[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.
____________________