[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 4, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3596-H3601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ILLEGITIMATE COURT COUNTERACTION ACT

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1269, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 8282) to impose sanctions with respect to the 
International Criminal Court engaged in any effort to investigate, 
arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States 
and its allies, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Strong). Pursuant to House Resolution 
1269, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text 
of the Rules Committee Print 118-37 is adopted, and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 8282

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Illegitimate Court 
     Counteraction Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States and Israel are not parties to the 
     Rome Statute or members of the International Criminal Court 
     (ICC), and therefore the ICC has no legitimacy or 
     jurisdiction over the United States or Israel.
       (2) On May 20, 2024, the Prosecutor of the International 
     Criminal Court, Karim Khan, announced arrest warrant 
     applications for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 
     and Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant and should be condemned 
     in the strongest possible terms.
       (3) The bipartisan American Servicemembers' Protection Act 
     was enacted in 2002 to protect United States military 
     personnel, United States officials, and officials and 
     military personnel of certain allied countries against 
     criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to 
     which the United States is not party, stating, ``In addition 
     to exposing members of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     to the risk of international criminal prosecution, the Rome 
     Statute creates a risk that the President and other senior 
     elected and appointed officials of the United States 
     Government may be prosecuted by the International Criminal 
     Court.''.
       (4) The ICC's actions against Israel are illegitimate and 
     baseless, including the preliminary examination and 
     investigation of Israel and applications for arrest warrants 
     against Israeli officials, which create a damaging precedent 
     that threatens the United States, Israel, and all United 
     States partners who have not submitted to the ICC's 
     jurisdiction.
       (5) The United States must oppose any action by the ICC 
     against the United States, Israel, or any other ally of the 
     United States that has not consented to ICC jurisdiction or 
     is not a state party to the Rome Statute of the ICC.

     SEC. 3. SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL 
                   COURT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and on an ongoing basis thereafter, if 
     the International Criminal Court is engaging in any attempt 
     to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected 
     person, the President shall impose--
       (1) the sanctions described in subsection (b) with respect 
     to any foreign person the President determines--
       (A) has directly engaged in or otherwise aided any effort 
     by the International Criminal Court to investigate, arrest, 
     detain, or prosecute a protected person;
       (B) has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided 
     financial, material, or technological support for, or goods 
     or services to or in support of any effort by the 
     International Criminal Court to investigate, arrest, detain, 
     or prosecute a protected person; or
       (C) is owned or controlled by, or is currently acting or 
     purports to have acted, directly or indirectly, for or on 
     behalf of any person that directly engages in any effort by 
     the International Criminal Court to investigate, arrest, 
     detain, or prosecute a protected person; and
       (2) the sanctions described in subsection (b)(2) with 
     respect to the immediate family members of each foreign 
     person who is subject to sanctions pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (b) Sanctions Described.--The sanctions described in this 
     subsection with respect to a foreign person described in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Property blocking.--The President shall exercise all of 
     the powers granted by the International Emergency Economic 
     Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to the extent necessary 
     to block and prohibit all transactions in all property and 
     interests in property of any foreign person described in 
     subsection (a)(1) if such property and interests in property 
     are in the United States, come within the United States, or 
     are or come within the possession or control of a United 
     States person.
       (2) Aliens inadmissible for visas, admission, or parole.--
       (A) Visas, admission, or parole.--In the case of an alien 
     described in subsection (a), the alien is--
       (i) inadmissible to the United States;
       (ii) ineligible to receive a visa or other documentation to 
     enter the United States; and
       (iii) otherwise ineligible to be admitted or paroled into 
     the United States or to receive any other benefit under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
       (B) Current visas revoked.--
       (i) In general.--The visa or other entry documentation of 
     an alien described in subparagraph (A) shall be revoked, 
     regardless of when such visa or other entry documentation was 
     issued.
       (ii) Immediate effect.--A revocation under clause (i) 
     shall--

       (I) take effect immediately; and
       (II) automatically cancel any other valid visa or entry 
     documentation that is in the alien's possession.

       (c) Implementation; Penalties.--
       (1) Implementation.--The President may exercise all 
     authorities provided under sections 203 and 205 of the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702 
     and 1704) to carry out this section.
       (2) Penalties.--A person that violates, attempts to 
     violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation of this 
     section or any regulation, license, or order issued to carry 
     out this section shall be subject to the penalties set forth 
     in subsections (b) and (c) of section 206 of the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) 
     to the same extent as a person that commits an unlawful act 
     described in subsection (a) of that section.
       (d) Notification to Congress.--Not later than 10 days after 
     any imposition of sanctions pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     President shall brief and provide written notification to the 
     appropriate congressional committees regarding the imposition 
     of sanctions that shall include--
       (1) a description of the foreign person or persons subject 
     to the imposition of such sanctions, including the foreign 
     person's role at or relation to the International Criminal 
     Court;
       (2) a description of any activity undertaken by such 
     foreign person or persons in support of efforts to 
     investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected 
     person; and
       (3) the specific sanctions imposed on such foreign person 
     or persons.
       (e) Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--The President may, on a case-by-case basis 
     and for periods not to exceed 90 days each, waive the 
     application of sanctions imposed or maintained with respect 
     to a foreign person under this section if the President 
     submits to the appropriate congressional committees before 
     the waiver is to take effect a report that contains a 
     determination of the President that the waiver is vital to 
     the national security interests of the United States.

[[Page H3597]]

       (2) Contents.--Each report required by paragraph (1) with 
     respect to a waiver of the application of sanctions imposed 
     or maintained with respect to a foreign person under this 
     section, or the renewal of such a waiver, shall include--
       (A) a specific and detailed rationale for the determination 
     that the waiver is vital to the national security interests 
     of the United States;
       (B) a description of the activity that resulted in the 
     foreign person being subject to sanctions;
       (C) a detailed description and list of actions the United 
     States has taken to--
       (i) stop the International Criminal Court from engaging in 
     any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute all 
     protected persons; and
       (ii) permanently close, withdraw, end, or otherwise 
     terminate any preliminary examination, investigation, or any 
     other effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute all 
     protected persons.
       (3) Form.--Each report required by paragraph by paragraph 
     (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may include a 
     classified annex.
       (f) Special Rule.--The President may terminate the 
     sanctions with respect to the foreign persons described in 
     subsection (a) if the President certifies in writing to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that the International 
     Criminal Court--
       (1) has ceased engaging in any effort to investigate, 
     arrest, detain, or prosecute all protected persons; and
       (2) has permanently closed, withdrawn, ended, and otherwise 
     terminated any preliminary examination, investigation, or any 
     other effort by the International Criminal Court to 
     investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute all protected 
     persons.

     SEC. 4. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

       (a) In General.--Effective on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, any amounts appropriated for the International 
     Criminal Court and available for obligation as of such date 
     of enactment are hereby rescinded.
       (b) Prohibition on Future Appropriations.--On and after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, no appropriated funds may 
     be used for the International Criminal Court.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Admitted alien.--The terms ``admitted'' and ``alien'' 
     have the meanings given those terms in section 101 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101).
       (2) Ally of the united states.--The term ``ally of the 
     United States'' means--
       (A) a government of a member country of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization; or
       (B) a government of a major non-NATO ally, as that term is 
     defined by section 2013(7) of the American Service-Members' 
     Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7432(7)).
       (3) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on 
     Financial Services, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Foreign Relations the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate.
       (4) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' means a 
     person that is not a United States person.
       (5) Immediate family member.--The term ``immediate family 
     member'', with respect to a foreign person, means the spouse, 
     parent, sibling, or adult child of the person.
       (6) International criminal court; rome statute.--The terms 
     ``International Criminal Court'' and ``Rome Statute'' have 
     the meaning given those terms in section 2013 of the American 
     Service-Members' Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7432).
       (7) Protected person.--The term ``protected person'' 
     means--
       (A) any United States person, unless the United States 
     provides formal consent to International Criminal Court 
     jurisdiction and is a state party to the Rome Statute of the 
     International Criminal Court, including--
       (i) current or former members of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States;
       (ii) current or former elected or appointed officials of 
     the United States Government; and
       (iii) any other person currently or formerly employed by or 
     working on behalf of the United States Government;
       (B) any foreign person that is a citizen or lawful resident 
     of an ally of the United States that has not consented to 
     International Criminal Court jurisdiction or is not a state 
     party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal 
     Court, including--
       (i) current or former members of the Armed Forces of such 
     ally of the United States;
       (ii) current or former elected or appointed government 
     officials of such ally of the United States; and
       (iii) any other person currently or formerly employed by or 
     working on behalf of such a government.
       (8) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (A) an individual who is a United States citizen or an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the United 
     States;
       (B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States 
     or any jurisdiction within the United States, including a 
     foreign branch of such an entity; or
       (C) any person in the United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Meeks) each will control 30 minutes.
  The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).


                             General Leave

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at a moment in history where our long-held fears 
are being realized.
  The International Criminal Court has overstepped its authority and 
set a dangerous precedent by seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime 
Minister Netanyahu and Israel's Defense Minister Gallant, alongside 
Hamas terrorists.
  I will be clear: The case against Israel is baseless.
  Mr. Meeks and I wanted in good faith to make this a bipartisan bill, 
and I thank him for that.
  Initially, the White House supported this idea; however, on May 28, 
they did a 180-degree turn. In response, even Democrat Senator Cardin 
has criticized the administration saying: ``I am disappointed. I 
thought they were going to try and work on a bipartisan bill. . . . ''
  I agree with Mr. Cardin, and I agree with Mr. Meeks as we tried to 
make this bipartisan.
  The United States and Israel are not members of the ICC. The ICC 
itself was created as a court of last resort if national governments 
are unwilling or unable to try cases in their jurisdiction.
  The United States and Israel do not fall into this category. Despite 
this, the ICC prosecutor's statement on the warrant applications 
contains several allegations that are directly contradicted by the 
Biden administration's recent report pursuant to the National Security 
Memorandum-20.
  I have many problems with National Security Memorandum-20, but this 
report clearly stated: ``We do not currently assess that the Israeli 
Government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or 
delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.''
  It also described in significant detail Israel's own systems for 
ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law and for 
investigating possible violations of international and humanitarian 
law.
  Moreover, comparing the legitimate, democratically-elected officials 
in Israel who were thrust into a war that they didn't ask for and that 
they didn't start to Hamas terrorists only highlights the complete 
disconnect of this politicized international body.
  This is a war Hamas started.
  Israel was forced into a war they didn't want, and now they have no 
choice but to finish it. Further, Hamas is making it infinitely worse 
because they use human shields. They hide their control and command 
centers behind hospitals and schools, and they put civilians in harm's 
way.
  There are many, many unspeakable tragedies in this war. I have seen 
videos of Hamas terrorists killing innocent Palestinians simply trying 
to access humanitarian aid. Hamas does not care about civilian 
casualties. Their only objective is to remove Israel from the map.
  Israel is fighting in what is likely the most difficult urban warfare 
landscape that has ever existed, and they have done everything in their 
power to limit casualties and facilitate humanitarian aid, but the same 
cannot be said of Hamas.
  It is absolutely outrageous for the ICC to be pursuing arrest 
warrants against Israeli officials and announcing it on CNN before a 
decision has even been made.
  Mr. Meeks and I were prosecutors. We would never announce arrest 
warrants on national television on CNN. Failing to act here in the 
Congress would make us complicit with the ICC's illegitimate actions.
  We must not stay silent. We must stand with our allies. If the ICC is 
advancing a case against an American or

[[Page H3598]]

an allied country who is not party to the ICC, this bill will impose 
sanctions on ICC officials and others supporting that case.
  We need to act quickly because this case is already advancing much 
faster than expected. Even the ICC's own staff did not know the warrant 
applications would be going ahead at this pace. That is why we are 
advancing this bill straight to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to stand up to international bullies who seek 
to undermine international law under the false pretext of justice. What 
happens if Americans are next as they looked at Americans on the 
battlefield in Afghanistan.
  This sets a dangerous precedent where now it is Israeli officials, 
but tomorrow it could be Americans. It is a very dangerous precedent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, too often in our foreign policy, we turn to sanctions as 
a first choice rather than a tool of last resort. Sanctions should not 
be our only go-to punishment to express our displeasure because they 
have real consequences.
  That being said, I will say that on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we 
do try to work together and get a bipartisan bill. I thank the chairman 
for that. Unfortunately, we could not get to a final conclusion.
  As I review the bill that we are about to vote on today, the bill 
that is on the floor, in this instance, this bill would have a chilling 
effect on the ICC as an institution and hamper the court's efforts to 
prosecute serious atrocities that have been perpetrated in many places 
around the world from Ukraine to Uganda. We can't forget that the ICC 
is a venue through which we can hold accountable bad actors.

  I know many of us celebrated in March of last year when the ICC 
judges issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and other senior 
Russian officials for abducting thousands of Ukrainian children.
  In fact, in the wake of Putin's renewed war in Ukraine, Congress 
passed legislation to enable the United States to provide financial 
support to and share information with the ICC to investigate and 
prosecute Putin and his regime for their heinous crimes.
  Put simply, we leaned in on engagement with the ICC because it was in 
our interest and because it reinforces the prospect that the justice we 
want to see will be delivered.
  Let me also be clear that President Biden has said from the very 
start that the ICC prosecutor's application last month for arrest 
warrants against Israeli leaders is clearly outrageous. In doing so, 
the ICC prosecutor has attempted to equate the self-defense decisions 
made by Israel's democratically-elected leaders to those of Hamas' 
terrorist leaders.
  There is no, and I repeat, there is no moral or legal equivalence 
here. This is one reason why we try to work together and continue to 
figure out a way we can get to a bipartisan deal. Chairman McCaul and I 
will continue to do that.
  Furthermore, let me just say that the United States has, since its 
inception, opposed, and we continue to oppose in the strongest terms, 
this investigation as an overreach into a matter for which the ICC has 
no jurisdiction.
  That said, if our goal is to change the ICC's actions, sanctions is 
the wrong tool. They are simply not going to work here. They are not 
going to convince the ICC to back down and could, in fact, push the ICC 
to pursue this case with even greater vigor.
  This bill will bluntly curtail the United States' ability to engage 
the court to advance our interests in supporting justice and 
accountability processes and, critically, to share relevant information 
that can impact the outcome.
  The sanctions will have a chilling effect on States who would 
otherwise be inclined to align with us in ensuring the court delivers 
justice and avoids overreach.
  Not only that, this particular legislation is overly broad. It would 
sanction our allies around the globe who support the ICC through 
resources and personnel.
  Per the proposed text, anyone who has offered financial, material, or 
technological assistance to the court shall be sanctioned.
  Let's look at what that means when we break it down. If you wrote a 
list of the largest funders of the ICC and a list of America's closest 
allies in Europe and in Asia, they would be virtually identical: the 
U.K., France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.

                              {time}  1130

  As drafted, the leaders of these countries would need to be 
sanctioned for providing material assistance to the ICC. The 
legislative bodies of the countries would also need to be sanctioned 
for appropriating funds to go to the ICC. Interparliamentary travel to 
Europe could become a sanctionable activity.
  Is sanctioning Rishi Sunak, Emmanuel Macron, or Giorgia Meloni smart 
policy? To me, that is absurd on its face.
  This bill would further risk sanctions on the over 900 staff members 
from approximately 100 countries at the court, from judges and 
prosecutors to administrative staff, including nationals of close U.S. 
allies and partners who collectively work to prosecute war criminals 
around the globe.
  The language in this bill is so broad that even a cafeteria worker or 
janitor, even their families, could be construed as having supported or 
materially assisted in these prosecutions by providing services to the 
ICC.
  It is almost certain that the ICC relies on American companies for 
cloud services, productivity software, and other gold-standard tech 
products. All of these American companies would be banned from doing 
such business with the ICC, and their Chinese competitors could rush to 
fill that gap.
  Do we want the ICC reliant on the PRC for its email services, data 
service, or cloud storage? Do we want to send a message to all other 
international organizations that America could pull the plug on their 
business services at any moment? This will undermine America's 
interests and bolster those of China and Russia.
  The broad sanctions language included in this legislation will also 
affect many innocent Dutch companies and nationals. The same sanction 
risks would apply to companies from other U.S. allies and partner 
companies that provide services to the ICC. It is unclear how 
sanctioning close allies' financial institutions and small businesses 
will aid our foreign policy interests.
  The path that has been chosen--not of leaning in, not of engaging the 
court and its supporters to ensure just outcomes, but of just punitive 
action--is dangerous for our national security. Behind-the-scenes 
diplomacy with the court and our allies and partners that support it is 
far more likely to yield a result that is better than a blunt-force 
approach.
  I am for sending a message of concern to the ICC for seeking arrest 
warrants for Israeli officials, but we need to do it in another way. 
Therefore, I must oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say to my dear friend, Mr. Meeks, that he knows we worked 
on a version of this bill and came to a bipartisan resolution that, 
ultimately, was rejected by the White House, and I think that is 
unfortunate.
  I also would like to state that the alarms that this bill harms U.S. 
alliances, I think, are overstated. The bill's sanctions are triggered 
by Presidential determination that a particular foreign person has 
supported illicit ICC efforts against protected persons, so that is 
against American citizens or the citizens of U.S. allies who have not 
submitted to ICC's jurisdiction.
  Furthermore, and this is the most important point, this bill, and we 
did this at the behest of the Democrats, gives the President the 
ability to waive these sanctions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Roy), the author of this bill. I thank him for working 
so closely not only with me but with the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, the chairman, for 
yielding, and I thank the ranking member and his staff and the entire 
staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their diligent work on this, 
for working all last week, for working through the weekend, and for the 
conversations.

[[Page H3599]]

  On this one, it is important to note that I do believe that there is 
significant bipartisan agreement that we need to take action and stand 
with one voice in this country, the United States of America, to send a 
strong signal to not just the International Criminal Court but to the 
international community generally. We cannot stand by and allow the 
court to do what it is doing.
  Let's remember why we are here. We are here because the International 
Criminal Court is seeking to issue warrants on the Prime Minister of 
Israel. It merits letting that just sit out there and marinate for a 
second that that is what we are dealing with. The Prime Minister of 
Israel is engaged in defending his country after the horrific October 7 
attacks, which we have talked about in great detail on this floor--the 
assaults, the rapes, the beheadings of babies, the killing of innocent 
civilians. Israel is responding to what occurred and what happened to 
our Jewish brothers and sisters and others in Israel on October 7, and 
it is taking the attack to Hamas.
  We recognize the difficulty of Hamas being fully intertwined with the 
civilians in Gaza. Israel is taking steps to send text messages, drop 
15 million or more leaflets, leave voice messages, give 2 weeks' 
advance notice, do what they can to try to make sure that there are 
protections for civilians, keeping the overall civilian-to-combatant 
casualty ratio below historic norms by most accounts, including third-
party observation.
  Looking at Rafah, the international community is saying you can't go 
into Rafah. You go into Rafah and find 50-plus tunnels--now, I think it 
is 75 or more tunnels--that we know were being used to carry out 
attacks on Israel.
  Israel is under assault right now, with missiles being fired with 
regularity by Hamas into Israel. This is Israel. This is not some 
random entity. This is Israel, our close ally, and you have a body, to 
which we have no sovereignty, for this country, that is being given to 
the International Criminal Court because we are not a party to it. We 
are not undermining our sovereignty. We are not going to do that as 
America.
  That is what this stands for. That is what this says. This says that 
we should not be allowing the International Criminal Court to not just 
go after the Israeli Prime Minister but the door that that opens to go 
after our own servicemembers, to go after our own generals, to go after 
America's interests.
  What happens here is going to be coming at us and our country. That 
is why it is important to speak with one voice, with authority, with 
force.
  We have been working in good faith, and again, I want to compliment 
the ranking member and Democratic staff. Again, we were working through 
the weekend. I do believe there were amendments that we could have 
agreed to. There were changes that we could have agreed to that would 
have had bipartisan support here. I understand that the White House did 
not agree to that, and I think that is a shame.
  I think the White House made the wrong call, plain and simple. I 
think the White House got this wrong, and I just hope that we will be 
here today united as a body, putting aside partisan differences, and 
that we will move this bill forward and send it to the Senate, where 
the Senate can work its will.
  If the Senate wants to modify it and send it back to the House and 
try to address any of the concerns that have been raised by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle or this side of the aisle, 
great, the Senate can do that. They can send it back to us, and we can 
send a product to the President.
  We need to address this, and we need to address it quickly. If we 
allow this to fester, then we undermine our own national security, and 
importantly, at this moment in time, we give credence and power to an 
international body to which we are not a party, to which Israel is not 
a party, and that is being used to flex political muscle by targeting 
the Prime Minister for defending his own country. That we cannot stand 
for.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues support H.R. 8282.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).
  Mrs. RAMIREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8282.
  I realize the pattern here. When my Republican colleagues can't 
legislate, they decide they are going to score cheap points using three 
primary tools: fear-mongering, punishing, and silencing.
  I want to break down a little bit of this bill today.
  Fear-mongering: The bill invokes the protection of United States 
military personnel. Now, let me clarify. U.S. military personnel are 
not subject to the ICC because the United States is not a party to the 
Rome Statute, which I find shameful.
  Punishing: The bill would impose sanctions against anyone who aids 
the ICC in investigating, detaining, arresting, or prosecuting anyone 
who has not consented to the court's jurisdiction. Let me clarify. Let 
me make a point of clarification here. The bill would weaponize 
sanctions against major U.S. allies who support the court, allies like 
Germany, France, the U.K., Japan, and countless others.
  Silencing: How? If enacted, no funding may be used for the 
International Criminal Court. Another point of clarification: Those 
efforts would weaken the ICC, and that makes us all less safe.
  It is important we remember why the ICC exists, as defined by the 
Rome Statute: ``Mindful that during this century, millions of children, 
women, and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply 
shock the conscience of humanity.''
  It recognizes that ``such grave crimes threaten the peace, security, 
and well-being of the world,'' and it is ``determined to put an end to 
impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and, thus, to contribute 
to the prevention of such crimes.''
  I stand in opposition to this resolution because we need the ICC.
  In the last 241 days, thousands have been victims of unimaginable 
atrocities, and Netanyahu's violations of international law have 
threatened the peace of the world.
  I am determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of 
these crimes, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the ICC's ruling is outrageous. The 
organization has dishonored itself. I would have been happy to 
cosponsor a resolution denouncing and sanctioning. I wanted to 
cosponsor this bill when I read the title; unfortunately, I read the 
bill.
  Once again, we have a poorly drafted, poorly thought-out messaging 
bill that hasn't gone through the committee process, that hasn't gone 
through regular order, that hasn't been thought through. No amendments 
are allowed on the floor, and the author defends it on the theory that, 
well, if the bill is poorly drafted, the Senate will save us and 
correct it.
  We cannot vote ``yes'' on a bill today that is this infirm and count 
on the Senate to clean it up.
  Once again, the Republican Party has decided to hurt Israel for its 
own benefit. Israel has one friend in the world, the United States--
plus Guatemala. Israel has survived because it has had the support of 
both political parties.
  During the first 76 years of Israel's existence, Democrats have had 
roughly half the power in this city, and Republicans about half of the 
time have been in control. If Israel is to survive another 76 years, it 
will need the support of both parties. Yet, the purpose of this bill, 
which masquerades as pro-Israel, like so many bills brought up as 
messaging bills, is to drive a wedge between the Democratic Party and 
Israel for the benefit not of Israel but the Republican Party.

                              {time}  1145

  The decision by the International Criminal Court's prosecutor to seek 
arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is an outrageous perversion of 
everything anyone who has dedicated themselves to human rights holds 
dear, as I have for 28 years on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  It is a perversion of the international justice system. It is putrid. 
It dishonors those who originally thought

[[Page H3600]]

that the International Criminal Court would be a good idea. It 
undermines the rule of law, and it is based on a hatred of Israel and 
perhaps a hatred of Jews.
  I would like to vote for this bill, but unfortunately I read it. Now, 
the ranking member has pointed out a number of problems. I will point 
out a couple as well. You cannot vote for this until you read section 
2(a)(1)(A), which imposes sanctions on anyone who assists an effort to 
investigate, assists an effort to investigate.
  What does that mean? It includes those who provide exculpatory 
information. Israel was subject to investigation. I am sure many 
patriotic Israelis and well-meaning Americans provided information to 
the ICC, as Chip Roy did when he gave his speech, detailing why that 
action is wrongful on the law and the facts; but you assist an 
investigation when you provide exculpatory information, and anyone who 
does that is subject to sanction. Mr. Roy won't be sanctioned because 
he is a U.S. citizen, but anyone else who contacted the court and said 
here is what you are doing is wrong will be subject to these sanctions.
  Second, this bill punishes the spouses and family members, even 
estranged family members. You may feel that your son has gone wrong. By 
involvement with the ICC, you get sanctioned for what that son does. 
Particularly, I want to focus on spouses. As I said, the bill punishes 
spouses and family members, even those spouses and family members who 
oppose the ruling.
  You are going to wonder why I have this poster up here. All last 
week, the Republican Party told us that the decision of the Alitos to 
fly an insurrectionist flag at their two houses should not be imparted 
to the Justice because it was done by his spouse. Today, one week 
later, they come back and say that when a judge does something wrong, 
we are going to impart it to the spouse. Which is it? Are Justices and 
their spouses responsible for each other's actions or not? Some 
Republican is going to have to explain this to me.
  Now, of course, this is even different and more extreme. Justice 
Alito lived in the houses, Justice Alito did not disclaim the message 
of these flags, and Justice Alito is not estranged from his wife, yet 
someone who is totally apart from anyone at the ICC but happens to be 
related will be subject to sanctions. Again, how can you defend an 
appeal to Heaven under those circumstances?
  The attention of the world should be on the incredible hypocrisy on 
the International Criminal Court, which failed to issue rulings about 
driving the Rohingya from their home, about the complete depopulation 
of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, of the Republic of Artsakh where 
the entire country was driven into exile in ethnic cleansing. It failed 
to issue a ruling dealing with northern Ethiopia, where 600,000 people 
died. This illegitimate court failed to issue a ruling on the Yazidis, 
who were subjected to a genocide, as the world watched thousands of 
Yazidis being butchered and burned alive and subjected to sexual 
slavery.
  Instead of focusing our attention on the hypocrisy of the court, we 
are focused on this poorly drafted resolution. I tried making 
suggestions to the author. Every suggestion I made was rejected. This 
was not an attempt to pass a pro-Israel bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this was not a pro-Israel bill. Instead it 
was a poorly drafted, rush-to-the-floor, strictly partisan messaging 
bill that distracts the world from the hypocrisy of the ICC and focuses 
us instead on a supposedly pro-Israel, performatively pro-Israel 
Republican bill.
  We will have to vote ``no,'' and then we will have to work later to 
demonstrate how wrong and how putrid the action of the ICC is.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I yield myself 
the balance of my time to close.
  I think it is important for me to say, Mr. Speaker, at the outset 
that I really do appreciate the efforts that were made to make this 
legislation bipartisan. Trying to get to good in a bipartisan way is 
always my goal on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Chairman McCaul 
has, indeed, been a partner in that effort. I thank him for his 
partnership.
  That said, the bill as it is on the floor, I can't support because I 
believe it will be counterproductive to our interests, harm our 
relations with allies, and undermine American global leadership. 
Unfortunately, I believe the bill on the floor will do exactly that. 
Sanctioning the court and all those who support it will backfire badly 
on us, and I must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Let me say first, I am extremely troubled by how the ICC has acted, 
and I think everybody in this body should be, both Republican and 
Democrat. Americans should be concerned.

  More than 20 years ago, our predecessors had the foresight to know 
full well that the ICC would one day try to target democratic countries 
that had their own robust judicial systems over which the ICC has no 
legitimate jurisdiction.
  In 2020, the ICC decided to authorize a formal investigation into 
alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. A large bipartisan group of House 
Members wrote to the Secretary of State at that time in response with a 
strong concern stating: ``Both Democratic and Republican 
administrations have refused to join the court in part because they 
feared its politicization and misuse.''
  That is exactly what has happened here today. They have no basis for 
these actions, and by seeking warrants for Israel's Prime Minister and 
Defense Minister, they have cheapened this court's reputation and 
exposed it for what it really is--an illegitimate court that puts 
politics over justice.
  Today it is Israel, Mr. Speaker, but tomorrow it could be the United 
States. We must sanction those who deliberately abuse their power for 
political gain. Their actions seek to undermine Israel and its people, 
who are in a fight for their very existence. We must act not only to 
protect Israel, but ourselves, from these unelected international 
bureaucrats.
  If they willingly seek to imprison our allies or the United States, 
we must send a clear message--you are neither welcome nor wanted on 
American soil. America always stands behind our allies and their 
legitimate governments.
  If I could just say to my dear friend, Mr. Meeks, and to our 
colleagues in the House, we did work very hard to get to a bipartisan 
agreement, a bipartisan bill that the Speaker approved and Mr. Jeffries 
approved, but when it went to the White House, it was rejected.
  I always think--and I think Mr. Meeks agrees--that we are always 
strongest, particularly this committee, when we speak with one voice as 
one nation, in this case to the ICC and to the judges. A partisan 
messaging bill was not my intention here, nor do I believe it was Mr. 
Meeks' intention, but that is where we are right now.
  I remain forever hopeful and optimistic, however, that during the 
process and during the course of this legislation that we can still get 
back to that bipartisan bill that we talked about, whether it is 
reached when this goes over to the Senate or perhaps Mr. Meeks and I 
can mark up that bipartisan bill on our committee, on the Foreign 
Affairs Committee, and then get it to the House floor where we can then 
proceed with regular order in a bipartisan fashion that I believe would 
be best for this Nation, best for Israel, and best to send deterrents 
to the International Criminal Court.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1269, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H3601]]

  

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________