[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S8554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to express my profound 
concern for the International Criminal Court that was overwhelmingly 
approved in Rome late on Friday. I was pleased that the United States 
voted against final passage of this global criminal court. The 
Administration should be commended for rejecting this international 
folly, which would have been dead on arrival in the Senate.
  Unfortunately, however, the danger from this Court has not passed. 
The Administration is already coming under pressure from proponents of 
the court to reconsider its opposition. Even more disturbing is the 
possibility that the Court would assert jurisdiction over American 
soldiers, despite the American refusal to join the court. The 
Administration should ``just say no'' to any efforts to get the United 
States to reconsider or to signal any informal compliance with the 
Court.
  As both a Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and 
Property Rights, I find the International Criminal Court profoundly 
troubling. If there is one critical component of sovereignty it is the 
authority to define crimes and punishments. This Court strikes at the 
heart of sovereignty by taking this fundamental power away from 
individual countries and giving it to international bureaucrats.
  There are other aspects of this Court that are equally troubling. As 
examples, the authorization of international independent prosecutors, 
the expense of such a permanent court, and the lack of any clear limits 
on the Court's jurisdiction are all alarming. But no aspect of this 
Court is more troubling than the fact that it has been framed without 
any apparent respect for--indeed, in direct contravention of--the 
United States Constitution.
  As Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I have a number of 
particular concerns about the Court. First and foremost, I remain 
concerned by the possibility that Americans could be dragged before 
this Court and denied the protections of the Bill of Rights.
  Even more fundamentally, I am concerned that the Administration 
participated in these negotiations without making any effort to insist 
that the proposed International Criminal Court incorporate and honor 
the Bill of Rights. Even if one concedes that we need an International 
Criminal Court--which I emphatically do not--we should certainly insist 
on respect for the Bill of Rights as the price of American admission.
  America's ideals and values are ascendant in the post-Cold War world. 
America's position as world leader is, in no small part, a product of a 
Constitution that is the envy of the world. The Administration should 
be justly proud of that Constitution and should have insisted that 
those principles form the cornerstone for any International Criminal 
Court. That unfortunately was not the official position of this 
Administration.
  In the United States, there is a right to a jury of your peers. In 
the United States, there is a privilege against self-incrimination. In 
the United States, we have eliminated the prospect of criminal 
liability for ill-defined common law crimes. In the United States, the 
Constitution limits the authority of prosecutors. None of these 
protections will be guaranteed for defendants brought before this 
international star chamber.
  The proposed Court negotiated in Rome neither reflects nor guarantees 
the protections of the Bill of Rights. The Administration was right to 
reject the Court and must remain steadfast in its refusal to join a 
court that stands as a rejection of American constitutional values. We 
must never trade away American sovereignty and the Bill of Rights so 
that international bureaucrats can sit in judgment of the United States 
military and our criminal justice system.
  In today's New York Times, there is an opinion piece in which Anthony 
Lewis chastises the United States for missing a historic opportunity by 
failing to vote in favor of the International Criminal Court. The 
author states that the vote to form the International Criminal Court 
``will be seen as a turn in the road of history.'' That is perhaps the 
only point in the piece with which I agree. The approval of this Court 
was indeed ``a turn in the road of history.'' By ceding the authority 
to define and punish crimes, many nations took an irrevocable step to 
the loss of national sovereignty and the reality of global government. 
I, for one, am heartened to see that the United States took the right 
turn on the road of history, and I will work hard to ensure that there 
is no backtracking.

                          ____________________