National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment.

I want to just say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is absolutely wrong when he says there would be a unilateral ending to the struggle against Daesh, or ISIL. The only way that would happen is if we do not take up a new AUMF that would authorize us to take on that battle.

What we need to do is take on our constitutional responsibility. We cannot abdicate it with this out-of-date AUMF that is only tenuously connected to many of the conflicts we see arising today. We have a responsibility under the Constitution, Article I, section 8, to debate and vote, up or down, use of force. We should do that. We should do it now. There is nothing to prevent us from passing a new one or crafting our own or passing the President's unless we abdicate that responsibility.

This allows us to criticize anything the President does and yet, at the same time, never take responsibility for passing our own AUMF adapted for the moment that we are in. That is not right.

I support the gentlewoman's amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes language telling the President to expand our mission in Afghanistan, language that tells the President to put more of our troops in harm's way, to go backwards towards a combat mission in Afghanistan.

Now, Republicans may not say it, but the effect is exactly what they are pushing for--moving the United States military and the United States back toward a combat mission in Afghanistan, not forward away from one. Worse yet, they are pushing for an expanded mission before the new commander on the ground, General John Nicholson, finishes his review. That is right. Congress is giving instructions to the President before the current commander has weighed in. This is a mistake.

So the opening line of the sense of Congress tells the President to leave 9,800 troops in Afghanistan next year. The current plan calls for 5,500. This sets the tone for what is next. Unfortunately, the amendment that strikes this language was not ruled in order.

My amendment starts by striking the next provision. The Republicans want our military to unilaterally strike the Taliban. Now, of course, these people are absolutely bad news, but the State Department does not recognize them as a terrorist organization at this time. This is a decision that should be based on military considerations.

Thus, our counterterrorism mission is allowed to strike and go after Daesh and al Qaeda, but the mission regarding the Taliban is defensive in nature; and if that is going to be changed, it should be based on military considerations, not just through a piece of legislation.

In fact, the Afghans are leading all missions against the Taliban, and this has been happening well before we transitioned to a noncombat mission. So let's not call for going back to combat mission tactics, especially when the commander has not asked for it.

Finally, I would like to talk about a particular provision that is close to me. I would like to address what I regard as actually a troubling piece in the provision, which says, and I will quote from the proposed legislation:

The United States military personnel who are tasked with the mission of providing combat search and rescue support, casualty evacuation, and medical support should not be counted as part of any force management level limitation on the number of United States ground forces in Afghanistan.

This is a mistake. I believe that our medical personnel and others should be considered boots on the ground, contrary to the language in the provision. Combat medics carry weapons, they take casualties, and they are killed. Why shouldn't we count them? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. One of the closest people in the whole wide world to me is an Active Duty military combat medic, and if they are in a war zone, I want them counted.

So with that, I ask for my amendment to be approved and included, and I ask that we listen to military people on the ground before we start trying to tell them what to do, and that we absolutely count combat medics and people who do rescue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge support for my amendment to H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.

The overseas contingency operations account is supposed to provide emergency funding for wars and unexpected operations overseas, operations that cannot be planned for in the base budget.

Republicans are raiding this account. They are taking money from missions designed to protect our Nation from imminent threats to feed the military industrial complex. They argue that this makes our military stronger and that it improves our national security; but what it really does is, the Republicans have taken money from operations overseas and put it towards money for procurement, for nonwar needs, so much so that the operators would only be funded through 2017, April of next year. My amendment puts the money back.

Mr. Chairman, Secretary Carter stated that this gimmick is gambling ``with warfighter money at a time of war.'' He said: ``It would spend money taken from the war account on things that are not DOD's highest priorities across the joint force.''

My amendment takes the $9.4 billion taken for procurement on items like extra F-35s and the littoral combat ship, which the Pentagon did not prioritize, and puts the funds back in the OCO operations and maintenance account.

Mr. Chair, $26 million of that money will go to preventing suicides amongst our military, as the President's request for this was $26 million lower than the amount we appropriated in 2016. This problem is not going down, and it should not receive less support from us.

In summary, we are putting money back where it belongs. We are supporting our troops on the ground. We are supporting those services overseas. We are supporting military readiness. We are supporting the priorities of the Pentagon and the President, not those of the defense industry.

And I will say, Mr. Chairman, that if I were to ask you who I got a call from and ask you to guess, did I get a call from the President's office or the Pentagon or Boeing, the answer would be number three, Boeing. That is who called me and doesn't like this particular amendment. In fact, we didn't hear from the others. We heard from the industry, the special interests.

Let's just say the Republicans do push through extra funds for OCO next year. This would still be shortchanging domestic programs that will have to be cut to pay for the defense industry.

We all know that Republicans won't let us raise taxes to cover additional costs. We won't be able to take on more debt. Americans are going to suffer under the Republicans' scheme to give the Pentagon equipment and the industry just more.

I oppose it, and I urge support for my amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying that it is time to put resources where they are needed, among suicide prevention and directly to our troops, not into simply more military-industrial complex procurement stuff, not just to help private business feed its bottom line profit, but to help our soldiers and to help our military on the ground, when needed.

I urge support for my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source