[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 59 (Friday, May 10, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E784]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 9, 2002

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4546) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, and for military 
     construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
     fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes:

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, later in this debate we will be considering 
an amendment by the Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul relating to the 
International Criminal Court. I am perplexed by this amendment, since, 
if it were binding, it would undermine our ability to defend U.S. 
servicemen and women, protects war criminals, and express a profound 
distrust of the President of the United States. Although revising the 
amendment to make it non-binding was an improvement, the underlying 
policy suggested by the Amendment remains misguided.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Gentleman is opposed to the 
International Criminal Court, and this amendment is supposed to express 
that policy. Buy Mr. Chairman, that is already the policy of the United 
States. On Monday, the Administration announced that it would not 
ratify the Rome Statute which creates the Court, had given up on the 
court as a workable institution, and was not going to provide 
assistance to it.
  On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, the language of this amendment 
simply goes too far and is fundamentally inconsistent with the national 
interest. In particular, the amendment provides that no funds may be 
used to ``cooperate'' with the court. Mr. Chairman, even opponents of 
the court should oppose this language. Let me give some examples of 
what the policy expressed in this amendment may prohibit:
  It may prohibit the Defense Department from responding to the Court's 
investigators when they ask us for exonerating information on actions 
by U.S. Servicemen or women. Perversely, this would mean this amendment 
would make it more difficult for us to defend our own troops.
  It may prevent us from allowing a member of the armed forces to 
testify on behalf of one of our NATO allies, who accept this treaty.
  And it may prevent us from providing any information with respect to 
a prosecution of enemies of the United States. If a war crime is 
committed by Saddam Hussein in country which is a member of the court, 
and it does not prosecute him for political reasons, then under this 
amendment we could not help the Court prosecute Saddam.
  Moreover, the subject of this amendment was already dealt with by the 
House in H.R. 1646, the State Department Authorization Act, which 
appears to be moving towards Conference. That is the proper venue for 
this topic.
  Mr. Chairman, the President has announced his opposition to the 
Court. This amendment, represents an expression of profound distrust in 
our commander-in-chief. I think that in the middle of a war, that is 
the last thing we should be doing.