Maria Cantwell on Homeland Security Democratic Jr Senator (WA)

Supported veteran benefits in Congress

In truth, Maria voted consistently to support raises for those in military service and those receiving military retirement benefits. During the same time period, Senator Gorton routinely voted against military pay increases. [Maria's votes:]
• H.R. 2401: Included a 2.2% military pay increase; Maria voted YES (11/15/93)
• S. 2182: Included a 2.6% military pay increase; Maria voted YES (8/17/94)

Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

I will work to ensure America's global leadership and national security. My defense priorities include the following:
• Bolster pay and quality-of-life benefits to ensure that the US military recruits the highest caliber personnel
• Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
• Develop tighter "jointness" among the services to enhance capabilities and zap redundancies
• Invest in "forward engagement" to address problems proactively, before they devolve into armed conflict
• Improve the readiness of our troops, creating more flexible forces
• Modernize our military equipment and invest in tomorrow's advanced weaponry.

Federalize aviation security.

Establishes the Transportation Security Administration, including:
• civil aviation security, and related research and development activities;
• day-to-day Federal security screening operations for passenger air transportation and intrastate air transportation;
• policies, strategies, and plans for dealing with threats to transportation;
• domestic transportation during a national emergency, including aviation, rail, and other surface transportation
• management of security information, including notifying airport or airline security officers of the identity of individuals known to pose a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.

Small business in developing homeland security technologies.

Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) small business participation is vital to U.S. defense and should play an active role in assisting the military, Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and State and local police to combat terrorism through the design and development of innovative products; and (2) Federal, State, and local governments should aggressively seek out and purchase innovative technologies and services from, and promote research opportunities for, American small businesses to help in homeland defense and the fight against terrorism. Passed/agreed to in Senate.

Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.

Peace Action, the merger of The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) and The Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for over forty years. As the nation`s largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries. We are proof that ordinary people can change the world. At Peace Action we believe...

• That every person has the right to live without the threat of nuclear weapons.
• That war is not a suitable response to conflict.
• That America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.

The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization`s preferred position.

Maintain role of women in armed forces in Iraq.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:

Expresses the sense of Congress that:
1. women play a critical role in accomplishing the mission of the Armed Forces; and
2. there should be no change to existing statutes, regulations, or policy that would have the effect of decreasing the roles or positions available to women in the Armed Forces.

1. Women have a prominent role in American military history, with involvement as far back as the American Revolution.
2. Opportunities for servicewomen have increased dramatically since 1948, when the Women`s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 gave women a permanent place in the Armed Forces.
3. The Department of Defense began to expand its programs on women in the Armed Forces in earnest in 1973.
4. From 1973 to 2005, the number of women as a percentage of the total force of the Armed Forces increased from only 2.5% to approximately 17%, with more than 200,000 women currently serving in the Armed Forces.
5. The admission of women to the service academies began in Autumn 1976 and has increased steadily so that women currently comprise approximately 16% to 19% of the incoming class each year at the service academies.
6. The current policy excludes women units whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.

It is the sense of Congress that--
1. women play a critical role in the accomplishment of the mission of the Armed Forces; and
2. there should be no change to existing statutes, regulations, or policy that would have the effect of decreasing the roles or positions available to women in the Armed Forces.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee

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`).

$515B for military plus $89B off sequester for wars.

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.`

Military spouses don't lose voting residency while abroad.

A bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to guarantee the equity of spouses of military personnel with regard to matters of residency, and for other purposes.
• Prohibits, for purposes of voting for a federal, state, or local office, deeming a person to have lost a residence or domicile in a state, acquired a residence or domicile in any other state, or become a resident in or of any other state solely because the person is absent from a state because the person is accompanying the person`s spouse who is absent from the state in compliance with military or naval orders.
• Prohibits a servicemember`s spouse from either losing or acquiring a residence or domicile for purposes of taxation because of being absent or present in any U.S. tax jurisdiction solely to be with the servicemember in compliance with the servicemember`s military orders if the residence or domicile is the same for the servicemember and the spouse. Prohibits a spouse`s income from being considered income earned in a tax jurisdiction if the spouse is not a resident or domiciliary of such jurisdiction when the spouse is in that jurisdiction solely to be with a servicemember serving under military orders.
• Suspends land rights residency requirements for spouses accompanying servicemembers serving under military orders.