[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.
____________________