Highlights:
- Ron DeSantis voted at least five times against increasing funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Veterans Health Administration.
- In 2018, DeSantis voted against increasing funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs by $7 billion.
- In 2018, DeSantis effectively voted against increasing funding for the Veterans Health Administration by $10 billion.
- In 2018, DeSantis voted against increasing funding for the Veterans Health Administration by $5 billion.
- In 2014, DeSantis voted against increasing funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs by $17.6 billion.
- In 2013, DeSantis voted against increasing funding to veterans programs by $11.7 billion.
- DeSantis also voted against increasing funding for PTSD treatment and sexual assault prevention by $5 million each.
- Ron DeSantis voted for legislation which would ultimately lower retirement benefits for veterans.
- DeSantis voted to index veterans’ pensions benefits to the chain CPI, which would have led to reduced benefits, overall.
- Ron DeSantis supported privatizing veterans’ health care.
- DeSantis said he was committed to giving veterans an option to use private care and seek out providers at facilities other than the VA.
- Privatization would hurt veterans and be a less effective source for care.
- Advocates warned that general hospitals would not be as well-equipped to provide veterans-specific care and that privatizing could lead to less funding for the VA.
- Additionally, studies found that privatization was less effective at providing care.
- Ron DeSantis effectively voted against providing workplace protections for veterans.
- Ron DeSantis effectively voted against reforms to prevent sexual assault in the military.
¶ DeSantis Voted At Least Five Times Against Increasing Funding To The Department Of Veterans Affairs And Other Programs For Veterans
¶ DeSantis Voted At Least Five Times Against Increasing Funding For The Department Of veterans Affairs And Veterans Health Administration
2018: DeSantis Voted Against The $1.3 Trillion FY 2018 Omnibus Spending Deal, Which Raised Spending By $138 Billion Over FY 2017 Levels, Including $7 Billion For The VA. In March 2018, DeSantis voted against the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Combined, the spending measures would provide about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending, with $1.2 trillion subject to discretionary spending caps, and $78.1 billion designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funds. The measure's spending levels are consistent with the increased defense and non-defense budget caps set by the two-year budget deal agreed to last month. That agreement increased the FY 2018 defense cap by $80 billion and the non-defense cap by $63 billion. Given that the previous caps were set to reduce overall discretionary spending by $5 billion, the net increase provided by the omnibus is $138 billion over the FY 2017 level.” The vote was on the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 256 to 167. The Senate later agreed to the legislation, sending it to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 127, 3/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1625]
- Bill Increased Funding For The VA By $7 Billion. According to the House Appropriations Committee Democrats, “The Omnibus provides a $7 billion increase for the Department of Veterans Affairs, with significant increases for medical services, mental health services, medical and prosthetic research, and opioid abuse services. This amount also includes $2 billion for infrastructure improvements at VA facilities and state veterans’ homes.” [House Appropriations Committee Democrats, Accessed 4/4/18]
2018: DeSantis Effectively Voted Against Increasing Funding For The Veterans Health Administration by $10 Million With A Corresponding Decrease In Funding For VA Administration. In June 2018, DeSantis effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “decrease[d] funding for VA administration by $10.2 million and would [have] increase[d] funding for medical funding at the Veterans Health Administration by $10 million, to be available on Oct 1, 2018.” The underlying legislation was an FY 2019 minibus of Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 187 to 225. [House Vote 256, 6/8/18; Congressional Quarterly, 6/8/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5895]
2018: DeSantis Voted Against The $1.3 Trillion FY 2018 Omnibus Spending Deal Which Raised Spending By $138 Billion Over FY 2017 Levels, Including $70.3 Billion For Health Care Programs At The Veterans Health Administration. In March 2018, DeSantis voted against the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Combined, the spending measures would provide about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending, with $1.2 trillion subject to discretionary spending caps, and $78.1 billion designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funds. The measure's spending levels are consistent with the increased defense and non-defense budget caps set by the two-year budget deal agreed to last month. That agreement increased the FY 2018 defense cap by $80 billion and the non-defense cap by $63 billion. Given that the previous caps were set to reduce overall discretionary spending by $5 billion, the net increase provided by the omnibus is $138 billion over the FY 2017 level.” The vote was on the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 256 to 167. The Senate later agreed to the legislation, sending it to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 127, 3/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1625]
- Bill Appropriated $70.3 Billion For The VHA, $5.0 Billion More Than FY 2017. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The agreement provides a total of $70.3 billion in funding for health care programs of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in FY 2018 — including $63.4 billion in advance FY 2018 appropriations from prior years and $3.9 billion in regular appropriations. That FY 2018 total for VHA is $5.0 billion more than comparable FY 2017 funding and $621 million more than requested.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18]
¶ 2014: DeSantis Voted Against Legislation Which Included Expanding The Department Of Veterans Affairs Funding By $17.6 Billion
2014: DeSantis Voted Against Agreeing To The Senate’s Veterans’ Health Care And Benefits Bill, Including Its Provisions Expanding Care And Treatment For Sexual Trauma. In July 2014, DeSantis voted against a motion to instruct House members of a House-Senate conference committee on veterans’ health care and benefits legislation to, according to Congressional Quarterly, “recede from disagreement with provisions in the Senate amendment relating to health care regarding sexual trauma and to concur in the Senate amendment in all other instances.” The House agreed to the non-binding motion by a vote of 213 to 193. [House Vote 453, 7/25/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/25/14]
- Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO): Current Conference Committee Is Working On Reaching An Agreement On A Veterans Health Care And Accountability In The Department; This Motion Would Require That The House Agree To The Senate Proposal. In a floor speech, Rep. Laborn said, “rise in opposition to this motion to instruct and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct would require the House to recede to the Senate amendments to H.R. 3230. As Chairman Miller has stated during debate on nearly identical motions to instruct last week and again last night, the foremost goals of the House and Senate conference committee are, one, to improve timely access to high-quality health care for veterans who have been waiting for weeks, months, or even years; and, two, to improve the accountability and overall operations of the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. This was the central charge to the conferees at the beginning of the conference and remains so today. I have no doubt that my colleague from California, Congresswoman Brownley, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, shares these goals. However, this motion does not further our pursuit of them. Tonight, our attention is best spent devoted to finding a true compromise--one that best serves our Nation’s veterans and taxpayers and lays the foundation for correcting the departmental deficiencies that have brought us here--and not tying the conference committee’s hands with an unnecessary, unhelpful, unbinding, and time-consuming motion to instruct.” [Congressional Record, 7/24/14]
- Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) And Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Were Negotiating Similar Bills, Except That Sanders’ Bill Included Language Authorizing Emergency Mandatory Funding And An Additional $17.6 Billion In New VA Funding. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Florida Republican Jeff Miller said his proposal tracks closely with the Senate-passed bill originally written by Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders, who chairs the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, and Arizona Republican John McCain. ‘It's basically the Senate bill, except it's not all mandatory funding,’ Miller said. Miller’s proposal, outlined at a conference committee meeting boycotted by Senate Democrats and all but one House Democrat, would include the first seven titles of the original Sanders-McCain bill, amending only one section to authorize one additional Veterans Affairs Department medical facility lease. The only provisions left out by Miller’s alternative would be language authorizing emergency mandatory funding. Unlike Sanders' latest proposal, the Miller alternative does not include a request by acting VA Secretary Sloan Gibson for an additional $17.6 billion over three years to hire more health care professionals, expand facilities and modernize Information technology. Conferees are trying to reconcile differences on legislation (HR 3230) to overhaul the VA health care system and allow some veterans facing excessive wait times or living far from VA facilities to receive government-subsidized care from private health care providers. The bills were a response to allegations that the department covered up long wait times at VA medical facilities and claims that some patients died while waiting for appointments.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/14]
- Senate Bill Enabled Members Of The National Guard And The Reserve Who Were Sexually Assaulted During Inactive Duty Training To Receive Care And Counseling Through The VA. According to the conference report on the legislation, “Current Law Section 1720D of title 38, U.S.C., requires VA to provide counseling and appropriate care and services to veterans to overcome psychological trauma, which in the judgment of a VA mental health professional, resulted from a physical assault of a sexual nature, battery of a sexual nature, or sexual harassment which occurred while the veteran was serving on active duty or active duty for training (otherwise known as military sexual trauma) (hereinafter, ‘MST’). Veterans who experienced MST while serving on active duty or active duty for training are included under this authority. However, veterans who experienced MST while on inactive duty for training – for example, those who were assaulted during weekend drill training for the National Guard and Reserve – are not included. […] The Senate amendment would amend section 1720D of title 38, U.S.C., to provide VA with the authority to provide counseling, care and services to veterans, and certain other servicemembers who may not have veteran status, who experienced sexual trauma while serving on inactive duty for training. […] The House amendment contained no similar provision. […] The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision.” [House Report 113-564, 7/28/14]
- Senate Bill Eliminated Requirement That Active-Duty Servicemembers Obtain A Referral From The Defense Department Before Receiving Counseling And Care At The VA For Sexual Trauma That Occurred While They Were On Active Duty. According to the conference report on the legislation, “Under current law, section 1720D of title 38, U.S.C., VA has the authority to provide counseling, care and services to veterans who experienced sexual trauma while serving on active duty or active duty for training. […] The Senate amendment would expand eligibility for care and services for MST at a VA facility to active duty servicemembers. Active duty servicemembers would not be required to initially be seen by DOD and receive a referral before seeking treatment at a VA facility for MST. It would take effect on the date that is one year after the date of enactment. […] The House amendment contains no similar provision. […] The Conference substitute adopts the Senate position.” [House Report 113-564, 7/28/14]
- Five Days Later, The House Adopted A Conference-Committee-Produced Compromise Version Of The Legislation, Which Contained The Senate Bill’s Provisions On Sexual Trauma. According to the conference report on the veterans’ legislation, the conference committee substitute adopted all three of the Senate bill’s provisions on sexual trauma. [House Report 113-564, 7/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3230]
2013: DeSantis Voted Against Providing $136 Billion To Fund All Veterans’ Programs Through FY 2013, As Well As $54.5 Billion In Advance FY 2014 Funding For Certain VA Medical Services-Related Areas. In March 2013, DeSantis voted against the House’s version of the FY 2013 Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations Bill, which was bundled with a defense appropriations bill for FY2013, and a continuing resolution funding the rest of the government through the end of FY 2013 at FY 2012 levels. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill provides for a total of $135.8 billion for all veterans programs (discretionary and mandatory) in FY 2013. […] In addition, the measure provides the requested $54.5 billion in advance appropriations for FY 2014 for VA's medical services, medical support and compliance, and medical facilities accounts. […] Of the total provided for veterans in FY 2013, $62.9 billion (46%) is for discretionary spending, primarily veterans' health programs, and $72.9 billion (54%) is for mandatory programs, primarily veterans' compensation and pensions. Both are essentially equal to the president's request. None of the funding provided in this bill for Veterans Affairs is subject to sequestration.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 267 to 151. Following House passage, the Senate passed a substitute version of the bill, which the House then approved and the president signed into law. [House Vote 62, 3/6/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/6/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 933]
- 2009: Congress Decided To Fund Certain VA Medical Accounts One Fiscal Year In Advance, In Order To Address The Uncertainty Created By Its Repeated Failure To Fund VA Health Care By The Start Of A New Fiscal Year. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The House voted Thursday [October 8, 2009] to put politically sensitive veterans’ health care programs on a two-year budget cycle. […] The bill would authorize appropriations for the VA medical care programs one year in advance of the start of each fiscal year. […] [T]he version approved by the House would provide advance appropriations authority starting in fiscal 2011 for three Veterans Health Administration medical care accounts: medical services, medical support and compliance, and medical facilities. Advocates say the change, which is supported by President Obama, would create more fiscal predictability for the medical accounts handled by the VA. […] Supporters of the change say that for years the agency’s health care system has been plagued by consistently late and, at times, inadequate budgets. Final appropriations for the VA have not been enacted before the start of the fiscal year in 19 of the past 22 years. The trend has continued into the current fiscal year [FY 2010], which began Oct. 1 [2009]. Additionally, requests for supplemental appropriations for VA health care have increased in frequency.” [Congressional Quarterly, 10/8/09]
- FY 2013 Funding Was $11.7 Billion More Than FY 2012, But Was $1.7 Billion Less Than Requested. According to Congressional Quarterly, the $135.8 billion in FY 2013 funding was “$11.7 billion (9%) more than the FY 2012 level but $1.7 billion (1%) less than the president's request.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/6/13]
- FY 2013 Funding Total Included $52.5 Billion That Had Been Already Been Provided By The Previous Year’s VA Funding Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Of amounts available to the VA for FY 2013, $52.5 billion represents advance appropriations for FY 2013 provided by the FY 2012 Military Construction-VA appropriations law (PL 112-74).” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/6/13]
- Congressman Price: “This CR Will Lock In These Devastating Cuts--Impairing Vital Government Functions, Reducing The Paychecks Of Thousands Of American Workers, And Undermining Our Economic Recovery.” According to a speech by Congressman Price found in the Congressional Record, “Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there is a blizzard of evidence against this continuing resolution; yet the Republican majority keeps skidding ahead like an out-of-control snowplow. Instead of avoiding sequestration with a balanced deficit reduction package, this CR will lock in these devastating cuts--impairing vital government functions, reducing the paychecks of thousands of American workers, and undermining our economic recovery. The CBO says it will cost three-quarters of a million jobs.” [Congressional Record, 3/6/16]
2014: DeSantis Voted Against Increasing Funding For Defense Health Program Treatment Of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder By $5 Million. In June 2014, DeSantis effectively voted against an amendment to the FY 2015 Defense Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would increase by $5 million the amount provided for Defense-wide operations and maintenance, intended for sexual assault prevention. It would increase by $10 million the amount provided for the Defense Health Program, of which $5 million would be intended for electronic health records at the Department of Veterans Affairs and $5 million for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. It would decrease by $15 million the amount provided for research, development, test and evaluation.” The vote was on a motion to recommit the underlying bill to the House Appropriations Committee with instructions that it be reported back immediately with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 190 to 220. [House Vote 337, 6/20/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
2014: DeSantis Voted Against Increasing Funding For Military Sexual Assault Prevention By $5 Million. In June 2014, DeSantis effectively voted against an amendment to the FY 2015 Defense Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would increase by $5 million the amount provided for Defense-wide operations and maintenance, intended for sexual assault prevention. It would increase by $10 million the amount provided for the Defense Health Program, of which $5 million would be intended for electronic health records at the Department of Veterans Affairs and $5 million for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. It would decrease by $15 million the amount provided for research, development, test and evaluation.” The vote was on a motion to recommit the underlying bill to the House Appropriations Committee with instructions that it be reported back immediately with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 190 to 220. [House Vote 337, 6/20/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
2015: DeSantis Voted To Institute The Chained CPI, Which Would Have Resulted In Decreased Veterans Pensions Benefits And Disability Benefits As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, DeSantis voted for instituting the Chained-CPI. According to the Republican Study Committee, “This budget proposes to begin using the more accurate measure for inflation, chained CPI, saving the taxpayers $220 billion in total over the next ten years.” The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline.” The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
- AARP: Moving To The Chained CPI Would Result In Reduced Benefits Over Time For Veterans. According to the AARP, “Most benefit programs affecting retired and disabled veterans, and their dependents and survivors, are indexed to price inflation. Linking these benefit amounts to the chained CPI-U would reduce the growth in benefits.6 Veterans are more likely than other groups to experience the long-term impact of cumulative COLA reductions. Many veterans are eligible to claim Military Retirement pensions by age 50, after having met the requirement for 20 years of service. These veterans could experience the effects of a reduced COLA over several decades.7 Many retired and disabled veterans also receive Social Security benefits, and could experience the chained CPI-U’s impact twice. A severely disabled, unmarried veteran who claims Veterans Disability Compensation (VDC) benefits at age 30 in 2013 would be entitled to benefits of about $2,816 per month, or $33,792 per year. This veteran would experience benefit cuts (in real terms) of $121 per month by age 45 (a cut of 4.3% compared to current law), $274 per month by age 65 (a 9.7% cut), and $418 per month by age 85 (a cut of 14.8%). The cumulative cut to this veteran’s benefits would be $60,121 by age 65 and $144,189 by age 85.” [AARP, Accessed 3/10/16]
DeSantis On Veterans’ Health Care: “On The Overall System, I Know We Are At Least Committed To Giving Veterans An Option To Use Private Care.” According to the St. Augustine Record, “U.S. Congressman Ron DeSantis, now entering his fifth year in the House of Representatives, sat down with The Daytona Beach News-Journal editorial board last week to discuss a range of issues facing the country. [… ] Q: There have been ongoing efforts to expand the local Veterans Affairs clinic. Are you optimistic at all about where a Trump administration could take VA health care? A: At the clinic, we have to get this new lease and it requires legislation and a part of it is just the way Washington works. They score the leases over a 20-year period that causes it to have a budget effect. The delay is not just in Daytona. This is happening in other parts of the country. My hope is that we deal with that and that we do it early. On the overall system, I know we are at least committed to giving veterans an option to use private care. Trump nominated someone who is in the existing VA chain of command right now. David Shulkin looks like he is a smart, capable guy. I just wonder if elevating someone from within the system is what we need or do we need someone to come from outside the system. I think we were all surprised it was someone from inside the VA.” [St. Augustine Record, 1/21/17]
DeSantis Supported Allowing Veterans To Use Their Benefits At Health Care Providers Other Than VA Hospitals And Doctors. According to Tampa Bay Times, “He and DeSantis have both called for allowing veterans to use their benefits at health care providers other than VA hospitals and doctors. ‘If you do have veterans who are getting clogged up in the system who are getting stuck on waiting lists, they should have the ability to go access private care,’ he said at a Tampa town hall last week sponsored by conservative veterans group Concerned Veterans for America.” [Tampa Bay Times, 5/26/16]
¶ Privatization Would Hurt Veterans And Be A Less Effective Source For Care
Advocates Said Hospitals May Not Have Expertise On Veterans-Specific Issues. According to Vox, “Another concern: hospitals that see the general public won't have the expertise to treat the specific issues plaguing veterans. A typical VA patient ‘might have a spinal cord injury, plus an orthopedic issue, plus a mental health issue. They're a multifaceted patient,’ Carl Blake of Paralyzed Veterans of America explains. ‘The VA is a system constructed to provide holistic care for the life of that patient. The private system is not constructed with those ideas in mind.’” [Vox, 5/28/14]
Advocates Warned That Privatization Could Lead To Less Money Going To Facilities Operated By The VA. According to Vox, “Veteran advocates worry any form of privatization would hurt the VA system. If veterans opted to use private facilities instead of those the VA operates, federal officials could decide that the public system isn't covering as many patients and therefore doesn't need as much money. ‘The more money we spend out on the private sector on veterans, the less money there is to care for those that are within the system,’ says Joe Violante, national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans.” [Vox, 5/28/14]
Study Found VA Post-Operative Complications Were Lower Than Private-Sector Care. According to an op-ed in the Washington Post, “An independent assessment of VA by the consulting firms of Grant Thornton and McKinsey & Company along with the Rand and Mitre corporations found that, compared with private-sector care: ●VA post-operative complications were lower.” [Washington Post, Op-ed, 5/11/18]
Study Found Inpatient Care From VA Was Just As Effective Or More Effective Than Private-Sector Care. According to an op-ed in the Washington Post, “An independent assessment of VA by the consulting firms of Grant Thornton and McKinsey & Company along with the Rand and Mitre corporations found that, compared with private-sector care: […] ●VA inpatient care was more or as effective.” [Washington Post, Op-ed, 5/11/18]
Study Found VA Hospitals Were More Likely Than Private Sector Care To Follow Best Practices For Preventing Infections Related To Catheters. According to an op-ed in the Washington Post, “An independent assessment of VA by the consulting firms of Grant Thornton and McKinsey & Company along with the Rand and Mitre corporations found that, compared with private-sector care: […] ●VA hospitals were more likely to follow best practices for prevention of catheter-related infections.” [Washington Post, Op-ed, 5/11/18]
Study Found VA Mortality Rates Declined More Rapidly For Some Conditions When Compared To Private-Sector Care. According to an op-ed in the Washington Post, “An independent assessment of VA by the consulting firms of Grant Thornton and McKinsey & Company along with the Rand and Mitre corporations found that, compared with private-sector care: […] ●VA mortality rates decline more rapidly for some conditions.” [Washington Post, Op-ed, 5/11/18]
Study Found Compared To Private-Sector Care, VA Outpatients Got Better Follow-Up Care, Mental Health Care, Obesity Counseling, And Blood-Pressure Control. According to an op-ed in the Washington Post, “An independent assessment of VA by the consulting firms of Grant Thornton and McKinsey & Company along with the Rand and Mitre corporations found that, compared with private-sector care: […] ●VA outpatients received better follow-up care, better mental health and obesity counseling, and better blood-pressure control.” [Washington Post, Op-ed, 5/11/18]
Study Found Compared To Private-Sector Care, Elderly VA Patients Were Less Likely To Receive Medications That Could Have Made Them Sicker. According to an op-ed in the Washington Post, “An independent assessment of VA by the consulting firms of Grant Thornton and McKinsey & Company along with the Rand and Mitre corporations found that, compared with private-sector care: […] ●Elderly VA patients were less likely to receive medications that could make them sicker.” [Washington Post, Op-ed, 5/11/18]
2013: DeSantis Effectively Voted Against Ensuring That The Proposed SKILLS Act Would Not Diminish Employment Protections, Training Opportunities Or Education Benefits Of Certain Seniors, Veterans, Women Or Young Americans. In March 2013, DeSantis effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] clarif[ied] that nothing in the bill would repeal, deny or loosen employment protections, training opportunities or educational benefits for certain seniors, veterans, women or youth.” The vote was on a motion to recommit the underlying bill to the House Education and the Workforce Committee and report the bill back with an amendment. This was part of a larger package that would have also raised the minimum wage to $10.10 in two years. The underlying bill was the House version of the SKILLS Act. The SKILLS Act reauthorized and overhauled 35 employment and job training programs into one funding stream for state and local use. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 184 to 233. [House Vote 74, 3/15/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/15/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/15/13; Congressional Actions, HR 803]
- Amendment Supporters Argued That The Underlying Bill Unfairly Targeted For Elimination Programs Established To Protect Young Workers, Working Seniors, Farm Workers, Workers With Disabilities, English-Language Learners, Veterans And Low-Income Workers, And Would Have Eliminated The Workforce Investment Act Of 1998 Directive Requiring The Poorest Workers Be Given Priority Of Service. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said, “First, the bill eliminates and consolidates programs simply for the sake of elimination and consolidation. The populations served by these programs often face daunting challenges in the job market. Youth, older workers, farm workers, workers with disabilities, English-language learners, veterans and low-income workers are among those who face the greatest barriers to employment. Yet, programs that serve these populations are the very programs targeted by the Republicans. Even worse, the bill eliminates the directive requiring these poorest workers to be given priority of service. With limited money, hard-to-serve populations will be left out in the cold. And we have yet to hear any credible evidence that eliminating these programs will save taxpayer money. We have yet to hear any credible evidence that these programs are duplicative, nor have we heard credible evidence that this approach will make the system work better.” [Congressional Record, 3/15/13]
- The Obama Administration Opposed The Underlying Bill, Arguing It Would Downsize Employment Programs Protecting Those With Significant Barriers To Employment, Without Providing Critical Assistance To The People Those Programs Served. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, issued by the Office of Management, “While H.R. 803 takes some positive steps, the bill does not adhere to the Administration’s key principles for reform. The bill would eliminate, or allow the consolidation of, many targeted programs, without providing the critical assistance needed by vulnerable populations such as veterans, low-income adults, youth, adults with literacy and English language needs, people with disabilities, ex-offenders, and others with significant barriers to employment. H.R. 803 would freeze funding for the next seven years and would fail to support efforts to innovate and replicate effective approaches.” [Office of Management and Budget, 3/13/13]
- Supporters Said The Proposed Amendment Would Ensure That, Even With Cuts Made By Bill, “The Poor Will Get A Better Shot At Better Jobs.” According to the Congressional Record, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said, “When I look at the bill before us, I think of Gregory and a million other hardworking Americans like him. The bill before us is not for him. He’s low-income. Under this bill, he loses his priority of service even if he wanted to train to try to get new skills for a better job with better wages to provide for his family. With this bill, he wouldn’t be able to. With this bill, we shouldn’t ask what it does for people like Gregory but what it does to them. Under the Foxx bill, seniors and youth no longer have wage protections. Low-income workers no longer get priority of service. The voices of labor and community colleges are squeezed off the Workforce Investment Boards, and the poor and disadvantaged get the shaft. We propose this motion to do something different so that, no matter what happens with the adoption of the Foxx bill, the poor will get a better shot at better jobs, and those who are working in low-wage jobs will get a decent wage.” [Congressional Record, 3/15/13]
- Opponents Said Proposed Amendment “May Hurt Workers And Job Creators And Increase Unemployment.” According to the Congressional Record, House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) said, “The best approach right now is to get Federal spending under control and government out of the way of the Nation’s job creators. Republicans are always willing to discuss responsible proposals that will promote economic growth and help people get to work. Since the motion to recommit would force this committee to advance a proposal that may hurt workers and job creators and increase unemployment, I urge my colleagues to vote ‘no’ on the motion and ‘yes’ on the underlying bill.” [Congressional Record, 3/15/13]
¶ DeSantis Effectively Voted Against Allowing Military Victims Of Sexual Assault The Option Of Referring Cases To The Relevant Military Office Instead Of The Accused’s Military Commander
2013: DeSantis Effectively Voted Against Allowing Military Victims Of Sexual Assault The Option Of Referring Cases To The Relevant Military Office Of The Chief Prosecutor Instead Of The Accused’s Military Commander. In June 2013, DeSantis voted against a motion to recommit the bill with an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide[d] for the referral of sexual assault charges or sex-related offenses to the Office of the Chief Prosecutor for the branch of the military the accused is a member of unless the victim elects that the charge be referred only to the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate.” A command’s staff judge advocate provides legal advice to the command. The underlying FY 2014 Defense Authorization bill included a number of provisions addressing sexual assault in the military. The vote was on a motion to recommit the with instructions to report it back with the specified amendment. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 194 to 225. [House Vote 243, 6/14/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1960]
- Under Current Law, The Accused’s Military Commander Has The Sole Authority To Decide Whether He Or She Will Face Sexual Assault Charges. According to Mother Jones, “Under the military justice system, if a service member is assaulted, the commander of the alleged perpetrator has the final say over whether charges should be brought. Commanding officers are also allowed to overturn sexual assault convictions. Top military brass say that commanders need this kind of prosecutorial discretion to maintain order and discipline within the ranks.” [Mother Jones, 11/20/13]
- Underlying Bill Included Mandatory Minimum Sentences For Military Personnel Convicted Of Sexual Assault, Required Dismissal Of Some Military Personnel Convicted Of Rape And Stripped Commanders Of The Power To Overturn Sexual Assault Convictions. According to Huffington Post, “The House overwhelmingly passed a sweeping, $638 billion defense bill on Friday that imposes new punishments on members of the armed services found guilty of rape or sexual assault as outrage over the crisis in the military has galvanized Congress. […] The House bill would require a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison for a member of the armed services convicted of rape or sexual assault in a military court. Officers, commissioned warrant officers, cadets and midshipmen convicted of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy or attempts to commit those offenses also would be dismissed. Enlisted personnel and noncommissioned warrant officers convicted of similar crimes would be dishonorably discharged. The bill also would strip military commanders of the power to overturn convictions in rape and sexual assault cases and eliminate the five-year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for sexual assault and sexual assault of a child.” [Huffington Post, 6/14/13]
- Proposed Amendment Would Have Allowed Sexual Assault Victims To Choose Which Of Two Offices Would Have The Decision Of Whether The Case Went To Trial. According to Huffington Post, “Duckworth and several other Democratic women made a last-ditch effort to change the bill to allow a victim to choose whether the Office of Chief Prosecutor or the commander in the victim’s chain of command decides whether the case would go to trial. They argued that the bill did not go far enough. Their effort failed, […] but in an emotional moment on the House floor, a wheelchair-bound Duckworth received kisses, hugs and handshakes after her plea.” [Huffington Post, 6/14/13]