[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S408-S410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to oppose
H.R. 23. This is a bill that levels unprecedented mandatory sanctions
on the International Criminal Court, the ICC.
I understand my colleagues' concerns about whether the court has
jurisdiction over Israel, and I share those. I agree the court should
not focus its resources investigating U.S. servicemembers. I can't
believe anybody in this Chamber wants to see that. But the way this
bill is drafted, sanctioning the ICC will not get them to withdraw the
arrest warrants for Israeli officials. It could actually have the
opposite effect, hardening the court's position.
These sweeping sanctions we are about to consider are an incredibly
powerful tool, and making this an issue that, frankly, goes beyond
Israel and the United States and stretching around the world is not
going to be helpful to our national security. These sanctions will make
it almost impossible for the United States to engage the court on other
issues in our national interest, whether that is prosecuting the
atrocities in Sudan or human rights abuses by the Taliban or in
Venezuela or Russia's war crimes against Ukraine.
This bill would target the civil servants who work at the ICC--and
not just them, it would target their families. Lower level workers who
provide administrative, paralegal, research, even catering and sanitary
services would be affected. It could target their family members just
for being related.
The bill could also potentially target subsidiaries of major U.S.
companies like Microsoft for providing technical services to the ICC,
which they may have been performing for a number of years before this
bill was passed, and the way it is worded, it is retroactive. It would
affect them.
Not only that, this bill targets some of the United States' most
important allies--for example, the host country for the ICC, the
Netherlands, as well as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and
Japan, which are the ICC's biggest donors. It also includes their
citizens who work at the ICC and their companies.
These alliances are one of America's greatest assets. They make us
stronger and safer, and this bill could do real damage to these
relationships. It could undermine vital multilateral organizations and
hurt U.S. strategic interests.
So I was hoping we could come to an agreement. We have been
negotiating with Senator Cotton, who is the author of this bill. I know
we share most of the same concerns that he does in drafting the bill.
But I think it is overly broad. It is not drafted in a way that
addresses what I think are the unique concerns that we have with
respect to the International Criminal Court.
Sadly, since we have not been able to come to an agreement to address
those concerns, I intend to vote no on this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same on the motion to proceed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum call with respect to the motion to invoke cloture on
the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 3, H.R. 23, be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COTTON. I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks
before the scheduled vote.
[[Page S409]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, the so-called International Criminal
Court is a major threat to America's sovereignty and our troops. That
threat was clear from the court's founding in 2002, 23 years ago. It is
why the United States never agreed to its jurisdiction. It is why in
the same year Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection
Act--also colloquially known as the Hague Invasion Act--a law which
authorizes the President to use all means necessary to release our
citizens detained by the court.
Twenty-three years is a long time, but we still have some Senators in
the Chamber who voted for that bill, including none other than the
Democratic leader, Senator Schumer. Senator Wyden also voted for it.
But even that hasn't stopped the Hague from targeting Americans. Under
President Obama, the court threatened to investigate American soldiers
in Afghanistan. It did so again in 2020 under President Trump. To this
very day, the ICC has an open investigation into U.S. troops who risked
their lives to fight against terrorism.
To be clear, the United States is not and will never be a member of
the International Criminal Court. Yet this kangaroo court continues
threatening to haul our citizens in front of foreign judges--judges who
have no jurisdiction over Americans and who do not follow basic rules
of due process provided for by our Constitution.
The State of Israel is another nonparty to the court and the Hague,
where anti-Semitism is regrettably alive and well. Although Israel has
never consented to the court's judgment, the ICC issued arrest warrants
for the leader of Israel and its former Defense Minister last November.
By asserting jurisdiction over a nonmember, the ICC has grossly
violated the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the court. The court
also broke its own rules against prosecuting individuals under
governments with functioning criminal justice systems, like Israel.
I also would note that the court has not issued arrest warrants for
flagrant human right abusers like--I don't know--Iran's Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Khamenei, former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, or the
genocidal President of China Xi Jinping. The court seems to prefer
targeting democratically elected leaders instead of terrorists and
despots.
It is no secret that the court's targeting of Israel is a trial run
to go after Americans. If they succeed against Israel, America will be
next. That is why Congress must guarantee that any acts of aggression
by this court against our citizens and our friends will be met with a
swift response.
Our Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act would sanction ICC officials
involved in prosecuting any American, Israeli, or other allied citizen
wrongfully targeted by the court. It would also revoke their visas.
This act is a targeted and justified response to the constant threats
of this court against our troops and our allies. That is why more than
half of Americans said they would support sanctioning this court. It is
also why every House Republican and 45 House Democrats voted for the
bill earlier this month.
Now, despite this broad bipartisan public support, some of my
Democratic colleagues still have concerns, so let me put their minds at
ease.
First, someone called the sanctions in this bill ``draconian.'' Far
from draconian, these same property and visa restrictions were used by
the Obama and Biden administration not once, not twice, but 49 times.
Others have said the bill could target our allies. The bill, however,
clearly is directed at foreign persons, not foreign nations.
OK. But still others have said the ICC bill targets ``citizens of our
allies.'' Yes, if you are involved in illegitimately targeting
Americans, you could face sanctions.
This bill does not, once again, sanction foreign nations like the
United Kingdom. But if British nationals at the court are targeting
American citizens, you better believe they could face sanctions.
Still, others say it would undermine our alliances. Yet again, the
bill only targets officials directly involved in action against the
United States and our allies, not foreign nations. Furthermore, if past
is prologue, all of our allies will stick with the United States.
When Congress passed the ``Hague Invasion Act'' in 2002 with Senator
Schumer's vote, all of those nations entered agreements with us to
continue their relationship with us, not with the court.
Still, others say that this would target foreign subsidiaries of
American companies. I worked with Senator Shaheen in good faith, and I
commend her for her work with me on that over the last few days. It
seems to have become clear, though, that these American subsidiaries
don't want a narrow carve-out. They want a massive carve-out that
would, in fact, allow them to continue in the future, say, providing
information about American troops' actions in Afghanistan, which we do
not think they should have.
Again, every Republican in the House voted for this; 45 Democrats in
the House voted for it; 2 Democratic Senators who were in the House
last year voted for it.
Last April, I led several of my colleagues in a letter to the court's
prosecutor Karim Khan. The letter warned him against issuing arrest
warrants to target Israeli leaders. We said ``Target Israel, and we
will target you.'' Despite this clear warning, he proceeded anyway, a
gross insult to our friends in Israel and an even more dangerous threat
in the future to American sovereignty.
He and his court should now face the consequences. I urge all of my
colleagues to vote on this motion so we can continue debate on this
critical legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have spent decades watching the
International Criminal Court with a critical eye.
From the beginning, even when I was in Congress, I was certain that
the ICC would display the same anti-Israel bias that permeated the U.N.
and other international organizations. Unfortunately, I believe
subsequent years have proven me correct.
While the ICC has undeniably done some good work, including going
after President Putin and addressing atrocities in Darfur, their anti-
Israel bias has taken over and become too much to ignore. Last May, 7
months after Hamas's horrific attack on Israel, the ICC made a shocking
announcement. Instead of going after terrorist organizations who
ordered the murder, rape, and abduction of innocent Israelis, the ICC's
prosecutor chose to equate those ungodly actions with the justifiable
response of the Israeli government.
I know that is hard to comprehend, so I will say it again. Last May,
the ICC equated the Hamas terrorist organization with the Israeli
government, betraying an anti-Israel bias that cannot be ignored; a
bias that is deeply rooted, sinister, and which fuels the anti-Semitism
resurging across the globe including here in America, the country I
love. It is hard for me to comprehend even today.
And that false equivalence, I believe, is the reason we are here on
the Senate floor considering an ICC sanctions bill. The ICC bill is one
I largely support and would like to see become law. However, as much as
I oppose the ICC's deep bias against Israel and as much as I want to
see that institution drastically reformed and reshaped, the bill before
us is poorly drafted and deeply problematic. It will have many
unintended consequences that undermine its primary goal.
The bill, as drafted, would enable sanctions against American
companies who have contracts to support the ICC's technology functions.
These American companies do not make investigative or prosecutorial
decisions. These American companies' employees do not recommend nor
bring cases. These American companies do not demonstrate the same anti-
Semitic bias that the ICC does.
But the work of those companies does defend the ICC's computer
network against Russian hackers who would like to expose witnesses who
have shared information about Russian atrocities. A small fix--a small
fix--could have been made to protect the work of those companies, but
the Republican majority refused to make such a fix.
[[Page S410]]
The bill, as drafted, would also allow President Trump to arbitrarily
sanction the heads of state of our allies. They all called and
complained about that part because their countries are members of the
ICC.
During this time of world tumult, that is an unnecessary burden to
place on our allies. By sanctioning our allies, this bill, as drafted,
would hamstring the ICC's ability to go after Putin for his war crimes,
giving him the best gift possible. Again, a small fix, which Senator
Shaheen tried to get, would easily have addressed this concern.
These fixes could have easily been made and, Lord knows, Senator
Shaheen tried to fix them. You see, once Leader Thune brought this to
the floor, I asked Senator Shaheen, the ranking member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, to try to work with our Republican
colleagues to address some of the drafting errors--not changing in any
way the way the ICC should be taken to task for the way they go after
Israel, but these other changes unrelated to Israel.
She and her staff worked tirelessly to find a way forward, but the
Republican majority, the Senator from Arkansas, refused to make these
simple changes.
Therefore, because they have chosen this partisan, nonconsultative
path, I will oppose cloture on the motion to proceed, with the fervent
hope that the other side will realize their error and their careless
drafting and resume real conversations with us.
A bipartisan agreement is still very possible, and we hope and urge
our Republican colleagues to sit down with us and come up with a bill
that addresses the very real problems at the ICC without adversely
affecting American companies and our allies.
____________________