[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 64 (Thursday, May 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4621-S4622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS I

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the House is in the process of taking 
steps to alter fundamentally the annual certification process for 
drugs. In addition, there have been a number of statements in the press 
and elsewhere by Members of Congress and others on problems with 
certification. Individuals in the Administration, including the Drug 
Czar, have also broached the idea of change. I agree that some form of 
strengthening of the certification process is needed. Indeed, I offered 
my ``Three Strikes and you're out'' bill last year with the idea of 
making the certification process tougher. I also suggested some fixes 
this last February in the debate over Mexico. But I also think that it 
is important to take a hard look at what the certification process is 
before we tinker with it.
  The recent discussion of the certification process is born out of 
frustration over the decision on Mexico. I share some of these concerns 
and the frustration. But the present effort is little more than an 
attempt to water down congressional oversight of US narcotics policy. 
It does so in the name of flexibility. It does so/so that we won't be 
too hard on our international partners. I believe this approach is 
wrong. And I will vigorously oppose efforts to short change the 
public's interest in upholding tough standards for certification.
  Since much of the discussion in recent weeks on certification is 
based on a series of myths about it, I think it is useful to review 
some of these misconceptions.
  The principal myth is that the certification process unfairly brands 
other countries for drug supply problems. It also maintains that this 
is unfair while the United States does nothing to deal with its demand 
problem.
  There are several things wrong with this view. First, even if the 
United States did nothing about demand, we have a right and an 
obligation to do something about supply. This is especially true since 
most of the dangerous, illegal drugs used in this country are produced 
overseas. These drugs are then smuggled into the United States, often 
with the collusion of public officials in other countries.
  Our right to stop this flow stems from the fact that we and virtually 
every other country in the world are signatories of international 
agreements. These agreements bind us and them to action to stop drug 
production, trafficking, and money laundering. Moreover, most of these 
same

[[Page S4622]]

countries--including the ones we certify--have made drug production, 
trafficking, and money laundering illegal under their own laws. And, 
many of these countries have bilateral agreements with the United 
States that commit them to take meaningful action against drugs. Thus, 
countries are bound to act in terms of international law. They are 
committed to binding agreements with the United States. And they have 
obligations in terms of their own domestic legal frameworks.
  It is neither unfair nor presumptuous for the United States to expect 
other countries to abide by laws and commitments that they have made. 
Nor are we being a busybody or arbitrary when we expect and require 
countries to uphold appropriate international standards of conduct. 
Indeed, it is only by insisting that such principles of conduct be 
observed that we have any hope of sustaining respect for and observance 
of international law. This is understood when it comes to judging other 
countries on their compliance with a host of other international 
canons.
  After all, we expect countries to observe principles governing human 
rights, sound environmental practices, fair trade, counterterrorism, 
and intellectual property rights, to name but a few. The United States 
has been a leader in promoting respect for these areas of concern.
  Congress has passed a host of certification requirements regarding 
them. In part, this is because we recognize that failure to uphold 
these principles in the face of willful or negligent disregard is to 
abandon the idea of standards altogether. And it makes at least as much 
sense to hold other countries responsible for trafficking in dangerous 
drugs as it does to scold them for trafficking in pirated CD's.
  As I said, we also have an obligation to uphold these standards. Our 
obligation is to the American people and to the policies we promote in 
their interest. Protection the citizens of this country from enemies, 
foreign and domestic, is one of our most important responsibilities. 
Stopping dangerous drugs coming to this country from abroad falls 
squarely into this category.
  If we are prepared to enforce sanctions for violations of 
intellectual property rights, it is hardly excessive to judge 
cooperation by other countries to stop the flow of illegal drugs. After 
all, not one American has died from Chinese counterfeit CDs. China 
White heroin, on the other hand, has killed countless of our fellow 
citizens and ruined the lives of tens of thousands more. This points up 
our obligation to uphold international standards of conduct.
  Somehow, though, when it comes to the drug issue, many seem to 
believe that expecting good conduct is wrong. They seem to hold to the 
notion that it is unfair. They act as if it is unkind to expect 
countries to comply with international law, solemn agreements, and 
their own legal requirements.
  Some seem to believe that it is outrageous that we also take steps to 
protect our national interest. Now, since many of the people who voice 
this latter concern are the leaders of drug producing and transit 
countries, we can take their complaints with a grain of salt. But the 
domestic critics are a different matter. To them, all I have to say is 
that it would be irresponsible for the United States to put the 
concerns and interests of other countries before those of the American 
people. Period.
  As I said, we would be justified in certifying other countries on 
drug cooperation even if we did nothing at home. But we in fact do a 
great deal. Out of a $16 billion counter-drug budget, less than 10 
percent is spent on actions outside the United States.
  Over 90 percent is devoted to domestic programs, many of these 
efforts to control demand. And this is just at the Federal level. 
States, local communities, and private organizations spend this much 
and a great deal more on demand reduction. Thus, we spend annually more 
than $32 billion to deal with our demand problem. There is not another 
country in the world that devotes such resources to the problem at 
home.
  I remind my colleagues and the critics of the certification process 
that the standard for certification is not unconditional success. This 
is true whether we are talking about Mexico or California. To get a 
passing grade on drug cooperation does not mean that a country has to 
have totally eliminated drug production or trafficking, or, for that 
matter, use.
  It requires a good faith effort. The certification law takes into 
consideration the many problems with stopping drug production and 
transit. Thus, it is not unexpected that individuals can disagree on 
the results. It is not a sign of failure if the Congress and the 
President should disagree. Nor should such disagreements be the 
occasion for throwing overboard the very process we have for ensuring 
cooperation. And it does do this. Over the course of the certification 
process, we have seen more countries take the issue seriously. They do 
this because they are aware that we take it seriously. We have taught 
our own administration and other countries that cooperation on drugs is 
important. To now abandon the chief tool that we have is to run from 
our responsibilities at the first sign of unpleasantness.
  Certification is not perfect. No legislative tool is. We must, 
however, not expect more than is realistic. The present process clearly 
indicates Congress' expectation that countries, including our own, will 
demonstrate serious commitment. That commitment requires more than 
pious words. It expects action and demonstrable results. Failing that, 
it is wholly within our right to judge and to take appropriate steps. 
It is also an obligation.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________