[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4973-4974]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           CERTIFIED NONSENSE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, here we go again. It seems that around 
this time every year we launch into certification follies. The occasion 
is the annual requirement that the administration report to Congress on 
the progress or lack of progress that countries are making in 
cooperating on combating drugs. This debate more recently gets 
personalized around the issue of the certification of Mexico.
  There seems to be two basic elements in this affair: The acceptance 
by some in Congress that the administration only lies on certification 
therefore we should do away with the process and quit the pretense. And 
those who argue that it is unfair to judge the behavior of others and 
to force the President to make such judgments.
  I do not think that either of these views is accurate or does justice 
to the seriousness of the issues we are dealing with. They are also not 
consonant with the actual requirements in certification.
  On the first point. The annual certification process does not require 
the administration to lie. If an administration chooses to do so, it is 
not the fault of the certification process. And the fix is not to 
change the law to enable a lie. The fix is to insist on greater honesty 
in the process and compliance with the legal requirements.
  Now, the Congress is no stranger to elaborate misrepresentations from 
administrations. Given that fact, this does mean that differences in 
judgment necessarily mean that one party to the difference is lying. In 
the past, I have not accepted all the arguments by the administration 
in certifying Mexico.
  Indeed, self-evident facts make such an acceptance impossible and the 
administration's insistence upon obvious daydreams embarrassing. But I 
have, despite this, supported the overall decision on Mexico. I have 
done this for several reasons.
  Before I explain, let me summarize several passages from the law that 
requires the President to report to Congress. There seems to be some 
considerable misunderstanding about what it says. The requirement is 
neither unusual nor burdensome. The President must inform Congress if 
during the previous year any given major drug producing or transit 
country cooperated fully with the United States or international 
efforts to stop production or transit. These efforts can be part of a 
bilateral agreement with the United States. They can be unilateral 
efforts. Or they can be efforts undertaken in cooperation with other 
countries, or in conformity with international law.
  In making this determination, the President is asked to consider 
several things: the extent to which the country has met the goals and 
objectives of the 1988 U.N. Convention on illicit drugs; the extent to 
which similar efforts are being made to combat money laundering and the 
flow of precursor chemicals; and the efforts being made to combat 
corruption.
  The purpose for these requirements is also quite simple. It is a 
recognition by Congress, in response to public demand, that the U.S. 
Government take

[[Page 4974]]

international illegal drug production and trafficking seriously. That 
it make this concern a matter of national interest. And that, in 
conjunction with our efforts here and abroad, other countries do their 
part in stopping production and transit. Imagine that. A requirement 
that we and others should take illicit drug production and transit 
seriously. That we should do something concrete about it. And that, 
from time to time, we should get an accounting of what was done and 
whether it was effective.
  I do not read in this requirement the problem that many seem to see. 
This requirement is in keeping with the reality of the threat that 
illegal drugs pose to the domestic well-being of U.S. citizens. Illegal 
drugs smuggled into this country by criminal gangs resident overseas 
kill more Americans annually than all the terrorist attacks on U.S. 
citizens in the past 10 years. It is consistent with international law. 
And it is not unusually burdensome on the administration--apart from 
holding it to some realistic standard of accountability.
  I know that administrations, here and abroad, are uncomfortable with 
such standards. But that shilly shally should not be our guide. 
Congress has a constitutional foreign policy responsibility every bit 
as fundamental as the President's. Part of that responsibility is to 
expect accountability. The certification process is a key element in 
that with respect to drugs.
  To seek to retreat from the responsibility because an administration 
does not like to be accountable is hardly sufficient ground for a 
change. To do so because another country does not like explaining how 
it is doing in cooperating to deal with a serious threat to U.S. 
national interests is equally unacceptable. To argue that we should 
cease judging others because we have yet to do enough at home is a 
logic that borders on the absurd. To believe that claims of sovereignty 
by some country trumps external judgment on its behavior is to argue 
for a dangerous standard in international law. To argue that we should 
bury our independent judgment on this matter of national interest in 
some vague multilateralized process is a confidence trick.
  Try putting this argument into a different context. Imagine for a 
moment making these arguments with respect to terrorism. Think about 
the consequences of ignoring violations of human rights because a 
country claims it is unfair to meddle in internal matters.
  When it comes to drugs, however, some seem prepared to carve out an 
exception. It offends Mexico, so let's not hold them accountable. The 
administration will not be honest, so let's stop making the judgment.
  The administration, we are informed, does not want to offend an 
important ally. Really? Well, it seems the administration likes to pick 
and choose. At the moment, the administration is considering and 
threatening sanctions against the whole European Union--that is some of 
our oldest allies. And over what issue? Bananas. To my knowledge, not a 
single banana has killed an American. However serious the trade issue 
is that is involved, major international criminal gangs are not 
targeting Americans with banana peels. They are not smuggling tons of 
bananas into this country illegally. They are not corrupting whole 
governments.
  So, what we are being asked to accept is that sanctions are an 
important national interest when it comes to bananas but not for drugs. 
That it is okay to judge allies on cooperation on tropical fruit but 
not on dangerous drugs. This strikes me as odd. Do not get me wrong. I 
am not against bananas. I believe there are serious trade issues 
involved in this dispute over bananas. What strikes me as odd is that 
the administration is prepared to deploy serious actions against allies 
over this issue but finds it unacceptable to defend U.S. interests when 
it comes to drugs with similar dedication and seriousness.
  But let me come back to Mexico and certification. I have two 
observations. The first concerns the requirements for certification. I 
refer again to the law. That is a good place to start. The requirement 
in the law is to determine whether a country is fully cooperating. It 
is not to judge whether a country is fully successful.
  Frankly, that is an impossible standard to meet. One that we would 
fail. I agree, that deciding what full cooperation looks like is a 
matter of judgment. But to those who argue that certification limits 
the President's flexibility, on the contrary, it gives scope to just 
that in reaching such a decision. It is a judgment call. Sometimes a 
very vexed judgment.
  Nevertheless, one can meet a standard of cooperation that is not 
bringing success. In such a case, an over-reliance upon purely material 
standards of evaluation cannot be our only guide. How many 
extraditions, how many new laws, how many arrests, how many drugs 
seized are not our only measures for judgment. There are others. And in 
the case of Mexico there is a major question that must be part of our 
thinking.
  Unless the United States can and is prepared unilaterally to stop 
drug production and trafficking in Mexico, then we have two choices. To 
seek some level of cooperation with legitimate authority in Mexico to 
give us some chance of addressing the problem. Or, to decide no 
cooperation is possible and to seal the border. The latter course, 
would involve an immense undertaking and is uncertain of success. It 
would also mean abandoning Mexico at a time of crisis to the very 
criminal gangs that threaten both countries. In my view, we cannot 
decertify Mexico until we can honestly and dispassionately answer this 
question: Is what we are getting in the way of cooperation from Mexico 
so unacceptable on this single issue that our only option is to tear up 
our rich and varied bilateral relationship altogether?
  However frustrating our level of cooperation may be, I continue to 
think that we have not reached the point of hopelessness. And there are 
encouraging signs along with the disappointments. Having said this, I 
do not believe that we can or should forgo judgment on the continuing 
nature of cooperation. With Mexico or with any country. To those who 
would change the certification process I would say, let's give the 
process a chance not a change. Let's actually apply it. This does not 
mean in some rote way. But wisely. With understanding. With due regard 
to both the nuance of particular situations and a sense of 
responsibility.

                          ____________________