Mexico-US Parliamentary Exchange

11 Comments

by: Jared Polis

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

As members of Congress we opine and work on many issues of importance to our constituents. However, it’s also important to have a legislative focus. Truly effective legislators not only cover broad issue areas but also go deep in a couple areas of expertise. While I am active as a strong green voice in Congress as Vice-Chair of the Sustainable Energy and Environmental Caucus, and while I continue my efforts through the Progressive Caucus for universal health care and a re-thinking of our militaristic ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, my main legislative focus areas are education and immigration.

So too within the realm of foreign affairs, many members of Congress “adopt” a country and focus on building a specialty in that area. Many members are involved with “Friendship Caucuses” for countries like Switzerland (Rep. Tammy Baldwin), Norway (Rep. Earl Pomeroy) , Mongolia (Rep. Joe Wilson), Greece, Armenia, China, etc. I believe that each member of Congress should adopt at least one country and devote some time and effort towards understanding and being a part of that strategic relationship.

These “friendship caucuses” are a rare island of bi-partisanship in an otherwise fractured Congress.

For a variety of reasons, I decided to make my own personal foreign policy focus within Congress the US-Mexico relationship. I feel that this is one of the most important strategic relationships for our country, My ability to speak Spanish together with my familiarity with the country and its culture will help me serve as a bridge to Congress. I was frankly very surprised to find that there was no US-Mexico Friendship Caucus, so I decided to form one and am currently in the process of doing so and inviting my colleagues to join. I also signed up to be part of the Mexico-US Parliamentary exchange which is occurring this weekend. Five other members of the House of Representatives and myself, along with Senator Dodd, are en route to Seattle Washington for the 48th annual parliamentary exchange.

During my campaign, I had a difference with my primary opponents on our relationship with Mexico. Unfortunately it is popular Democratic red-meat to rail against NAFTA. While of course NAFTA has areas that we need to work to improve upon, I never blasted NAFTA during my campaign and quite the opposite, frequently talked about how the United States and Mexico need to have closer political and economic ties. We should work with Mexico to improve NAFTA, particularly with provisions to protect workers and our environment, as well as to build our overall relationship.

Unilaterally “cancelling” NAFTA, which is an existent albeit minority position in the Democratic Party (and I realize that some readers of this blog are in that camp), would have a disastrous impact on our relationship with Mexico, one of our most important strategic partners.

An example of the sensitivity around such issues is the mini-diplomatic crisis over the pilot trucking program. As part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, a provision was slipped-in that cancelled a pilot program that allowed some Mexican trucks to cross the border and continue on to their final destination in our country. While the debate around the program is valid and there are many issues to consider such as vehicle safety, emission standards, wage considerations for drivers, etc, handling it unilaterally through the Omnibus Appropriations Bill understandably caused extreme ill-will in Mexico. According to the AP, Mexico retaliated with tariffs on American goods:

Then the Mexican Economy Department told a news conference in Mexico City that the new tariffs will affect about $2.4 billion in trade, impacting 90 agricultural and industrial products exported to Mexico from some 40 U.S. cities…

These measures no doubt hurt American working families including unionized farm-workers a lot more than they benefit a few truck drivers. The trucking program is a legitimate issue to discuss, but we need to address it in a bi-lateral way with Mexico. I voted for the Omnibus Appropriations bill despite the trucking language because the good outweighed the bad and the trucking language was a meager afterthought in a $410 billion bill, but I opposed that component.

Our relationship with Mexico is important for many reasons. The issues that we will discuss and this parliamentary exchange include immigration, trade, security, and the environment, and I look forward to providing a summary in my next post, as well as ongoing updates from time to time about the US relationship with Mexico.

Congressman Jared Polis

polis.house.gov

11 thoughts on “Mexico-US Parliamentary Exchange”

ClubTwitty says:

June 8, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Thanks for your work for us in DC. I think you are doing a fine job. Has no one else ‘adopted’ Mexico?

Log in to Reply
1. parsingreality says:
  
  June 8, 2009 at 8:49 pm
  
  Good work. Two comments.
  
  1. I have also seen the damage NAFTA has done to the Mexicans. American companies have virtually taken over the snack and soft drink industries. I passed a tortilleria once and all the sacks of flour were from the US. Many of the illegal immigrants that we are forced to deal with can no longer compete with John Deere and Big Ag. Growing pains? Maybe. Distortions of a culture? Definitely.
  
  2. Seattle? Do they know which border they will be discussing? Why do I keep getting a whiff of “junket?” At least for the Mexicans.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Jared Polis says:
    
    June 9, 2009 at 12:06 am
    
    1. There are certainly some issues with NAFTA, but it’s important that we approach them bi-laterally.
    
    2.This is the 48th year of the parliamentary exchange, and it alternates between the US and Mexico each year. This year it was in Seattle. It doesn’t matter that much what city we’re in, more frequently it occurs in a border city, but I think it’s good to move it around.
    
    We did visit Starbucks, which is based there and is one of Mexico’s largest trading partners in the Northwest, and it was an interesting discussion because Mexico is the only country in which Starbucks sells coffee (they have over 100 coffee shops) and also buys coffee (from Chiapas).
    
    I suggested to the Mexican delegation that they consider a federal organic standard, which they currently don’t have. Starbucks and others use third-party verification.
    
    Jared Polis
    
    Log in to Reply
2. Jared Polis says:
  
  June 8, 2009 at 11:57 pm
  
  While there are a number of members of Congress interested in the US-Mexico relationship, no one has yet started a US-Mexico Friendship Caucus, so I am.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. ClubTwitty says:
    
    June 9, 2009 at 12:10 am
    
    I find it mind-numbing that no one until you saw the need and wisdom for this. I’m not in the 2nd CD (I’m in the 3rd) but I really appreciate your leadership in DC.
    
    Log in to Reply
sierrafan says:

June 8, 2009 at 4:06 pm

I’ll admit I’m pretty impressed with what you’ve done so far in DC. I also like your IReports on CNN. Keep it up.

Log in to Reply
JO says:

June 8, 2009 at 9:36 pm

Mexico and the U.S., more so than the U.S. and Canada, have a particular relationship that supercedes national boundaries. The inflow of funds from Mexican citizens working in the USA, whether with or without documentation, is an important part of Mexico’s economy. Similarly we cannot expect the government of Mexico to be indifferent to the mistreatment of its citizens living north of the Rio Grande, any more than Washington would–or does–ignore the fate of American citizens outside the borders.

Given the way in which the U.S.-Mexico border was decided–I suspect the memory is stronger south of the Rio Grande, but that’s not entirely the case–one might hope that eventually a joint committee of parliamentarians from both sides would have a formal role in deciding, or at least influencing in a formal way, matters of joint interest. The committee described by Jared seems like a good place to start. Ideally it needs to set some concrete goals–above and beyond “let’s talk again”–such as recognizing the unique nature of cross-border migration between Mexico and the United States which, as of now, is entirely two-faced. On one face the United States expects and depends on Mexican citizens to provide the labor pool for several industries, especially agriculture. On the other, law enforcement at several levels pretends that it is a criminal matter when laborers respond to that need.

The underlying reality is that this “criminality” provides a cover for outrageous economic exploitation. This needs to stop, with the views of both sides taken into account in fashioning a new order.

Log in to Reply
1. Jared Polis says:
  
  June 9, 2009 at 12:39 am
  
  I hope that you can make it to our rally for immigration reform on Saturday, June 13th.
  
  Here is the flyer in Spanish and English.
  
  Jared Polis
  
  Log in to Reply
Barron X says:

June 8, 2009 at 11:14 pm

.

What could be more urgent to US security than preventing that ?

.

Log in to Reply
Gilpin Guy says:

June 9, 2009 at 6:36 am

I hadn’t thought of Congressman specializing in countries. It makes sense to have bordering countries working together on mutual issues but there must also be conflicting agendas. Good luck in your efforts and thanks again for explaining the reasoning behind your decisions.

Log in to Reply
Ray Springfield says:

June 10, 2009 at 5:51 am

The drug war really has gotten out of hand. I’ve posted diaries about it. Mexico borders on becoming a failed state. Several states are basically under rule by the cartels.

I’m not sure just banning gun shows would slow the weapons delivery from the USA significantly. It’s apparent that organized crime here still represents a distinct problem.

Log in to Reply