Speeches

Mr President, Parliament has already taken a decision on deep seabed mining: we took it up in the report on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, in which we called for a moratorium on the International Seabed Authority until the effects of seabed mining on the marine environment, biodiversity or climate had been sufficiently studied and researched. That is what this Parliament approved. So how is it possible that this proposal opposed by 800 scientists and with the negative opinion of the Norwegian Environmental Agency in relation to the assessment they have adopted has been adopted? The European Union, Commissioner, must therefore act now. How will the Norwegian government monitor the environmental impact? How will you ensure that unknown species do not become extinct? How will their actions affect fisheries? What impact will they have on the potential of the seabed? How will they affect such vulnerable ecosystems in the Arctic? Therefore, we must take decisions, we must act and, in addition, I believe that urgently and, I repeat, promote what this Parliament's report on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 said: promote an international moratorium on mining within the International Seabed Authority. That's the solution.

Mr President, Mr High Representative, it is true that we are possibly at the worst time since 1948. And this debate, said an EPP colleague, should provide solutions. The first is to consolidate this change, this turn of the European Union, which has been made possible by the attitude of Mr Borrell, on behalf of the Council and the Commission, but also of Pedro Sánchez in the rotating Presidency, which has been much better than that role played by Roberta Metsola and Ursula von der Leyen. And then I think there is some evidence that Parliament has to say more clearly. The evidence of the total ceasefire, of the total ceasefire. That evidence would have to be said more clearly. Like, by the way, that of the undisputed release of all hostages. I think the bottom line is that there has to be a Palestinian state. But not just a Palestinian state: There must be an end to the occupation and not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, which is what European society demands and what this Parliament must say loud, clear and strong.

Mr President, I believe that in the European Union we have a problem with the packaging waste that this regulation addresses - and that it was about time. I think there is a good negotiating job, a good agreement, which combines ambition and flexibility. I believe that, as a society, and especially from the productive sectors, we must make efforts. First, to reduce the number of containers. Ladies and gentlemen, let us assume: there are a lot of unnecessary packaging and we need to increase re-use. We must also increase recycling, we must be able to recycle all packaging. That's the step we have to take. Finally, European citizens deserve to have more and better information. Therefore, welcome the mandatory label to know how to discard each container. I used to mention ambition and flexibility. There were sectors that needed that flexibility, and they're going to have it - wine, ceramics, coffee, fruits and vegetables. I therefore believe that this regulation will - when it is finally adopted - be good news for the European Green Deal and for the European Union.

Madam President, I believe that the Commission and particularly the President of the Commission have been wrong - I do not know whether it is the rush or the nerves before the next elections in June - and that they have fallen into the game of a part, of a sector. And I think that's dangerous because you run the risk of encouraging confrontation, and we're not here for that. I defended the agreement in November and said that we had to work towards coexistence, to protect the wolf and to adopt prevention and compensation measures for farmers. And I still think so. According to the provisions of the Habitats Directive and previous decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, only national authorities can grant derogations to kill a protected species. Therefore, on what basis does the President urge local authorities to take immediate action, as is said? On what basis? In the same letter, the Commission refers to the possibility of changing the protection status of wolves in this case, on the basis of the data collected by those local authorities. Can you clarify for us, Commissioner, what options the Commission has in mind and what implications they will entail? I really believe that they have rushed, that they have been wrong, that they have put themselves aside when what needs to be done is to seek agreement and coexistence.

Mr. President, one feels like repeating here Cicero's question to Catilina: How long are you going to abuse our patience? Because you listen to the debate and some of the things - or several - being said by the right are lies. Now I was ratifying it with the rapporteur, who has done an excellent job. We are talking about air quality standards and the speaker and all the team that accompanies him, together with the other speakers, have done a great job, seeking convergence with the criteria of the World Health Organization and also want to do it, they are doing it, they have worked it, with time and with flexibility. Because they are aware that there are 300 000 deaths in the European Union, because they are aware that citizens’ concerns go in that direction, concerns about health and the environment – indeed, Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Health and the Environment. So, here's a dividing line: science versus denialism. Therefore, these new catilins, please, join what they had signed with the European Green Deal, which is, through science, to defend public health and the environment. Good work, rapporteur, and luck, I'm sure everything will be fine tomorrow.

Madam President, thank you to all the groups, to all the Members, who have supported this law. This law is good even for those who voted against it, so I hope you can rejoice after this vote. Seventy years after the European construction we will start working to have our own direct law of restoration of nature. I want to thank especially the scientists and the young people, because they are the ones who have shown us and convinced us that we had to have this law. And we're gonna have it, so thank you. Under the relevant rule, President, I ask you to return to the Committee on the Environment so that we can negotiate with the other EU institutions. Friends, go ahead.

Madam President, I will just say a few words to finish. I would like to thank all the speakers. I think there have been quite a few comrades here who have defended the restoration law quite well. The first of them, the commissioner. I want to thank you personally, because the Commission has been there behind - and the Commissioner for the Environment has been there - and I think that is important. By the way, because, if not, of course, lies begin to be told and in the end they stay: the Committee on Fisheries and Agriculture did reject the text, the Committee on the Environment did not, partly because of the good work done. There are some workers there, from the secretariat of the ENVI Committee, who have managed the work very well and now, of course, we could not say things here that are not. But hey, in these minutes, let's see. I hear many deputies of the PP who have spoken here say that they do not like the law. Well, we're in a parliament. Of course. We are going to make amendments, we are going to correct it. What you can't do is block. Because that's an anti-system attitude. Directly. No, no, directly. Now, if you like, ask me for a blue card, Mr. Rangel. No, no, if you want, ask me for a blue card. Therefore, abandon denial and go to negotiation. That's what they have to do. Look at that. Look at these hands – and those of the other groups – stretched out. Go back to the European Green Deal. Come back. Of course, I tell you that when we adopt this law tomorrow, the trilogues will also have my dialogue and the participation of this group. No, that's excuses because, finally, what are we going to vote for? Shall I tell you what we're going to vote for? We are going to vote on the Council’s position – I remind you of the countries where the PP governs: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Greece, Ireland, Romania and Lithuania – and amendments resulting from commitments where the DB participated. That's what we're going to vote on tomorrow. Therefore, this is a law for nature. It's not a law against anyone or anything. It must be given a chance, not least because the place of this Parliament must be defended and so must the place of Europe in the world. So, the truth is that I am optimistic and I hope that a good part of the Conservative deputies can join in supporting this law of restoration of nature.

Mr President, Commissioner, Secretary of State, we are finally going to have a calm debate on nature and I am going to try to convince you. I am going to ask you to vote in favour for three reasons. First of all, for the future. This law says we need to restore ecosystems and habitats. Why? Because 81% of habitats are in poor condition. 84% of crops depend on insect pollination and insects are disappearing. 70% of soils are degraded, endangering food production and availability and leaving agroecosystems more exposed to damage from extreme weather events. Because in the last 40 years, we see this morning, Europe is warming at twice the rate of the global average. And because people's well-being and quality of life improve by increasing the availability of green spaces that mitigate pollution and reduce the risk of zoological diseases. All these are not inventions, they are not our things. These are data from the IPBES scientific platform bringing together the leading experts in the field from the European Environment Agency, the European Soil Observatory and the latest Copernicus climate report. So, science. It is clear that this law is good for everyone, but especially for those who are out there - farmers, ranchers, foresters, fishermen - because it will restore the proper functioning of ecosystems, which is where the resources come from. We will not complete the European Green Deal if we do not pass a nature restoration law. The second reason is because of the role of Parliament. Because it's been 70 years since we got into this European construction project and we don't have directly applicable legislation on nature. Therefore, the European Parliament, today, tomorrow, cannot go down in history as a blockade, as an obstacle. And that is why I ask the gentlemen of the PP - I am sorry that few have come - to give the processing a chance. We are here for this law to be processed, so that we can lift the veto and so that we can discuss. And the third reason is for the story. Your boss – I don’t see him; You will be entangling from behind, I suppose, Mr Weber, he has proposed a very dangerous journey for you. A trip from Thuringia to Sonneberg. It's a pretty dangerous trip. I ask you not to change the cordon for the reactionary embrace, which is what you are doing. Don't change it. And I remind you that this proposal is not only defended, but presented - to see if it rings a bell - by a certain Mrs Ursula von der Leyen and that it has been approved in the Council by countries such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Greece, Ireland, Romania, Lithuania. Does that ring a bell? In those countries, the People's Party rules. A lot of lies have been told about this law. Lots of hoaxes. I'm only gonna remember one. It has been said that this law put the food safety of the European Union at risk. Never. Science, facts show us otherwise. There will be no food security without fertile soils and pollinators. These last seconds I want to dedicate to thank the work and effort of many people. By Soraya Rodríguez, by Jutta Paulus, by Mick Wallace: Especially the three of you, thank you, because you've worked so hard to get this law out. But I also want to thank Christine Schneider for the work she did, because I'm going to tell you a secret now that we're here: the People's Party was negotiating. Many of the compromises have the support of the People's Party until Mr. Weber ordered them to rise from the table. I thank him for his attitude and his work. And I would also like to thank my group, the entire S&D team, for their work, because without them it would not have been possible to get here. And finally, thanks to those outside: NGOs, scientists, collectives, environmental and youth associations. What we are asking this morning from the rest of the groups, the deputies who support this law, who are a majority, is to give it a chance. This Parliament cannot be an obstacle to a law on nature. That is why, for the future, for the role of this Parliament and also for history, I ask you to vote in favour.

Mr President, Commissioner, yesterday we had a debate that had been called for by the EPP Group and which sought to confront - I think with great irresponsibility - farmers with policies of sustainability and nature restoration. Making the green transition an enemy is a rather serious mistake, not only in the agricultural sector, but also in the fisheries sector and, in general, in all sectors. Because the scientific evidence is clear: ecosystems must be protected, restored and cared for if they are to be functional in the long term. Let's go with the oceans, which is today's topic. They are the most important carbon sink. They are critical to cushioning the impacts of climate change and also provide us with one of the most important sources of food. That is why I believe that the Commission's communication is important. I want to personally congratulate the Commissioner, who I see is given quite a bit of wax, but there are also many Members who support his work. There are many of us who support the work of the Commissioner. Because this Communication combines fishing interests with the need to protect and care for our oceans. Fishing practices need to be more sustainable, by-catch needs to end, while ensuring a just transition to the fisheries sector. I am rapporteur for the Nature Restoration Act. The law is in danger of being passed and this threat puts habitats, ecosystems and marine species at risk, but also the sustainability of coastal and fishing areas, because sustainable and resilient fishing means protected and restored marine ecosystems. We've got to get it in his head. I welcome the agreement on the High Seas Treaty, which contributes to the objective of protecting 30% of marine areas by 2030 that we had agreed at COP 15. So, ladies and gentlemen, now that we can act, I think we have to act together. He said yesterday that history and the societies that are to come will thank us. And if we don't, they'll condemn us. And – I look to the right of the House – they will be condemned.

Mr. President, let's start with all my support, all my understanding. I come from where I come for farmers. My partner Clara Aguilera said so. I don't think it's good to use them, or lie, or manipulate them. I will take advantage of these few seconds to dismantle the falsehoods, for example, about the Restoration Law. Look, when you say food security is at risk, you just lie. When it is said that 10% of agricultural land should be used for landscapes, it is simply a lie. And, by the way, there is no obligation for farmers that is not already covered by the CAP. Farmers are therefore a key player in completing and developing the European Green Deal, and the vast majority of them want to take on that role. The obligation of this House is to negotiate and make compatible what is compatible, which are sustainable policies with agricultural policies. They are not faced and whoever plays to face them will lose and will have to respond to society and history.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for this debate. In a passage in El Quixote it is said "Cosas veredes, amigo Sancho". And it is true, because we are here to fight the effects of climate change, but, ladies and gentlemen - I look to the left of the House and to the centre of the House - we are also here to fight the denialists, who are a previous problem and we are seeing it here in this House. Because if with 1.1 °C above pre-industrial levels we are as we are with the phenomena we suffer, imagine with 1.5 °C. And still this must be explained to the extreme right and to a part of the right of this House. I think that we know the conclusion of this debate more or less and we have it, because society, especially young people, has it and science has it. Action must be taken and urgent action must be taken. In particular, Commissioner, the European Green Deal needs to be completed. Things remain to be done, not only in the fight against climate change – the Fit for 55 package – but also in nature protection and species protection. Because the climate crisis is important, but the crisis of nature and the disappearance of species, too. Let's act and not get tired of fighting the denialists.

Madam President, from what we are hearing in the debate, I think it is clear that this European Union Chemical Safety Law must be corrected. The European Commission promised to reform it, but its reform is being postponed despite the urgency of the situation. In addition, a more ambitious plan was promised to clean our environment of toxic chemicals and so far we have not seen any progress, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission. As if that were not enough, even the plan to ban several chemical substances, as they say, indestructible, that are related to a wide range of diseases, remains frozen. In other words, the Commission's file is being rather lacking in this respect. We have an obligation to complete the European Green Deal and that is not how we are going to achieve it. Chemical pollution is a very serious problem that has serious health consequences. I therefore take advantage of this debate to call on the Commission to deliver on its promise of a green transition and to present its legislative proposals as a matter of urgency, because public health, the environment, must always come first.

Madam President, congratulations on this citizens' initiative. I think the title, we all agree, could not be more accurate: “Save bees and farmers: towards bee-friendly agriculture for a healthy environment". It is being said here that if we do not save pollinators and ecosystems, it is very difficult for us to ensure long-term agricultural production. Therefore, congratulations on the initiative. According to FAO data, 75% of the different crops we use as food depend on pollinators. I therefore believe that we need to act. There are two Regulations in place in this house: the Nature Restoration Regulation, which includes the legal obligation of Member States to reverse the decline of nature, and the Regulation on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, which addresses the reduction of pesticide use. So this morning's debate is very good, but I think we have to face these two debates with courage. I know that there are political groups that have difficulties, which, in some cases, are against it; I'm fine with that. But I think we have to build and I think we have to negotiate. And to save bees and farmers it is important that we agree on those two regulations.

Mr President, High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission, I think it is very important to make statements, although here it has been said ‘only – they are statements’, but I think it is something very important; It is true that I heard Mr Borrell say, in the last part of his speech, that everything in the hands of the European Union had to be done. I think the key here is to stop the settlements - 7 000, nothing more and nothing less. These settlements, which are truly an example of apartheid and racial segregation. We've been there for two weeks, Mr. Borrell: racial segregation. I make you two proposals. Firstly, I believe that European companies working in settlements should inform the Commission of the final outcome; That is, where they work from, in the end, what it is used for. And secondly, we should warn the Government of Israel that if it builds these 7,000 illegal settlements, it will have consequences. And I think the consequences are that a sanctions regime needs to be explored - but first we need to warn the Israeli government of that possibility.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, this morning we have a debate that I think offers us a set of trade-offs, of very interesting questions. Do we have to reduce CO2 emissions and therefore warming, when cars and combustion vans emit one fifth of those emissions? It seems that the clear answer is "yes". We want sustainable, affordable, clean mobility. But how many times have we talked in our Chamber about this type of mobility? How many? A majority in this House, not just progressive, a large majority. Do we want to transform our industry to adapt to technological changes, even lead them, in a sector where the United States and China are being said to be ahead of us? The answer is "yes." Therefore, if we take the decision to end the sale of combustion vehicles in 2035, we achieve these three main objectives: We reduce emissions, drive sustainable mobility and transform the sector to be competitive. So I hope that the debate will serve to strengthen and consolidate a majority that we started with the European Green Deal, from which we cannot take a step back today.

Mr President, carnivores and especially the wolf play a very important ecological role, as they provide key ecosystem services. This animal has always done so, until human pressure brought it to the brink of extinction and that is why its protection has been fundamental. The Habitats Directive has no other explanation. It's that one. But it's true: its reintroduction in areas where it was absent for many years evidences the problems of coexistence between humans and these animals in rural areas. That is why more prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are needed for farmers. In short, we must ensure a balanced coexistence, without avoiding the impact they cause on extensive livestock farming, but without ever undermining the protection status of large carnivores and also of the wolf. The joint resolution that we have agreed, as it stands, without any last-minute amendments or fixes, is a good agreement for this House to be able to solve this problem. I believe that we also have to face this reality with agreements and without introducing divisive and polarizing elements.

Mr President, Minister Bek, Commissioner Sinkevičius, I always like to clarify that we are not only experiencing a climate crisis, but we are also experiencing a biodiversity crisis, that is, extinctions, the disappearance of species. The planet is warming, but not only; In addition, species disappear. I was pleased to hear Commissioner Sinkevičius speak. Because I was going to ask him a question, but he partly answered it. Why are we going to Montreal? What are we going to Montreal for in two or three weeks? And it's true, let's go because we want to get an agreement that is two things at once: binding and ambitious. With protection recovery targets of at least 30% by 2030, which also includes concrete targets, indicators, deadlines for us to meet. We must therefore lead the Conference in a global binding agreement on biodiversity. In relation to this subject I will quickly refer to the law of restoration of nature: At the same time, we must conserve and restore, by 2030, at least 30% of land, oceans and ecosystems. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, for those of us here this afternoon, this Parliament has to help, it does not have to get in the way. So that remains, because it is a very important regulation. And a few last words for the foundation of everything - as the Marquis of the Ensenada said, "the foundation of everything is money", and it is true. I like to hear here from the European Commission, also from Minister Bek, but above all from the European Commission, about funding, because we need a concrete funding mechanism to protect and conserve biodiversity. I therefore believe that, if we want to ensure ambitious levels of nature restoration, we need funding. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, ambition, a global agreement and financing.

Madam President, I thank all the people, colleagues, who have participated in this resolution. But let us be neither conformist nor complacent, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Council and the Commission. Our goal is threefold: protect wildlife, prevent illegal and uncontrolled trade and ultimately protect biodiversity. However, there are six aspects, which I will mention in passing here in this House, in which we can substantially improve this CITES Convention. First, zoonotic diseases: We have to deal with live animal markets, but really deal with them, because I think the signal we've received over the last three years is pretty obvious. Second, cybercrime. What is the internet in this field that we are talking about this afternoon? Well, it's the big crack through which all illegal wildlife trafficking sneaks in. But we're not ambitious either. We quote it, we mention it, ladies and gentlemen, yes, but we are not ambitious. Tigers and other big cats: We cannot allow them to be traded when they are bred in captivity. We don't make that clear. In addition, tigers, by the way, are a protected species and should be raised only with conservation, never commercial. I ask: Do we have a clear legal framework for trade, in this case, in living African elephants? We don't make that clear either. Not to mention that we have an obligation to reduce demand for live wild animals and wildlife products. Of course, we have to tell our fellow Europeans that demand must be reduced, that we can no longer live with these modes of consumption. And finally, we need a positive list of animals that can be kept as pets. We don't have it either. Therefore, we are taking steps and we can be happy, but they are not enough. Let's not be conformist, let alone complacent. We must be more ambitious when we go to Panama.

Mr President, Mr Bek, Commissioner, in August this year 20% of European territory was on drought alert. Europe is drying up, Europe is burning up. We lose natural carbon sinks. Worst of all, we don't have a strategy on desertification. And we need it because we need clear drought management plans. We need forest fire risk management to be included in other sectoral policies such as, as Clara Aguilera has said, agriculture, rural development, infrastructure policy, tourism policy, employment policy... We need to recover the bodies of water and also increase, Commissioner, water security. We need measures to save water, to use unconventional sources, and also to use it more efficiently. And finally, we have the law of restoration of nature. The areas affected by the fires must be recovered as soon as possible so that the ecosystems recover their functionality as soon as possible. But, Commissioner, a strategy on desertification as soon as possible.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, I think we are well aware that heat waves and droughts are going to happen. The question, the problem, is why we're not ready yet. Basically I want to ask you about desertification, which has a lot to do with what we are talking about this morning. When will it be among the European Commission's priorities to prepare and present a European Union strategy on desertification? Because we don't have it. With regard to the law on soil health, will desertification also be covered by this law? Because we have her announced, but we don't know her yet. We are not a party to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. However, in the Soil Strategy, it was said that Member States would be asked to join. Is there any news of this, Mr. Vice President? In any case, we also need to know what impact droughts will have on our environment, on our health and on agricultural productivity. We need to know what impact they are going to have and what they are already having, because, as I say, we know that heat waves and droughts are going to happen. The problem, the question, Mr Vice-President of the European Commission, is why we are not yet sufficiently prepared.

Mr President, Commissioner, I think you have been wrong. They have been wrong in this delegated act, they have been wrong in the ways, because they have neither followed the public consultation nor made the impact assessment and, above all, they have been wrong in substance, because so many Members are saying it: Neither gas nor nuclear power is green, and that's scientific evidence. Therefore, if they are not, they cannot be included in a taxonomy as such. But, notice, it is that even if they were, in the current context, they do not suit us strategically. It is absolutely inconsistent with the Climate Law, with the Green Deal and with strategic autonomy. It's just that, even if they were, they don't suit us. You are making mistakes and you do not rectify. And therefore, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament must help the Commission, because of the good image of the European Union, to rectify tomorrow's vote. I know there are many, many who have doubts, but I think good arguments are being made here. And, above all, scientific evidence is one of them. They are not green energies, they should not be in the taxonomy. Parliament must correct the Commission.

Mr President, Commissioner, I am happy to hear you with that passion and that strength. This Parliament will accompany you in Montreal with those ambitions and with those goals, but also with other expectations. And I'm talking about something that's very important: investment is needed to protect and restore biodiversity – according to some experts, up to $700 billion – but it is as important to put as it is to take away. And those subsidies, those subsidies that harm nature - we have repeatedly called for this in this Parliament - must be eliminated. You have to invest where you have to invest and withdraw what harms nature.

Mr President, Commissioner, the results we have had in Geneva, in Nairobi, are not very encouraging. And the expectations, which were really frustrated, of Aichi's goals, should not be the example either. So, my question is: Do you think that we have to have an agreement, but that it is binding as it is, in relation to the climate, the Paris Agreement? A binding agreement means that it has to have specific targets and indicators, a deadline for compliance, an implementation mechanism, a review mechanism. On the other hand, in relation to the objectives – I am talking to you about both the recovery and the protection objectives, of the two – do you not think it is time to increase them to 30%? That is to say, expectations are very high and we need the European Commission, which represents the European Union there, to be very ambitious in terms of objectives and the agreement to be binding, as the Paris Agreement is for the climate.

Mr. President, we must wait. There are two ideas from Mr. Timmermans that I think lead the way: It must be a coherent package, he said this morning, where no one is left behind, and this policy must be fair or it will not be a good policy. Well, I think we should be ambitious, but mindful; pragmatic with the possibilities and with the rhythms that we can follow, but without giving up the objective; and we have to seek broad social support or we will fail. Two very specific mentions. As regards CO2 emissions from cars and vans, the targets presented by the Commission are realistic and must be met – in 2035, zero emissions, shared by the sector; respond to fairness, balance and just transition. With regard to LULUCF, the importance of natural carbon sinks is indisputable, but we must not and cannot ignore conservation and nature protection policies, the scarcity of water resources and the impact of climate change. Managed forest area alone is not sufficient to fairly secure national objectives. I appreciate the solution found, a compensation fund. I hope that you will find support tomorrow in the House and also, Mr Timmermans, that you will find support later in the trilogues.

Mr President, we are debating the human rights situation in a country that is a black hole of information, of democracy, of rights, in short, of collective security. The situation in North Korea is catastrophic. We must also add to the political and economic isolation, natural disasters and famines the COVID-19 pandemic. And, according to the United Nations, a virtually total denial of the most basic rights. North Koreans cannot even move freely in their own country. They survive amid food insecurity, malnutrition and lack of vaccines. They suffer arbitrary detentions, forced labour, torture, denial of the right to religious beliefs and practices and also sexual violence. The Socialists in this House are once again calling for the Kim Jong-un regime to allow humanitarian organisations access and work, to immediately stop executions, torture, abductions and detentions and, in addition, to reform its penal system. We need, ladies and gentlemen, more targeted European sanctions for those responsible for serious human rights violations in North Korea. We call on the Commission to maintain existing humanitarian aid programmes and for all members of the United Nations to take steps to fully implement the sanctions that already exist in the United Nations Security Council. Finally, I also believe that we have to work to hold the North Korean regime accountable where it has to do so, which is at the International Criminal Court, for crimes against humanity.