[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 144 (Tuesday, September 10, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5376-S5377]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Budget Proposal
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to object in the strongest possible
terms to President Trump's continued raid on the budget of the U.S.
military. As a candidate, the President promised the American public
that he would build a border wall with Mexico and that Mexico would pay
for any wall that he would build. The President has broken his promise.
It shocks me that, as Commander in Chief, he now insists that it has to
be our troops, our military families, and our Nation's security that
has to be sacrificed for his foolishness. Frankly, it shocks me even
more that Republican colleagues in this body seem perfectly willing to
let him do that.
If you will not stand up for the men and women in our military, whom
will you stand up for? If you will not stand up for important projects
in your own State, whom will you stand up for? If you will not stand up
to protect your Defense authorization bill or your Defense
appropriations bill when they are being cannibalized, when will you
stand up?
We will have a vote soon to block the President's destructive efforts
to weaken our military and to trample on the power of Congress to set
the Nation's budget and appropriations levels. I am hoping that my
colleagues, Democratic and Republican, will stand up.
Let me first address the need for a secure border. I have called the
President's insistence on using military monies to build the wall
foolishness. What do I mean by this?
I don't challenge the need for border security. I strongly supported
a comprehensive immigration reform package in 2013 that included vast
amounts for border security, much more than the President has asked
for. The bill had strong bipartisan support in the Senate, but the
Republican-majority House refused to even take the bill up in
committee, much less on the floor of the House. Had we passed that bill
in 2013, it would have been a powerful step forward for immigrants,
Dreamers, employers, TPS recipients, the American economy, and the
security of America's borders.
In February of 2018, I worked with a bipartisan group of 16
Senators--8 Democrats and 8 Republicans. We put a proposal on the
table, a permanent fix for Dreamers and a major investment in border
security. In fact, we put an investment in border security into that
bipartisan bill that had every penny that the President asked for for
the next 10 years, $25 billion, but President Trump attacked that bill
and killed the bill, even though he had earlier indicated that he would
sign it. There was $25 billion for border security over 10 years, with
basic guidelines to ensure that the monies were spent wisely and not
foolishly.
I learned something from that experience. What I learned is that I
don't believe the President cares about solving the border security
issue. The substance of it means nothing to him, or he would have
embraced a deal that gave him every penny he asked for in February of
2018.
He could have had a deal a long time ago if this mattered to him.
What the President cares about is big campaign rallies with people
chanting ``build a wall'' so he can continue to stoke his political
machine. That is what I call foolishness.
It gets worse. A foolish insistence on political sloganeering over
problem-solving is one thing, but taking money out of the military
budget--from key priorities affecting our troops and the lives and
safety of our troops and their families--is something much worse. It is
disrespectful, and it is dangerous.
The President proposes to raid the military construction budget to
the tune of $3.6 billion to build 173 miles of border fencing. That is
an average cost of $4,000 per linear foot of fence. For reference, a
standard 6-foot fence costs $25 a foot, and a standard 6-foot brick
wall costs $90 a foot. The proposal is to spend $4,000 a foot on
fencing.
Let me give you examples of projects in Virginia and elsewhere that
are being slashed to build this $4,000-a-foot fence.
In Virginia, we will lose $77 million in MILCON projects that the
Department of Defense has told the Senate they need. There is $26
million being taken away from improvements to a Navy ship maintenance
facility in Portsmouth. Here is what the DOD said about the importance
of that work on the ship maintenance facility:
[[Page S5377]]
The building has been cited for a number of life safety
violations. These violations include no sprinkler protection,
inadequate fire alarm placement, lack of a mass notification
system and inadequate egress.
IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: Approximately 330 personnel working
more than 256,000 manhours annually, will remain in a high-
risk environment, with continuing significant rework, higher
stress, and additional operating costs due to inadequate
working environment.
That is what this cut will mean to that facility.
There is $41 million being taken away from improvements to hazardous
chemical storage facilities in Portsmouth and Norfolk. Here is how the
DOD describes the impact on that cut and why the dollars were needed:
If this project is not provided . . . Norfolk will continue
storing hazardous materials in non-conforming storage
facilities that do not meet current life safety/fire safety
code requirements.
Noncompliant firewalls, inadequate fire suppression
systems, fire alarms, and inadequate ventilation.
There is $10 million being taken away from a cyber facility that was
recently announced to be located at Joint Base Langley Eustis. Needless
to say, the cyber protection of our Nation is a higher and higher
priority every day. Here is what DOD says will happen if those funds
are not provided:
[We will be] unable to reach operating capability without a
facility that includes the required SCIF--
a classified facility--
space from which to operate. Having the required SCIF space
is necessary for the team to receive the intel and perform
the training required to perform in the cyber mission space.
Continued use of leased space is costly and represents an
enhanced security risk.
Those funds are being cut.
Just to give a few examples, $75.4 million is being taken away from
heating plant improvements at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. Here is
what that means, according to the Department of Defense:
Failure of the boiler is expected within the next 3-4
years.
That was requested in 2017.
Loss of heat and power during Eielson's sub-arctic winters,
with temperatures as low as 65F below zero, would be
devastating to facilities and missions housed in those
facilities. If the situation were deemed critical enough, the
base would be forced to consider evacuating facilities due to
a lack of heat and power. Once closed, the facilities would
freeze and require many millions of dollars of repair to
return to usable condition. Completing the planned
replacement of all boilers will guarantee continued steam and
power generation to support the flying mission.
That money is being taken to fund the wall.
There is $62 million being taken away from improvements to a school
on the base at Fort Campbell in Kentucky. Here is what that means,
according to the Department of Defense:
The existing school structures do not comply with current
building codes, Anti-Terrorism & Force Protection standards,
and sustainability standards.
Heating, ventilation and air conditioning and electrical
systems are not sufficient.
IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: The substandard environment will
continue to hamper the educational process and the middle
school will not be able to support the DOD curriculum and
provide for a safe facility. The continued use of deficient,
inadequate, and undersized facilities that do not accommodate
the current student population will continue to impair the
overall educational program for these students.
There is $13 million being taken away from improvements to a
childcare center at Joint Base Andrews, here in the DC area. Here is
what that means, according to the DOD:
The current facility--
a childcare center--
has suffered from sewage back-ups, heating, ventilation and
air conditioning failures and mold and pest management
issues. This project will accommodate 165 children and staff.
As of Feb 2018, 115 children are on the Priority 1 waiting
list. . . .
Why would we do this to these military families and their kids when
they are sacrificing to volunteer and serve the country--take the
program away, take away the funding for the childcare development
center they need--to spend it on a wall that the President promised
Mexico would pay for? We are now making these families pay for it. We
are now making their children pay for it. We are now making the troops
pay for it.
There is $15 million being taken away from a healthcare center at
Camp Lejeune, a healthcare center for military members and their
families. Here is what that means, according to the DOD:
This project solves the problem of providing primary care
services to the active duty operational forces . . . located
in substandard infrastructure throughout the installation.
[The] current capacity is insufficient and cannot accommodate
more than half of the population resulting in a dispersion of
patients and personnel. [Existing facilities] in some cases
lack basic requirements such as sinks, proper ventilation,
and exam rooms with doors.
IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: Required medical and dental
services for Marine in-garrison care will continue to be
provided in substandard, inefficient, decentralized and
uncontrolled facilities.
My son was based at Camp Lejeune for a number of years. That one
stings. Why would we take money out of the healthcare facility for
marines who are living on the garrison?
Finally, $8 million is being taken away from the space control center
at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado. This is interesting because the
Armed Services Committee just worked together with the administration
to enhance a space force, a space command, because it is a higher
priority. It needs to be. We all agree it needs to be because of
advances that are being made in space capacities by China, Russia, and
other nations. Yet the proposal is to take $8 million away from the
space control facility. Here is what the DOD says that would mean:
There are no adequate facilities located at either Peterson
or Buckley AFBs for this space control squadron. The only
solution that meets all mission requirements is to construct
a new facility on Peterson AFB.
If this facility isn't constructed, the military will be unable to
stand up ``the space control mission and equipment, with operational
and strategic mission impacts due to inadequate facilities.''
We have just reached a deal with the administration to elevate the
space force to meet the challenges of our principal nation-state
competitors. Yet these monies are being taken away.
Will we really do this? Will we really do this to the safety of this
country, to our security, to our troops and their families? Will we
allow the President to unilaterally hurt these patriotic people, when
he has long been able to find a fair and comprehensive immigration deal
with Congress that includes border security funding?
Will the Senate majority say a word, raise an objection, show support
for the military, show that Congress sets the budgets and
appropriations, not the Executive, make clear that no President--not
this President or any President--should be able to move money around at
will to support a blatantly political agenda at the expense of critical
defense priorities? That is what we will be voting on soon.
I urge my colleagues to reject the President's foolish and dangerous
raid on our military.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business
for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.