[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 123 (Tuesday, July 18, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3659-H3662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 RELATING TO A NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT ON OCTOBER 
                                27, 2006

  Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of July 
13, 2023, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) relating to a 
national emergency declared by the President on October 27, 2006, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of July 
13, 2023, the joint resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 68

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That, 
     pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 
     U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared by the finding 
     of the President on October 27, 2006, in Executive Order 
     13413 is hereby terminated.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
30 minutes equally divided among and controlled by Representative 
McCaul of Texas, Representative Meeks of New York, and Representative 
Boebert of Colorado, or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Meeks), and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).


                             General Leave

  Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on H.J. Res. 68.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 68 and all of this afternoon's 
privileged resolutions on this matter.
  The International Emergency Economic Powers Act created a process by 
which the President could declare a national emergency, create 
sanctions authorities for that emergency, and impose those sanctions on 
the malign actors that are causing the emergency in the first place.
  While I agree with my colleagues about the need for congressional 
oversight and modernization of Presidential emergency powers, I 
strongly disagree with the process by which they are trying to force 
change.
  The national emergencies we are discussing today provide the legal 
basis for critical sanctions programs targeting some of the most evil 
people on Earth. Although some of these authorities were enacted years 
ago, many of these sanctioned individuals continue to pose a clear and 
present danger to U.S. national security interests today.
  These ill-thought-out joint resolutions, by terminating these 
national emergencies, would immediately eliminate these sanctions 
programs without allowing adequate time for Congress or the executive 
branch to establish an alternative sanctioning authority. It would also 
unfreeze sanctioned individuals' assets, immediately putting millions 
of dollars into the hands of some of the world's most dangerous 
criminals.
  Even if a new authority were created, these monsters would not be 
automatically resanctioned. Each of the hundreds of sanctions 
designations at issue today was built on strong evidence compiled over 
months or even years. It is not a switch that can be flipped on or off. 
More time and a lot more taxpayer money would need to go into redoing 
the work that has already taken place to renew these sanctions.
  Another reason why this is a horrendous idea is that fines collected 
from violating terrorist-related sanctions largely go toward the 
Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, which provides critical 
compensation for American victims of state-sponsored terrorist attacks. 
Since the fund was established, it has paid out over $3 billion to 
eligible claimants, and by law, 50 percent of these distributions must 
be paid to 9/11-related claimants. 9/11 was the deadliest terrorist 
attack worldwide, and the attack has had a huge

[[Page H3660]]

impact on the New York community, in particular. Today, we still have 
cops, firefighters, and first responders, suffering from 9/11-related 
illnesses. The worst thing that we can do is take money away from 9/11 
families and give it right back to terrorists.
  Again, while I understand my colleagues' desire to reform the 
national emergency process, empowering terrorists, corrupt officials, 
and war criminals is not the answer, and draining the fund that assists 
victims of terrorist attacks should be a crime in and of itself.
  We should address these issues directly through regular order, rather 
than arbitrarily removing sanctions authorities that are essential to 
our national security. I urge President Biden to engage with Congress 
on this, instead of blatantly avoiding the topic.
  Now, for the specific matter at hand. I strictly oppose H.J. Res. 68, 
which would terminate the National Emergency with respect to the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
  The forced termination of that emergency would lead to the rescission 
of sanctions and immediate release of millions of dollars to more than 
60 currently sanctioned malicious foreign actors, including notorious 
arms dealer Viktor Bout, Russia's ``Merchant of Death,'' whose freedom 
Vladimir Putin demanded in exchange for American hostage Brittney 
Griner. This is the man you would be helping by passing this joint 
resolution, someone who was convicted of conspiracy to kill American 
citizens and officials, delivery of antiaircraft missiles, and 
providing aid to a terrorist organization. It would empower this 
horrific individual and embolden the Kremlin even further.
  Revoking this emergency would also impact our ability to fight the 
Islamic State affiliate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Africa 
already represents the largest growth area of terrorism in the world, 
and Islamic State and al-Qaida affiliates fuel these groups' global 
networks.

                              {time}  1400

  This resolution would make it easier for ISIS to use proxies in 
Africa to finance its terror operations.
  Further revoking the national emergency would release currently 
frozen money to individuals and groups that have perpetrated and 
profited from the ongoing deadly strife in the eastern Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, groups like the M23 group, the armed militia 
primarily responsible for that bloody conflict.
  In recent months, international pressure on all parties has resulted 
in less offensive military action and violence in the eastern 
Democratic Republic of the Congo. This resolution could free up funds 
that groups like M23 would immediately use to purchase advanced 
weaponry, worsening the humanitarian situation and destabilizing the 
region.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this reckless 
resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 68. For the 
next several hours on the House floor, we will not be discussing how to 
raise wages for the middle class, debating how to create a regulatory 
framework for next-generation artificial intelligence technology, or 
strategizing about competing with China in the 21st century. Instead, 
we will be debating a handful of resolutions that will provide 
immediate sanctions relief for human rights violators, illicit arms 
dealers, and terrorists with American blood on their hands.
  I am not being hyperbolic, and I am not exaggerating. The resolutions 
before us terminate emergencies that were declared for the express 
purpose of sanctioning war criminals.
  Given that we have several similar resolutions on the floor, it is 
worth providing background on how the sanctions process works.
  In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act. This act 
formalized how the President can declare a normal emergency, enumerated 
certain powers the President can use during such an emergency, and gave 
Congress the ability to terminate an emergency via resolution like the 
one we have before us today.
  A year later, Congress built on this framework with the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act, often referred to as IEEPA, which 
further elucidated what actions the President may take to regulate 
international commerce in such an emergency. IEEPA is the foundation of 
the modern American sanctions regime.
  The benefits of IEEPA are very clear. They allow the President to 
move quickly to impose sanctions. Though, of course, some time is 
needed to jump through appropriate and necessary due process hurdles, 
the President is able to impose sanctions without a particular 
congressional mandate.
  It is my view, likely shared by the sponsor and hopefully many 
Members of this body, that the power over sanctions has moved too much 
to the executive branch and too far from Congress. Too often, 
congressionally mandated sanctions are slow-rolled or minimized while 
the executive presses on with its preferred targets.
  I do not want to diminish the seriousness and the impressive work 
professionals at the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the 
National Security Council do on sanctions. They take the work very 
seriously and apply thoughtful policies with an attentional detail, 
executing their actions in a careful manner.
  Members of Congress should not blithely substitute their judgment 
about existing national emergencies without conducting a thorough 
review of the evidence, obtaining extensive briefings from the 
executive branch, and gaining a firm understanding of the consequences 
of a termination.
  Moreover, each national emergency is reviewed at least annually. The 
Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump 
administration, and now the Biden administration all renewed the 
national emergency this resolution seeks to terminate.
  Many national emergencies have been terminated. For instance, 
President George H.W. Bush terminated the South Africa program after 
apartheid ended. President Biden terminated the Burundi program not 
less than 2 years ago.
  Let's take a quick look at some of the individuals currently 
sanctioned under the DRC program. One is Viktor Bout. For decades, Bout 
flooded the DRC with illegal weapons. He has bragged about his many 
contacts in financial institutions who have helped him evade sanctions, 
and Bout likely has significant assets that can easily be unfrozen. If 
this body votes to terminate the executive order that imposes sanctions 
on Bout, he stands to gain a windfall of cash within mere minutes.
  The DRC program currently places sanctions on ISIS-Congo. That is 
right, the foreign terrorist organization ISIS. If Congress votes to 
pass this resolution, ISIS can set up a brokerage account, trade 
stocks, transfer funds, or keep money in a checking account in the 
United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion, ISIS-Congo should not be permitted 
to do any of the above, and neither should the numerous war criminals 
currently covered under the Congo emergency.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 68, and I implore all of my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill receiving 
consideration on the House floor that would terminate the national 
emergency related to the Congo.
  National emergencies are supposed to be temporary by definition and 
limited to 6 months by law unless there is a justifiable reason for an 
extension. They aren't supposed to linger on for decades with no 
oversight from Congress or the executive branch.
  Clearly, this process is broken for national emergency declarations, 
and it needs reform. Having been in Washington, D.C., for over 2 years 
now, I clearly realize nothing gets accomplished here without force.
  Today, we are raising the issue of this broken system, and that 
should be something that Members on both sides of the aisle can all 
agree with. Congress needs to do its job.
  By law, Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution 
to determine whether a national emergency shall be terminated after 6 
months. Do you hear that? Congress shall do its

[[Page H3661]]

job. Then, they should meet again for that same consideration of each 
extension of any national emergency every 6 months.
  Congress has been required by law to consider a joint resolution for 
the Congo since April 27, 2007, 16 years ago, and 31 more times since.
  Shockingly, Congress has never once reviewed the national emergency 
related to the Congo over that 16-year timeframe, despite the clear 
language in section 202 of the NEA requiring review every 6 months.
  Administration after administration just keeps on unilaterally 
rubberstamping these extensions without even providing a report or 
update to Congress on how much taxpayer money is actually being spent. 
What are they spending it on? What is the need to extend this temporary 
national emergency authority?
  These national emergency declarations have become the deep state's 
favorite foreign affairs slush fund. There is literally no spending 
transparency whatsoever out there on the 41 national emergencies 
currently in place. Congress is allowing the swamp to continue to shift 
and funnel an unknown amount of taxpayer dollars to an overseas dark 
hole.
  I know that some of my colleagues will argue that some of the 
national emergencies we are terminating today won't save that much 
money. If that is the case and we are only sending a couple hundred 
thousand dollars in aid and munitions to a particular country, then 
that country no longer meets the definition of a national emergency. If 
it is tens of millions of dollars or even hundreds of millions of 
dollars that we are sending to certain countries as a result of these 
41 national emergency authorizations, then taxpayers have the right to 
know these costs, and Congress has a responsibility to provide 
oversight on these dollars.
  The current sanctions in the Congo have also not addressed the real 
issue that is there, which is the Congo mineral conflict. Nearly 40,000 
children are estimated to be mining cobalt with their bare hands in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo right now. They are working in unsafe 
conditions.
  This is the real humanitarian crisis taking place in the Congo. If we 
want to talk about sanctioning anyone for what is going on in the 
Congo, it should be China, which is exploiting these children and 
sucking up the Congo cobalt.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard scare tactics that voting for this bill to 
end Congo's national emergency would unfreeze the assets of Viktor 
Bout, an arms dealer who was accused of supplying arms to al-Qaida. I 
encourage everyone on both sides of the aisle to not be tricked into 
voting against my bill based on this false assertion.
  Viktor Bout was never a citizen of the Congo or of the United States, 
and the current sanctions only apply to United States assets. Viktor 
Bout is currently living and running for political office in Russia.
  If the U.S. wants to impose further sanctions against him--and I 
think we probably should--it can do so under the same mechanisms it has 
imposed more than 2,200 sanctions against Russia in the last year and a 
half. This is not the only way to sanction a terrorist. We have many 
other avenues that we can go down, as is seen in these 2,200 sanctions 
from just the past year and a half.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree that Viktor Bout is a threat, so much so that I 
condemn the President's action and this administration for having 
traded him for a professional women's basketball player that was locked 
up for bringing marijuana into Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, I have not yet heard a compelling argument to vote 
against my bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of my bill. I urge Congress to actually 
roll up their sleeves and do the hard work of authorizing stuff like 
this or putting an end to it, exposing to the American taxpayer exactly 
where their tax dollars are going and what it is being spent on so we 
know if we are sending our tax dollars overseas to terrorists with no 
oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar), my colleague.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Is it what I hear? Is it really what I hear, that we are too lazy to 
do our job? Because that is what I heard.
  Every 6 months we are supposed to come here to this floor and ante up 
in regards to the national emergencies. A national emergency, by its 
whole name, is temporary and short-lived. It is temporary and short-
lived.
  I guess that is why I would have to quote Milton Friedman: ``Nothing 
is so permanent as a temporary government program.''
  Mr. Speaker, that says it all. That says it all.
  There is a whole different way of getting to these perpetrators, 
these bad actors, and we should do that. However, we are rushing 
through this thing, and all I hear is: Wait a minute, if we take this 
down, then all these people are going to get off.
  That is not what happens. Remember, we are bicameral, so the House 
will pass something, then it will go to the Senate where most of the 
time it will die, but at least they might get something right in this 
case as foreign affairs. They probably will get something right in 
regards to who the people are and what is the vehicle to do this in.
  This is exactly why Senator Church did this in 1976. It was to try to 
orchestrate how do we put this together, how do we have checks and 
balances, and how do we make this work for everybody?
  This isn't the way. We just saw a COVID national emergency. Today 
there is not one inventory in that disbursement record--not one, not 
one--of $4.8 trillion. That isn't chump change, Mr. Speaker. That is a 
bunch of money. That is a bunch of money.
  So I look at this, and I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is time to 
get rid of these national emergencies. We can do this. We can do it 
right. We can make everybody look all right.
  Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the forced termination of 
these emergencies as being reckless and dangerous because it would 
remove sanction designations from hostile foreign actors.
  I agree that the people who are on this list should be sanctioned, 
but also I see what is reckless and dangerous is continuing to funnel 
hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign countries, many with bad 
actors, over a 20-year period with no congressional oversight of how 
much taxpayer money the deep state is sending out the door.
  It is also irresponsible that Congress is ignoring the law and not 
reviewing these 41 national emergency declarations every 6 months as 
required by law.
  It is also reckless and dangerous that Congress is allowing Joe Biden 
to have unilateral authority from these national emergency declarations 
to draft Americans without consent into Active Duty, authorize chemical 
and biological weapons testing on humans--including Americans--and 
seize private property of the United States citizens.
  Joe Biden decided to release and trade Viktor Bout when he still had 
nearly 15 years on his sentence. We can find another way to sanction 
him rather than just giving him a free pass, like the other terrorists 
who are on this list, without going outside of the bounds of Congress' 
official duties.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the 
purpose of closing.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be long, but I am sitting here 
scratching my head trying to figure out what the gentlewoman from 
Colorado is talking about.
  This is not money that is taxpayer money that is appropriated by the 
people. I don't understand. This is money that these criminals, people 
who commit acts of terror, have. It is money that happens to be in some 
of our financial institutions that we know about. So we freeze it. They 
are sanctioned so that they can't get the money to continue the harm 
and damage to people.

[[Page H3662]]

  She talks about children. Many of them, these individuals, were 
having child soldiers. They were putting children's lives at risk in 
war. I don't understand the rationality.
  We should sanction ISIS. We should sanction Viktor Bout.
  Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that any Member of this august body will 
vote for this resolution. Every Member should vote against this, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate, again, that I appreciate the 
engagement from my colleagues on these matters, and I would be happy to 
work with them on ways to modernize IEEPA or increase oversight of the 
President's authorities, but this is not the way to do it.
  Passing this joint resolution would seriously hinder our ability to 
fight terrorism in Africa and allow criminals like Mr. Bout to operate 
more efficiently. That absolutely should not be the message that 
Congress sends.
  I hear often from my colleagues about the need for regular order. We 
had a whole discussion on it as a conference in our rules: regular 
order. This should be going through the Foreign Affairs Committee to 
have regular order. By introducing a privileged resolution, this is 
bypassing regular order. It is bypassing the work that all of us 
collectively as 435 Members of Congress have to do.
  Now, I would remind my colleagues that these declarations are renewed 
every year by the President, including President Trump, who did it four 
times. Annual reports come to Congress every year. They come to the 
Foreign Affairs Committee of which I am a member.
  There are no additional spending authorities tied to these national 
emergency declarations. They cost about $300,000 a year to administer.
  I would remind my colleagues that we cannot sanction American 
citizens. It is unconstitutional. We are sanctioning foreigners. We can 
only freeze assets within our jurisdiction. That is the intent of this.
  So while I do agree that we need to modernize IEEPA and we need to 
evaluate any of these declarations, Congress already has the tools to 
do it through regular order. So let's actually follow the rules that 
many of my colleagues who are introducing these resolutions demanded, 
and let's do it the proper way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania).
  All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of July 13, 2023, the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and 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 passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. 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.

                          ____________________