 Good morning everybody and welcome to CSIS. I'm glad you could join us today. My name is Carl Meacham and I am the director of the America's program. And I want to welcome you to what I think is probably one of the most interesting events that we're going to be having this fall. As you know today, we'll be talking about Latin America and the context of the U.S. midterm elections. I imagine that some of you aren't entirely sure why this region is relevant to the midterms. I guess that most of you assume that the majority of this event will be about immigration reform and sure some of it will be about immigration reform and we'll be talking about it today for sure in this discussion. But what we're hoping to impart is a different message. Not that immigration is the only issue that makes Latin America relevant to U.S. elections but that it's one of many. There are in reality a series of issues that are intermestic in nature. That is that they are relevant both to foreign policy and domestic politics. Immigration is certainly one of those intermestic issues and it's key especially in these midterms but U.S. Cuba policy, our relationship with Venezuela, energy security, trade and commerce. These are all regional issues that have a large and growing electoral relevance here in the United States. So let's look at the context that we're operating in first. Last year has seen upwards of 70,000 unaccompanied children primarily from Central American countries illegally cross into the United States across our southern border. Panama recently invited Cuba to the upcoming Summit of the Americas meeting calling into question that forum and the U.S.'s role in it. The ongoing political crisis in Venezuela has repeatedly made headlines here in the United States largely because of the country's role in energy stability and transnational crime throughout the region. That isn't to say that these developments are taking center stage here. Issues of truly global scale like the threat of ISIL and the Russia-Ukrain conflict will still dominate media coverage and campaign talking points. Everyone is looking at those issues and how they will develop and that's inevitable. But Latin America should be a U.S. foreign policy priority too. On the one hand I say that because it deserves the prioritization in substantive terms. On the other hand given changing demographics here and how those changes will impact electoral maps the issues related to the region will only become more and more important. Latin America is in simplest terms uniquely relevant to the United States. This comes from a variety of factors. Markets and their importance to our prosperity, security proximity and of course our evolving demographic makeup. In terms of prosperity the numbers speak for themselves. The U.S. took in about $180 billion in imports from Latin America in 2013 and sent the region $160 billion in exports. Natural resources development and energy reform in Mexico improves U.S. energy security as well. And our production chains are deeply integrated as well. Thanks to NAFTA, 40% of goods labeled made in Mexico contain components manufactured here in the United States. As far as proximity goes, the U.S.-Mexico borders 2,000 miles long. Flying to Venezuela takes about 3.5 or 3.5 hours and Cuba is 90 miles from Florida. This should give you an idea of how close we truly are. Because of that geographic closeness, violence and drug trafficking in the region inevitably reverberate northward. Transnational criminals in Mexico smuggle people and contraband northward and illegal weapons move south. Implying that maintaining security on our border is a shared responsibility. As a result, most of U.S. foreign policy funding in the region is channeled into cooperative security frameworks including, for example, the Merida Initiative. And cooperative security arrangements, which is a cooperative security arrangement with Mexico. These issues of drug trafficking and violence are connected to our own security, not just at the border. So, substantively, the region is key to U.S. interests even if it doesn't always garner the crisis-driven attention we see paid to other global hotspots. The changing demographics here in the United States speak to the second issue. Whether or not Latin America should be a foreign policy priority, it is inevitable that issues related to the region will become relevant to elections here, midterms and presidential alike. What do those demographics look like, though? About 2.5 million immigrants from all over the world have entered the U.S. since 2007. Half are from Latin America. As a demographic group, people of Latino origin make up nearly one-fifth of the U.S. and they are the fastest growing minority group and they play a unique role in U.S. politics. The group is growing fast and increasingly relevant in key electoral districts. And in the contrast to many of other demographic groups, Latino Americans often care about policy issues here in the U.S. that impact their countries of origin. So, in the immediate electoral context, what does that mean? Geographically, most Latinos live in states with sizable communities. Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Five of those states have contested midterms where Latinos could make a difference. We're going to go into that in detail in this panel. But all nine will be key in 2016. But let's look at Colorado as an example of this. Colorado's U.S. Senate race is closely contested and nearly 15% of the electorate is Latino. Many say that that race has been made closer by President Obama's decision to delay an executive action on immigration. And for immigration, more generally, the numbers speak for themselves. Latinos are 25% more likely to support immigration reform than the general populace, and over three-quarters of them factor it into their voting habits. Even Latinos unaffiliated with either party overwhelmingly support immigration reform, and it is these voters that can make a huge impact in election years. In 2012, President Obama won the support of three-quarters of the country's Latinos, and 53% of all Americans. His popularity has certainly decreased overall, but we have to look at the spread with regards to these issues as a whole. And on the issues with Latinos in particular, the President's support has dipped significantly. I'm not going to get into numbers because I think the panel here will have their views particularly on some of these issues. And I would just say that immigration is just one of these intermestic issues that will be relevant to U.S. electoral politics. I think I've taken enough time in the opening, and I'm sure that our panelists will have different views. So what I'm going to do right now is provide quick introductions to our panelists, and then we're going to get on with our event today. So moderating this event, we're going to have Manuel Roig Franzia, who's a long-time Washington Post writer. He's been bureau chief in the paper in Miami in Mexico City, and he's an accomplished author. I'm thrilled to have him here to moderate today's discussion. Thank you. Glad to be here. Great. Luis Miranda, to my right, is co-founder and managing director of MDC Strategies and Communications and Public Advocacy Consulting Firm. He served as spokesman and communications advisor to President Obama, as the deputy communications director at the DNC as well and on numerous campaigns. Welcome. Thank you. Gustavo Arnavat is the senior advisor here at CSIS. He served as the U.S. executive director at the Inter-American Development Bank, as a senior member of the Treasury Department's international affairs team. In addition to his background in international law and banking, I would say that you served as a political designee or appointment during the Obama administration. Correct? Welcome. And my good friend and colleague here at CSIS, Dan Rundie, who holds the Shrayer Chair here at CSIS, and is the director of CSIS's Project on Prosperity and Development. He's worked at the International Finance Corporation as head of the Foundation's Unity, and he served as the director of the Office of Global Development Alliances at USAID during President Bush. Correct? Welcome. So I'm thrilled that all four of you are here, all four of you are here, yes? And I'm going to turn it over to Manuel for his opening. I would remind you all that we are on the record and we are lucky to be covered today by C-SPAN. So for all you C-SPAN nerds out there, say hello to mom. Anyway, for you. Thanks very much, Carl. So we're going to have a conversation about two words that begin with P-O-L. Politics and policy and they're connected. And I've been a reporter at the Washington Post for a long time. One of the fundamentals of journalism is that you don't make predictions. Never, never make predictions. They catch up with you. So I'd like to start today by making a prediction. That prediction is this. The first Latino president of the United States is alive, has been born. That first Latino president might be a member of Congress. She might be a first grader in Texas. He might be a high schooler in California. But that person is alive. We're looking at the midterm elections. The midterms are always a test run for the presidential election. And as we work through our distinguished panel here, I think we should be keeping an eye on the connection between those two big events. November 2014, November 2016. So we should start with the honorable Gustavo. Thank you, Manuel. Well, given that the average lifespan of an American is roughly 74, 78 years old, depending on whether you're male or female, I would hope your prediction is very accurate. Check with me in 50 years. So let me just start by saying that yesterday there was a debate for the governor's race in New Mexico. And this Friday, there's going to be one in Florida. This is part of the course at this time of the year, except that both debates are in Spanish. And I think this indicates the kind of interest there is in the part of the politicians to reach out to the Hispanic community. In states like New Mexico, the population, about a half of the population is Hispanic. In Florida, it's about a quarter. But it's not just states that are traditionally associated with Latinos, like Colorado, Mexico, Florida, et cetera, that have high percentages of Hispanics. Almost half the states in the United States, about roughly 9% or more of the population is Hispanics. And you have in states like Connecticut, Hawaii, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon and Utah, over 10% of the population is Hispanic. Not all of them are registered, not all of them are eligible to register. Over time, the percent of those individuals who are of Hispanic descent who can vote will increase. And I think that, you know, getting really to the heart of what this panel is about is, to what extent do Hispanics vote in ways that further their interest related to their countries of origin. And I would argue that increasingly, first of all, you have a lot of Hispanics, roughly about a third of Hispanics living in the United States were not born in the United States. They were born in Latin America, except for Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada. And so, but increasingly, these individuals are very interested in seeing that U.S. policy reflects their interest. And on the development front, on the security front, et cetera, which hopefully we'll get into. So I think it's going to be an issue, you know, is Latin America on the ballot today or this November? It's not. But I think increasingly, issues having to do with relating to Hispanics linked to the country's origin will become more and more important. Before we move on to Dan, could I ask you a quick question? Can we even say that there is a quote unquote Hispanic or Latino electorate in the United States? Does that exist as a single entity? That's a great question. And 10 years ago, I would have said no. I would have said the so-called Hispanic vote is actually fairly fragmented. It's very idiosyncratic. It really depends on the country of origin as individuals. But I would say that the immigration issue has really galvanized the Hispanic community in ways that I haven't seen before. I was born in Cuba, spent my early formative years there, grew up in Miami. And I would say, you know, by and large, many of the Cubans, you know, I grew up with, saw themselves primarily as Cubans. When I got to college, I met folks from other parts of Latin America and they considered themselves either primarily Puerto Rican or Dominican or Mexican American. I would say, and this is totally anecdotal, I think the immigration issue has caused a lot of Hispanics to feel that they are part of this embattled group and they need to stick together and I'm going to agree on everything, of course. But that's my general sense. Great, thanks for having me. Just a couple of context issues. I think the way in which some of these inter-mestic issues, we're going to get into what that means in a minute, play themselves out at a local level. I think we need to have a little bit of context about what are vote-moving issues today in this midterm. I'm looking at the Washington Post before I came here and it said 19% said the economy, 12% said terrorism, 8% said immigration. That was October 1 and that's the Washington Post, AP, GFK poll, top issues in the midterm election. I went back though in July and there was, immigration actually was the number one issue in July in some of the polls I think here in Gallup and I think it had to do with some of the news about children crossing the border. First, we have to understand that there's volatility in polling in terms of what public opinion is thinking about, but I also think, as was said earlier, I would not say Latin America is on the ballot. For those of us who think about international fairs issues or particularly energized about issues in Latin America, we may care about it, but in West Virginia's second congressional district, it's not a vote-moving issue per se. There are going to be certain ways in which it is expressed, but I think we need to be a little bit careful about how and where it's going to be expressed. It will be locally expressed in different ways as well. I do think, I will share a couple of anecdotes though and then I want to talk about a couple of intermestic issues that I think would be worth describing. Whenever I've raised the issue, I speak to a lot of members of Congress and a lot of folks running for governor and oftentimes I'm the one that has to prompt the conversation about international fairs, not because they're not globally aware, not because they're not cosmopolitan, not because they're not sophisticated. It's just, as I was just describing, it is not a vote-moving issue. Now for those of us who are in think tanks, it is fascinating and interesting when we invest our time, but we need to understand that it's part of a larger context. Let me tell you a story though. I asked Governor Christie two weeks ago, I said, tell me about your trip to Mexico and he went on for 10 minutes in a very sophisticated account of Mexico. He said, I think the Mexican leadership is sophisticated, it's American educated, the reforms, the energy reforms are very important, it's going to allow for foreign direct investment into energy and imagine Dan if Canada with the XL Keystone Pipeline, and so I think that's something we should think about when we think about the Western Hemisphere and getting that approved, the XL Keystone Pipeline and having increased energy investments in the United States and things like hydraulic fracturing and along with increased foreign direct investment in Mexico, if we had a regional energy power in North America, what would that mean in terms of our negotiations? He then took it and pivoted it to Europe and the Ukraine and he said, what if we could offer Europe who are in some ways constrained in what they can do in confronting Russia if we said we are going to produce so much energy that we can be your energy supplier so that you are not in-hoc to the Russians as you respond to what's going on in Ukraine. So that was his sophisticated analysis, so he sees, so Governor Christie among others has said, okay, there's a humongous opportunity for the United States if we think in regional terms and has geo-strategic terms. That's not necessarily a vote-moving issue but is very important for a foreign policy. Let me list though several things that I think are intermestic issues and are going to be, that are showing themselves in the belt. One is this issue and the challenges in Central America which are partially a result of poor governance, partially a result of corruption, but also partially a result of a two-way flow of gangs weakening the state and some of this is a U.S. generated problem is causing people to send their children on trains a thousand miles and put themselves in danger, thousands of children. So I think one of the ways in which this is going to show itself, it showed itself in July on the ballot, we need to be thinking about how we respond to that, not just at the border where most of the energy has been, but how are we going to respond in a sophisticated way in Central America to helping resolve some of those longer term problems. The way we have looked at the problems in Columbia, 15 years ago, if we'd had this conversation in this room or down at the old CSIS, we'd have said Columbia is a failed state, Columbia has got a bad brand, nobody wants to invest in Columbia, nobody wants to think about Columbia. 15 years later, people say I want to invest in Columbia, Columbia is a well-governed state, it's an ally and so a big part of that was America's engagement, but it was something that was in a variety of ways through drugs or through insecurity being exported was something that was on the ballot and people were concerned about it 15 years ago, similar to the way in which some of the challenges in Central America are exhibiting themselves both as a security risk and issue here in the United States, but it's also a development challenge. So energy, the challenges in Central America, and let me add just one more. We're reading a very interesting book by my good friend and colleague here at CSIS, Gabrielle Zini, called Education 3.0. And Education 3.0 is making the argument that for Latin America and the United States to progress and develop, we're going to have to have more sophisticated ways of vocational technical training and education. We're going to have to reform education, it's going to involve the private sector in a much more significant way and we're going to have to think about the role of technology and this is both a U.S. challenge and this is both a Latin American challenge and that he very elegantly links the two issues of both Latin America and the United States and that education and training is going to be something that people do care about as an issue because it has to do with their ability to progress and so you see education come up from time to time but I think linking the two is going to be something that is going to turn into an inter-mestic issue on the horizon. I'll stop there. Before we move on to Louise, a quick question. You mentioned Plan Colombia, right? One of the reactions to the crisis with the unaccompanied minors coming across the border was people saying maybe we need a plan... Plan Central America. Or a Plan Central America. Did you have any initial thoughts on that? Yes, we've written about that here. I've written about that saying that I'm very much in favor of a Plan Central America. So historically the attention span for the United States on Central America is short and so if you go back 30 or 40 years we'll respond to a crisis and focus and then we take our attention away. It's going to require the same sort of bipartisan extended focus the way we had in Colombia over a 10 or 15 or 20 year period in Central America to make some sort of significant change on some of the problems of governance and corruption and security as well as plugging young people into productive activities. Young people are going to use their energies in unproductive ways or they're going to use their energies in productive ways. It's in all of our collective interest to have them participate in productive ways if I can put it that way. Luis? So it's going to be hard to not be repetitive on this panel but I think in terms of the electorate one of the things to keep in mind and that I think gets lost a lot when you talk about the Hispanic community, the Latino vote, a lot of it's something separate, something somewhat un-American and I think that one of the biggest challenges that we have as a community and as Americans is to try to break that down and really clarify what the actual dynamics of this community are. There was a Pew study a couple of years ago that showed that a plurality of non-Hispanic whites believed that most Hispanics were illegal and that's a tremendous statistic that really tells you what a disconnect there is between the perception of Latinos in the United States and what the reality of this community is where more than 50 million people who are of Latino origin in the United States, the population of undocumented is only 10.7, 11 million somewhere in there and yet the perception that a plurality of non-Hispanic whites have is that most are illegal and so that has to be rectified. There's 50,000 Hispanics who turn 18 every month potentially as much as 60,000 and many of them, if not most of them are going to be able to vote and register. I think where the conversation about Latin America and Latino issues comes into play is that many of them don't feel motivated, don't feel connected to the political system, don't feel the sense of belonging or being reached out to by politicians and that's where we're going to have to make the switch and part of what the politicians have to recognize is that these issues are not specific to that community that they are important as some of the other panelists have pointed to, to the broader interests of the United States and that needs to be addressed because it's important. So when you have issues like the Republican shutdown of the government, they affected security operations that were precisely targeted in Central America, for example Operation Hammer that's meant to combat the transnational criminal organizations that are smuggling these people north and yet then they complain about the crisis at the border. So we have to start looking at how these issues are interconnected and how they affect the United States as a whole and not think of it as Latin America issues or issues that affect Hispanics. They're issues that affect our broader security, prosperity, the trade that Carl was talking about and start breaking down those barriers so that as politicians and as government officials look at Latinos, they don't see it as separate and distinct and checking a box which is often what happens especially in the political space but rather that they're embracing that and I think that the candidates that are going to do well in districts and states where Latin American issues matter are those that recognize that and that are ahead of the curve and you already see that in many places. Florida is one of the best examples where Latin American issues often play a role but it's not only there. Rhode Island actually has a very strong Colombian American community when the president decided to delay executive action on immigration. That had repercussions for the control of the Senate and that's I think where we're going to have to start to look at that from the national picture is oh well Hispanics, the conventional wisdom was Hispanics aren't really going to play all that big of a role in these elections and so he can take that risk to protect folks like Mark Pryor but the reality is he may have actually done the opposite because you look at a state like Colorado which has a very tight race. Hispanics have a significant population there 14% of the electorate in 2012 and if they don't turn out, if they're not energized, if they're not motivated then that could potentially cost control of the Senate but it's also in other states where you may not expect that in a state like North Carolina where you have 9% of the population is Latino but only 2% of the electorate was Latino in 2012 well guess what that 2% can make the difference in a race that is within the margin of error right now and that again could decide control of the Senate but you certainly have that in plenty of other races I mentioned Florida, Latin American populations of US citizens in South Florida in particular are going to make the difference you see a lot of Colombian American and Venezuelan Americans who have traditionally been sort of a swing vote because they're recent immigrants, they're US citizens but they don't really have necessarily a strong affiliation with their party and they're still an opportunity for both parties to capture them especially in a state like that where Republicans have actually aggressively courted Latinos and Democrats have not the newer immigrants who are Venezuelan, Colombian American are up for grabs and so reaching out to them makes a difference and getting them involved Cuba of course continues to be an issue and that's beginning to shift politicians are having to adapt to the reality that a lot of Cuban Americans who have come in the last 20 or 30 years actually want to go back want to visit their families want to be able to send them remittances and support their small businesses over there and a lot of politicians are still clinging to hard-line policies which is actually alienating some of those younger folks now whether or not they're a big enough part of the electorate to swing whether it's gubernatorial or congressional races is yet to be seen but that's a reality that candidates have to address and have to stay on top of and again the candidates that are realizing and recognizing how these things adapt earlier are the ones that are going to be successful and that begin to integrate their Hispanic outreach not as something separate but integrated into their efforts In your career you've had contact with people involved in politics across the country what do they tell you about this one fundamental question why Latinos aren't turning out in bigger numbers in elections it's motivational it's feeling connected it's a sense of ownership you look at news coverage when the Ukraine crisis was happening and at the same time Venezuela was in absolute crisis and there was very little coverage in mainstream media of what was happening in Venezuela if any at all and that really spoke to the disconnect between the mainstream media and the 50 million Latinos who are here who again have deep connections all you have to do is compare a nightly newscast on Univision or Telemundo with a nightly newscast on ABC, CBS or NBC and you see a completely different set of issues covered Ukraine is certainly important Syria is certainly important Hispanics care about education and the economy in fact in polling you regularly see economy and education outpacing immigration but they also want to hear about their countries of origin one of the things that we had done long before Mr. Christie's trip is a really good example of how some politicians are trying to get ahead of that curve in 2005 I actually traveled with Howard Dean to Mexico when they were in the middle of a presidential primary season and we were making the case over there that whichever Democrat comes out elected as president in the United States is going to be better for our relationship with Mexico than any of the Republicans and that has reverberations we understood that that's going to receive tremendous amount of coverage in Mexican media in a lot of border media it's heard in the border states and it reverberates and that's something that candidates like Chris Christie are obviously recognizing and starting to do if you want to reach a population in Miami that's South American you can go to a radio like Caracol which is Colombian and yet it has a lot of penetration into Florida, New York and even Los Angeles and so you have to be able to go out there and talk to them about not just the issues that they care about that are domestic but also the ones that they care about that are international and show them that you care enough about them being part of whatever effort you're making I think the biggest mistake people make is they'll hire somebody who is Latino on a campaign and say here go talk to Hispanics and sort of think that that has checked the box and that's not enough I think diversity has to be all the way to the top you know again with Howard Dean we had this thing where it was like just because you're black doesn't mean you can only talk to black people it doesn't mean you can only talk to Hispanic people and yet our politics is still sort of caught in that you know ethnic type of approach that doesn't make a lot of sense and that doesn't really make people feel like they're a part of the system so part of it is just that the coverage and the general conventional wisdom doesn't include a bigger set of what the population really looks like and the other part is just some candidates just haven't caught up Gustavo much of your work has been involved in business development that also has a component as a goal of poverty reduction why should an American voter whether they're Latino or not care about whether business is doing well in a Central American country or whether there are high rates of poverty there and not only why should they care but do you think that they do care? That's a great question a lot of Americans don't realize that Latin America and the Caribbean as a whole is our largest trading partner we export more to that part of the world than any other part of the world and roughly speaking about I would say GDP per capita in the region on average is about a quarter of where it is in the United States and so just imagine as that region continues to grow economically what that means for demand for US goods and services so for that reason alone I think it's important for us to make investments and to do it in smart ways at the IDB one of the things I worked on was the new capital increase that went through the largest in the history of the IDB that doubled the lending capacity of the bank and yet from the US taxpayer perspective the commitment was $510 million over five years and that leveraged $100 million a year but that leveraged an additional $50 to $60 billion in lending in investments to the region over 10 years folks you can't get that kind of leverage anywhere else quite frankly so I think it's very smart to do it for those reasons but also because of what we saw at the border look the border with the United States and Mexico is about 2,000 miles long I haven't measured it but the border with Canada has got to be at least 50% or twice that in the United States like you do folks from Latin America and there's a reason for that Canada is doing relatively well economically from a security perspective and so the more we invest and of course we know the correlation between economic development and security the more that folks there will decide to stay in their countries because it's a very hard thing to leave one's country you don't leave unless you really have to I was born in Cuba, my family felt compelled to leave Cuba it's a new language, new laws new culture, etc so that's another reason that we'll have folks who want to stay in that region and then you see how the immigration issue the illegal immigration issue goes away to the extent that the region grows I mean it's almost somewhat counterintuitive isn't it Dan mentioned that the question of Latin America isn't a front burner vote generating issue in the election in a lot of places yet it has been in other elections, right? NAFTA was a big campaign issue at one time and here we have a larger Latino population and less of a focus on Latin America and in another era with a slightly smaller Latino population a large focus, how do you explain that? Well I think it has to do with I mean these are trends how the issue has been immigration that's been the issue that's been in the media, in the spotlight but I would say two things, one is these issues will grow in importance as the population grows which is what we're seeing the second issue is a little bit what Louis said that you almost have had the development of two parallel media conversations here with Univision, with Telemundo any night you see a whole bunch of issues having to do with regional issues I don't think in 1991, 1990 you had that kind of coverage by Univision and Telemundo or people watching it in 1990, 1991 like that, so I think there's been a change in sort of the context in which we're having this discussion so it's not that these issues are less important I think that there's just a different approach to dealing with it I would agree with what's been said here there's a lack of I guess a way of mainstreaming these issues there's a separation here and you touched on it and I think Dan touched on it too you want to talk about Latin America stuff you get someone who has a Latin American last name and you check and you check the box I don't think it's like that I think it's getting less and less like that, I think issues that ideally what we'd like to see is that these issues are part of the critical mass of issues that a candidate would have to deal with not that they would become Hispanic issues Dan is absolutely correct that when you pull Hispanics and you ask them what are the most important issues and I was not aware of the July issue but I think it reflects the media coverage what's happening on the border but by and large Hispanic Americans living in this country they're different than other Americans they care about jobs and healthcare and education but the immigration issue is important to them for social reasons it's what I said earlier you feel that in terms of party identification you ask yourself what party do I feel more comfortable with and what party do I think if I join or vote for I'm going to be most welcomed and I think the immigration issue to the civil rights issues for black Americans in the 1960s and 70s and it's not by coincidence that the vast majority of Americans are Democratic because they saw what happened in the debates and the social appeal that we had in the 1960s and 70s and I think that as a Democrat as a proud Democrat I'm stunned that the Republican Party hasn't done a better job of reaching out to Republicans now there was a post-mortem that was done in 2012 where they clearly identified this as an issue and yet look what's happened look what's happened in this immigration debate and so I think Hispanics are looking at this debate and I think that and so many of them are young this is the time when they are forming those opinions of party affiliation and if Democrats are successful in grabbing them now I think they're going to have a hold on them for a long time and something he's touching on that I think is important is fear because if you look at the NAFTA debate and why it had received so much attention back in 1994 when it happened 20 years ago it wasn't driven by Latinos it wasn't driven by Hispanic conversation it was driven by labor concerns over what it would mean for the loss of jobs and jobs moving to Mexico so I think that's a really great example of how we have to make sure that people understand that Latin America issues are not specific to Hispanics they're specific to the general situation and benefit and prosperity of the United States and so it's a really good example but it was also fear fear of losing jobs that drove that issue and made it powerful it's fear of demographic change that's driving a lot of the anti-immigrant focus and that's part of the challenge that I think immigration groups and pro-Hispanic advocacy groups have been great at bringing attention to the immigration issue it's backfired in a certain way in that it's brought attention to the immigration issue in a way that makes people see Hispanics as foreigners and a lot of Hispanics whether it's in New Mexico Colorado, Arizona have been there for generations long before you know those states were even part of the union and so those are realities that we have to address and we have to there needs to be leadership in both parties particularly in the Republican Party that sort of looks at the very small minority because let's face it most Republicans are actually ready to vote for immigration support even the path of citizenship is the contentious part but plenty of them even look at that it's a very small minority that fears demographic change and that has to recognize that again those that are not legal are very small portion the country is not entirely changing you look at Arizona there was a 1300 year old village discovered in Arizona yesterday and some of these folks would probably want to deport everyone in that village and that sort of the attitude is like Hispanics in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico were there for hundreds of years and we have to tell that story we have to make sure that they understand that Hispanics have fought in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War on both sides and in every conflict have been a part of the American fabric and that doesn't get told and so it allows for those issues of fear and it has united Latinos I think that it's becoming a sense of respect so even if immigration is not your top issue the way that it's talked about makes you feel that your entire community is under attack and I think that's also what Latin American issues bring to it is that when you address them you give people a sense that we respect you enough to care about the other issues that you also care about so a couple things one is I think the countries in Latin America have changed in the last 10 or 15 years the last 10 years have been some of the best growth years for Latin America we want those countries to succeed we want to have the kind of sophisticated conversation with a Mexico or Peru that we have with South Korea or other countries that used to get assistance from the United States even in Western Europe and so and I think that is happening I think the kind of conversation when the governor of Quereto comes to Washington he wants to talk about trade he wants to talk about higher education he wants to talk about technology and he wants to talk about how can I get people to stay in Quereto and prosper and succeed in Quereto and how can I do that in a way that's mutually interesting for both of us so I think we're having a more sophisticated conversation I do also think that on things like trade certainly the Republican Party doesn't get a lot of credit for its really excellent record on trade deals I think it's a problem for the Republican Party if we're only talking in Latin America about our trade record I think there were 15 Democrats that voted for CAFTA in 2005 I can't remember but I think the Bush administration pushed for Panama and the Colombian free trade deals it took 3 or 4 years in this administration to actually get them done President Bush spent a lot of time on those so I do think we don't necessarily get credit for those sorts of things I also think oftentimes I think the immigration debate is very divisive but I also think there are divisions in both parties I think of some parts of the African American community or labor unions that have not been as enthusiastic about immigration and I think about the first 2 years of President Obama's term when he had Democrats in both the House and the Senate and did not pass comprehensive immigration reform at that time so I think it's sometimes the Republicans are easy to scapegoat on some of this stuff but I think it's a little bit more complicated than that on the one hand on immigration and in terms of the changing processes in Latin America the kinds of conversations that we're having are different they want trade but they also want more sophisticated discussions about education and training and infrastructure and they want as my friends here are saying that there's an opportunity to prosper here where they grew up as well so we want to have those sorts of we want to have that kind of a conversation I think we're getting there and I think the last 10 years have been part of changing the conversation because of the progress that's been made in Latin America part of the important shift there that I think matters is the diversity in government and in positions of power in media organizations there's not a tremendously big Hispanic presence in government certainly at the national level and in media institutions and so they tend to not look south they tend to look still towards Europe or Asia that's beginning to change to include more people but it's not quite where it needs to be but that's one of the things that we'll see change and as educational institutions also begin to look south right so one of the big things this administration is trying to do is the 100,000 strong program where they send more people to study abroad traditionally when people want to study abroad they think about the Paris and the London and as more and more people start to go study and get comfortable with so that it's not just the Hispanic Latino Americans that are heading south but also more of just traditional populations that would otherwise go study in Europe begin to study in South America I think that will help and so you see those types of developments that are increasing the connections and the ties and that are going to lead to eventually those same people who may have studied in Bogota then be in a position at CNN or at the State Department where they can actually influence things yes, yeah or one of the networks but I would say on that note I think there's a couple of things that need to be mentioned as we focus on the international I think Dan mentioned a little bit on the fact that the Bush administration had nine free trade agreements and had a budget of over two billion dollars and when you look at the current administration you see 1.5 billion dollars you see some of these programs like the one that you mentioned which I think is important but there has been a and you know this is very public there has been sort of a pivot to Asia and there has been in some circles or in some quarters a questioning was regards to the commitment to dealing with some of these issues having to do with the region the focus in the region has primarily been on Plunk Columbia the Merida initiative and it's not really expanded into other areas as much so on the one hand you have a lot of folks in this country focusing on the immigration discussion and the root causes of that which I think is an important issue to talk about but the region as it moves along and I think you talked about it is interested in investment is interested in doing in improving the social mobility of its citizens education issues as mentioned so there seems to be a disconnect when it comes to this discussion with the administration and I think that we are going to be forced to have this discussion regardless of Republican or Democrat simply because the region itself means so much the United States and it's starting to look at other places because we're not giving it the attention and 100,000 strong by the way is privately funded so that speaks to that issue as well but if you look at the day-to-day government work of building the relationship I mean from 2009 there's been an emphasis on trying to develop stronger relationships with countries like Brazil countries like Columbia and Mexico the free trade agreement with Colombia is a perfect example of the attempts to really foster that so every day there is work that goes on that but what you see is a shift at the top levels where the attention continually gets distracted from Latin America towards the Middle East towards Europe and that is the wrong signal I think even if there are people who every day try to strengthen the relationships on energy cooperation trade and security you still have a problem of perception that I think needs to be corrected Secretary Kerry one of his first mistakes was to talk about Latin America as our backyard and that certainly didn't go over well but Secretary Clinton look she visited the region an unprecedented amount of times among the millions and millions of miles that she logged the Secretary of State a lot of those were to Latin America Secretary Kerry has not been as focused on Latin America and that certainly felt I think both inside the State Department and in Latin America I do a lot of interviews where the first question I often get is why doesn't the United States care about Latin America I did one in Argentina the other day about the debt crisis and about a Kirchner speech at the United Nations and took the headphones off that was big news in Argentina and we're going to take the microphone and pass it into the audience and open up to some questions so that they can ask you some of those things and some of the other things so actually given Christina Kirchner I don't blame President Obama for having taken the headphones off but that's just me who wants to go first yes hello my name is Jose Miguel Pulido I work for Metsui & Co Chris Christie wasn't the only governor that went to Mexico it was also Governor Jerry Brown of California and President Peña Nieto went to California because well he called it the other Mexico does this mean that at the local level at least we can trust that more business development between governments will occur or will that be more or will we have to do that more through major FTAs thank you I think that it's already happening at the local level California is one of the best examples of having a really strong relationship with Mexico and with some of the other border states where they recognize the mutual interest in trade, security, border issues you talked about gang trafficking and gangs multinational gangs a little while ago the efforts that happened between the states especially California and Mexico are pretty commendable and how they're working together not just on the government side but bringing together public and private interests to help deal with those issues and if I can just add it's also at the municipal level you've got mayors going to visit mayors in Latin America and the other way around and at the business level which is really where it's most important and I think one of the interesting trends is seeing companies in Latin America these multilatinas and others who want to become multilatinas realizing they want to expand and they see the Hispanic market in the United States as being very attractive so I think increasingly you'll see more and more we tend to think about doing business in Latin America as Americans going to do business in Latin America I think increasingly you'll see more and more Latin American companies going to do business in the United States just to want to make a couple of points on this I think it's very interesting I do think a lot of governors are seeing that as part of their role just a comment made about Suzanne Martini is a fourth generation Mexican American her Spanish is beautiful if you listen to her speak Spanish it's great but she has a distant relative who was sort of I'm going to put this the wrong way but it was sort of a was a second level hero in the Mexican Revolution so as a household name in Mexico has something equivalent to sort of Samuel Adams here at Paul Revere and so when she goes to Mexico people know who she is but she speaks great Spanish but also her family's been here over a hundred years but close to a hundred years but she had a relative who had some connectivity to the history of Mexico and so people connect with that but it's very interesting you'll have governors again or governors in Maine who make trips to Mexico it's not just the border states but see this as a market I think to Gustavo's point that they see themselves this is part of their role as governors is to be ambassadors for various industries for example in Maine I asked this question at a meeting and the current governor of Maine who's a Republican said 90% of Maine is forest starting the paper and pulp industry in Maine with a Mexican paper and pulp firm who's investing in Maine so this is an example of it's not just California New Mexico anymore and because of what I was saying earlier about the changing dynamics the changing economics in these countries where you're having investment going the other way it's an interesting twist we're in a different world in a different place and so even in a place like Maine you're seeing this and so governors absolutely have to be doing this as well yes in the green Hi my name is Ellen Street and I work for DSF Consulting I'm interested in unemployment in the workplace especially for young people and I was curious how we could start that conversation both in Latin America and the USA between higher education high schools and the workplace sure you want to take that okay so I think just going back to this issue of where countries are in their economic development they want there's a challenge in development around the middle income trap and so one of the ways you get out of it is to increase people's productivity and so one way to increase people's productivity is about education so when like Governor Credetto came to Washington met with Carl and I and some others he wanted to talk about higher education partnerships he wanted to talk about community college partnerships President Bush certainly did this President Obama is talking about this so I think this is absolutely important one level is higher education but I also think this issue I was talking about earlier about gangs we're going to need to find young people are going to either whether it's in LA or whether it's in Tegucigalpa or whether it's in or somewhere else young people are going to use their energies for productive activities or unproductive activities and we want them to be using for productive activities well that is not just a challenge for the state it's or for foreign aid providers it's about getting companies involved it's about giving your community and churches involved it also means I think also thinking about ways new ways of training and education that may not necessarily be especially folks who leave the formal education system this book that I mentioned earlier by Gabriel Zini I think touches on this I highly recommend it to you if you're interested in this topic it's Educacion 3.0 it's just come out by Gabriel Zini ZI NNY that beats a starred Amazon review right there absolutely Amazon review right there on this exact topic do we have another question I think there was one in the yes Hi my name is Belen Marquina I work for the Hispanic Heritage Foundation I had a question about how can politicians frame this this platform of investment in Latin America I think it's very hard to make the case of long term investment because we are used to seeing retribution immediately and I think it's hard to convince folks that we need to increase security socially and economically and it'll benefit us how can they create this platform sounds like a good one for the bank guy on the panel so you know one way is you're talking politicians in a democracy which is what we have in the United States and you want to be able to appeal to the interest of the voters and so to the extent that in different districts if you're talking about the House representatives or you know the state at the Senate level that you have significant parts of the population that still have family in Central America for example I would think it's a very attractive case to make that we should be investing in that region for security reasons and also because in a sense you're helping your family members you're helping your friends who are still there and you hear about this right you communicate with these individuals you know how difficult the times are there and so I think it's an attractive message to send to me for example the IDB lending to sovereign countries has never experienced a default that's why it's a AAA rated institution so these are not grants that we're making and you know we're hoping for the best these are investments that we're making that get paid back so the principal is paid back as well as the interest and otherwise you know a larger if you look at companies small business enterprises in the United States a greater percent of those in trade to Latin America were actually involved in foreign in exports versus your average let's say SME so I think that's also a case you can make and try to help and try to create government programs and working with private institutions in order to promote exports by small and medium size enterprises I would add also I mean there are a lot of companies all over the region Columbia, Brazil and Chile and Mexico that are competing globally so this is not just to bolster security or the sides that have to do with assistance as much as these are just smart business decisions the region is now growing in a way that it hasn't before it's a very diverse region you have issues where there are problems like with the Alba countries with Venezuela for instance where the business environment isn't the best for investment but in other places Brazil in particular and Chile the countries of the Pacific Alliance for instance it's Chile, Columbia, Peru and Mexico I mean these countries have environments and regulatory frameworks that are much more attractive to businesses not just from the United States but from all around the world and I think it's an attractive sort of case to make as well that you know if we want to take off in the region and have better relationships with those multilatinas if we want to be able to really hit the ground in a place where we're going to be able to get return on investment we have to be in these countries it's not just an issue of bolstering American security in Central America for instance and I think there's a case to be made and Gustavo I think you made a very good point but it's also putting Latin America in the global framework of investment and it's very relevant in that regard and I think we need to talk about that as well and national leaders need to realize that they need to invest time and effort because all of these things reverberate so I brought up the Argentina example one of the things I said there is that South Americans also need to recognize that if they want to be taken seriously on the world stage and get a Security Council seat they also need to be serious about threats like ISIS and the fact that they're not just threats to the United States or to Israel but that they're really global threats and so they have a responsibility and on that note there's no Latin American country in the coalition that the United States is organizing right now to combat ISIS all around the world but the presence in Latin America that's why it's also important for the United States to take that leadership not just at the assistant secretary level at state but really from the very top this administration now has designated Vice President Biden to be the point person on Latin America on the really major issues and that's a good step because he's become more engaged he's in a lot more contact and that's important really we as much as the South Americans need to take responsibility we need to realize that we need to elevate our outreach so that we're both investing so that we're promoting small businesses and growth and the economic prosperity that helps both sides but also preventing creating a vacuum that allows foreign threats to also enter through Latin America I think Dan was championing at the bit there One is that I think this issue of what Carl was saying about that it's in our mutual interest I think again this issue of Governor LePage in Maine talking about Mexican investors restarting the paper and pulp industry I think is this sort of an interesting this isn't a one-off I think you're going to see a lot more of this and it's a lot more sophisticated I think about the first Bush administration Bush 41 where Argentina sent a ship in the first Gulf War I think there are examples where in the past Latin America has Brazil contributed in World War II to the Allied cause and so I think El Salvador and the Iraq War El Salvador and Colombia was the first Colombian death in Korea We have a question here from the gentleman in the striped purple shirt Thank you Hector Shamis, Georgetown and Pais I was wondering along the lines of the recent couple of comments if you could speculate a little bit on potential changes in US foreign policy to Latin America aside from Latinos, immigration, all of that is a concrete a proposed comment on Obama's coalition at the UN and whether Latin America has been there or not but in the event of a change of control of the Senate which is what it is at stake and there's not going to be any change in the House if you could speculate about any possible changes in US foreign policy given that If we had a Republican controlled Senate it would mean that voices like Marco Rubio Morrow Diaz-Ballart is likely going to be one of the two candidates to have control over an important subcommittee on foreign operations so he's one of the two folks the other person who's in there running for that is Andrew Crenshaw, they're both from Florida so again, I think you'd have a series of very thoughtful people I also think you'd have a bigger appetite for more trade deals I think the Republican Party is known as a pro free trade party I think if you have Essio Nevez crossed when the elections in Brazil I think you could have a hemispheric trade agreement so I think you'd have the appetite in the Senate to get a hemispheric trade agreement so if President Obama wanted to have a legacy project if you had the right, you'd have a very pro free trade Congress for that I also think you'd have an increased appetite and interest certainly I think there'd be ongoing increased interest to do something about the challenges, the root challenges in Central America, similar to the way you had in a Republican Congress in helping support Plain Columbia when President Clinton was president let me just say what we'll get right to you to go with what my Republican brother just said I think the real issue is going to be immigration reform and I think that we have a sort of window because of the presidential election that I think a lot of people are going to be putting pressure on resolving immigration reform, that being dealing with root causes of why children are coming, that being dealing with the security side of it, or that being dealing with undocumented people that are in the United States I think that's one issue, you mentioned Brazil you mentioned the possibility of Isunevis winning or being the president the big issue with Brazil is a tax treaty, a tax treaty a framework for us and Brazilian business to be able to do business easier I think that's another one, Keystone Pipeline, Western Hemisphere issues the question of the pending decision, that's another one that's very relevant I think that it's important to be realistic we can speculate as much as we want up here and obviously we're going to have our own interests in the agenda, but the next two years are going to be very we used to talk about it when I was in the Senate, on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee it's going to be very difficult to get some of these things done I think there's interests in all of us, and I think we're all interested in Latin America here, and getting more of this stuff done, but it's important to temper these ambitions with reality and my Republican brother, I agree with you I was going to echo that sense of reality, which is that over the next two years in a Republican control Senate you see very little get done but again I wanted to bring it back to why we're here which is the midterm elections and frankly it's going to be a split Congress even if Democrats win the Senate so the likelihood of a lot happening there is not high, I think you're right about the silly season but to bring it back I think this is why we need to continue to work on diversity at every level Democrats in congressional races are starting to get that message they have not released their numbers yet but I can tell you that the diversity in staffing in congressional races is better than I think it's ever been that starts to translate it starts to translate into there being a bench that eventually they play a role as field organizers or field directors and then they become campaign managers and then they join the presidential race as a state director and then eventually they're political director of the next one and you're going to start seeing that as that bench deepens and these people gain more experience, whether or not they make the impact that we would all hope they make in this election, they're going to be making the impact in the next one and the one after that and so building that bench of diversity that we're starting to see particularly in congressional races right now is going to make a huge difference. Quick comment by Gustavo and we've got time for then one more question. So we've been here for about an hour and I think it's fascinating what we have not talked about right 15 years ago we would have been talking about drugs democracy corruption I think that speaks to how far Latin America has come. I agree. And how I think the narrative is changing from those bad negative things, immigration is still an issue but the more positive agenda which is how we can work together or closely with Latin Americans and how we can both benefit economically from growing an important and growing trade relationship. Well in Colorado and Washington are certainly going to affect the drug legalization conversation with Latin Americans. And final question there in the back. A lot of pressure. Thank you. Maria Pena with la opinion. Since we are talking about the midterms, I hear a lot of optimism and enthusiasm on voter turnout but the statistics don't bear that out. I mean Naleo is already saying that only 7.8 million Hispanics are going to turn out and Hispanics traditionally don't come out on the midterm so that may end up hurting Democrats. You know and immigration you're right. They've said they're upset about the delay in immigration measures and this is going to end up hurting Democrats. Polls suggest that Republicans are getting closer to regaining the Senate. So I'm wondering if you could elaborate a little more about why it is that Hispanics are really feeling let down and they're not going to come out and vote considering the potential. I mean for decades we've been talking about the sleepy giant and the potential for their political cloud but it hasn't you know it hasn't come out yet. Yeah I was talking about diversity and hiring. I don't suggest that there's a lot of excitement. It's actually one of the challenges that I hear every single day from campaigns across the country is how do we motivate these voters and part of that is telling them what's at stake you know. The health care act, Obamacare, has lowered the uninsured rate among Hispanics from the high 30s to the 20s and so all of those people who now have something to lose they need to be made aware that that kind of thing is at stake. They need to understand what's at stake economically and financially and really compare what the economic policies mean for that particular community and that particular district. So I think that the challenge for Democrats is what difference it's going to make for those particular voters. Immigration is a headwind. I think I mentioned it at the beginning of this panel. I don't know if you know it's been a long hour but at the beginning of that I was talking about the fact that the president may have actually heard himself with a delay in states like Colorado and North Carolina even where it's within the margin of error and Hispanics can make the difference. So there's definitely an enthusiasm problem but it starts with reaching out making people feel that they matter not just in the Czech Latino box but really for the priorities of that particular candidate it's going to have to be done one at a time. And on that particular note I would say that it's an opportunity for Republicans and it's an opportunity to go from the rhetoric which we've seen a lot with Democrats on the immigration issue to action and I think that that's something that's going to be that Republicans if they do take the Senate are going to be judged on this issue. I think that it's an issue of growing interest and growing importance and I think it's an opportunity but right now and just in closing I guess the Latino vote is more up for grabs now than in what it's ever been. Would you agree with that? I agree with that. I think that Democrats have made a big mistake in not being more aggressive. Again, you have the mark priors of the world dominating and affecting national decisions instead of the Udals who have a bigger Hispanic constituency and so Democrats have definitely put themselves in a difficult scenario where they should be able to capitalize on this constituency but it is not 100% sealed. Look, you know I think that Republicans on the other hand are missing an opportunity as you talked about not just for the next cycle but even in the lame duck session. They misread the Cantor loss, you know. For them it was like let's not deal with immigration because clearly it's a loser when what they should have been looking at was let's deal with immigration now so that we don't continue to have our Cantors being challenged by the fringe because at the end of the day the Latinos aren't going to go away. The Dreamers aren't going to stop protesting. They're not going to stop showing up at these members events and challenging them on the stump and at the end of the day if Republicans get this out of the way in the lame duck session they don't have to deal with that. They take it off the table so that the primaries on the Republican side don't have to focus on immigration so that members like Cantor aren't being challenged and they would be smart to do that rather than to continue to drag it out. Well write all that down and we'll check it in six months. No prediction then. Close. Or 35 years. Or in 35 years exactly. Well I think we should offer a round of applause to our panelists. Thank you all for coming and participating and C-Span was here too so you can relive it.