Memo confirms Pentagon playing politics with military, Bradley Byrne says
An internal Pentagon memo surfaced Tuesday detailing a political strategy for the Secretary of Defense and other defense officials to play “hardball” against House Republicans on the annual defense budget. First reported by POLITICO, the memo details the Pentagon’s plan to play lawmakers against one another in order to defeat the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — a controversial effort to boost military spending by $18 billion, which could provide the largest troop pay raise in years and reverse an Army drawdown. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the bill. “In short, we should attack the … gimmick and be prepared to play hardball opposing it,” according to the memo co-written by DOD Comptroller Mike McCord and Stephen Hedger, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs. “The veto threat is our primary weapon. However, a veto threat only works if it is supported by the Democratic leadership and their caucuses. Our job is to encourage and support those efforts.” Alabama 1st District U.S. Congressman Bradley Byrne, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says the memo confirms the Pentagon is playing politics with the U.S. military. “The Obama Administration has a track record of using our military men and women as pawns in their political game, but this memo makes clear they have no shame in doing so,” said Byrne in a news release. “There is no greater responsibility of the Congress than to provide for the common defense, and we cannot allow these kind of petty politics to stand in our way.” The memo, dated May 13, surfaced as House and Senate members returned to Washington for the first time since July after a long summer recess, where military budget negotiations will soon resume. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the NDAA in May on a bipartisan vote of 277 to 147.
Pentagon revokes controversial transgender ban for U.S. military
Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Thursday removed one of the final remaining barriers to military service by lifting the Pentagon’s ban on openly transgender people serving in the U.S. military. “Effective immediately, transgender Americans may serve openly,” Carter said at a news conference. “They can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender.” Carter continued, “Our mission is to defend this country, and we don’t want barriers unrelated to a person’s qualification to serve preventing us from recruiting or retaining the soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who can best accomplish the mission. We have to have access to 100 percent of America’s population for our all-volunteer force to be able to recruit from among them the most highly qualified — and to retain them.” Alabama 1st District U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, was quick to weigh in on the Pentagon’s decision. “It is frustrating the Pentagon now has a strategy for transgender service members, but they still lack an actual strategy for defeating radical Islamic terrorism,” said Byrne in a news release. “Once again it seems the Obama Administration is more interested in advancing a political agenda than they are in proposing sound policy.” According to Carter, within 90 days the Pentagon will create a guidebook for commanders on rules regarding transgender service members as well as medical guidance to doctors. Within one year, transgender individuals will be allowed to join the armed forces, provided they have been “stable” in their preferred gender for 18 months, he continued. Lifting the transgender ban was the latest move in a series of controversial cultural changes in the military in recent years — from the 2011 decision to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly, to Carter’s December 2015 decision lifting restrictions on women serving in combat roles. Many critics have called Wednesday’s decision “social engineering” that risks troop readiness and the ability to fight. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a Marine Corps veteran, said President Barack Obama was using the military “to fight culture wars.” “This is yet another example of President Obama using America’s military to fight culture wars instead of to fight real wars against the enemies of our nation,” Perkins said in a prepared statement. “Considering the abysmal condition of our military and a decline in readiness, why is this a top priority for the Obama administration?” Perkins continued. “Before changing any policy, the impact on military readiness has to be the first consideration. Defense Secretary Carter has failed to explain how this new policy makes our military more capable of winning wars.” Rep. Byrne shares Perkins’ concern over troop readiness. “As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am committed to holding the Obama Administration accountable and ensuring their political agenda does not directly harm our military readiness,” Byrne concluded.
Register for the draft: It’s what a man’s — and woman’s? — got to do
Congress is on the verge of ordering young women to register for a military draft for the first time in history, touching off outrage among social conservatives who fear the move is another step toward blurring gender lines. The female draft requirement, approved late Thursday by the Senate Armed Services Committee, could be as heated as the divisive debate over what public lavatories and locker rooms transgender people should use. Opponents of expanding the draft may be unable to halt the momentum in favor of lifting the exclusion, which was triggered by the Pentagon’s decision late last year to open all front-line combat jobs to women. After gender restrictions to military service were erased, the top uniformed officers in each of the military branches expressed support during congressional testimony for including women in a potential draft. The Senate Armed Services Committee added a provision to its version of the annual defense policy bill that calls for women to sign up with the Selective Service within 30 days of turning 18 – just as men are – beginning in January 2018, according to a summary of the legislation released by the committee. The House Armed Services Committee narrowly adopted a provision to its bill late last month to include women in Selective Service. “This is a highly consequential – and, for many American families, a deeply controversial – decision that deserves to be resolved by Congress after a robust and transparent debate in front of the American people, instead of buried in an embargoed document that is passed every year to fund military pay and benefits,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, one of three Senate Armed Services Committee members who voted against the policy bill. Conservative columnist Daniel Horowitz wrote of the “consequences of completely eradicating the self-evident truth and science of the two sexes.” The full House is expected to take up its version of the legislation as early as next week. The Senate will consider its bill later this month. While the subject is contentious, a return to forcing people to join the armed forces seems unlikely. Military leaders maintain the all-volunteer force is working and do not want a return to conscription. The U.S. has not had a military draft since 1973, in the waning years of the Vietnam War era. Still, all men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to register. “It’s what a man’s got to do,” says the Selective Service website. Women were nearly drafted during World War II due to a shortage of military nurses. But a surge of volunteers made it unnecessary, according to the Government Accountability Office. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who served with the Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, said he believes most Americans don’t want women to be drafted. Despite his objections, Hunter proposed – and then voted against – the amendment requiring women to register that the House Armed Services Committee approved in April. Hunter said he offered the measure to force a discussion about how the Pentagon’s decision to void gender restrictions on military service failed to consider whether the exclusion on drafting women also should be lifted. Like Lee, he argued that the call should be made by Congress. The White House has declined to say whether President Barack Obama would sign into law legislation that expands the draft to include women. A longstanding congressional ban on moving prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility to the United States also is included in the policy bill. The prohibition, which the White House opposes, has kept Obama from fulfilling a campaign pledge to shutter the facility. The legislation also proposes to help shrink the remaining population at Guantanamo by allowing detainees to plead guilty to criminal charges in federal civilian courts via video teleconference. Those detainees could then be transferred to other countries to serve their sentences. But the Center for Constitutional Rights, an advocacy group, opposed the change and said allowing pleas by remote video is an attempt to change the rules “in order to stymie the defense and afford the prosecution a greater chance to win these cases.” Overall, the defense policy bill provides $602 billion in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 for the Defense Department and nuclear weapons programs managed by the Energy Department. The Senate committee did not follow the lead of its House counterpart, which shifted $18 billion in wartime spending to pay for additional weapons and troops to reverse what Republicans and a number of Democrats have called a crisis in the military’s combat readiness. The committee did identify $3 billion in savings from the defense budget proposed by the Obama administration “and redirected those funds toward critical needs of our warfighters,” according to the summary. The committee also added $2 billion for additional training, depot maintenance and weapons sustainment. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Bradley Byrne: Defense bill blocks attempt to cut Mobile shipyard
Southwest Alabama has a proud military tradition. Our area is home to a large number of veterans. The Coast Guard has a strong presence here. Important military vessels are constructed up and down the Gulf Coast. These are all things we take great pride in. That’s why it was so frustrating last December when Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced his plans to cut the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program from 52 total ships to just 40. The LCS is the Navy vessel built at Austal USA in Mobile. Over 4,000 men and women are directly employed by the shipyard. Two different versions of the LCS are currently built by Austal in Mobile and Marinette Marine in Wisconsin. The Secretary also proposed eliminating one of the versions entirely in a “downselect” to a single builder. Navy officials testified before Congress that this would result in one of the shipyards closing entirely. I immediately went to work to make sure his efforts would not be successful. When the President’s budget was released and included the proposed cuts, I doubled down in my efforts. Ultimately, it is the decision of Congress, not a lame-duck President and a lame-duck Secretary of Defense. Let me be clear up front: I don’t support the LCS program simply because it is built in our area. I support the program because the Navy has made clear time and time again they like the LCS, and they need the ship in order to fulfill their mission. If these ships weren’t critical to the Navy, then I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. So, I set out to stop these proposed cuts. In Congress, I serve on the House Armed Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over our nation’s entire military. Each year, the Committee must pass legislation known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This is the bill that sets policy and authorizes funding for military operations and programs. As part of his efforts to cut the program, President Obama’s budget only requested funding for two Littoral Combat Ships this year, instead of the required three ships. My goal was [to] make sure the NDAA included full funding for three ships while also stopping the cuts from moving forward. I’m pleased to report that our efforts were successful, and the NDAA includes funding for three ships. I also introduced an amendment to prevent the Pentagon from following through with their plans to eliminate one of the two builders. My amendment was adopted without any opposition. Ultimately, the NDAA passed the full Armed Services Committee early Thursday morning after more than fifteen hours of debate. In a sign of the truly bipartisan nature of our committee, the bill passed by a vote of 60 to 2. This was a resounding victory for all the men and women who work at the Austal shipyard in Mobile. This means both Republicans and Democrats agree that President Obama is wrong for trying to cut the LCS program, which is so important to the Navy. More challenges may arise, but I promise to keep fighting for the LCS, the Navy, and the people who work at that shipyard. Most importantly, I promise to keep fighting for Southwest Alabama and our proud military traditions. • • • Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
Bradley Byrne fights efforts to cut shipbuilding program with Alabama ties
Congressman Bradley Byrne joined 45 other members of Congress in fighting back against an effort by the Obama administration to cut the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, which has a significant presence in South Alabama through Austal USA. Austal, which recently won an award for large Alabama manufacturer of the year, employs more than 4,000 to build and deliver twenty ships to the U.S. Navy, with four more currently in production. Last year Defense Secretary Ashton Carter sent a memo to the U.S. Navy ordering the branch to decrease its LCS and frigate buy by 12 ships. According to a budget request submitted in February, the U.S. Navy complied with the request, cutting purchases of LCS from 52 to 40 vessels over the next five years. “The LCS program is critical to the future of the Navy, and I am pleased to have so many of my colleagues join me in fighting back against these proposed cuts,” said Byrne in a press release Tuesday. “The LCS program has been studied time and time again, and each time it becomes even more clear that we need 52 of these ships in order to properly defend our nation and keep sea lanes around the world open for commerce. I will continue working every day to protect the LCS program and the men and women who serve in the U.S. Navy.” The letter was signed by a wide range of lawmakers, including all seven of Alabama’s congressional delegation as well as congressmen and women from 19 states, including 32 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Sent to the leadership of the House Armed Services Committee, the letter urges the committee to reject the administration’s request. “This budget proposal comes from a President and Secretary of Defense who have less than a year remaining in office,” the letter states. “It defies logic to make significant changes to a program that was thoroughly studied and evaluated less than two years ago.” The House Armed Services Committee will begin consideration of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this week.
Bradley Byrne introduces bill to defund Syrian refugee resettlement program
In the aftermath of terrorist attacks on Paris last week, Alabama Congressman Bradley Bryne (AL-01) is standing up for the millions concerned with ISIS’ next move — introducing legislation that would defund the Syrian refugee resettlement program. Bryne, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced H.R. 4031, the Defund the Syrian Refugee Resettlement Program Act of 2015 Wednesday, which would eliminate all funding from going toward resettling refugees from Syria, in effort to keep the American people safe. “The reality remains that we cannot adequately screen individuals coming into the United States from Syria, so we must use every legislative tool at our disposal to stop the Syrian refugee resettlement program,” said Byrne. “I strongly believe our best chance for success is to use the ‘power of the purse’ to cut off funding to the program, and my bill would achieve that goal.” For weeks, Byrne has spoken out about the clear national security threat posed by allowing a mass influx of Syrian refugees into the United States. In September, Byrne sent a letter to the State Department requesting additional information about the screening process Syrian refugees must undergo. He also attended a classified briefing to learn more about the screening process. Based on what he learned in the briefing and after receiving a response from the State Department, Byrne Monday sent a letter to President Obama demanding he halt the Syrian refugee resettlement program. “The top priority of the federal government is to keep the American people safe, and we should never lose sight of that goal,” Byrne continued. “Despite what President Obama may believe, our nation is in a state of war and that requires major precautions to be taken.”
Congressional Republicans upset over Obama’s veto of defense spending bill
President Barack Obama issued the fifth veto of his presidency Thursday when he vetoed the annual defense authorization bill. The $612 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) funds the country’s military and national defense. In an peculiar Oval Office ceremony, Obama praised the bill for making sure the military is funded and making improvements in cybersecurity and military retirements. Yet he accused Republicans of resorting to “gimmicks” and prohibiting other changes necessary to address modern security threats. “Unfortunately, it falls woefully short,” Obama said. “I’m going to be sending it back to Congress, and my message to them is very simple: Let’s do this right.” The Alabama delegation criticized the President’s move calling it politically motivated. “Today, America’s Commander-in-Chief put politics above country by holding America’s military hostage in a sordid effort to coerce Congress into spending more money on programs unrelated to national defense,” said Rep. Mo Brooks (AL-05). “President Obama’s veto weakens an already bludgeoned Defense Department that is hamstrung by sequestration and laying off tens of thousands of American military personnel. It is outrageous that President Obama and the White House so willingly play politics with America’s national security.” Rep. Mike Rogers, who served as a Conferee for this year’s NDAA and sits on the House Armed Services committee, shared in Brook’s sentiments, “I am deeply disappointed, but not surprised that President Obama vetoed this bipartisan and critical piece of legislation, not for what was in it, but for what was not in it.” National security was also a chief concern to many in the Alabama delegation. “The NDAA funds our troops and our national security, and the president should be ashamed of himself for playing political games with our brave men and women in uniform and our country’s safety,” continued Rogers. Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06) agrees. “With his veto, the President is not only placing our national security at risk by failing to authorize funding for our military, but is undermining our national security by demanding more domestic spending that further increases our national debt,” Palmer said. “As the Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen said, ‘The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.’” “President Obama’s decision to veto the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act is a slap in the face to all those who serve in our nation’s military,” said Rep. Bradley Byrne (AL-01). “From Iraq to China to Russia to Iran to Afghanistan to Syria, our nation has never faced a wider range of threats, and it is reprehensible for our Commander-in-Chief to veto this critical defense bill over matters that have absolutely nothing to do with defense.” Byrne continued, “If the President wants to have a debate about increasing spending on non-defense programs, then I welcome that debate. But we shouldn’t hold our military and their families hostage in the process.” The President’s veto will face a House Republican-led override attempt Nov. 5, though it is unknown whether the GOP can garner the support necessary to overcome Democratic opposition. “I don’t know if the votes exist to overturn this veto, but we will start right away working to earn them,”said Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02). President Obama should be ashamed for placing his personal political agenda over the needs of our military.” Earlier this month, the NDAA passed the House by a vote of 270 to 156, with 37 Democrats voting in support. The NDAA passed in the Senate by a veto-proof vote of 70 to 27, with 21 Democrats voting in favor of the bill.
With Alabama delegation support, House passes sweeping defense bill compromise
With the support of all but one member of the Alabama delegation, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a compromise $612 billion annual defense authorization bill Thursday. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2016 conference report, legislation correcting differences between the House and Senate, passed with a vote of 270 to 156. The NDAA authorizes funding for the Department of Defense and among other provisions includes a pay raise for troops, overhauling the military retirement system, which is currently only available to the 17 percent of service members who serve 20 plus years, and reworking the Pentagon’s acquisition system to improve efficiency and avoid cost overruns. The afternoon vote, largely along party lines, saw just 36 Democrats support the legislation, putting the final tally just 20 votes shy of being able to override a very possible presidential veto. Less than 24 hours before the vote, the White House reiterated President Barack Obama‘s veto threat. The president’s press secretary, Josh Earnest, called the NDAA an “irresponsible way to fund our national defense priorities.” But Alabama congressman, Bradley Bryne disagrees. On the House floor Thursday morning, Byrne delivered a passionate speech regarding the NDAA, “…let’s just take a quick look at what all is going on in the world today. From Syria to Iraq to the Pacific to Iran to Russia, the list goes on and on. Look at the wide range of threats facing our nation. And for our President – our Commander-in-Chief – to threaten to veto this bipartisan bill is simply reprehensible.” Among other supporters from Alabama delegation was Rep. Mike Rogers. “We worked long and hard on this crucial piece of legislation,” said Rogers, a conferee who helped reconcile the House and Senate bills. “I am proud it passed the House with my strong support and am pleased our military is funded to help keep our nation safe.” As a conferee, Rogers worked to ensure language similar to an amendment he introduced in the House — to allow the Army to transfer its surplus vintage firearms, the excess M1911A1 pistols, to the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) to sale — was included in the Conference Report. Another key provision for the Yellowhammer state was the inclusion of language that would prohibit furloughs at Working Capital Fund facilities — such as the Anniston Army Depot, which is one of the largest employers in East Alabama — as long as there was funded workload. “I am very pleased with the CMP amendment and the inclusion of the language to take care of the Depot. I hope the Senate will quickly pass this legislation so it can go to President Obama to be signed into law,” Rogers continued. Reps. Bradley Byrne (AL-01), Martha Roby (AL-02), Mike Rogers (AL-03), Robert Aderholt (AL-04), Mo Brooks (AL-05), Gary Palmer (AL-06) voted in for the bill. Rep. Terri Sewell (AL-07) voted against it.
Lawmakers keep VA failures front and center
As a recent spate of news about neglect and fraud in the federal Department of Veterans Affairs continues to develop, a handful of Alabama Congressional delegates are continuing to keep VA issues on the front burner. “I am outraged that our veterans are still being made to wait for medical care,” U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell recently told Alabama Today. “Providing high-quality care and benefits to our nation’s veterans is one of our most fundamental obligations, and we must do more to live up to that promise. I proudly sponsored the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which President Obama signed into law. “This new law has helped VA medical centers across the country hire more physicians and enabled some veterans to seek private care, yet problems still persist at underperforming facilities like the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System in Montgomery and Tuskegee, Alabama. “We heard more than enough excuses. Our nation’s heroes should not be made to wait for quality care, and to ask them to do so violates our core principles. We need a permanent director who is ready – and willing – to do more for our veterans.” Congressman Bradley Byrne has also taken action to rectify much longer than average wait times at the Central Alabama VA. He recently introduced legislation that would create a new clinic in Mobile to ease the long backlogs currently on the books at VA providers, but has also said the problems run deep and deserve a thorough remediation at the administrative level. “Our veterans have waited far too long for a new VA clinic in Mobile, and it is past time the VA moves the process forward,” Byrne said in a prepared statement last week. “The current Mobile clinic is outdated and too small to adequately meet the needs of our area’s veterans. Years ago the VA committed to the construction of a new clinic in Mobile, but bureaucratic obstacles continue to hold the process up.” Sen. Richard Shelby also spoke with Alabama Today on the matter, indicating that VA scrutiny is a concern in the upper chamber of Congress as well. “It is extremely disappointing and unacceptable that long wait times continue to plague the Central Alabama VA,” said Shelby in a statement special to Alabama Today. “Our veterans in Alabama and across the country deserve better, which is why I will continue to press the VA to correct these issues and fight to ensure that our veterans receive timely and effective health care services.” U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers of Calhoun County in Alabama’s 3rd Congressional District is working on the issue from his position on the coveted House Armed Services Committee. He says he is displeased to say the least about the way Alabama vets are receiving short shrift from those whose job is to serve them. “The mistreatment at these VA facilities, including in Alabama, of our men and women who have served our country in uniform is unconscionable to me,” told Alabama Today. “Our Veterans deserve the very best at these facilities and I hope these wrongs will be made right.” Last week we chronicled U.S. Rep. Martha Roby‘s efforts on VA care access. She was one of the first high-ranking Alabama officials to speak with whistleblower Richard Tremaine, who recently testified before Congress about a years-long pattern of cover ups and denial of responsibility on the part of the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System where he is associate director. “That culture has festered at Central Alabama for years,” Roby said. “It has carried over through multiple directors, and it isn’t going to change until Secretary McDonald gets serious and puts leadership in place that will clean house. “We need a permanent system director who is empowered and willing to change the lousy culture and turn the place around. I’ll take that message back to Washington … where improving care for veterans remains my top priority.”
