[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.