Afghanistan War Powers Resolution

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 that I respect his passion, but I rise in strong opposition to this resolution today. 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, is not supported by the facts, and it is not supportive of our troops, and it should be opposed.

Let me speak to each of those issues. First, with regard to facts. The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within a specific time of committing forces. Its constitutionality has been questioned over the years. This is a matter of clear public record. The gentleman cites the 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 a statutory authorization for use of force.

I was here on September 11th. I was here for debates, Madam Speaker, over the resolution authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan. 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, I think this resolution is not supported by the facts. I just returned from a bipartisan delegation trip to Kabul and Kandahar. I met with General McChrystal. Stanley McChrystal is the commander of the ISAF forces. I met with our soldiers at Camp Eggers. I went out into Afghanistan. And I have strongly supported President Obama's decision to send reinforcements into Afghanistan.

The sense that we 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 the reinforcements they need to come home safe. So now is not the time for the Congress of the United States to be second-guessing our commanders in the field and second-guessing the Commander in Chief. And so I believe, based on what I've seen and heard within the last month and a half in Afghanistan, that we have the right strategy, we have the right tactics, and we ought to continue to proceed on the course that we are proceeding on.

We're 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 Arghandab River area. He spoke about the Taliban's being on the run. In Kandahar there's an old proverb that says, He who controls Kandahar controls Afghanistan. The Taliban was in effect born in Kandahar, and this spring there is, as is evidenced on the evening news, an effort by the Taliban to reclaim that historic city. But as I talked to the governor of the Arghandab River province, he simply said that the only thing the Taliban has anymore with the population is threats. They don't have popular appeal, or so he told me.

But the very idea that U.S. forces or forces in the NATO coalition would precipitously withdraw would leave a vacuum into which the Taliban would readily flow. And as has been discussed here eloquently by Congressman Duncan Hunter, who wore the uniform in harm's way, that vacuum would be filled not just by the Taliban but by their evil twin, al Qaeda, to, no doubt, nefarious effects.

So I think this resolution is wrong on the law. I think it's wrong on the facts. But, lastly, let me just say that I believe it's also not supportive of our troops. In the many trips that I have made downrange to visit soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's impossible for me to meet with those soldiers without being profoundly inspired. And I will acknowledge the gentleman from Ohio has spoken in glowing terms about those in uniform. I do not suggest that he has done otherwise. But I believe with all my heart that a resolution of this nature in the midst of a moment when we are, in fact, providing our soldiers with the reinforcements and the resources to be successful in Afghanistan has the potential of having a demoralizing effect on the very men and women who, separated from their families and in harm's way, are doing freedom's work.

And so I believe this resolution, however intended, should be opposed. It's not supported in the law, it's not supported by the facts, and it's not supportive of our troops. I believe it should be rejected.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source