Relating to A National Emergency Declared By the President on October 2006

Floor Speech

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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source