Ron DeSantis on Homeland Security

Veterans issues on front burner, but outside the VA

DeSANTIS: 9/11 happened. We were in conflict. And I felt that I should raise my hand and serve. I volunteered to go to Iraq. And I learned a lot about what veterans go through. And I'm going to put veteran issues on the front burner as commander-in-chief.

Q: What do you plan to do about the lackluster performance of the Veterans Administration?

DeSANTIS: What we're going to do is recognize that the V.A. is a massive bureaucracy. I'm going to fire people that aren't doing a good job. We're going to bring accountability. But we're also going to harness all the resources that are outside of government. And this is a model we've used in Florida. And we're going to use it for veterans. So we have something called the CarePortal. We recruit military groups, charities, churches, businesses, individuals. So you go to the V.A., you need something, maybe the V.A. helps you, but that immediately goes out to all these organizations.

I'll advocate for military service; get more signing up

We have to be strong and defend the people who defend us

DeSantis: I actually served in Iraq back in the day and we had Al-Qaeda in Iraq, you had Shia militias that were funded by Iran that were killing 100s and 100s of US troops. And as commander-in-chief, I am not going to put our troops in harm's way unless you're willing to defend them with everything you have. Biden has [US naval ships and troops] out there, they're sitting ducks, he's doing glancing blows, that's just inviting more attacks from the Iranians. I would say you harm a hair on the head of an American service member and you are going to have hell to pay. We are not just going to sit there and let our service members be sitting ducks. And that's true whether it's Iran or whether it's any country on the world. We have to be strong and we have to defend the people who defend us.

Increase naval fleet to 600 ships over next 20 years

Keep military service voluntary instead of mandatory

DESANTIS: I think it should be voluntary. I'm somebody that volunteered to serve, inspired by September 11th. When you go in that type of environment, anything you have, your personal agenda, you check it at the door. You go there and it's about focusing on the mission above all else. That's how I would view being the president of the United States. It's not about me. My sole focus will be on your future and reversing this country's decline.

K-9s for Warriors: treat PTSD in post-9/11 veterans

A great nonprofit called "K-9s for Warriors" trained service dogs to be paired with veterans suffering from ailments like post-traumatic stress. K-9s for Warriors trained the dogs to recognize when the post-traumatic stress of the veteran was most acute and to respond in ways that reduced that stress. This simple approach, which didn't fund Big Pharma, helped many veterans. Not surprisingly, the suicide rate among those veterans paired with a service dog was infinitesimally small.

Military draft would make public oppose nation-building

The all-volunteer approach made lengthy deployments and years-long troop commitments more palpable to the public. Had there been a military draft, public opposition to a long-term nation-building exercise that resulted in American casualities would have been strong.

$3.4 million in state spending to support military

Gave legal support to Gitmo terrorist detention center

He is currently an officer in the reserve component of the United States Navy. He is a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. He has lectured on the law of war at Florida Coastal School of Law.

Opposes reducing defense spending.

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?'

Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

Congressional Summary:Expressing the conditions for the US becoming a signatory to the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

• WHEREAS the ATT poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the US as well as to the constitutional rights of US citizens and US sovereignty;
• WHEREAS the ATT fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms;
• WHEREAS the ATT places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality, recognizing their equal right to transfer arms, and is thereby dangerous to the security of the US;
• WHEREAS the ATT will create opportunities to engage in `lawfare` against the US via the misuse of the treaty`s tribunals;
• WHEREAS the ATT could hinder the US from fulfilling its strategic and moral commitments to provide arms to allies such as Taiwan & Israel;
• Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that--

1. the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that the Senate should not ratify the ATT; and
2. that no Federal funds should be authorized to implement the ATT.

Opponent`s argument against bill:(United Nations press release, June 3, 2013):

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [said] "With the ATT, the world has decided to finally put an end to the 'free-for-all' nature of international weapons transfers. From now on, weapons and ammunition should only cross borders after the exporter confirms that the transfer complies with internationally agreed standards. The Treaty will provide an effective deterrent against excessive and destabilizing arms flows, particularly in conflict-prone regions. It will make it harder for weapons to be diverted into the illicit market, to reach warlords, pirates, terrorists and criminals, or to be used to commit grave human rights abuses or violations of international humanitarian law."

$515B for military plus $89B off sequester for wars.

Congressional Summary: HR 1735: The National Defense Authorization Act authorizes FY2016 appropriations and sets forth policies regarding the military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD), and military construction. This bill also authorizes appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), which are exempt from discretionary spending limits. The bill authorizes appropriations for base realignment and closure (BRAC) activities and prohibits an additional BRAC round.

Wikipedia Summary: The NDAA specifies the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense (DOD) for Fiscal Year 2016. The law authorizes the $515 billion in spending for national defense and an additional $89.2 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations fund (OCO).

Opposition statement by Rep. Gerry Connolly (May 15, 2015): Congressman Connolly said he opposed the bill because it fails to end sequestration, and pits domestic investments versus defense investments. Said Connolly, `This NDAA uses a disingenuous budget mechanism to circumvent sequestration. It fails to end sequestration.`

Support statement by BreakingDefense.com(Sept, 2015): Republicans bypassed the BCA spending caps (the so-called sequester) by shoving nearly $90 billion into the OCO account, designating routine spending as an emergency war expenses exempted from the caps. This gimmick got President Barack Obama the funding he requested but left the caps in place on domestic spending, a Democratic priority. `The White House`s veto announcement is shameful,` Sen. John McCain said. `The NDAA is a policy bill. It cannot raise the budget caps. It is absurd to veto the NDAA for something that the NDAA cannot do.`

Legislative outcome: House rollcall #532 on passed 270-156-15 on Oct. 1, 2015; Senate rollcall #277 passed 70-27-3 on Oct. 7, 2015; vetoed by Pres. Obama on Oct. 22, 2015; passed and signed after amendments.