-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. 3, H.R. 23, be waived.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source