[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 154 (Tuesday, September 24, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5651-S5659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIME MINISTER NARENDRA MODI
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Sunday I had the great honor of joining
President Trump in welcoming Prime Minister Modi to the Lone Star State
in an event that was appropriately named ``Howdy, Modi.''
When his trip was announced, people on the west coast and the east
coast wondered, ``Why Texas?'' They thought, maybe, he would go to
Silicon Valley to talk to Big Tech executives or spend some time in
Washington hobnobbing with diplomats and legislative leaders. Those are
great places to visit, but Houston is the energy capital of the world.
It is providing literal fuel for our growing relationship with the
Nation of India.
After nearly a four-decade ban on U.S. crude oil exports was lifted,
Texas sent the first American crude oil to India, and today India is
increasingly running on American natural gas. The reason that is
important is, when I visited India for the first time in 2004, I
witnessed a country that is a study in contrast--some highly populated
areas like Delhi and others, and then rural areas on the way to the Taj
Mahal in Agra, you can see people literally living off the land and
using dried cow manure as fuel for their food and for warmth.
Obviously, India needs access to affordable energy that America--and
Texas, in particular--can provide to help improve their standard of
living.
This trade is also vital to our economy in Texas, and we will keep
exporting our greatest natural resource to our friends in India and
around the world as a result of the energy renaissance we have seen and
as a result of the use of unconventional extraction techniques like
fracking and horizontal drilling.
Those must sound like foreign words to people in Washington, DC, who
think we ought to be able to live on solar panels and windmills
exclusively, but I always say, as important as renewable energy is--and
it is important--Texas generates the most electricity for any State in
the Nation from wind turbines. The wind doesn't always blow and the Sun
doesn't always shine, and you need some sort of baseload to try to keep
the electricity flowing so people can be afforded the comforts of life
and particularly in hot Texas summers make sure the air-conditioner
continues to work.
For as deep as our economic ties are, our cultural ties are just as
strong. Texas is home to a vibrant Indian diaspora, with more than
150,000 Indian Americans living in the Houston area alone and perhaps
about half a million across our entire State. I was glad the Prime
Minister had a chance to witness the Indian culture that is woven into
the fabric of our State and meet a number of proud Indian Americans,
including the 50,000 who showed up for the ``Howdy, Modi'' events in
Houston on Sunday, from 48 States, I am told.
Knowing the importance of a strong U.S.-India relationship, 15 years
ago I cofounded the U.S.-India Caucus in the Senate. That was at the
request of one of my constituents who founded one of the Indo-American
Chambers in the metroplex in Dallas, TX, years ago. He is the one who
encouraged my wife and I to travel to India in the first place, where I
learned a lot about the country--the study in contrasts I mentioned but
also that this is the world's largest democracy, and we shared so many
values with that country because of our common English heritage and
particularly our respect for the rule of law and use of the English
language predominantly.
We also saw the advantage of collaborating with India economically--
1.3 billion people--a great market for the things we make and grow in
the United States and a great way to raise the standard of living in
India as we deepen our ties militarily and from a national security
standpoint. The difference between today and what things were like as
recently as 2008, in terms of trade, is just like night and day.
In 2016, the United States designated India as a ``major defense
partner,'' with the goal of elevating our partnership with India to the
same level as those of our other closest allies.
Since then, we have taken a number of steps to strengthen our defense
relationship, such as establishing ministerial dialogue, increasing
arms sales to India, and the first U.S.-India triservice exercise later
this year. We have made real progress, but there is more we can do to
ensure that our efforts are aligned, just as our interests are aligned.
Particularly as China is on the march, having a strong and vibrant
economy and a strong defense partner in India is more important than
ever.
Earlier this year, I also introduced an amendment to the National
Defense
[[Page S5652]]
Authorization Act, which requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report on U.S.-India defense cooperation in the Western Indian Ocean
within 180 days of enactment.
It will allow us to get a clearer picture of current military
activities and will enable the Secretary of Defense to enter into
military cooperation agreements and conduct regular joint military
training and operations with India in the Western Indian Ocean. This
would be a major step to bolster our relationship and strengthen our
defense cooperation.
I am hopeful this provision will ultimately be included in the
Defense authorization bill that is now going through the conference
committee between the House and the Senate, and I am optimistic we will
be able to get the President's signature and see this critical
legislation enacted into law.
(Ms. McSALLY assumed the Chair.)
Tropical Storm Imelda
Madam President, briefly, on one other matter, Tropical Storm Imelda
made landfall in Southeast Texas last week and dumped massive amounts
of rain all across the region.
It is just 2 years after Hurricane Harvey, which is a more familiar
name to people up here in DC, but the scenes are heartbreakingly
similar. It wasn't the high winds so much as it was the incredible
amount of water that was dumped into the Houston area and the
surrounding counties. Neighborhood streets began to look more like
rivers than roads. Folks were wading in the water, carrying children on
their shoulders, and personal belongings washed away with raging
floodwaters.
We have learned before, and we were reminded again, that these storms
aren't only disruptive; they are incredibly dangerous. Five people have
died as a result of the storm, and hundreds more remain displaced.
Imelda was the fifth wettest tropical cyclone in the continental
United States, with some areas receiving more than 3\1/2\ feet of rain
in a very short period of time. But as we have learned before, these
trying times seem to somehow bring out the best in people.
A group of residents in the small community of Cheek, TX, waded
through chest-high water to rescue nine horses. Furniture store owner
Jim McIngvale, known to all of us as ``Mattress Mack,'' once again
opened up his stores as a shelter for victims. His employees were
running rescue operations, taking furniture trucks out to pick up those
who had been stranded by high water. There was even a 21-year-old
college student who worked all night alone at a Beaumont hotel for 32
hours straight. Not only did he singlehandedly manage a hotel, he and
other guests ventured out into the flood to help distribute food and
water to truckers stranded in their trucks.
I am grateful to the countless people who have helped their neighbors
in big and small ways alike and who will no doubt continue supporting
their communities in the months ahead.
For many Texans, this is the second time in 2 years they have had to
recover from extraordinary flooding. The storm completely devastated
communities throughout the southeast part of my State, and folks are
just now beginning what will undoubtedly be a major cleanup effort.
With waters receding, local officials are now taking stock of the
damage and moving from response to recovery. These rain events--these
huge floods--are often more than any one city or one county can manage
alone. It is an all-hands-on-deck moment that brings together local,
State, and Federal officials, as well as nongovernmental organizations.
Governor Abbott declared a state of disaster in several counties to
ensure State resources are available to local government agencies.
Last week, I spoke to many of the county judges who have jurisdiction
over much of these flooded areas, the hardest hit areas, and I offered
my support. I want to assure everyone who has been impacted by the
storm that they are not alone and that we are committed to working
together as State, local, and Federal officials to ensure that they
have what they need to recover from this devastating Tropical Storm
Imelda.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I want to express to the Senator
from Texas our concern and our thoughts for all of those who have been
so impacted.
Digital Responsibility
Madam President, the Senator from Texas mentioned the floods and the
impact that had happened. I found out about some of the good work of
the Good Samaritans in the area by watching what was taking place on
social media, and I am certain millions of Americans saw firsthand some
of the generosity and the help that was given there.
Indeed, the internet and social media platforms have transformed the
way we communicate, the way we send out information, and many times the
way we receive it. Correspondence that, just a few years ago, would
have taken pen, paper, and postage is now sent and received with a
simple click of a mouse.
Everything happens online, from communicating about disasters to
shopping to party planning and to campaigning. We share photos and
milestones with our ``friends.'' We let people know that we are OK in
times of disasters or that we need help. We share all of this not only
with our friends, but we are also sharing it with companies that have
built multibillion-dollar empires based on their ability to convince us
to surrender just one more little piece of unique data about us or
about our families.
Beyond social media, we live our everyday transactional lives online
also. We bank via apps. We sign up for credit cards using codes we have
received in an email and manage our finances with cloud-based software.
Information we once would have locked securely in a desk drawer, we now
plug into an online forum without ever giving it a second thought.
We have contributed to our own, as I call it, ``virtual you''; that
is, our personal online footprint unique to us, unique only to us. We
have done this by trusting these platforms to keep our data secure. In
a way, this level of connectivity and trust has made life a lot easier
and more convenient, but it has also made us vulnerable to exploitation
and exposure.
I have spoken before about consumers' justifiable expectation of a
right to privacy online. This year, I introduced the BROWSER Act, which
I had previously introduced when I was in the House. It is an effort to
codify this right to privacy that consumers expect. BROWSER gives Big
Tech basic guidelines to follow when collecting and selling user data,
and that user is you.
It has become understood that you are the product when you are using
these social media apps and experiencing this connectivity. You are the
product. You have the right to know that you are that product, and you
have the right to decide what is shared about your life. But protecting
an individual's data is only part of this picture.
Last week, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology
held a hearing to address the role that digital services play in the
distribution of violent and extremist content. We welcomed testimony
from Facebook, Twitter, and Google, detailing what they are doing to
remove extremist content on platforms.
I will tell you, before we talk about policing content, we, as
Members of this body, need to make sure we understand how the American
people view their use of social media and the internet.
Whether social media platforms should be regulated under the First
Amendment is beside the point. Americans view these services as open
public forums, where they can speak their minds on everything from
defense funding to the Emmy Awards. These consumers don't want the Wild
West, nor do they want to be censored based on a content reviewer's
subjective opinion. What they want is an objective cop on the beat--
just as in the public square, an objective cop on the beat who is
equipped to properly identify incitement, threats, and other types of
speech that could put lives at risk.
This, of course, is easier said than done. In the case of Facebook,
for example, that translates to creating a set of standards that 30,000
in-house engineers and analysts and 15,000 content reviewers will be
able to apply--45,000 people, and that is just one platform.
There is a reason that time and again Big Tech executives look at
Congress
[[Page S5653]]
and say ``Oh, more regulatory control over the way we do business,''
and it is this: Policing legitimately dangerous content is a big job,
and policing ``awful but lawful'' content as Facebook CEO Mark
Zuckerberg likes to call it, is an even bigger, more daunting task.
It takes 45,000 people to do a bare-minimum job for one company.
Imagine trying to create easy-to-understand, bright-line standards that
45,000 employees will be able to digest and apply quickly enough to
keep up with the flow of content. That has to be an intimidating task.
I will tell you, if those executives think the government could do a
better job of deciding down to the letter what those standards should
be, I think they are mistaken. Only the engineers and innovators know
their companies well enough to set their own internal policies for
acceptable uses of their platform, but that is not to say that I will
not be taking an interest in their ideas.
We need to have a Federal standard of privacy and data security. We
need to review censorship and prioritization, competition, and
antitrust.
For example, Facebook is in the process of putting together a content
oversight board to adjudicate users whose posts have been deemed in
violation and taken down. They have pledged to make the identities of
the moderators and their decisions public--barring any safety risks--
and to choose a diverse panel. The biggest unanswered questions here
are these: Will the moderators really reflect the American political
spectrum? How will they be chosen? The American people will demand more
than a promise to be fair and impartial.
As I said, government cannot make these decisions in total for Big
Tech, but we can help guide them along the way by passing privacy and
data security standards. This is where working groups like the
Judiciary Committee's Tech Task Force come into play.
Last week, I was speaking to a group of private sector tech gurus,
and I told them that the only way we will be able to move forward is if
the government does more listening and they do more talking and work
with us on setting these basic standards.
I stand by what I said. It is not--and should not be--Congress's job
to decide in retrospect what sort of culture companies like Facebook
and Twitter meant to create. It is imperative that these companies
understand the American public views them as a public square, an online
public square, and it is up to them to be certain that there is an
objective cop on the beat.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Declaration of National Emergency
Mr. UDALL. Madam President, thank you for the recognition.
The Constitution demands that ``No Money shall be drawn from the
Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.''
Like any other matter, it is Congress's power and responsibility to
determine how much taxpayer money is spent on the President's request
for a border wall.
Like most Presidents, he didn't get every dollar he wanted. Now the
President, through a sham national emergency declaration, is taking
$3.6 billion of funds we appropriated for military construction
projects to pay for his wall. The real question is not whether the
President is usurping our article I power to appropriate; he is, no
doubt about it. The real question is, Will we do something about it?
Today I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of our resolution
terminating the President's national emergency declaration.
Madam President, starting off the debate, I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record the following materials: a joint declaration
from former national security officials outlining why the President's
border emergency does not qualify under the National Emergencies Act
and a September 18, 2019, Washington Post article outlining the dire
outcomes warned by the Pentagon if the military construction projects
don't go forward.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Joint Declaration of Former United States Government Officials
We, the undersigned, declare as follows:
1. We are former officials in the U.S. government who have
worked on national security and homeland security issues from
the White House as well as agencies across the Executive
Branch. We have served in senior leadership roles in
administrations of both major political parties, and
collectively we have devoted a great many decades to
protecting the security interests of the United States. We
have held the highest security clearances, and we have
participated in the highest levels of policy deliberations on
a broad range of issues. These include: immigration, border
security, counterterrorism, military operations, and our
nation's relationship with other countries, including those
south of our border.
Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State from 1997 to
2001. Jeremy B. Bash, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Department
of Defense from 2011 to 2013; John B. Bellinger III, Legal
Adviser to the U.S. Department of State from 2005 to 2009;
Daniel Benjamin, Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism at
the U.S. Department of State from 2009 to 2012; Antony
Blinken, Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017; John O.
Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from
2013 to 2017; R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs from 2005 to 2008; William J. Burns, Deputy
Secretary of State from 2011 to 2014; Johnnie Carson,
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs from 2009 to
2013; James Clapper, U.S. Director of National Intelligence
from 2010 to 2017; David S. Cohen, Under Secretary of the
Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence from 2011
to 2015; Eliot A. Cohen, Counselor of the U.S. Department of
State from 2007 to 2009; Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to
Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012; Thomas Donilon, National
Security Advisor to the President from 2010 to 2013; Jen
Easterly, Special Assistant to the President and Senior
Director for Counterterrorism from 2013 to 2016; Nancy Ely-
Raphel, Senior Adviser to the Secretary of State and Director
of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
from 2001 to 2003; Daniel P. Erikson, Special Advisor for
Western Hemisphere Affairs to the Vice President from 2015 to
2017; John D. Feeley, U.S. Ambassador to Panama from 2015 to
2018; Daniel F. Feldman, Special Representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan at the U.S. Department of State from
2014 to 2015; Jonathan Finer, Chief of Staff to the Secretary
of State from 2015 to 2017.
Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for African
Affairs from 2005 to 2009; Suzy George, Executive Secretary
and Chief of Staff of the National Security Council from 2014
to 2017; Phil Gordon, Special Assistant to the President and
White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and
the Gulf from 2013 to 2015; Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense
from 2013 to 2015; Avril D. Haines, Deputy National Security
Advisor to the President from 2015 to 2017; Luke Hartig,
Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security
Council from 2014 to 2016; Heather A. Higginbottom, Deputy
Secretary of State for Management and Resources from 2013 to
2017; Roberta Jacobson, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico from 2016
to 2018; Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner of Customs and Border
Protection from 2014 to 2017; John F. Kerry, Secretary of
State from 2013 to 2017; Prem Kumar, Senior Director for the
Middle East and North Africa at the National Security Council
from 2013 to 2015; John E. McLaughlin, Deputy Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency from 2000 to 2004; Lisa O.
Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and
Counterterrorism from 2013 to 2017; Janet Napolitano,
Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013; James D.
Nealon, Assistant Secretary for International Engagement at
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from 2017 to 2018;
James C. O'Brien, Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage
Affairs from 2015 to 2017; Matthew G. Olsen, Director of the
National Counterterrorism Center from 2011 to 2014; Leon E.
Panetta, Secretary of Defense from 2011 to 2013; Anne W.
Patterson, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern
Affairs from 2013 to 2017; Thomas R. Pickering, Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs from 1997 to 2000.
He served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United
Nations from 1989 to 1992; Amy Pope, Deputy Homeland Security
Advisor and Deputy Assistant to the President from 2015 to
2017.
Samantha J. Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the
United Nations from 2013 to 2017; Jeffrey Prescott, Deputy
National Security Advisor to the Vice President from 2013 to
2015; Nicholas Rasmussen, Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center from 2014 to 2017; Alan Charles Raul,
Vice Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board from 2006 to 2008; Dan Restrepo, Special Assistant to
the President and Senior Director for Western Hemisphere
Affairs at the National Security Council from 2009 to 2012;
Susan E. Rice, National Security Advisor to the President
from 2013 to 2017; Anne C. Richard, Assistant Secretary of
State for Population, Refugees, and Migration from 2012 to
2017; Eric P. Schwartz, Assistant Secretary of State for
Population, Refugees, and Migration from 2009 to 2011; Andrew
J. Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-
Military Affairs from 2009 to 2013; Wendy R. Sherman, Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs from 2011 to 2015;
Vikram Singh, Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan
and Pakistan from 2010 to 2011; Dana Shell Smith, U.S.
Ambassador to Qatar from 2014 to 2017; Jeffrey H. Smith,
General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1995
to 1996; Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor to the Vice
President from
[[Page S5654]]
2013 to 2014; Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State from
1994 to 2001; Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Assistant Secretary
for the Bureau of African Affairs from 2013 to 2017; Arturo
A. Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary of State for Western
Hemisphere Affairs from 2009 to 2011.
2. On February 15, 2019, the President declared a
``national emergency'' for the purpose of diverting
appropriated funds from previously designated uses to build a
wall along the southern border. We are aware of no emergency
that remotely justifies such a step. The President's actions
are at odds with the overwhelming evidence in the public
record, including the administration's own data and
estimates. We have lived and worked through national
emergencies, and we support the President's power to mobilize
the Executive Branch to respond quickly in genuine national
emergencies. But under no plausible assessment of the
evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles
the President to tap into funds appropriated for other
purposes to build a wall at the southern border. To our
knowledge, the President's assertion of a national emergency
here is unprecedented, in that he seeks to address a
situation: (1) that has been enduring, rather than one that
has arisen suddenly; (2) that in fact has improved over time
rather than deteriorated; (3) by reprogramming billions of
dollars in funds in the face of clear congressional intent to
the contrary; and (4) with assertions that are rebutted not
just by the public record, but by his agencies' own official
data, documents, and statements.
3. Illegal border crossings are near forty-year lows. At
the outset, there is no evidence of a sudden or emergency
increase in the number of people seeking to cross the
southern border. According to the administration's own data,
the numbers of apprehensions and undetected illegal border
crossings at the southern border are near forty-year lows.
Although there was a modest increase in apprehensions in
2018, that figure is in keeping with the number of
apprehensions only two years earlier, and the overall trend
indicates a dramatic decline over the last fifteen years in
particular. The administration also estimates that
``undetected unlawful entries'' at the southern border ``fell
from approximately 851,000 to nearly 62,000'' between fiscal
years 2006 to 2016, the most recent years for which data are
available. The United States currently hosts what is
estimated to be the smallest number of undocumented
immigrants since 2004. And in fact, in recent years, the
majority of currently undocumented immigrants entered the
United States legally, but overstayed their visas, a problem
that will not be addressed by the declaration of an emergency
along the southern border.
4. There is no documented terrorist or national security
emergency at the southern border. There is no reason to
believe that there is a terrorist or national security
emergency at the southern border that could justify the
President's proclamation.
a. This administration's own most recent Country Report on
Terrorism, released only five months ago, found that ``there
was no credible evidence indicating that international
terrorist groups have established bases in Mexico, worked
with Mexican drug cartels, or sent operatives via Mexico into
the United States.'' Since 1975, there has been only one
reported incident in which immigrants who had crossed the
southern border illegally attempted to commit a terrorist
act. That incident occurred more than twelve years ago, and
involved three brothers from Macedonia who had been brought
into the United States as children more than twenty years
earlier.
b. Although the White House has claimed, as an argument
favoring a wall at the southern border, that almost 4,000
known or suspected terrorists were intercepted at the
southern border in a single year, this assertion has since
been widely and consistently repudiated, including by this
administration's own Department of Homeland Security. The
overwhelming majority of individuals on terrorism watchlists
who were intercepted by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol were
attempting to travel to the United States by air; of the
individuals on the terrorist watchlist who were encountered
while entering the United States during fiscal year 2017,
only 13 percent traveled by land. And for those who have
attempted to enter by land, only a small fraction do so at
the southern border. Between October 2017 and March 2018,
forty-one foreign immigrants on the terrorist watchlist were
intercepted at the northern border. Only six such immigrants
were intercepted at the southern border.
5. There is no emergency related to violent crime at the
southern border. Nor can the administration justify its
actions on the grounds that the incidence of violent crime on
the southern border constitutes a national emergency. Factual
evidence consistently shows that unauthorized immigrants have
no special proclivity to engage in criminal or violent
behavior. According to a Cato Institute analysis of
criminological data, undocumented immigrants are 44 percent
less likely to be incarcerated nationwide than are native-
born citizens. And in Texas, undocumented immigrants were
found to have a first-time conviction rate 32 percent below
that of native-born Americans; the conviction rates of
unauthorized immigrants for violent crimes such as homicide
and sex offenses were also below those of native-born
Americans. Meanwhile, overall rates of violent crime in the
United States have declined significantly over the past 25
years, falling 49 percent from 1993 to 2017. And violent
crime rates in the country's 30 largest cities have decreased
on average by 2.7 percent in 2018 alone, further undermining
any suggestion that recent crime trends currently warrant the
declaration of a national emergency.
6. There is no human or drug trafficking emergency that can
be addressed by a wall at the southern border. The
administration has claimed that the presence of human and
drug trafficking at the border justifies its emergency
declaration. But there is no evidence of any such sudden
crisis at the southern border that necessitates a
reprogramming of appropriations to build a border wall.
a. The overwhelming majority of opioids that enter the
United States across a land border are carried through legal
ports of entry in personal or commercial vehicles, not
smuggled through unauthorized border crossings. A border wall
would not stop these drugs from entering the United States.
Nor would a wall stop drugs from entering via other routes,
including smuggling tunnels, which circumvent such physical
barriers as fences and walls, and international mail (which
is how high-purity fentanyl, for example, is usually shipped
from China directly to the United States).
b. Likewise, illegal crossings at the southern border are
not the principal source of human trafficking victims. About
two-thirds of human trafficking victims served by nonprofit
organizations that receive funding from the relevant
Department of Justice office are U.S. citizens, and even
among non-citizens, most trafficking victims usually arrive
in the country on valid visas. None of these instances of
trafficking could be addressed by a border wall. And the
three states with the highest per capita trafficking
reporting rates are not even located along the southern
border.
7. This proclamation will only exacerbate the humanitarian
concerns that do exist at the southern border. There are real
humanitarian concerns at the border, but they largely result
from the current administration's own deliberate policies
towards migrants. For example, the administration has used a
``metering'' policy to turn away families fleeing extreme
violence and persecution in their home countries, forcing
them to wait indefinitely at the border to present their
asylum cases, and has adopted a number of other punitive
steps to restrict those seeking asylum at the southern
border. These actions have forced asylum-seekers to live on
the streets or in makeshift shelters and tent cities with
abysmal living conditions, and limited access to basic
sanitation has caused outbreaks of disease and death. This
state of affairs is a consequence of choices this
administration has made, and erecting a wall will do nothing
to ease the suffering of these people.
8. Redirecting funds for the claimed ``national emergency''
will undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy
interests. In the face of a nonexistent threat, redirecting
funds for the construction of a wall along the southern
border will undermine national security by needlessly pulling
resources from Department of Defense programs that are
responsible for keeping our troops and our country safe and
running effectively.
a. Repurposing funds from the defense construction budget
will drain money from critical defense infrastructure
projects, possibly including improvement of military
hospitals, construction of roads, and renovation of on-base
housing. And the proclamation will likely continue to divert
those armed forces already deployed at the southern border
from their usual training activities or missions, affecting
troop readiness.
b. In addition, the administration's unilateral,
provocative actions are heightening tensions with our
neighbors to the south, at a moment when we need their help
to address a range of Western Hemisphere concerns. These
actions are placing friendly governments to the south under
impossible pressures and driving partners away. They have
especially strained our diplomatic relationship with Mexico,
a relationship that is vital to regional efforts ranging from
critical intelligence and law enforcement partnerships to
cooperative efforts to address the growing tensions with
Venezuela. Additionally, the proclamation could well lead to
the degradation of the natural environment in a manner that
could only contribute to long-term socioeconomic and security
challenges.
c. Finally, by declaring a national emergency for domestic
political reasons with no compelling reason or justification
from his senior intelligence and law enforcement officials,
the President has further eroded his credibility with foreign
leaders, both friend and foe. Should a genuine foreign crisis
erupt, this lack of credibility will materially weaken this
administration's ability to marshal allies to support the
United States, and will embolden adversaries to oppose us.
9. The situation at the border does not require the use of
the armed forces, and a wall is unnecessary to support the
use of the armed forces. We understand that the
administration is also claiming that the situation at the
southern border ``requires use of the armed forces,'' and
that a wall is ``necessary to support such use'' of the armed
forces. These claims are implausible.
a. Historically, our country has deployed National Guard
troops at the border solely to assist the Border Patrol when
there was an extremely high number of apprehensions, together
with a particularly low number of Border Patrol agents. But
currently, even
[[Page S5655]]
with retention and recruitment challenges, the Border Patrol
is at historically high staffing and funding levels, and
apprehensions--measured in both absolute and per-agent
terms--are near historic lows.
b. Furthermore, the composition of southern border
crossings has shifted such that families and unaccompanied
minors now account for the majority of immigrants seeking
entry at the southern border; these individuals do not
present a threat that would need to be countered with
military force.
c. Just last month, when asked what the military is doing
at the border that couldn't be done by the Department of
Homeland Security if it had the funding for it, a top-level
defense official responded, ``[n]one of the capabilities that
we are providing [at the southern border] are combat
capabilities. It's not a war zone along the border.''
Finally, it is implausible that hundreds of miles of wall
across the southern border are somehow necessary to support
the use of armed forces. We are aware of no military- or
security-related rationale that could remotely justify such
an endeavor.
10. There is no basis for circumventing the appropriations
process with a declaration of a national emergency at the
southern border. We do not deny that our nation faces real
immigration and national security challenges. But as the
foregoing demonstrates, these challenges demand a thoughtful,
evidence-based strategy, not a manufactured crisis that rests
on falsehoods and fearmongering. In a briefing before the
Senate Intelligence Committee on January 29, 2019, less than
one month before the Presidential Proclamation, the Directors
of the CIA, DNI, FBI, and NSA testified about numerous
serious current threats to U.S. national security, but none
of the officials identified a security crisis at the U.S.-
Mexico border. In a briefing before the House Armed Services
Committee the next day, Pentagon officials acknowledged that
the 2018 National Defense Strategy does not identify the
southern border as a security threat. Leading legislators
with access to classified information and the President's own
statements have strongly suggested, if not confirmed, that
there is no evidence supporting the administration's claims
of an emergency. And it is reported that the President made
the decision to circumvent the appropriations process and
reprogram money without the Acting Secretary of Defense
having even started to consider where the funds might come
from, suggesting an absence of consultation and internal
deliberations that in our experience are necessary and
expected before taking a decision of this magnitude.
11. For all of the foregoing reasons, in our professional
opinion, there is no factual basis for the declaration of a
national emergency for the purpose of circumventing the
appropriations process and reprogramming billions of dollars
in funding to construct a wall at the southern border, as
directed by the Presidential Proclamation of February 15,
2019.
Respectfully submitted,
Madeleine K. Albright, Jeremy B. Bash, John B. Bellinger
III, Daniel Benjamin, Antony Blinken, John O. Brennan, R.
Nicholas Burns, William J. Burns, Johnnie Carson, James
Clapper, David S. Cohen, Eliot A. Cohen, Ryan Crocker, Thomas
Donilon, Jen Easterly, Nancy Ely-Raphel, Daniel P. Erikson,
John D. Feeley, Daniel F. Feldman, Jonathan Finer.
Jendayi Frazer, Suzy George, Phil Gordon, Chuck Hagel,
Avril D. Haines, Luke Hartig, Heather A. Higginbottom,
Roberta Jacobson, Gil Kerlikowske, John F. Kerry, Prem Kumar,
John E. McLaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Janet Napolitano, James
D. Nealon, James C. O'Brien, Matthew G. Olsen.
Leon E. Panetta, Anne W. Patterson, Thomas R. Pickering,
Amy Pope, Samantha J. Power, Jeffrey Prescott, Nicholas
Rasmussen, Alan Charles Raul, Dan Restrepo, Susan E. Rice,
Anne C. Richard, Eric P. Schwartz, Andrew J. Shapiro, Wendy
R. Sherman, Vikram Singh, Dana Shell Smith, Jeffrey H. Smith,
Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbott, Linda Thomas-Greenfield,
Arturo A. Valenzuela.
____
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 18, 2019]
Pentagon Has Warned of Dire Outcomes if Military Projects Canceled for
Wall Don't Happen
(By Aaron Gregg and Erica Werner)
The Pentagon warned of dire outcomes unless Congress paid
for urgently needed military construction projects
nationwide--the same projects that have now been canceled to
fund President Trump's border wall.
The warnings are contained in Defense Department budget
requests sent to lawmakers in recent years. They include
potentially hazardous living conditions for troops and their
families, as well as unsafe schools that would impede
learning. In numerous cases, the Defense Department warned
that lives would be put at risk if buildings don't meet the
military's standards for fire safety or management of
explosives.
Even before $3.6 billion in construction funding was pulled
to support a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, military
buildings across the country often had been neglected in
favor of other priorities. The defense spending limits that
took effect after a 2013 budget deal designed to end a
government shutdown starved the military's construction
budget for years, officials and analysts say, meaning many
construction projects are long overdue.
The details in the budget documents--annual requests the
Pentagon sends to Capitol Hill that are mostly public--
underscore the risky trade-offs Trump made in declaring a
national emergency that allowed him to divert funding for the
wall.
A Pentagon spokesman did not immediately respond to a
message seeking comment.
In requests to Congress over the past three years, military
officials describe dilapidated World War II-era warehouses
with ``leaking asbestos panel roof systems,'' a drone pilot
training facility with sinkholes and a bat infestation,
explosives being stored in buildings that didn't meet safety
standards and a mold-infested middle school. In numerous
instances, Defense Department officials wrote that the
infrastructure problems were hurting the military's readiness
and impeding the department's national security mission.
Democrats and some Republicans strongly oppose the
emergency declaration. The Senate is expected to vote for a
second time in the coming weeks to overturn it, but Congress
does not appear to have enough votes to overcome Trump's veto
of such a disapproval resolution.
A list of the military construction projects being defunded
to pay for the wall was released in early September. But it
did not contain details of the Pentagon's explanations to
Congress about why the projects were needed--and what would
happen if they were not completed. The Washington Post's
review of the budget documents is the first attempt to detail
those Pentagon warnings.
The Post uncovered budget documents pertaining to 29 of the
43 military construction projects in the mainland United
States--not including those in territories such as Puerto
Rico and Guam--that are being canceled to pay for the wall.
The review excluded two projects that had been canceled
before the emergency authorization. Many of these documents
are publicly available but have not been previously reported.
The Pentagon insists that the projects are merely being
delayed, not canceled, and Republicans say they will try to
``backfill'' the money in question, but Democrats oppose that
strategy. In recent days, the fight over the border wall
money has caused angry divisions among lawmakers trying to
write annual spending bills to keep the government running,
raising the specter of another shutdown this year. Last
winter's record-long 35-day partial government shutdown ended
only after Trump declared a national emergency because
Congress wouldn't give him all the money he wanted for his
wall. (During his campaign, Trump repeatedly vowed that
Mexico would pay for the construction.)
Congressional Democrats have rallied around the issue,
decrying unsafe conditions in their home districts and
nationwide.
``We see across the country--communities, military bases
and people in the military--saying, `Taking away this money
hurts us,' '' Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said
on the Senate floor this week. ``All the Democrats are asking
for is to protect the troops from having their resources
robbed for a border wall--resources that Congress said should
go to the military.''
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said ``it shocks me that, as
commander in chief, [Trump] now insists that it's got to be
our troops, our military families and our nation's security
that have to be sacrificed for his foolishness,'' noting that
$77 million had been ``raided'' from projects in his state.
Ominous warnings
This month, the Pentagon announced that 127 military
construction projects stood to lose funding to pay for
Trump's wall. Although Pentagon officials have expressed
confidence that the projects ultimately will go forward,
there is no guarantee that they will.
In many cases, the Pentagon has been ominous in describing
the potential outcomes should the projects not happen.
The Air Force has been seeking a new training facility for
drone pilots at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico because
the current training facility had sinkholes and a bat
infestation.
It also prevents pilot trainees from operating in a
classified environment, the Air Force wrote in its publicly
accessible budget request. This means trainees could not use
a safety system designed to alert drone pilots to the
location of ground-based personnel, as well as a separate
system designed to prevent aircraft from crashing into one
another.
The Air Force has been seeking a new control center at Hill
Air Force Base in Utah, designed to replace a pair of
``dilapidated WWII-era warehouses'' used for air traffic
control and mission control operations even though they have
been labeled ``structurally deficient'' and don't meet
regulations. The Air Force noted in its budget request that
air traffic control equipment is at risk of being destroyed
by ``roof leaks from failing asbestos panel roof systems.''
If the $28 million project is not finished, the Air Force
warned in 2017, service members will continue to operate in
``aging dilapidated buildings that were never intended for
the purpose they are now serving.''
The Air National Guard has been seeking to replace the
aircraft parking ramp at a New Orleans facility, which abuts
a public roadway. This means munitions-loaded aircraft--which
are kept on alert so they can be scrambled quickly in the
event of a terrorist attack--expose the public to the
``unacceptable risk'' of being affected by an explosive
accident, the Air Force wrote in 2018. An Air Force analysis
calculated that members of
[[Page S5656]]
the public are inside the jets' ``explosive arc'' for about
3,800 hours per year as they pass by the base.
In addition, the shelters that hold the aircraft when they
aren't parked on the runway are on concrete slabs that are
sinking, causing pipes and electrical connections to pull
loose. The shelters also did not have fire protections, the
Defense Department wrote in 2018.
The Defense Department also warned that overly
decentralized weapons maintenance buildings in Anniston,
Ala., would continue to increase the risk of accidents
because of the ``unnecessary movement of artillery pieces.''
The Air Force has been seeking $41 million to repair a
central heat power plant boiler at Eielson Air Force Base in
Alaska. The Air Force warned in its budget justification to
Congress that the boiler, installed in 1951, is expected to
fail within the next several years at a base where winter
temperatures can plunge as low as 65 degrees below zero. That
outcome ``would be devastating to facilities and the missions
housed in those facilities,'' the Air Force said. The base
could be forced to evacuate, and the facilities would then
freeze and require ``many millions of dollars'' to make them
usable again.
The system in question is one of two 1950s-era boilers that
require urgent replacement at Eielson. The failure of the
other one is described as ``imminent'' and also could force
an evacuation, followed by a deep freeze that would cost
millions of dollars to recover from, according to the Air
Force's description from 2017.
`Substandard,' `unsafe'
A different issue looms at Camp Lejeune, N.C., where
medical and dental care is provided in ``substandard,
inefficient, decentralized and uncontrolled facilities,''
according to the military, which has sought congressional
approval to build a new ambulatory care center on the base.
Not doing so ``will result in compromised readiness,
uncoordinated care delivery, and inappropriate use of medical
resources,'' the Pentagon said.
At Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort in South Carolina, the
military sought funding to build a satellite fire station,
without which ``personnel . . . will continue to work from a
significantly undersized and unsafe facility.''
In another example, the military is seeking to repair a
middle school at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, a project that
has been championed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) and that he has vowed to protect even after its
appearance on the list of installations at risk of being
canceled to pay for Trump's wall.
The Pentagon described conditions at the middle school as
``substandard'' and told lawmakers in requesting $62.6
million to repair it that ``the continued use of deficient,
inadequate, and undersized facilities that do not accommodate
the current student population will continue to impair the
overall education program for students.''
At Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, meanwhile, construction
of a much-needed new child-care center has been put on hold
in favor of Trump's wall. The Pentagon notes that the
facility ``has suffered from sewage backups, heating,
ventilation and air conditioning failures and mold and pest
management issues.'' The upgraded facility is supposed to
accommodate 165 children and staff members. As of February
2018, 115 children were on a waiting list to get in.
Joint Base Andrews is also home to the hangar that holds
Air Force One. That hangar is being relocated at a cost of
$154 million to accommodate a larger Boeing model now being
used for Trump. But the new hangar displaces a specialized
area designed for unloading hazardous cargo and a separate
disposal range where Air Force officials could be trained to
defuse bombs. The Air Force requested $37 million for a new
hazardous-cargo pad and explosive-ordnance center, but that
project has been included on the list of those being canceled
to pay for the barrier along the border. The Air Force One
hangar project was left untouched.
As a result, a temporary facility will be provided. But not
replacing the hazardous-cargo pad would cause ``enduring
systemic weaknesses'' at the base, while the lack of an
explosive-ordinance range would ``adversely impact''
training, which would have to happen somewhere off the base
at greater cost, the military said.
Mr. UDALL. Madam President, with that, I yield to Senator Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I join my Democratic colleagues on the
floor to once again speak out against this President and his
administration's outrageous abuses of Executive power.
While, unfortunately, there is a myriad of Presidential abuses to
which I could be referring, today, this evening, I am here to discuss
two of his most recent and most egregious actions that have not only
run afoul of Congress's authority and our constitutional system of
checks and balances but also compromise our national security.
It began with the President making a phony national emergency
declaration to bypass Congress and steal money to build his border wall
under the auspices of a ``crisis''--one of the President's own making--
in pursuit of advancing the most anti-immigrant agenda this country has
seen in generations, all manufactured to secure Federal funds to build
his often-touted vanity wall on our southern border. This is a wall the
American people were not supposed to pay for and that we, time and
again, have indicated we do not want.
Now, one would think this extreme overreach of Executive authority
alone would get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle riled up
enough to defend the Constitution's system of checks and balances, but
in declaring his national emergency, President Trump took his overreach
one step further, ransacking critical Federal funds--taxpayer dollars--
that were appropriated by Congress to fund important military
construction projects and national security priorities across the
country. To do what with? To put money toward building his border wall.
To be clear, instead of Federal funds going toward military
infrastructure priorities such as a new pier and maintenance facility
at Naval Base Kitsap in my home State of Washington that would help
guide and protect our Navy's vital nuclear submarines, those funds are
now going to pay for Trump's border wall.
Instead of our military using Federal funds already authorized by
Congress to increase access to childcare for our servicemembers and
their families, those funds are now going into paying for Trump's wall.
While this behavior from our President is predictable, it is no less
wrong, underhanded, and unacceptable, and I know I am not the only one
who thinks that way.
Since the President's rash move to reprogram billions of dollars from
our military construction budget toward his border wall, I have heard
repeatedly from constituents who are upset by this President's brazen
acts of recklessness and are wondering how the President of the United
States can just step over Congress to do whatever he wants with our
Federal budget, especially when it is on the backs of our troops and
their families.
I refuse to stand by and do nothing while this President hurts my
State and so many others. Why? Because he cares more about his vanity
project than our troops, the military community, or the American
people.
That is why, in the coming days, I plan to introduce new legislation
that will not only recoup the military construction funds that were
shamefully raided for Trump's border wall but put in place new
safeguards to make sure no President today or in the future can so
effortlessly bypass the will of Congress to loot the Federal budget.
We need to put a check on this President, plain and simple. Right
now, we can do so by standing up for Congress and our constitutional
authority to set the Federal budget and pay our Nation's bills.
So I urge my colleagues to join Democrats in voting to rescind
President Trump's bogus national emergency declaration, taking that
first step to roll back the President's plunder and hold him
accountable because as a coequal branch of our Federal Government, it
is not just our job, it is our sworn duty and one this body and our
Republican colleagues cannot ignore.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I agree with my distinguished colleagues
from Washington State and New Mexico for what they have said.
Sometimes casting a vote on the Senate floor is just a matter of
course. It is something we do routinely, often without considering the
impact of that vote on the Senate as an institution, let alone our
constitutional Republic as we know it, but this week's vote on
President Trump's national emergency declaration is different. It is a
pivotal moment in this body's history. It is a stress test of the very
notion of separation of powers. The Constitution speaks of Congress as
being a coequal branch of government. Well, this is going to be viewed
as a moment when Congress either asserted itself as a coequal branch of
government or surrendered as a subordinate to the will of a President
who now claims his powers are absolute.
This is a President who has said out loud that the Constitution gives
him the right to do ``whatever I want as
[[Page S5657]]
President.'' It makes one wonder if the President has ever actually
read the Constitution of the United States. This President is
attempting to ignore the explicit will of Congress by simply declaring
a national emergency to fund his ``big, beautiful'' wall. That is
after, time and time and time again, he gave us his word that Mexico
would pay for the wall.
For 3 years, he failed to convince Congress that the wall was a good
idea. Even when his own party controlled both the House of
Representatives and the U.S. Senate, his tweets and tantrums could not
convince enough Members that his cynical campaign promise was worthy of
tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. He could not convince
anybody, Republican or Democrat, that he was telling the truth when he
said Mexico would pay for it.
So when Congress did not comply, he directed his yes-people to tell
them he could fund his pet project, nonetheless, by declaring a
national emergency out of thin air and stealing the money from our
troops and their families.
He even admitted his national emergency declaration was a matter of
political expediency rather than justified by facts. I remember him
standing in the Rose Garden. He said he did not ``need'' to invoke a
national emergency; he could ``build the wall over a longer period of
time,'' but he just wanted to do it ``faster.'' Once again, the whims
and tweets of the President were used to trample our Constitution.
President Trump's declaration of a national emergency to build his
wall should offend all 100 Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike--
in this body. First and foremost, he is using it to steal $3.6 billion
from critical military construction projects that would benefit our men
and women in uniform and their families. This impacts 127 military
construction projects, including a child development center, an
elementary school, a fire and rescue station--all falling victim to his
fixation on the wall. He is telling the families of our military who
are living in substandard housing--some of it with mold and other
damaging health conditions--that, no, you are not going to get that
money you need to fix that up. I am going to put it toward my wall.
We already ask our military families to sacrifice so much to keep our
country safe. Now they have to sacrifice, yet again, and to what end?
To keep this President's ego safe.
Furthermore, I would note that his national emergency declaration is
a transparent end-run around Congress's constitutional power of the
purse. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution, which I doubt the
President has ever bothered to read, states that Congress--and Congress
alone--decides how to spend Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. That
has been the case from the time of the founding of this country until
today. It is one of the most critical checks and balances in our
constitutional system. In our democracy, Presidents must respect--and
normally do--the appropriations decisions of Congress but, for the
first time, not this President.
I was here when Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act of
1976. When we passed it then, we assumed that any President would have
enough respect for the office to invoke the extraordinary powers
granted under it judiciously and only in times when there was, in fact,
an emergency to be addressed.
But not this President. Where the world sees women and children
seeking refuge at our southern border, he sees criminals and terrorists
invading our country. Where the world sees declining border crossings--
crossings have dropped steeply since June--he sees an escalating border
crisis that only his wall can fix. Facts may not matter to a President
willing to invent a hurricane path with a sharpie marker, but they
should matter to us. We must not allow this President to invoke such
sweeping powers--powers we granted to him for real emergencies--simply
to address some emergency he has concocted in his head.
So this week I hope all Senators, no matter what their political
background is, will think carefully about their vote on the President's
national emergency declaration. I hope each of us thinks long and hard
about what it would mean for our role as a coequal branch, for the
separation of powers, for the Constitution, which has protected our
country all these years, and what would it mean if we fail to reject
this naked power grab by President Trump.
In March, 12 of my Republican friends joined Democrats in rejecting
the President's emergency declaration, forcing him to override our vote
with a veto. I hope every one of us tonight will go home and read the
Constitution and realize what we must do. I hope more Republicans will
join Democrats this time in voting aye on the joint resolution of
disapproval. We must send this President a veto-proof message that
Congress will rise above party to protect what is most precious in our
American democracy; the Senate will stand for the Constitution above
all else; that the Senate will be the conscience of the Nation, as we
should be.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues and
very much appreciate Senator Udall's leadership on the joint resolution
we are speaking to today. This is the resolution that would end the
President's unconstitutional emergency declaration, which is diverting
money from critical military construction projects to fund a costly and
ineffective border wall.
Congress has made it abundantly clear that we did not provide funding
for the President's border wall and that we don't approve of raiding
military resources to fund his campaign promise--which, by the way, the
President vowed Mexico would pay for.
It is important to note that Congress works on a bipartisan basis to
provide funding to secure the southern border. According to the
Constitution, it is Congress and not the President who holds the power
of the purse. Just 6 months ago, in a strong bipartisan vote, a
majority of this body--59 Senators--successfully passed the resolution
disapproving of the President's emergency declaration. Unfortunately,
President Trump chose to veto that legislation, which is why we have
brought it to the floor again for a vote.
It is imperative that this legislative body--this Senate--defend its
authority as derived from the Constitution and protect funding that is
vital to our troops and to our national security.
I think it is difficult to overstate the critical role military
construction projects play in maintaining military readiness and
supporting our national defense. Yet this administration is treating
funding set aside for our national security like a slush fund.
Take military construction, for instance. At the Portsmouth Naval
shipyard in New Hampshire and Maine--it is on the border between New
Hampshire and Maine--any disruptions for funding in construction
projects can result in costly delays to our military's carefully
crafted plans to upgrade aging infrastructure. Delays in projects that
support the shipyard's mission threaten to exacerbate the Navy's
already high demand for submarine maintenance and the projected
submarine shortfall in the coming years.
In addition, New Hampshire's National Guard readiness centers are in
desperate need of modernization, and they can't afford further delays
to readiness center improvements. All those projects are funded through
the military construction program.
While New Hampshire's and Maine's shipyard and National Guard were
spared from President Trump's latest money grab, the same can't be said
for 127 other important military construction projects across this
country.
The 552 middle school children at Fort Campbell in the majority
leader's home State of Kentucky will have to wait for a new school as
President Trump diverts construction funding to the border.
Critical projects in Virginia that would improve a cyber operations
facility and replace hazardous materials in warehouses are another
casualty of President Trump's political games.
The Child Development Center in Maryland, the missile field in
Alaska, the weapon maintenance shop in Alabama--the list of projects
that are affected by the President's unconstitutional mandate just goes
on and on. It includes hundreds of millions of dollars for critical
infrastructure to support the Defense Department's European Deterrence
Initiative. What message does that send to our European allies
[[Page S5658]]
on our efforts to deter Russian aggression?
The impact of the President's actions and Congress's own complacency
is painfully real to the men and women who serve our Nation. These are
the same men and women who are being deprived of the resources they
need to complete their mission.
Perhaps not surprising, there are now reports indicating that the
Trump administration is again planning to take military construction
funds appropriated by Congress to build the border wall. According to
the Washington Post, you can see this pretty clearly. The
administration plans to pitch its appropriations request to Congress as
replenishment money to the Department of Defense for the money they
took this year to fund the border wall.
A Trump administration official said:
The plan is to sell it as replenishment money. . . . Then
once they got it from Congress, they would take it again.
This isn't just a one-time deal. We are talking about the
administration setting us up to do this again and again and again. This
type of deception from the administration makes funding the government
extremely difficult for Congress because we can't trust--we don't know
if the President is negotiating in good faith.
The Members of the legislative branch are endowed by the Constitution
with the power to fund the government. We must be sure that the
resources we provide in spending legislation are being used as they
were intended by the Congress. This constitutional duty is particularly
salient when the President has shown such a flagrant disregard for
congressional intent and the constitutional separation of powers. The
authority of the Congress is very clear: The power of the purse is held
by the legislative branch. Those powers were enumerated for the very
reason that we are here today--to shield against an overreaching
Executive.
This isn't about Democrat versus Republican; this is about whether
Congress votes to uphold its powers and responsibilities--powers and
responsibilities that are enshrined in the Constitution. We must take
action now in defense of both our Constitution and our national
security.
I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect our
constitutional authority as Members of Congress, to defend our national
security, and to support the resolution to terminate President Trump's
emergency declaration.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I very much appreciate being joined on
the floor by my colleagues at this critical time in history. Senator
Shaheen just spoke. We also had Senator Murray and Senator Leahy down
here.
This issue will come to a head tomorrow. We are really at a
crossroads. This body can continue to allow the President to subvert
our constitutional authority to appropriate, or we can take back our
power of the purse and exercise it as the Founders intended. The issue
before us is not partisan; it is constitutional. If we don't put the
Constitution above party, above politics, we might as well pack up our
bags and go home. The voters did not send us here to shirk our
responsibilities. History will not be kind to us if we allow the
Executive to run roughshod over our constitutional authority.
For the second time, we have introduced a bipartisan resolution to
terminate the President's national emergency declaration along our
southern border. I thank Senators Collins and Shaheen for once again
joining this resolution and affirming their commitment to the
Constitution.
Our first vote on this resolution in March passed 59 to 41. We had
strong bipartisan support because the President's emergency declaration
is clearly an end run around Congress. We have the power to bring this
resolution back every 6 months. I hope we can add to our majority this
time because what were once fears about a so-called emergency in March
have become a stark reality in September.
While I firmly oppose the President's approach on immigration, this
vote is not about whether you oppose or support that approach. In
March, a Republican Senator wrote in conviction about the President's
emergency declaration:
It is my responsibility to be a steward of the article I
branch, to preserve the separation of powers and to curb the
kind of executive overreach that Congress has allowed to
fester for the better part of the past century. I stood by
that principle during the Obama administration, and I stand
by it now.
We all have another opportunity to stand with the Constitution and to
object to a President actively diverting billions in defense funding
for a political purpose. Congress, not the President, was given the
power of the purse to make sure taxpayer money was spent on projects
with broad public support.
We have different views in Congress, but as a whole, we have
responded to the American people, and we have not appropriated all the
funds the President has sought for his wall. But instead of allowing
Congress to decide on spending, which is what the Constitution
envisions, the President caused the longest shutdown in American
history to get his wall. That 35-day shutdown caused a lot of pain and
anxiety for many Federal workers and contractors and their families in
New Mexico and across the Nation. When the shutdown didn't work, the
President issued his emergency declaration.
If we allow this President to issue an emergency declaration to get
funding for his wall, we will be setting a dangerous precedent--a
precedent that could be used by future Presidents on issues my
Republican colleagues surely wouldn't like.
The President is now taking $3.6 billion from 127 military
construction projects that we have approved and funded. We all know the
rigor with which these projects have been vetted, scrutinized, and
approved. According to the Pentagon, these projects are necessary for
national security and military readiness, necessary to ensure the
safety of our men and women in uniform and their children. In other
words, they are not projects simply designed to fulfill a campaign
slogan.
Two projects in New Mexico are on the chopping block, and both are
critical. One is an $85 million drone pilot training center at Holloman
Air Force Base to replace a facility that is falling apart, and the
other is a $40 million secure information technology facility at White
Sands Missile Range. Both of those are gone.
In Utah, the Air Force has sought a new control center at Hill Air
Force Base to replace ``structurally deficient, dilapidated World War
II-era warehouses'' for mission control.
In Louisiana, the Air National Guard sought to replace an aircraft
parking ramp in a New Orleans facility that exposes the public to
``unacceptable risks'' of being impacted by an explosive accident.
In Indiana, Army servicemembers have worked in violation of safety
standards for handling explosives and need additional space from
munitions.
In Kentucky, the military seeks to repair substandard, deficient,
inadequate, and undersized facilities at a majority school at Fort
Campbell that impairs the overall education program for the children of
servicemembers.
Back in March, we worried that this would happen, but now it is a
reality. Our men and women in uniform and their children are paying for
the wall. And if we do not stand up and stop it today, it will happen
again and again. This is unacceptable, and I believe it is unlawful and
unconstitutional. We here in the Senate have decided to fund these
projects and others in 23 States instead of a border wall, and with
good reason.
Some in Congress are calling for us to backfill 127 projects and
reappropriate the funds for them. Backfilling does not solve the
problem. It does not repair the constitutional violation. It only gives
license to the President to continue raiding funds we have already
appropriated for military construction projects. Unless we stop the
emergency, the backfilled money will be subject to being raided again.
If your house is robbed, it is foolish to buy new valuables without
putting a new lock on the door.
Canceling these 127 projects is not just a one-off; we all know the
President fully intends to keep it. It has already been reported that
if the President doesn't get the $5 billion he has requested for his
wall in 2020, the administration plans to take another $3.6 billion
from the Pentagon's construction budget.
[[Page S5659]]
I will come back in a minute.
I yield to the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________