Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, with the Senator from Kentucky still on the floor, I appreciate what he has said, and I am glad he has shown support for the Leahy amendment which passed in the last foreign aid bill.
There was a lot of pushback from a number of people, the administration and on the Senator's side of the aisle, initially, when I wrote into the law that said it would suspend any money--$1.3 billion--for the military, unless there was a certification that they were upholding the moves necessary toward democracy.
As a result, all the money the Senator is concerned about is being held back because of the Leahy amendment--which is joined in by Senator Graham, whom I see coming onto the floor--when we did the Foreign Operations bill.
I appreciate the words of the Senator from Kentucky. I can assure him, with the Leahy amendment, none of the foreign aid is going to Egypt as they conduct their operations the way they are.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in support of the reauthorization of the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act report.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEAHY. For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
Senator Crapo and I introduced this bill, a moderate bill, which has now gone through the Senate Judiciary Committee and should be voted up or voted down. It saves money, but it also commits to those programs needed by our States.
At some point, if it is delayed much longer, I am going to come to the floor and recount some of the horrific crime scenes I went to of violence, sexual violence, domestic violence, the things that are being combated now, things that happened when we did not have the Violence Against Women Act.
Last Thursday, the Judiciary Committee approved the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, has been the centerpiece of the Federal government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
It has been extraordinarily effective, and the annual incidence of domestic violence has fallen by more than 50 percent since the landmark law was first passed.
As a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence. Those were the days before VAWA, when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a joke, and there were few, if any, services for victims.
We must not go back to those days. This law saves lives, and it must be reauthorized.
Senator Crapo and I introduced a moderate bill that incorporates input from survivors of domestic and sexual violence all around the country and the tireless professionals who serve them every day.
This legislation builds on the progress that has been made in reducing violence against women, and it makes vital improvements to respond to remaining, unmet needs.
Unfortunately, partisan politics threaten to stop this critical legislation from moving forward. We have seen this same pattern too often.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the Second Chance Act, both laws originally championed by Republican Senators and supported by Republican Presidents, are now suddenly unacceptable.
This obstruction must stop. These programs are too important. They save lives. They make our communities safer.
Nowhere is that more true than for the Violence Against Women Act. Certainly, helping survivors of domestic and sexual violence should be above politics.
The last two times VAWA was reauthorized, it was unanimously approved by the Senate. Now, this law, which has done more to stop domestic and sexual violence than any other legislation ever passed, faces Republican opposition. That is not right.
To those who suggest that this legislation creates too many new programs, I say that is simply not true. In fact, the bill reduces the scale of VAWA.
It consolidates 13 existing programs and reduces authorization levels by nearly 20 percent while providing for only one small additional program.
The improvements in this bill are important but modest when compared to previous reauthorizations, which created many new grant programs and raised authorization levels almost across the board.
I have heard some say that our bill protects too many victims. I find that disheartening. One thing I know from my time as a prosecutor, and I would hope it is something we can all agree on, is that every victim counts.
All victims deserve protection. That is a message we have heard loud and clear from our States and something I hope is common ground.
More than 200 national organizations and 500 State and local organizations have expressed their support for this bill.
Many of them have written strong letters urging swift passage of this legislation including the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
This legislation has the support of five Republican Senators.
I thank Senators CRAPO, KIRK, MURKOWSKI, BROWN, and COLLINS for their willingness to step forward and support the reauthorization of this landmark legislation.
This is the Violence Against Women Act. It should not be a partisan matter.
I hope that all Senators will support this bill and that we can move quickly to reauthorize this critical legislation.
It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what we can accomplish when we work together.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES
Madam President, I am glad to see the senior Senator from South Carolina. For the first 50 or 60 years I was in the Senate--or it felt like that--it was a different senior Senator. But I am delighted to see the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, who is joining me to address a matter of great importance to the Nation at a crucial moment in our history.
The U.S. Air Force last week offered a preliminary look into its budget for fiscal year 2013. While the President will formally submit his budget proposals on Monday, last week's briefing and information papers offered enough detail for the Senate to begin considering the overall strategic direction of the Air Force Future Years Defense Program. In Pentagon jargon, that is usually called FYDP.
I have to say I am deeply disappointed and very worried as I look at the first glance at that proposal.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEAHY. As an example of the approach to the budget cuts, one of the A-10 units slated for cutting, the 127th Wing from Michigan, just returned from fighting bravely in Afghanistan and as a welcome home: Great job. Sorry, we are going to disband you.
The approach to budget cuts the Air Force has decided to take is simply wrong. We have to have budget cuts. We know that. But there is a wide variety of reasons why this makes not the sense it should. I draw the Senate's attention to a study produced by the Pentagon last year that was signed by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs that demonstrated what we already knew: Even when mobilized, Reserve component units are far less expensive than their peer units in the Active component.
It has always been a foregone conclusion that the Air National Guard costs are far less than Active component costs when they are on base or in garrison. Personnel are not drawing the salaries their peer units are and so on. But the Pentagon report showed something more interesting. It showed the Guard and Reserve save taxpayers dollars even when mobilized. The Reserve component units are estimated to be about one-third as expensive as similar Active component units, and they can deploy nearly half as often. That adds up to lot of savings in dollars and cents, but it also reflects a very major component of our security, because in the wars we fought in the last decade, we could not have done it without these Guard and Reserve units.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEAHY. I agree with my colleague on that, and that is why the bipartisan Guard Caucus will have some very strong statements.
We look at what the former Chief of Staff of the Air Force, GEN Ron Fogelman, said before these plans were announced. He argued for a larger Reserve component and a smaller Active-Duty Force. He did a guest column in DefenseNews. He said, among other things:
The big question is, how does the department reduce its budget and continue to provide a modern, balanced and ready defense when more than half of the budget is committed to personnel costs?
The answer to that question is right before us: We should return to our historic roots as a militia nation. So, what does that mean, exactly? Simply put, it means we should return to the constitutional construct for our military and the days when we maintained a smaller standing military and a robust militia.
To do that, leaders must put old parochial norms aside and be willing to actually shift forces and capabilities to the National Guard and Reserve.
He said ``put old parochial norms aside.'' He goes on to say:
This would enable significant personnel reductions in the active components. It would also result in a larger reserve component. Most important, it would preserve capability and equipment that has cost the American taxpayer trillions of dollars, nest it in our mostly part-time Guard and Reserve, and have it available should it be needed.
This concept worked well for our country for the better part of two centuries. Unfortunately, several generations of leaders have come and gone, and most of today's leadership fails to recognize the true potential of the militia model.
We need our collective senior military and civilian leaders to recognize there is a way back to a smaller active military and a larger militia posture. The fiscal environment and emerging threats demand it.
Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a former Air Force Chief of Staff.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEAHY. In fact, Senator Graham and I introduced a successful amendment in last year's Defense authorization bill that required the Pentagon and the GAO perform studies that should produce more conclusive analysis of the relative cost of similar units in the Active components and the Reserve components. We are also aware of at least two other third-party studies currently underway to address the questions. I think we are going to have three or four such studies that will conclusively answer the questions. Senator Graham and I--and I think most of our colleagues in the Senate--consider these proposed Air Force cuts to be dangerously premature. Once we cut the Reserve components, once we send an aircraft to the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and these airmen and pilots go out to civilian life, we don't get them back. In fact, that is precisely why the Army and Marine Corps have taken a different approach of preserving their Reserve component force structure: They can mobilize Active component troops they place in the Reserve component. But once we cut that, they are gone forever. They are gone forever.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, clearly this approach, if we keep the Guard and Reserve, saves our country precious resources at a time we need to tighten our belts. There are a couple of things we agree on. Everybody in the Senate agrees that our military has to be kept strong and vigilant to threats from our enemies. But the source of our military strength has been and always will be our economic might. If we are to protect ourselves militarily while also marshaling our economic power, moving to the kind of constitutional defense model my colleague has discussed should be our first choice.
I think these Air Force proposals are ill-advised and premature at the very least. I think they are flat-out wrong, as has already been said here on the floor. When any of us who have visited the areas, especially in the last few years, where our military guard and our Reserves are deployed, you cannot tell the difference between their duties or the risks they put themselves in--between the active-duty and Guard and Reserve components. The National Guard has been given a much greater role in our overall national defense--more missions, greater responsibility, heavier burdens. They perform these missions superbly, with great skill and effectiveness. They have defended our interests, and many have lost their lives doing it, but they carried out the same missions as everybody else.
The Senate National Guard Caucus worked closely with all concerned to accommodate and facilitate these changes. But now we are going to take an active role in informing the Senate as these are being made. We are not going to sit by while any of the military services decimate their Reserve components. We will work together, Senator Graham and I, with the Senate Armed Services Committee on which he serves with distinction, and the Senate Appropriations Committee on which we are both privileged to serve, but also the entire membership of the Senate, to produce a thoughtful, well-conceived strategy for military manpower that makes use of a cost-effective and accessible, fully operational, trained, and ready Reserve component.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend from South Carolina. We will from time to time report to the Senate on this issue. It is extremely important. It comes down to the bottom line: Have the best defense at the least cost to the taxpayer. That is what we are both aiming for.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source