[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 56 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S4489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FINDING THE FUDGE FACTOR

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, based on recent remarks by the 
President, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If the story as 
reported is true, it is an unfortunate commentary. In a recent meeting 
with religious leaders, Mr. Clinton asked them to withdraw their 
support for a legislative effort to hold countries to account that 
engage in religious persecution. Mr. Clinton, it seems, does not like 
legislation that imposes sanctions. Well, that's not precisely right. 
What he does not like is sanctions that he didn't think of. When he 
wants sanctions on Iraq, for example, he is all for sanctions. But when 
it comes to other issues he cares less about, well, suddenly he finds 
them unwelcome.
  What are some of these? Well, he doesn't like mandatory sanctions for 
violations of human rights. He objects to sanctions to stop the spread 
of nuclear weapons. He is not partial to sanctions on countries that 
persecute people for their religious beliefs. And he finds the idea of 
sanctions on countries that do not do enough to stop the traffic of 
illegal drugs to the United States burdensome. In a flight of candor 
with the religious leaders, he allows as how it is difficult to be 
honest in assessing another country's behavior if sanctions might be 
involved. ``What always happens,'' he says, ``if you have automatic 
sanctions legislation is it puts pressure on whoever is in the 
executive branch to fudge an evaluation of the facts of what is going 
on.''
  That is refreshingly frank. It is also disturbing. When I look up 
``fudge'' in the dictionary, this is what it tells me the word means: 
to fake; to falsify; to exceed the proper bounds or limits of 
something; to fail to perform as expected; to avoid commitment.
  If I am to believe these remarks, what the President is saying is 
that his Administration finds it necessary to falsify the facts; to 
avoid commitment; to fake information. His Administration finds it 
difficult to be honest when it comes to telling the Congress and the 
public what other countries are doing on critical issues. I guess the 
question we need to ask now is, what is the fudge factor in the various 
reports this Administration has submitted on these issues? We need to 
know this for past reports. And we need to know what this factor is in 
order to properly evaluate future assessments.
  The reason we need to know this is for what the President's comments 
suggest. If we believe this report, the President is telling us that 
his Administration finds it necessary to be less than candid when it 
comes to enforcing the law. Now, I know that many Administrations do 
not like the idea that Congress also has foreign policy 
responsibilities. Many Administrations have fought against sanctions 
for this or that issue they did not think of.
  They have also fought for sanctions when it was their idea. What is 
of concern here is the admission that this Administration fights shy of 
telling the truth in situations where it does not approve of the 
sanctions. It fudges the facts, presumably, even though the President 
has the discretion, in law, to waive any sanctions for national 
security reasons. This then is a candid admission that it enforces the 
laws it likes and fudges those it does not. I find this disturbing.
  Perhaps the Administration could explain just why it needs to fudge 
the facts on drug certification, for example. What drug certification 
requires is that the President assess what other countries are doing to 
help stop the production and traffic of illegal drugs. This means 
assessing what they are doing to comply with international law. To make 
a judgment about what they are doing to live up to bilateral agreements 
with the United States.
  And to account for what these countries are doing to comply with 
their own laws. The certification law gives the President considerable 
flexibility in determining whether these activities meet some minimally 
acceptable standards. He is not required to impose sanctions unless he 
determines, based on the facts, that a country is not living up to 
reasonable standards. And he can waive any sanctions. This gives the 
Administration a great deal of latitude. I have defended this 
flexibility. I have argued that just because the Congress and the 
Administration disagree, honestly, over an assessment, it does not mean 
that the facts are not honest. Or that the judgment is dishonest. But 
these recent remarks open up another concern. If the facts are fudged, 
however, just how are we to determine what to make of the judgment that 
follows?
  And what is the occasion for employing the fudge factor? What is it 
being avoided or dodged? What the certification law and many of these 
others that require sanctions ask for is not terribly complicated or 
outlandish. They express the expectation of the Congress and of the 
American public that countries live up to certain responsibilities. And 
more, that failure to do so involves consequences. This is, after all, 
the expectation of law and of behavior in a community of civilized 
nations. The want of such standards or the lack of consequences reduces 
the chances for serious compliance with international law or the rules 
of common decency. Are we really to believe that respect for these 
standards and consequences are to be discarded because their 
application is inconvenient? Because they reduce some notion of 
flexibility? That we only have to enforce or observe the laws we like? 
What a principle.
  I for one do not intend to live by such a notion. I will also from 
now on be far more interested in knowing just what the fudge factor is 
in assessments from the Administration. I hope my colleagues will also 
be more demanding.

                          ____________________