Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's International Development and Foreign Assistance Subcommittee - The Anti-Drug Package for Mexico

Interview

Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's International Development and Foreign Assistance Subcommittee - The Anti-Drug Package for Mexico

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON (R-GA): Well, thank you Senator Menendez.

And I won't make a statement, but I have a keen interest in this. I, some months back, called on an emergency supplemental for border security between the United States and Mexico in total, because the immigration issue that this country faces, I've noticed in this proposal, that some 300 million, as I understand it, for border security, which, in part, may help us with some of the immigration problem that we have.

Secondly, it is my understanding that since we passed the legislation in the Senate last year, restricting access to many of the components for methamphetamine, that those -- the demand is not being met, those components are coming over from Mexico in the United States of America, and I know in the South, there is no greater scars than the scars of methamphetamine.

So I'm anxious to hear the testimony. I think it does rise to the level of a -- of an emergency supplemental, if in fact, it is comprehensive and targeted in those two areas.

So I appreciate the two of you being here today to testify, I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. ISAKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Shannon, you -- ultimately talking about the border security piece for a second, the significant part of the illegal immigration in the United States is a drug-related or drug induced, is that not correct? Or am I correct?

MR. SHANNON: I believe so that the majority of illegal immigration coming to the United States is economically driven. It is people leaving Central America and Mexico in search of jobs in the United States.

SEN. ISAKSON: But aren't a number of the drugs coming into this country flowing through illegal entries?

MR. SHANNON: Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood the question. Without a doubt, most of the drugs are flowing you know, through illegal entries.

SEN. ISAKSON: Mr. Johnson, you made a statement and I caught it real quick. I've been trying to find it in the printed speech and I can't. But you said, we've primarily broken through some long- standing taboos, you were talking about in this effort where -- was that your statement, I'm sorry. That's why I couldn't find it. I was reading a wrong statement. But I was curious what you were referring to in terms of long-standing taboos?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, sir, our relationship with Mexico has been a complicated relationship, historically. And Mexican nationalism is a powerful, emotional, psychological, political force in Mexico. And the Mexicans have always sought as they have engaged with us to do so in a way that their sovereignty is respected and they believed that they are entering not in a relationship of a donor and client, but a partnership.

And therefore, they've been -- they've jealously guarded certain aspects of their relationship with us. The fact that they have approached the United States and underscored their willingness to work with us in a fashion that they've never done so before is striking.

And this reflects not only the political will of President Calderon, but it also reflects an understanding by the president and his political advisors that Mexican citizens recognize the danger that Mexico faces right now, and that Mexican citizens themselves are prepared for a deeper different kind of relationship with the United States, and that the taboo that's being broken down.

SEN. ISAKSON: Well, that's what I hope you meant, because I went to the border in January both San Luis, the Yuma section, as well as San Diego. And we were finding, for the first time, increased cooperation by the Mexican government in terms of their law enforcement on their side of the border, vis-à-vis the illegal immigration issue.

And I wanted to make -- and I really am not going to put you in the position of having to answer what this is -- or respond to this statement, but I find it interesting that $31.3 (ph) million of this proposal is money going to the Mexican immigration agency's National Migration Institute.

A good portion of this on the interdiction and border security is for the type of equipment you need in securing the southwestern border, and I find it further interesting that $1.4 billion is almost half of the $3 billion we had put in the defense bill, which got taken out recently for border security.

And the point I want to make is this. I sense for the first time in Calderon, President Calderon, a sense different from what was true 100 percent -- (inaudible).

I think there is a new paradigm. I think some old taboos are going away. And I know, in one of the questions you referred not leveraging or conditioning U.S. participation as to anything from Mexico, but this is the type of thing what we should begin striking agreements with the Mexican government in the bigger picture of border security.

We think it's a $3 (billion) to $4 billion capital investment to do what we need to do to get the border secured.

If we do that, it makes your job and what you are trying to do here a whole lot easier, because ultimately inability to transit across the border easily is the best thing we can do to stop the flow of drugs, at least on the land border, then you have to deal with other areas so.

Mr. Chairman, my only comment on this as we talk about $550 million dollars, which is a third of the $1.4 billion, which is 50 percent of the $3 billion we think we need and albeit that was taken out of the defense authorization.

I hope -- I hope as you bring programs like this forward, the U.S.-Mexican programs, whether it's immigration or whether it's illegal drugs, it would be a part of a bigger plan to ultimately do what we've got to do and that is secure the border between United States and Mexico, because that in the end is the solution to a lot of the micro problems we are attempting to address.

And I guess that that was the speech, which I wanted to question. You don't have to answer, but I had to get that in, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source