Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]  CSPAN  March 10, 2010 3:00pm-3:30pm EST

3:00 pm
flying in marja city's center, the taliban flag has been removed. this lone flag sends a clear message to afghans, that the central government is committed to people there, that we're not going to cut and run, we're going to be with them and help successfully conclude this mission so that they can finally have peace. some have compared our efforts there to russians or others in the past and have talked about the defeat of other nations in this country. we're not there to take over this country. we're there to provide them freedom. that's why we're going to be successful. however, this debate is not being conducted in a vacuum. our troops are listening. our allies are listening. the taliban and al qaeda also are listening. and, finally, the afghan people are listening. this resolution sends the message, pay no attention to the
3:01 pm
flag over there. america cannot be trusted to uphold its own values and commitments. i'll be attending a funeral saturday. each of us, i'm sure here, have had to perform that duty. it's not one i'm looking forward to. i've attended several in the past. but at this point for me to go to that funeral and tell them that their son, sergeant galleg, lost his life over an effort that we're going to cut and run from is something i cannot do. mr. speaker, i want to send a clear message to the afghan people and government that our coalition partners, our military men and women, this congress, believes in you. we support you, we honor your dedication and your sacrifice. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the
3:02 pm
gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: you know, i just want to say that when -- you can talk about how the democratic leadership is bringing this up at a time that there is obviously a surge about to begin , but why question the timeliness of the debate when in fact my friend in the minority, their party didn't bring this up for eight years of debate? eight years. i mean, i think it's timely. that's the whole point. i want to thank mr. poe of texas. i yield the gentleman five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extends my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paul: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this resolution. i thank the gentleman from ohio for bringing this issue up. it is late. this war started 10 years ago, it's time we talked about it. it was said earlier on, it is hard to quit a war, and we
3:03 pm
shouldn't be quitting. but i tell you what the real problem is, it's too easy to start a war, it's too easy to get involved and that is our problem. the founders of this country tried very hard to prevent this kind of a dilemma that we're in now, getting involved in no-win wars and nobody knowing exactly who the enemy is. the war was started and justified by quoting and using the war powers resolution written in 1973. that was written after the fiasco of vietnam to try to prevent the problems of slipping into war. yet that resolution in itself was unconstitutional because it literally legalized war for 90 days. so, it was -- it did exactly the opposite, so here we are, the 90-day permission for war, at that time, now it is close to 10 years. i'm afraid that this is a little
3:04 pm
bit too little, hopefully not too late for us to do something about this. are we going to do it for 10 more years? how long are we going to stay? and the enemy is said to be the taliban. well, the taliban, they certainly don't like us and we don't like them. and the more we kill, the mortal been a we get. but -- the more taliban we get. but i want to quote a line, what the purpose of giving the president the power, which was an illegal transfer of power to the president to pursue war at will. it says, the authorities to authorize the use of united states armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states, the taliban didn't launch an attack against the united states, the government of afghanistan didn't launch it. the best evidence is that of those 20 individuals, two of them might have passed through afghanistan. a lot of the planning was done in germany and spain and the
3:05 pm
training was done here in the united states. oh, yes. the image is that they all conspired, a small group of people, with bin laden, they made this decision. right now the evidence is not there to prove that. but certainly bin laden was very sympathetic, loved it and wanted to take credit for it. and one of the reasons why he wanted to take credit was that he said it would do three things for what he wanted. first, it would enhance his recruitment efforts for al qaeda and his attack against western powers who have become overly involved in control of the middle east and have had a plan for 20 years to remake the middle east. he also said that if we -- the consequence of 9/11 will be that we are bog the american people down in a no-win war and demoralize the people. and they're working on it.
3:06 pm
there's still a lot of moral support but there are a lot of people in this country now, the country is totally bankrupt and we're spending trillions of dollars on these useful wars, the people will become demoralized because history shows that all empires end because they expand too far and they bankrupt the country just as the soviet system came down and that's what bin laden was hoping for. he also said that the dollars spent will bankrupt this country. and we are bankrupt and yet there is no hesitation to quit spending one cent overseas. we built embassies in baghdad, we built embassy in kabul, billion-dollar embassies, fortresses and the all necessary. nobody is really concerned. if people were concerned about the disastrous affect of debt on this country, we would change our foreign policy and we would be safer for it. we are not safer because of this foreign policy. it's a policy of intervention
3:07 pm
that has been going on for a long time and it will eventually end. this war is an illegal war. this war is an immoral war. this war is an unconstitutional war. and the least you can say is, illegitimate. there's no real purpose in this. the taliban did not attack us on 9/11. do you know, after we went in to afghanistan, immediately the concerns were shifted to remaking the middle east. we went in to iraq, used this as a justification. it was nothing more than an excuse. most americans, the majority of americans, still believe that saddam hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. and i imagine most americans believe that the taliban had something to do with 9/11 and it's not true. we need to change our foreign policy and come back to our senses and defend this country and not pretend to be the policemen of the world.
3:08 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? mr. kucinich: could i ask, madam speaker, how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: certainly. just a moment. the gentleman from ohio has 68 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california, mr. berman, has 36 minutes. and the gentlewoman from florida has 27 1/2 minutes. mr. kucinich: if it's -- ok, i'll yield. i'll yield mr. kennedy three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy, is recognized for -- i'm sorry, from rhode island, is recognized for three minutes. mr. kennedy: i thank the gentleman, mr. kucinich. i want to say at the outset,
3:09 pm
while i'm speaking on behalf of the same resolution the gentleman before me spoke on behalf of, i couldn't disagree more, that our interests do lie in protecting our national security by being in afghanistan . my opposition is our strategy. my opposition is that somehow we're going to control the ground by maneuvering ourselves militarily to control the ground as if it's a nation state. i hear my colleagues talk about the flag of afghanistan. as if afghanistan is a country. in case anybody has bothered to look at it, it's a loose collection of 121 different sovereign tribes, none of them get along with each other, and it's a mountainous terrain of rock and gravel and the notion that our soldiers are over there
3:10 pm
laying down their lives to secure ground, we ought to be asking the taliban and the terrorists, anybody who is organizing to strike in our country, i am for that. but i am not for organizing an organized military campaign where we're having to go in and take in these towns and subject our soldiers to unnecessary threats where we are putting our treasure and our lives and our men and women in uniform on the line unnecessarily. now someone, i can't believe i even heard this, said, oh, i can't go to a funeral and tell the parents of someone who just died that they lost their child in vein. somewhere i heard that during the vietnam war. so what is it we got to do? we got to doubledown on a bad
3:11 pm
policy to protect the honor of those who have already died? i don't think so. there isn't a soldier in this country who's laid down their lives for our nation that isn't a hero. and no one in here disagrees with that. what is shameful is our policy that puts them in harm's way when they don't need to be. and make no mistake about it, this is not about national security, because if it's about national security it's about whether we put our treasure and our lives on the line in afghanistan or whether we put it in kuwait or whether we put it in the sudan or whether we put it in some other place in the world, all of which is where we need it. where we need it the most, that should be the question. because we don't have the resources to put it everywhere. so don't come and tell me our national security requires that we have an afghanistan because that's not the only place we
3:12 pm
need it. the question is where our priorities should be and you take it from one place, you have to put it somewhere else. 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kennedy: finally. if anyone wants to know where citizens is. there's two press people in this gallery. we're talking about eric massa 24/7 on the tv, we're talking about war and peace, $3 billion, 1,000 lives and no press, no press, you want to know why the american public is fit? they're fit because they're not seeing their congress do the work that they're sent to do. it's because the press, the press of the united states is not covering the most significant issue of national importance and that's the laying of lives down in the nation for the service of our country. it's despicable, the national press corps right now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, madam chair, i
3:13 pm
recognize for three minutes the chairman of the middle east and south asia subcommittee of our committee, my friend from new york, mr. ackerman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes, the gentleman from new york. mr. ackerman: i thank the chairman. madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the resolution. i'm astonished that the resolution has even come to the floor. i'm afraid some of our colleagues either misunderstand the plain text of the war powers act or would like to have to initiate a legislative version of the so-called memory hold described by george or well in his novel, "1984." the war powers act provides that in the event u.s. forces are engaged in hostilities without either a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, a concurrent resolution can be considered to
3:14 pm
force the withdrawal of our troops. an important piece to be sure, but one that is wholly irrelevant to the actual circumstances under which our troops are currently fighting. like many of us in the house, i was present on september 14, 2001, when the house passed house joint resolution 64 to authorize the use of united states armed forces against those responsible for the then recent attack launched against the united states. the vote, i would remind you, was 420 in favor and one against. i would note that the gentleman from ohio, along with myself, was present and voted aye as was the gentleman from texas, as were 420 of us. i'd like to quote from that resolution which we're seeking to deny existed which became public law 107-40 on september
3:15 pm
18, 2001. it says, quote, that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determined planned, authorized, committed or aided in attacks on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations, organizations or persons. members may like or dislike the word afghanistan. they may think the president's new strategy is wise or foolish. they may -- they may regard the cost of the war as bearable or not. but they are plainly not entitled to argue that the
3:16 pm
hostilities are not pursuant to specific authorization by the congress of the united states. the 107th congress authorized the use of force. the president of the united states signed the authorization into law. and for a member of the house who is opposed to the war on very sympathetic such views then the proper remedy is to pass legislation to mandate withdrawal to the congress under regular order. like-wise vote against -- ask for an additional 30 seconds. mr. berman: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ackerman: supplemental appropriations to fund the war. what members are not be able to do is waste three hours of the house to debate a resolution founded at best on a mistake and the willful -- that we authorized this war by a 421-1 vote can be dropped into a memory hole.
3:17 pm
this resolution deserves to fail. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i would like to respond to my friend that the authorization for the use of military force, which passed september 14, 2001, had in its provision this particular line, "nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the war powers resolution." so the war powers resolution is properly the subject of a debate and properly serves as a vehicle to bring this debate to the house of representatives and we don't need to cede our right under article 1, section 8 at anytime to determine whether or not we go to war. this is clearly a constitutional issue. when i take an oath to defend the constitution i don't cross my figurers behind my back and say i make the president make
3:18 pm
the final decisions on going to war. the founders would put the ability to declare war in the legislative branch. very clear about that. do not disrespect this institution when it comes to the constitution. remember the war powers act specifically was mentioned in the resolution that was passed on september 14, 2001. it was not superseded. while i voted for the authorization of the use of military force because i believe america has a right to defend herself, i didn't give any president carte blanche to go ahead and prosecute a war when he or she, in the future, determines necessary. i yield four minutes to the gentleman, mr. duncan. you may proceed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: i rise in support
3:19 pm
of this resolution. there is nothing conservative about the war in afghanistan. in fact, it goes against every traditional conservative position i've ever known. it has meant massive foreign aid which we cannot afford, which conservatives have been the biggest critics. it's meant huge deficit spending shortly after the congress -- at a time that the congress raised our national debt to over $14 trillion. conservatives have been the biggest critics of the u.n. and biggest opponents to world government. and certainly the war in afghanistan has right field with that. fiscal conservatives should be horrified about the hundreds of billions that has been spent over there. this war has gone on for more than eight years. at a time when the war in iraq had gone on for a far shorter time than that. william f. buckley, who opposed the war in iraq, wrote this about that war. he said, "a respect for the
3:20 pm
power of the united states is injendered by our success and engagements which we take part. a point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfast ness purpose but misapplication of pride." and he went on to say that if this war drags on -- talking about the war in iraq -- he said whether there had been skepticism there would be contempt. there is nothing conservative about the war in afghanistan. george, the conservative foreign affairs columnist. also about the war in iraq but it applies to war as well. she said critics of the war have said since the beginning of the conflict that americans still strangely complacent about overseas wars being waged by minorities in their name will enevidentably come to a point where they see they have to have a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across
3:21 pm
the globe. and we should remember, madam speaker, that even general petraeus said we should never forget that afghanistan has been known as the graveyard of empires. our constitution does not give us the power or the right to run another country. and that's what we've been doing. it should have come as no surprise, madam speaker, that president karzai of afghanistan told abs recently that the -- abc news recently that the u.s. needs to stay there 10 or 20 years. he needs our money and he wants to stay in power. but listen to what columnist george will has said. he has changed his position and written about afghanistan that the budget will not support an expansion there, the military, quote, will be hard pressed to execute it and america's patience will not be commensurate with afghanistan's limitless demands. this will not end well. those were not my words. those are the words of george will. a very small but very powerful
3:22 pm
neoconservatives who are not conservative at all have almost controlled u.s. foreign policy for years. they are supported by very large u.s. companies who benefit from war and the billions of spending to requires. george will wrote in that same column. he say the that neoconservatives are, quote, magnificently misnamed and that they are really, quote, the most radical people in this town. the pentagon now says it cost $1 billion per year for each 1,000 troops that we send there. we can't afford this, madam speaker. we can't afford to keep spending hundreds of billions in afghanistan. we're not cutting and running. we've been there over eight years now. if this resolution passes, we'll be there nine years. that is too long. it's not only enough. it's far too long. it's time to do the best thing we can do for our troops and bring our young men and women
3:23 pm
home. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much, madam speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, a member of our committee on foreign affairs and the ranking member of the agriculture subcommittee on department operations and oversight. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. fortenberry: i thank the gentlelady from florida for her leadership on foreign affairs and for the time. madam speaker, the situation in afghanistan is complex and it has been difficult and it has serious ramifications for regional and global stability. congress understood this in the aftermath of 9/11 and authorized the use of force in afghanistan. the situation is no less serious today. we would all like to see our troops come home as quickly as possible leaving afghanistan in a stronger and better place,
3:24 pm
and we all deeply care about our troops, particularly those who are now wounded, who have fought so valiantly. but madam speaker, decisions regarding the disposition of our forces in afghanistan should be made in concert with our commanders in the field, who take seriously their responsibility for our troops and the success of that mission. i have confidence that general mcchrystal, after a thorough and main staking calculus, has provided a clear plan to increase stability in afghanistan and allow our troops to withdrawal quickly and as responsibly as possible. moreover, now is not the time to leave fledgling civil society programs more vulnerable to intimidation and attack. so, madam speaker, i respectfully submit it that we cannot afford, risk compromising the future of that region at this most difficult time, and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution. i yield back.
3:25 pm
the speaker pro tempore: mr. kucinich is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: ms. jackson lee of texas will be recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, i was one of those members who understood the horror of 9/11 and joined with then the president of the united states to respond to an attack on the united states. subsequently, in the iraq war i voted against that war knowing that it had nothing to do with the attack on the united states on 9/11. so i do not stand on this floor with a heart that is not heavy laydened and understanding the importance of this resolution.
3:26 pm
this resolution is grounded in the constitution and it has merit. for the question is, when we responded to 9/11, it was a war on troor. today we find -- terror. today we find this is a war on insurgence. there is no real documentation that al qaeda still lingers in afghanistan, but we do understand that we've lost 1,000 americans to date, 70 in 2010, 316 in 2009. soldiers that we honor and and respect. there is never a soldier that we call for an honor and respect to the united states. in fact, i found legislation to have a day of honor for all of our returning soldiers, none of them to come home to silence. we should always provide the great honor for them. but here is where we are as it relates to the situation in afghanistan. today, although he has the right to do so, president karzai is greeting the
3:27 pm
president of iran. i hope that they will work together for peace. but the questions are, what are our soldiers doing that help impact on the governance of afghanistan, the governance to fight corruption, the governans that fights corruption, governance to establish school for the girls and boys and allow girls to go and boys to go? yes, we need nation building but not with soldiers walking step by step trying to bypass i.e.d.'s, many times missing it and losing arms and eyes and legs. this is the time to give the president who do the right thing, who deliberated, who took time and responded to his generals. we salute him for that. but now is the time for the united states congress and the constitutional separation of the branches of government to be able to assess whether or not this particular conflict must continue and whether there is a benefit to the american people. i'd make the argument that there is much to do, there is
3:28 pm
much to do in cleaning up afghanistan. there's much to do in providing for the opportunity of governance. we can do that in a way that will support the state department, would support staff in the miller, and if there is a need to defend the united states, i have no doubt that the brave men and women of the united states military will stand attention and will rise to the occasion. now we owe their families, these young men and women, 165,000 who came home from iraq, many of whom are suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, that when we send them -- may i have an additional minute? mr. kucinich: i yield the gentlelady an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: we have the saying, world war i, world war ii, wars that we may like or dislike, there was an ending. as we saluted the women who participated in the air army corps for women, the wasp
3:29 pm
today, some hundreds of them, we have no doubt that they are brave. but i would say in this war of afghanistan and in this partnership with pakistan there are ways to be able to support the structure of both governments but not our soldiers losing their lives on and on and on. this resolution says that if the president finds it necessary to extend he can do so, but we're asking for the troops to be out by the end of this year. so many of us have spoken to that over and over again. madam speaker, this is not something unusual. this is not a cause for whims. this is a cause for people who believe in the red, white and blue and believe that our soldiers are due this respect. i urge members to support this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: who the speaker pro tempore: who seeks recognition?

217 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on