[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 135 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4603-S4604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Troop Withdrawal

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am vice chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee. It is an awesome responsibility and 
assignment. We end up dealing with over 50 percent of the discretionary 
domestic spending each year in the United States. I work with my 
chairman, Senator Shelby, and I have worked with others in the past 
trying to keep up with a changing environment in the world and a 
changing agenda in Washington. Many of the briefings I receive are open 
and public, and many are also classified.
  Last week, I met with the top U.S. commander in Europe, General Tod 
Wolters. General Wolters provided for me and Senator Shelby a 
classified briefing on the Trump administration's plans to remove 
almost 12,000 American troops from Germany. Yesterday, the Secretary of 
Defense, Mark Esper, made a similar briefing but publicly to the press.
  I am extremely concerned by both the classified and unclassified 
information I have been given about this plan and by the differences in 
the briefing I received compared to the public announcements from the 
Secretary of Defense yesterday. Let me start off by saying that this 
plan makes no sense. While some are framing this as an improvement of 
our military posture in Europe, I don't buy it. Nobody else should 
either.

  Germany now spends 1.3 percent of its gross domestic product on 
defense. Along with a majority of NATO members, Germany has agreed to 
reach a goal of 2 percent of GDP on defense. Germany ought to make good 
on its word; that is for sure. But to be clear, many, including 
President Trump, fail to appreciate that there is much more to NATO's 
importance than simply meeting a spending goal. In fact, there are many 
important ways to evaluate this historic NATO alliance and judge the 
commitment of each member, including the political will of its leaders, 
its shared vision and values, and the interoperability of our military 
through regular training. All of these things add to NATO's deterrence. 
But President Trump is clearly just using this argument about the 
percentage contribution and insufficient spending to drive a petty and 
personal grudge against Germany.
  How do we know this? Because--listen to this--the countries that 
would be receiving our troops transferred out of Germany also do not 
meet the 2 percent goal.
  President Trump was reportedly angry that German Chancellor Merkel 
declined an invitation for an in-person G7 summit in the United States 
in the middle of this global pandemic. Think

[[Page S4604]]

of that: She was worried about the health consequences of such a 
meeting. We are canceling gatherings right and left in America because 
of a genuine concern we have for the well-being of one another. 
Chancellor Merkel's position is hardly unreasonable. It makes sense. 
Many of the statements and conduct from the President Trump do not.
  Amidst this snub to our NATO allies, President Trump continues to try 
to bring President Putin and Russia into the G7, even after reports 
about Russian bounties being put on American soldiers in Afghanistan 
and the President's failure time and again since this has been 
disclosed to raise the issue with Vladimir Putin.
  During the briefing last week, I understood there would be a 
distributive process for planning how these troops would be moved and 
when they would be moved. We would discuss the infrastructure that 
needs to be built in the United States as well as in Europe, and we 
would be in close consultation with our allies in the process.
  In contrast, the Vice Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, General 
Hyten, stated yesterday that there is a planning process occurring. He 
also went on to say that ``we'll start moving right away with forces 
moving right away.'' Really? Without the planning? It sounds like this 
general is snapping to the attention of the President, who is 
determined to poke the German Chancellor in the eye. Shouldn't our 
highest priority be the defense of America rather than a spite match?
  If I am confused about how quickly this plan has unfolded, I will bet 
the rest of our NATO allies are as well.
  I might also say that I received a preliminary cost estimate on how 
much American taxpayers will have to pay for this political adventure 
by President Trump. This figure is still classified. I am sorry that it 
is, but I can assure you the costs are substantial. Secretary Esper was 
dismissive yesterday of its cost; he should not be. It is substantial.
  Hiding the costs of this troop realignment plan brings to mind the 
President's campaign promise that Mexico was going to pay for our 
border wall. In reality, the Department of Defense paid for a large 
part of it because the President diverted funds appropriated for our 
national defense to this Captain Queeg venture of his on our southern 
border.
  The Defense Department should make cost estimates of this plan public 
today. Let the American people know what the President expects us to 
spend in order for him to get the last word with Angela Merkel. The 
American people ought to decide for themselves whether this is a cost 
worth bearing.
  Let me tell you what has been conspicuously absent from both public 
and private briefings, and that is whether our commitment to our real 
allies in Europe and NATO is really designed to address the frontline 
of potential Russian aggression and provocation. I know what that 
frontline is, and most people do as well--the Baltics and Poland. 
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland--here are four countries that 
have the most to lose if Putin chooses a path to war. Each of them 
meets and exceeds the spending goals for NATO. But this plan for the 
reallocation and reassignment of U.S. troops does not help these four 
countries.
  I went through the briefing. Those four countries weren't raised in 
the briefing. I raised them in a question afterward: Why are these 
countries being overlooked if we are moving troops to make Europe 
safer? Instead, the Department of Defense yesterday threw in as an 
aside a vague assurance--maybe just a possibility--that sometime, maybe 
in the future, more American troops might rotate through those 
countries for short periods of time. Major parts of the plan that I saw 
and part of the plan that was released yesterday actually move American 
troops and NATO allies further away from Russia.
  Vladimir Putin is getting the last laugh again when it comes to this 
President. Vladimir Putin fears a united NATO. Sadly, President Trump 
has done everything he can to divide and diminish that NATO alliance. 
President Putin believes that as long as that NATO alliance is divided, 
he is in a stronger bargaining position. Sadly, he is right.
  NATO is the most successful alliance in American history. Instead of 
strengthening it, the President of the United States is weakening it. 
Instead of leading it, he is undermining it. The best way to reassure 
our allies that we are with them is to scrap this plan now.
  If this administration is so confident about how good an idea this 
is, tell the American people how much it is going to cost and explain 
why we are not reallocating our forces in Europe to the real frontline 
in Poland and the Baltics. Instead of pulling back our troops, we 
should be withdrawing this half-baked plan and start over anew with a 
focus on stopping aggression from Vladimir Putin and standing behind 
our traditional allies.
  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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.