Elise Stefanik: “In closing, again, I think it is important to note that as a matter of practice on the ground, we want zero civilian…”

“In closing, again, I think it is important to note that as a matter of practice on the ground, we want zero civilian casualties, not only for law of war and ethical reasons but because our troops are often there to work alongside and protect civilian populations, so any unnecessary force creates additional enemies. One civilian casualty is one too many. But this amendment is unnecessary because there are already considerable policies in place and reporting that occurs to minimize any and all civilian casualties. This amendment is also unnecessary because there is, in addition, substantial and continued coordination that occurs between the DOD and the State Department, starting at the country team level and extending back to the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom, which also includes coordination with the National Security Council and the intelligence community. Again, we don't want to give up our jurisdiction on the House Armed Services Committee when we are talking about military operations and knowing that our troops do anything and everything they can to ensure there are zero civilian casualties. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.”