Directing the Removal of United States Armed Forces From Hostilities in the Republic of Yemen That Have Not Been Authorized By Congress
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support the joint resolution of disapproval and to urge my colleagues to do so as well.
Let's be clear, there is no national security emergency at the southwestern border. The President and his administration continue to mislead Americans about what really is happening at the border in order to fulfill a misguided campaign promise to build a wall. After weeks of threats and toying with the idea of declaring a national emergency to circumvent Congress, the President, in my view, wrongly issued such a proclamation on February 15 under the authority of the National Emergencies Act.
This proclamation redirects military construction funds provided by Congress to the Department of Defense for projects deemed important to the readiness, welfare, and missions of our Armed Forces. This action is an extreme overreach of Executive authority. No President has ever declared a national emergency to circumvent Congress for a construction project he failed to get approved through legislation.
In fact, this authority to use military construction funds in an emergency has only been used twice for projects in the United States-- first by President George Herbert Walker Bush during Operation Desert Shield and then by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/ 11 terrorist attacks--and those projects addressed immediate and recognized needs of our warfighters. While the administration claims President Obama also used this authority, the distinction is, he used it for its true intent, to provide facilities quickly in overseas locations for our warfighters in combat zones. To say those needs are the same as President Trump's campaign pledge to build a wall is simply wrong and misleading.
The President tries to justify this emergency as responding to a humanitarian crisis at the border, but the wall is not an effective solution to that crisis. What he ignores is the fact that the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved $22.54 billion in border security funding in the recent appropriations bill to enhance physical barriers at ports of entry, to hire additional law enforcement personnel, to address the humanitarian needs of migrants, and to increase counternarcotics and counterweapons detection technologies used at the border. Moreover, I would argue that to truly stop the influx of migrants at our southern border, there has to be a much more coordinated international effort led by the Department of State to address the conditions in Central America that cause migrants to leave their homes. Stopping mass migration at the source is the most effective and humane policy.
In its statement opposing the resolution before us today, the administration characterizes increasing numbers of ``family units, unaccompanied minors, and persons claiming a fear of return'' as a national security threat and a national emergency. Let us be clear. These groups of people present no military threat to our Nation. General O'Shaughnessy, Commander of U.S. Northern Command, confirmed this in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 26, when he said: ``The threats to our nation from our southern border are not military in nature.'' So I have a hard time understanding why the administration thinks it is acceptable to use Department of Defense dollars for a wall that would provide little to no value to the Department of Defense in countering the very real military threats our Nation does confront across the globe.
Some have argued that the wall is a necessary response to the opioid crisis we are experiencing. There is no doubt we have a serious substance abuse crisis in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 70,000 people died in 2017 of drug overdoses. That means more people died that year because of drug overdoses than due to car crashes or gun violence. These numbers are staggering, and no community is immune. Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to combat this crisis, passing landmark legislation and historic increases in funding, but the administration has failed to live up to its commitments. A wall will not fix this problem.
Indeed, while the administration would have the American people believe these drugs are coming across the southwestern border between ports of entry--where they want to build this wall--the facts from the Drug Enforcement Agency's 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment reveal otherwise.
In the case of heroin, in their words, ``The majority of flow is through [privately owned vehicles] entering the United States at legal ports of entry.'' This will not be stopped by building a wall.
When it comes to fentanyl, according to the National Drug Threat Assessment, smaller quantities but of higher purity are ``transported into the United States in parcel packages directly from China or from China through Canada.'' A wall on the southwest border will not stop packages of fentanyl coming through the mail from China. Again, according to the DEA, the fentanyl that is smuggled in from Mexico is most commonly, in their words, ``concealed in [vehicles] . . . through [southwest border ports of entry]''--not through the terrain where the President wants to build a wall.
To underscore this point, just 2 days ago, Customs and Border Patrol announced the seizure of the biggest shipment of cocaine recovered at the ports of New York and New Jersey in 25 years. About 1.6 tons of cocaine were seized from a shipping container that arrived at the port in Newark, NJ. President Trump's wall would not have stopped this shipment.
Instead of addressing, for example, the high-purity fentanyl and fentanyl precursors coming from China or improving law enforcement's ability to detect and seize drugs at the ports of entry, this emergency declaration for a wall will divert billions of dollars from our troops and other national defense priorities and will not make our country any safer. Canceling or delaying military construction projects will have damaging impacts to the military services. These projects are intended to improve deteriorating airfields and piers, provide modern training and maintenance facilities, rehabilitate antiquated and hazardous hospitals and schools, remediate environmental contamination at former bases, and contribute to alliance and partnership responsibilities around the globe.
Bypassing congressional intent that these funds be used on vetted military construction projects in order to build a border wall Congress has rejected time and again is an affront to our Nation's system of checks and balances. It is also an abuse of the power of Congress granted to the President to use in times of true security emergencies or in times of war to address the immediate needs of our Armed Forces.
Furthermore, the administration wants to use another authority, title 10 United States Code, section 284, which allows the Department of Defense, without requiring an emergency declaration, to ``provide support for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime of any other department or agency of the Federal Government,'' to include the ``[c]onstruction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.''
This seems to be within the realm of the President's contemplation, but because there is only about $238 million remaining in this counterdrug account, the administration plans to reprogram roughly $2.5 billion appropriated in other DOD accounts into this counterdrug account to use for the wall. We know much of the funds being transferred would not be used for their original intent.
For example, the Army will have excess funding in military pay because it will not meet anticipated end strength, and fewer personnel opted into the new blended retirement system than anticipated, which created savings. However, instead of transferring these dollars to higher priority defense needs, DOD will have to use these amounts for the wall.
Ironically, the $238 million now remaining in the counterdrug accounts will not be used for its original purpose of providing critical intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and other detection capabilities for drug interdiction in the Caribbean, Central and South America, and Asia. It will be used to build a wall that will not solve the Nation's drug problems. We are literally taking money that is now being used to help interdict the flow of drugs through the Caribbean, in the Pacific, et cetera, and will put it into the ground in Mexico, where the drugs are not passing through.
We also know DOD has immediate and compelling needs of its own that we should be addressing. The Air Force and the Marines need billions of dollars to clean up and rebuild Tyndall Air Force Base and Camp Lejeune after hurricanes devastated both installations last year. According to the Marines, it is about $3.5 billion to Camp Lejeune, and--according to some numbers I have seen for Tyndall--it is about $5 billion for Tyndall. Instead of fixing Camp Lejeune and Tyndall Air Force Base, the President is going to take that $8 billion and put it into a wall through the deserts of the Southwest.
What is more important to the national security of the United States than rebuilding our major Marine Corps facility on the Atlantic Coast and rebuilding our major Air Force facility in the Florida Panhandle? I think, clearly, we should invest in our troops in the Marines and Air Force. We know all of the services continue to have readiness gaps in aircraft maintenance, depot maintenance, and ship overhauls. We know there continues to be a shortage of childcare facilities in certain locations, but these very real needs in our military are put in jeopardy because of the President's obsession with building a wall on the border.
As I indicated, the President intends to fill the 284 account by reprogramming funds. Congress authorizes this reprogramming process to allow the Department of Defense to conduct a certain amount of transfers of funds between accounts for unforeseen problems. By tradition and custom, reprogramming is done with the specific approval of the defense oversight committees, but this time, when DOD transfers dollars to pay for the President's wall, Congress will have no say. The administration will only notify Congress it is happening. Again, this is another example of complete disregard for the legislative branch's role, as directed by the Constitution, in approving and appropriating funds for the activities of the executive branch.
Furthermore, the amount of funds that can be reprogrammed in a year has a $4 billion limit, and DOD will use a significant portion of that $4 billion to transfer money for the wall. This means that billions of dollars of other high-priority defense needs will not be met this year, needs like ship maintenance, unexpected fuel costs, vehicle upgrades, and other equipment shortfalls we will see at the end of this year. The Department of Defense is in a situation where they have ships that have to be refueled, they have ships that have to be overhauled, they have equipment that must be prepared for the readiness of the troops that they will not have the money for because it has been spent already, and they have exhausted their reprogramming not serving the needs of the military but building a wall in the middle of the deserts of the Southwest.
We need to address the real issues at our southwest border. To do so, I will continue to support effective border security measures, such as those in the recently passed Homeland Security Appropriations Act to invest in new technology and equipment, increase the number of Customs and Border Protection agents, and make smart physical improvements at ports of entry.
This law also included funding to increase the number of immigration judges to help reduce the backlog in our immigration system, provide humanitarian aid for Central American countries, and address humanitarian concerns at the border.
These efforts are important and appropriate for the true nature of the situation, but I cannot support diverting billions of dollars of money from the needs of our men and women in uniform to fulfill a campaign promise. Therefore, I will vote in support of the resolution to terminate the President's inappropriate declaration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the situation in Yemen and express my continued support for the resolution that is currently before us.
The conflict in Yemen is approaching its 4th year and has resulted in the most severe humanitarian crisis in the world. The human cost of this war is truly hard to fathom. According to the United Nations, approximately 20 million people--or more than two-thirds of Yemen's population--have no reliable source of food or access to medical care; roughly 10 million Yemenis are on the brink of famine; more than 3.3 million Yemenis have been displaced from their homes; and credible reports indicate that approximately 80,000 children have died of starvation and another 360,000 children suffer from severe acute malnutrition.
The international community must come together to demand an end to the violence in Yemen and a sustainable political agreement. I strongly support the efforts of the U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths, in partnership with the United States and other engaged nations, to expeditiously negotiate an end to the conflict and bring relief to the Yemeni people. The December 2018 Stockholm Agreement and resulting ceasefire around the port of Hudaydah was a critical confidence building measure that will hopefully provide a foundation for continued negotiations.
I commend my colleagues Senators Sanders, Murphy, and Lee for their steadfast efforts to keep focus on the suffering of the Yemeni people. As the events of the last 4 years have made clear, there is no military solution to this civil war.
I remain deeply concerned about the significant number of civilian casualties that have resulted from airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition. I strongly supported the decision last fall to cease U.S. aerial refueling support to the coalition, an outcome I long advocated for. It is appropriate for the U.S. to help the coalition avoid civilian casualties, but those efforts have not yet yielded sufficient results. Secretary Pompeo acknowledged this fact when he told Congress in September that ``Recent civilian casualty incidents indicate insufficient implementation of reforms and targeting processes'' and ``Investigations have not yielded accountability measures'' into the behavior of coalition pilots flying missions into Yemen. It is clear that the coalition has not sufficiently minimized the impact of the war on Yemeni civilians, and more must be done. The U.S. should use all available leverage to affect better outcomes.
The resolution before us would make clear that Congress does not support the introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities in Yemen absent an affirmative authorization for the use of military force. I believe that any U.S. assistance to members of the Saudi-led coalition should be explicitly limited to the following objectives: enabling counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda and ISIS; defending the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia and UAE, including against specific, imminent ballistic missile and UAV threats; preserving freedom of navigation in the maritime environment around Yemen; and enhancing the training and professionalism of their armed forces with a primary focus on the adherence to the Law of Armed Conflict and the prevention of civilian casualties. With particular regard to defense against ballistic missile and UAV threats, the United States cannot be in the position of providing targeting information in Yemen that would be misused by the Saudi-led coalition either deliberately or through carelessness.
Continued U.S. engagement is critical to helping to resolve the conflict in Yemen, but any assistance to the Saudi-led coalition should be provided in accordance with the principles outlined above, activities which I do not believe conflict with the War Powers Resolution. From a policy perspective, the provision of U.S. support that could be used to enable offensive operations against the Houthis runs counter to our objective of ending the civil war and risks exacerbating the suffering of the Yemeni people. Beyond the humanitarian crisis, the conflict continues to negatively impact the strategic security interests of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, including by emboldening Iran and relieving pressure on al Qaeda and ISIS. It is time for this war to end, and Congress should take every opportunity to make its voice clear on this point. Order of Business
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source