his trips and I make it a point on 
mine to meet with Peace Corps volunteers. We had great meetings in 
Ecuador. Some of these great American kids--I shouldn't call them kids; 
young men and women, some not so young--who are Peace Corps volunteers 
literally spent over 12 hours on an overnight bus to make it to a 
luncheon. We had a great time. We talked. I had a chance to meet a 
couple of them from the State of Illinois. Andrew Wiemers from 
Galesburg was one of them. We talked about the challenges we faced, and 
we talked about how proud we were that they were, for little or no 
money, giving 2 years of their lives to tell the American story by 
giving, by helping. They are making a difference. But around the world, 
there are only 7,000 Peace Corps volunteers. I think we can do more, 
and I think we need to do better. We can stretch ourselves and stretch 
our message out to parts of the world that have the wrong message of 
the United States.
  When John Kennedy was President, he took a hard look at Central and 
South America for the first time, understanding that in the history of 
that region, many times our Government and private interests in the 
United States have exploited it. He created a new opportunity. He 
called it the Alliance For Progress. And President Kennedy's name is 
sacred now in this part of the world because of his recognition that 
they were not just our neighbors but our friends and potential allies.
  We have to renew that conversation. It starts with official trips 
such as these. It starts when we bring our message back to the 
Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. But it can't end there. We have 
to make sure the legislation we consider, the policies of this country, 
and our relationships continue to grow.
  I will say to those who criticize the official trips by Members of 
Congress, they don't understand the world in which we live. We have a 
special responsibility to learn about this world, to tell our message 
to people around the world and come back with our knowledge and share 
it with our colleagues. It is important for us as Members of Congress 
to spend time together in these settings. It builds friendships and 
alliances and relationships that on the floor of the Senate I have 
already seen in a few short weeks have paid off. That level of comity, 
that level of dialog, leads to a more civilized Senate and a better 
work product at the end of the day.
  I thank Senator Reid for inviting me to be part of this trip, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, how much time does the majority leader 
have in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask that the time of the minority be 
extended. I will complete my remarks, if not in 5 minutes, shortly 
thereafter. But whatever time I expend, I ask that time be given to 
Republicans so they have a matching amount of time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I so appreciate the statements of my 
colleagues who traveled with me to South America. As has been 
indicated, Bolivia, if not the poorest country in this hemisphere, is 
the second poorest. You land in an airport, the highest airport in the 
world--13,400 feet. As my distinguished friend, the Senator from Utah, 
said, President Nixon said that people should travel, Members of 
Congress. I use as an example Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was an anti-
Communist, and that is an understatement, but Ronald Reagan always 
spoke to his enemies. But for Ronald Reagan's insistence that there be 
bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union on a constant, frequent 
basis, I am not sure the Cold War would have ended. Not only did he 
personally meet with the Soviet leaders time after time, people working 
in his State Department were in constant contact with the Soviet Union.
  Members of Congress should travel. There is no better example than 
these three countries to which we traveled. They are begging for the 
attention of the United States, and they are getting no attention. They 
are not begging for the attention of Venezuela and Cuba, but they are 
getting lots of attention. As a result of that, they have a significant 
amount of influence where the United States should be the one exerting 
the influence.
  They want us to be involved. We should be involved. Ninety percent of 
the cocaine in the world comes from the Andean region. Shouldn't we be 
involved? But we are not. We set up programs to help them fight the 
illicit growing and production and transmission of illegal narcotics--
and we are cutting back on those moneys. They are limited amounts, 
anyway. These little democracies cannot afford to do this on their own. 
It is unpopular for them to do that. The President of Bolivia was the 
head of a union of coca farmers. He wants to fight the illicit drug 
trafficking, but he needs our help, as does the President of Ecuador. 
The most biodiverse nation in the world is Ecuador.
  The President of Peru loves America. He was effusive in his praise 
for America. Why can't we help more?
  I wish to mention a couple of things. First of all, the hidden heroes 
of our Government are our Foreign Service officers. I have been in 
Congress now going on 25 years. My first tour of duty was in the House 
of Representatives. I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and 
learned to travel at that time, and rightfully so. I traveled with 
great chairmen, such as Clem Zablocki from Wisconsin and Dante Fascell 
from Florida.
  I have come to learn that our diplomats, our Foreign Service 
officers, are the cream of the crop. To become a Foreign Service 
officer, you have to be very smart and very interested in what goes on 
in the world. They are the best. They are wonderful people. Every place 
I go when I travel, I tell these Foreign Service officers something 
they don't hear very often: They are the difference between America 
having relations with these countries and not having them.
  Ambassadors to these three countries are great human beings. Philip 
Goldberg in Bolivia--what a tremendous job he is doing, working day and 
night to improve relations between our country and Bolivia. In Ecuador 
is a distinguished woman who has a great diplomatic career. She has a 
smile that is contagious--Linda Jewell. She is doing

[[Page 1662]]

great work for us in Ecuador; and in Peru, James Curtis Struble, a real 
professional. I have so much warmth for the work these people do. They 
go to the remote parts of the world. Every time I meet an ambassador, I 
say: Where have you been? And you should hear where they have been--the 
most remote places in the world, starting off as a political officer, 
economic officer, places where they handle visas, and they work their 
way up through the ranks. These Ambassadors are similar to a four-star 
general. I think we only have 140 Ambassadors, and they are the best, 
the cream of the crop. If you see a person who has been appointed 
Ambassador through the career State Department offices, they are the 
best. They are all Americans. They are generals; they are admirals. I 
so admire the work they do.
  Then, as Senator Durbin mentioned, every place I go, I talk to the 
Peace Corps volunteers. We only have, in the world, a little over 7,000 
of them. We should have 70,000 Peace Corps volunteers. A woman from 
Reno, NV, traveled 20 hours to meet me in Ecuador, to have lunch with 
me in Ecuador. This is her tour of duty as a Peace Corps volunteer. One 
Peace Corps volunteer from Nevada has a master's degree in biology. She 
works in public health. Another Foreign Service officer from Nevada 
works with troubled youth. She showed me her pictures. Her father came 
to visit her. He lives in New York. He came to see her and where she 
lives, and when he saw her, he started crying. He said: I expected more 
than this for my daughter. After he left, after visiting his daughter, 
he cried with joy, recognizing what this woman does for mankind. That 
is what Peace Corps volunteers do.
  This was a wonderful trip. We need to compete with Cuba and Venezuela 
in this part of the world and other parts of the world or we are going 
to lose these democracies.
  I have to be very candid with you, Madam President. The snide 
remarks, the cute little things people write in newspapers about trips 
taken by Members of Congress, I resent them, and I think it does the 
American public a disservice. I am going to continue to travel in spite 
of what the newspapers say because I believe I am serving my country by 
doing that.
  With America's attention focused on the Middle East, South America 
does not get the attention that it deserves, particularly the three 
countries we visited--Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru.
  And when the world does focus on South America, it is with increased 
concern over the region's leftward turn, and the inflammatory rhetoric 
issued by several of the region's leaders criticizing our Government.
  There is no doubt that there are serious problems in the region. 
There is also no question that the Bush administration has neglected 
the region, and its lack of a comprehensive policy has contributed to 
this current trend.
  Venezuela and Cuba have been filling a vacuum, attempting to pull the 
region to the left.
  But I do not think we should be deterred by this trend. We have much 
to gain through increased engagement with South America--and much to 
lose if we retreat from our obligations to the region. We can and must 
do more.
  On our trip, we had productive meetings with the leaders of Bolivia, 
Ecuador, and Peru. Most importantly, we came away from our visit with 
an appreciation for the people of these three important nations, and an 
awareness of the key issues confronting them.
  Our first stop was Bolivia, where we had an amicable discussion with 
President Evo Morales. Much has been said about the somewhat difficult 
relationship the United States has encountered with President Morales, 
but we were able to set forth our concerns about increased coca 
production, the rule of law, and the periodic expressions of anti-
Americanism. President Morales also laid out each of his grievances 
about the U.S. We did not always agree, but we had a very honest and 
open exchange, and that is what close relationships require.
  I was also pleased to see the devoted engagement of our Ambassador 
Philip Goldberg and his diplomatic team in La Paz. Their insight will 
be particularly crucial in monitoring the current Bolivian 
constitutional crisis. We will have to watch these developments 
closely. We truly hope that whatever happens, Bolivian democracy and 
Bolivian democratic institutions are strengthened, not weakened. That 
would be the right result for Bolivia, for the region, and for the 
relationship with the United States.
  Then it was on to Ecuador, the most bio-diverse country in the world. 
From its snow capped peaks, to the Galapagos Islands, to the Amazon 
Rain Forest--Ecuador is an environmental treasure. My son spent 2 years 
there years ago, and to this day, still speaks of his days in Ecuador. 
After being there, I can understand why Ecuador made such an impact on 
him.
  We were pleased that, although he had not even been sworn in yet, 
President Correa assembled his new cabinet to meet with our delegation. 
He seemed quite aware that Ecuador risks becoming a transit hub for 
narco-trafficking in the region, and vowed to take swift action to shut 
down the trafficking in and around Ecuador.
  Ecuador is the home of the U.S. Forward Operating Location at Manta, 
which plays a key role in the multilateral approach to fighting the war 
on drugs. The mission at Manta advances the joint interest that the 
United States and Ecuador have in curbing the illegal flow of drugs. 
The American presence at Manta also contributes around $6.5 million a 
year to the local economy. We hope that this can be the start of a 
constructive dialogue on this issue, through which the Ecuadorian 
Government will come to realize the benefits yielded from the Forward 
Operating Location at Manta.
  Peru, our final stop, must also contend with the problem of drug 
trafficking. But Peru's President, Alan Garcia, is a leader committed 
to meeting this challenge. We had such a good meeting with President 
Garcia, a pro-democracy, pro-capitalist and pro-American leader. I am 
very grateful for the graciousness he showed to our delegation.
  President Garcia possesses a keen understanding of the dynamic of the 
region today, and desires to work together to combat the leftist 
ideology being promoted by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel 
Castro. He noted that, with Castro's possible passing, the U.S. has an 
opportunity to reengage in the region, and reach out to a new 
generation looking at the United States as a model for freedom, 
democracy and opportunity.
  Going forward, we must remember that the U.S. and South America will 
continue to have its ups and downs. But all relationships do. The six 
of us took this trip because we know that existing relationships must 
be cultivated and tended to in order to keep them healthy and strong.
  There is so much more we can do here at home. Our delegation intends 
to meet with the Secretary of State in the coming weeks to relay to her 
the small things the U.S. Government do to improve our position in the 
region. For example, I believe: we should be doing more with IMET 
assistance, which in addition to the training program, proves so 
valuable to developing longstanding relationships between military 
officers the United States and the IMET beneficiary; we need to 
increase the USAID budgets for these nations. We learned that Ecuador's 
aid budget will be cut considerably, from $35 million to under $20 
million, and I believe that is a mistake. One thing we learned is how 
far a few U.S. dollars can go; and we also need to do more to support 
micro-lending and the counter-drug efforts of the Andean region, in 
order to keep cocaine off the streets of the United States. I was 
disturbed to learn that the State Department is contemplating 
significant cuts to the Andean Counter-drug Program. That, too, would 
be a serious mistake, and I plan on raising the issue with the 
Secretary of State.
  Finally, I think it is important to extend the trade preferences for 
Ecuador and Bolivia. I also know that Peru is eager to get its Free 
Trade Agreement finalized, and this is something that Congress needs to 
address in the coming year.

[[Page 1663]]

  Through increased trade, more robust aid and exchange programs, and 
stronger diplomacy to this region, the United States can help lift many 
people out of poverty, improve economic conditions, which would have a 
significant impact on illegal immigration to the United States. We 
would also help counteract the region's shift to the left. In short, 
the people of this region want stronger ties with the United States, 
and that is what we should aim to deliver.
  The Andean region is not lost to us; its challenges provide us with 
an opportunity which we must seize. With more sustained engagement, we 
can win it back again.
  I thank my colleagues for joining me on the floor to talk about this 
important issue today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I assume this starts this side's period 
of morning business, to be extended to what time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority has 62 minutes.

                          ____________________