September 10, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 144 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S5374-S5379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 F_____
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Kelly 
Craft, of Kentucky, to be Representative of the United States of 
America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations 
during her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of 
America to the United Nations.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        National Emergencies Act

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I begin this morning with some news for 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. As stipulated by the National 
Emergencies Act, Democrats will once again force a vote to terminate 
the President's national emergency declaration. The provisions of the 
National Emergencies Act dictate that the resolution of disapproval be 
privileged and therefore must be voted upon.
  As everyone no doubt remembers, the Trump administration declared a 
national emergency in February of this year after Congress repeatedly 
denied the President funding for the construction of a border wall that 
he promised Mexico would pay for. A few weeks ago, the administration 
released the list of military construction projects it has planned on 
canceling in order to steal money for the President's wall.
  The President's emergency declaration was and is an outrageous power 
grab by a President who refuses to respect the constitutional 
separation of powers. I say to all of my colleagues, this issue rises 
to a large and vital constitutional issue: Does our country truly have 
checks and balances, particularly when we have such an overreaching 
President?
  We all must consider the dangerous precedent this would set if 
Presidents could declare national emergencies every time their 
initiatives fail in Congress. It is outrageous. There is balance of 
powers. The President failed in Congress. He didn't say it was an 
emergency then, but he used the national emergency law, which is 
intended for true national emergencies--floods, states of war--and then 
overruled the will of the people as voiced in the Congress. This is so 
wrong. The President has clearly attempted to usurp the power of the 
purse given exclusively to the Congress by the Constitution to take 
funding from projects we have approved and give it to projects we have 
repeatedly declined to approve.
  This goes to our democracy. This goes to how the Founding Fathers set 
up that delicate balance. We have never had such a President overreach 
on an emergency basis. The recourse for such a brazen power grab should 
be an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Congress to terminate the 
emergency declaration and reassert our constitutional authority.
  Most of my colleagues know this is wrong. In fact, when we had a vote 
the last time, 59 Senators--including a good number of Republicans--
voted against the emergency. What adds insult to injury is the 
President stealing the money from our military projects that protect 
our Nation, support military families, local economies, and local 
schools.
  The Trump administration has proposed pilfering funds from projects 
in 23 States, 3 U.S. territories, and military installations in 20 
countries, including $80 million from projects in North Carolina, $30 
million in Arizona, and even a middle school in Kentucky. How do we say 
to the men and women who risk their lives for us and whose families 
sacrifice that the President is taking the money away, and we are going 
to shrug our shoulders--not this Senator, not this Member and not, I 
believe, every Member on our side and not a whole bunch on the 
Republican side.
  We need more people to join us. I hope we will see an even larger 
majority stand up for both the Constitution and the military and its 
Members and their families. Democrats and Republicans alike should vote 
to terminate the President's national emergency declaration, and you 
can be sure we will make sure everyone will have a chance to do so 
within the next month.
  If we don't do it, how many more emergencies will the President 
declare? Whom else will he take money from and to use for purposes he 
wants but that Congress doesn't and that the American people are 
largely opposed to?


                           Government Funding

  Madam President, on another matter, we have until the end of the 
month for Members of both parties to work together to fund the Federal 
Government, one of our most basic responsibilities as legislators.
  At the end of July, both parties came together to produce a budget 
deal that set the blueprint for negotiations this fall. The same spirit 
of bipartisanship is required to move forward through the 
appropriations process, and it starts with good-faith discussions on 
how we allocate funding to 12 subcommittees. To be successful, that 
process must be fair, cooperative, and bipartisan.
  Under a partisan process, we know what happens. We all lived through 
it just 9 months ago. The President demanded funding for a border wall 
and then shut down the government when Congress didn't give in to him. 
Now, just 9 months later, I read reports that Republicans are 
considering going down the same path again, potentially risking another 
government shutdown over the exact same issue. I believe there is good 
will on both sides of the aisle. We want to avoid a shutdown. 
Certainly, Republicans learned their lesson; it wasn't very good for 
them the last time. Both sides want to avoid a shutdown and both sides 
would prefer to have a real budget, not a CR. The way to get that done 
is for both parties to work together and keep the appropriations 
process bipartisan, not for the Republicans to tell the Democrats that 
these are the 302(b)s and this is the order in which we will do the 
bill. That is not bipartisan, and that is not what the bipartisan 
agreement called for.


                           Background Checks

  Madam President, finally, on guns, over the August recess, Leader 
McConnell promised we would hold a debate on gun violence when we 
returned to Washington. Now that we are back, Democrats will insist on 
holding Leader McConnell to his promise.
  The debate on gun safety should be our first order of business, and 
the place to start a debate is a vote on the House-passed, bipartisan 
background checks bill. It is the foundation on which most other gun 
safety laws depend. We can't make a real dent in preventing gun 
violence without first catching the glaring loopholes in our laws that 
allow criminals, spousal

[[Page S5375]]

abusers, and the adjudicated mentally ill to buy firearms without a 
background check.
  Some are talking about the so-called red flag, but the red flag 
doesn't work if there is no background check. Mr. Jones is red-flagged. 
Then he goes online or goes to a gun show to buy a gun without a 
background check. The red flag doesn't work unless we tighten the 
loopholes--close the loopholes--on the background check law.
  Later today, Republican leaders will meet with President Trump to 
talk about the congressional agenda this fall. Gun violence, according 
to the reports I have read, is expected to be a topic of the 
conversation. I strongly urge my Republican colleagues to prevail on 
the President to support universal background checks. Leader McConnell 
has said he will bring a bill to the floor if it has the President's 
support. That means there is a truly historic opportunity for President 
Trump to lead his party toward sensible gun safety laws that in the 
past, Republicans, in obeisance to the NRA, refused to support for 
decades.
  Public support and public pressure is mounting from one end of the 
country to the other, with 93 percent of Americans supporting 
background checks. The vast majority of Republicans and gun owners--a 
vast majority--support it.
  The President can provide Republicans important political cover. They 
shouldn't need it because so many Americans are for this, but they do 
because of the power sometimes exercised rather ruthlessly by the NRA. 
The President can do it. This is a moment of truth for the President, 
for Leader McConnell, and for all of my Republican colleagues.
  The American people are fed up. Too many people are being killed 
across the country every day. Just yesterday, I was waiting at the 
airport, and a man came over to me and grabbed my arm and said to me 
that his nephew was a victim of gun violence. He pleaded with me for 
action. It is affecting more and more people, their families, their 
friends, and their communities. I imagine every one of my colleagues 
has met someone like this man over the past month.
  The Mayor of Dayton, OH, Nan Whaley, joined with Democrats yesterday 
at a press conference--another incredibly compelling voice pushing for 
progress on this issue. We invited her to speak at our caucus lunch 
today. I expect my Republican colleagues have mayors in their States 
who, just like her, are exhausted by the daily gun violence in their 
cities. Republicans have a chance today to convince the President to do 
the right thing and come out in support of a policy that is not a 
figleaf, that is not milquetoast and will do nothing, but one that will 
actually save lives.
  I strongly urge our Republican colleagues and Leader McConnell to use 
this afternoon's meeting at the White House to discuss supporting a 
bipartisan background checks bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.


                      Nomination of Dale Cabaniss

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of 
Dale Cabaniss to serve as Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management.
  With roughly 5,500 dedicated employees, OPM is responsible for 
managing the Federal Government's civilian workforce--overseeing 
government-wide policies for recruiting, for hiring, and training--and 
administering the healthcare, life insurance, and retirement benefits 
that impact millions of Americans every year.
  The Director of OPM plays a crucial role in the Federal Government, 
not only by managing the agency's employees but by serving as a leader 
and an advocate for more than 2 million hard-working men and women in 
the Federal workforce. The next Director of OPM must have a proven 
track record of effective leadership.
  While I acknowledge and I admire Ms. Cabaniss's long record of public 
service, which includes more than 20 years here in the Senate, I do not 
believe that her experience and qualifications satisfy the requirements 
of this very important and very challenging position.
  Last summer, the Trump administration released its government-wide 
reorganization proposal, which includes plans to dismantle the Office 
of Personnel Management as we know it. Since then, Congress has 
repeatedly attempted to engage in an honest and productive dialogue 
with the administration about their reorganization proposal. However, 
they have not been transparent about the repercussions of this plan and 
what impact those repercussions could have on the Federal workforce. 
They have not demonstrated how taxpayers will be better served by their 
proposal, and it remains unclear if they have even studied the full 
impact of their proposal. In short, they have left too many fundamental 
questions simply unanswered.
  The Office of Personnel Management is charged with safeguarding the 
nonpartisan civil service from the political motives of this or any 
White House. During such a time of uncertainty and upheaval, OPM needs 
strong and steady leadership that is focused on good governance and 
that will not be swayed by political whims of elected officials. This 
Agency and the millions of Americans it serves each and every day 
deserve a proven, independent leader.
  Simply put, Dale Cabaniss is not that leader. While Ms. Cabaniss has 
some experience leading a small agency, I am not confident that her 
background has prepared her to provide the stability and the autonomy 
that OPM deserves.
  Unfortunately, after a careful review of Ms. Cabaniss's record, I do 
not believe that she is the right choice to lead OPM at this critical 
time. I will be voting no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  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.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Debbie Smith Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for nearly 15 years, the Debbie Smith Act 
has been the driving force behind our progress to eliminate the 
Nation's rape kit backlog.
  Though exact numbers are difficult to estimate, experts believe there 
are hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits in the United States. 
Each one of them, of course, represents a different story--the story of 
a sexual assault victim. Also, as a result of DNA science, it holds the 
key to apprehending a violent criminal and stopping them from 
committing further assaults.
  Since the Debbie Smith Act was signed into law in 2004, more than $1 
billion has been invested in State and local crime labs for DNA 
testing. This program also supports training for law enforcement, 
correctional personnel, forensic nurses, and other professionals who 
work with victims of sexual assault. Though the primary goal of the 
program is to reduce the rape kit backlog and identify attackers, 
processing this DNA evidence can assist investigations into other 
nonviolent crimes as well.
  Once evidence is tested, it is uploaded into the FBI's DNA database, 
called CODIS. This is similar to the criminal fingerprint database but 
provides DNA evidence that can help identify and convict people who 
commit other crimes. So if it is collected as a result of a sexual 
assault, you may, in fact, be able to get a hit that will help you 
identify someone who has committed a burglary, a murder, a robbery, or 
some other crime. This is particularly true when somebody commits a 
crime in one State and moves to another State--to be able to connect 
the identity of the person based on their DNA, not based on where the 
offense was committed. According to the National Institute of Justice, 
42 percent of hits in the FBI's DNA database system are the direct 
result of Debbie Smith Act funding--42 percent.
  In addition to helping us get more criminals off the streets, this 
information could also be the key to exonerating individuals who were 
wrongly

[[Page S5376]]

accused and preventing innocent people from being put behind bars for a 
crime they didn't commit. DNA evidence is very, very powerful.
  States have seen the positive results of this program at the national 
level and have been following suit. Texas has led the Nation in passing 
mandatory rape kit testing laws, conducting audits of the backlog, and 
using Debbie Smith funds to analyze untested sexual assault evidence.
  Since 2011, the Debbie Smith Act has helped Texas reduce its backlog 
of previously unsubmitted rape kits by approximately 90 percent--from 
over 20,000 kits to now around 2,000. This program has allowed us to 
provide victims of sexual assault with the resources they need and the 
answers they deserve while more effectively identifying criminals 
across the board.
  The benefits of this law simply cannot be overstated, and that is why 
the Debbie Smith Act was readily reauthorized in 2008 and 2014. Now it 
is time to once again reauthorize this important legislation.
  Earlier this year, Senator Feinstein, the senior Senator from 
California, and I introduced the Debbie Smith Act of 2019, which will 
extend this program through 2024. As you might expect, with this kind 
of nonpartisan legislation, it sailed through the Senate earlier this 
year. In fact, it passed the Senate in May with not one person voting 
against it. But here we are, nearly 4 months later, and the House of 
Representatives has not scheduled a vote. If they don't take action 
before September 30, the law will expire--something I hope we all can 
agree would be unconscionable and certainly completely unnecessary.
  The benefits of this program transcend politics or party, and 
allowing it to expire would be a disservice to the victims and 
advocates who have championed this bill for the last 15 years, 
particularly Debbie Smith herself.
  It is time for the House to vote to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act 
so that we can get it to the President's desk without further delay.
  One of the strongest advocates for the reauthorization of the Debbie 
Smith Act is the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, also known as 
RAINN. It is the Nation's largest anti-sexual violence organization, 
and in its 25-year history, it has helped 3 million survivors and their 
loved ones.
  Last week, RAINN held a press conference announcing the delivery of 
more than 32,000 signatures urging the immediate passage of this 
legislation by the House of Representatives. Debbie Smith also spoke at 
the press conference.
  Just to remind colleagues, Debbie is, of course, a remarkable woman 
whose advocacy was born from a terrible personal experience. We have 
had the benefit of hearing from Debbie over the years many times in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  I believe there is no one--no one--who has done more to support 
victims of sexual assault than Debbie, and I am continually grateful to 
her for her courage and her candor as she travels around the country 
advocating for survivors. It can't be easy to talk about your own 
personal sexual assault and how you tried to grapple with the fact that 
your rape kit has not been tested and, thus, you don't even know who 
your attacker was and whether he may show up at some future date and 
try to repeat his crime.
  During the press conference, Debbie spoke about the years of fear she 
dealt with while waiting for her attacker to be identified. She said: 
``The years I spent waiting for justice can never be returned to me.''
  That is a heartbreaking reality for survivors of sexual violence and 
a reminder of why it is so critical to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act 
without further delay.
  While we can't turn back the hands of time and somehow change 
history, we can act now to provide victims with the support, the 
answers, and the closure they need.
  I urge Speaker Pelosi to bring the Debbie Smith Act of 2019 to the 
floor for a vote immediately in the House to demonstrate Congress's 
ongoing commitment to support victims of sexual violence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                            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.


                         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.

                          ____________________