[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 17, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5940-H5941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED EXPORT TO THE 
    KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA OF CERTAIN DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
491, I call up the bill (S.J. Res. 38) providing for congressional 
disapproval of the proposed export to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and 
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 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. 38

       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 the following 
     proposed exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the 
     United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is 
     prohibited:
       (1) The transfer of the following defense articles, 
     including services and technical data, described in Executive 
     Communication 1422 (EC-1422) 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 defense articles, defense 
     services, and technical data to support the manufacture of 
     the Aurora Fuzing System for the Paveway IV Precision Guided 
     Bomb Program.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) 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 in which 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, this final measure we will consider would stop the 
transfer of fuses for precision-guided munitions--critical components 
that allow these weapons to be armed and detonated. Like the bombs, 
these components have already been manufactured, and we need to act 
quickly to stop their shipment.
  As we wrap up this debate, Mr. Speaker, I want to make an appeal to 
my friends on the other side of the aisle: You can be for or against 
these weapons sales and still understand that these resolutions are the 
right thing to do, if for nothing else than the integrity of this body.
  I spoke earlier about the rule of law. This phony emergency 
declaration is a message to the Congress and to the American people 
that when the law gets in the way, this administration is just going to 
find a way around it. They will twist the law into pretzels or just 
throw it out the window entirely if it allows them to sidestep 
Congress. We cannot stand for that.
  This administration should have played by the rules, and we could 
have done that and probably still gotten these sales through. They 
could have sent up a notification and allowed Congress to have a 
debate. But instead, they want to shut us out of this process.
  With these resolutions, we are taking some of that power back. We are 
saying that we won't allow the laws written in this body to be ignored. 
If nothing else, this is an opportunity to stand up and say: We took an 
oath to uphold the Constitution, and that means Congress remains a 
coequal branch of government.
  Let me say that again: that means Congress is a coequal branch of 
government. We will not be a rubberstamp for any administration, not 
only this administration, but any administration. Congress has its 
duties. We will not be a rubberstamp.
  I have felt for a long time that administrations of both parties, 
quite frankly, have ignored Congress when it comes to foreign policy 
and national security. We shouldn't stand for it any longer. No more do 
we give a blank check to any President of any party who wants to cut 
Congress out of the decisionmaking and subvert the Constitution.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't agree to it, we shouldn't stand for it, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 38. And I want to 
focus my remarks on the rationale behind the President's emergency 
declaration and ask that we think about the definition of the word 
``declaration'', what that means to each of us.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle would prefer to forget that 
these arms sales were expedited for a very specific reason. They are 
omitting this information because it doesn't fit into their narrative 
that the President is doing a favor to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab 
Emirates. I can tell you that defense is no favor.
  The threat that emanates from Iran that precipitated this emergency 
declaration is very, very real, and, as a result, so is the need for 
the weapons sales to our partners.
  So let's think about it: Are these situations emergencies?
  Do they pose an immediate risk to life--an immediate threat to life?
  In May in the days leading right up to this emergency declaration, 
Iran and its proxies executed several attacks throughout the Middle 
East over just 2 weeks.
  Four oil tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman. I would say that 
is an emergency and a threat to life.
  Armed drones struck Saudi oil fields. I would say that is an 
emergency and a threat to life.
  The head of the Quds Force called on terror groups to prepare for a 
proxy war. I would certainly call that an emergency and a very direct 
threat to life.
  A rocket was launched near the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. I would call 
that an emergency and a threat to life.
  A bomb-carrying drone was launched by Houthi rebels targeting a Saudi 
airport on May 21. I would say that is an emergency and a threat to 
life.
  Now in the weeks since the emergency declaration, Iran has only 
ramped up its attacks and it is precipitating the need to have this 
emergency declaration.
  Houthi rebels have continued attacks on civilian airports in Saudi 
Arabia. That is an emergency and a direct threat to life.

[[Page H5941]]

  The IRGC perpetrated another attack on commercial shipping, this time 
targeting Japanese and Norwegian oil tankers transiting through the 
Strait of Hormuz. I would say that that is an emergency and a threat to 
life.
  A rocket hit an oil drilling site in Iraq's southern Basra Province 
striking inside a compound that housed contractors and employees of 
Exxon Mobil. I would say that is an emergency and a threat to life.
  Iran shot down a U.S. military asset over international waters. I 
would say that is an emergency.
  Just last week three Iranian paramilitary vessels tried to impede the 
passage of a British oil tanker transiting the Strait of Hormuz, and I 
would say that is an emergency and a threat to life.
  Now, even as Iran continues to threaten international shipping and 
civilians in the Middle East, there are Members of this body who want 
to create doubts about the commitments that we have to our partners on 
the front lines. Now for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, 
this is not an abstract threat. It is their tankers that are being 
attacked, their airports that are being targeted, and their oil fields.

  Now, our bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab 
Emirates undoubtedly is complicated, and we absolutely have to press 
for improvements in domestic human rights for both countries. I think 
we can agree on this wholeheartedly: we have to seek justice and 
accountability in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, undoubtedly. In fact, 
earlier this week this body voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Malinowski's 
H.R. 2037 which imposes sanctions on those responsible for Mr. 
Khashoggi's murder.
  Even as the United Arab Emirates draws down its position in Yemen, we 
must press Saudi Arabia to minimize civilian casualties in that 
conflict, but none of these challenges justify whatsoever abandoning 
our partners as they face down a threat from an Iranian regime that is 
on the march throughout the Middle East. In fact, we must continue to 
show our investment in our strategic partnerships in order to 
incentivize our partners to make the changes that we are asking them to 
make.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have had a longstanding concern about these sales. We have a 
codified congressional review process precisely to address such 
concerns, however it is my assessment that my Democratic colleagues 
abused this review process.
  Prior to the emergency notification, Republican Members had supported 
these sales, but Democrat Members subjected them to informal holds--in 
some cases for over a year--without any clear path to resolution. Now, 
given the wide range of conflicts and threats in the Middle East, I do 
not understand why my colleagues were surprised when, after months and 
even over a year of delay, it was assessed that our partners urgently 
needed these defense articles and services for their national security 
in these emergency situations.

                              {time}  1400

  Perhaps if my colleagues had taken a more active approach to 
resolving their concerns, we would have avoided the situation in which 
additional capabilities were needed to respond to the elevated threat, 
this emergency situation that has been posted by Iran.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, there has long been a consensus in this body that 
Iran's malign activities in the Middle East are a threat to the United 
States' national security and to our partners. In the past 3 years 
alone, we have passed legislation responding to Iran's support for 
terrorism, growing ballistic missile arsenal, and human rights abuses. 
The Iranian regime has not backed down from these malign activities, 
and it is my sincere hope that this body will not back down from its 
resolve to counter Iran's destabilizing agenda.
  Unfortunately, this resolution and the other joint resolutions of 
disapproval for the 22 sales are very much a step in the wrong 
direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, from its inception, the Islamic Republic of 
Iran had an anti-American bent: what it did in our Embassy, its attack 
on the Marines in Beirut in 1983, its efforts in Iraq.
  In 2003, I was part of the invasion force. I saw with my own eyes the 
Iranian efforts to destabilize Iraq, and they continue to do that there 
today.
  They continue to support the Assad regime in Syria. They continue to 
overthrow the regime in Yemen, support the Houthi rebels attacking 
Saudi Arabia.
  Around the Middle East, Iran has become the enemy of freedom and 
democracy.
  If America is going to succeed, we need to have allies; we need to 
have friends. We need to support those allies and those friends. Making 
sure that Saudi Arabia or UAE have the weapons that they need to fight 
back against Iran's terrorism and warmongering around this region is 
mission-critical for the survival of our Republic.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand against this resolution.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the 
purpose of closing.
  Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close debate on this measure.
  I am glad we had a spirited debate on the issues. As always, I am 
grateful to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), my friend, the 
ranking member, for his collegiality. We are generally bipartisan on 
the Foreign Affairs Committee, and when we do disagree, we do so on the 
issues and not on the politics and the personalities.
  I have enormous respect for Mr. Mast, which he knows about, but I 
would say that this, today, is not a referendum on Iran. I agree with 
everything that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said 
about Iran: its bad intention, its bad behavior. I agree.
  But, again, I say, as I said before, it doesn't mean we give another 
country, being an ally or not, a blank check to do whatever it pleases. 
And in this particular case, the conduct of the war in Yemen is 
something that we cannot just turn our heads away and say: ``Oh, well, 
this is the war and the Iranians are bad, so, therefore, we are going 
to look the other way.'' I think if we are talking about American 
weapons, we can demand better.
  So I think that these measures are a chance for the Congress to take 
back some of the power granted by the Constitution, to say that we 
won't stand by when any administration--this administration, 
administrations to come in both parties--we won't stand by when any 
administration ignores Congress, plays fast and loose with the law, and 
fails to demand accountability for human rights abuses around the 
world.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support this measure and the two 
others that we have just considered.
  I thank Mr. Mast and my friends on other side of the aisle for a 
spirited debate, and 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 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. MAST. 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.

                          ____________________