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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAWLER. Res. 68.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close, and I reserve 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source