Kirsten Gillibrand on Homeland Security Democratic Senator (NY); Democratic Candidate for President (withdrawn)

White supremacists are domestic terrorists

GILLIBRAND: Absolutely. And as President I would direct my Department of Justice to investigate white supremacy and other domestic terrorist groups to infiltrate them, to make sure we know if they're planning attacks, and to absolutely combat white supremacy in society because these groups are domestic terrorists.

Slash the defense budget

SIX CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Tulsi Gabbard; Kamala Harris; Bernard Sanders; Eric Swalwell; Elizabeth Warren; Andrew Yang.

A sizable number of Democratic presidential candidates are doves with long track records of advocating deep cuts in the Pentagon budget in order to pay for what they consider more important domestic programs or diplomatic initiatives.

Public service for young people would change country's heart

Military sex abuse victims can't trust commander as arbiter

In these efforts, Gillibrand stood against not only the entire senior rank of the Department of Defense, but also the presidential administration of her own party, as well as other Democrats unwilling to challenge the status quo or pick what might be an unpopular fight against the military.

I knew Senator Gillibrand was right in her approach, which is why I signed onto the bill as a cosponsor.

Form National Guard Cyber Protection Team

Currently, state Army National Guard units throughout the country are competing to form ten multi-state Cyber Protection Teams as part of the Army's efforts to build up its cyber capabilities. Senator Gillibrand introduced the Cyber Warrior Bill in 2013, which called for the creation of a National Guard Cyber and Computer Network Incident Response Team in each state.

Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell caused 13,000 qualified soldiers to leave

Military sexual assault victims need champion with megaphone

Address backlog of veterans' claims & chronic underfunding

No across-the-board budget cuts to anti-terrorism

Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11.

Congress makes the following findings:
1. Since September 11, 2001, members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces have been sent into harm`s way and fought alongside members of the regular components of the Armed Forces.
2. Between September 11, 2001, and December 7, 2007, more than 600,000 members of the reserve components have been mobilized in support of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other contingency operations.
3. More than 142,000 members of the reserve components have been mobilized more than once during this same period.
4. On December 7, 2007, the conference report for H. R. 1585 offered an earlier retirement benefit for members of the reserve components who are mobilized in support of contingency operations.
5. The House of Representatives and the Senate agreed to the conference report on December 14, 2007.
6. However, the conference report only considers service performed after the date of the enactment, and this effective date fails to recognize the service and sacrifice made by members of the reserve components since September 11, 2001.

Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, and reinstate discharged gays.

Repeals current Department of Defense policy [popularly known as `Don`t-Ask-Don`t-Tell`] concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Prohibits the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or any person seeking to become a member. Authorizes the re-accession into the Armed Forces of otherwise qualified individuals previously separated for homosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexual conduct.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage` and `spouse` and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act`).

Funding wars separately is gimmick against sequestration.

Congressional Summary: HR 1735: The National Defense Authorization Act authorizes FY2016 appropriations and sets forth policies regarding the military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD), and military construction. This bill also authorizes appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), which are exempt from discretionary spending limits. The bill authorizes appropriations for base realignment and closure (BRAC) activities and prohibits an additional BRAC round.

Wikipedia Summary: The NDAA specifies the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense (DOD) for Fiscal Year 2016. The law authorizes the $515 billion in spending for national defense and an additional $89.2 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations fund (OCO).

Opposition statement by Rep. Gerry Connolly (May 15, 2015): Congressman Connolly said he opposed the bill because it fails to end sequestration, and pits domestic investments versus defense investments. Said Connolly, `This NDAA uses a disingenuous budget mechanism to circumvent sequestration. It fails to end sequestration.`

Support statement by BreakingDefense.com(Sept, 2015): Republicans bypassed the BCA spending caps (the so-called sequester) by shoving nearly $90 billion into the OCO account, designating routine spending as an emergency war expenses exempted from the caps. This gimmick got President Barack Obama the funding he requested but left the caps in place on domestic spending, a Democratic priority. `The White House`s veto announcement is shameful,` Sen. John McCain said. `The NDAA is a policy bill. It cannot raise the budget caps. It is absurd to veto the NDAA for something that the NDAA cannot do.`

Legislative outcome: House rollcall #532 on passed 270-156-15 on Oct. 1, 2015; Senate rollcall #277 passed 70-27-3 on Oct. 7, 2015; vetoed by Pres. Obama on Oct. 22, 2015; passed and signed after amendments.

Exempt Veterans Affairs from federal hiring freeze.

Excerpts from Letter from 53 Senators to President Trump We are deeply troubled that your freeze on the hiring of federal civilian employees will have a negative and disproportionate impact on our nation`s veterans. As such, we urge you to take stock of this hiring freeze`s effect on our nation`s veterans and exempt the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from your Hiring Freeze.

• Have you considered how this hiring freeze will affect VA`s ability to provide veterans with access to health care?
• How it will affect VA`s ability to decide on appeals for disability compensation?
• How it will impact those veterans who apply to federal jobs?

Opposing argument: (Heritage Foundation, `Eliminate Redundant Government Hiring,` May 9, 2017): It`s not hard to find federal programs that are duplicative or ineffective. The president`s executive order requires all agency heads to submit plans for reorganizing their operations. Their proposals are to `include recommendations to eliminate unnecessary agencies and programs.` That all sounds great, but what does it actually mean?

Well, for starters, it means the previous federal hiring freeze is no more. But it doesn`t mean programs and departments are free to hire willy-nilly. Instead, they`ve been instructed to follow a smart-hiring plan, consistent with the President`s America First Budget Blueprint.

A few agencies, like the Defense Department and Veterans Affairs, will beef up staff. Most, however, will have to pare down employment. All federal employees can expect to see resources shift to higher-priority ones. Many may be asked to do something new or different with the goal of optimizing employees` skills and time.

Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror.

A bill to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Sen. SPECTER. `I introduce this legislation, denominated the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. Last year, in the Military Commissions Act, the constitutional right of habeas corpus was attempted to be abrogated. I say `attempted to be abrogated` because, in my legal judgment, that provision in the Act is unconstitutional.

`It is hard to see how there can be legislation to eliminate the constitutional right to habeas corpus when the Constitution is explicit that habeas corpus may not be suspended except in time of invasion or rebellion, and we do not have either of those circumstances present, as was conceded by the advocates of the legislation last year to take away the right of habeas corpus.

`We have had Supreme Court decisions which have made it plain that habeas corpus is available to non-citizens and that habeas corpus applies to territory controlled by the US, specifically, including Guantanamo. More recently, however, we had a decision in the US District Court applying the habeas corpus jurisdiction stripping provision of the Military Commissions Act, but I believe we will see the appellate courts strike down this legislative provision.

`The New York Times had an extensive article on this subject, starting on the front page, last Sunday, and continuing on a full page on the back page about what is happening at Guantanamo. It is hard to see how in America, or in a jurisdiction controlled by the United States, these proceedings could substitute for even rudimentary due process of law.`