[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 7, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2151-H2156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SUPPORTING THE UNITED STATES LEAVING THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Grucci). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to our discussion this 
evening. There are a couple of things I want to talk about. But first 
of all, I think it is important to address some of the comments that 
have been just made in the last hour.
  First of all, we ought to point out that the Blue Dogs who spent the 
last hour criticizing the administration, criticizing the majority 
party, never bring out in these comments that the Blue Dogs, in fact, 
are all Democrats. This last hour was a very partisan, one-sided point 
of view. This is exactly why we run into budget difficulties.
  Now, I agreed with some of the points that were brought up by these 
gentlemen. But I was amazed to hear these gentlemen, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Phelps), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), and the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), talk about how we have to control 
spending. We have got to stop the pork. We have to make sure we, as the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) said, lay everything out on the 
table. We have got to watch these spending programs that are 
outrageous.
  So I was curious. I decided to see how all three of these gentlemen 
voted on the farm bill, which is probably the biggest budget buster we 
have had up here in a long, long time. Now, clearly, somebody who 
spends an hour advocating a balanced budget, who spends an hour 
advocating these so-called Blue Dog ABC's about avoiding pork, about 
accountability and honesty in government, about voting here as you talk 
to your constituents back there, certainly you would expect that these 
gentlemen would be the first to stand up to a bill like the farm bill 
which, although it has a nice-sounding name, helps very few farmers in 
this country. It helps a lot of corporate farmers in this country. And 
take a look at where this bill started; take a look at where it started 
and where it ended up.
  How many billions of dollars more were added to it as it went through 
these Chambers? So you would expect these three gentlemen to, of 
course, vote ``no'' on a project like this. But all three of these 
gentlemen who spent the last hour attacking the administration, who 
spent the last hour attacking the majority understand this Blue Dog 
which means Democrat concept, all three of them voted for that program. 
All three of them voted for ``yes'' on what is, and I say it again, the 
largest budget buster we will have up here this year.
  Now, look, maybe their constituents wanted them to vote that way and 
maybe they are representing their constituents. I am assuming they 
probably are. If they come from a farm community maybe they are. But 
for gosh sakes, do not vote one way and talk the other way.
  I once had somebody tell me, if you want to stay elected in Congress, 
especially when you get outside the Northeast where it is solid 
Democrat, but out where most of the country is and that is moderate to 
conservative, go ahead and vote liberal in Washington but when you come 
home vote conservative. Go ahead and talk about a balanced budget when 
you are back in your district, but at the same time make sure you bring 
the pork home. And in my opinion that is what has been reflected in the 
last hour.
  So if you want to talk about accountability, if you want to talk 
about lay everything out on the table, my three colleagues should have 
probably said, oh, by the way, the only exception we have to the 
comments and the attacks we are making on the majority party, the only 
real exception we have that does not apply to our rules that we have 
just told you about for a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility is 
our own farm bill. Now, understand we are going to vote for our farm 
bill, but aside from that everything else ought to be scrutinized.
  That is the problem back here. I mean, all of us, that is where you 
have got your problem. But I have sat here for the last hour, most of 
the last hour, and was amazed that first of all my colleagues stand up 
and make it sound as if they are some independent organization out here 
when, in fact, your Blue Dogs are comprised solely of Democrats and the 
attack was solely against the Republican majority. It was a partisan 
hour. That is fair game. That is what the House floor is for: debate. 
But somebody has got to stand up and say, wait a minute, just as they 
said should be done, let us lay everything on the table.
  And that is why I was curious and went back and looked at the actual 
voting record to see how one would speak on the floor but how one would 
vote outside the presence of the speech that they were giving. And I 
saw an inherent conflict. In other words, the vote that was taken on 
the farm bill certainly did not at any point in time in the last hour 
match the comments of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), or the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. John). And they are all gentlemen. Do not get me wrong, they are 
colleagues of mine. They are professionals. I would assume they 
represent their districts well.

  My point here is not an attack on these three individuals. But I 
believe in what they are saying and that is accountability. And if you 
are going to talk about a balanced budget; if you are going to talk 
about getting rid of pork; if you are going to talk about avoiding 
budget buster bills, then you ought to talk about that farm bill. And

[[Page H2152]]

you ought to say to your constituents, look, I talk about this budget 
buster, the balanced budget, the pork stuff; on the other hand, I voted 
for you on this farm bill.
  I think a balanced budget is important, but the only way we will 
break this is for you to take some tough votes, even when those 
programs apply to your particular district.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend the majority of my time this evening, 
I actually had an interesting visit with a constituent and good friend 
of mine. His name is Mr. Stroobants. And we got to talking about world 
jurisdiction and the United Nations. You know, the action taken by the 
President in the last few days, I felt obligated to come and speak 
about that action.
  The action was that the United States intends to pull out of the 
United Nations Criminal Court or the International Criminal Court.
  I want to spend the next 30 or 40 minutes talking about what is the 
international court. How does that compare to the court system we have 
in the United States? What does it do to our sovereignty? What are the 
political ramifications of conceding sovereignty or conceding authority 
over the American people, the United States Government of ceding our 
judicial authority over our people to other countries? For example, to 
a court that is primarily dominated by our friends in Europe, by the 
European Union. By a court that allows countries like Cuba, Libya and 
some of these other countries the same vote as the United States of 
America. By a court that, in my opinion, despite what the United 
Nations propaganda might say, despite the push that they are making out 
there, that a court here, instead of being one that would pursue actual 
criminals, like the likes of bin Laden and people like that, would over 
time be used to pursue American citizens.
  The United States of America is a sovereign country. The United 
States of America does not cede any authority of how we run our 
government, of how we elect our public officials, of how we have our 
court systems or our executive branch, of our judicial branch, of our 
legislative branch. That authority is determined by the Constitution of 
the United States of America. And our Constitution does not contain 
anywhere within its four corners a provision that allows the United 
States of America to give its authority to a worldwide power.
  The United States of America, to remind ourselves of a little 
history, was created because we wanted to become an independent Nation. 
We wanted to be a Nation that had its own people, a Nation of its 
people by the people and for the people; a Nation that stood for what 
we have thought was good. But what has happened is that we were seen 
more and more with the European Union more and more we talk about the 
European United Nations, more and more talk about a one-world 
government; a government where all laws will be decided by one 
authority; a government that would have a military under one authority; 
a government that would decide what your environmental regulations 
within the boundaries, within your own borders would be decided by. 
That is a socialistic type of approach.
  It is very clear that in Europe most of those countries are headed 
towards a socialistic type of approach with the European Union-type of 
adventure, so to speak.
  Now some parts of the European Union may make sense. I think it makes 
sense for the United States to join with Mexico and to join with Canada 
under our NAFTA agreements so that we are an economic bloc. And so I 
see why countries in Europe want to join together. So I understand why 
countries in Europe want to form an economic bloc, come together for 
the sake of economics. But it is a long way from coming together as an 
economic bloc and that of ceding your sovereignty to another country.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. Stroobants pointed out to me very clearly, he came to this 
country from Belgium, and he came to this country because this country 
was a capitalistic country. It was a country of democracy. It was a 
country that had its own checks and balances within its own borders.
  We have a very well-defined system as presented by our forefathers 
under the Constitution and under the Bill of Rights, but what is 
happening in the international community is they want to form an 
authority that has oversight, that is a higher authority for the people 
of America, than their own government in America. The United States 
people should not cede one inch of sovereignty because let me tell my 
colleagues how they draw it in.
  Take a look at the United Nations and the propaganda that they use to 
talk about how great this World Court is.
  Number one, it is a permanent structure. It is not like the Nuremberg 
trials where we convened an international authority for a short period 
of time to try a very defined group of war criminals. That is not what 
this is. This is a permanent court, a worldwide court that will 
exercise authority over American citizens. How did we ever get there?
  President Clinton signed it on the last day he was in office. This 
does not ratify it. President Bush has given notice that the United 
States of America will not participate in this World Court, but how did 
we get there? That is the answer. On the last day of office, about the 
same time that the Mark Rich pardons were signed, President Clinton 
signed this deal as one of those who agrees with the World Court. That 
is not the exact buzzword, but that is in essence what happened.
  Fortunately, this week, the White House, President Bush, has given 
notification to this so-called World Court, to the United Nations, that 
the United States of America will not participate, will not participate 
in an exercise that deviates in any way or subtracts in any way the 
rights of American citizens.
  The authority for judicial oversight of American citizens belongs to 
the American people. It does not belong to the people of Cuba. It does 
not belong to the people of France. It does not belong to Germany or 
Belgium or Russia or China.
  The judicial authority over American citizens belongs to the 
government and to the people of the United States of America. This is 
their government. In our country, this is our government. This is not 
the government of the French. This is not the government of Belgium. 
This is not the government of some other country out there.
  Let us talk a little bit about what this so-called World Court does. 
First of all, remember, that every program out here, earlier in my 
comments we talked about the farm bill, for example, every proposal 
here, every bill that starts here has a good sounding name to it, and 
frankly, some of these start with pretty good intent, but once we 
create it, it is like a government program. Once we create this 
bureaucracy, we will never again disassemble it, and that bureaucracy 
will only grow and grow and grow.
  Think about it. Take a look at the United Nations as an excellent 
example. Fortunately, before the United States entered into being a 
partner with the United Nations we reserved to ourselves that 
overriding authority of the power of a veto. Four countries have it. We 
have one of them. So, at any time we feel that we are ceding 
sovereignty to the United Nations, we can exercise our veto, but what 
happens with these organizations?
  They start out with a good attempt. They are not about to tell us 
they are going to exercise their authority going after Americans who 
they think may have violated crimes against humanity because their gas 
tanker spilled on an interstate and had fuel going into the water or 
because they decide that for some reason that there has been a criminal 
violation by some elected official in the United States. That is not 
what they are telling us now.
  That is their goal. The goal here by the European Union, the goal by 
the other countries in this world is to exercise an authority over the 
United States, the likes of which has never been accomplished in the 
history of this country. This is a critical, critical issue for us. 
This is a sleeper. This is one of those things that sounds good, and 
sign on the dotted line, we will read the fine print later.
  We better look at the fine print today, and thank goodness, over on 
the executive side of this city the President, George W. Bush, did look 
at that fine print and did notify the world, look, United States is not 
going to enter into this arrangement. We are

[[Page H2153]]

not going to enter into an agreement into which, I, as the President of 
the United States, cede the sovereignty of this country, to which I 
give someone else one iota of authority other American citizens from a 
judicial perspective.

  Let us talk about the details of this World Court so that my 
colleagues have a pretty good idea of exactly what they are asking for.
  The United States court system, as we all know, in our government, we 
have the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial 
branch. I am not trying to be talked down or be repetitive about 
history or how the political structure in our country is, but there is 
a fact that in our Constitution, our forefathers looked into the future 
and said in order for this system of capitalism, this system of 
democracy to work, there has got to be checks and balances. There has 
got to be a way that everything is filtered through before the final 
process.
  Those checks and balances, they designed it into our system, first of 
all, with that wonderful document called the Constitution and then that 
document in the Bill of Rights, and then the document in creating a 
Supreme Court, and in our court system in this country, unlike some 
countries, but like many other countries, in this country, the courts 
do not make the laws. The courts are there to interpret the laws, and 
it is a very clearly defined separation of powers between the 
legislative branch, which does create the laws, and the judicial 
branch, which enforces and interprets those laws created by the 
legislative branch.
  In other words, a judge in a District court or in a municipal court, 
let us say in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, the municipal judge there has 
no authority on their own to create law. They have no authority on 
their own to just out of their own conjuncture, say all right, this 
ought to be against the law, I am going to make it against the law.
  We have accountability of those. Not only do we have accountability 
that the Justice Department does not create laws, we have 
accountability within the Justice Department and within the judiciary 
branch, and that is the process of election. For example, the municipal 
judge that I just spoke of, that municipal judge answers to the local 
city or the local authority. For example, the municipal judge in 
Glenwood Springs is held accountable to the city council of Glenwood 
Springs, and the city council of Glenwood Springs is held accountable 
to the voters, and it goes that way all the way up to the United States 
Supreme Court.
  In our country, the United States Supreme Court justices must be 
confirmed by the United States Senate. So we have lots of checks and 
balances. That is a very important element of the United States 
judicial system, and we will find that system is completely absent, 
completely absent from the World Court once they put that court into 
place. Once they put that prosecutor into place, they can create their 
own. They have no checks and balances. They answer to no supreme 
authority above them.
  In this country if a district court or a municipal court or a county 
court or some other type of quasi-judicial process out there, 
ultimately they would have to answer to the United States Supreme Court 
and the United States Supreme Court justices answer to the United 
States Senate and the United States Senate answers to the voters, and 
it goes on and on and on. That is absent. Those checks and balances are 
absent from this proposed World Court.
  So here is the U.S. court system. Checks and balances. Again, very 
critical in our system. Another check and balance, by the way, the 
rights of the defendants, the rights of the victims. Those are a 
constitutionally guaranteed right. The Miranda warning, for example.
  I used to be a police officer. When we had somebody who was a 
suspect, we arrested him as a suspect, we had to give them 
constitutional rights. Why were those constitutional rights in place? 
Because it was a check and balance, designed in the system to protect 
the system from abuse, but this World Court has none of those kinds of 
rights. They are not required to advise anybody of their rights. There 
is no right to demand a jury trial in this World Court. There is no 
right to demand an accuser in this World Court. It is in our 
Constitution. None of those rights will we find in this new proposed 
World Court. In other words, we are losing a big check and balance 
there.
  Let us move on. The authority. The U.S. court system has authority. 
Clearly, they have authority to issue subpoenas. They have authority to 
conduct trials. They have authority to bring together a jury pool. They 
have authority to interpret the laws, but their authority has checks 
and balances, and the authority of the courts of the United States of 
America are reserved for the people of the United States of America.
  In other words, this judicial system is designed for the United 
States of America. It is not a custom designed court system for any 
other country in the world. It is ours, and the authority over the 
American people does not rest with the Chinese courts. The authority 
over the American people does not rest with the courts Fidel Castro 
puts together down there in Cuba. The authority over the people of the 
United States of America does not rest in Paris or in Rome or over in 
Germany or in Belgium. It rests with the courts of our country.
  We should not under any condition give the authority that our courts 
have over us, over the U.S. citizens, over this geographical location, 
over this Nation. We should not at any time give even a small sliver of 
that authority to an international organization that is permanent in 
structure, that in fact claims higher authority over our citizens than 
our own court system is allowed by our own Constitution.
  Jurisdiction. Think of the jurisdictional issues. This World Court 
wants jurisdiction, for example, over World Heritage sites as 
designated by the United Nations. The reason there is so much momentum 
right now for the World Court is we all want to get bin Laden. Bin 
Laden is a terrible, terrible criminal, but the fact is that bin Laden 
will come and go. He will over a period of time be eliminated, and this 
court will be looking for new ventures, new venues under which to 
exercise its authority, and I will tell my colleagues where they are 
moving next.
  The next place they are going to move is on the environment. Now, we 
all want a clean environment. That is not the issue we are talking 
about here. The issue is should we allow a court in Rome, a World 
Court, the jurisdiction to charge somebody say in Lynchburg, Virginia, 
with an environmental violation as a crime against humanity?
  For example, let us say that a gasoline truck driver is driving 
recklessly. He wrecks his tanker and the gasoline spills on the 
interstate near Lynchburg, and it goes into the water and causes some 
harm in the water. Should that person be subject to the courts of the 
United States of America? Well, of course. That is our Constitution. 
That is our Criminal Code. That is what the court system is designed 
for.
  When that truck driver, for driving recklessly and causing an 
environmental spill, when that truck driver is arrested, he or she has 
certain constitutional rights, and they have a right to a jury. They 
have a right to their Miranda warnings, et cetera, et cetera, et 
cetera. Well, under this proposal of a World Court, we cede that 
authority, and over time we will give more and more or maybe not give 
it, they will claim they can take more and more authority because we 
signed the treaty creating it.
  The next thing we know the World Court is going to be sending 
investigative enforcement officers to Lynchburg, Virginia, to take a 
look at this accident and decide whether or not the World Court should 
indict that truck driver who had that environmental spill. This is not 
exaggeration. This is exactly where this thing is headed.
  I am not trying to cry wolf here. I have just seen programs like this 
created. Take a look at the birth of the United Nations. If we did not 
have that veto power, take a look at the authority the United Nations 
would try and exercise over the United States of America.

                              {time}  2045

  Take a look at how many members of the United Nations voted on a 
consistent basis against the interests of the United States or opposite 
of the United States over the last several years. You will be 
astounded.

[[Page H2154]]

  You see, the United States of America, this kind of system, United 
Nations and this kind of system, an international court, will be used 
as a political tool, and thereupon lies the threat. That is why we have 
to be very careful that the jurisdiction over criminal activity, over 
civilian activity by U.S. citizens or within the borders of the United 
States of America or its territories, that we keep that jurisdiction in 
our country; that that jurisdiction rests with the citizens of the 
United States and not with the citizens of some world court, which is 
comprised of countries throughout the world, who probably, most of the 
time, do not have the best interests of the United States of America 
or, more importantly, its citizens in mind.
  We may very well find a world court that decides they are going to 
launch a criminal investigation into the City of Denver because the 
City of Denver, Colorado has air pollution coming from vehicle 
emissions that pollutes the air to an extent that they think it is a 
violation against humanity.
  And there is no definition of how far this world court can go. That 
is exactly why President Bush has withdrawn from that court. The 
President recognizes that there are issues of sovereignty; that there 
are issues of politics; that there are dramatic issues involving 
jurisdiction. We are not a one-world government. This world court, 
maybe it will work for the European Union, maybe those countries, the 
countries of Belgium or France or some of the other members of the 
European Union, maybe they want to give their national sovereignty and 
their national jurisdiction to a one-unit court that is a world court, 
but the United States of America does not want to do that. And, 
fortunately, the President stood strong on this.
  Now, many of my colleagues will be reading in the next few days a lot 
of criticism coming from, guess who? Of course, the special interests, 
the world court, the European countries, and the other countries that 
know they have an opportunity to gain a huge advantage over the United 
States if they can get the United States to join this world court. 
These nations will know that for the first time in the history of the 
United States, our system of government has ceded its jurisdiction or 
its sovereignty, or at least a portion of those two, over to other 
governments. They will be elated if we sign up and participate in this 
so-called world court.
  Now, keep in mind, this differs from the United Nations. In the 
United Nations, colleagues, we have retained the power of veto. So no 
matter how many times those other countries vote against us, no matter 
how absurd or focused or politically motivated they become against the 
interests of the United States, we always retain the ability to 
exercise a veto. In the world court, the United States, in the creation 
of it, and the judges that are elected, there is no oversight once they 
are in. But in the initial authority, the United States has as much 
authority in this world court as does the country of Cuba, as does a 
country like Syria or some other country that wants to join it.
  This is not a court that some in the United Nations would like us to 
believe is intended to pursue the criminals that have taken such 
horrible and devious actions against the United States of America. This 
is a court that will assist those people. And I read an excellent 
article by a gentleman named Tom DeWeese, and I want to give Mr. 
DeWeese credit, colleagues, for this. He says U.N. criminal court 
threatens U.S. soldiers, threatens U.S. soldiers, in the fight against 
terrorism.
  Now, I do not like to read written comments. I am not going to read 
this article verbatim in whole, but I am going to take some excerpts 
from this article because I think this is excellent and I think it 
solidifies and supports the point that I am making here this evening.
  The United Nations sells the version of the ICC. Now, the ICC is the 
world court. He says ICC, I am going to put world court in there. The 
United Nations sells the vision of a world court as a tool for bringing 
international criminals like Saddam Hussein and Lybia's Qadhafi to 
justice. The truth is the court is more likely to be used as a tool for 
those criminals against the United States.
  Let me go on. The world court defines as a war crime any attack by 
our soldiers with knowledge that inescapable collateral deaths or 
injuries, quote, to civilians or damage to civilian objects or 
widespread long-term damage to the natural environment, meaning if we 
are engaged in a war and we cause long-term damage to their 
environment, in other words when we bomb Afghanistan, if we, as a 
result of our bombing we damage the environment on a long-term basis, 
and it was clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct 
overall military advantage anticipated, then we are subject to a 
violation of their criminal code.

  In other words, you can have a war, as Tom says, but do not break 
anything and do not hurt any civilians and do not hurt the environment.
  Let us go a little further. He says, and he is accurate, war is not a 
video game. It is not an Olympic event. You are going to have innocent 
people killed in a war. You try to avoid it, but in every war ever 
known to man there has been collateral damage. And how would you attack 
Afghanistan without doing some damage to the environment? How would you 
sink a ship without doing some environmental harm to the ocean? You 
have a ship that has sunk into the ocean. How would you intercept a 
missile coming over the skies without damaging the environment by 
exploding the missile in the air?
  Now, some would say that that kind of thing would not happen. I want 
to tell you, colleagues, how many programs have we seen created back 
here or worldwide where when they initiate the program they assure you 
over and over again, that is not going to happen; that is an 
exaggeration; we are not going to go that far; that is overreaching. 
Then, pretty soon, that institutional memory of what was originally 
said was overreaching in fact comes within reach, and the next thing 
you know, it has been gathered and put in the nest. That is a concern.
  Here I continue with this article. The court can prosecute anyone who 
violates United Nations treaties. This world court can prosecute anyone 
who violates United Nations treaties, including environmental 
agreements, like the Biodiversity Treaty and those covering world 
heritage sites. For example, if we had entered into the Kyoto Treaty, 
and there was a company or a business, let us say a printer, a printer 
had some ink and put the ink in the wrong garbage can and it was a 
violation of some type of international treaty, even a Kyoto Treaty; or 
a U.S. company based in, let us say, Connecticut, had emissions that 
violated Kyoto, they could find themselves in front of a criminal court 
that is a worldwide court. That is the absurdity of what we are talking 
about here.
  My reason for speaking this evening, and I will go through these 
other points, but my reason in speaking this evening is to give some 
support to what the administration has done. I think of any action I 
have seen the administration take, next to proposing to get rid of that 
death tax, but any policy I have seen them take, from the judicial 
system point of view, it is the administration's decision to back out, 
not to join in this effort or this new configuration of a world court. 
Kudos to the administration.
  I think it is our obligation, every one of us, to join the President 
in that effort. Anybody in these Chambers who would vote for the 
creation or for the entry of the United States of America into this 
world court, they need to go back to their constituents the weekend 
after they vote and explain to their constituents that they just ceded 
over to a world court, to wipe out checks and balances of our judicial 
system and cede over the authority that belongs, and has belonged 
throughout the history of this Nation, since this Nation was created, 
the authority that belonged to this Nation, that as a congressman or 
congresswoman they felt it necessary to share that authority with other 
world governments and jurisdiction.
  My colleagues need to go to their constituents and say to their 
constituents, look, I decided to support the world court. I have 
decided to give jurisdiction over so-called criminal activity, which 
could become civil activity, but is originally proposed as criminal 
activity, I have decided to cede

[[Page H2155]]

that authority to other governments in the world and, for the first 
time in the history of our country, take that authority which was 
reserved solely for the United States, the body of the United States 
Government, that was reserved solely for this government, and as an 
elected leader of this country have decided that it would be better 
placed in the hands of a foreign country, in a foreign world court.
  That is what happens if we do not support the President on his 
decision not to join the world court.
  Let me go on. Another right. The United States, since day one of our 
history, has always recognized the inherent right of self-defense. 
Nowhere in the documents that I read of this so-called world court, 
nowhere in the documents that I read about this world court is there an 
inherent reserved right to self-defense. It does not exist, to the best 
of my knowledge.
  Let us talk about sovereignty again. For those of my colleagues who 
think they can support or think they are going to oppose the 
President's decision, remember the President's decision is that the 
United States will not join an international world court, but for those 
that object to that decision, they need to be prepared to explain to 
the American people and, frankly, to explain to their colleagues, I 
think, why they are willing to give up sovereignty that has always been 
reserved not for this court down here but for the government and for 
the people of the United States.

  And let us talk about the political aspect of it. Take a look at what 
happens with politics. Now, I had a very vigorous discussion with my 
very good friend Mr. Stroobants. I have had a vigorous discussion with 
many of my colleagues. But take a look at how the propaganda in this 
world, the worldwide press can turn propaganda into a media-eating 
machine. They can present a picture that may or may not be accurate. 
And the best example is to pull out The New York Times, pull out any of 
the major newspapers in this country and take a look at any European 
country, take a look at the BBC, take a look at CNN, take a look at any 
news media you can find that has worldwide reporting, say about 4 weeks 
ago, and see what kind of political propaganda they were putting out 
there about the massacre at Jenin. Take a look at it. Take a look at 
what they talk about, the massacre that took place over on the West 
Bank.
  Well, guess what happened? You know what happened? No massacre took 
place. Sure, there were soldier deaths, there was some collateral 
damage. I can assure you we have had collateral damage in Afghanistan. 
But all of a sudden, the media has become quiet. In fact, there was no 
massacre. In fact, one of the most liberal organizations in the world, 
that apparently sent their own investigators out, came back and said, 
well, we did not like what they did, but there was no massacre that 
took place.
  Well, that example is the same kind of thing that a world court can 
do. A world court condemnation, for example, of things that are the 
business of the United States, they can turn worldwide opinion against 
the United States. This worldwide court could be manipulated so easily. 
Why could it be manipulated? Because it has no checks and balances.
  Now, every court system can be manipulated, but the way you minimize 
that manipulation is to have checks and balances. You have weights and 
counterweights. So in the United States, where a court may be 
manipulated, and there are arguments on that, for the most part it is 
the best system that the world has ever devised because it has those 
checks and balances. But in the world court system, what check and 
balance exists? Nothing. What kind of restraints are on the 
prosecutors? Nothing. What can the prosecutor decide to do? Anything he 
really wants to do, as far as criminal prosecution. And I think, over 
time, it will be turned into civil prosecution as well.
  What kind of geographical limitations will there be on this 
prosecutor? None, at least for the countries that sign up for this 
world court. What kind of claims can be made by this prosecutor against 
government officials? It is amazing. You know, if they decided that 
they felt that Henry Kissinger had not done a good job, this prosecutor 
could actually put out an arrest warrant and have Henry Kissinger 
arrested at an airport when he lands in Paris. This court actually has 
the jurisdiction to prevent U.S. citizens from going anywhere because 
of the concern for arrest.
  Take a look at what this court would do to our American men and women 
fighting in our military.

                              {time}  2100

  If this court, comprised of all of these other countries, including 
Cuba, and other countries that we have on our terrorist list, if this 
prosecutor decides, he may say the American soldiers, I do not like 
what they did so we are going to charge them with criminal acts against 
humanity. That is what I mean by the political nature of this world 
court.
  So the arrow that I have pointing down here means exactly that. We 
would dive it right into the ground if our government was to give up an 
inch of jurisdiction or an inch of sovereignty when it comes to the 
judicial system that this country has perfected.
  Very briefly, America believes in justice and the promotion of the 
rule of law, and the rule of law is very balanced. The rule of law has 
been set by legislation, by statute, by precedent. It has been set by 
experience. The courts in the United States are not fresh created 
courts. These are courts with 200-some years of experience. These are 
courts which have been tested and have checks and balances. That is 
what the United States thinks is necessary.
  Those that commit the most serious crimes of concern to the 
international community should be punished. We agree that the Hitlers, 
the bin Ladens that commit heinous crimes against people should be 
pursued. That is why the United States was the primary sponsor, 
underwrote it, played the major role in the Nuremberg trials; but those 
were trials of a temporary nature, and those were trials that had 
numerous checks and balances and which had sunshine transparency. Those 
trials and that system has a lot of differences from what is being 
proposed under the world court system, that states, not international 
institutions, are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the 
international system.
  Our belief in this country is that not an international government or 
an international court should have oversight over specific countries. 
Those countries have laws of their own. Every country ought to be able 
to have their own judicial system and not be subject to the whim and 
call of some prosecutor in a so-called world court.
  But the best way to combat serious defenses is to build a domestic 
judicial system, strengthen political will, and promote human freedom.
  Finally, let me talk about this world criminal court here, what is on 
this poster, because it is important. It undermines the role of the 
United Nations Security Council in maintaining international peace and 
security.
  I am not a big fan of the security council, but the fact is that we 
are a part of it. The reality is that we do have control and a veto, 
and so we cannot be run over in an avalanche of countries that do not 
like the United States of America. But this security council is 
beginning to dilute its own authority. We can live with the security 
council authority because we have the right of veto. To get around that 
right of veto, we are finding countries that are getting the United 
Nations to say let us take that authority from the security council of 
the United Nations, and move it over here to the world court because in 
the world court the United States of America does not have a right of 
veto. We can finally get our hands on American citizens, or we can 
dictate what citizens of America, the laws that they will be subject 
to, even within their own boundaries. Thank goodness the President did 
not agree to this and stood tall and said that the United States will 
not be a participant in this world court.
  It creates a prosecutorial system that is unchecked in power. This 
prosecutor of this world court will have more power than any other 
prosecutor, in my opinion, in the history of the world. This prosecutor 
will have the right to go past national boundaries, to go past state 
boundaries. This prosecutor will have the right to reach into small 
communities and villages, high atop the mountains in Colorado, or reach 
into the major cities of Moscow or Berlin or Brussels or Paris; his or

[[Page H2156]]

her reach will be unparalleled anywhere in history. Should we sign off 
on that? Should anybody in this Chamber agree to a world court system 
like this? This thing almost became a reality until the action taken 
this week by the President.
  Let me go down here, a search jurisdiction over citizens of states 
that have not ratified the treaty that threatens U.S. sovereignty.
  The United Nations claims under the World Heritage site, they have 
authority over what goes on at Yellowstone National Park or that under 
worldwide environmental laws that the United Nations has come up with, 
that they should have the authority to reach into the sovereignty of 
the United States. They can say whatever they want. The fact is that 
they have no authority. The United States does not recognize it. The 
United States has not ceded any of its authority to the United Nations; 
but if we sign onto a world court, we sign it away forever. That is the 
danger of this world court. That is the danger of that treaty.

  It is built on a flawed foundation, this world court. These flaws 
leave it open for exploitation and politically motivated prosecutions. 
If we had a world court in place in the last 6 weeks, what do Members 
think, how many charges would have been filed by now against the 
country of Israel or against Yasir Arafat, who is a known terrorist, a 
lifelong terrorist? It would be so lopsided. Regardless of which side 
of the issue Members are on, it is very clear that the propaganda 
machine in the last month has been anti-Israel. Everything is Israel's 
fault. It has been completely ignorant of Arafat's history or the 
homicide bombers on Passover.
  Mr. Speaker, that is my concern about this world court. The 
prosecutor and the judges of the world court, they have no supreme 
court that sits above them. They have no checks and balances that 
determine whether or not the course of action that they have chosen is 
an appropriate course of action, is a course of action that could be 
supported by the rule of law. They are not subject to anyone. They 
answer to no one.
  Accountability in our judicial system is what gives the foundation of 
the judiciary its strength. If there are no checks and balances, no 
accountability, that is defined as a dictatorship; and the prosecutor 
would come as close to a judicial dictator as any we have ever seen in 
the history of the judicial system in a free country, in countries of 
democracy.
  Let me just review a few key points about my comments this evening. 
The world court, the President of the United States in the last few 
days has issued a directive, which he has the authority to do, that the 
United States will not participate, will not be a participant in the 
world court. The world court is a new entity that is being formed, 
being primarily driven by the European Union. This court would be given 
unparalleled jurisdiction over the territories of all countries in the 
world, purportedly even over the United States, even though the United 
States will not cede any of its sovereignty. They can say anything they 
want, but they will not have any jurisdiction unless we give it to 
them, and the President chose not to give them that authority. The 
President chose not to give up our sovereignty.
  How did we get here? The reason is President Clinton in the last 
minutes he held office signed a sheet of paper that said we will go 
ahead with this treaty, sounds good to him. It is not good. The United 
States of America should maintain its own judicial system, a judicial 
system that cedes authority and power to no one but the people of the 
United States of America. The United States of America, our borders and 
our territories, should be ruled by the rule of law that our 
Constitution provides, that our Constitution, which gives rights to 
defendants and rights to the victims, which assures that somebody 
accused of a crime can face their accuser, which assures that somebody 
who is tried for a crime can have a trial by a jury of their own peers.
  Those kinds of rights are fundamental in our Constitution, and they 
are fundamental for the judicial system being so successful, relatively 
speaking, to any other system known in world history over this last 100 
years.
  The United States does not belong in a world court. The President was 
correct, and the President and the administration should get a strong 
voice of support from every Congressman, keeping us out of a world 
court and keeping that authority within the borders of the United 
States. This is not partisan. The fact is, it is American. Americans 
should keep what they have. What they have is the greatest judicial 
system known in the history of the world.

  Let me make my final summary. I began this evening talking with my 
respected colleagues from the Blue Dogs, and I listened with interest 
to their comments given over an hour period of time. Some of their 
comments had some validity, but I felt the remarks were so partisan and 
such a strong attack on the majority party, the Republicans, and such 
an attack on the administration and our President, but it was never 
pointed out by the Blue Dogs, they identified themselves as Blue Dogs. 
I think it is important to point out while they may belong to an 
organization called Blue Dogs, the fact is that they are all Democrats. 
There are no Republicans in the organization. It is a Democratic 
organization, and it is an election year, and the purpose of one party 
is to try to gain advantage over the other party in an election year.
  Keep in mind that those Members in that 1 hour of attacking the 
budget and the majority and the administration, one, is not responsible 
for coming up with a budget; two, is not in the majority; and, three, 
is doing it for partisan purposes, in my opinion.
  The next thing I want to make very clear, I think if one were to 
stand up here and talk about how terrible it is that the majority has 
pork projects and how terrible that we cannot balance our budget, how 
we need to stand up and worry about the future of our kids, as if any 
Member of Congress does not care about the future of kids, and how 
senior citizens are being abandoned by Social Security, as if any 
Member thinks that we should abandon senior citizens, that is the tool 
of fear.
  The fact is that one ought to vote as they speak. It would seem to me 
that someone who is talking about a balanced budget, who is talking 
about stopping the pork programs, about moving that money into 
education and where the money really helps us the most, should be 
amongst the most vocal opponents of the farm bill. The farm bill has 
some magic to it because it is called the farm bill. Take a look at the 
budget-busting numbers of that bill.
  I thought it was very ironic that these three gifted speakers, very 
dynamic in their focus on controlling the budget and controlling 
spending, when we look at the voting record, each Member voted yes, 
yes, yes, on the biggest budget-busting bill we have had in a long time 
up here. That is the kind of transparency that we should have.
  Mr. Speaker, look at this world court. I hope each and every Member 
can support the President in the President's move to pull the United 
States from participation in this so-called court. Keep in mind it is 
countries like Cuba, and any other country has the same authority that 
the United States does, that the prosecution has no oversight, there is 
no Bill of Rights, there are no constitutional rights. This would be 
the most powerful system, the most powerful political organization 
known to the world once it gets up and going.

                          ____________________