National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, my amendment simply requires a mission statement from the National Command Authority.

We used to insist on a mission and an exit strategy before we committed to wars. Make no mistake, this is a proxy war in Ukraine. Russians have unjustly invaded their neighbor, and Ukrainians are rightly defending their country.

The first thing the administration did was offer President Zelenskyy a ride. He said, in a very inspiring response: I don't need a ride. I need ammunition.

Who couldn't be inspired by that?

Before we spent $113 billion, we should have expected a mission. We still don't have a defined mission. Whether it is in public or in a classified setting is fine with this amendment, but it should be required. We should have done it up front, we should have done it subsequently, but we should at least do it now.

Before we spend this other $300 million that is in this National Defense Authorization Act, we should require what every E-5 and above is able to draft. It is the least we can expect out of our National Command Authority.

When we commit to something, the Nation should commit to it, not just our military and not just our checkbook, an open checkbook. Without a mission, we can't hold anyone accountable for failure, and we can't properly claim mission accomplished. We must have a mission.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires a mission. We have asked nicely, we have asked persistently, and they have given us no response, so there has to be consequences.

We figure $300 million out of $113 billion is a small price. It is enough to get their attention, hopefully. Who knows?

They can't account for billions of dollars at the Pentagon. Instead of holding them accountable for it, even firing anybody, we are giving them even more money.

Now, I couldn't be more pro-military. I enlisted in the Army. I got the chance to go to our Nation's military academy. I came back as an Army infantry officer, served in the Ranger regiment. I love this country with a soldier's passion.

We have got to put our country first. If we are going to spend money, we should at least demand a mission, and $300 million is small change.

In fact, before this bill could even make it through the Senate, before appropriations could even come up, they could draft a mission. They could draft a mission today, and they probably have it. The trouble is, they have three or four versions of the mission.

The mission to make sure this war doesn't spread to a NATO ally would be a just cause, but it is not clear that is what they are trying to do. They are not pursuing any kind of peace negotiation.

The mission to require no Russians in Ukraine could be a just cause, but that is very different than a mission that says no Russians in Ukraine including Crimea. Each of those are radically different resource allocations.

I want to know, if we are going to give resources, what mission are you asking me to fund?

Here is the really radical one. Victoria Nuland from the State Department says that our mission is regime change in Russia, including war crimes tribunals for Vladimir Putin. Now, if that is our mission, we don't have resources for that fight. That would require us to be in the fight. That is fundamentally a declaration of war. That is an unlimited war of regime change, a war of aggression by the United States because we have not been attacked.

Now, make no mistake, we are using a proxy. But isn't a proxy meant to facilitate a broader war with Russia? Unless we demand that mission, how do we hold them accountable for not growing it and expanding it? We must demand a mission.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from South Carolina talks about war criminal Putin. That makes me think he supports regime change in Russia, because that is what it would take to prosecute Vladimir Putin for war crimes.

Now, I am not saying that he is not a war criminal. I am not saying anything he has done is just. It is not. The question is: Is that really the mission that we are trying to fund?

The sequence is ready, aim, fire for a reason. It is not ready, fire, aim. It is not too late to pull back and do the rational thing here and commit to a mission so that we can be accountable, and we can hold this administration accountable, our military commanders accountable, and, frankly, our weak State Department accountable for actually accomplishing a mission.

Hopefully, they succeed, and we can say: Well done. Mission accomplished. But they don't want to be accountable for the mission. That is why they worked so hard to oppose this rational standard that was always the cause. Post-Vietnam, we learned we commit to a mission, and we commit to an exit strategy. We abandon it at our peril. We are less free, less safe, and more burdened by debt because of it. We have to demand a mission.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source