[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2425-S2427]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 457. A bill to amend section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1961 to provide alternative certification procedures for assistance for 
major drug producing countries and major drug transit countries; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.


               THE MEXICO PROBATIONARY CERTIFICATION ACT

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this month Congress has been considering 
the important issue of whether to uphold or overturn the President's 
certification of Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States to 
fight drug trafficking. I am concerned that without congressional 
action, the Senate must choose between two less than ideal options: 
First, to support the President's certification of Mexico and continue 
business as usual, thereby downplaying serious deficiencies in Mexico's 
efforts; or second, to decertify Mexico, with or without a waiver, 
which might destabilize an important country along our southern border.
  Under current law, notice provided to the target country is often too 
late and not specific enough to fix the problems. Moreover, access to 
more timely and specific information would assist Congress in 
exercising its legislative and oversight responsibilities.
  Therefore, today I propose a bill to provide an alternative approach. 
This legislation would provide the administration a new option to 
certify countries such as Mexico on probationary status for 7 months, 
which extends from March 1 through September 30, the end of the fiscal 
year. However, during this time period, the country on probationary 
certification is expected to comply with certain conditions stipulated 
by the President. If these conditions are not met at the end of this 7-
month period, the United States will act firmly, such as by cutting off 
aid.
  This alternative would put countries on notice that the United States 
has serious concerns about their lack of cooperation. But, it would 
provide a fair period of time during which those countries could 
address U.S. concerns.
  This constructive notice period would be less disruptive to our 
bilateral relations. We saw last week some of the damage which could 
occur in our relationship with Mexico after the House voted to 
decertify Mexico within 90 days if certain criteria are not met. News 
reports quoted Mexico's President, Ernesto Zedillo, as stating: ``This 
is where we draw the line. Our sovereignty and dignity as a nation are 
not negotiable.''
  My bill also provides better notice to Congress. Under this 
alternative, Congress would be informed about those specific concerns 
which the President identified regarding a country's lack of 
cooperation. Congress also would be

[[Page S2426]]

able to track that country's progress during the 7-month probationary 
period and, of course, maintain its prerogative to pass legislation as 
it deems necessary. I believe this would help avoid the contentious 
battle in which the Congress and the administration currently are 
engaged this month over Mexico.
  It is no surprise that many Senators feel strongly about decertifying 
Mexico. Reports indicate that as much as 70 percent of the cocaine 
entering the United States comes through Mexico; up to 30 percent of 
the heroin used in the United States comes through Mexico; and 80 
percent of imported marijuana comes through Mexico.

  Recent developments in that country have exacerbated what is already 
a serious flow of illegal drugs into the United States. For example, 
according to a news report in the March 2 San Diego Union Tribune, 
Mexican authorities are now preventing our DEA agents and law 
enforcement officers from carrying their weapons into Mexico. In 
response, the DEA reportedly pulled its agents out of cross-training 
and intelligence-gathering projects in Mexico along the border. Agents 
and officers now fear they will become targets for gangs and drug 
traffickers, especially if Mexico's certification is revoked. This is 
intolerable.
  Further motivating the push to decertify Mexico is the recent arrest 
of Mexico's drug czar, Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, on allegations he 
was being paid to protect one of Mexico's top drug lords. The general 
is reported to have extensive drug ties, dating back to at least 1993, 
at the same time he was supposed to be fighting drug use and trade in 
his country.
  Any information that the general may have possessed has been 
compromised. Nor is he alone in being corrupt. According to a Los 
Angeles Times report on March 3, court documents from two drug gang 
assassins indicate that approximately 90 percent of the law enforcement 
officers in Tijuana and the State of Baja California in Mexico are 
corrupt.
  These developments raise serious concerns among DEA agents, who 
cannot adequately do their job if they do not receive the help of their 
Mexican counterparts. During his testimony before the House 
Subcommittee on National Security on February 27, 1997, Thomas 
Constantine, the Administrator of the DEA, called fighting drug 
trafficking without assistance from other countries nearly impossible.
  In light of these disturbing developments, I wrote to the President 
last Friday expressing my concern with his certification of Mexico. I 
also urged the administration to take all necessary steps to ensure 
Mexico does its fair share in controlling the flow of illicit drugs 
across its border into the United States.
  Decertifying Mexico will not make this process any easier. Yet, we 
cannot risk the implication that we condone Mexico's failed drug policy 
by fully certifying Mexico without certain conditions. Certification of 
Mexico in light of the compelling facts of that country's involvement 
in drug trafficking also makes a mockery of the certification 
provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act.
  In light of these facts, I am concerned that the President has 
certified Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States. However, 
I am also concerned that decertifying Mexico could destabilize a 
country important to us and cause a potential crisis on our southern 
border. Unfortunately, that is the choice the administration has under 
existing law.
  Therefore, the bill I introduce today would amend the existing law to 
avoid this type of problem in the future. The current certification 
process is set forth in section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1961. It requires the President to submit to Congress by March 1 of 
each year a list of major illicit drug producing and transiting 
countries which he certifies are fully cooperating with the United 
States. This bill offers a good middleground--I urge support.
  Under existing law, the President has three options: One, certify a 
country which has cooperated fully with U.S. anti-drug efforts or has 
taken adequate steps on its own to comply with the 1988 U.N. anti- drug 
trafficking convention. Two, decertify a country for not fully 
cooperating. Or three, decertify a country but provide a waiver because 
it is in the national interests of the United States to continue to 
provide aid.

  Under this law, when a country is decertified, at least 50 percent of 
U.S. bilateral foreign aid is suspended in the current fiscal year. In 
fact, that county may lose more than 50 percent of its current funding 
if the State Department has not yet released the aid. Unless the 
country is recertified, all U.S. aid is suspended in subsequent fiscal 
years. And, the United States is required to vote against loans in the 
multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and the Inter-
American Development Bank.
  Congress has 30 days from receipt of the President's certification to 
enact a joint resolution disapproving the President's action. If 
Congress passes such a resolution, the President can veto it and 
require a two-thirds majority vote in Congress to override the veto.
  Congress also has its prerogative to pass a resolution with other 
timeframes, which would be subject to a Presidential veto. We saw this 
last week when the House passed a resolution to decertify Mexico within 
90 days if certain criteria are not met.
  On February 28, 1997, the President submitted his annual list to 
Congress. This report indicated that 23 countries, including Mexico, 
are certified as fully cooperating; three countries were determined not 
to be fully cooperating, but were deemed in the national interest--
Belize, Lebanon, and Pakistan--and six countries were decertified 
(Afghanistan, Burma, Colombia, Iran, Nigeria, and Syria.
  The impact of this process on Mexico could be dramatic. If Congress 
were to pass a resolution of disapproval within the 30-day review 
period and the President does not exercise his waiver authority, the 
impact would include: Suspension of at least 50 percent of United 
States assistance for the current fiscal year; total suspension of aid 
in the next fiscal year, unless Mexico were recertified; and the United 
State would vote against loans to Mexico in the multilateral 
development banks. Mexico receives $17 million in bilateral aid from 
the United States and, according to the Export-Import Bank, 56 
applications from Mexico could be affected which total $3.24 billion.
  The alternative that I am proposing today provides a middle ground 
because it revisits the certification issue more often during the 
course of the year. The President also is given more flexibility in 
labelling countries more accurately.
  I'm also concerned that under existing law, we are giving a free ride 
to countries which are decertified but then are granted a waiver and 
continue to receive aid because it is deemed in the national interest 
of the United States. These waivers, in essence, allow the provision of 
aid year after year to countries not fully cooperating with the United 
States. What incentive do these countries have to improve their 
cooperation?
  My legislation builds on the existing carrot and stick approach in 
the certification process. This type of approach has been successful 
with other problems in the past, and I think it would go a long way to 
avoid similar controversies in the future like the one we have seen 
surrounding the Mexico certification this month.
  Under my bill, the carrot is certification, although for a finite 
period of time of 7 months. During this probationary period, all U.S. 
aid continues to flow and the United States remains supportive in 
international development banks. The President also stipulates which 
specific conditions must be met by that country to improve its 
cooperation with the United States and to continue receiving U.S. aid. 
Not only is sufficient notice provided to the country, but to the 
Congress as well.
  The stick is a penalty similar to that under existing law. If after 7 
months the country does not comply with the stipulations made by the 
President to improve its cooperation with the United States, 100 
percent of U.S. bilateral aid is cut off. The United States also would 
vote against aid in the multilateral development banks if the country 
does not comply with U.S. stipulations, as provided for under current 
law. These penalties would remain in effect until the President 
notifies Congress that the country has complied with the stipulations 
made in the President's original probationary certification.

[[Page S2427]]

  In my opinion, this alternative approach would force fuller 
compliance by countries and, in future cases similar to Mexico, help 
avoid a potential crisis in those countries.
  We need to send a very strong message to our neighbors in Mexico and 
similarly situated countries when we do not believe that they are fully 
cooperating with United States efforts to combat drug trafficking. But, 
to risk a crisis along our own border is asking for greater trouble.
  I believe that a compromise solution, as outlined in my proposal, is 
the most reasonable way to address similar circumstances in the future, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 457

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ALTERNATIVE CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR MAJOR DRUG PRODUCING AND DRUG 
                   TRANSIT COUNTRIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1990 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i) Alternative Certification Procedures.--
       ``(1) In general.--In lieu of submitting a certification 
     with respect to a country under subsection (b), the President 
     may submit the certification described in paragraph (2). The 
     President shall submit the certification under such paragraph 
     at the time of the submission of the report required by 
     section 489(a).
       ``(2) Certification.--A certification with respect to a 
     country under this paragraph is a certification specifying--
       ``(A) that the withholding of assistance from the country 
     under subsection (a)(1) and the opposition to assistance to 
     the country under subsection (a)(2) in the fiscal year 
     concerned is not in the national interests of the United 
     States; and
       ``(B) the conditions which must be met in order to 
     terminate the applicability of paragraph (4) to the country.
       ``(3) Effect of certification in fiscal year of 
     certification.--If the President submits a certification with 
     respect to a country under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year--
       ``(A) the assistance otherwise withheld from the country 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(1) may be obligated and expended 
     in that fiscal year; and
       ``(B) the requirement of subsection (a)(2) to vote against 
     multilateral development bank assistance to the country shall 
     not apply to the country in that fiscal year.
       ``(4) Effect of certification in later fiscal years.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subparagraph (B) shall apply to a 
     country covered by a certification submitted under this 
     subsection during the period beginning on October 1 of the 
     year in which the President submits the certification and 
     ending on the date on which the President notifies Congress 
     that the conditions specified with respect to the country 
     under paragraph (2)(B) have been met.
       ``(B) Prohibition on Assistance.--
       ``(i) Bilateral assistance.--During the applicability of 
     this subparagraph to a country, no United States assistance 
     allocated for the country in the report required by section 
     653 may be obligated or expended for the country.
       ``(ii) Multilateral assistance.--During the applicability 
     of this subparagraph to a country, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director 
     of each multilateral development bank to vote against any 
     loan or other utilization of the funds of such institution to 
     or by the country.
       ``(5) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `multilateral development bank' shall have the meaning 
     given the term in subsection (a)(2).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (a) of such section 
     is amended by striking ``subsection (b)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``subsections (b) and (i)''.
                                 ______