Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from Florida for his opening and congratulate him on his new chairmanship. I hope that there will be occasions where we can work together on issues that will advance the cause of human rights and promote stability in the world, but unfortunately, today is not one of those occasions.

Mr. Speaker, of all the ways that Republicans have shown this country how messed up and backward their priorities are, I have to say that this bill that we are debating today to sanction the International Criminal Court, the ICC, really takes the cake.

We have a natural disaster unfolding in California right this second as 100,000 people are fleeing a climate change-driven fire that is burning up entire neighborhoods. We have a gun violence epidemic, as we see massacres in our schools nearly every single day. Families are unable to make ends meet because they are being ripped off by billionaire corporations that don't care about anything but the bottom line.

There are over 40 million hungry people in this country who don't know where their next meal is going to come from. There are 40 million hungry people in the richest country on Earth.

All those challenges and this is what the out-of-touch, elitist, billionaire Republican Party wants to waste time on, sanctioning the

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, to the gentleman from Texas, yeah, I don't know how the vote on this will come out. I am sure some Democrats may vote for it. Actually, on our side, we welcome debate, and we welcome ways to improve the legislation. I am told that there were negotiations going on to try to actually improve this legislation, and then the Speaker made a unilateral decision to go with the most extreme version.

This was not marked up in committee, and there were no amendments to this. It didn't come to the Rules Committee, so nobody can offer an amendment, nobody can make a suggestion. It is take it or leave it. I mean, I guess that is the way the Republicans are going to want to run the House.

To the distinguished chairman of the committee, I think he must have misinterpreted me. He said something like: This is the people's House, so let me translate what the gentleman, meaning me, just said in my opening remarks. He said bringing the hostages home should not be a priority.

Now, I know I am from Massachusetts and you may have a tough time

understanding my accent, but the bottom line is, that is not what I said. In fact, I said very clearly that the taking of hostages is a war crime. What I said very clearly is that the hostages should be released immediately and unconditionally. I have said that over and over and over again.

I don't think, like many of the families of the hostages have expressed to me, that increased bombing is going to result in getting their loved ones home. That is the message that many of them have delivered to me personally when they have visited here in Washington.

Again, please don't kind of manipulate what I have said here today. The taking of these hostages is horrific, and they must be released immediately and unconditionally. I hope that nobody disagrees with that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am going to respond to the chairman of the committee. Yeah, we do disagree on the impact of this bill. I disagree that this bill is going to do anything to get the hostages released. Every time we have seen hostages released, it has been during a cease- fire and not in the middle of intense bombing.

Again, as many families of the hostages have expressed to me directly, they worry very much about the Prime Minister's continued policy of all-in in terms of military attacks in Gaza because they worry very much that it decreases the likelihood that their loved ones will be freed. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, that was a great speech for social media, but it will do nothing to get the hostages released, just like this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I just want the record to reflect that I remember hearing widespread support from many of my Republican colleagues when the ICC issued a warrant against Vladimir Putin for the kidnapping of Ukrainian children, as well as when they issued a warrant against Bashir for genocide in Sudan.

I guess what we are hearing here is that we want to pick and choose on their side how we are going to react to the ICC based on what they do. I mean, the bottom line is this is the beginning of a process. It is not the end of a process.

This bill will do nothing to help get the release of our hostages, including those Americans who are held hostage, and it will isolate us within the world community, especially with many of our allies.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, two things to the gentleman who just spoke: The reason why my colleagues are not here is because the Republicans scheduled this debate during President Carter's funeral, which I find to be incredibly disappointing given President Carter's stature in this country and his commitment to human rights.

To the chairman of the committee, I was a little bit startled when he said get with the American team; because we have a disagreement, that somehow I am not with the American team. Last time I checked, we are still a democracy, at least for the time being. You can have disagreements on this issue, and we can still respect each other's point of view.

If I thought for one second that this bill that we are debating today would help get the release of the hostages and the American hostages, I would be with you, but it won't. It complicates things even further, and it isolates us in the world community at a time, quite frankly, when we need allies, and we need everybody working to try to resolve the conflict in the Middle East, to get all the hostages released, to ensure that Israel has its security, and to ensure that the Palestinians have a future, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I close debate, I want to reiterate my opposition to this misguided legislation. The International Criminal Court exists to hold the world accountable to prevent atrocities and to serve as a reminder that no one is above the law.

Abandoning the ICC, as H.R. 23 proposes, undermines our values, undermines our alliances, and undermines our credibility on the world stage.

This is a moment to reaffirm our commitment to human rights, to international law, and to the partnerships that have defined American leadership, and this bill fails that test.

By sanctioning officials of the ICC and anyone who has done business with them, this bill would have a chilling effect on America's work to support human rights and rule of law around the world.

It would hamper the ICC's efforts to prosecute serious atrocities that have wrecked lives and destabilized countries in many places around the world, from Ukraine to Uganda to Darfur.

NGOs would be chilled from sharing evidence of the grave crimes committed in these places. Many of us celebrated in March of 2023 when the ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and another senior Russian official for abducting thousands of Ukrainian children.

Mr. Speaker, Congress even 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 his heinous crimes in Ukraine. The bill we are considering today would undermine that work and rob it of its legitimacy.

If passed, this misguided legislation would bluntly curtail our ability to engage the ICC, to advance our interests in supporting justice and accountability, and, crucially, to share relevant information with our partners and allies.

Speaking of our allies, this bill is so absurdly broad that it would sanction our own allies. Read the bill. Our allies would be sanctioned for supporting the ICC if this were to pass.

The largest funders of the ICC are America's closest allies: the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Japan. As drafted, the leaders of these countries would be sanctioned for providing material assistance to the ICC. That is truly nuts. It doesn't make any sense to me.

The legislative bodies of these countries could also be sanctioned for appropriating funds for the ICC. By some interpretations, interparliamentary travel to Europe could become a sanctionable activity.

Did anybody think this through? Is sanctioning the leaders of our closest friends and allies really the best we can do here?

Not only that, this sanctions over 900 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 all around the globe.

The language in this bill is so broad that even cafeteria workers and janitors and their families could be construed as having supported or ``materially assisted'' in these prosecutions by providing services to the ICC. This is nuts.

Mr. Speaker, what would happen next? I can tell you. American companies would be banned from doing business with the ICC if its top officials are sanctioned, and their Chinese competitors would rush in to fill the gap. Not only does this undermine America's interests, but it bolsters Russia and helps China.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. Not only is it a bad bill, but nobody had any opportunity at all to amend it. This has been brought to the floor under a completely closed process. We can't address all the faults that I have just outlined. We can't address them because of the way this majority is bringing this bill to the floor. Zero amendments are allowed because Republicans brought it up under a closed rule-- again, another wasted opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. In my opinion, behind-the-scenes diplomacy with the International Criminal Court, alongside our partners, is far more likely to yield a result than the approach put forward by this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if the United States of America stands for anything, we need to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. That means we have to hold ourselves accountable, our allies accountable, and our adversaries accountable when they don't live up to those standards.

The International Criminal Court is there to hold countries accountable and to hold entities accountable when they commit human rights crimes. They are there to investigate, and they are there to prosecute.

For us in Congress to get involved in sanctioning the ICC because we don't like the fact that they are pointing out some of the serious issues in Gaza committed by one of our closest allies, for us to sanction them because of that, undermines the court, undermines our credibility in the world, and undermines our credibility on human rights. Why would we do that?

This bill does nothing to help get the hostages released. It does nothing at all. Again, let me be clear: All of us should be saying as loudly as we possibly can that all the hostages should be released immediately and unconditionally. They have arrest warrants out for the leadership of Hamas precisely because of what happened on October 7. The ICC wants to hold them accountable.

What we are doing here doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense to me. Again, the bill as it is written is so flawed. If it went through regular order, if you brought it to the Rules Committee and we made a few amendments in order, we might be able to fix some of the flaws I pointed out.

Instead, keeping to the tradition of this Republican leadership, which oversaw the closest Congress in the history of the United States in the last session, I guess we are going to expect more of the same-- take it or leave it, my way or the highway.

This is about a sound bite, I guess, more than it is about trying to achieve peace in the Middle East, trying to get the release of our hostages, or trying to uphold a high standard of human rights. I find this really disappointing. I really do.

Again, I said at the opening of my statement to the new chairman that

Mr. President, I am so appreciative of my colleagues coming down here to talk about not only the January 6 pardons that President Trump has done but to stand with the men and women in law enforcement.

When I am home, quite often I will hear at times: Well, Democrats don't support law enforcement. They don't support the men and women who keep our communities safe.

That is just not true, as you can see today.

But here is what I know, and this is why this is devastating, I think, to so many men and women who not only are Capitol Police officers right here who defended this Capitol on January 6, who stand guard to protect us, but, honestly, for all of the men and women in law enforcement across this country who are paying attention and watching what this President does. Will he have their backs when the time comes? Will he be there to truly support them in their time of need when they are doing their job like he says he will?

We have spent the last decade hearing Donald Trump talk about law and order and cracking down on crime. Last fall, on a national podcast, he called for giving our law enforcement back their dignity. He said we need to give them their ``dignity back.'' Just last week at the White House, at a press conference, he claimed to be a friend of the police.

Well, now, Donald Trump has been in office for just 1 week--although, I will be truthful, it seems like longer, but it has just been 1 week-- and already, his actions have made it crystal clear that he does not mean what he says. In fact, from his actions that we have seen so far, he is actively working against the men and women in law enforcement, not only those here who work in this Capitol but across this country.

Let me put this in starker terms that I think my Republican colleagues will understand. Nevada families across my State have been torn apart by dangerous drugs like methamphetamine and opioids. That is true for so many families across the country, including, Mr. President, in your own State. It doesn't matter if they are Democrats or Republicans or libertarians or Independents, illicit drug trafficking is impacting everyone in this country.

But last week--just last week--Donald Trump pardoned the founder of Silk Road. What is Silk Road? It is an underground internet site that oversaw the trafficking of $200 million in illegal drugs and other illicit trade. The founder of Silk Road was convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to life

in prison for participating in a criminal organization and distributing narcotics on the internet. In fact, we know after that trial that some Americans died after purchasing those illicit drugs on that website--a website that was specifically designed to skirt the law and support criminal activity. But now this founder, the founder of that website who was sentenced to life in prison, is walking free because Donald Trump pardoned him.

Donald Trump giving a full, unconditional pardon to this drug dealer and criminal profiteer is a slap in the face to the victims of this crisis and to law enforcement who work to promote our communities and to keep our communities safe.

What Donald Trump has done is not law and order; it is chaos. And it is not just with one pardon. Donald Trump has pardoned more than 130 individuals--130--who were convicted of assaulting police officers and some of them right here at the Capitol.

Like my colleagues you have heard, I was here that day. I will never forget it. I remember, in the Capitol, running into one of those police officers who had been pepper-sprayed by a rioter in Donald Trump's mob. At the same time while he was washing out his eyes, he was reassuring us Senators that, don't worry, I have your back, and I am standing guard. And he ran back out to the front of the Capitol. He was doing his job that day.

But do you know what else happened that day? As we all saw--we saw it on TV, and those of us who were here either saw it personally or later found out--those rioters and those insurrectionists actually came to the Capitol with weapons and zip ties. Now, if nobody knows what is a zip tie is, that is a handcuff. What were these rioters doing with weapons and zip ties coming into our Capitol?

They used WD-40 and bear spray on our officers--a perfect example, the officer I saw that morning--and they assaulted our officers with American flags--American flags. They were beating them with these poles of these American flags.

This is not some political conspiracy that Donald Trump would like to rewrite; these were insurrectionists. We all know. They posted online. You saw those videos. If you didn't watch it real time on TV, you saw those videos. We saw them shoving, punching, and attacking our law enforcement.

Now, instead of serving their time and facing the consequences for the dangerous actions that they committed against our officers, Donald Trump is telling them that not only were they wrongfully punished but, in fact, their behavior on that day is encouraged by him as long as-- listen. Think about this. It is encouraged by him as long as they are doing his bidding. As long as they are doing his bidding, he does not have the backs of our law enforcement officers.

Criminals convicted of attacking law enforcement are now giving TV interviews. You have heard from some of my colleagues that they are giving interviews saying that President Trump's pardons have vindicated their actions.

This is an endorsement of political violence. These actions--what President Trump has done is an endorsement of political violence. Quite honestly, it is an insult to the men and women who risk their lives every day to keep our families safe.

Why do I know that? You don't have to trust what I am saying. Let me just ask you this: I cannot imagine anyone here in this room--when you have a problem, you have a concern about the safety of your family or friends at home or wherever you are, what is the first call you make? To 911 to get a law enforcement officer to come and stand and protect you.

I happen to know many law enforcement officers personally because I have spent a good part of my career as a prosecutor--not only here in this U.S. Capitol but as the attorney general of the State of Nevada. I have spent most of my life working with some great men and women in law enforcement.

Oh, by the way, I am married to one. My husband worked in Federal law enforcement his entire career. Like the men and women in law enforcement, his priority in doing his job was to keep people safe because that is what our law enforcement does. That is what they are trained to do--to put their lives on the line every single time--every single time--to keep our communities safe.

Let me just say it is not just the law enforcement officers--it is not a slap in the face to just those officers; it is to their families because when you are the spouse or the loved one of an officer who gets that call, sometimes in the middle of the night, and they are going out to address some sort of crime or activity that is happening in their community to keep our communities safe, you don't know if they are coming back.

There are two calls--the worst kinds you can get as a spouse of a law enforcement officer. The first one is from your spouse saying: I am in the hospital, but don't worry; everything is OK. The second one is not from your spouse, but it is from another law enforcement officer telling you that your husband or wife went out on a call and didn't come back. The sacrifices not only of our officers but their loved ones need to be considered.

If we truly believe in law and order and we truly believe that we should support them because they put their lives on the line every single day, then we should stand to have their backs. No matter how difficult it is, no matter your politics, no matter what is happening, we should always be there to support them.

You can imagine from what I am saying and my personal background that I will always stand up for law enforcement. I have passed legislation to support public safety under both administrations, Democratic and Republican. I will always speak out when our leaders act against law enforcement, whether they are a Democrat or a Republican.

Listen, I have heard some of my colleagues call out President Biden's pardons as an excuse not to call out Donald Trump's pardons, but let me just say I disagreed publicly with President Biden. I disagreed publicly with granting pardons to his family. I disagreed publicly when he gave clemency to Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of murdering two FBI agents. I disagreed with President Biden in commuting the sentence of Adrian Peeler, who was convicted of drug trafficking and murder.

I will tell you what, I also spoke out when President Biden nominated Adeel Mangi to be a Federal judge. I did not support him because of his affiliation with a group that wanted to let cop killers out of prison. Now, that was me standing up for law enforcement.

Believe me when I say this is not partisan. This is about standing up for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day despite the fact that you may be in the same party of the ongoing President. It shouldn't be hard.

Listen, everybody knows. Everyone knows in our communities that if you commit a violent crime in our communities, you should face the consequences.

But you know what, don't take my word for it. There are many police organizations out there--one of which is the largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers in the world, the Fraternal Order of Police--and they have condemned Trump's pardoning of those who assaulted Capitol Police officers on January 6.

But I will tell you what--I will tell you what--there are too many Members of this body who had the benefit of those Capitol Police officers on January 6 protecting their lives, too many who have been oddly silent to what Donald Trump has done in pardoning individuals who committed violent crimes against our police officers.

And you have heard that, earlier today, my Democratic colleagues and I, we cosponsored a resolution to condemn these pardons. You would think that it is very simple. Everybody should get on board. Everybody should have the back of a police officer. Even my Republican colleagues, who claim to be pro-law enforcement, should have signed this resolution and stood with it. But you heard what happened today: It was opposed.

The only thing I can tell you, Mr. President, in this day and age, is that if we truly believe in law and order and we want to work together to keep our communities safe, we have to not only talk about it, but we have to act, because the American people deserve better. The American people deserve a President who isn't going to release violent criminals back into our communities. The American people, they

deserve safety, and our law enforcement, who maintain that safety, they need to know we have their backs.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will hold votes on two pivotal Cabinet nominees. First, we will vote to advance the nomination of John Ratcliffe to serve as CIA Director. I will respectfully vote no, not because of our political difference, which, of course, exists, but because I am deeply worried that Mr. Ratcliffe will be unable to stand up to people like Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, who are known to falsify intelligence.

As CIA Director, Mr. Ratcliffe will have to make decisions based on intelligence and fact. There may be no Agency more important than the CIA that has to be fact based. Sometimes, these facts will lead to inconvenient conclusions for his superiors and the President. It is in those cases where truth--not fiction, not ideology--must prevail, and I have my doubts that Mr. Ratcliffe will be able to hold firm.

Most troubling about Mr. Ratcliffe were the answers I got from him about Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump's nominee to serve as Director of National Intelligence. If confirmed, Ms. Gabbard would oversee the CIA and our entire intelligence community, and I think she would be colossally disruptive for American security.

If there is anyone who hasn't been fact based as you have listened to her statements over the years, it is Tulsi Gabbard. She seems to make things up out of thin air. No one could be worse in a position of DNI than someone who doesn't believe in facts.

So I told Mr. Ratcliffe he should urge President Trump to drop her nomination. If he really cares about the CIA and its integrity, he couldn't report to somebody like Tulsi Gabbard in good conscience. She is simply too risky.

Ms. Gabbard has a whole history of spreading falsities, cheering America's adversaries, and, if confirmed, I am worried she will push false intelligence for political ends. Those are precisely the moments Mr. Ratcliffe will have to hold firm, reject what she says, and go to the President and speak truth to power.

His answers to my questions about that were unsatisfying. So I am voting no because it is such an important position.

Now, on the Hegseth vote, today the Senate will vote to advance one of the most unqualified, erratic nominees for a major position we have ever seen in America. No position in the Cabinet carries the weight, the responsibility of Secretary of Defense.

The Secretary of Defense is in charge of keeping us safe and keeping the men and women in our Armed Forces and the civilians safe. So you need someone who has a steady hand. You need someone who has had experience in this kind of stuff. You need someone who, when he shows up to a meeting, you are sure that he knows all the facts and is going to be able to conduct himself properly.

If there is any Cabinet that should be universally trusted and uncontroversial, it is the Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth is

neither. He is neither trusted nor free of controversy, and I will strongly vote no.

I want my colleagues to think about how absurd it is that this nominee has even made it to the floor. It is a shame that that has happened. We are being tasked to trust our Armed Forces to a man with a history of erratic behavior. One of the kindest words that might be used to describe Mr. Hegseth is ``erratic,'' and that is a quality you don't want as head of DOD.

He has a history of excessive drinking, of alleged domestic abuse, and zero experience leading a large organization of any kind.

The new allegations that came out yesterday are even more troubling. And people say: Well, how do we know they are true? Well, first, the person who did it has no strike against her; but, second, it just corroborates in an even worse way of what we have known about Hegseth in the past. He has a clear problem of judgment, as you have seen by his statements. It is like saying your heart surgeon has twitchy hands, but I will let him do surgery on me. No one would do that.

How on Earth can America entrust our safety and security to a man who has allegedly shown up to work and other events inebriated? What if he shows up inebriated during a crisis? What is going to happen? This is dangerous.

If confirmed, he would be in charge of a workforce of over 3 million people, a budget of 850 billion. Where in his history does it show he is capable of doing that? And what if his erratic behavior spills over to his job at the Pentagon, a high-pressure job? And when people are having this behavior, usually high-pressure jobs make them more, not less, erratic.

What mystifies me so much about Mr. Hegseth's nomination is that there are so many other conservative defense leaders that President Trump could have nominated--people I wouldn't agree with, maybe, ideologically, on some of the issues that affect Secretary of Defense but people who would be capable of running the department. I know there are plenty of Republican Senators who would instantly make a better option than Mr. Hegseth.

Is Pete Hegseth really the best the Republicans have to offer? How low--how low--has this party come in making him the nominee? I don't believe he is the best. I don't believe he is close to the best. I would be voting, with complete conviction, no. Given his history confirming Mr. Hegseth is, simply put, a risky roll of the dice that Americans cannot afford, especially in such an important position.

Another of these pantheon of just awful nominees--not all of them are awful at all, but some are, too many are--is Russell Vought. With his nomination to be OMB Director, Donald Trump has made it official: Project 2025 is coming to the White House. The man who was the chief cook and bottle washer for 2025, who pushed it, who endorsed it, is now in one of the most powerful and sensitive positions in the government, OMB, which has a say over all government programs.

Golden age? It is sure not going to be a golden age for the American people if Mr. Vought becomes the head of OMB. It is one of the most important Agencies in the government. They oversee every Federal Agency, every town, every locality. Every family is going to be affected. You want to get your drug prices lowered? Vought doesn't like that; look at 2025. You want to feed hungry kids? Vought doesn't like that; look at 2025. You want to preserve and expand $35 insulin? Vought doesn't like that. You want to make the tax system fairer and not have tax cuts for the very wealthy but help the middle class with tax breaks? Vought doesn't like that. He wants it to go to the wealthy.

I asked him--he was in my office yesterday--I asked him: What part of 2025 would he disagree with? He couldn't point to a single one. In this panoply of awful proposals, he couldn't name a single one he didn't like.

He is also a proponent of impoundment of funds. It may be unconstitutional, but it could cause real damages as the cases would go through the courts when he sued for it. And that means he can pick what he doesn't like and just end it, even if Congress has lawfully voted for it in a bipartisan way.

So this man would be devastating to the families of America if he got into office. I hope my Republican colleagues will look at his record and vote against him. Nobody can claim to be pro-worker and then vote for Russell Vought.

Executive Orders

Mr. President, on the EOs and the GOP agenda, the more people look at President Trump's Executive orders, the more obvious it becomes that no golden age is coming to America, unless, of course, you are very rich, well-connected, or own a drug or oil company. With the ferocity of a bulldozer, Donald Trump has spent his first few days in office dismantling decades of progress that help working people, help middle- class families, help people afford healthcare.

There are many Executive orders signed by the President that have flown under the radar but, nonetheless, also have proved devastating.

He has halted, for one, leasing for wind energy projects in the outer continental shelf, putting at risk billions of dollars of investments and killing good paying jobs in the United States, in my State of New York out on Long Island, particularly.

He thinks he can cut them off. Of course, we are going to fight that, and people will fight it in the courts. But President Trump yesterday was out there touting a new program, a new proposal, by some foreign investor to create more energy because we need it. But in his EOs he says: No clean energy, no offshore wind. Is that ridiculous?

It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is talking out of both sides of your mouth. It is one hand doing one thing, and another hand doing the opposite. It is devastating--devastating--and we are going to fight that proposal tooth and nail because it is so important to New York, to Long Island, to America.

He has repealed the Biden-era policies that make it easier for Americans to enroll in the ACA; 20 million Americans pay less for healthcare. That is in the Executive orders; get rid of it.

And in his first week in office, he has killed policies that provide a year of postpartum care for low-income moms in Medicaid. How is that the idea of a golden age?

Here in Congress, it is the same story with our congressional Republicans. They continue to dedicate the lion's share of their energy into fighting the best ways to pass their multitrillion-dollar tax cuts for the ultrarich.

But I want to leave my Republican colleagues, who are now talking about budget and debt ceiling and all of that, with a thought, food for thought. All this planning and agonizing about one bill or two bills is a side show. Eventually, it is going to be clear they can't pass anything without Democratic help. Republicans have spent their entire time talking among themselves about tax breaks and radical budget cuts when they should be spending more time with Democrats talking about bipartisan policies that do not prioritize the ultrawealthy. Thus far, at least, Republicans haven't even pretended to be bipartisan.

Instead of indulging their hard-right ideology of tax cuts for the ultrawealthy, Republicans should put the needs of ordinary Americans first. Make it a golden era indeed, but for the middle class and working people, not for the powerful and privileged. We look forward to them coming and working with us on these issues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, nothing is more important than our national security and this Nation's sovereignty, and that means we must control our borders. That is why, in November, the American people gave President Trump an overwhelming mandate to finally go secure these borders. It was a major issue. They were tired of 4 years of Biden- Harris failures.

Thankfully, in just his first week in office, the President has already taken steps to do just this. On Inauguration

Day, for example, President Trump restored many of the successful policies from his first administration that former President Biden had ended, including the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, border wall construction, and enhanced vetting of all aliens trying to come into this country.

At the same time that President Trump did those reinstatements, he terminated Biden's disastrous open border measures, including ending catch-and-release, thank goodness. That CBP One app, where he was trying to make illegal entry legal, the Trump administration ended that. They ended migrant flights that brought more than 500,000 illegal aliens to cities all across the country--ended those flights. He also took new action to strengthen our border and end illegal immigration, including Executive orders to prohibit birth tourism.

This is a practice where you have companies or cartels and they sell you passage to the United States to come here for the express purpose of having a child on U.S. soil. It is a practice called ``birth tourism.'' President Trump ended that.

He designated cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, and he chose to send troops to the border. And among these troops are Tennessee soldiers from Fort Campbell's 101st Airborne Division who are doing incredible work to help make this Nation safe.

Perhaps, most importantly, the President ordered mass deportations, something the American people have demanded after the Biden administration allowed more than 10 million illegal aliens to enter this country. And that does not count the ``got-aways''--the ``got- aways''--known and unknown ``got-aways'' that are here--the worst of the worst, most likely, people that were trying to evade detection and people that have seeped into our communities.

To no one's surprise, these strong Executive actions are already yielding positive results for our Nation, our Nation's sovereignty and security, and the safety and security of communities all across this country, because on Joe Biden's watch, what did we see happen? We saw every town become a border town and every State become a border State.

People went to the polls in November and voted saying: Enough is enough. We have to restore law and order.

And in the last week--I want you to think about these numbers. I encourage all of our colleagues: Look at these numbers from the last week.

In this last week, ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arrested more than 2,600 illegal aliens. Now, these are criminal illegal aliens. They are including gang members, convicted sex offenders, and murder suspects--2,600 in 1 week. This tells you they knew where these people were. It is just that their hands were tied by the Biden administration. They could not go get these people that were making our communities less safe.

Just on Thursday alone, ICE arrested two people in Nashville, TN. What we found out is they were both members of the gang Tren de Aragua, right in Nashville. Both of these illegal aliens have a criminal history of promoting prostitution and entered the country last year after being processed by the Biden administration.

While migrant encounters at the border have plummeted over the past week, the Trump administration has also conducted deportation flights to send illegal aliens back to their home countries.

Make no mistake, if any country refuses to take in their own citizens, President Trump has made clear that there will be consequences brought to bear. In just the last 24 hours, the Government of Colombia learned that lesson, completely reversing its blockade of deportation flights after the President said he would impose tariffs and sanctions.

For so many in Tennessee and across the country, this is welcome news. This is what they wanted to see. They were tired of talk. They were tired of appeasement. What they wanted was action to get these criminals out of their communities, to get them behind bars.

We can only have national security and know that this country is safe if we have border security. And for too long, Tennesseans and, I think, all Americans have suffered the consequences of this open border--the migrant crime, the fentanyl overdoses, human trafficking, strained public resources, and the list goes on and on.

While President Trump will continue to lead the way in securing our border, Congress should play a crucial role in supporting his efforts and make certain that no President can surrender our national sovereignty ever again. That is why, in the Senate, I have introduced a slate of bills that promote securing our border.

Here is an example, the CONTAINER Act. This is something that I have had for a while. This would empower communities along our border to construct barriers that would prohibit illegal aliens from crossing into their communities and stop the flow of traffickers and drugs and criminals that have been coming through these communities.

When you are on the southern border, you visit ranchers and farmers and communities where they say: If we could just put a barrier up.

The CONTAINER Act would give them that opportunity to put up a barrier and protect their areas.

The CLEAR Act, meanwhile, would reaffirm the authority of State and local governments to enforce Federal immigration laws by apprehending, detaining, and transferring illegal aliens to Federal custody. It also says that the Federal Government has to reimburse that local law enforcement agency for the money that they have spent.

And while President Trump reinstated by Executive order ``Remain in Mexico,'' which requires asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while awaiting their court date, I also introduced legislation that would make this crucial policy the law of the land, requiring future administrations to support it.

You see, that is the importance of Congress taking action on what the President has done by Executive order. It is putting it in law, putting it in Federal statute so that future administrations have to abide by the law and implement it.

In addition, I have recently introduced the Preventing Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, which allows the deportation of illegal aliens convicted of sexual offenses or domestic abuse. What we have learned is that under the Biden administration, hundreds of criminal illegal aliens convicted of sexual offenses entered our country. This legislation would ensure that every single one of them can be removed from this country.

To end the surge of human trafficking at the border and bring this modern-day slavery to an end, I also have brought forward a comprehensive package of bills.

The PRINTS Act would give Border Patrol the authority to fingerprint noncitizens under the age of 14 so that we can combat this horrific practice of child recycling. This is something that the cartels do. They take a child, they place them with an adult, they bring them to the border, and then, once they are across, they turn the child loose. Many of these children have a name, address, and phone number written in indelible ink on their backs, on their arms. This needs to stop. So the PRINTS Act would give the Border Patrol the authority to use these fingerprints.

And we have the End Child Trafficking Now Act, which would require a DNA test to determine the relationship between illegal aliens coming across the border with children with them.

Both bills are crucial for ending child trafficking. And we know that between 30 and 40 percent of the children that presented at that border when we were doing DNA testing were found to be children being trafficked. Think about that.

The Biden administration ended the practice of DNA testing. When I inquired as to why they did it, the answer I got was because of the amount of time it took to do the DNA test. Well, it took 45 minutes--45 minutes. But to the Biden administration, pushing people across the border and into the country was more important.

And now we know that HHS has lost track of over 300,000 children. It is imperative that we find these children. It is imperative that we end this cross-border human trafficking of children.

I also have the SAVE Girls Act. It is bipartisan. Senator Klobuchar has joined me on that bill. It would provide States and local governments and nonprofits with the vital resources they need in order to help combat this trafficking of girls and women.

I also have a bipartisan bill, the National Human Trafficking Database Act. It would establish a national human trafficking database at the Department of Justice and incentivize State law enforcement agencies to report crucial data.

You know, as we fight human trafficking, one of the things that we have learned from local and State law enforcement--by the way, this is a job that landed in their lap, to do this because there was not Federal enforcement. What we learned is there was no single repository for information about the traffickers, individuals that were being apprehended. So this would establish that database.

So we have had a busy week. The President has had a busy week, and we are grateful to President Trump and Vice President Vance for how quickly they have moved on these issues of national security and the response they have given to the American people that, yes, they have been heard, and they are taking action that the American people have wanted to see.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 23) 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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, a bill that I am proud to have worked on with my colleague and friend, Chip Roy, a bill that sanctions International Criminal Court officials and their families and anybody who is assisting them.

Why? It is because they are targeting America's allies, who are right now the front line of fighting to bring American hostages home from Gaza.

America is passing this law because, on November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court's Pre-Trial Chamber issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel's former Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant.

Let me explain that in a more detailed way. America is passing this law because a kangaroo court is seeking to arrest the Prime Minister of our great ally, Israel, who is not only responding to an enemy which conducted a genocide, killing as many men, women, and children as possible, even beheading some of them, on October 7, 2023, but an enemy who still holds 100 hostages, scores of bodies of those that they murdered, including 7 of my fellow Americans. Let me say that again. Israel is the tip of the spear in bringing the fight to an enemy who currently holds and has killed our fellow Americans.

Israel has conducted this war with as much restraint as war can allow. In the face of horror, they have shown humanity. We know that for Israel, any civilian dying is a tragedy, and we know that for Hamas and the Palestinians who support them, civilians dying is quite literally their strategy for victory.

Hamas' strategy uses hospitals and schools as bases for combat operations. It is not that some fighter accidentally walked into a hospital for 5 minutes carrying their machine gun. No, they build hospitals and schools into fortified launching points for attack. In clear violation of the laws of armed conflict, Hamas deliberately targets civilians.

What the ICC is doing with their arrest warrants is legitimizing the false accusations of Israeli war crimes in order to do something to stop the overwhelming success of Israeli military operations.

Mr. Speaker, I don't care if a person is a terrorist in a cave or if they are a lawyer in The Hague. If they are getting in the way of bringing home our Americans or bringing home our allies who are, as we speak in this very moment, bound, blindfolded, tortured, raped, enslaved, starved, facing execution, if you are getting in the way of bringing them home, then we will give you no quarter. We will certainly not allow you to be welcomed to American soil.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are the people's House. Let me translate what was just said: It is not a priority for the people's House to do everything possible to get our people home, to include getting in the way of those who are getting in our way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), the genesis of and the lead sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman did say very clearly was that this legislation is not a priority, and this legislation is meant to get in the way of those who are getting in our way from getting our Americans home.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), a patriot.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

THE SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 18 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 19 minutes remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind everybody that every time my colleagues across the way rise, they rise to oppose legislation that would get in the way of those getting in our way of bringing Americans home. That is what they are standing against. That is what they are rising against.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friends across the aisle that Americans are being held and tortured. Get with the American team, and get in the way of those that are getting in our way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman across the aisle is right. We need everybody working to get hostages home to get this resolved. That means not giving an iota of recognition to kangaroo courts, like the ICC, who are trying to prevent Israeli military success, who are conducting their brand of anti-Semitism against Israeli leaders, preventing Americans and our allies from being returned home.

Again, Israel is the tip of the spear in bringing American hostages home, and anybody who gets in their way is getting in our way.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

THE SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The gentleman from Florida has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. Speaker, since I have 10 minutes remaining, I am going to sit here in silence for 2 minutes and see if my colleague from Texas shows up.

THE SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must remain behind the mike.

Mr. Speaker, that is a good lesson. Thanks. I will remain standing here.

Mr. Speaker, it appears we will have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the statement of the gentleman from the other side is as untrue now as it was when he gave the same speech a few months ago on this very floor.

I would say the message is clear to everybody: Don't get in America's way as we are trying to work with our allies to get our Americans home and our allies home.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill sends an incredibly important message across the globe when we make this law: Do not get in the way of America or our allies trying to bring our people home. Do not get in our way. You will be given no quarter. Again, you will certainly not be welcomed to American soil.

This bill is even more urgent today than when it was first passed back in June of last year. In June, the ICC's prosecutor had only just requested warrants. The warrants had not yet been issued or approved. There was still time for the ICC to abandon this shameful effort. Instead, the ICC's attempt to obstruct Israel's right to defend itself has only prolonged the war and prevented the release of American hostages by boosting the morale of Hamas. If you are boosting the morale of Hamas, you are on the other team.

In November, the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber approved the arrest warrants. We have to pass this bill today to prevent this travesty from moving any further and to deter any more illegitimate actions by this kangaroo court to halt or stall the military success of our allies trying to bring hostages home, American, Israeli, and others.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I call on every single one of my colleagues to put America first by voting for this legislation today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.