The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E784 on May 10, 2002.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
