Order raises funding concerns
Diversion of military monies for wall could affect projects in state
The White House announcement last week that it would seek to divert $3.6 billion in military construction money for U.s.-mexico border wall construction under President Trump’s national emergency declaration sent lawmakers scrambling to find out if local projects would take a hit.
Fort Drum, the sprawling 168-square-mile Army post outside Watertown, appears safe for now.
A House Appropriations list of vulnerable projects does not include Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain Division.
But Rep. Elise Stefanik, Rschuylerville, and Watertownarea boosters of Fort Drum are
taking nothing for granted.
“The House needs to work together on a bipartisan legislative solution to fund comprehensive border security,” said Stefanik in a statement Monday. “I will continue to advocate that all Fort Drum projects be fully funded and appropriated.”
Stefanik, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, is emphatic in her continued belief that Fort Drum is the ideal location for an East Coast missile site.
Now in her third term representing the North Country 21st Congressional District, Stefanik has made preserving Fort Drum a top item on her legislative agenda.
Fort Drum is the largest single employer in upstate New York, with 15,110 soldiers and 3,722 civilians working on or near the post, and a total economic impact above $1.2 billion — a huge asset for the rural area between the Adirondacks and the Thousand Islands area of the St. Lawrence River.
Tom Carman, Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization chair, said he did not want to comment without seeing details of Trump’s plan. But, he said, “there is no doubt Fort Drum has seen significant improvements over the past few years.”
Among the potential losers among military installations in New York is the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The House Appropriations Committee’s list of vulnerable projects
includes $160 million for a parking structure and engineering center at the academy.
“It doesn’t matter if you support building a wall or not,” said Rep. Sean Maloney, whose district includes West Point. “We can’t steal funding from the next generation of military leaders to do it.”
Fort Drum is the largest military installation in the state. The Air Force operates a runway ready to take troops to battle zones within 96 hours of notification. Along with Alaska, it is a prime point for cold-weather training for the Army, Army National Guard and reservists. It is the home of the 10th Mountain Division, which has regularly had troops deployed to Afghanistan and other points overseas.
In an era of increasing military base closures, Fort Drum got a new lease on life in 2015 when then-secretary of Defense Ashton Carter traveled to the post to say, “Fort Drum
isn’t going anywhere.”
President Trump came to Fort Drum to sign the annual military authorization bill last year.
With its military purpose assured, the Army Corps of Engineers in 2017 awarded construction contracts totaling $22.2 million, up almost 10 percent from the year before.
Trump unveiled the emergency declaration after Congress last week approved appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security that included $1.375 billion for border security but no wall. Both parties were eager to avoid closing the government on the heels of the 35-day shutdown over the wall, which ended Jan. 25.
After announcement of the emergency declaration, Trump’s chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters that notwithstanding Congress, the president ultimately could have more than $8 billion to draw on for the wall — including
$3.6 billion diverted from military construction.
A coalition of 16 states, including California and New York, Monday challenged Trump in court over his plan to use emergency powers. Democrats and many legal experts say it flies in the face of the clause in the Constitution that states “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, said in an interview that the president himself had undercut his argument that there was an emergency in the border.
“Probably the best evidence is the president’s own words,” he said, referring to Trump’s speech Friday, when he said, “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”
The lawsuit, California et al. v. Trump et al., says that the plaintiff states are going to court
to protect their residents, natural resources and economic interests. “Contrary to the will of Congress, the president has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-mexico border,” the lawsuit says.
Congress is on its own separate track to challenge the president’s declaration. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives may take a two-prong approach when it returns from a recess. One would be to bring its own lawsuit.
Lawmakers could vote to override the declaration that an emergency exists, but it is doubtful that the votes are there to override
Trump’s certain veto.
Stefanik voted for the funding agreement last week and criticized Trump for attempting to build the wall via declaration of a national emergency.
“I believe that declaring a national emergency is the wrong decision and will be challenged in the courts,” she said last week.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-VA., Hillary Clinton’s running mate in the 2016 presidential race, wrote a letter to acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan stating that the military has a maintenance backlog of $116 billion, and also that 23 percent of its facilities are in “poor condition” and another 9 percent are in “failing condition.”
“I am concerned that a project that the President stated would be paid for by Mexico will now be borne by service members and their families,” he wrote.