Drug Certification/Designation Procedures for Illicit Narcotics Producing and Transit Countries

Drug Certification/Designation Procedures for Illicit Narcotics Producing and Transit Countries

Order Code RL32038
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Drug Certification/Designation Procedures for
Illicit Narcotics Producing and Transit Countries
Updated September 20, 2005
/name redacted/
Specialist in Latin American Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Drug Certification/Designation Procedures for
Illicit Narcotics Producing and Transit Countries
Summary
This report summarizes the congressionally-mandated presidential designation
procedures on major illicit narcotics producing and transit countries in Section 706
of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2003 (H.R. 1646/P.L. 107-228)
enacted in September 2002. To put the new procedures in perspective, the report also
provides information on the past procedures, the congressional modifications, and
recent presidential designations under the revised procedures. This report will not
be updated.
From the mid-1980s to 2001, Congress required the President to certify in early
March that specified drug producing and drug transit countries were “cooperating
fully” with the United States in counter-narcotics efforts in order to avoid a series of
sanctions, including suspension of U.S. foreign assistance, and opposition to loans
in the multilateral development banks. The sanctions would also apply if the
Congress, within 30 calendar days, passed a joint resolution of disapproval to
overturn the presidential certification. Spokesmen from many countries complained
about the unilateral and non-cooperative nature of the drug certification requirements,
and a movement to modify the process developed in Congress in 2000-2002.
In 2001 (on a temporary, one-year basis) and in 2002 (on a permanent but
initially transitional basis), a law with new procedures was enacted. This law
requires the President to make a report in mid-September of each year that identifies
the major drug producing or transit countries. At the same time, the President is
required to designate and to withhold assistance from any of the named countries that
has “failed demonstrably,” during the previous 12 months, to adhere to international
counter-narcotics agreements. Under the legislation, the President may waive the
withholding of assistance if he determines this to be in the national interest.
Acting under this legislation, President Bush made designations on a transitional
basis for FY2002 and FY2003 and then made determinations on the designated date
for FY2004, FY2005, and FY2006.
! On February 23, 2002, the President designated Afghanistan, Burma
and Haiti as having “failed demonstrably” but granted national
interest waivers to Haiti and Afghanistan under the new government.
! On January 31, 2003, the President designated Burma, Guatemala,
and Haiti, but granted national interest waivers to Guatemala and
Haiti.
! On September 15, 2003, the President designated Burma and Haiti,
but granted a national interest waiver to Haiti.
! On September 15, 2004, the President designated Burma as having
“failed demonstrably” in counter-narcotics efforts.
! On September 15, 2005, the President designated Burma and
Venezuela but granted a national interest waiver to Venezuela to
permit a continuation of U.S. assistance.

Contents
Drug Certification Requirements for FY1987-FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Congress Sets Certification Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Presidential Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Drug Designation Requirements for FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Congressional Reform Efforts Lead to One Year Waiver
and New Requirements in Foreign Operations Appropriations . . . . . . . 3
President Bush’s Designations under the Appropriations Act . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Drug Designation Requirements for FY2003 and Thereafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Congress Establishes Permanent New Requirements in Foreign
Relations Authorization, with Transitional Provisions for FY2003 . . . 6
President Bush’s Designations for FY2003 under the Transition Rule . . . . . 7
President Bush’s Designations for FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
President Bush’s Designations for FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
President Bush’s Designations for FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Features of Sections 489-490 of FAAct (Old Provisions)
and Section 706 of Foreign Relations Authorization (New Provisions) . . . 12
Table 2. Majors List, FY1987-FY2003, Countries Determined To Be Major
Illicit Narcotics Producing and/or Transit Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 3. Countries on Majors List, FY1987-FY2001, That Failed to “Cooperate
Fully,” and Were Decertified or Given National Interest Certification . . . 15
Table 4. Countries on Majors List, FY2002-FY2006, That “Failed Demonstrably”
and Were Subject to Sanctions or Given Waivers in National Interest . . . 16
Table 5. Majors List, FY2004-FY2006, Countries Determined on
September 15th before Fiscal Year to be Major Illicit Narcotics Producing
and/or Transit Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Drug Certification/Designation Procedures
for Illicit Narcotics Producing
and Transit Countries
This report provides a summary of the congressionally-mandated presidential
designation procedures that require the President, with some waiver authority, to
identify in mid-September of each year the major drug producing or transit countries,
and to designate and to withhold assistance from any of the countries that has “failed
demonstrably” to adhere to international counter-narcotics agreements. The report
also summarizes the presidential determinations and designations made under these
procedures, including the designations under transitional procedures in 2001 and
2002 and the regular designations in 2003, 2004 and 2005. This report will not be
updated.
Drug Certification Requirements
for FY1987-FY2001
Congress Sets Certification Requirements
In the mid-1980s, Congress became increasingly concerned that the Executive
was giving inadequate attention and effort to blocking and controlling foreign drug
trafficking. As a result, beginning with the Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Congress
required the President to certify that certain countries were cooperating fully with the
United States in counter-narcotics efforts in order to avoid the suspension of U.S.
foreign assistance. Sections 489-490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, required the President to designate the major illicit drug producing and
drug transit countries by November 1 of each year. These sections further required
the President to withhold 50% of U.S. assistance for the designated countries for that
fiscal year until he certified by March 1 of each year that the countries had cooperated
fully with the United States in drug control efforts, or had taken adequate steps on
their own to achieve the goals and objectives of the 1988 United Nations Drug
Convention.1
1 For more detail, see U.S. Department of State, Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs, Fact Sheet: Majors List and the Certification Process, March 1, 2001;
and CRS Report 98-159, Narcotics Certification of Drug Producing and Trafficking
Nations: Questions and Answers, by (name redacted). There were some slight modifications
in the procedures in the 1986-2001 period. Earlier, Congress required reports on drug
producing and transit countries in 1981, and it gave the President the authority to suspend
assistance to non-cooperative countries in 1984.

CRS-2
In the event the President was unable to certify that a country was fully
cooperative, or to determine that a less-than-fully-cooperative country should be
given a certification in the national interest, certain sanctions applied to the countries
denied certification. Among the sanctions applied to decertified countries were the
following: (1) most foreign assistance and financing of military sales for the
decertified country were to be suspended, with the exception of counter-narcotics and
humanitarian aid; (2) U.S. representatives were required to vote against loans for the
country in the multilateral development banks; and (3) certain trade sanctions,
including increased tariffs and denial of preferential trade benefits, could be applied
at the President’s discretion. The imposed sanctions were to remain in force until the
country was subsequently certified.
The sanctions would also apply if Congress, within 30 calendar days, passed a
joint resolution of disapproval to overturn the presidential certification, thereby
decertifying a country. However, any such congressional resolution would be subject
to a presidential veto, and would require a two-thirds vote of both houses to override.
Moreover, Section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, gives the
President the authority to provide assistance to a country, notwithstanding other
provisions in the act, if he determines and notifies Congress, that to do so is
important to the security interests of the United States.
Presidential Certifications
Acting under the congressionally imposed requirements, U.S. Presidents
regularly certified the vast majority of illicit drug producing and transit countries,
especially countries that were friendly to the United States and that were trading and
diplomatic partners. In a smaller portion of cases, where there were serious doubts
about the counter-narcotics efforts of trade and diplomatic partners, these countries
were given “national interest” waivers that freed them from sanctions on the grounds
that continued aid would facilitate better relations and encourage greater counter-
narcotics efforts.2 In general, the remaining countries that were denied certification
(or decertified) were pariah states, or states with which the United States had little
or no contact.
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush decertified Iran, Syria, Burma
and Afghanistan, and gave “national interest” waivers to Lebanon. President Bush
decertified Panama in 1988 and 1989, just before and after the United States
intervened militarily to remove military ruler General Manuel Noriega from power
in part because of his involvement in drug trafficking activities. President William
Clinton, decertified Nigeria in 1994, while Bolivia and Peru were given waivers;
Colombia, Paraguay, and Pakistan were given waivers in 1995; and Colombia was
decertified in 1996 and 1997 on grounds that Colombia’s President had received
campaign contributions from drug traffickers. This determination caused
considerable consternation in Bogota, and some disagreement in Congress. In 1997-
1999, there was criticism in Congress when the Administration removed Iran, Syria,
2 See Passing Judgement: The U.S. Drug Certification Process, Annenberg School for
Communication, University of Southern California, 1998, pp. 1-2.

CRS-3
and Lebanon from the list of major drug producing and transit countries, and when
North Korea was not included in the Majors List.3
In action relating to Mexico, which was often the center of attention despite
being fully certified each year, congressional resolutions to disapprove Mexico’s
certification were introduced in 1987, 1988, 1997, 1998, and 1999.4 Resolutions of
disapproval failed to reach floor action in most years, but both houses passed separate
versions of weakened resolutions of disapproval in 1997, and a Senate resolution of
disapproval reached the floor but was defeated in 1998. Responding to domestic and
international criticisms, measures to modify the drug certification requirements were
introduced but not enacted in 1997.5
On March 1, 2001, in the last presidential certifications under the old provisions,
President George W. Bush certified 20 of the 24 designated drug producing or transit
countries as fully cooperative in counter-narcotics efforts, and he granted national
interest certifications to Cambodia and Haiti. Only two countries — Afghanistan and
Burma — were decertified and subject to the sanctions. President Bush’s
determinations were very similar to the determinations of President Clinton in the
previous year, except that Nigeria and Paraguay were elevated from national interest
waiver status to fully cooperative status. By the end of the 30-day period for
congressional review of presidential drug certifications, no resolutions of disapproval
had been introduced to disapprove President Bush’s 2001 certification of Mexico or
any other country.
Drug Designation Requirements for FY2002
Congressional Reform Efforts Lead to One Year Waiver
and New Requirements in Foreign Operations Appropriations
After more than a year of efforts to modify the drug certification requirements,
in December 2001 and January 2002, Congress passed and the President signed the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-115) that contained a
temporary, one-year suspension of the drug certification procedures, along with new
requirements.
Following the July 2000 election of opposition candidate Vicente Fox as
President of Mexico, bills were introduced but not enacted to exempt Mexico from
the drug certification requirement in FY2001. However, the Senate did pass S.Res.
366 in October 2000, expressing the sense of the Senate that a one-year waiver was
3 See CRS Report 98-159, cited above.
4 For details on the certification process and an illustration of the possible consequences of
decertification of Mexico, see CRS Report RL30080, Mexico and Drug Certification in
1999: Consequences of Decertification, by (name redacted).
5 For more detail, see CRS Report 98-174, Mexican Drug Certification Issues: U.S.
Congressional Action, 1986-2001, by (name redacted).

CRS-4
warranted for Mexico so that the new presidents in Mexico and the United States
could develop more effective and cooperative counter-narcotics programs.
In late January 2001, Senator Dodd introduced S. 219 to suspend the existing
drug certification process for all countries for two years and encourage a high-level
conference to develop an effective multilateral strategy. In mid-February 2001,
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced S. 353 to exempt Mexico from the drug
certification requirement in FY2001 but require enhanced bilateral counter-narcotics
cooperation. About the same time, Senator Grassley and Senator DeWine introduced
S. 376 to modify the certification process for FY2002-FY2004 to require the
President to identify only those countries that are failing to cooperate fully with the
United States in drug control efforts.
In mid-February 2001, on the eve of President Bush’s visit with President Fox
in Mexico, the Senate passed S.Con.Res. 13 expressing the sense of the Congress that
the President should work with the President of Mexico to advance bilateral
cooperation. The measure urged the President to seek, among other things, “to
review the current illicit drug certification process, and should seek to be open to
consideration of other evaluation mechanisms that would promote increased
cooperation and effectiveness in combating the illicit drug trade.” During the joint
press conference following the meeting in Mexico, President Bush indicated that
there was a movement in Congress to review the drug certification requirements, and
he expressed confidence in President Fox’s efforts to combat drug trafficking.
In late February and early March, additional measures were introduced to
modify the existing drug certification procedures. On February 27, 2001,
Representative Kolbe introduced H.R. 753 to exempt Mexico from the drug
certification requirements in FY2001. On March 1, 2001, Senators Boxer and
Gramm introduced S. 435 to provide that the drug certification procedures would not
apply to countries with which the United States has bilateral counter-narcotics
agreements; and Representative Reyes introduced H.R. 841 to suspend the
certification procedures for two years and encourage development of an effective
multilateral strategy.
On March 1, 2001, the same day that President Bush certified that Mexico was
cooperating fully with the United States in counter-narcotics areas, the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing in which several of the proposed
modifications to the drug certification requirements were discussed. Then Assistant
Secretary of State for International Law Enforcement Affairs Rand Beers testified
that the certification process had been “an effective, if blunt, policy instrument,” but
he recognized a growing sense in Congress that there may be more effective
approaches. He added: “Any regime that might modify or replace certification
should have an enforcement mechanism to ensure continued international counter-
narcotics cooperation. If there were efforts to suspend the certification procedure, we
believe the President must retain in the interim the power to decertify or sanction
individual countries using the standards of the current process. We do not believe
that there should be exemptions for individual countries or regions at this time.

CRS-5
Future carve-outs may be appropriate, however, for regions where there is a mutually
acceptable and credible multilateral evaluative mechanism in place.”6
On April 3, 2001, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out S. 219
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, with elements from the various
proposals, that would suspend the existing drug certification procedures for three
years, require the President to designate only the worst offenders subject to sanctions,
and encourage a high-level conference to develop effective multilateral drug
reduction and prevention strategies. On August 1, 2001, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee approved S. 1401, the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act for
FY2002-FY2003, with the provisions of the previously reported S. 219 incorporated
as Sections 741-745 in Title VII, Subtitle D, Reform of Certification Procedures
Applicable to Certain Drug Producing or Trafficking Countries. The Committee
reported out S. 1401 (S.Rept. 107-60) on September 4, 2001, and the measure was
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar, but not acted upon in 2001.
During President Fox’s official state visit to the United States on September 5-7,
2001, the Mexican President, in addressing a joint session of the U.S. Congress,
called upon Congress to pass legislation to suspend the drug certification
requirements as a gesture of trust and faith in the new government, arguing that “trust
requires that one partner not be judged unilaterally by the other.” Following the
Bush-Fox talks, the joint communique praised the growing law enforcement
cooperation between the countries, expressed support for the OAS’ multilateral
evaluation of counter-narcotics efforts, and noted President Bush’s commitment “to
work with the U.S. Congress, on a priority basis, to replace the annual counter-
narcotics certification regime with new measures designed to enhance international
cooperation in this area.”
In December 2001 and January 2002, Congress passed and the President signed
the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2002 (H.R. 2506/P.L. 107-115)
that contained a temporary, one-year waiver of the drug certification procedures on
a global basis for all major drug transit and drug producing countries. In place of the
old requirements, the legislation required the President to designate and withhold
assistance from the worst offending countries, namely the countries among the major
6 This was a reference to the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism (MEM) developed by the
Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American
States (OAS). Following up on the Hemispheric Anti-Drug Strategy of 1996 and the Plan
of Action of Summit of the Americas II (1998) in Santiago, Chile, the CICAD agreed upon
the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism (MEM) in 1999, and a CICAD working group
developed a questionnaire with 61 indicators to which governments responded for the first
time in 2000. A Governmental Experts Group, made up of one representative from each
country, assessed achievements in 1999-2000 for all countries except their own country.
The resulting overview Hemispheric Report and the individual National Reports make
assessments and recommendations for future action. Critics argue that the reports are
preliminary, bland, and without any sanctions. Proponents argue that the reports make
important recommendations, that the MEM process will advance beyond the early efforts,
and that countries care about their performance under the agreed upon criteria. For more
detail on the CICAD and the MEM process, see the CICAD’s internet site at
[http://www.cicad.oas.org/MEM/ENG/About.asp].

CRS-6
illicit drug producing and trafficking countries that have “failed demonstrably,”
during the previous 12 months, to make substantial efforts to adhere to obligations
under international counter-narcotics agreements. It provided, however, that
notwithstanding poor counter-narcotics performance, the President could waive the
sanctions and continue to provide assistance to the designated countries if he
determined and reported to Congress that the assistance to the countries was vital to
the national interests of the United States.
President Bush’s Designations under the Appropriations Act
Acting under the provisions of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for
FY2002, President Bush designated the countries with the worst counter-narcotics
records on February 23, 2002, having previously identified the major illicit drug
producing and drug transit countries in November 2001. He designated three
countries — Afghanistan, Burma, and Haiti — as having failed demonstrably within
the last 12 months to make substantial counter-narcotics efforts, but he granted
national interest waivers to Haiti and Afghanistan under the new regime.7 Shortly
thereafter, on March 1, 2002, the State Department issued the annual International
Narcotics Control Strategy Report, in accordance with a requirement that was not
changed, with descriptions of the counter-narcotics activities of illicit drug producing
and trafficking countries.8
Drug Designation Requirements
for FY2003 and Thereafter
Congress Establishes Permanent New Requirements in
Foreign Relations Authorization, with Transitional Provisions
for FY2003
Continuing the reform efforts of the previous years, in September 2002,
Congress passed and the President signed the Foreign Relations Authorization for
FY2003 (H.R. 1646/P.L. 107-228), with permanent new requirements in Section 706
of the act dealing with International Drug Control Certification Procedures.
Drawing from S. 1401, mentioned above, the new procedures require the
President to make a report, not later than September 15 of each year (15 days before
the start of the fiscal year), identifying the major drug transit or major illicit drug
producing countries. At the same time, the President is required to designate any of
the named countries that has “failed demonstrably,” during the previous 12 months,
to make substantial efforts to adhere to international counter-narcotics agreements
7 See State Department Fact Sheet, Overview of Annual Presidential Determinations on
Major Illicit Drug Producing and Drug-Transit Countries, February 25, 2002, available on
line at [http://www.state.gov/p/inl/ris/fs/8480.htm] for information on the procedures and
the presidential action.
8 See the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report covering 2001, available online
at [http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2001/].

CRS-7
(defined in the legislation) and to take other counter-narcotics measures.9 U.S.
assistance would be withheld from any designated countries unless the President
determines that the provision of assistance to that country is vital to the national
interest of the United States, or that the designated country subsequently made
substantial counter-narcotics efforts. Notwithstanding the general suspension of the
previous drug certification and sanctions procedures, subsection 706(5)(B) of the act
provides that the President may apply those procedures at his discretion.
Given the lateness of passage, a transition rule in the legislation provided that
for FY2003, the required report had to be submitted at least 15 days before foreign
assistance funds could be obligated or expended.
President Bush’s Designations for FY2003
under the Transition Rule
Acting under the transition rule in Section 706 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act (P.L. 107-228), President Bush identified 23 countries as major
drug producing or transit countries 10 on January 31, 2003, four months into the fiscal
year, rather than the established date of September 15, before the start of the fiscal
year. As he identified the countries, he designated three countries — Burma,
Guatemala, and Haiti — as having “failed demonstrably” within the last 12 months
to make substantial counter-narcotics efforts, but he granted national interest waivers
to Guatemala and Haiti on grounds that continued U.S. assistance to those countries
serves U.S. national interests. At the same time, the President expressed concern
about the amount of illegal synthetic drugs ( particularly ecstasy) entering the United
States from Europe (particularly the Netherlands), and the amount of
pseudoephedrine and high potency marijuana entering the United States from
Canada.11
By making the identifications and the designations at the time and the way that
he did, the President made clear, and it was so stated in a fact sheet on the FY2003
narcotics certification process, that he was not exercising his option to utilize the
procedures and standards of the old certification system.
9 According to statements in the floor debate, September 15 was picked as a time just before
the start of the new fiscal year when the Congress could exercise oversight and take some
action if it was dissatisfied with the identifications and designations.
10 The countries identified as major illicit drug producing or transit countries were:
Afghanistan, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama,
Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, Venezuela, and Vietnam. In general, nations are identified as
major drug producing countries when a thousand hectares of illicit opium poppy or illicit
coca, or five thousand hectares of illicit cannabis are harvested or cultivated during a year.
Nations are identified as major drug transit countries when they are a significant direct
source of illicit drugs affecting the United States, or such drugs are transported through the
nation’s territory.
11 See the text of the presidential determination, the factsheet on the procedures, and the
briefing and explanation on the FY2003 narcotics certifications available online at the State
Department’s website at [http://www.state.gov/p/inl/narc/c8342.htm].

CRS-8
Several months later, on March 1, 2003, the State Department issued the annual
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, in accordance with a requirement
that was not changed by the legislation, with descriptions of the counter-narcotics
activities of illicit drug producing and trafficking countries.12
President Bush’s Designations for FY2004
Acting under Section 706 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for
FY2003 (P.L. 107-228), President Bush identified 23 countries as major drug
producing or transit countries 13 on the established date of September 15, 2003 — 15
days before the start of the new fiscal year as intended by Congress. The countries
named on the “majors list” were the same countries identified in the previous
determination.
In keeping with the new procedures, among the countries on the majors list, the
President designated two countries — Burma and Haiti — as having “failed
demonstrably” within the last 12 months to make substantial counter-narcotics
efforts. However, Haiti was exempted from sanctions by a presidential determination
that continued U.S. assistance to Haiti advances U.S. national interests.
In the text of the presidential determination, the President expressed concern
about the flow of illegal synthetic drugs (particularly ecstasy) to the United States
from the Netherlands, the amounts of precursor chemicals for producing
methamphetamine as well as the amounts of high potency marijuana entering the
United States from Canada, and the involvement of North Korea in heroin and
methamphetamine traffic in East Asian countries. He indicated that the government
of Guatemala had more adequately met international counter-narcotics obligations
in the eight months since the last determination when it was listed as having failed
demonstrably, but he explicitly stated that further progress was expected in the
coming year.14
More than five months later, on March 1, 2004, the State Department issued the
annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, in accordance with a
requirement that was not changed by the legislation, with descriptions of the counter-
narcotics activities of illicit drug producing and trafficking countries.15
12 See the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report covering 2002 at
[http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2002/].
13 The countries identified as major illicit drug producing or transit countries were
Afghanistan, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama,
Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, Venezuela, and Vietnam.
14 See the text of the presidential determination and the briefing on the FY2004 narcotics
certification determinations available online at the State Department’s website at
[http://www.state.gov/p/inl/narc/].
15 See the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report covering 2003, available online
at [http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2003/].

CRS-9
President Bush’s Designations for FY2005
Acting under Section 706 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for
FY2003 (P.L. 107-228), on September 15, 2004, about two weeks before the start of
the new fiscal year, as intended by Congress, President Bush made the annual
presidential determinations regarding major illicit drug producing and drug transit
countries, and he authorized the Secretary of State to submit the determinations to
Congress.
The President identified 22 countries as major drug producing or transit
countries.16 The countries named on the “majors list” were the same countries
identified in the previous determination, except that Thailand was removed from the
list because the country’s opium poppy cultivation is well below the levels specified
in the legislation, no heroin processing labs have been discovered for several years,
and the country is no longer a significant source or country of transit of illicit narcotic
products affecting the United States.
The President designated only one country, Burma, among the countries on the
majors list, as having “failed demonstrably” within the last 12 months to make
substantial counter-narcotics efforts. Since the President did not exercise his option
to make a national interest waiver with regard to Burma, the specified sanctions
would be fully in effect against Burma. For the last four years Burma has been the
only country subject to sanctions for counter-narcotics deficiencies.
While Haiti had been included with Burma in the President’s designations in
2003 as a country that had failed demonstrably to meet counter-narcotics obligations,
the President explained that Haiti was not included in the 2004 determinations
because “the new interim Government of Haiti, headed by Prime Minister Latortue,
has taken substantive — if limited — counter-narcotics actions in the few months it
has been in office.” Even so, the President explained that the U.S. government was
deeply concerned about the ability of law enforcement agencies of Haiti “to
reorganize and restructure sufficiently to carry out sustained counter-narcotics
efforts.”
In addition, in the text of the presidential determination, the President expressed
concern about the efforts of a number of other countries. He expressed concern about
the flow of illegal synthetic drugs to the United States from the Netherlands, the
amounts of high potency marijuana entering the United States from Canada, the
increase in opium crop production in Afghanistan, the pervasive political corruption
in Nigeria, and the involvement of North Korea in heroin and methamphetamine
traffic in East Asian countries. He called upon each of the named countries to
cooperate more effectively with the United States in counter-narcotics efforts. At the
same time, he expressed appreciation for the efforts of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan,
16 The countries identified as major illicit drug producing or transit countries were:
Afghanistan, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama,
Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

CRS-10
and others in the region to stop the diversion of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine used
to manufacture methamphetamine, and called for additional collaborative efforts.17
More than five months later, on March 4, 2005, the State Department issued the
annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, in accordance with a
continuing requirement, with descriptions of the counter-narcotics activities of illicit
drug producing and trafficking countries.18
President Bush’s Designations for FY2006
Acting under Section 706 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for
FY2003 (P.L. 107-228), on September 15, 2005, several weeks before the start of the
fiscal year, President Bush made the annual presidential determinations regarding
major illicit drug producing and drug transit countries, and he authorized the
Secretary of State to submit the determinations to Congress.19
The President identified 20 countries as major drug producing or transit
countries. The countries named20 on the “majors list” were the same countries
identified in the previous determination, except that China and Vietnam were
removed from the list. According to the Presidential Determination, China was
removed because there is insufficient evidence to suggest that China is a major
source or transit country for illicit narcotics that significantly affect the United States.
Vietnam was removed because there are no indications of a significant Vietnam-
based drug threat to the United States, and Vietnamese claims that opium poppy
cultivation has been virtually eliminated could not be refuted.
The President designated two of the countries, Burma and Venezuela, as having
“failed demonstrably” within the last 12 months to adhere to international counter-
narcotics obligations, but he waived the sanctions against Venezuela by determining
that U.S. programs to aid Venezuela’s democratic institutions were vital to the
national interests of the United States.
Burma has been decertified every year since 1988, and for the last five years, it
has been the only country subject to sanctions for counter-narcotics deficiencies.
According to the Presidential Determination and the Statement of Justification,
17 See the text of the presidential determination and other information on the FY2005
narcotics certification determinations on the State Department’s websites at
[http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Sep/17-404122.htm] and [http://www.state.gov/
p/inl/rls/rm/36249.htm].
18 See the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report issued in March 2005, but
covering 2004 at [http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2005/].
19 See the text of the presidential determination and other information on the FY2006
narcotics certification determinations on the State Department’s websites at
[http://www.state.gov/p/inl/c15808.htm].
20 The countries identified as major illicit drug producing or transit countries were
Afghanistan, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
and Venezuela.

CRS-11
Burma, despite continued reduction in poppy cultivation, remains the second largest
producer in the world of illicit opium and is among the largest producers and
traffickers in the world of amphetamine-type stimulants, with traffickers of
methamphetamine operating with apparent impunity.
Venezuela was designated as having failed demonstrably to meet international
counter-narcotics obligations for the first time. Venezuela is a major transit country,
with increasing quantities of cocaine and heroin moving through the country to the
United States and Europe. According to the Administration’s Statement of
Justification, Venezuela has not adequately addressed this increasing traffic, it has
failed to eradicate coca and opium poppy fields found near the border with Colombia,
and it has dramatically reduced counter-narcotics cooperation with the United States,
including ending cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Apart from the designated countries, the Presidential Determination expressed
concern about the apparent increase of opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, the
continuing flow of Ecstasy from Canada and the Netherlands, the weaknesses in the
law enforcement and criminal justice systems in Haiti, the corruption and criminal
activity in Nigeria, and the continued involvement of the North Korean government
in criminal and drug trafficking activities.

CRS-12
Table 1. Comparison of Features of
Sections 489-490 of FAAct (Old Provisions) and Section 706
of Foreign Relations Authorization (New Provisions)
Sections 489-490 of FAAct of
Section 706 of Foreign
Features
1961
Relations Authorization
Legal status of the legislation
Sections 489-490 are
Section 706 is permanent
permanent law
law with new requirements;
old provisions available to
President as an option
Naming of major illicit drug
Known as Majors List,
Required by Sept. 15,
producing and drug transit
required by November 1, four
same time as designation of
countries
months before certification
worst offenders.
International Narcotics
Required by March 1
Still required by March 1
Control Strategy Report
(INCSR) describing country
performance and U.S.
programs
Certification/Designation
Procedures:
a. Responsibility for
President
President
certification or designation
b. Congressional
Congressional review and
No congressional review of
review/reversal
disapproval of certification
determination, but
oversight available
c. Date of certification or
By March 1
By Sept. 15, at same time
designation
as designation of Majors
List
d. Country coverage of
All “major” countries must be
President to designate
certification or designation
certified as fully cooperative
worst offenders only.
to avoid sanctions
e. Period for evaluation
Previous Jan.-Dec. calendar
During the previous 12
year
months
f. Standards for certification
Country has fully cooperated
Designation of worst
or designation
with U.S., taken steps to
offenders which have failed
comply with U.N. Convention
demonstrably to meet
objectives, and engaged in
defined international
other cooperative measures
counter-narcotics
obligations
g. Effect of non-certification,
Withholding of U.S. assistance
Withholding of U.S.
or designation as worst
and sales financing, voting
assistance
offender
against country loans in
MDBs, and possible trade
sanctions
h. Presidential waiver
President may waive sanctions
President may waive
if in vital national interest of
sanctions if in vital national
United States
interest of United States
International counter-narcotics
Defined as compliance with
Defined as compliance with
cooperation
U.N. drug convention, and
U.N. drug convention, and
bilateral and multilateral
bilateral and multilateral
agreements
agreements, with key
features specified.
Table 1 compiled by (name redacted), Congressional Research Service.

CRS-13
Table 2. Majors List, FY1987-FY2003,
Countries Determined To Be Major Illicit Narcotics Producing and/or Transit Countries
Country
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Afghanistan
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Aruba
X
X
X
Bahamas
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Belize
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bolivia
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Brazil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Burma
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cambodia
X
X
X
X
X
China
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Colombia
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dom Rep
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ecuador
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Guatemala
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Haiti
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hong Kong
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
India
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Iran
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jamaica
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

CRS-14
Country
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Laos
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lebanon
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Malaysia
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mexico
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Morocco
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nigeria
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pakistan
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Panama
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paraguay
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peru
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Syria
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Taiwan
X
X
X
X
X
X
Thailand
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Venezuela
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vietnam
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: Prepared by (name redacted), with technical assistance from Nancy Shaffer and Sarah Mitchell, from International Narcotics Control Summary provided by the Department of State.
In nearly all cases, determinations were made on November 1 of each year.

CRS-15
Table 3. Countries on Majors List, FY1987-FY2001, That Failed to “Cooperate Fully,”
and Were Decertified or Given National Interest Certification
Country
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Afghanistan
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
NIC
NIC
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Iran
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Syria
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Panama
Decert.
Decert.
NIC
Laos
NIC
NIC
Decert.
NIC
Lebanon
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
Burma
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Bolivia
NIC
NIC
Nigeria
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
Decert.
NIC
NIC
Peru
NIC
NIC
Colombia
NIC
Decert.
Decert.
NIC
Pakistan
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
Paraguay
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
Belize
NIC
Cambodia
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
Haiti
NIC
NIC
NIC
Legend:
Decert. = Decertified.
NIC =National interest certification.
Note: Prepared by (name redacted), with technical support by T. Lisbeth, from International Narcotics Control Summary provided by the Department of State.
In nearly all cases, certifications were made on March 1 of each year.

CRS-16
Table 4. Countries on Majors List, FY2002-FY2006,
That “Failed Demonstrably” and Were Subject to Sanctions
or Given Waivers in National Interest
Country
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Afghanistan
NIW
Burma
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
Haiti
NIW
NIW
NIW
Guatemala
NIW
Venezuela
NIW
Legend:
SS = Subject to sanctions.
NIW = National interest waiver.
Note: Prepared by (name redacted), with technical assistance from Nancy Shaffer and Sarah Mitchell,
from International Narcotics Control Summary provided by the Department of State, and the
FY2004, FY2005, and FY2006 presidential determinations.
Determinations for FY2002 were made on February 23, 2002; for FY2003 were made on
January 31, 2003; for FY2004 were made on September 15, 2003; for FY2005 were made on
September 15, 2004; and for FY2006 were made on September 15, 2005.

CRS-17
Table 5. Majors List, FY2004-FY2006,
Countries Determined on September 15th before Fiscal Year
to be Major Illicit Narcotics Producing and/or Transit Countries
Country
2004
2005
2006
Afghanistan
X
X
X
Bahamas
X
X
X
Bolivia
X
X
X
Brazil
X
X
X
Burma
X
X
X
China
X
X
Colombia
X
X
X
Dominican Republic
X
X
X
Ecuador
X
X
X
Guatemala
X
X
X
Haiti
X
X
X
India
X
X
X
Jamaica
X
X
X
Laos
X
X
X
Mexico
X
X
X
Nigeria
X
X
X
Pakistan
X
X
X
Panama
X
X
X
Paraguay
X
X
X
Peru
X
X
X
Thailand
X
Venezuela
X
X
X
Vietnam
X
X

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.