decisionmakers, and we can decide whether there is war or whether there is peace or at the very least peaceful pursuit. and i believe, as the people do in my congressional district, that there is a time and a season for everything. and after several years of war, hundreds and thousands of casualties in iraq and afghanistan, that the time has come for us to draw a line in the sand and say that it's time to bring our troops home. it is time to have a concrete strategy and a concrete date. by which we can ex-trick ate -- by which we can extricate ourselves from afghanistan. i want to commend the gentleman from ohio for having the courage and strength of his

conviction for having the courage to debate this issue for people in my congressional district, unequivocally and without a doubt are in agreement. i strongly support passage of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. >> madam chair, i'm pleased to yield to my friend from pennsylvania, mr. sestak, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: mr. sestak of pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. sestak: thank you, madam speaker. i was stationed at the pentagon when 9/11 happened. a few weeks, months later, i was on the ground in afghanistan, head of the navy's anti-terrorism unit for a short mission. i watched as the taliban and al qaeda flowed across the boarder to pakistan and then came that tragic misadventure in iraq. we took that oedipus -- edfass

of security in special forces and others, and what we might better have done with the other elements of the power, such as fix the lit rah -- illiteracy rate of women in afghanistan which is 98%, never occurred. i support the president's policies because now in afghanistan we've spiral -- not because of afghanistan, but because of pakistan, the most dangerous place in the world. it should have sent chills down everyone's back when general haden, three years ago, said al qaeda has a safe haven in pakistan where we cannot go. several hundred of those criminals there to plan safety against us. i support the president's policy because, as general gates said in a closed hearing in december, we need to seal that border.

so as pakistan, once united, now again with us, moves to north waziristan, through the taliban on its side of the border, to eradicate the danger to us, the safe haven of al qaeda, that they do not flow back over into afghanistan, when pakistan, who created the taliban, might once again spread its bets. if pakistan becomes a failed state, and al qaeda remains, we may get out the nuclear weapons. but there are 2,000 nuclear trained scientists in that nation who have access to radiological material and the knowledge. a failed state potentially controlled by the taliban and al qaeda that endangers us. i support this president's policy. in a limited window of opportunity to help pakistan eradicate the danger to them

but to us. i strongly do believe that this president still needs to provide this nation something, however, and that's what he promised us a year ago and that was an exit strategy. every warrior knows that when you go into battle, you have an exit strategy. which is really benchmark -- which is the benchmark by which you measure success or failure. if success succeeds, exit. if the cost of failure becomes greater, exit to an alternative strategy. i believe that needs to be provided to this nation who after seven or eight years of war needs to see how its national treasure being used but as i end to my colleague from ohio, i served for 31 years with the wonderful men and women -- may i have 30 seconds? mr. berman: i yield 30 seconds.

mr. sestak: i'll always remember what the former chairman of the joint cheafs -- chiefs of staff said, our men and women in the military are wise enough to know, this is your sacred duty here to have a debate about the use of their lives, when i led them into war. i would hope my lawmakers would have that debate if we were being used wisalism i thank you for bringing forward this debate, though i oppose the resolution. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: may i ask how much time remains on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 40 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 23 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from florida has 20 1/2 minutes.

mr. kucinich: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks recognition? the gentlelady from florida is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, the chairman of the house republican conference and a member of the committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: if i could revise because mr. pence has to go, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from dent because he has other duty the ranking member of the

homeland security subcommittee on transportation security and infrastructure protection. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. dent: thank you, madam speaker, i appreciate the accommodation. i rise in strong opposition to this house concurrent resolution 248 that directs the president to remove u.s. armed forces from afghanistan within 30 days of adopting this resolution. unless the president determines it is not safe to remove forces before the end of the 30-daytimeline. even if there is an identified danger, us forces would still have to be removed by december 31. really, here's the catch. there's a clear and present danger in moving our men and women from the field while they're engaged in the first major assault of president obama's reaffirmed counterinsurgency strategy in afghanistan. here's another danger, damaging the morale of the troops to fight to protect our homeland, our freedoms by not providing them with the support and resources they need to complete

their mission. this is a dangerous business, moving troops out of a country. i sat with secretary gates on more than one occasion over the years talking about withdrawing troops, in this case from iraq, and how complex a situation this is and how dangerous it is and the logistical realities of moving this many people safely. but don't take my word for it. i think we should listen to the words of the commander in chief, president barack obama, who on december 1 in his address to the nation, he said, and i quote, i am convinced that our security is at stake in afghanistan and pakistan. this is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al qaeda. it is from here we were attacked on 9/11 and it's from here that new attacks are being plotted as i speak. president barack obama's words. he goes on, this is no idle danger no hypothetical threat. in the last few months alone we apprehended those in our borders who were sent here to

commit new acts of troor and this danger will -- of terror and this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al qaeda can operate with impunity. we must keep pressure on al qaeda. again, that was president obama. he goes on in another address, on march 27 of 2009, where he made another statement. he says, and if the afghanistan -- afghan government falls to the taliban or allows al qaeda to go unchallenged that country will be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can. secretary gates, very fine secretary of defense, i'm pleased president obama has kept him on he said on february 5 of this year, quote, this is a critical moment in afghanistan. i'm confident ewith -- i'm confident we can achieve our objectives, bounl if we continue to muster the resolve

for this continued mission. secretary of state hillary clinton on september 23 said, quote, well, some people say al qaeda is no long for the afghanistan. if afghanistan were taken overity bithe taliban, i can't tell you how fast al qaeda would be back in afghanistan. i also want to mention what general petraeus has said. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield an additional 30 seconds to mr. dent. mr. dent: and our very fine commander david petraeus, i melt with him in florida he said, quote, on january 5, it was in canned ha -- canned harr that 9/11 attacks were planned, it is important to recall the seriousness of the mission and why it is that we are in afghanistan in the first place and why we are still there after years and years of

hard work and sacrifice have passed. again, i strongly urge we defeat this resolution. we owe it to our troops who are watching this debate as we speak. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis, is recognized. for three minutes. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i want to thank my friend and colleague from ohio for bringing this resolution before us today. madam speaker, i rise today to join my colleagues in speaking out against the war in afghanistan. how much death must we bear, how much pain must be suffered, how much blood must we spill to

say enough is enough. can we lay down the burden of war? and lift up the power of peace? now is the time for the elected representative of the people to give peace a chance. now is the time for those of us who believe in peace and not war to speak up, to speak out, and to find a way to get in the way. madam speaker, war is bloody. war is messy. it's not just to send the troops, but to bury the troops. it destroys the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the people. as one great general and president of the united states,

dwight d. eisenhower, once said, every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed. those who are cold and not clothed. as i said some time ago, and i urge you to heed the words of the spiritual, i am going to lay by burden down, down by the riverside and stay at war no more. we should follow the wisdom of that song. madam speaker this war has gone on long enough. enough is enough. it's time to bring this war to an end. i urge all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, madam chair, i'm pleased to yield to my

friend and colleague from georgia, a member of the armed services committee, 3 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: i'm sorry, 2 1/2? mr. berman: 3 1/2. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> what a downs you position i find myself in, having to go behind my colleague from georgia, mr. lewis, and to be in opposition to his view. but that's the position i am in. i will take on the responsibility, mr. speaker, or madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the afghan war powers resolution which is before us today. the reason why, although i do want to commend representative kucinich for enabling the house to have a debate on such an important issue, and i thank

you for that, but i cannot foresee any good coming out of a situation where we enable the taliban to regain control other afghanistan and to thus become a safe haven for terrorist recruitment and development and deployment. i'm concerned that passage of this resolution would be an extraordinary use of -- usurpation of the power of the command for the chief of favor of a congress where petty partisan politics have lately been trumping policy. . pakistan is increasingly cooperating against militants within its borders and our military campaigns in afghanistan are routing the

taliban from its strongholds while hurting the leadership. he the president stated he would bring focus to our efforts in afghanistan and seek to improve conditions prior to drawing down u.s. forces. passage of this resolution would prevent him from implementing that strategy and force a premature withdrawal. madam speaker, let me be clear. my instinct is always to oppose war. i believe that the president shares that instinct. however, i oppose this resolution not because i support war, but because this resolution is ill-timed and ill-conceived. now is not the time for congress to start a constitutional turf. the premise of this resolution is flawed at the outset.

we authorized ongoing operations in afghanistan and we are having enough trouble managing our ordinary legislative duties as it is. let the president execute the strategy he said he would implement, which is yielding positive results. passage of this resolution would send a message to the world that our president's authority to conduct foreign policy has been weakened in favor of a congress that bickers over arcane senate rules when major policy decisions are left hanging in the balance. after too many years wasted in iraq and unfocused deployment of our troops in afghanistan, this president has finally chosen to use the authority of congress to provide a focus on the real threat. i'm happy to hear republicans saying that the president is doing a good job and i urge my

colleagues to oppose this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i would gently remind my colleague from georgia that article 1, section 8 of the constitution of the united states places expressly in the hands of congress the power to declare war, that this resolution does not seek to usurp our commander in chief. it seeks to reset the balance in our constitution so that we reclaim what the founders rightly intended that the war power be in the congress and by

reference, that we have the power to determine not just when a war starts, but when a war stops. it is also telling that in this war, in this surge, we're essentially announcing to the taliban where we are proceeding and when. reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. who seeks recognition? the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm pleased to yield six minutes to the the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence. he was nice to give up his turn, chairman of the house republican conference and a wonderful and esteem the member of our committee on foreign affairs, six minutes. the speaker pro tempore: mr. pence, the gentleman from indiana, is recognized for six

minutes. mr. pence: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. pence: i thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee and the chairman of the committee for their words and efforts today. i think the gentleman from ohio knows i respect his passion, but i rise in strong opposition to this resolution today. and i believe that it should be opposed because h. con. res. 248 directing the president pursuant to the war powers resolution to remove united states armed forces from afghanistan is not supported by the law, not supported by the facts, and it is not supportive of our troops. and it should be opposed. let me to speak each of those issues. first with regard to the war

powers resolution requires the president to notify congress. it's constitutionality has been questioned. this is a matter of clear public record. the gentleman cites constitution frequently. there is great constitutional debate about the very foundation of that legislation. but specifically, and i believe the distinguished chairman has made this point several times during the debate, the powers that are being cited here only apply in moments where there has not been a declaration of war or statutory authorization for the use of force. and i was here op september 11. i was here for the debates, madam speaker, over the resolution authorizing the use of force in afghanistan. and therefore, i believe this resolution is out of order. and while i don't raise a

procedural motion on that basis, i think it's worth noting. secondly, this resolution is not supported by the facts. i came from a trip to kabul and kandahar. i met with general mcchrystal. he is the commander of the forces. met with our soldiers. went out to afghanistan. and i have strongly supported president obama's decision to send reinforcements into afghanistan. the sense i receive from our military leaders in afghanistan, from afghani military and political leaders and most importantly from our soldiers on the ground is that we are leaning into the fight. we are providing our soldiers with the resources and reinforcements they need to succeed and come home safe. now is not the time for the congress of the united states to be second-guessing our commanders in the field and

second-guessing our commander in chief. base odd what i have seen and heard in the last month-and-a-half in afghanistan that we have the right strategy, the right tactics and we ought to continue to proceed on the course that we are proceeding on. we are talking about real lives. i can't help but reflect on the experience of having been just north of kandahar where we visited with the governor of the river area. and he spoke about the taliban being on the run. kandahar, there is an old pro verb, those who control kandahar controls afghanistan. the taliban was born in kandahar. and as evidence on the evening news, there is an effort to reclaim that historic city. but as i talked to the governor of the river province, he said that the only thing that the

taliban has anymore with population is threats. they don't have popular appeal, or so he told me. the very idea that u.s. forces or forces in the nato coalition would withdraw would leave a vacuum in which the taliban would flow. and it has been discussed here eloquently by congressman duncan hunter who wore the uniform in harm's way. that vacuum would not just be filled by the taliban about by their evil al qaeda. so i think this resolution is wrong on the law. i think it's wrong on the facts. but lastly, let me just say, i believe it's not supportive of our troops. i mean, it's impossible for me in the many trips i have made to visit soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, impossible for me to meet with those soldiers without being profoundly inspired. i will acknowledge the gentleman

from ohio has spoken in glowing terms about those in uniform, and i do not suggest that he has done otherwise. i believe in my heart that a resolution of this nature in the midst of a moment when we are providing our soldiers with the reinforcements and resources to be successful in afghanistan has the potential of having a demoralizing effect on the men and women who are doing freedom's work. i believe this resolution, however intended, should be opposed. it's not supported in the law, it's not supported by the facts and not supportive of our troops and i believe it should be rejected. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: yes, i yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. mr. kucinich: to my friend from indiana, who cited his disagreement based on law and

facts and the troops, i would like to respond categorically. first of all, section 4a1 requires the president to introduce troops into enemies. when he reports, he does it consistent with, but not pursuant to to the war powers resolution. when we are speaking about reporting requirements, president obama did submit a report pursuant to the war powers resolution. it would trigger a vote on withdrawal from afghanistan or congress on the other hand has the ability as i have, to bring a privileged resolution forward. now, i have heard a lot of talk about the troops here. and i don't take any back seat

to anyone in support of the troops. there are some who believe that the way we support the troops is to keep them in afghanistan. there are others who believe that the way to support the troops is to bring them home. the "washington post" this week carried one of a series of presentations of what they call the faces of the fallen. and we owe our gratitude to each and every person who has served our country. we support those who serve, but it is our obligation to be able to question the mission at any time. we should honor those who serve and those who have given their lives and made the supreme sacrifice.

we ought to critically analyze the cause of the war, the purpose of the war and continuation of the war. now, i never had the opportunity to serve. i had a heart mr. murphy: during the vietnam era, but my father was a world war ii marine veteran who had his knee shot out in the south pacific. my brother frank, who is now deceased, served in combat in vietnam and came home with post-traumatic stress. changed his whole life. my brother gary, vietnam-era veteran. my sister beth ann, army veteran. nephew iraq veteran. i come from a family who believes in service. the american family, large family of our nation believes in

service to our country. yet, it is true that the death toll as the "washington post" reports in afghanistan is at least at 1,000. and we have to have this debate tore either recommit to continuing the war and giving the reasons to the troops why we're doing that or to suggest that maybe this is the opportunity for us to take a new direction. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from illinois, mr. kirk, a member of the committee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: mr. kirk is recognized for three minutes. mr. kirk: i feel compiled to rise today as the only member of this body who was deployed twice to afghanistan, both times as a navy reserve intelligence officer in kad