that we have there is very important. whether we agree with this war or not, we have to understand that those troops are deployed in iraq and afghanistan, are there only because our country asked them to go. and i believe that we do need to bring our troops home safely, honorbly and soon. but not yet. discussion is good but arbitrary deadlines are not. and i'm concerned about walking away from afghanistan too prematurely. we must ensure stability not only in afghanistan, but also in pakistan, because of their arsenal of nuke weapons. it would be disastrous if we allowed some terrorists to get their hands on that arsenal of weapons. so our policy in afghanistan has a direct impact on the stability of the region and it's important to me. and we must continue our pursuit of those perpetrators of 9/11 in that region. the gentleman i serve with from

ohio is a deeply honorable man and he believes we need to bring our troops home honorly and soon but the only person who is in position after considering the advice and counsel of the secretary of defense and the general's task executing the strategy is the president of the united states. the congress responsibility is to judge the president's strategy and making sure it meets our national security goals and provide him with the resources required for success. the war in afghanistan is a top national security priority for our country. having flown dozens of missions out of kandahar, i understand that success can only be achieved when the afghan defends itself against any threats, whether those threats are physical, economic and constitutional. . mr. berman: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boccieri: this means that

they are standing on its own with an army and police force capable of defending the country. an economy that provides the citizens with an acceptable standard of living and a reliable government and judicial structure that delivers critical services and enforces a uniformed rule of law throughout the country. afghanistan needs civilian investment comparable if not bigger than our military investment. and while securing afghanistan is important to our national security, our troops cannot do it alone. it's been said that reneed a foreign policy based on realism rather than idealism. and i concur with that. and that's why i will not be supporting this resolution today while do i support the gentleman's efforts to have this discussion, we need to take a long-term strategy and find out how we do bring our troops home safely, honorably and soon. thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from ohio.

mr. kucinich: i thank the gentlelady. i just would like to talk for a minute about the mission in the context of what's going on with the fwoft in kabul. "the washington post" did a story on february 25 which talks about officials puzzled over millions of dollars leaving afghanistan by plane for dubai and i ask unanimous consent to put that in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: and previous to that, "the post" did a story about money in a kabul bank to individuals, friends, family, business connections of hamid karzai. and when you consider the amount of corruption that's going on in afghanistan can only be called charitable crony

capitalism. "the washington post" in an article said signs of crony capitalism. i ask unanimous consent to put this in the record. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. kucinich: and as a result, u.s. taxpayers and aid organizations are investing billions of dollars in afghanistan, but the leaders of the country are investing in real estate in dubai. we care about democracy. try building democracy in a place which is rife with narcotraffic, crony capitalism, villas in dubai. what is this about? why are we there? i'm from cleveland, ohio. the people i represent are very basic people. when you tell them that the head of afghanistan has his hands in all these crooked

deals you start to wonder, we're going to build a democracy on this person's shoulders? i don't think so. we're supporting a government where corruption is epidemic. last year usaid said corruption in afghanistan was significant, a growing problem and that pervasive, systemic corruption was at an unprecedented scope in the country's history. on november 17, transparency international ranked afghanistan as the second most corrupt nation in the world. and to compound the fears, president karzai's fraud election last year, he recently took over the election's watchdog group. this is the kind of person we can trust to have a partnership with to have a democracy? i don't think so. a january, 2010, report by the united nations office on drugs and crime revealed that afghan citizens were forced to pay an estimated $2.5 billion a year

in bribes. according to evidence collected through wiretaps and bank records, a senior border police official in kandahar allegedly collected salaries of hundreds of ghost policemen and stole money from a government fund intended to pay orphans and widows. is this the kind of environment we can build a democracy? our troops in afghanistan have to deal with such corrupt officials on a daily basis. a commander of the afghan border police offered to give the u.s. military prime land across pakistan to build a raiding area for supply vehicles needed for president obama's troop increase. the same man, u.s. officials believe, earns tens of millions of dollars a year trafficking opium and extorting cargo truck drivers. is this the kind of person that we can create moving towards a

democracy with? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, a member of the agriculture and small business committees and the ranking member on the jew dish subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, refugees, border security and international law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the gentlelady from florida for yielding to me. i rise in opposition to h.con.res 248. it's not with disrespect for my colleague from ohio. and i'm confident that the gentleman from ohio is aware of that. but i read this resolution and to me, madam speaker, it reads as a retreat resolution. i think about the times that america has been characterized as retreating. as i look back through the history that i've lived through

and the history that i've studied, i think of a little book that i have in my office that i wish i would have brought over here. it's the book on how we won the war by general jap of vietnam, north vietnam at the time. i came across that book repeatly and began reading through it. what was going through the mind of a vietnamese general. we didn't lose the war here. it was lost in the united states and a lot of it exactly on the floor of this congress in debates that is similar to the debates we have today. it's on page 8. it's not worth reading the book. they got the inspiration because the united states had negotiated an agreement with -- in korea. where did they get the inspiration to win the war against us in vietnam? they saw we didn't fight the korean war through a final victory but negotiated a settlement.

and then i'd fast forward to june 11, 2004, where i was waiting sitting ogo into iraq the next day and then muqtada al-sadr said with english closed caption say they will leave iraq the same way they left vietnam, the same way they left lebanon, the same way they left mogadishu. that's the inspiration of not only our enemies of al qaeda in iraq and around the world, it's the inspiration for awful our enemies around the world and it was the inspiration for osama bin laden when he ordered the attack on the united states on september 11, 2001. we cannot -- we cannot lose our world. when we engage in an operation, we got to push it through success. and in fact that legacy of lebanon, vietnam and mogadishu has been put to rest by a victory in iraq, a victory that would not have been achieved if

the people that brought these debates to the floor 44 times in the 110th congress, resolutions that were designed to under fund, underfund or undermine our troops. now we have a victory in iraq that's being claimed by this administration who opposed it back then. i don't trust the judgment of people who have always been against armed conflict. i trust the judgment of the people that fight and win wars and the people that lead us through those wars that we fight and win. this is an american destiny question that is before us, and if we walk away from this conflict in afghanistan for any reason, america's destiny will forever be diminished and they will never take us seriously again. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. farr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes.

farr -- mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. kucinich, for yielding and thank you, madam speaker. i rise today for this opportunity to speak as an original co-sponsor of this bill on what i believe is the foremost foreign policy issue facing the united states today. there's perhaps no important matter on the table right now than afghanistan. not at least because every dollar we spend abroad for war is a dollar of investment lost to awful our communities here at home. we spent more than $250 billion fighting and occupying afghanistan. president obama's now implementing his plan to send additional 30,000 troops to afghanistan which will cost another $33 billion. this is an enormous amount of money, and the security gains are dubious. and so long as the united states has a major military presence in afghanistan, long-term stability will continue to be just a goal. just out of our reach.

more troops are not the answer. we need to turn the corner. we must rebuild. we must build governing capacity among the afghans, not military fighting capacity. so long as afghanistan is able to depend on exclusively on the united states for stability, the longer they'll continue to do so. the quicker we prepare for transfer authority to afghans the sooner we'll be able to leave the country. year over year -- over a year ago president obama announced his strategy to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda in its safe havens of pakistan, afghanistan. i made clear that i would not rubber stamp his strategy for more troops. the only way we can solve this mess is to put in place a regional strategy with international buy-in. that strategy must include a strong civilian component capable of achieving diplomatic and development objectives as well as security goals. i was distressed to read

several months ago that the special envoy, richard holbrooke, announced that we build almost no capacity in the afghan authorities. we sent our troops to war in afghanistan in october, 2001, and -- mr. kucinich: i yield the gentleman another half minute. mr. farr: thank you very much for yielding. but after more than eight years of war we are now trying to actively support peace. for years i tried to develop a civilian response corps that can bring the whole government approach to weighing the -- winning the peace. we proved time and time again we can kick down doors, but we have not yet proven that we can build peace. finally standing up the civilian response corps and we are building up the capacity so that war without end is not our only option. i'd like to submit the rest of my remarks for the record as time permits. thank you for yielding and yield back whatever remainder time i have. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. berman, is recognized.

mr. berman: madam chair, i'm very pleased to recognize the majority floor leader, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise in opposition to this resolution which would urge the withdrawal of american troops from afghanistan in my opinion at greath cost to america's security and indeed the afghan people. but i want to rise as well to thank my friend from ohio, mr. kucinich, with whom i work closely. this issue needs to be debated. this issue needs to be raised. the american people have a right to have us debate this issue. there young men and young women are in harm's way. they are in harm's way at our instance or at least our sufferance. so it's great to have this debate. while i disagree with the

gentleman from ohio, i appreciate the fact that he provides this opportunity to discuss this very, very important issue. madam speaker, after years in which afghanistan was a secondary concern, in my view, president obama has set our policy on a new course which is already showing significant results. i believe that this is not the time to change that policy. there is vast agreement that an indefinite presence in afghanistan or iraq is unacceptable. in iraq we've reached the transition point of handing over responsibility to the central government to take care of its own people. we see positive signs such as the recent iraq election in which 62% of the voters turned out in the face of terrorist violence. was it perfect? it was not. are there concerns yet about who could run and who could not? there are. appropriate concerns. but nevertheless we see

progress. given the increasing stability of the iraqi government, president obama is responding with responsible troop withdrawals. today 96,000 troops remain, down from 140,000 troops, and calculated and careful drawdowns continue. all american combat troops are set to leave iraq by the end of august. at the same time the president conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of our afghanistan policy. one in which all viewpoints were heard. some thought it took too long. some of us believed it was a careful, thoughtful and correct attention to an important decision. the obama administration came to the conclusion that a failed afghanistan was the launching pad for terrorist attacks that killed thousands of americans as well as a source of regional instability. and that a newly failed afghan state could pose the same danger

again. that is why we in a bipartisan way authorized troops to go to afghanistan over a decade or about a decade ago. that is why the president committed to a strategy of troop increases. not an -- not as an open-ended commitment but as a strategy to counterinsurgency with drawls set to begin in the summer -- with withdrawals set to begin in the summer of 2011. this isn't a war we fight alone. our allies understand that the threat of terrorism affects us all and have pitched in accordingly since the president's december 1 speech announcing his new policy. we've seen a sharp increase in international cooperation with our allies, pledging approximately 10,000 additional troops and more military trainees. our new afghan strategy has already seen realistic in afghanistan and in pakistan which demonstrates that this resolution is especially

ill-timed. among the highlights of that success have been the capture of the second highest ranking member of the taliban and most significant taliban capture since the beginning of the war. and mullah abdul can bureau, a senior -- kabur, a senior taliban leader. both were captured in pakistan which illustrates increased cooperation from the pakistan government thanks in large part to the administration's careful diplomacy. as "the washington post" put it on february 23, and i quote, pakistani security forces have long supported or turned a blind eye to afghan taliban members seeking sanctuary in pakistan. the recent arrests seem to mark a change in that attitude. clearly success in afghanistan will be positive -- deposited on the success of those in pakistan to act against sanctuaries.

at the same time the leadership of al qaeda and taliban has been severely damaged through strikes in pakistan. and the new counterinsurgency strategy has been put to work in an important district in hallucinate monday province where american coalition -- hell monday province where american -- helmon province where americans have worked with the pakistanis. the gentleman has made some comments about the afghan central government. all of us share the gentleman's concerns about the central government. these are concerns that are properly raised and need to be addressed. however, there is no doubt that years of war against the taliban and terrorists have imposed a heavy cost on the afghan people. but despite those heavy costs, the afghan people support the coalition's continued presence in their country. perhaps because they know that reprisals from an unchecked taliban would be fierce and

unfor giving. in fact, our failure to follow through -- unforgiving. in fact, our failure to follow through resulted when the soviets withdrew, resulting in the taliban's presence. according to a recent poll conducted by the bbc, abc and german television, 68% of afghans want american troops to stay in their country. and 56% of afghans believe their country is headed in the right direction compared to just 30% last spring. just since last spring we've seen almost a doubling of the view that afghanistan is heading in the right direction on behalf of afghan citizens. madam speaker, there's no question that our strategy in afghanistan and pakistan has suffered from neglect, poor planning and minimal diplomacy. but passing this resolution which show that -- would show that we've learned the wrong

lessons from those years of relative neglect. abandoning the afghanistan -- abandoning afghanistan just when we bear fruit i think would be a mistake. and although i appreciate the gentleman's leadership and incisive analysis which bears listening to, on this issue we disagree. and i would urge therefore my colleagues to vote no on the resolution before us and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i want to thank our majority leader for his participation and also for his cooperation in assuring that this debate could happen. you and our speaker and mr. berman are appreciated for your willingness to provide for this moment to happen so that the house could be heard from. so, thank you. i would ask, madam speaker, how much time remains in the debate?

i'm sure we're winding down here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has nine minutes remaining and the gentlelady from florida has five minutes remaining. mr. kucinich: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kucinich: one of the areas about our concerns that i have of our presence in afghanistan that i haven't seen discussed that much deals with the oil and gas, particularly in afghanistan. paul craig roberts who is an assistant secretary of treasury under the reagan administration reported in november of last year on a former british

ambassador to uzbekistan, who was fired from his job when he spoke out about documents he saw, quote, proving that the motivation for u.s. and u.k. military aggression in afghanistan had something to do with the natural gas deposits in uzbekistan and terkman stan, unquote. he continues and this is his words, the americans wanted a pipeline that bypassed russia and iran and went through afghanistan. to ensure this an invasion was necessary, unquote. i did some additional research on that and i found an article by craig murray where he claims that mr. karzai, quote, was put in place because of his role with unical in devoting the -- in developing the transafrican gas pipeline project that remains a chief strategic goal. the asian development bank has agreed to finance to start construction in spring of 2011. it is, of course, a total coincidence that 30,000 extra u.s. troops will arrive six

months before and that the u.s., as opposed to other nato forces, the area correspondents with the pipeline route. i have a map of the pipeline. and if you -- it's probably not easily visible, but it starts on the west in turkmenistan, goes through afghanistan, south of pakistan and india. and it touches near both helmond and kandahar province which is exactly where our troop buildup is occurring. so i'd ask unanimous consent to put this letter from mr. murray, this article, into the record. i also ask unanimous consent for this article on the afghanistan pipeline to be submitted into the record. spoip without objection. mr. kucinich: because he talks about how unical wasn't interested in partnership. the u.s. government, its

transnational companies and elites in west had coveted the same route for years. that the transafghanistan pipeline was not just a businessmanner but a key component of a broad strategic agenda, a military and economic control of eurasia and this is supposedly described in a book, "the grand chess board." capturing the region's oil wealth and carving out territory in order to build routes was a primary objective of u.s. military interventions throughout the 1990's in the balkans and casspyan sea. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: with unanimous consent, i submit this. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe, the ranking member of the veterans' affairs

subcommittee on oversight and investigation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i -- the gentlelady for yielding and i rise in opposition to this resolution. if passed this would send a terrible message to our troops in arm's way and only serve to boost morale among our enemies who now face the reality that they're being trapped night and day. i served in the army in 1973 and 1974 in the infantry in korea and i felt abandoned at that time by my country and never want a soldier to feel like i felt at that time. what i saw happen in vietnam and washington bureaucrats and lawmakers micromanage the war and prevent commanders from having the resources available, which they thought would win, i will never support a plan for this or any or war in which i think we're tying the hands of our brave service members. in my judgment the strategy deviced by our military leaders and being implemented by our armed forces is the correct one. i've always said i will support

this military plan so long as we do not set arbitrary dates for withdrawal from the country, which we will only set targets for those who will try to kill our men and women. it is important we do not forget why we're in afghanistan. we're fighting this war because the previous afghan regime allowed al qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for countless attacks around the globe including the september 11 attacks against the united states, to operate freely within its borders. if the coalition forces leave, the taliban could regain control of the country and once again provide safe harbors for those who hate america and want to destroy our country. winning the war in afghanistan will also help deter a radical islamic government from taking over pakistan, a country with over 50 nuclear weapons. it seems that in recent months, since our surge in forces has begun, we've seen pakistan become more willing to confront the radical elements within its own borders and while there's much work left to be done, there's no question that our

more aggressive strategy against the enemy is having many positive results. in april, 2009, i participated in a congressional delegation to visit afghanistan, to observe our operations firsthand. i can tell you without hesitation that we have every reason to be proud of our men and women serving in afghanistan, they're doing a great job. what they need now is support and a clear signal from washington that the job they're accomplishing is appreciated and in our national interests. by soundly defeating this resolution today, hopefully we will had send such a message. and it is my hope and prayer that we never have to enter another war. i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: i'd like to speak for a moment about civilian casualties in afghanistan. according to the united nations, air strikes continue to be a leading cause of civilian casualties.

days into the military offensive, 12 afghans died when two rockets fired by nato forces hit the wrong house. 10 of the 12 afghans killed were from the same family. u.s. military officials initially apologized for the death of the civilians but later back tracked claiming they were insurgents. an italian aid group working in a hospital outside accused allied forces of blocking citizens from receiving medical attention at the hospital. a february 21 nato air strike conducted by a u.s. special forces helicopter killed over 27 civilians, wounded dozens more, after many buses were hit by helicopters, quote, hunting for insurgents who had escaped the nato offensive, unquote, of 100 miles in the southern province. "the wall street journal" cited afghan and nato representatives explaining that the air strike was orre