It’s been busy in Washington with a host of votes on many different issues revolving around the National Defense Authorization Act
It’s been busy in Washington with a host of votes on many different issues revolving around the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill authorizes military spending and programs, and all manner of policy is determined in it. There were almost 400 amendments filed to the bill, but let me highlight just three amendments and votes that came up and warrant further explanation.
One, the bill contains a provision that would allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to transfer military property and equipment to local law enforcement organizations without being reimbursed. This is called the DOD 1033 program, and while it sounds reasonable, it is harmful to the taxpayer. This year, Ted Poe from Texas offered an amendment to expand the program, which I voted against. It passed 243-180.
At a time when the federal government borrows 25 cents of every dollar it spends, is it really the time to be giving things away? I have also long opposed this because it undercounts the cost of local government and overstates the cost of federal government, and to make good policy decisions, we need a real sense of what things cost and are worth. Giving things away for free makes this difficult for both the giving and receiving entity of government. When I was Governor, I well remember a certain rural county sheriff who had gotten five helicopters for free through the program. As a consequence, his small county force not only had more helicopters than the biggest counties in the state, but he had taken it upon himself to learn how to fly one of them for “free” since it didn’t cost anything!
On this subject, I wrote the following last year as a similar bill came up, I have a bill on it, and I think this is an important taxpayer issue:
“Last year, police in a small Connecticut town received a free mine-resistant, ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicle, which was originally designed to protect soldiers from roadside bombs and is valued at $733,000. And police in a town in Georgia with a population of under 3,000 obtained four free grenade launchers. Does the federal government giving away this kind of equipment to small town police departments make sense to you? It doesn’t to me, and I have introduced a bill that would stop this type of practice.
“There is no doubt that police departments should have what they need to accomplish their day to day work. But this kind of free give-away system encourages the police to use this equipment in situations that don’t call for it and what’s more is taxpayers aren’t being fairly compensated for their investment. This program, called the 1033 Program, has transferred more than $5.1 billion worth of property since it began in 1990 with $449 million worth of equipment in 2013 alone. While this program was designed to give police the equipment that would help them counter growing crime problems, and later to combat terrorism threats, the zero-cost transfers have proven to be a problem. Police department are starting to resemble military operations more than a local police forces, like what we saw unfold in Ferguson, Missouri last year. In recent days, the President has halted transfers of some items through this program, like armored vehicles and grenade launchers, but Congressional action is needed for a complete solution.
“My bill repeals the federal statute that allows these free transfers between the Department of Defense and law enforcement agencies across the country. The police still have the ability to get the equipment and supplies they need at fair market value because the bill leaves this part of the law in place. If state and local police are required to pay for these items, it would force them to better prioritize their spending and reduce the potential for escalated situations like Ferguson. The purchase of any military equipment would have to be approved by local and state governments, which would bring accountability and transparency to the process. This sort of system encourages public participation and oversight.
“The practice of simply giving away government property does nothing to protect the taxpayers' investment or provide greater clarity into state, county or local budgeting practices. And it doesn’t help with the public’s perception of military-style tactics from their local police departments.”
The second amendment worth discussion was offered by Jerry Nadler from New York. I voted in favor of it, although it failed by a vote of 167 to 254. The amendment was once again on Guantanamo Bay, and I voted the same as I have before over each of the last three years. To restate my position, I join with the people I represent at home, and the rest of the South Carolina delegation, in being opposed to detainees from Guantanamo Bay being brought to the Navy Brig in North Charleston or elsewhere in the domestic United States.
Congress has now spoken definitively on this issue with five pieces of legislation actually signed by the President that prohibit the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the United States.
Accordingly, when the president first proposed unilateral action on Guantanamo Bay last year, I was the first in the South Carolina delegation to say that transferring the prisoners to the United States was flat out unlawful. I said this in a host of media settings and followed this up with a letter on August 19 of last year to Undersecretary of Defense McKeon.
This was followed by a letter from our entire delegation on August 20.
I’m a cosponsor of the Guantanamo Transfer Prevention Act, which would stop the transfer of detainees from the military base to the United States, and I’m a cosponsor of a resolution that would let the House of Representatives sue the president if he tried to transfer the prisoners to the United States.
These actions of the Congress provide the definitive foundation for discussion of what comes next on Guantanamo. They are not moving. It is not changing. The next question though becomes one of how do you foster what is in my view a long-needed conversation on the idea of indefinite detention? In that regard, the Nadler amendment becomes the ideal vehicle because such a vote fosters the very conversations I believe are needed in the media and in homes as people look at that vote and ask why?
Both parties want to sidestep the issue of indefinite detention.
The administration and Democrats offer to simply sidestep the issue. Their stand is to change the geography of indefinite detention, and this does nothing. Whether you are housed without charges or trial for 50 years on Cuba or in London, Hanoi or Denver does nothing to change the experience of indefinite detention. You deal with the symbol and nothing more. Republicans have taken the opposite stand and gone with “out of sight, out of mind.” Cuba is far away, and as long as we don’t have to deal with them, it’s good.
A vital part of the American tradition is not to detain a person indefinitely without charge. Our Founding Fathers were emphatic on this, and accordingly, we should all look to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, which ensures the “right to a speedy trial” for those in the custody of the U.S. government. If one believes that the Constitution is to reign supreme in our system of government, we have to adhere to it, even when it’s hard. Otherwise, we are spilling over into dangerously unconstitutional waters and a place where we have never been as a country. I understand that terrorism is a new war without the traditional boundaries of nation states, but my view is that if we can send a man to the moon, we can figure this out. We have had past conflicts, and there was certainty and finality to the process. A military tribunal would determine guilt or innocence, and if found guilty, execution was swift and speedy.
It’s time we debate this because if we don’t, I think we will be another 25 year down the road and have taken no action, save for erosion of the Sixth Amendment. My view was that the Nadler amendment was a good place to generate debate, given Congress had spoken decisively in much bigger forums on no detainees moving, and accordingly, I voted as I did.
Finally, there was a measure by Congressman Clyburn that would have amended the bill to cut off funds for schools like the Citadel that display the Confederate battle flag. I voted no, and the measure failed 181-243. I respect Congressman Clyburn’s strong feelings on this matter, and as egregious as that flag might be to many dear friends, all decisions do not need to be made in Washington. We should preserve decision making wherever possible at the state and local level rather than having a federal government that expands to usurp the decisions of local governments. If you believe in federalism, the federal government is not the only one to decide what should be displayed on a given college campus across this country. This is especially the case when the Board of Trustees of that institution has voted to take the flag down.
In this, there’s also a First Amendment issue. I found it ironic that the Congressman’s amendment was opposed by the Obama administration. They pointed out that “cutting off Federal funding for a ROTC program on the ground that an institution displays the flag, however, raises First Amendment concerns.” They recognized the fact that if one group can prohibit the symbols or speech that have meaning for some - those “some” can do the reverse for symbols or speech that have meaning for others. We live in a land where the right to freely express concepts, ideas, or even history that might be objectionable to another is taken for granted. We should be careful about infringing on these hallowed rights, regardless of how meritorious one may see one’s own perspective or view.
I’ll have more on the National Defense Authorization Act votes and amendments later….