Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee for holding this important hearing. Today is the first of March, the annual date for the President to submit his findings on international counter drug cooperation. This certification process lately has become somewhat controversial. Today's hearing, as I understand it, is to examine this process and several bills to change it now before the committee.
Before I discuss my bill, S.376, and the changes it proposes, I want to say a few things about the certification process and the controversy that now accompanies it.
Let me begin by quoting briefly from the original law that created the certification process back in the mid 1980s. Chapter 8 of the Foreign Assistance Act reads, in part, as follows:
International narcotics trafficking poses an unparalleled transnational threat in today's world, and its suppression is among the most important foreign policy objectives of the United States.
Under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and under the United Nations Convention against Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances, parties are required to criminalize certain drug-related activities....
And following from this:
International narcotics control programs should include, as priority goals, the suppression of illicit manufacture of and trafficking in narcotic...drugs, money laundering, and precursor chemical diversion....
The international community should provide assistance, where appropriate, to those producer and transit countries which require assistance
Because...
Effective international cooperation is necessary to control the illicit cultivation, production, and smuggling of, trafficking in, and abuse of narcotic...drugs.
The law empowers the President to conclude international agreements to implement these objectives. It then requires a method for accountability.
What the law says, in summary, is that we acknowledge that international production and trafficking are bad. That the US and other countries have obligations under their own laws and under international law to stop production, trafficking, and use. And that it is reasonable and responsible to expect this countries and others to be accountability for those efforts. Even if they don't want to be and don't like it.
There seems to be, however, some dissatisfaction with these expectations. We here charges of unfairness. Of unilateral decision making. Of living in glass houses. While I understand that some are unhappy, I do not think it is time to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I do not believe that the circumstances that led Congress some 14 years ago to establish this standard have substantially changed. If anything production and trafficking are worse. The criminal organizations engaged in these activities have grown more powerful and bolder. Our obligations to protect and defend the people across this country is no less real and demanding. The need for tough responses and toughmindedness about those responses remain a call upon our best efforts.
I do not believe that the need for accountability is any less today that it has ever been. I am also of the opinion that the US--with others if possible, without if necessary--must be a leader in ensuring that we and others are taking adequate steps to meet our obligations.
This is not some esoteric discussion about airy philosophical ideas. It involves what we propose to do about something very basic that is happening across this land. Drug availability and use are causing direct and real harm today.
In our homes, schoolyards, and neighborhoods. In our hospitals and on our streets. Most of the drugs that do this harm come from overseas. They are produced and trafficked by major criminal gangs. In some cases, those activities are aided and abetted by foreign governments or corrupt officials in them.
This is not something we can or should ignore, overlook, or make excuses for. We do not do this in respect to terrorism and state support for it, and we should expect no less when it comes to drugs. I repeat the words from the law, this is one of our most important foreign policy concerns.
That being said, I do believe that we can make some changes to the current certification regime. The changes I propose will retain the important accountability aspects while retooling certification to be more effective. Our goal should not be to spend time debating the certification process. We need to spend our time in doing something about the problem it is meant to address.
I also believe, in part a result of certification, that other countries now take the need to deal with drug trafficking more seriously. It is important to take that fact into account.
That is why I offered S.376 along with Senator DeWine. What it does is quite simple. It replaces the current three-tiered certification decision making process with one determination. My proposal requires a decertification notice only. There is no more "Majors List". The focus is on international bad actors. This parallels what we do with states that support terrorism.
By doing this, we focus attention on the bad guys. We keep the important accountability aspects of the law. We keep the useful reporting process. We keep the leverage with bad actors that is one of the most useful features of the law. But the change gives us a chance to reduce the tensions with some of our friends and allies over the process. It gives us some ZANTAC for the policy heartburn we seem to have had with Administrations. And it gives us a three-year trial period to see if it works.
I believe these changes offer us the best chance to keep certification and retain its usefulness. I want to thank the committee for its time and attention.