Washington, DC — Today, Ranking Member Gregory W. Meeks delivered the following remarks on the House Floor in opposition to H.R. 8282, the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act. 

"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 do want to say, as we do on the Foreign Affairs Committee, trying to work together and trying to get to a bipartisan bill.
 
"So I want to thank the Chairman. Unfortunately, we could not get to a final conclusion. And 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 interests 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 something that—and one reason why—we try to work together and think we should 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 are the wrong tool. That's simply not going to work here.

"They're not going to convince the ICC to back down and could, in fact, push the ICC to pursue this case even with greater vigor. This bill will bluntly curtail the United States's ability to engage the court to advance our interest in supporting justice and accountability and those processes, and, critically, to share relevant information that can impact the outcome.
 
"And 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 and 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.
 
"So, 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 UK, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. As this legislation is drafted, the leaders of these countries would need to be sanctioned for providing material assistance to the ICC.
 
"The legislative bodies of these countries would also need to be sanctioned for appropriating funds to go to the ICC. Interparliamentary travel to Europe could become a sanctioned activity. Is sanctioning Sunak, Macron, or Maloney smart policy? To me, that's 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 US 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 and productivity software, and other gold-standard tech products. All of these American companies will be banned from doing such business with the ICC, and their Chinese competitors could rush to fill that gap.
 
"So, do we want the ICC reliant on the PRC for its email services, its data service, or its 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 sanctions risk would apply to companies from other US allies and partner countries who provide services to the ICC. It is unclear how sanctioning close allies' financial institutions and small businesses will aid our foreign policy interests. So this path that has been chosen—not of leaning in, not of engaging the Court and its supporters to ensure just outcomes, but of hasty, punitive action—is dangerous for our national security. Behind-the-scenes diplomacy with the court and our allies and partners' support is far more likely to yield a result that is better than a blunt-force approach.
 
"So I'm 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."

###