July 30, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 135 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
All in Senate sectionPrev14 of 67Next
Troop Withdrawal (Executive Session); Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 135
(Senate - July 30, 2020)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[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.
All in Senate sectionPrev14 of 67Next