National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when we ask the men and women of this country to go to war on our behalf, we make a solemn promise to take care of them, to support them while they are abroad, and take care of them when they come home. As a daughter of a World War II veteran, this is a promise I take very seriously, and I know that my colleagues do too.

One aspect of this promise that I have been proud to fight for is the idea that we should help warriors who have sustained grievous injuries achieve their dream of starting families. This is something that is hard for many people to think about, but it is a reality for far too many men and women, people like Tyler Wilson. He is a veteran I met who is paralyzed and nearly died in a firefight in Afghanistan.

After years of surgeries and rehab and learning an entirely new way of living, he met Crystal, the woman he wanted to spend the rest of his life with. Together, they wanted to start a family. I believe we have an obligation as a nation to help them. That is why I have been fighting to expand VA care to pay for IVF treatments for people like Tyler. It is why I was so encouraged that 6 months ago the Pentagon announced a pilot program to allow servicemembers who are getting ready to deploy--the very men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line in defense of our country--an opportunity at cryopreservation.

That is a practice already widely used among the general population. It gives our deploying members not only the ability to have options for family planning in the event they are injured on the battlefield, but it gives them peace of mind. It says they don't have to worry about choosing between defending their country or a chance at a family someday. As Secretary Ash Carter said himself, this was a move that ``honors the desire of our men and women to commit themselves completely to their careers, or to serve courageously in combat, while preserving their ability to have children in the future.''

I couldn't agree with that sentiment more. While the pilot program was not groundbreaking and, in fact, has been used by the British Armed Forces for years, I believe the Pentagon's announcement spoke volumes about having respect for servicemembers who are willing to risk suffering catastrophic injuries on our behalf to tell them: No matter what happens on the battlefield, your country will be there for you with the best care available.

I applaud Secretary Ash Carter for his leadership. It is the right thing to do for our young men and women who have big plans after their service is complete. That is why I was so shocked by one line in this massive NDAA bill before us, a line that brings me to the floor today. Blink and you will miss it. On page 1,455 of the 1,600-page bill, in one line in a funding chart, you will find an attempt to roll back access to the care members of our military earned in their service to our country.

That line--that simple little line--will zero out the very program that helps men and women in our military realize their dreams of having a family, even if they go on to suffer catastrophic injuries while fighting on our behalf. The very program that Secretary Carter got off the ground just 6 months ago, the promise the Pentagon made, this bill throws in the trash.

Taking away that dream is wrong. It is not what our country is about. While I don't know how or why that line got into this bill, I am here today to shine a light on it in the hopes that we can get this fixed before it is too late.

In the past day, I have talked to both the chair and ranking member, and I am hopeful that we can change course. We simply cannot allow this provision or others like it to slip through the cracks and continue to chip away at the care that these servicemembers deserve. That is not what this country is about. Many of my colleagues are so quick to honor our military members with their words, but our servicemembers need to see that same commitment with their actions.

That is why I am here today urging my colleagues to keep this vital service intact for members of our military. We can take action that truly shows our servicemembers and our veterans that we understand this service is a cost of war and it is a cost that we, as a country, are willing to take on.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am on the floor this afternoon, along with my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Connecticut. He is going to be here shortly to speak as well, and I thank him for his leadership throughout the NDAA process.

We are here because we strongly believe that in Congress we should be working on ways to boost economic security for more families and help our economy grow from the middle out, not from the top down. A fundamental part of that is making sure our companies pay workers fairly and provide them with safe workplaces and treat them with respect. Unfortunately, Senator Blumenthal and I have come to the floor to speak against a provision that would seriously undermine the spirit of bipartisanship we have cultivated thus far.

As it stands, this bill contains a provision that would help shield defense contractors that steal money out of their workers' paychecks or refuse to pay the minimum wage. It would help protect the companies that violate workplace safety laws while receiving taxpayer dollars, and it would allow companies with a history of discriminating against women, people of color, and individuals with disabilities to continue receiving defense contracts, and to me that is unacceptable.

For too long, the Federal Government has awarded billions of taxpayer dollars to companies that rob workers of their paychecks and fail to maintain safe working conditions. To help right those wrongs, President Obama issued the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order, and I was very proud to support him.

Under the new proposed guidelines, when a company applies for a Federal contract, they will need to be upfront about their safety, health, and labor violations over the past 3 years. That way, government agencies can consider an employer's record of providing workers with a safe workplace and paying workers what they have earned before granting or renewing Federal contracts. To be clear, the new rules do not prevent these companies from winning Federal contracts. The new protections will just improve transparency so government agencies are aware of the company's violations and can help them come into compliance with the law. These are worker protection laws that are already on the books, including laws that affect our veterans, such as the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.

This will have some major benefits for our workers and taxpayers. First of all, it will help hold Federal contractors accountable. American taxpayers should have the basic guarantee that their dollars are going to responsible contractors that will not steal from their workers or expose their workers to safety hazards. This will help protect basic worker rights and that in turn will help expand economic security for more working families and, finally, this new protection will help level the playing field for businesses that follow our laws.

These businesses should not have to compete with corporations that cut corners and put their workers' safety at risk or cheat workers on their paychecks. It will also have another benefit. Some of these same irresponsible companies that exploit their workers are also irresponsible when it comes to staying on schedule and on budget.

One report found that among the companies that had the most egregious workplace violations between 2005 and 2009, one-quarter of them also had significant performance problems like cost overruns and schedule delays. So these new rules will help the Federal Government choose contractors that are actually efficient and effective, which in return will help save taxpayer dollars.

Rewarding efficient and effective contractors should be a bipartisan goal, but unfortunately some of my colleagues want to give defense contractors a special carve-out from these crucial accountability measures and, to me, that is unacceptable.

It is time to stop rewarding Federal contractors that have a history of violating workers' rights. That is why I support the amendment of my colleague from Connecticut, which will make sure the Defense Department considers all companies' full record before granting or renewing their Federal contracts.

Like many of our colleagues, I am focused on leveling the playing field for companies that do the right thing by their workers, protect American taxpayers, and boost economic security for our workers. That is why I remain strongly opposed to the damaging provision in the underlying bill, and I do hope our colleagues will join us in supporting our amendment to undo the carve-out and allow these critical protections for our workers to be implemented as they were intended.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source