National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 16, to prohibit the use of funds to dismantle the U.S. stockpile of anti-personnel landmines, APLs, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a report to Congress on the operational alternatives to APLs.

Further, my amendment contains an exception for the destruction of APLs that would be unsafe to store. This amendment would effectively renew the ban that was passed by the full Congress and signed into law by the President in Public Law No. 114-92, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

Mr. Chair, our military commanders have spoken clearly regarding the value and the need for APLs. On March 6, 2014, the United States' highest ranking military officer, Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called anti-personnel landmines an important tool in the arsenal of the United States.

When he was head of the U.S. European Command, General Wesley Clark agreed, saying that ``our field commanders count on APLs to protect the force, influence, maneuver, and shape the battle space, and mass combat power for decisive engagement.'' He also added that the need for APLs was increasing.

Furthermore, two major studies, one conducted by the National Research Council and the other by NATO, have concluded that APLs provide crucial tactical advantages on the battlefield.

Yet on September 29, 2014, President Obama announced that outside of the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. would not use APLs in order to ``underscore its commitment to the spirit and humanitarian aims of the Ottawa Convention.'' The President's actions were, by his own admission, taken to move the U.S. towards full compliance with a treaty, commonly known as the Ottawa Convention, to which the Senate has not given its advice and consent. Moreover, this was created by an NGO-led process that openly sought to ``push aside the central feature of state sovereignty.''

The process that created the treaty was bad. The treaty has not been approved by the Senate, not signed by the President, and our senior military officials state that it would deprive us of an important weapon. Yet the Obama administration seeks to move us forward in compliance with it.

The U.S. has taken action on APLs. We give more funding for APL clearance than any other nation in the world. We are party to amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the CCW, which requires U.S. APLs to be designed to deactivate or self-destruct.

Our APLs meet those standards. U.S. APLs are not killing civilians. Like all weapons, APLs can be used rightly or wrongly. When used responsibly, as U.S. APLs are, they protect our forces, the forces of our allies, and civilians alike.

Landmine opponents, like the administration, state that the Ottawa Convention ``shows our leadership'' and that it is reducing the threat of landmines around the world. That is simply not true. Many IEDs, legally speaking, are APLs. From February 2015 to January 2016, the Pentagon's own Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Agency recorded over 50,000 worldwide casualties as a result of IED attacks.

The Ottawa Convention isn't solving the landmine problem; it is simply disarming the good guys. In this environment, we need weapons that can protect camps, cities, roads, and bases from insurgent attack. Today, one of those weapons is the APL.

Unless we have an alternative to APLs that is equal to or better than APLs at keeping our troops safe, we should not, and dare not, get rid of our stockpile of APLs. The safety of our sons and daughters in uniform is of the utmost importance.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Thornberry and his staff for working with my office on this important issue.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I respect the gentleman's opinion. I understand the President is the Commander in Chief, but I also understand that the APLs, the ones that we use, protect our forces, our friends, and our allies.

As far as the danger of them, we lead on landmine clearance, and we have lived up to all the international obligations we have accepted. The landmine ban treaty disarms us, not our enemies. Dismantling our APLs is not showing leadership. Instead, it would be the height of irresponsibility.

I know that sometimes in this House we get to the point where politics takes precedence over policy. If, at the end of the day, this House can't do everything possible to protect our daughters and sons in uniform and our allies and friends around the world--we are the most responsible user of APLs. We are doing more than anybody else to disarm IEDs.

The problem comes down to where does the United States stand. We need to stand, and we need to be resolute behind our Armed Forces. That is why I stand strong on this amendment.

Make sure the APLs stay in place.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source