National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

Floor Speech

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the great passion and sincerity with which our colleague from Massachusetts brings to this subject, but there is a time and a place for everything, and this is not the time--16 days into the Defense authorization bill which should have been finished a long time ago--to inject extraneous matters and matters which, as I will explain, have been poorly thought out and not completely aired by the Members of Congress.

A few blocks from here is the United States Supreme Court building, and above the entry to that building reads the motto ``Equal Justice Under The Law.'' Equal justice under the law. Too many people have sacrificed too much for too long to make sure that guarantee of equal justice under the law is a reality for Congress to continue down the path to treat some crimes unequal from others.

Every civilized Nation recognizes that all people deserve equal protection from criminal attacks. Unfortunately, there are some who reject that notion. But they are brought before the bar of justice, tried, many convicted, and many punished according to the laws we have on our books at the State level and, yes, even at the Federal level. I fear by trying to inject this extraneous matter on to a Defense authorization bill without adequate time for deliberation and discussion and inquiry, that Congress and the Senate in particular are being asked to pass on legislation without full knowledge of the consequences of the legislation.

For example, under current Federal law, an individual who violates current Federal hate crimes law can be given the death penalty by a jury in appropriate circumstances. Under this legislation the Senate is being asked to vote on today, the death penalty is not available for violating this particular amendment or this particular legislative language.

Thus, James Byrd's killers were convicted under State law, and according to a jury verdict, after exhausting all appellate remedies, were ultimately executed. If the same individuals committing those heinous acts back then were charged by a Federal prosecutor under this bill, they could not be given the death penalty by the jury. That is only one example of how this particular provision has not been thoroughly thought out or the consequences thoroughly vetted.

I will be very clear. I don't support this legislation on the merits because I do believe in equal justice under the law. I believe individuals ought to be treated as individuals and not as members of groups, and that all human beings are entitled to the dignity God gave them by creating them, and they all ought to come equally before the bar of justice when they are accused of crimes and be given equal justice under the law. It is a mistake, in my judgment, to begin to treat people unequally based on the same conduct because of notions that some crimes are simply more despicable than others based upon the individual against whom they are perpetrated.

All crimes of violence are crimes of hate. All ought to be judged according to the same criteria. All ought to be subject to the same range of punishments given to juries able to convict people based on evidence in court, not based on a politically correct notion that some crimes are more heinous than others. All crimes of violence are heinous and all ought to be punished equally under the law.

The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has alluded to the threat of a Presidential veto of this legislation if this amendment is passed, thus, making one of my points, that by introducing this amendment on the Defense authorization bill, the sponsors of this amendment are jeopardizing our ability to pass a Defense authorization bill.

It is worth recounting what it is the Defense authorization bill provides and what they are putting in jeopardy by insisting on this extraneous amendment at this time: a pay raise of 3 percent; the authority to pay bonuses as special pay for enlistment and reenlistment; flight pay; various medical and dental benefits; nuclear incentive pay; an authorization for an additional 13,000 active-duty soldiers and 9,000 active-duty marines.

In the Boston Globe of September 27, 2007, the Army's top officer, General Casey, said what we all know, which is that the military has been stretched too thin. We know, based on the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Senator Webb, these are concerns we all share about the lengthy deployments of our troops because we don't have enough men and women in uniform, particularly in the Marines and members of the U.S. Army; and this bill, which this amendment puts in jeopardy, expands the end strength of the Army to reduce that stress and strain on our volunteer military and their families. We should not put it in jeopardy.

This bill also authorizes an additional $4 billion for the MRAPs. To recall, the MRAPs are the mine resistant ambush protected vehicles that are specially constructed vehicles devised to defeat IEDs and save the lives and limbs of U.S. soldiers. Why in the world, in order to add extraneous legislation that has nothing to do with national security, would the advocates of this amendment jeopardize the ability to pass this Defense authorization bill, which is so important to our men and women in uniform? It is one thing to claim we support our military members; it is another thing to act on that stated conviction.

Have no doubt about it, this amendment has nothing to do with our military. There are remedies in place under the Uniform Code of Military Justice if, in fact, there is an attempt to link this to the military somehow. I think that is a spurious claim. There are a myriad of laws, since 1968 under the Federal United States Code itself, dealing with hate crimes. As I mentioned, this bill, because it has been brought in haste on this legislation without an opportunity for calm deliberation and investigation and understanding by Members, actually dilutes some of the penalties currently available under Federal law if, in fact, the same conduct were indicted or charged under this amendment if it were to become law. Why in the world would the advocates of this legislation want to dilute the punishment that is potentially available to the jury in admittedly heinous crimes?

It would be a mistake, and a mistake made out of haste. We should not indulge the desire to pass this legislation, no matter how sincere it is, in haste and without the kind of calm deliberation that will allow the Members of the Senate to understand what they are voting on and what we are doing. We should not jeopardize passing the Defense authorization bill, which contains the essential protections and benefits for our military members by loading it down with this extraneous amendment; or as the Senator from Illinois said, he wants to add an amendment relating to immigration. We know that will only spawn other amendments and burden this bill down so it will never pass. That would be a travesty.

Instead of engaging in these ill-considered attempts to burden this important legislation with extraneous amendments, we ought to be doing the rest of our work. Why are we going to have to pass a continuing resolution to keep the Federal Government open before we leave this week? It is because none of the appropriation bills that are to pay for the Federal Government to keep the Federal Government open have cleared the Congress and gone to the President to be signed. We are simply not taking care of the people's business when we engage in rabbit trails such as this amendment calls for.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the sponsors of this amendment. I disagree with them on adding this amendment to this important legislation for the reasons I have stated. I even disagree with them that some crimes ought to be treated or punished unequally than others based upon a membership in a particular group that can be identified, as I have described. So I don't doubt their sincerity; I just disagree with them. But we ought to have this debate at a time when we can focus our efforts, after a hearing and due deliberation, and after adequate consideration about the merits of the particular proposal, as we ordinarily do--not add it on 16 days after we have started the Defense authorization bill that has taken too long, jeopardizing our ability to add to the end strength and relieve the stress of our men and women in uniform and their families, and make sure they get the dignified treatment of the Wounded Warriors Act, which is part of this underlying Defense authorization bill, so we can deal with the concerns expressed again in the GAO report, which said the reforms we all want to come quickly are coming far too slowly when it comes to cutting the redtape and making sure our wounded warriors not only get the medical care they deserve, but get to move through the Department of Defense health care system and Veterans Affairs system in a way that lightens their load and not burdens them further.

I think it is a mistake to consider this amendment at this time and in this way--a way that jeopardizes this important legislation. It has nothing--zero--to do with the Defense authorization bill.

Whatever the merits of the amendment may be, I encourage the majority leader to give the proponents of this amendment an opportunity to present it at another time when we don't place in jeopardy these important benefits and relief designed to help our men and women in uniform during a time of war. We are at war. Why in the world would we be engaged in these rabbit trails on extraneous topics when we ought to be providing our men and women in uniform the relief they deserve and so urgently need.

I hope my colleagues will vote against cloture on this amendment, no matter how good the intentions may be. I disagree that it belongs on this bill. I disagree that we should jeopardize this important legislation with extraneous matters such as immigration amendments, or hate crimes amendments, or anything else that doesn't have to do with helping our men and women in uniform during a time of war.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source