National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. In a moment I will offer an amendment, and I know the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee is here, but I wish to lay 5 minutes of groundwork.

The majority leader was down here earlier today talking about all the ``necessary votes'' that we have to have before everyone leaves town before the holidays. Of course, he was talking about a series of votes on nominees that he himself has set up since he is, in essence, the traffic cop for the Senate, and he gets to set the agenda unilaterally.

We know that while the majority leader has set up this series of votes on nominations--none of which are urgent and couldn't be done in January, and all of which are controversial--the majority leader is refusing to allow any vote on restoring pension benefits to the men and women of the U.S. Armed Services.

As we have talked about repeatedly over the last couple of days, the recent budget deal cuts their pension benefits by some $6 billion over 10 years, and we have learned that this agreement slashes the pension benefits of some of our wounded warriors, people who are medically retired.

Senator Murray from Washington, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has called this a technical error--a technical error. She said it needs to be fixed, but we will do this next year.

Merry Christmas to our wounded warriors whose pensions, by virtue of the legislation that passed yesterday, have now been cut.

What makes matters worse is they have been discriminated against. No other Federal employee's pension benefits were cut, only those uniformed military members' pensions.

She calls it a technical error. I called it a mistake that needs to be fixed--not next month, not next year, but right now, today.

Why is it that the majority leader won't let us fix this right now. Why is it that he is blocking a vote on the relevant amendment? Why does he want to keep our veterans and our active duty military, including our wounded warriors, in limbo during the Christmas holidays?

Does he have a good reason for it? Is it really more important to confirm some mid-level appointees than to make sure that our wounded combat veterans get the pensions that they have earned?

Is it really more important for the Democrats to jam us with nonessential, nonurgent nominees than to take care of the people who sacrificed so much for their country?

One last question. Is it really more important to approve all of these nominees than to honor the men and women who lost their lives in a homegrown terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Texas, some 4 years ago at the hands of MAJ Nidal Hasan, a radicalized major in the U.S. Army who shouted the words ``Allahu Akbar'' before he proceeded to mow down 13 people, costing them their lives, and to injure 30 more soldiers and uniformed military who were injured that day.

The majority seems to think of this group of nonurgent, and controversial mid-level nominees that we have to get this done. That is why he is jamming this through and not allowing us to amend this legislation with a fix to the military pension or to allow us to honor the victims at Fort Hood with the recognition and the benefits that they so richly deserve.

Unfortunately, like so much around here lately, it is politics all the time, even if that means sleighting our wounded warriors and refusing to honor 13 brave Americans who were killed by a terrorist attack at a U.S. Army base.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending motion so that I may offer a motion to concur with amendment No. 2602, which is filed at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, to clarify, I believe the Defense authorization bill will pass this evening. That is not in any doubt. The problem is this isn't just about the process, this isn't just about minority rights in the Senate, but this is about people getting hurt. And the people I am talking about are our Active-Duty military whose pensions have been cut by the vote we cast yesterday passing the budget deal. All we want to do is fix that.

There is bipartisan consensus this was a big mistake, and we could pass that, if the majority leader would allow us, today; it would pass through the House, as I said yesterday, like a hot knife through butter. Everyone agrees this was a mistake, and that is what the process is supposed to do, to fix this kind of error before it happens; and now that it has happened, to remedy it through an amendment. But this is exactly what the majority leader is denying us the opportunity to do and why this is so important.

I mention again, so it not be forgotten, the 12 Americans who were killed at Fort Hood some 4 years ago by a domestic terrorist attack, along with 30 others whose lives were changed forever when they were shot by MAJ Nidal Hasan, who had become radicalized by the same cleric whom President Obama targeted on his kill list with a drone attack in Yemen, and appropriately so. He was an agent of al-Qaida. To now call this workplace violence and not to give us a chance to recognize the loss of lives in an act of war and to make sure these patriots get the benefits they are entitled to is just wrong.

So this is not just about the process, it is not just about minority rights, it is about real people getting hurt and our ability to fix that today. That is being denied as a result of this process.

I would conclude by saying the distinguished Senator from Arizona is exactly right. The average number of amendments since 1996 on the national defense authorization bill is 138 amendments--138 amendments. The average number of recorded votes, 11 1/2 . The average number of days we are on the bill is 8.8. So this is a big, important, profoundly significant piece of legislation, yet it is being jammed through here in about 24 hours without any opportunity to offer amendments.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Is it correct that no Senator is permitted to offer an amendment to the House-passed Defense bill while the majority leader's motion to concur with a further amendment is pending?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source