[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 144 (Tuesday, September 10, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5377-S5379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Military Construction

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, the administration announced it 
was going to raid $3.6 billion from military construction projects to 
pay for President Trump's ineffective and controversial border wall. 
That is the wall they gave their solemn word that Mexico would pay for. 
Now the money is being taken out of our military.
  Look at some of the things he has taken money from: a new middle 
school at Fort Campbell, KY, a child development center at Joint Base 
Andrews in Maryland, a new elementary school in Puerto Rico, a fire 
rescue station at Tyndall Air Force base in Florida. These are among 
the projects canceled on orders from a President who apparently values 
his cynical campaign promise over our men and women serving our country 
in uniform and their families.

[[Page S5378]]

  Remember, on the campaign trail he repeatedly promised that Mexico 
would pay for the wall. Supporters cheered about that--Mexico would 
pay. Have my friends on the other side of the aisle forgotten that?
  Now, after unsurprisingly failing to convince Mexico to do so, he is 
forcing our troops and their families, who already sacrifice so much to 
keep our country safe, to sacrifice yet again just to keep his ego 
safe.
  This announcement should outrage every U.S. Senator from both 
parties--not just because it is an insult to our troops, which it is, 
but also because it is part of a larger pattern by the President to 
disregard the Congress and to subvert the Constitution. He is doing so 
not in furtherance of our national security or to address the very real 
humanitarian needs along our border; he is doing so merely in service 
of his own ego, and that should not go unchallenged.
  For those people at the White House who have actually read the 
Constitution, they will find that article I, section 9 of the 
Constitution established that Congress--and Congress alone--possesses 
the power of the purse. Congress's 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 that absolute right--but it is the job of Congress to decide where 
to invest the American people's hard-earned tax dollars. In a democracy 
and under our Constitution, the President has to respect those 
decisions, but this President apparently is willing to ignore our 
country's foundational document, the Constitution, or perhaps he has 
not read it.
  When President Trump declared a national emergency in February, 
citing a crisis at the southern border, he did so for one reason: to do 
an end-run around Congress and the Appropriations Committee and to use 
taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, when Congress 
specifically voted to downsize his request by $4.2 billion. He cited 10 
U.S.C. 2808. That is an authority unlocked by the declaration of a 
national emergency. He used that to raid military construction projects 
to pay for the wall--projects we had determined were important and 
worthy of Federal dollars like cleaning up the housing for some of our 
soldiers and their families. He has done this by contorting the law 
beyond all recognition. He has undone congressional funding decisions 
by fiat.
  This should concern any Senator in a State where critical military 
construction projects are being canceled to pay for President Trump's 
obsession with a medieval wall. It should concern those of us who 
believe the Constitution should carry more weight than the whims of a 
President who genuinely thinks--and he has actually said this out 
loud--that the Constitution gives him the ``right to do whatever I want 
as President.'' No. We have a Constitution because the President is not 
above the law any more than the rest of us.
  Only a few weeks ago, the administration yet again disregarded 
objections from Congress and announced plans to divert $116 million we 
appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security for national 
security purposes, as well as $155 million from FEMA's wildfire and 
hurricane disaster relief fund, and use it to detain more immigrants by 
increasing the number of ICE detention beds and building court 
facilities for the deeply misguided, dangerous, and cruel Remain-in-
Mexico Program.
  The level of funding for ICE detention beds was set in the fiscal 
year 2019 in the Department of Homeland Security Act. That was passed 
by Congress and signed by the President just 6 months ago. It was one 
of the last issues resolved. Like the wall funding itself, it was 
central to the final agreement.
  I had serious concerns with the funding level we agreed to at that 
time. I still do. There is no reason to turn to mass incarceration when 
most people crossing our borders are desperately fleeing violence in 
their home countries, not seeking to do harm to ours. More humane and 
cost-efficient ways to address these issues exist and allow us to have 
a secure border, but a deal is a deal. It is what we agreed to. The 
President signed that bill into law. For the President to undo what he 
signed into law only months later by increasing funding for ICE through 
transfers is outrageous.

  The fiscal year 2019 DHS appropriations act set a level of funding 
that required DHS to end the fiscal year with a debt ceiling of 40,520. 
They now operate at a level of 52,930 beds--a 31-percent increase, all 
without the approval of Congress.
  The President will say he is merely relying on general transfer 
authority provided to him by Congress in the DHS appropriations act to 
increase funding for ICE detention beds. Well, that is ridiculous. It 
is disingenuous and makes no sense.
  Congress provides the executive branch certain transfer authority so 
it can be flexible and react in realtime to emergencies, unanticipated 
needs, and changed circumstances. We have provided this flexibility for 
decades for Presidents of both parties because it was the responsible 
thing to do. No government can anticipate all of its needs at the 
beginning of each fiscal year. We trust the administration to follow 
the law, follow the Constitution, and use the authority appropriately. 
We have done this for both Republicans and Democrats.
  In return for that flexibility, past administrations of both parties, 
they respected the will of Congress. For the most part, when the 
Appropriations Committee objected to a transfer or reprogramming, the 
objection was honored until a compromise might be reached.
  This President, however--after all, he said the Constitution allows 
him to do anything he wants, and we know it does not--has thrown that 
tradition out the window. He has decided that consulting Congress is a 
box-checking exercise to be summarily disregarded. For the second year 
in a row, he is increasing money for ICE detention beds over the 
objection of the Appropriations Committee and in violation of the 
agreements reached in the DHS appropriations laws.
  Earlier this year, he used the transfer authority to divert $2.5 
billion from the Department of Defense accounts to pay for the wall 
after Congress refused to give him that authority. That money is in 
addition to the $3.6 billion he recently announced he will take from 
military construction projects and $600 million that he took from the 
Treasury asset forfeiture account for the wall.
  He is doing all this while refusing to spend the money Congress 
appropriated to address the root causes of migration in Central 
America. So when will it stop? When will Members on the other side of 
the aisle take a stand and say: ``We passed a law, and we expect you to 
follow it''?
  So far, the abuses of authority have been used in ways that mostly 
impact issues Democrats care about. Republicans have stood silent. What 
happens when the administration crosses a Republican redline? What 
about Members from States impacted by the canceled military 
construction projects? When this has been canceled in your State, will 
you stand up for your State? If they will not stand up for Congress or 
the Constitution, will they at least stand up for their own State?
  Last month, the administration threatened to cancel over $4 billion 
in foreign assistance in blatant violation of the law. The funds were 
appropriated by overwhelming majorities of Republicans and Democrats 
after lengthy negotiations between the House and Senate, including the 
White House, and signed into law by the President.
  These funds were intended to implement policies and programs which, 
among other things, fulfill U.S. treaty obligations, support our allies 
and partners, protect the public against Ebola and other infectious 
diseases, counter Russian aggression and Chinese influence, respond to 
humanitarian crises, and counter violent extremism. The President 
backed down from this threat, but what if he had not? And now we hear 
reports that he is withholding $250 million in aid to Ukraine meant to 
counter the Russian invasion of that country.
  This week, we will begin marking up the fiscal year 2020 
appropriations bills in committee. If we care about this institution, 
Members on both sides of the aisle need to stand up for the power of 
the purse, granted to it under article I, section 9 of the 
Constitution. I plan to

[[Page S5379]]

do so by offering amendments to appropriations bills to undo the 
President's actions on the wall and to limit his flexibility to 
transfer and reprogram money, which he has so abused.
  I urge all members of the committee to support me in this effort. Our 
country was built on the concept of separation of powers. This is 
meaningless if Congress cedes one of its most important powers to the 
executive branch or refuses to take a stand when the administration 
overreaches, ignores Congress, or breaks the law.
  We may disagree on the utility of the President's wall, but we should 
not disagree on the constitutional role of this body. The President may 
not care about our system of checks and balances, but every one of us 
here should. Political winds tend to change direction. It is time to 
reassert ourselves and do so before it is too late.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Craft nomination?
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. 
Sinema), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 264 Ex.]

                                YEAS--56

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--38

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Alexander
     Harris
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Sinema
     Warren
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________