[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1452-S1457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Declaration of National Emergency

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, President Trump declared a national 
emergency 2 weeks ago. He did this in order to build a pet project of 
his. In the process, he said it was his intent to siphon billions of 
dollars that Congress had appropriated to help our men and women in 
uniform. Now, I am not sure what lawyers he consulted, but those 
lawyers seem to have overlooked our Nation's founding document--the 
U.S. Constitution.
  I know the President likes to communicate in 280 characters or less, 
so I will point him to a 77-character phrase he may want to review: 
``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of 
Appropriations made by Law.''
  That is a short sentence, but our Founders knew what it meant. They 
enshrined it in article I, section 9 of the Constitution, and they 
established that Congress--and Congress alone--possesses the power of 
the purse. That Congress has exclusive power over our government's 
spending priorities is one of the most critical checks and balances in 
our constitutional system. The President can propose funding for 
whatever project he wants. He has the absolute right to propose 
funding, but it is the job of Congress to decide where to invest the 
American people's hard-earned tax dollars.
  Let's review the facts. For over 2 years, the President has 
repeatedly tried and has repeatedly failed to convince Congress that 
building his southern border wall is a good idea. He has failed to get 
a deal with Mexico despite giving his word and promising his supporters 
more than 200 times that Mexico would pay for it. He promised that 
Mexico would pay for it while knowing, of course, that Mexico would not 
pay a cent for it. Then he failed to get a deal with his own party even 
during the 2 years when the Republicans controlled the Presidency, the 
U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives. He also failed to 
get a deal after he forced the country into a 35-day government 
shutdown over the issue--a shutdown, incidentally, that cost our 
country at least $11 billion, to say nothing of the number of people 
whose lives were so disrupted that many either lost their apartments, 
were unable to pay their mortgages, were unable to pay their bills, or 
were unable to pay for the medical care they needed.
  Yet, in the face of all of these failings, he has decided to go it 
alone. He has decided to stretch his powers--beyond all recognition--
under the National Emergencies Act. There is no rational basis to 
justify the use of this authority. So we should look at what a 
bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats wrote--a group of 58 
former senior national security officials who had to help secure our 
country under both Republican and Democratic Presidents.
  They wrote: ``There is no factual basis for the declaration of a 
national emergency'' on the southwest border.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Declaration of Former United 
States Government Officials be printed in the Record.
  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:

[[Page S1453]]

  

       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.
       a. Madeleine K. Albright served as Secretary of State from 
     1997 to 2001. A refugee and naturalized American citizen, she 
     served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
     from 1993 to 1997. She has also been a member of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency External Advisory Board since 2009 and of 
     the Defense Policy Board since 2011, in which capacities she 
     has received assessments of threats facing the United States.
       b. Jeremy B. Bash served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. 
     Department of Defense from 2011 to 2013, and as Chief of 
     Staff of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2009 to 2011.
       c. John B. Bellinger III served as the Legal Adviser to the 
     U.S. Department of State from 2005 to 2009. He previously 
     served as Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Legal 
     Adviser to the National Security Council from 2001 to 2005.
       d. Daniel Benjamin served as Ambassador-at-Large for 
     Counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of State from 2009 to 
     2012.
       e. Antony Blinken served as Deputy Secretary of State from 
     2015 to 2017. He previously served as Deputy National 
     Security Advisor to the President from 2013 to 2015.
       f. John 0. Brennan served as Director of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency from 2013 to 2017. He previously served 
     as Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and 
     Counterterrorism and Assistant to the President from 2009 to 
     2013.
       g. R. Nicholas Burns served as Under Secretary of State for 
     Political Affairs from 2005 to 2008. He previously served as 
     U.S. Ambassador to NATO and as U.S. Ambassador to Greece.
       h. William J. Burns served as Deputy Secretary of State 
     from 2011 to 2014. He previously served as Under Secretary of 
     State for Political Affairs from 2008 to 2011, as U.S. 
     Ambassador to Russia from 2005 to 2008, as Assistant 
     Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs from 2001 to 
     2005, and as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan from 1998 to 2001.
       i. Johnnie Carson served as Assistant Secretary of State 
     for African Affairs from 2009 to 2013. He previously served 
     as the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya from 1999 to 2003, to 
     Zimbabwe from 1995 to 1997, and to Uganda from 1991 to 1994.
       j. James Clapper served as U.S. Director of National 
     Intelligence from 2010 to 2017.
       k. David S. Cohen served as Under Secretary of the Treasury 
     for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence from 2011 to 2015 
     and as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency 
     from 2015 to 2017.
       l. Eliot A. Cohen served as Counselor of the U.S. 
     Department of State from 2007 to 2009.
       m. Ryan Crocker served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan 
     from 2011 to 2012, as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 
     2009, as U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan from 2004 to 2007, as 
     U.S. Ambassador to Syria from 1998 to 2001, as U.S. 
     Ambassador to Kuwait from 1994 to 1997, and U.S. Ambassador 
     to Lebanon from 1990 to 1993.
       n. Thomas Donilon served as National Security Advisor to 
     the President from 2010 to 2013.
       o. Jen Easterly served as Special Assistant to the 
     President and Senior Director for Counterterrorism from 2013 
     to 2016.
       p. Nancy Ely-Raphel served as Senior Adviser to the 
     Secretary of State and Director of the Office to Monitor and 
     Combat Trafficking in Persons from 2001 to 2003. She 
     previously served as the U.S. Ambassador to Slovenia from 
     1998 to 2001.
       q. Daniel P. Erikson served as Special Advisor for Western 
     Hemisphere Affairs to the Vice President from 2015 to 2017, 
     and as Senior Advisor for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the 
     U.S. Department of State from 2010 to 2015.
       r. John D. Feeley served as U.S. Ambassador to Panama from 
     2015 to 2018. He served as Principal Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. 
     Department of State from 2012 to 2015.
       s. Daniel F. Feldman served as Special Representative for 
     Afghanistan and Pakistan at the U.S. Department of State from 
     2014 to 2015.
       t. Jonathan Finer served as Chief of Staff to the Secretary 
     of State from 2015 to 2017, and Director of the Policy 
     Planning Staff at the U.S. Department of State from 2016 to 
     2017.
       u. Jendayi Frazer served as Assistant Secretary of State 
     for African Affairs from 2005 to 2009. She served as U.S. 
     Ambassador to South Africa from 2004 to 2005.
       v. Suzy George served as Executive Secretary and Chief of 
     Staff of the National Security Council from 2014 to 2017.
       w. Phil Gordon served as Special Assistant to the President 
     and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa 
     and the Gulf from 2013 to 2015, and Assistant Secretary of 
     State for European and Eurasian Affairs from 2009 to 2013.
       x. Chuck Hagel served as Secretary of Defense from 2013 to 
     2015, and previously served as Co-Chair of the President's 
     Intelligence Advisory Board. From 1997 to 2009, he served as 
     U.S. Senator for Nebraska, and as a senior member of the 
     Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.
       y. Avril D. Haines served as Deputy National Security 
     Advisor to the President from 2015 to 2017. From 2013 to 
     2015, she served as Deputy Director of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency.
       z. Luke Hartig served as Senior Director for 
     Counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 2014 
     to 2016.
       aa. Heather A. Higginbottom served as Deputy Secretary of 
     State for Management and Resources from 2013 to 2017.
       bb. Roberta Jacobson served as U.S. Ambassador to Mexico 
     from 2016 to 2018. She previously served as Assistant 
     Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs from 2011 
     to 2016.
       cc. Gil Kerlikowske served as Commissioner of Customs and 
     Border Protection from 2014 to 2017. He previously served as 
     Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy from 
     2009 to 2014.
       dd. John F. Kerry served as Secretary of State from 2013 to 
     2017.
       ee. Prem Kumar served as Senior Director for the Middle 
     East and North Africa at the National Security Council from 
     2013 to 2015.
       ff. John E. McLaughlin served as Deputy Director of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency from 2000 to 2004 and as Acting 
     Director in 2004. His duties included briefing President-
     elect Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush.
       gg. Lisa O. Monaco served as Assistant to the President for 
     Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National 
     Security Advisor from 2013 to 2017. Previously, she served as 
     Assistant Attorney General for National Security from 2011 to 
     2013.
       hh. Janet Napolitano served as Secretary of Homeland 
     Security from 2009 to 2013. She served as the Governor of 
     Arizona from 2003 to 2009.
       ii. James D. Nealon served as Assistant Secretary for 
     International Engagement at the U.S. Department of Homeland 
     Security from 2017 to 2018. He served as U.S. Ambassador to 
     Honduras from 2014 to 2017.
       jj. James C. O'Brien served as Special Presidential Envoy 
     for Hostage Affairs from 2015 to 2017. He served in the U.S. 
     Department of State from 1989 to 2001, including as Principal 
     Deputy Director of Policy Planning and as Special 
     Presidential Envoy for the Balkans.
       kk. Matthew G. Olsen served as Director of the National 
     Counterterrorism Center from 2011 to 2014.
       ll. Leon E. Panetta served as Secretary of Defense from 
     2011 to 2013. From 2009 to 2011, he served as Director of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency.
       mm. Anne W. Patterson served as Assistant Secretary of 
     State for Near Eastern Affairs from 2013 to 2017. Previously, 
     she served as the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt from 2011 to 2013, 
     to Pakistan from 2007 to 2010, to Colombia from 2000 to 2003, 
     and to El Salvador from 1997 to 2000.
       nn. Thomas R. Pickering served as 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.
       oo. Amy Pope served as Deputy Homeland Security Advisor and 
     Deputy Assistant to the President from 2015 to 2017.
       pp. Samantha J. Power served as U.S. Permanent 
     Representative to the United Nations from 2013 to 2017. From 
     2009 to 2013, she served as Senior Director for Multilateral 
     and Human Rights at the National Security Council.
       qq. Jeffrey Prescott served as Deputy National Security 
     Advisor to the Vice President from 2013 to 2015, and as 
     Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for 
     Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Gulf States from 2015 to 2017.
       rr. Nicholas Rasmussen served as Director of the National 
     Counterterrorism Center from 2014 to 2017.
       ss. Alan Charles Raul served as Vice Chairman of the 
     Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board from 2006 to 
     2008. He previously served as General Counsel of the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture from 1989 to 1993, General Counsel 
     of the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive 
     Office of the President from 1988 to 1989, and Associate 
     Counsel to the President from 1986 to 1989.
       tt. Dan Restrepo served as Special Assistant to the 
     President and Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs 
     at the National Security Council from 2009 to 2012.
       uu. Susan E. Rice served as U.S. Permanent Representative 
     to the United Nations from 2009 to 2013 and as National 
     Security Advisor to the President from 2013 to 2017.
       vv. Anne C. Richard served as Assistant Secretary of State 
     for Population, Refugees, and Migration from 2012 to 2017.
       ww. Eric P. Schwartz served as Assistant Secretary of State 
     for Population, Refugees, and Migration from 2009 to 2011. 
     From 1993 to 2001, he was responsible for refugee and 
     humanitarian issues at the National Security Council, 
     ultimately serving as Special Assistant to the President for 
     National Security Affairs and Senior Director for 
     Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs.
       xx. Andrew J. Shapiro served as Assistant Secretary of 
     State for Political-Military Affairs from 2009 to 2013.
       yy. Wendy R. Sherman served as Under Secretary of State for 
     Political Affairs from 2011 to 2015.
       zz. Vikram Singh served as Deputy Special Representative 
     for Afghanistan and Pakistan

[[Page S1454]]

     from 2010 to 2011 and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense for Southeast Asia from 2012 to 2014.
       aaa. Dana Shell Smith served as U.S. Ambassador to Qatar 
     from 2014 to 2017. Previously, she served as Principal Deputy 
     Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs.
       bbb. Jeffrey H. Smith served as General Counsel of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency from 1995 to 1996. He previously 
     served as General Counsel of the Senate Armed Services 
     Committee.
       ccc. Jake Sullivan served as National Security Advisor to 
     the Vice President from 2013 to 2014. He previously served as 
     Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State 
     from 2011 to 2013.
       ddd. Strobe Talbott served as Deputy Secretary of State 
     from 1994 to 2001.
       eee. Linda Thomas-Greenfield served as Assistant Secretary 
     for the Bureau of African Affairs from 2013 to 2017. She 
     previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Liberia and Deputy 
     Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, 
     and Migration from 2004 to 2006.
       fff. Arturo A. Valenzuela served as Assistant Secretary of 
     State for Western Hemisphere Affairs from 2009 to 2011. He 
     previously served as Special Assistant to the President and 
     Senior Director for Inter-American Affairs at the National 
     Security Council from 1999 to 2000, and as Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary of State for Mexican Affairs from 1994 to 1996.
       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

[[Page S1455]]

     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 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 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,
       Signed,
       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.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the reality, of course, is that 
apprehensions at the southwest border have dropped 75 percent since 
2000. The reality is that many of the southern border communities have 
violent crime rates that are lower than our national average. The 
reality is that the vast majority of the drugs that are apprehended at 
the border are seized at the ports of entry, and a wall would do 
nothing to stop this. The President is either out of touch with 
reality, willfully ignoring it, or not even reading the material he 
gets from his administration.
  Presidents do have emergency powers, but they should be invoked only 
in true times of crises. It is an abuse of power to invoke these 
authorities simply as a political step to energize a President's base. 
It is an abuse of power to invoke these authorities to fulfill a 
cynical campaign promise he never should have made. The President knew 
he would never keep his word or the promise he had made that Mexico 
would pay for this border wall.
  When Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act of 1976 to convey 
these powers to the President, it assumed whoever sat in the Oval 
Office would have enough respect for the office and the power being 
conveyed not to abuse it. President Trump has failed that test. Since 
1976, Presidents of the United States--Republicans and Democrats 
alike--have upheld and passed the test. President Trump has failed the 
test. Look what he wants to do. The President wants to raid money that 
is meant for military housing and military base improvements to pay for 
his wall. This is at a time when studies are coming out that show how 
our men and women in the military are being housed in inferior or 
dangerous conditions. Sometimes the buildings have mold and decay, and 
it affects their health. The buildings are rat invested and roach 
infested, but the President wants to take the money away from them to 
build a wall that we do not need. The President has repeatedly decried 
the amount of drugs coming across our border. But now he wants to raid 
money that Congress has appropriated for proven drug programs and 
counter-drug programs to pay for his wall.

  Let me repeat that. In order to build a wall that would do very 
little to stop drugs from coming across our border, President Trump 
wants to take money away from law enforcement programs that actually 
prevent drugs from coming across our border or from programs that 
enhance military readiness. I wish I were making this up. It sounds 
like something you hear on a comedy program, but it is not comedy, it 
is reality, and I have to ask, what is going on?
  In the days and weeks ahead, the President's emergency declaration--
which amounts to an end run around both the Constitution and Congress--
is going to be challenged, and it should be. Over the past 2 years, we 
have seen the erosion of our institutional checks and balances in the 
face of creeping authoritarianism. The time has come for Congress and 
members of the President's own party to take a stand. Are we a 
democracy, or are we an authoritarian government? It is a pretty basic 
question.
  I have been here with every President since President Gerald Ford. 
They upheld the Constitution, Republicans and Democrats, and they 
believed in the separation of power. All of them did. We simply cannot 
afford to now remain silent in the face of such an unprecedented 
violation of the separation of powers.
  It is interesting. As I sit here, I remember some of my Republican 
friends--and they are my friends--when President Obama was President. 
They shouted from every rooftop about the lurches of an imperial 
Presidency. In every Executive order, they saw a threat to Congress's 
power. In every speech, they surmised the machinations of a lawless 
strong man--a man Donald Trump claimed wasn't born in the United 
States. Now, when they are faced with a President who is literally 
using his Executive powers to fund what Congress specifically would 
not, my Republican friends should echo the same concerns.
  I am glad that some in the Republican Party have begun expressing 
their reservations about President Trump's national emergency 
declaration. Certainly a number of Republicans who serve in national 
security positions who signed on to the material

[[Page S1456]]

I have put in the Record did. But fleeting comments to reporters in the 
hallway are meaningless unless they are willing to follow up their 
words with their votes.
  Today, the House will vote to disapprove the President's declaration. 
I believe that joint resolution of disapproval will pass the House. In 
short order, the Senate will have to vote on it. That is going to be 
the true test. That will be the metric history uses to determine 
whether Republicans are willing to put our country, our Constitution, 
and Congress itself over party.
  While the President's emergency declaration stumbles its way through 
the courts, I hope my Republican friends take a moment to take stock of 
where we are. President Trump will be just a blip in our Nation's 
history. But for the sake of appeasing a man who hundreds of times made 
a foolish campaign promise, never grounded in reality, will they 
forever change the course of the separation of powers in our country? 
For the sake of appeasing a President who detests any limits or checks 
on his authority, will they forever diminish the role of Congress as a 
coequal branch of government? We are the longest surviving democracy on 
Earth today because there are checks and balances.
  I am reminded of words of caution written by George Washington, our 
Founding Father and our Nation's first President, in his Farewell 
Address. The words are as true today, and we read this Farewell Address 
every year on the floor of the Senate. Here is what President 
Washington wrote over 223 years ago:

       It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a 
     free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with 
     its administration, to confine themselves within their 
     respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise 
     of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The 
     spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all 
     the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form 
     of government, a real despotism. . . . If in the opinion of 
     the People, the distribution or modification of the 
     Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be 
     corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution 
     designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for 
     though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, 
     it is the customary weapon by which free governments are 
     destroyed.

  That is what George Washington said. He warned us against despots. 
Remember, this was a man who could have remained President for life, 
and he voluntarily stepped down after a second term. He was a man who 
did that because he wanted democracy to thrive.
  He spoke of the three coequal branches of government--the executive, 
the legislative, and the judiciary--and he was reminding us that if you 
let one encroach upon the other, you start down the path of despotism. 
We don't need that in this country, especially in this age. We don't.
  We know what despots are like. We see them around the world. We see 
them in South America today, in one country in particular. We see them 
in North Korea, where the despot had his uncle executed, his own 
brother murdered, and thousands of people are imprisoned, starved, and 
dying. A despot who continues to build nuclear weapons to keep himself 
in power even as his people die of starvation. In a democracy, that 
doesn't happen. We have checks and balances for a reason.
  I am going to vote aye on this joint resolution of disapproval. I 
urge all Senators to do the same. Have checks and balances.
  I remind the President to treat emergency declarations the same way 
they have been treated since 1976, the way--certainly in my 
experience--Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and 
Obama did. That preserved democracy. Was it frustrating to each of them 
at times? Of course it was. I remember long discussions with President 
Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, 
President George W. Bush, President Clinton, and President Obama. They 
would say: We want to do this. A number of us had to say: You don't 
have the authority to do that. And they realized that.
  It is not the person who holds the office. It is not the Presiding 
Officer. It is not me. It is not the other 98 Members of this body. It 
is not the President of the United States. It is not the Members of the 
House. It is not the members of the courts. What rules this country is 
our Constitution. We are a democracy. We must keep it as a democracy. 
Look what happens in those countries where they ignore democracy and 
have despots. In Venezuela, people are going without food and medicine. 
In the Philippines, where there is a despot, there have been murders of 
people who are just under suspicion, encouraged by him. We have seen 
the deaths of thousands of people in North Korea because of a despot 
who does not care and has no sense of morality.
  America is so much better. Follow our Constitution. Obey our 
Constitution. Realize there are checks and balances. Have both 
Republicans and Democrats stand up and join. Remember what George 
Washington said. It was good advice back then; it is good advice today.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 S. 311

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent 
from yesterday evening's vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 
311, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. On vote No. 27, 
had I been present, I would have been a yea vote on the motion to 
invoke cloture.
  Let me say that a little differently. As I sat, waiting for my plane 
to leave Charleston, SC, to come to the Nation's Capital--a trip that 
typically takes about 63 minutes--3 hours later, I had not yet arrived 
in Washington, DC.
  On a vote that, to me, should not be a vote at all--this should be 
common sense, but it certainly was not common sense, so we had to have 
a vote on an issue that is very near and dear to my heart.
  I will say without any question that the frustration I felt at being 
late to that vote was one that was incredibly irritating and 
infuriating. I had planned to be on the floor of the Senate voting yes 
on a commonsense piece of legislation, the Born-Alive Abortion 
Survivors Protection Act, but was unable to make it because a 1-hour 
flight took more than 3 hours, and I arrived here about 4 minutes after 
the close of the vote, which also is quite frustrating.
  But what is even more frustrating than that is that in a nation of 
good conscience, we would be debating and having a conversation about a 
child who is born, sitting there, alive, separated from her mother, 
that there would be a question of whether that child should be able to 
continue to live.
  This is an issue that has been raised by people coming out of New 
York and more recently by people coming out of Virginia and by the 
Governor--who happens to be, from my understanding, a pediatric 
surgeon--who suggested it is OK to allow that child to die.
  Whether you are pro-life, as I am, or pro-choice, as others, I cannot 
imagine that this would even be an issue of debate or discussion 
between the two sides. There is no side on this topic. There cannot be 
a side about life separated from the mother and whether that life 
should continue to live. This is common sense. This is human decency. 
This is not an issue of being pro-life or pro-choice. This is being 
pro-child, which we all should be.
  So I find myself at a loss for words, standing on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate--where a vote yesterday failed by several votes--having to 
discuss what doesn't make sense.
  I have recently spoken to a group in Charleston, SC, during Black 
History Month, where the GOP and African Americans were in the same 
room having a great conversation about the issues that are important to 
our Nation. We talked about so many of the powerful issues of economic 
opportunity and opportunity zones. There may have been some 
disagreement on whether we should have higher taxes or lower taxes, but 
there was no disagreement on the issue of infanticide. There was no 
disagreement whatsoever. In the room, whether you were to the left

[[Page S1457]]

or to the right, there was one thing that was common, and that was the 
value of life.
  I traveled to Little Rock, AR, this weekend to speak at another Black 
History Month event, where Republicans and Democrats were coming 
together at the Governor's Mansion to have a conversation about moving 
this Nation forward and about reconciliation. In the room, we had 
conversations about the tragedies in Virginia, from the blackface 
tragedy to the issues with the three ranking members in the 
Commonwealth of Virginia. When I started talking about the value of 
human life, the intrinsic value of each human being, there was 100 
percent support that we are a nation that should always value the life 
of a born-alive child. There was not a single dissent in a room of 
nearly 400 people.
  To have to have a debate on the floor of the Senate about something 
that every American with whom I have spoken, in airports or at events, 
agrees there is nothing to debate, frustrates me. So while I am 
saddened and frustrated, I have been encouraged by my fellow 
Americans--from Arkansas to South Carolina, to Tennessee--who have all 
come to the same conclusion, and that is that a born-alive child 
deserves to live.
  We may disagree on other points, but this is a place where there is 
universal agreement with the folks I have spoken to. These are folks 
who don't vote for Republicans or Democrats; they all vote for 
children. They all vote for life.
  We are a nation that must continue to value life. For some reason, 
somehow, this body missed that opportunity to reinforce that value 
system before the American public, to say to each child born: No matter 
your State, no matter your challenges, you have intrinsic value.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Washington.