[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 43 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1093-S1095]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J.
                                Res. 35

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign 
Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 35, a joint 
resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed 
foreign military sales to the Government of Egypt of certain defense 
articles and services.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, according to tradition, King Menes united 
the two lands of Europe about 5,000 years ago. Although Egypt appears 
today as a single state on the globe, American foreign policy still 
treats the country as if it were two completely different lands--one a 
critical ally of American aid and one a tyrannical nightmare unworthy 
of American security assistance.
  A State Department human rights report details how General 
Abdelfattah Elsisi converted a country into a prison. Among other 
horrors, Egyptian security forces engage in extrajudicial killings, 
torture, as well as harsh crackdowns on anyone who wishes to practice 
the right of freedom of speech.
  As a result of Egypt's abysmal human rights record, the Biden 
administration recently blocked $130 million in annual security 
assistance. At first glance, that might sound like a rebuke to Egypt. 
Before applauding this supposedly principled act in solidarity with the 
long-suffering Egyptian people, keep in mind that in the same week, the 
State Department--the Biden State Department--approved a military sale 
of Super Hercules aircraft, which are used to airdrop troops and 
military equipment, to the Elsisi regime for $2.2 billion. On the one 
hand, they blocked $130 million; on the other hand, they approved $2.2 
billion.
  In what may be only described by definition as a slap on the wrist, 
the $130 million the State Department blocked is only one-tenth of the 
annual $1.3 billion the United States has given to Egypt every year 
since 1987. In fact, Egypt is one of the largest recipients of U.S. 
military aid.
  If the State Department strictly adhered to Federal Leahy laws, it 
would insist that Egypt abandon its despotic ways before Egypt received 
any more security assistance. This law was named after our colleague 
Senator Patrick Leahy. These laws compel the United States to withhold 
security assistance to countries that have committed gross violations 
of human rights.
  The Biden administration should strictly enforce the Leahy laws and 
deny Egypt the American dollars it craves until it becomes a place 
where human rights are honored and respected. Instead, as punishment 
for their crimes, the ruling class of Egypt will somehow, some way, 
have to make due with only 90 percent of what they annually expect in 
largesse from the American taxpayer. Adjusting for inflation, the 
decades-long transfer of wealth from America to Egypt amounts to over 
$41 billion. Of the $41 billion, some estimate that the previous 
President, Hosni Mubarak, and his family stole nearly half. The aid not 
stolen is used by Egypt to buy American weaponry.
  Since 2009, the United States has sold Egypt $3.2 billion in fighter 
aircraft,

[[Page S1094]]

$1.3 billion in tanks and armored vehicles, $750 million in missiles, 
$36 million in ammunition, and $328 million in military technology, as 
well as $240 million in naval craft. As the United States prepares for 
yet another military sale, perhaps we should review how one of our most 
reliable customers treats their own people.
  Human Rights Watch reports that ``Egypt's security apparatus has 
arbitrarily arrested and prosecuted tens of thousands of persons'' and 
that ``torture crimes against detainees in Egypt are systematic, 
widespread, and likely constitute crimes against humanity.''
  One such victim of torture is known as Hamza. He was arrested at his 
home late one night for the crime of participating in a public 
demonstration. Despite tireless attempts to track him down, his family 
was unable to locate him for months. Later, it was revealed that the 
officers who captured him--the officers of the government of Elsisi--
used electric shocks on his genitals, his head, and his tongue. But 
even that was not enough for Elsisi's henchmen, who later suspended 
Hamza from his arms until his arms were dislocated at the shoulder.
  As a physician, I have treated patients who have dislocated 
shoulders. It is a very painful injury. Imagine being hauled up by your 
own government, suspended by your arms until your shoulders are 
dislocated, and then when they finally cut him down, they left him on 
the floor without medical treatment for 3 winter days without any 
blankets.
  Such torture would be virtually unbearable for any man. Hamza was not 
even yet a man; he was a 14-year-old boy at the time of his torture and 
arrest.
  Hamza is not alone. The stories of other victims appear in Human 
Rights Watch's 43-page report detailing Egypt's systemic torture of 
children, including a victim as young as 12 years old.
  In Egypt, journalism--journalism--is a dangerous profession. The 
Committee to Protect Journalists ranks Egypt the third worst jailer of 
journalists in the world behind only China and Myanmar.
  Take just a few examples. When a 26-year-old man died in police 
custody, a prominent Egyptian journalist, Islam el-Kahly, was arrested 
for covering and reporting on the detainee's death. He is only one of 
many well-known journalists to be imprisoned for the crime of keeping 
his people informed.
  Photojournalist Mahmoud Abu Zeid was arrested in 2013 for covering 
the violent break up of a sit-in protest--a peaceful sit-in protest--in 
Cairo. Zeid was released after 5 years in prison, but he is still not 
free. He is required to report to the police station at 6 p.m. every 
night, where it is unknown whether the officer on duty will keep him or 
not, whether he will be imprisoned every night of his life.
  Perhaps no activity is more dangerous than running for Egypt's 
Presidency. General Elsisi was reelected--if you can call it an 
election--in 2018 with 97 percent of the vote, whose Soviet-style 
results were made possible only after opposition candidates were 
effectively eliminated.
  Two candidates, Sami Anan and Ahmed Konsowa, were imprisoned. A third 
candidate to run against Elsisi, Ahmed Shafik, was placed under house 
arrest. A senior staffer to one of the candidates, Hisham Geneina, was 
brutally attacked by three men, resulting in serious damage to his left 
eye and orbital bones. When another candidate, Mohamed Anwar al-Sadat, 
withdrew from the race, he said: ``It's like committing suicide to run 
against someone like this.''
  President Biden pledged to put human rights at the ``center of our 
foreign policy.'' Torture of children, arbitrary arrests of dissidents 
and journalists, sham elections, and the violent crushing of peaceful 
opposition--if these are not gross violations of human rights, nothing 
is.
  The United States cannot proudly proclaim human rights to be the 
center of our foreign policy while it arms a regime that has a war 
against its own people. We should end military sales to Egypt's 
criminal masters. Partially taking away some military aid while 
offering new sales that are 10 times what we withheld shows weakness in 
the face of repression.
  Our weapons are an incredibly important part of America's power, and 
we should not willy-nilly and without judgment give them to anybody and 
everybody around the world. They could be used as leverage for 
improving human rights. Instead, we just give them, and there is this 
vicious cycle of enriching those who produce the munitions and no 
concern for human rights.
  Mere slaps on the wrists cannot hide the inescapable fact that the 
United States has handsomely rewarded Egypt as it degenerated into one 
of the most autocratic places on the globe. America should in no 
uncertain terms demonstrate we will no longer strengthen a strongman.
  My resolution is to cancel military sales. It offers a choice--
whether the United States will side with the Egyptian people or with 
their oppressors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
discharge S.J. Res. 35.
  I am a little perplexed by the Parliamentarian's decision that this 
can move forward because there is a statutory timeframe that says that 
the resolution needs to be brought forth in order for it to have 
validity.
  My understanding of the Parliamentarian's decision is that even 
though--if there was passage of this resolution--it would not have 
validity because it is past the timeframe, it still can be brought. 
That seems to be a pursuit of the Senate's time in a way that is an 
extraordinary amount of time on unlimited numbers of discharge 
resolutions that potentially exist that, having passed the statutory 
timeframe, can still be brought to the Senate floor even though 
whatever the vote is has no consequence. I fail to understand that.
  Since that is the ruling, let me just say that I appreciate that the 
Senator from Kentucky has concerns about human rights in Egypt, and I 
agree that we must absolutely continue to raise concerns in a way that 
will meaningfully bring about positive change. I believe we should be 
doing more to prioritize a country's human rights record in the context 
of our broader relationship.
  In fact, last year, with several of my colleagues, I introduced S. 
1473, the Safeguarding Human Rights in Arms Exports Act, or what we 
call the SAFEGUARD Act, to ensure that human rights issues full 
attention and arms exports decision making are considered.
  And I invite all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
support and cosponsor this important legislation.
  As I think everyone in this body knows, for years I have led the 
fight in the Senate against arms sales to countries that commit 
significant and repeated human rights abuses such as Saudi Arabia.
  Last Congress, the Senate approved 23 resolutions of disapproval that 
I introduced when the Trump administration sought to short circuit our 
rights to consider these sales according to law.
  Joint resolutions of disapproval are just one tool that we have, and 
we must make sensible distinctions about the types of systems we 
consider. In this particular debate, as I have argued before, a 
critical distinction is between arms that are inherently offensive and 
lethal and those that are not. Some are defensive; some are simply 
logistical.
  Today, we are considering a sale of 12 cargo aircraft, which I 
believe squarely falls in the category of largely defensive, nonlethal 
arms. This aircraft is used for transporting military and other cargo, 
including humanitarian supplies, as well as personnel in-country and 
internationally. Egypt has earlier model C-130s since the 1980s, but 
its current fleet is aging and becoming more expensive to maintain.
  The United States and Egypt have a long and valuable relationship 
that goes beyond the security realm. Egypt is also an important 
security partner for other U.S. allies in the region. This, of course, 
does not mean that it is above reproach--it is not--or that the nature 
of that relationship is static. It is not.
  Indeed, I supported the Secretary of State's determination made last 
month not to release $130 million in withheld foreign military 
financing because Egypt's government has not made, in his view, 
sufficient progress in human rights, especially with regard to the

[[Page S1095]]

treatment of peaceful activists and the continued targeting of 
independent civil society organizations.
  I have used my prerogative as chair of the Foreign Relations 
Committee in the arms sales process before, and I will continue to do 
so in the future regarding systems that may consistently relate to 
these concerns.
  But in the end, our relationship with Egypt has to be one of 
maintaining a balance between the foreign policy and national security 
concerns of the United States and our partners.
  We should, however, continue to raise human rights concerns and press 
for meaningful reforms. We should continue encouraging the government 
to uphold its own commitments, but to this end, because these are 
purely, not only--they are logistical at best, I urge my colleagues to 
reject this motion to discharge.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, tonight we are going to consider S.J. Res. 
35 and 36, and they are the resolutions of disapproval regarding arms 
sales to Egypt. Egypt has been a key partner of the United States since 
the 1979 Camp David Accords.
  It continues to play a critical role in Middle East peace. Egypt is a 
valuable counterterrorism partner and is essential to U.S. accession in 
the region and the U.S. success in the region. Look, for those who 
haven't had the good fortune of being there, when the peace broke out 
between Israel and Egypt decades ago, Egypt played a key role in making 
that peace. And ever since then, the border between Egypt and Israel on 
the Sinai has been peaceful, notwithstanding the fact that they have 
incidents there all the time.
  But the Egyptians and the Israelis, brokered by the multilateral 
force that is there, keeps the peace, and it has been a great success 
story in the Middle East, one of the few that has had duration. And so 
in that regard, Egypt has been very valuable in helping keep the peace 
in the region.
  The Biden administration and Democratic Senate and House leaders 
agreed on these sales because they are in the interest of the United 
States and, indeed, of the world and particularly of the Middle East. 
These sales of cargo aircraft and radar support the United States-Egypt 
relationship and are in keeping with Egypt's legitimate defense 
requirements.
  Human rights are a critical element of our foreign relations. They 
always have been, and they always will be. And Egypt has problems it 
needs to fix.
  The United States has withheld aid and taken other measures to 
highlight our concerns to the Egyptian Government. Indeed, Egypt is not 
a perfect partner, and we have almost no perfect partners when we are 
dealing with foreign countries on national security.
  Nonetheless, each of these is transactional, and they have to be 
weighed and viewed individually. These sales that we are talking about 
here to Egypt present no direct human rights concerns and should be 
separated from that conversation.
  So, on substance, I oppose the resolution.
  In addition to that, there is a bigger issue here. The statutory 30-
day congressional notification period for these sales expired last 
Wednesday, March 2. The Parliamentarian has now ruled that the 
statutory 30-day period is effectively irrelevant and that any Senator 
can offer for privileged consideration a resolution of disapproval for 
any arms sales notified over the course of an entire Congress.
  If this stands and continues, it would have a chilling effect on U.S. 
alliances and partnerships worldwide, and it could set a new procedure 
as far as dilatory tactics are concerned on the Senate floor.
  The 1987 precedent that the Parliamentarian cites as justification is 
from a time when there was a bipartisan agreement to extend the 
timeline for simple procedural reasons. This is not the case now. And I 
disagree with the Parliamentarian's interpretation thereof.
  It always amazes me around here that we can get a Parliamentarian 
ruling that is in direct--I mean direct contradiction of a statute, 
which is what we have here.
  I ask--and I would urge--Senate leadership to work to ensure the 
intent of the statutory 30-day notification period is restored. Perhaps 
we should repass the statute and say we really, really mean it. 
Nonetheless, that is where we are, and this really needs to be 
corrected.


                      Vote on Motion to Discharge

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
discharge.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The result was announced--yeas 19, nays 80, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

                                YEAS--19

     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Carper
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Leahy
     Lee
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Sanders
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Warren

                                NAYS--80

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hickenlooper
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inhofe
       
  The motion was rejected.

                          ____________________