[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 17, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5938-H5940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED EXPORT TO THE 
     UNITED ARAB EMIRATES OF CERTAIN DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
491, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 37) providing for 
congressional disapproval of the proposed export to the United Arab 
Emirates, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and 
the Republic of France of certain defense articles and services, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 491, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 37

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     issuance of an export license with respect to any of the 
     following proposed exports to the United Arab Emirates, the 
     United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or 
     France is prohibited:
       (1) The transfer of the following defense articles, 
     including defense services and technical data, described in 
     Executive Communication 1425 (EC-1425) submitted to Congress 
     pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2776(c)) and published in the Congressional Record on 
     June 3, 2019: The proposed transfer of 44,000 GBU-12 Paveway 
     II Kits and the proposed transfer of 16,000 GBU-10 Paveway II 
     Kits.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger) each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include in 
the Record extraneous materials on the measure under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the second resolution we are debating is very similar to 
the first. But in this case, it would nullify the administration's 
phony emergency being used to transfer 60,000 precision-guided bombs to 
the United Arab Emirates. That is on top of the 40,000 we estimate the 
Emiratis already have on hand.
  I won't rehash the same argument, but I would like to make a point 
why, when we see what is going on in Yemen, it is so important for the 
United States to take a stand.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things the Foreign Affairs Committee has 
focused on this year is trying to put American values back at the 
center of our foreign policy: Democracy, human rights, the rule of law.
  Frankly, this administration has acted like it cannot be burdened 
with these fundamental things that make America America. It just 
boggles the mind that any great country can throw weight around, but we 
are not China. We are not Russia. Our foreign policy should show the 
world the character of our country, our compassion, our belief that 
people everywhere should be able to live prosperously, productively, 
and have healthy lives.
  These ideas go hand in hand with promoting our security. We want more 
stable, secure countries and communities. Democratic countries are 
stronger partners for the United States on the world's stage. And if we 
are serious about those values, it means speaking out when we see them 
trampled, whether they are trampled by an adversary or by a friend.
  When we turn our back on these ideals; when we strip the word 
``democracy'' out of the State Department's mission statement; when we 
look the other way when friendly regimes carry out horrific human 
rights abuses; when we slash investments in the diplomacy and 
development efforts that help us build bridges of friendship and 
understanding; when we walk away from all of that, what signal does it 
send to the world?
  What does it say about the sort of behavior that we are willing to 
tolerate? I have supported our partners and our partnerships in the 
Gulf region. I think they are an important counterbalance to the threat 
Iran poses, and I recognize that our partners face real threats from 
Iranian-backed Houthis who are themselves guilty of serious human 
rights abuses.
  But that doesn't mean we should just look the other way in the face 
of violence and slaughter of civilians perpetrated by our partners. It 
doesn't mean we look the other way and let the President ride roughshod 
over Congress so there is no separation of powers and whatever the 
President wants, he gets, and Congress just rubberstamps it. It can't 
be that way.
  So even if this administration will not stand up for values, the 
Congress should, and the Congress will. These measures, along with much 
of the Foreign Affairs Committee's work this year, sends a strong 
message that our values must guide our foreign policy.
  So, again, it is important for us to help Saudi Arabia. It is 
important to realize Iran is making trouble. It is important to note 
the Houthis are not good people. But it doesn't mean that we give Saudi 
Arabia or any other country a blank check to do whatever they want, 
dropping bombs indiscriminately on school children, on buses. We can't 
just sit idly by and let that happen and continue to send weapons that 
are perpetrating these crimes.
  So, this is a strong message, I think, that our values must guide our 
foreign policy, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just a quick point on that. We don't like when innocent 
people are bombed, and when we look at Yemen, I think it is really 
incumbent on us to see what is happening.
  A legitimate government in Yemen was overthrown by Iranian-supported 
rebels, and Iran, who has not sent one dollar of humanitarian aid to 
support the people who have been killed. What we are talking about in 
this specific resolution is actually UAE.
  So, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 37. Since the emergency 
declaration to

[[Page H5939]]

expedite arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition to defeat the Houthi 
rebels, Congress has debated the President's exercise of the emergency 
clause of the Arms Export Control Act.
  This joint resolution of disapproval, along with 21 other JRDs, 
intends to stop transfers to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, 
and Jordan.
  S.J. Res. 37 specifically blocks the transfer of Paveway precision-
guided munitions to the United Arab Emirates. This technology converts 
dumb bombs, like the ones used by Russia to kill innocent men, women, 
and children in Syria, into precision-guided munitions, ones that are 
intended to avoid civilian casualties.
  We can debate whether shipments that aren't ready to be delivered 
require an emergency declaration, but at the end of the day, some of 
the munitions that we are discussing today have already left the shores 
of the United States and are en route to the UAE. In fact, the first 
tranche is en route now, and the second tranche will be leaving in 
September.
  Mr. Speaker, this JRD and the two up for debate today are not about 
timelines for shipment. We have heard my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle argue that these arms could be used in Yemen to target 
civilians. Yet, there are reports that the UAE has already withdrawn 
from Yemen.

  The UAE serves as a bulwark against Iranian aggression, the ongoing 
threat of al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups wishing to harm the 
United States, our allies, and our interests.
  In contrast, the Iranian-backed Houthis, through missiles and UAE 
strikes, are a threat to stability in the region. Iran and the forces 
it supports, like the Houthis, are a threat to our national security 
and the security of our allies. They are the number one contributor to 
human suffering in Yemen.
  We have seen the Iranian regime threaten international shipping in 
the Strait of Hormuz, including ships belonging to the U.K., Japan, and 
Norway. They have shot down an expensive military asset flying in 
international airspace.
  Prior to the President's emergency declaration, the head of Iran's 
Quds Force called on terror groups to prepare for a proxy war with 
United States and our allies. Since then, we have seen these proxies 
become emboldened in their actions. Yet, we are here today debating 
arms sales to the UAE on the basis that these arms transfers may be 
used by our strategic ally in Yemen.
  While there is no guarantee that these weapons will ever be used in 
Yemen--will ever not be used in Yemen either--there are facts that show 
exactly why we must continue to provide these arms to the UAE.
  As a former Air Force pilot and a current pilot in the Air National 
Guard, I am proud that our government would not send our Air Force to 
fly sorties without the munitions needed to defend themselves. 
Similarly, we should not have an ally flying our F-16s without the 
necessary tools it needs to complete its mission.
  The Iranians have shown that they have the capacity and ability to 
fire upon military aircraft with no regard for whether the platform is 
manned or unmanned. When our allies are in a dogfight, we can't leave 
them without the means to defend themselves and our shared interests.
  I also want to point out that there is a lot of discussion about 
offensive or defensive weapons. A bomb can be used defensively or 
offensively. I can't think of many weapons that are actually defensive 
in nature because they are used to destroy an enemy. So it is all about 
how you employ that weapon.
  Saying that we want to send only defensive weapons, shows our allies 
to be weak against an Iran that is shown that it wants to go on the 
offensive continually. I can name basically every country in the Middle 
East and show Iranian influences there.
  On the broader picture, we have got to debate how this went out. I 
fully agree with everybody on that. But we cannot leave our allies in 
the lurch. We cannot leave them unprotected because our big, chief 
enemy is Iran. I know there is broad-based agreement on that, and we 
cannot show weakness in the eyes of that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership on this and many other issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 37 which would 
prevent the transfer of Paveway precision-guided munitions to the 
United Arab Emirates.
  There are numerous reasons to oppose this resolution. Let me list 
three:
  First, and most obviously, some Paveways have already left the U.S., 
and this fact alone shows that this resolution is more about messaging 
than action and demonstrates the urgent need the UAE has for these 
munitions.
  Second, the UAE is a steadfast partner against Iran. Tehran is our 
foremost opponent in the region right now and a critical threat to our 
interests there. I would note that the very flawed Iran deal put 
millions--in fact, billions and billions--of dollars of cash into the 
pockets of Iran, and they are now using those dollars to support 
terrorism, foment instability, put mines on ships, and attack ships in 
international waters. So they are now a threat not just in the region 
but a threat around the world. So, thank God, President Trump had the 
good sense to get us out of that terrible deal.
  If we want the UAE's continued help, we need to make sure that we are 
a reliable partner and that they are properly armed.
  The third item is that the U.S. needs to continue its leadership in 
the region. If the UAE and Saudi Arabia cannot buy arms from us, that 
doesn't mean they won't get arms. It just means that they will buy them 
from the Russians. This will diminish our standing, weaken our leverage 
with our partners, and call into question our reliability as a partner.
  For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
resolution. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend on the other side of the aisle. It is 
a good debate here. The bottom line on this is, I think if the concern 
is Saudi Arabia--I understand the concern, I may not share it in the 
same level of depth--then vote ``no'' on the last resolution or vote 
for the last resolution.
  This one is on UAE, and whether it is Saudi, UAE, or Jordan, I think 
it is important for us, Mr. Speaker, to constantly show that we have 
our allies' back, especially an ally like UAE.
  We know that Iran likes to go on the offensive. We know that the only 
thing that stops Iran from broader encroachments in the Middle East is 
the United States and our allies. We know that a good offensive posture 
is the best defensive posture to prevent a shooting war from ever 
happening.
  So, again, we can all debate the process and how this went down, but 
the bottom line is we must reject this resolution. This is a resolution 
that I think is a result of political pressure, and we must send this 
back to the Senate where it belongs, or if this passes then I am sure 
the President will veto it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the debate, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I certainly respect my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle for the points they have raised. We have 
similar concerns, but I think the way we handle it or the way we have 
proposed to handle it is a little bit different.
  That is why I am saying if we don't pass this measure, then these 
bombs will be on their way to the Emirates very soon.
  If we do pass this resolution, then it will go to the President's 
desk and it will put him on the spot to answer whether he agrees that 
our values need to be central to America's work around the world.
  Again, I am very concerned and aware of the malign role that the 
Iranians play in the region. I am very concerned about the Houthis who 
also play a bad role in the region. But that

[[Page H5940]]

doesn't mean that we should just give blank checks or give them arms. I 
think it would just be a mistake to let them think that they don't have 
to have any conduct in trying to conduct this war into diminishing 
civilian casualties.
  The other point I want to raise, again, is the fact that, Mr. 
Speaker, do you remember when you were a kid in school and you learned 
how a bill became a law?
  Well, there is something called separation of powers, checks and 
balances. It is not right for the President to declare an emergency 
when there really is no emergency in order to get around Congress' 
disapproval of something. So I feel it is important to fight for the 
institution as well.
  So, again, if we do pass this resolution, it will go to the 
President's desk, and it will let him answer whether he agrees that our 
values need to be central to our work around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 491, the previous question is ordered on 
the joint resolution.
  The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________