“In the wake of President Bush’s multi-stop Latin American tour, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) offered a stinging critique of the Bush administration’s overall Latin American policy and provided further details on his social investment and economic development fund to spur growth in the region. The lawmaker said President Bush is engaging Latin America far too late into his presidency, but that there is still an opportunity to make a sincere and lasting contribution to the development of the Western Hemisphere.
“I think President Bush
should have taken this trip a long time ago,” Menendez said. “Because he ignored the hemisphere for the first six years of his presidency, President Bush’s trip was nominally characterized as an anti- Chavez trip. The president, honestly, set himself up for this situation. Some have called me a long-time critic of the Bush administration policy towards the Western Hemisphere. Frankly, I believe it is more accurate to say I have been a long-time critic of the Bush administration’s lack of policy. Their only policy has been trade and counter-narcotics, along with a myopic tendency to only respond to crises rather than engage on a regular basis.”
Citing rising Latino gang violence, narcotics trafficking, and destruction of the Amazon, Menendez said failure to properly invest in the Western Hemisphere could facilitate more ominous troubles for the U.S.
“I believe that it is in the national interest and national security interest of the United States to work to address challenges in the Western Hemisphere,” he said. “By reducing problems in the hemisphere, we are actually fixing problems here at home.”
Menendez said his Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas will provide a total of $2.5 billion dollars over the next five years for housing, healthcare, and education in Latin America. When previously introduced in the House of Representatives, the fund had support from the business community, religious organizations, development groups, as well as, Hispanic organizations. This fund will be equally managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Inter-American Development Bank. Menendez reiterated plans to introduce this measure within the coming weeks.
“One goal of this bill is to tackle poverty and inequality, increase the middle class, and focus on the most important issues in people’s everyday lives: education, healthcare, housing, security, and economic development,” Menendez said. “We want to send a clear message to the hemisphere, just as the European Union did to its future members. The United States has set out new criteria and standards both with the MCC and Secretary Rice’s new transformational development plan. The goal of my legislation is to help countries, and regions of countries, meet those new standards. Our message is if countries haven’t yet met these standards, we are here to work in partnership to help them.”
Senator Menendez’s speech as prepared for delivery.
First, I would like to thank Peter Hakim and the Inter-American Dialogue for all their hard work setting up this speech. I would also like to thank all of the Ambassadors for their hard work on behalf of the hemisphere and welcome everyone who is here today.
This week, many of Latin America’s most important leaders and thinkers visited Guatemala for the Inter-American Bank meetings.
Last week, President Bush visited Guatemala as part of his tour of the hemisphere.
But I wonder how many of Guatemala’s recent visitors had time to see another side of Guatemala’s multi-faceted landscape-that of her children.
Guatemala ranks 6th out of the entire world for chronic malnutrition, with the highest rate of malnutrition in the Latin America. Nearly 70 percent of the children who suffer from chronic malnutrition in Guatemala are indigenous.[1]
Let me quote from a recent article in the Miami Herald,
“Three-year-old Antonio’s patchy skin is thin and saggy, like that of a shrunken old man. But his cries sound more like a newborn’s whine. And although his head seems much too large for his frail body, it’s actually his body that is too small.
“Plopped on a wheelchair because he’s too weak to walk, Antonio’s crystal black eyes tend to wander until the smell of food penetrates the air and steaming bowls of beans pass before him. Then his mouth starts to salivate and he lets out a desperate whimper.
“But Antonio must wait until 10 other hungry children are set up with their meals. Only then can the nurse at the health center focus her attention on feeding the boy who doesn’t have the muscle coordination to feed himself.”[2]
While Antonio’s story is heartbreaking, it’s actually a success story. Antonio’s story is a success story because Antonio is being fed.
Antonio is being fed by international aid programs, including the United States, in Guatemala designed to reduce chronic malnutrition.
I start with the story of Antonio because I wonder how many people in the United States even know that a country right here in our own neighborhood is struggling with levels of starvation that are often seen in Africa.
I start with the story of Antonio because it is at the core of what I believe we must focus on in Latin America. We must focus on the basic issues affecting people’s lives in the hemisphere: food, housing, healthcare, education, and security.
I start with the story of Antonio because his story could actually impact us here at home. We know that immigrants leave their countries, not because they want to, but because they are driven to by economic need, desperation, or political strife.
I start with the story of Antonio because President Bush was just in Guatemala and while I know he saw a new business generated by USAID and by free trade, I hope he had a chance to see children like Antonio.
I start with the story of Antonio because I believe our work, meaning the work of the United States, in Latin America and the Caribbean must actually be about people– real people, some trying to improve their lives, others struggling to survive.
I start with the story of Antonio, because I believe the question we must answer here today is-How does Antonio’s story end? And what role will the United States play?
U.S.-Latin American Relations
I’m actually more optimistic about the answer to that question than I was a few years ago.
My first point today is that I believe we are at a tipping point for U.S.- Latin American relations. We are starting to see a bipartisan consensus emerge that we need a new strategy in the Hemisphere. In fact, we’re starting to see a bipartisan consensus that we need to focus on these crucial economic and social development issues.
Let me give you a few examples:
Senator Reid took his first international trip as the new Majority leader to Latin America. He could have gone anywhere in the world but he went to Latin America. He brought a bipartisan group of members with him and those members actually got up on the floor of the Senate to give speeches about Latin America policy.
Tom Shannon, the head of US policy towards the region at the State Department, said over the weekend, “What you are seeing is the emergence of a US that recognizes the social agenda of Latin America.”
President Bush himself said, “The working poor of Latin America need change.[3]” and how, “When our neighbors are prosperous and peaceful, it means better opportunities and more security for our own people.” Frankly, I feel like I can hear myself in their comments.
So, the question is why? Why are U.S. leaders finally taking an interest in Latin America?
First, the rise of Hugo Chavez has influenced some to take a new look at the Hemisphere. He has taken advantage of the leadership-vacuum the United States has left. In fact, as I’m sure many of you know, President Chavez recently proposed the creation of a Latin Development Bank which would be an alternative to the IDB and other multilateral lending institutions.
Second, China is emerging as an even larger player in the region. In addition to the billions they’ve invested already, they’ve also recently asked to become of member of the Inter-American development bank.[4]
Third, I believe the rise of Hispanics has also helped create a new interest in the hemisphere. Now, I am not arguing that Latinos have suddenly started lobbying Congress to increase aid to Latin America. But, with nearly 44 million Hispanics in the United States[5], and Hispanic migrants sending $60 billion[6] home in remittances a year, the United States has become tied to Latin America in a new way. And politicians understand that.
Finally, as contentious as the immigration debate has been, it has forced people to look at the issues, the root causes of immigration.
Bush Latin America policy
So, if you put all of these factors together, you can see why President Bush embarked on his trip.
Frankly, I think he should have taken this trip a long-time ago. Unfortunately, the President’s trip was characterized as an anti-Chavez trip. But by ignoring the Hemisphere for the first 6 years of his Presidency, the President set himself up for this situation.
As many of you know, I have been a long-time critic of Bush Administration policy towards the Hemisphere. Actually, I believe it is more accurate to say I have been a long-time critic of the Bush Administration’s lack of policy. Their only policy has been trade and counter-narcotics, along with a myopic tendency to only respond to crises rather than engage on a regular basis.
Even the Heritage Foundation agrees with me. “As President Bush prepares to depart for a six-day trip to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico, many are hopeful that the President’s most extensive trip to Latin America signals the Administration’s desire to refocus on issues of importance to the Western Hemisphere. The vacuum left by a lack of leadership in the region has resulted in the rise of radical populism and the deterioration of democratic institutions in a number of nations.”[7]
On top of ignoring the Hemisphere, the Administration made a bad situation worse when they started an elective war in Iraq based on false premises and false promises. As a result, U.S. influence is at an all time low in the hemisphere; The United States has simply lost our credibility.” As Arturo Valenzuela said recently, “Unfortunately, in over forty years of study of the region I have rarely seen a moment where there is as much mistrust of the United States and as strong a rejection of the U.S. posture in the World.”[8]
Ultimately, it is not what the President said on the trip that will make the difference; it is the actions he takes after this trip that count.
As Andres Oppenheimer said in a recent article,
“President Bush’s repeated claim during his weeklong Latin American tour that the United States feels ‘compassion’ toward the region stroked the wrong chord at the wrong time: It was seen in many countries as a condescending remark, which on top of that was not backed by a significant financial commitment.”
Or as Marcella Sanchez of the Washington Post put it,
“The administration’s hope is that Latin Americans will discover that Washington doesn’t really deserve their hostility. Apparently, all along it has had a positive agenda — even if the administration has appeared to make a darn good effort to conceal it: punishing in some way those who disagreed with Washington, and decreasing funding for developmental assistance, child survival and health programs.”
The President’s Budget
That’s why I believe that it’s time we had an honest discussion about America’s foreign aid to Latin America and the Caribbean.
Total Foreign Assistance
The President says that he’s nearly doubled foreign assistance to the region since 2001 going from $862 million in FY2001 to a requested $1.4 billion for FY2008.
But the fact is that the administration actually slashed total aid by almost 12 percent since 2000.
The administration conveniently fails to mention that they chose to use the year 2001 specifically because foreign assistance that year was unusually low, due to an accounting gimmick. Basically, all of the 2001 money for Plan Colombia was included in the previous year’s number. If you look at this graph, you can see what I’m talking about.
Core Development Funding
The President likes to say that he’s compassionate and the administration says they want to deal with core social development issues.
But the fact is that this Administration has actually proposed slashing core development funding.
Core development funding is the money that impacts children like Antonio. The Child Survival and Health and Development Assistance accounts provide funding to combat infectious diseases, promote child and maternal health, and improve education.
The reality is that under President Bush’s watch America has actually cut core development funding since 2001, going from a total of $324 million to $304 million, a 6.2% decrease in his proposed budget.
And in the President’s most recent (FY08) budget proposal, he recommends cutting these core development accounts by approximately 26 percent. (as compared to fiscal year 2006 enacted levels)
In fact, every year for the past four years, President Bush proposed to cut funding to core development accounts, with more severe cuts each year.
Millennium Challenge Corporation
The administration likes to point to the Millennium Challenge Corporation as proof that that they are involved in combating poverty in the region.
But the fact is that the full Millennium Challenge Compacts only benefit the poor in three countries in our Hemisphere - El Salvador www.mcc.gov/countries/elsalvador/index.php , Nicaragua, and Honduras.
That means, at most, only 4 percent of Latin America’s poor will see an increase in aid. That leaves 96 percent — or 213 million[9] — of Latin America’s poor facing serious cuts in development funding.
So clearly, the MCC, which we were promised would be additive, is not going to make up for the across the board cuts to the region.
Education Funding
The President likes to say that since 2004, the United States has provided more than $150 million for education programs in the region.
But the fact is that the President actually proposed a 52 percent cut for Basic Education funds for Latin America in his most recent budget. Let me say that again — a 52 percent cut. (from $62.2 million to $32.5 million from 2006 levels).
Frankly, I do not believe that we should be cutting funds to Latin America at a time when 81 million people leave in extreme poverty and nearly 40 percent of the total population lives in poverty.
What next?
I have just presented you with two conflicting pictures of the current situation.
On the one hand, we have a new emerging bipartisan consensus that the United States must do something different towards the Hemisphere.
On the other hand, we have a President whose budget doesn’t match his rhetoric.
If we are truly at a tipping point in U.S. policy, then we need to make sure it tips in the right direction.
And that’s why I’m here today.
I’m here today to say I take the President’s words seriously. And I invite him to work with us to find a new model of U.S. policy that is bipartisan and that is centered on the very social development issues he himself raised.
He has the opportunity to fulfill the promise he made at the beginning of his Presidency to put Latin America back on his agenda.
He has the opportunity to build on his relationship with the Hispanic community.
He has an opportunity to improve his legacy in the hemisphere.
And above all, he has the opportunity to pursue the national interests and security of the United States.
SIED Fund
That’s why I hope the President will support my proposal to create a new Social Investment and Economic Development fund for the Americas.
As many of you know, I introduced this bipartisan legislation four years ago and will be reintroducing it shortly.
One goal of this bill is to tackle poverty and inequality, increase the middle class, and focus on the most important issues in people’s everyday lives: education, healthcare, housing, security, and economic development.
The Fund will provide over $2.5 billion over the next five years split between the Inter-American Development Bank and USAID.
We want to send a clear message to the hemisphere, just as the European Union did to its future members. The United States has set out new criteria and standards both with the MCC and Secretary Rice’s new transformational development plan. The goal of this legislation is to help countries, and regions of countries, meet those new standards. Our message is — if countries haven’t yet met these standards, we are here to work in partnership to help them.
We’ve added some other innovative pieces to the legislation. The legislation:
— multiplies the money that the United States contributes. At the IDB, we’re creating a joint fund that includes both U.S. money and matching funds from other countries; — maximizes U.S. dollars by dividing the work between two different institutions with different sets of expertise. The IADB work will focus its strengths — working on economic development issues such as microfinance and remittances. USAID will focus on the basic development issues such as education and healthcare; — leverages private sector money by creating a venue for private sector contributions to projects that match their goals such as educating the workforce and improving investment climate; — requires funding and input from the recipient country. Each country will be required to contribute a certain percentage of the funds for the project; and — requires rigorous impact assessment to make sure our taxpayer money is well-spent. U.S. Interests in Latin America
I believe that it is in the national interest and national security interest of the United States to pass this legislation.
To start with, Latin America and the Caribbean is a nearby market for U.S. goods.
— 40 percent, or 210 billion dollars, of Latin American imports come from the United States. That number is far higher than what they import from anywhere else in the world.[10] — Latin America and the Caribbean send almost 50 percent, or 272 billion dollars, of their products to the United States, again, far higher than any other region of the world.[11] — It is certainly in the United States interest to strengthen the middle class in Latin America, a region of close to 550 million people, to increase the demand for U.S. goods and services.[12]
By reducing problems in the hemisphere, we are actually fixing problems here at home.
It is our national security interest to reduce crime in the hemisphere which hurts us here at home. The United States shares its gang problems with Central America. In the last two years, at least 1,274 gang members from the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) have been arrested in the United States.[13]
It is in our national security interest to ensure that chaos, possibly caused by unrest, isn’t used by terrorist looking for a location close to the United States.
It is in our national interest to stop the drug-trade before it hits our streets at home. Right now, roughly 90% of cocaine and over 50% of heroin imported to the U.S. comes from Latin America. We need to stop the drugs traffickers and provide a viable and sustainable alternative to those who are growing them.
It is in our national interests to create a stable and secure economic environment in our own neighborhood. Latin America is the leading source of immigration to the United States — this includes both undocumented and documented migrants[14]. People only leave their homes for two reasons economic desperation or political unrest
It is in our national interest to stop diseases before they cross the border into the United States.
It is in our national interest to stop destruction of rain forests in the Amazon as part of our response to global warming.
Conclusion
To conclude, I return to the story of Antonio and I ask again, what will be his future?
Let me be clear — I know that the answer to that question does not lie solely in the hands of the United States. In fact, I am convinced that it is only a joint effort with the Guatemalan government, the United States, our neighbors in the hemisphere, and the international donor community, that we will be able to fix these types of situations.
But recently, the United States simply hasn’t been doing its part. And it is time for that to change.
We see growing frustration in the region. We see growing frustration with poverty, crime, and lack of opportunity. We see growing frustration with the United States.
So, we have a choice: act now at a moment of renewed interest in the hemisphere or let things get worse.
Waiting will cost us more and the risks will be far more consequential.
It is time to stop paying lip-service to our friends in the region and to our own interests — it is time for real action.
I would remind everyone here that Antonio is only one example of one child from one country. We know that there are at least 90 million children, or almost 50% of all children on the continent, living in poverty throughout our hemisphere and at least 40 million children under the age of five suffering from malnutrition.[15]
The real question is-will the United States step back into a leadership role in our hemisphere? Will the United States show true compassion for our neighbors? Will the United States act in our own interest in our own neighborhood?
Will the United States act to change the lives of children like Antonio?
I believe the answer to that question is yes. And I urge you to join me as I try to tip the balance in U.S. policy to make real change in the hemisphere.
Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.
[1] San Martin, Nancy. “In Guatemala, hunger’s often a part of growing up.” Miami Herald. December 11, 2006.
[2] San Martin, Nancy. “In Guatemala, hunger’s often a part of growing up.” Miami Herald. December 11, 2006.
[3] President Bush’s Remarks regarding Western Hemisphere Policy. Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. Washington, DC. March 5, 2007.
[4] Watson, Julie. “China aims to join Development Bank.” Associated Press. March 17, 2007.
[5] Branch, John. “Among Hispanics, N.F.L Mania Hits Cultural Wall.” Miami Herald. February 2, 2007.
[6] Sullivan, Mark. “Latin America and the Caribbean: Issues for the 110th Congress.” CRS Report RL33828. February 26, 2007.
[7] Dale, Helle. “Bush’s Trip to Latin America: Urge Mexico to Adopt Economic Reforms.” The Heritage Foundation. March 7, 2007.
[8] Hutcheson, Ron and Pablo Bachelet. “Bush reaches out to the poor in Latin America.” McLatchy Newspapers. March 5, 2007.
[9] U.N Economic Commission for Latin America and Caribbean.
[10] USAID. Latin America and Caribbean Selected Economic and Social Data. 2006. p. 11.
[11] Ibid. [12] 2006 World Development Indicators database, World Bank, April, 2006.
[13] Celinda, Franco. “Youth Gangs: Background, Legislation and Issues.” CRS Report RL33400. January 23, 2007.
[14] Burns, Nicholas. “Future Engagement and Partnership with Latin America.” Speech delivered at Council of the Americas. November 20, 2006.
[15] World Bank. “Regional Activities: Latin America and the Caribbean.” 2007.
Source: Senate Democratic Communications Center”
As Latina Lista posted yesterday, a bill for the medical care and humane treatment of detained undocumented immigrants while in detention was presented to the Senate this week.
Today marks the 81st anniversary of the birth of one of the nation’s foremost civil rights and labor leaders, Cesar Estrada Chavez. Despite the ongoing efforts of Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution honoring this prominent Latino civil rights leader, Senate Republicans blocked it last year and have done so again this year.