[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 DEPARTMENT OF STATE AUTHORIZATION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I oppose the Helms amendment. In my view, an 
appropriately structured International Criminal Court is a logical next 
step in efforts to strengthen international institutions for upholding 
the norms of civil society.
  I would note that this amendment expresses the sense of the Congress 
in support of such a Court, but certainly does mandate its 
establishment. If such a Court were established, Senate advice and 
consent would be required before the United States could participate. 
This guarantees the Senate the opportunity to review and accept or 
reject U.S. participation in the Court based on the particulars of the 
agreement establishing the Court.
  The tragedy unfolding in the former Yugoslavia; the deliberate, 
genocidal policies carried out against the Kurds; and the countless 
other instances where governments, or so-called liberation movements, 
have committed gross violations of human rights, point to the need for 
the establishment of a permanent forum in which these crimes can be 
adjudicated and criminals brought to justice. Would such a Court 
guarantee that such abuses do not happen? Of course not. But it would 
be a deterrent and it would be a start toward bringing to justice those 
individuals who are responsible for the crimes we have seen all too 
frequently.
  Mr. President, the Court could also prove valuable in instances where 
governments are reluctant, or forbidden by their own law, to extradite 
their citizens to another country. We have seen this happen with 
narcotics traffickers and terrorists. An International Criminal Court 
would be a valuable additional tool in bringing these people to 
justice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by the 
Honorable Conrad K. Harper, legal adviser at the Department of State on 
the International Criminal Court be included in the Record following my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. PELL. This statement makes clear that the Department is examining 
closely many of the issues raised by my colleague from North Carolina. 
I hope it will reassure him that the administration is not trying to 
rush willy-nilly into establishment of an International Criminal Court.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

Agenda Item 143: Report of the International Law Commission on the Work 
   of Its 45th Session International Criminal Court, October 26, 1993

(Statement by Hon. Conrad K. Harper, legal adviser, U.S. Department of 
 State and U.S. Representative to the Sixth Committee, 48th session of 
                  the United Nations General Assembly)

       Madam Chairman, as this is my first time addressing the 
     Committee, I wish to express my appreciation for the work of 
     the Committee and its officers. I am very pleased to be here 
     for the discussion of the work of the International Law 
     Commission (``ILC''), which is one of the most important 
     elements of the annual deliberations of the Committee.
       My delegation commends the ILC for the valuable work it has 
     done in many fields, including its expeditious work on the 
     vital topic before us today. My delegation also wishes to 
     note with appreciation the excellent work done by the ILC's 
     working group. The working group's strong efforts have 
     produced a thoughtful and serious work product that deserves 
     attention by members states.
       I am pleased to provide comments for my Government on the 
     question of the establishment of a permanent international 
     criminal court, and in particular the proposed statute 
     contained in the report of the International Law Commission 
     (A/48/10) and prepared by the ILC's working group over the 
     past year.
       My Government is firmly committed to the fight against 
     transnational crime in all its forms. We have taken an active 
     role in all fora where proposals for international 
     cooperation in this area are debated and implemented. In 
     addition, we actively pursue bilateral and multilateral 
     relationships that underlie cooperation in the criminal 
     justice field, and have entered into numerous extradition 
     treaties as well as treaties on mutual legal assistance in 
     criminal matters. We have placed considerable emphasis on 
     international efforts to curtail drug trafficking, money 
     laundering, organized crime, and terrorism.
       Last May, the Security Council created an Ad Hoc Tribunal 
     to address serious violations of international humanitarian 
     law in the former Yugoslavia. My Government is a major 
     proponent of this effort to ensure that those who have 
     committed such crimes are held personally responsible. This 
     Tribunal for Yugoslavia establishes a new and largely 
     untested mechanism--one that has gained wide-ranging support 
     in part because it was carefully tailored to meet the needs 
     of a specific situation. The same level of care must be taken 
     with other new mechanisms in the criminal justice field.
       It is in this context of multilateral and bilateral 
     cooperation that this Committee considers the question of an 
     international criminal court. My Government has decided to 
     take a fresh look at the establishment of such a court. We 
     recognize that in certain instances egregious violations of 
     international law may go unpunished because of a lack of an 
     effective national forum for prosecution. We also recognize 
     that, although there are certain advantages to the 
     establishment of ad hoc tribunals, this process is time 
     consuming and may thus diminish the ability to act promptly 
     in investigating and prosecuting such offenses. In general, 
     although the underlying issues must be appropriately 
     resolved, the concept of an international criminal court 
     is an important one, and one in which we have a 
     significant and positive interest. This is a serious and 
     important effort which should be continued, and we intend 
     to be actively and constructively involved.
       Madam Chairman, my Government continues to study the 
     concept of an international criminal court and the ILC 
     working group's proposal. While some of the issues are very 
     difficult and the review is not complete, we do have a number 
     of comments on aspects to the draft at this stage. 
     Ultimately, no proposal can gain the support of governments 
     if certain key issues are not satisfactorily resolved. I 
     believe that many member states may share our concerns, and 
     will agree that careful study is required.
       Careful consideration needs to be given, for example, to 
     whether the subject matter jurisdiction of the court has been 
     framed appropriately. We are not yet convinced that the 
     general category of ``crime[s] under general international 
     law'' is sufficiently well-defined or accepted by the world 
     community that it could, at this stage, form a basis for 
     jurisdiction of the criminal court. We will also need to 
     consider, for example, whether drug crimes and crimes by 
     terrorists are better handled by an international court than 
     by national courts. We will want to ensure that cases which 
     can be properly and adequately handled in national courts are 
     not removed unnecessarily to the international court. We also 
     have a concern over how international jurisdiction would 
     relate to existing status of forces agreements, the 
     prosecution of war crimes, and other military matters.
       We also note that, under the current proposal, many states 
     which have a definite interest in a particular case have no 
     role in deciding whether the international criminal court or 
     national courts handle that case. Thus the state or states 
     where the crime took place, where the victims reside and the 
     state of nationality of the accused person might none of them 
     consent to a given prosecution, yet it might proceed. At this 
     point, we do not suggest that all states with any of these 
     various interests in a case must give consent, or otherwise 
     accept the jurisdiction of the court over the particular 
     crime, before a prosecution will proceed. Nonetheless, and in 
     view of the fact that there would always be the possibility 
     of cases initiated by the Security Council, we believe that 
     further review of this issue is warranted.
       We also believe that there is a need to think through how 
     the international criminal court will affect existing 
     extradition relationships, whether according to treaty or 
     other legal mechanisms. The United States has, as we have 
     pointed out, put considerable energy into entering into 
     bilateral extradition treaties with numerous governments. The 
     arrangements for the proposed court should be in addition to, 
     and not frustrate the purposes of, those treaty 
     relationships. Thus, we should consider whether a request for 
     surrender of an accused person to the international criminal 
     court should really take precedence over a proper request for 
     extradition under an extradition treaty, or whether the court 
     should function more as a mechanism to be used when national 
     courts are unable or unwilling to act.
       In this connection, we note that the current draft's 
     provision for immediate arrest and surrender of an offender 
     may be inconsistent with requirements for a judicial hearing 
     that are for the United States, and likely for other states 
     as well, a matter of constitutional dimension.
       We will also want to ensure that the treaty is consistent 
     with international standards for due process and human 
     rights. The ILC working group has certainly taken these 
     concerns into account to a considerable extent. At the same 
     time, others may have further contributions to make on this 
     subject. We note, for example, that the current draft does 
     not make provision for a true ``appeal'' to a separate group 
     of appellate judges. The War Crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia, 
     on the other hand, includes this very important feature. More 
     generally, given the extent to which the court's rules will 
     give definition to the principles of due process and human 
     rights, consideration should be given to drafting those rules 
     in conjunction with the statute.
       Cognizant of the budgetary pressures on the United Nations 
     and other organizations, we believe that an international 
     criminal court will need to have an acceptable mechanism for 
     budgetary and administrative oversight.
       Madam Chairman, we believe that it is critical for the 
     success of this endeavor that the court have the full support 
     of the world community. Any other course would run the danger 
     of undercutting cooperation in international criminal 
     matters. For this reason, it is essential that the 
     fundamental issues relating to such a court be satisfactorily 
     resolved.
       Our review is continuing, and this is not a complete list 
     of our concerns. Nonetheless, we wanted member states to have 
     the benefit of our views. I wish to emphasize that my 
     Government is ready to work energetically with the members of 
     this Committee to examine the issues related to establishing 
     an international criminal court, and to work together to 
     resolve the relevant issues and concerns.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my good friend from South Dakota with regard to watchdogging 
the funds that are funneled into the United Nations. The cold war has 
faded away, and now the world is turning to the United Nations for 
their leadership in solving many of the problems that are plaguing our 
world. Peacekeeping missions find the blue helmets of the United 
Nations in many hot spots across the world. However, these missions are 
not cheap in terms of money and, of course, manpower.
  The United Nations is going to look to the United States for troops 
and equipment and expertise and intelligence, and they are also going 
to look for our money. If they do that, there just has to be more 
accountability on their part. The United States is the single largest 
contributor to the United Nations, counting 25 percent of the assessed 
contributions and 31 percent of the total contributions for 
peacekeeping.
  As the United Nations takes on more and more responsibility, one 
glaring problem keeps coming up: The lack of any organized accounting 
system. The United Nations is an organization that is known for 
mismanagement and poor budgeting skills and, in a lot of places, very 
poor judgment. The United States keeps funneling money into the United 
Nations and, in return, the United Nations cannot even give a straight 
answer to where and how our money was spent. In fact, when asked how 
many people there are on the payroll, they cannot even give us that 
number. Like a friend of mine up in Montana says when asked, ``How many 
people work at your outfit?'' He says, ``Well, about half of them.'' If 
a Montanan asked how many people were on my staff and I did not have 
the answer, I would be in serious trouble.
  We are a constituent of the United Nations, so to speak, and as the 
largest contributor to their fund, I believe we have the right to at 
least ask the questions on where and how our money is spent. Our 
dollars are tight. I do not know of a State in this Union that does not 
have budget problems, most of them driven, by the way, by unfunded 
mandates of the Federal Government. I hear from many people in my State 
who want Congress to get spending under control and the Federal 
Government to control, or curb at least, wasteful programs. Giving 
scarce funds to the United Nations to use and abuse is not the answer 
to curbing waste.
  We cannot afford to bankroll an organization that spends money 
without accountability. An inspector general would go a long way in 
checking the waste, fraud and abuse taking place now in the United 
Nations.
  So I support this amendment because it gives us, the Members of 
Congress, a chance to put our calls for administrative reform on the 
United Nations. I think the reason that you see a little cynicism in 
Government is because we are not tough enough on oversight. There needs 
to be some accountability by us whenever we give our money to other 
organizations to use in the best interest of peace and welfare in the 
world. By getting this situation in hand, the efficiency of the United 
Nations would be increased, stretching our money and making those 
dollars go further, especially when those dollars, right now, are hard 
to come by.
  So I support the Pressler amendment. I thank the Chair and I yield 
the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the language in section 170A of the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act now before the Senate expresses the sense 
of Congress that the United States should encourage the establishment 
of an international criminal court within the United Nations system. I 
support the proposal by my friend from Connecticut, because I share his 
belief that the establishment of a mechanism for the enforcement of the 
international rule of law would be a positive development. But let us 
be clear about what this resolution does not do. It does not put the 
Congress on record in favor of any particular proposal. It says only 
that the Congress encourages the process to move forward.
  A question has arisen as to whether the Judiciary Committee should 
review this resolution. The establishment of an international criminal 
court would obviously have profound implications were the United States 
to join it. I agree, therefore, that the Judiciary Committee has an 
interest in this subject--and will continue to closely monitor 
developments in the International Law Commission and the United 
Nations. But formal Judiciary Committee review of this resolution is, 
at this time, not necessary.
  There have been many proposals put forth by various organizations and 
members of the academic community, but there is as yet no final draft 
of a statute for an international criminal court. Should this matter 
come before the Senate in the form of a treaty or in any other form 
binding upon the United States, the Senate can be assured that I would 
insist that the Judiciary Committee undertake a thorough review at that 
time.


                       vote on amendment no. 1254

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
the motion to table amendment 1254. On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--45

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1254) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay 
on the table was agreed to.


                Vote On Amendment No. 1253, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
the adoption of amendment 1253, as modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 6, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wofford

                                NAYS--6

     Biden
     Dodd
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Nunn
       
  So the amendment (No. 1253), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have no more treasured friend in the 
Senate than Senator Dodd of Connecticut. He and I are sometimes on the 
same side, sometimes on the opposite side. But when we disagree, we 
agree to disagree agreeably. I admire him and I enjoy working with him.
  I must use this opportunity, however, to analyze a few statements as 
I understand them to have been made by Senator Dodd in my absence. I 
had to leave the floor at about a quarter of 12 to meet with about 400 
constituents from North Carolina.
  Now, if my information is correct, Senator Dodd apparently made some 
statements that appeared to indicate that this section of the bill is 
simply an endorsement of what the State Department is already doing.
  Now, I believe if enough Senators understood that to be the case, my 
amendment would not have been tabled by, what, five votes or something 
in that neighborhood. But let me say to Senator Dodd and any other 
Senator who voted to table my amendment, that the State Department does 
not endorse Senator Dodd's language as stated in section 170A. Let me 
say again--the State Department does not endorse it.
  The State Department has reservations, in fact, about Congress 
endorsing an international criminal court whose particulars we have not 
even seen.
  Just to prove my point, let me quote from page 13 of the committee 
report that accompanied Senate Joint Resolution 32 and followed the one 
hearing on this matter of whether the United States should participate 
in an international court by whatever name.
  Here is the language from the committee report:

       Finally, it should be recalled that the United States, too, 
     has been accused of protecting suspects in international 
     crimes. Former Nuremberg chief prosecutor Telford Taylor has 
     stated that Gen. William C. Westmoreland, a former commander 
     of United States forces in Vietnam, might be convicted by an 
     international court as a war criminal if he were held to the 
     same standard established at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials.

  So the question still is, as I tried to emphasize at the outset, does 
the Senate really want to endorse even a vague concept of an 
international criminal court that could put a General Westmoreland on 
trial for alleged war crimes, particularly when you have judges from, 
say, North Korea and Cuba and Libya, the PLO, et cetera?
  The point I tried to make earlier this morning, and I am trying to 
make it again--and I am going to do it with an amendment in just a 
moment--is that we better take our time and we better know what we are 
doing before we even appear to be in favor of having the United States 
participate in an international court. I, for one, do not want to water 
down the sovereignty of the United States of America even one drop.
  I do not want to take even the slightest liberty with the sovereign 
rights of any American citizen.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague from North Carolina yield 
to permit me to respond to just the first part of the statement 
regarding the position of the administration? I would like to respond 
to that.
  Mr. HELMS. Let us proceed with the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1258

 (Purpose: To prevent the United States from joining any international 
criminal court which permits citizens or nationals of terrorist groups 
 or terrorist countries from sitting in judgment on American citizens)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1258.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec.   . The United States Senate will not consent to the 
     ratification of a Treaty providing for United States 
     participation in an international criminal court with 
     jurisdiction over crimes of an international nature which 
     permits representatives of any terrorist organization, 
     including but not limited to the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization, or citizens, nationals or residents of any 
     country listed by the Secretary of State under Section 6(j) 
     of the Export Administration Act of 1979 as having repeatedly 
     provided support for acts of international terrorism, to sit 
     in judgment on American citizens.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield at this particular 
point?
  Mr. HELMS. No. If the Senator will forbear, let me make a brief 
statement with respect to the amendment. Then we will, as I say, go to 
hammering and tonging around and see where we come out.
  This amendment is quite simple. It states that the Senate will not 
ratify a treaty establishing an international criminal court if 
representatives of terrorist organizations such as the PLO or citizens 
of terrorist countries are permitted to sit in judgment on American 
citizens.
  I want to see who will vote against this. This is a real problem. 
This is not a hypothetical problem.
  In his report to the Security Council on March 3 relative to the 
establishment of a war crimes tribunal on Bosnia, the Secretary General 
stated, article 13, paragraph 2(a), that he intends to seek judges from 
member states of the United Nations and permanent observer groups. I 
ask my colleagues to keep in mind the fact that all of the countries on 
the United States terrorist list--Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, and 
North Korea--are member states of the United Nations, and the Palestine 
Office is a permanent observer group.
  All of this is confirmed by Professor Bassiouni, the leading academic 
proponent of the international criminal court. At the sole subcommittee 
hearing on May 12, I asked the professor if the PLO, Iran, Syria, 
Libya, and so forth could send judges to this court. He said, quite 
accurately, that there is no guarantee against that happening.
  If you doubt that, look on page 69 of the committee report.
  So this amendment simply provides a guarantee against terrorists 
sitting in judgment on American citizens.
  As I said this morning, and I say again, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, 
Cuba, and North Korea are all on the terrorist list. Not one of them 
has any recent history of respect for simple justice or due process. 
Why should we expose American citizens to judges from those countries? 
Likewise, the Palestinian Office is an official observer group as 
stipulated by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Is this not 
the PLO?
  Let us not forget that there is no agreed-upon list of international 
crimes, and as some have suggested, that is pretty scary.
  As I said this morning, the court defines as a crime ``colonialism,'' 
whatever that is. ``Environmental crimes'' is another. And probably 
every Member of the Senate has been guilty at one time or another of 
``insulting a foreign state,'' which is another crime being discussed 
in the academic literature. If a foreign state happens to be Iraq, the 
best I can plead is nolo contendere--no, I will plead guilty to that.
  So the point I am making, Mr. President, is this--it is not 
farfetched to anticipate an American businessman defending himself 
against a charge of environmental crimes before a three-judge tribunal 
composed of judges from North Korea, Cuba, the PLO, et cetera.
  So that is the brief explanation of the amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator withhold for a moment on the yeas and 
nays?
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a second? My name was raised.
  Mr. HELMS. I am going to yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. If I can ask the Senator to perhaps withhold, because I do 
not think it will be necessary to have a vote. But I ask him to 
withhold for a moment, if he would, on the yeas and nays.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate that.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, let me suggest before we go 
for a vote that I do not see why we need a vote on this amendment. I 
cannot imagine anyone being against this amendment. There was nothing 
said earlier today to indicate that anyone ought to possibly be against 
this amendment.
  Just for the purposes of time, this is one that can be accepted. Let 
us move on. I do not know of anyone who believes we want terrorist 
organizations sitting in judgment anywhere, let alone, least of all, on 
our own citizens. That is not the issue.
  Let me step back a minute because my friend--he is my good friend. We 
have had differences; we have had them over the years; we remain 
friends. This morning, so there is no doubt in anyone's mind here about 
where the administration stands with regard to the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution on the subject of the earlier recorded vote, I made 
reference to a prepared statement the administration made on October 
26, 1993, which I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, be included in 
its entirety at this particular juncture.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   [Statement by the Honorable Conrad K. Harper, Legal Adviser, U.S. 
 Department of State, and U.S. Representative to the Sixth Committee, 
       48th Session of the U.N. General Assembly, Oct. 26, 1993]

Agenda Item 143: Report of the International Law Commission on the Work 
        of Its Forty-Fifth Session, International Criminal Court

       As this is my first time addressing the Committee, I wish 
     to express my appreciation for the work of the Committee and 
     its officers. I am very pleased to be here for the discussion 
     of the work of the International Law Commission (``ILC''), 
     which is one of the most important elements of the annual 
     deliberations of the Committee.
       My delegation commends the ILC for the valuable work it has 
     done in many fields, including its expeditious work on the 
     vital topic before us today. My delegation also wishes to 
     note with appreciation the excellent work done by the ILC's 
     working group. The working group's strong efforts have 
     produced a thoughtful and serious work product that deserves 
     attention by members' states.
       I am pleased to provide comments for my Government on the 
     question of the establishment of a permanent international 
     criminal court, and in particular the proposed statute 
     contained in the report of the International Law Commission 
     (A/48/10) and prepared by the ILC's working group over the 
     past year.
       My Government is firmly committed to the fight against 
     transnational crime in all its forms. We have taken an active 
     role in all fora where proposals for international 
     cooperation in this area are debated and implemented. In 
     addition, we actively pursue bilateral and multilateral 
     relationships that underlie cooperation in the criminal 
     justice field, and have entered into numerous extradition 
     treaties as well as treaties on mutual legal assistance in 
     criminal matters. We have placed considerable emphasis on 
     international efforts to curtail drug trafficking, money 
     laundering, organized crime, and terrorism.
       Last May, the Security Council created an Ad Hoc Tribunal 
     to address serious violations of international humanitarian 
     law in the former Yugoslavia. My Government is a major 
     proponent of this effort to ensure that those who have 
     committed such crimes are held personally responsible. This 
     Tribunal for Yugoslavia establishes a new and largely 
     untested mechanism--one that has gained wide-ranging support 
     in part because it was carefully tailored to meet the needs 
     of a specific situation. The same level of care must be taken 
     with other new mechanisms in the criminal justice field.
       It is in this context of multilateral and bilateral 
     cooperation that this Committee considers the question of an 
     international criminal court. My Government has decided to 
     take a fresh look at the establishment of such a court. We 
     recognize that in certain instances egregious violations of 
     international law may go unpunished because of a lack of an 
     effective national forum for prosecution. We also recognize 
     that, although there are certain advantages to the 
     establishment of ad hoc tribunals, this process is time 
     consuming and may thus diminish the ability to act promptly 
     in investigating and prosecuting such offenses. In general, 
     although the underlying issues must be appropriately 
     resolved, the concept of an international criminal court 
     is an important one, and one in which we have a 
     significant and positive interest. This is a serious and 
     important effort which should be continued, and we intend 
     to be actively and constructively involved.
       My Government continues to study the concept of an 
     international criminal court and the ILC working group's 
     proposal. While some of the issue are very difficult and the 
     review is not complete, we do have a number of comments on 
     aspects of the draft at this stage. Ultimately, no proposal 
     can gain the support of governments if certain key issues are 
     not satisfactorily resolved. I believe that many member 
     states may share our concerns, and will agree that careful 
     study is required.
       Careful consideration needs to be given, for example, to 
     whether the subject matter jurisdiction of the court has been 
     framed appropriately. We are not yet convinced that the 
     general category of ``crime(s) under general international 
     law'' is sufficiently well-defined or accepted by the world 
     community that it could, at this stage, form a basis for 
     jurisdiction of the criminal court. We will also need to 
     consider, for example, whether drug crimes and crimes by 
     terrorists are better handled by an international court than 
     by national courts. We will want to ensure that cases which 
     can be properly and adequately handled in national courts are 
     not removed unnecessarily to the international court. We also 
     have a concern over how international jurisdiction would 
     relate to existing status of forces agreements, the 
     prosecution of war crimes, and other military matters.
       We also note that, under the current proposal, many states 
     which have a definite interest in a particular case have no 
     role in deciding whether the international criminal court or 
     national courts handle that case. Thus the state or states 
     where the crime took place, where the victims reside and the 
     state of nationality of the accused person might none of them 
     consent to a given prosecution, yet it might proceed. At this 
     point, we do not suggest that all states with any of these 
     various interests in a case must give consent, or otherwise 
     accept the jurisdiction of the court over the particular 
     crime, before a prosecution will proceed. Nonetheless, and in 
     view of the fact that there would always be the possibility 
     of cases initiated by the Security Council, we believe that 
     further review of this issue is warranted.
       We also believe that there is a need to think through how 
     the international criminal court will affect existing 
     extradition relationships, whether according to treaty or 
     other legal mechanisms. The United States has, as we have 
     pointed out, put considerable energy into entering into 
     bilateral extradition treaties with numerous governments. The 
     arrangements for the proposed court should be in addition to, 
     and not frustrate the purposes of, those treaty 
     relationships. Thus, we should consider whether a request for 
     surrender of an accused person to the international criminal 
     court should really take precedence over a proper request for 
     extradition under an extradition treaty, or whether the court 
     should function more as a mechanism to be used when national 
     courts are unable or unwilling to act.
       In this connection, we note that the current draft's 
     provision for immediate arrest and surrender of an offender 
     may be inconsistent with requirements for a judicial hearing 
     that are for the United States, and likely for other states 
     as well, a matter of constitutional dimension.
       We will also want to ensure that the treaty is consistent 
     with international standards for due process and human 
     rights. The ILC working group has certainly taken these 
     concerns into account to a considerable extent. At the same 
     time, others may have further contributions to make on this 
     subject. We note, for example, that the current draft does 
     not make provision for a true ``appeal'' to a separate group 
     of appellate judges. The War Crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia, 
     on the other hand, includes this very important feature. More 
     generally, given the extent to which the court's rules will 
     give definition to the principles of due process and human 
     rights, consideration should be given to drafting those rules 
     in conjunction with the statute.
       Cognizant of the budgetary pressures of the United Nations 
     and other organizations, we believe that an international 
     criminal court will need to have an acceptable mechanism for 
     budgetary and administrative oversight.
       We believe that it is critical for the success of this 
     endeavor that the court have the full support of the world 
     community. Any other course would run the danger of 
     undercutting cooperation in international criminal matters. 
     For this reason, it is essential that the fundamental issues 
     relating to such a court be satisfactorily resolved.
       Our review is continuing, and this is not a complete list 
     of our concerns. Nonetheless, we wanted member states to have 
     the benefit of our views. I wish to emphasize that My 
     Government is ready to work energetically with the members of 
     this Committee to examine the issues related to establishing 
     an international criminal court, and to work together to 
     resolve the relevant issues and concerns.

  Mr. DODD. I want to specifically read the paragraph that I referred 
to this morning during this debate. This is a statement by Mr. Harper, 
Conrad Harper, legal adviser, U.S. Department of State. I gave the 
date, October 26.
  In one of the last paragraphs, he says:

       It is in this context of multilateral and bilateral 
     cooperation that this Committee considers the question of an 
     international criminal court. My Government has decided to 
     take a fresh look at the establishment of such a court. We 
     recognize that in certain instances egregious violations of 
     international law may go unpunished because of a lack of an 
     effective national forum for prosecution. We also recognize 
     that, although there are certain advantages to the 
     establishment of ad hoc tribunals, this process is time 
     consuming and may thus diminish the ability to act promptly 
     in investigating and prosecuting such offenses. In general, 
     although the underlying issues must be appropriately 
     resolved, the concept of an international criminal court is 
     an important one, and one in which we have a significant and 
     positive interest. This is a serious and important effort 
     which should be continued, and we intend to be actively and 
     constructively involved.

  The resolution that was part of this bill that the Senator from North 
Carolina sought to strike has as its paragraph 3: The U.S. delegation 
should make every effort to advance this proposal at the United 
Nations. Then, of course, we called upon a report to be issued by 
February 1 of this year detailing the problems.
  So I want to make it clear. I did not in any way suggest that the 
administration had taken an absolute endorsement, but rather was 
pursuing it, looking at it; the best statement of their position we 
have was made last in October on this particular issue.
  I suggest to my colleagues the statement of the administration is no 
different from what the sense-of-the-Senate resolution is to advance 
this particular cause.
  As regarding this particular amendment, I know of no reason why it 
should not be accepted and adopted and moved on, because clearly this 
states strongly that the idea of an international court ought to be 
pursued. But I certainly would not want any international court to have 
as its judging tribunal terrorist members of terrorist organizations.
  So this amendment to me is perfectly satisfactory. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I could not agree more with my colleague. 
We are prepared to accept this amendment. It is a good amendment and it 
embodies common sense, I think, and a basic understanding of what we 
would or would not accept in this country in terms of behavior. I 
congratulate the Senator. If he is amenable, I think we can proceed 
with a voice vote.
  Mr. HELMS. In just one moment.
  The distinguished Senator from Connecticut was reading selectively 
from the minutes of the U.N.'s Sixth Committee, which met on October 
26, 1993, I believe; am I correct on that?
  Mr. DODD. I submitted the entire statement by Conrad Harper as part 
of the Record. It is about three pages long. I read the paragraph I 
thought was most important, from which we drew the language of the 
resolution.
  Mr. HELMS. That is just the point. I believe I still have the floor. 
I will yield to the Senator at a later point, if I make a misstatement 
he wants to correct.
  What he did not read was the report as contained in the minutes of 
the U.N. Sixth Committee on October 26, 1993, in which Conrad K. Harper 
of the United States testified to a very interesting extent about the 
perils of moving into this world court arena. The minutes say, 
referring to Conrad K. Harper, ``on the jurisdiction of the Court,'' he 
said he was not convinced that the category of crimes under general 
international law was sufficiently defined or accepted by the world 
community, that it could in its current state form a basis for 
jurisdiction of the criminal court. ``It must be ensured that cases 
which could be properly and adequately handled in national courts are 
not removed unnecessarily to the International Court.'' He also voiced 
concern about the manner in which international jurisdiction would 
relate to existing status of forces agreements--the prosecution of war 
crimes and other military matters, which is precisely, Mr. President, 
the point I tried to make this morning.
  Let me reiterate for the Record that what I am doing here this 
afternoon, and what I was doing this morning, and what I have done in 
the Foreign Relations Committee so many times, is that I picked up the 
work of the late Senator Sam J. Ervin, who sat right over there during 
the 2 years that I was privileged to be the junior Senator to that 
great American. He had great heartburn about any mention of invading 
the sovereignty of the United States of America, let alone diminishing 
the constitutional rights of any American citizen. Senator Dodd knows 
how I feel about this. I do not want us to take one step until we have 
had adequate hearings and we know what we are talking about. We have 
had one hearing and one hearing alone. This is too important an issue 
to cavalierly say, well, we will cover that as we get down the road. I 
do not want to go down the road until we know what bumps and potholes 
are in that road.
  I am perfectly willing to have this amendment accepted on a voice 
vote. I reserve the right to offer a further amendment or amendments to 
give Senators who voted, I think, in error, on my amendment which was 
tabled by 5 votes. I want to give them a chance to straighten 
themselves out and recant because, in my judgment, they made a serious 
mistake when they voted to table the amendment.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield for a moment, I want to respond 
to the issue of the statement by Mr. Harper. I do not disagree at all. 
That was not the point of contention over what the specifics are. It is 
a little difficult to hold a series of hearings when you do not have 
anything to hold a hearing about except the general proposition. We 
held a hearing on the general proposition of whether or not an 
International Criminal Court was worth pursuing.
  My colleague from North Carolina, to his credit, states very candidly 
that he has a fundamental underlying problem with the notion of an 
International Court. That is a very legitimate position to take, and I 
do not argue with that. I disagree with it, but I do not argue with it. 
I think we ought to pursue the issue of determining whether or not an 
International Court of Justice makes sense.
  Mr. HELMS. May I ask the Senator why?
  Mr. DODD. If I may conclude my comments first. I think it makes more 
sense to try individuals when we have a chance. The Achille Lauro case 
was a classic case. The Egyptians would not try Abu Abbas, the 
terrorist. We intercepted a flight and landed him in Italy. The 
Italians let him go. We had an international crisis. Trinidad and 
Tobago cannot try drug traffickers because of the threat imposed on its 
government. It is a small country that has raised this issue. It wants 
another forum, because of the pressures, to go after drug traffickers 
and drug kingpins. The International Criminal Court could provide such 
a forum. There is a great deal of interest internationally in 
establishing such a forum.
  Let me tell my colleague and friends here that I am not committing 
myself to vote for any treaty on an international criminal court of 
justice until I see the details. Where my colleague and I disagree is 
that he fundamentally disagrees with the establishment of any such 
court. I think we ought to pursue it, and that is the difference here. 
The position of the administration is that they think it ought to be 
pursued at this point, and it has been very careful not to endorse one 
until they see the fine print. But to say absolutely not, under any 
circumstance are we even going to consider such a court, I think that 
goes too far. I think we at least ought to consider it.
  That was the position of the Bush administration and it is the 
position, I think, of the Clinton administration, and I think it ought 
to be our position. But there is a fundamental difference over the 
general proposition of whether or not there ought to be any 
international Criminal Court. We have a disagreement on that point. But 
I do not think it is fair to take that position and expand it to the 
point where we are endorsing specifics of a treaty that has not been 
presented to anybody at this juncture.
  I yield to my colleague.
  (Mr. LIEBERMAN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. HELMS. I remember a Congressman from North Carolina, who served 
as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and was hard of hearing. 
Somebody gave him an argument one time for about 5 minutes and Bob 
Douten, known as farmer Bob, looked at him and smiled and said, ``How's 
that?''
  But the Senator did say this morning that nobody should be opposed to 
the concept of this issue. The trouble is we do not know what the 
concept is. The executive branch of the U.S. Government has been 
looking at this thing for years and years, and that is just the 
problem. We do not know anything about it. I do not want to take that 
first step. I am not going to debate it any further. If my colleague 
wants to take this amendment on a voice vote, I am perfectly willing to 
do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, thank you.
  We are delighted to take this amendment, as I said earlier, and we 
will do so without further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no further debate, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 1258 offered by the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Helms].
  The amendment (No. 1258) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have two amendments that can be accepted 
in 30 seconds. I will just submit them. The chairman managing the bill 
and my colleague from North Carolina have had a chance to look at 
these.


                           Amendment No. 1259

(Purpose: To modify fiscal year 1995 authorization for the Peace Corps)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
myself and Senator Coverdell regarding the Peace Corps which I am told 
has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. May I ask the Senator if these are the two amendments we 
previously considered?
  Mr. DODD. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. I am not opposed at all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

        The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and 
     Mr. Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 1259.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
   The amendment is as follows:

       On page 164, line 8, strike ``$219,745,000'' the second 
     time it appears and insert in lieu thereof ``$234,745,000''.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment would very modestly increase 
the authorized funding level for the Peace Corps for fiscal year 1995 
by $15 million. It would bring the fiscal year 1995 authorization level 
in the bill from $219.745 million to $234.745 million.
  In a real sense, this is simply a steady state budget to enable Peace 
Corps to continue its fiscal year 1994 programs into fiscal year 1995.
  Why do I say it is a steady state budget? Because, while Congress 
appropriated $219 million specifically for the Peace Corps for fiscal 
year 1994 it also urged and the Clinton administration concurred to the 
transfer of an additional $15 million in fiscal year 1994 funds to 
Peace Corps to pay in part for its new program initiatives in the 
former Soviet Union.
  I think we would all agree that with the political situation at such 
a critical point in Russia and in many of the other NIS countries that 
programs like those undertaken by Peace Corps are crucial to getting 
out the message about what democracy really translates into at the 
grassroots level.
  We should and must continue the Peace Corps initiatives in the NIS 
countries in fiscal year 1995. The additional $15 million in the Peace 
Corps budget will permit this to happen without jeopardizing Peace 
Corps programs in other parts of the world.
  Obviously when it comes time to appropriate the fiscal year 1995 
moneys, the Peace Corps will have to stand in line with other foreign 
assistance programs, and justify its funding request, but at least at 
this juncture we are signaling that we believe that Peace Corps 
programs are making a contribution to the long-term foreign policy goal 
of the United States, namely of fostering democracy and democratic 
institutions at the most basic community levels.
  I would hope that my colleagues could support this modest amendment.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the Peace Corps of the United States 
has, over the past several years, responded with great energy and 
commitment to the historical transformations that are occurring in the 
societies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republics. The Berlin 
Wall had scarcely fallen when Peace Corps responded to the request of 
Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia for critical technical assistance 
from Peace Corps volunteers.
  The call for Peace Corps services did not end in these initial 
Eastern European countries. Soon, virtually every other European 
country which formerly fell under the domination of the former Soviet 
Union requested Peace Corps volunteers to help them make the 
transformation to democracy and market economies. Peace Corps was the 
first United States agency to provide significant numbers of 
development workers to the Eastern European countries following their 
freedom from the Soviet Union. Peace Corps volunteers arrived to 
instruct these countries in private business development, 
organizational systems, and the training of teachers of the English 
language.
  Since its expansion into Eastern Europe, the Peace Corps has 
continued to answer the call for assistance from the former Soviet 
Republics. Peace Corps continues to be called upon to provide 
assistance to help carry out the far-sweeping reforms and 
transformations taking place in these countries.
  While Peace Corps stretches its resources perhaps farther than any 
other Federal agency, there is a limit to what it can achieve without 
meaningful increases in its budget. We are now faced with the need for 
such an increase in the Peace Corps budget, an increase which can have 
a major impact on the ability of the Peace Corps to respond to the 
calls for its assistance. Accordingly, I am pleased to endorse and 
cosponsor this amendment with Senator Dodd which would provide a modest 
increase in the authorization level for Peace Corps and insure that the 
agency can continue to send volunteers into areas of great need and of 
great importance to world peace.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1259) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1260

 (Purpose: To encourage the awarding of U.N. peacekeeping contracts to 
                           U.S. contractors)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and ask for its immediate consideration. The amendment 
has been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1260.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:

     Sec.   . Value of Contracted Goods and Services.

       (1) The United Nations is increasingly contracting out to 
     the private sector various aspects of its peacekeeping 
     operations. The Permanent Representative of the United States 
     to the United Nations should make every effort to ensure that 
     United States contractors are awarded an appropriate portion 
     of these contracts commensurate with the overall contribution 
     of the United States to U.N. peacekeeping.
       (2) The Permanent Representative shall report to the 
     Congress in writing annually setting forth the dollar value 
     and percentage of total peacekeeping contracts that have been 
     awarded to U.S. contractors during the previous year, 
     beginning twelve months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the peacekeeping responsibilities of the 
United Nations have increased enormously in recent years. The United 
Nations staff is clearly unable to provide all of the goods and 
services required to carry out ongoing peacekeeping operations.
  In order to fill the gap, the United Nations has contracted out for 
engineering services, supply management, communications services and 
communications management, trucking and transportation management, 
security and other such services mandated by these growing peacekeeping 
operations.
  These contracting efforts now entail large sums of money with the 
funds coming primarily from regular peacekeeping contributions, with 
the United States being a substantial contributor to the peacekeeping 
budget.
  It would seem only fair that U.S. contractors be given a fair 
opportunity to compete with other foreign contractors for these 
lucrative U.N. contracts.
  All that this amendment is intended to do is to urge the United 
States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to give some 
attention to this matter and to begin to compile some data to enable 
the Congress to make some judgment on how well U.S. contractors are 
faring in obtaining a reasonable proportion of such U.N. contracts.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1260) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the colleague from Massachusetts and colleague from 
North Carolina.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator for helping us move those amendments 
along.

                          ____________________