Relating to A National Emergency Declared By the President on February 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, during the recent government shutdown, there were a lot of budget issues that were negotiated. It was a wide- ranging bill of over 1,000 pages, when it was all said and done, but the most contentious number in all of the negotiations circled around a barrier on our southern border in the highest drug trafficking corridor in the country.

The President requested $5.7 billion to build a barrier fence in 10 locations that the Customs and Border Patrol had identified as the top 10 points of illegal drugs entering our country. That study had been requested by Congress before they fulfilled that study of identifying the highest profiled drug trafficking corridors. They brought that back to Congress. The President then requested funding to build fencing in those areas of the highest trafficking areas.

His request was not for a 2,000-mile-long wall. It was only to replace some of the sections of the 650-mile-long barrier that already exists--areas that were old and ineffective--or to put new fencing in high drug trafficking areas.

In a highly partisan debate, Congress eventually appropriated $1.375 billion to DHS for the construction of additional barriers. It is not even close to what the President and what Customs and Border Patrol said they needed to protect the Nation and members of law enforcement.

During those negotiations, the President announced he would declare a national emergency if he didn't get the funds needed to secure the Nation. At that point, there were two options for people who don't want the President to secure our border. One was to include language in that appropriations bill before it was passed to prevent the President from declaring an emergency action and using any of the funds for that. The second one was to wait until after the bill was passed and declare a disapproval resolution to stop the President after the bill had already passed.

Those who oppose border security chose the second option--to fight the President after passage, which brings us to today.

After signing the funding bill to reopen the government, to deal with the humanitarian crisis, and the flow of illegal narcotics coming into our country, the President declared a national emergency in two areas. He has over 100 authorities; he declared it in two.

One was this. He wanted to replace some of the National Guard members with members of the Reserve. You have to declare a national emergency to call up the Reserve members. So his first request was to call up some of the Reserves to swap out some of the Guard members who were already serving at the border.

The second one was that in one of the accounts that deal with military construction, if needed, he wanted to tap into some of those funds. He was also very clear. There are four accounts they would have access to. Three of them don't need an emergency declaration. Let me run through those.

The first is the $1.375 billion Congress allocated in the government shutdown, ending debate. There is no question that $1.375 billion has been approved by Congress.

There is a second fund where there is $600 million. It is in the Treasury Asset Forfeiture Fund. That fund specifically notes that those funds can be used for any reason for Federal law enforcement. It is very clear. It has wide discretion--any use for Federal law enforcement. There is no legal question that it can be used by Customs and Border Patrol or to do construction of any kind of barrier.

There is a third fund that already exists within the Department of Defense. There are $4 billion set aside in this fund, and it can be used for wide-ranging issues dealing with counternarcotics. There is no question the President can act on anything dealing with counternarcotics with that fund.

In fact, in that fund itself, there is specific language already included in that--and this is up to $4 billion--saying it can be used for construction of roads, fences, and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.

Let me run through this. There is up to $4 billion the President can ask for that he doesn't have to ask for emergency authority at all on. That is counternarcotics, counterdrug smuggling. There are $600 million that have been allocated that the President can use because it deals with law enforcement. There is $1.375 billion that Congress also allocated. There is no legal question on any of those.

At the tail end of that, the White House has also said, after all three of those funds are expended--which, by the way, those three funds exceed the $5.7 billion the President says he needs--the President's request is, if we go through all of those, and we are not able to close that section down, at some future point, he wants to be able to access this other fund.

They have also made it very clear it would be past October. That would not even be in this fiscal year. So really the debate about funding is next year's issue, what is called the 2808 funding on military construction.

That leads us again to this. An emergency declaration really has two questions in it. Is it an emergency, and does the President have statutory authority to take this action? Those are the only two questions on the table.

Is it an emergency is in dispute. There are some folks who would say: I don't think what is going on at the border is an emergency. There are some folks--some in this Chamber and some in the other Chamber--who want to abolish ICE, dismantle a wall, and open the borders. Thankfully, that is a small group of people who do not see our national security as important.

For the vast majority of people, they do see an importance in Congress working on national security and securing our borders. Then we have the argument about how serious is this.

I have had folks who have said to me: It is really not that bad because we have individuals coming but not as high of a number as what it used to be. Twenty years ago, we even had more people crossing the border illegally.

That is not the question that is in front of us. The request from Customs and Border Patrol is specifically for the 10 areas with the highest drug trafficking along all of our southern border. That is the request.

The question is, Do we have an emergency dealing with illegal drugs crossing our border after the Customs and Border Patrol has said to us that we need barriers to slow down the flow of illegal drugs? Are they right or are they wrong?

Among those areas, right now the Rio Grande Valley sector is the highest area for movement of illegal drugs crossing into our country. It is 16 percent of the border miles, but it is 40 percent of the illegal border and illegal drug trafficking coming in.

Last year, just in that one sector, 550 pounds of methamphetamine were seized. This is not at the port of entry. This is between ports of entry, in that open area that doesn't have a fence. There were 550 pounds of methamphetamine seized. There were 1,500 pounds of cocaine and 64,000 pounds of marijuana that were seized in that one section without a fence.

The question is, Is that an emergency?

Last year, 70,000 Americans died from overdoses from drugs that came from and through Mexico--70,000. If we had any--any--issue in America where 70,000 people died, I can assure you this Congress would stand up and say we have an emergency, but, for some reason, there is a dispute on whether it is important we stop the flow of illegal drugs coming from Mexico into the United States. I don't think that should be in dispute.

To give an example of how fast this is changing and how much of an emergency this is, people would say: This has been going on for years. Why is it different now? Just in the last 2 years, between ports of entry--again, not at the ports of entry but in that open area where there is no barrier. Last year, our Customs and Border Patrol seized 388 pounds of fentanyl. That may not sound like much, but only a couple of grains of it--as in a couple of grains of sand--is enough to kill a person.

Fentanyl is highly addictive and an exceptionally powerful drug. It is 100 times more powerful than morphine. It is being laced into heroin and laced into cocaine. It is a mass killer.

Last year, almost 25,000 people in the country died from an overdose of fentanyl. Knowing it only takes two or three grains to be too much to kill a person, 388 pounds of it were seized between ports of entry along our border.

To tell you how it has accelerated, in 2 years, that is a 269-percent increase of fentanyl being captured between ports of entry.

Yes, we have an emergency. Yes, we have people dying in this country due to overdoses from fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, and the problem is not static. The problem is accelerating.

Last year, we had one of the highest--highest--rates of cocaine being picked up between ports of entry that has ever existed in our country.

Last year, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol seized a total of 11,000 pounds of methamphetamine coming across that border. That is the highest year ever of that drug coming across our border.

Undeniably, there is an emergency. The question is, Do we agree or disagree that when the statute says a President has the ability to do a construction, it means he can also construct a barrier? I believe it does.

We have those two questions. Is it an emergency, and does the statutory authority exist?

Interestingly enough, there are some of my friends who are adding a third question. Should the President have that authority?

That is a different question, and I understand that question. Interestingly enough, just a few hours ago, the President of the United States tweeted out--as he is infamous for doing--if Congress wants to discuss should a President have this authority in the future, I am open to discussing that, but that is not pertaining to today.

I think that is an interesting question we should address as a nation--what and how broad should an Executive authority be for a President--but the debate we have today is plain and simple. Is it an emergency, and, under current law, does the President have statutory authority?

My answer to both of those questions is yes.

I hope we continue to do drug interdiction, continue to work through the issues that need to be addressed, continue to do recovery, and continue to help people who are fighting through addiction because we need a healthy nation and also a secure Nation.

For those 10 areas that are the highest drug trafficking areas in the entire country, I hope we close those doors, and I hope we protect lives in the days ahead.

I am going to choose to oppose a resolution of disapproval today that says the President doesn't have the authority to protect the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source