[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 27, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6114-H6124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PAKISTAN WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1556, I call 
up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 301) directing the 
President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to 
remove the United States Armed Forces from Pakistan, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1556, the 
concurrent resolution is considered read.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 301

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM 
                   PAKISTAN.

       Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 
     U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress directs the President to remove the 
     United States Armed Forces from Pakistan--
       (1) by no later than the end of the period of 30 days 
     beginning on the day on which this concurrent resolution is 
     adopted; or
       (2) if the President determines that it is not safe to 
     remove the United States Armed Forces before the end of that 
     period, by no later than December 31, 2010, or such earlier 
     date as the President determines that the Armed Forces can 
     safely be removed.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable 
for 1 hour, with 30 minutes controlled by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) or his designee and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will control 30 minutes. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  U.S. forces are in Pakistan. Congress never voted expressly to send 
troops there. Congress has a constitutional responsibility under 
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. And I will insert Article I, 
Section 8, in the Record.

       Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect 
     Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and 
     provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the 
     United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be 
     uniform throughout the United States;
       To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
       To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the 
     several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
       To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform 
     Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United 
     States;
       To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign 
     Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
       To provide for the Punishment and counterfeiting the 
     Securities and current Coin of the United States;
       To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
       To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by 
     securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the 
     exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
       To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
       To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the 
     high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
       To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and 
     make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
       To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money 
     to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
       To provide and maintain a Navy;
       To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land 
     and naval Forces;
       To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the 
     Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel 
     Invasions;
       To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the 
     Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be 
     employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to 
     the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and 
     the Authority of training the Militia according to the 
     discipline prescribed by Congress;
       To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, 
     over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, 
     by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of 
     Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United 
     States, and to exercise like Authority over all places 
     purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in 
     which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, 
     Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful 
     Buildings;--And
       To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
     carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other 
     Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the 
     United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

  Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it is Congress which 
has the power to declare war.
  Now, the War Powers Act extended the debate over Article I, Section 8 
by pointing out that, if circumstances occurred where the President 
committed troops to imminent hostilities, that Congress has the right 
to create a debate and to create a vote over whether or not those 
troops should stay in those hostilities.
  Now, are there hostilities involving U.S. troops in Pakistan? The 
answer is that three U.S. troops were killed as a result of an IED in 
Pakistan in February. Now, that was reported last week in The Wall 
Street Journal. There's just no question that troops have been involved 
in imminent hostilities. In this case, they perished.
  Now, there are those who maintain that the War Powers Act is 
superseded

[[Page H6115]]

by the authorization for the use of military force which passed 
Congress on September 14, 2001. I have here a copy of that resolution, 
which I will include in the Record.

                              H.J. Res. 64

       Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence 
     were committed against the United States and its citizens;
       Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate 
     that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense 
     and to protect United States citizens both at home and 
     abroad;
       Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and 
     foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts 
     of violence;
       Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and 
     extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign 
     policy of the United States; and
       Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution 
     to take action to deter and prevent acts of international 
     terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization 
     for Use of Military Force''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

       (a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use 
     all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, 
     organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, 
     committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred 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.
       (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
       (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with 
     section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress 
     declares that this section is intended to constitute specific 
     statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
     the War Powers Resolution.
       (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this 
     resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers 
     Resolution.

  That resolution has this language: ``Nothing in this resolution 
supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.''
  So let's put to rest right away that the authorization for use of 
military force would cover our presence in Pakistan and obviate the 
need for any congressional discussion. It is very clear that the 
President has a responsibility to notify Congress. He has a 
responsibility, according to section 4 of the War Powers Act, to report 
to Congress whenever he introduces U.S. Armed Forces abroad in certain 
situations.
  Section 4(a)(1) triggers a time limit in the section, and it requires 
reporting to Congress. Why is that? Because the people's House has a 
responsibility under the Constitution. We cannot abrogate or renounce 
that responsibility.
  This debate today is about assuring that Congress has a role in a 
critical foreign policy area where our troops have already lost lives 
in Pakistan.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in 4 months we are debating a 
resolution under the War Powers Act. I welcome congressional scrutiny 
of the commitment of U.S. forces abroad, and I appreciate the gentleman 
from Ohio's effort to focus attention on one of the most sacred duties 
of Congress.
  But once again, I have to take issue with the invocation of Section 
5(c) of the War Powers Act as the basis for this debate. That section 
authorizes a privileged resolution, like the one before us today, to 
require the withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces when they are engaged in 
hostilities and Congress has not authorized the use of military force.
  Whereas the Afghanistan war powers debate focused on whether there 
was an authorization for U.S. military force, here we do not even reach 
that question because, based on everything I know, U.S. forces are not 
engaged in hostilities in Pakistan.
  The Wall Street Journal article distributed by my friend from Ohio 
refers to the U.S. military's role in training and humanitarian 
assistance programs in Pakistan. That's not ``engaging in 
hostilities.'' In fact, our Armed Forces participate in these types of 
programs in dozens of countries around the world.
  The gentleman refers to the terrible tragedy of three U.S. forces 
killed by an IED. They were on a humanitarian aid mission. We have 
people on such missions, people involved in military training, 
uniformed officers, who have been killed in many different parts of the 
world. From that, one does not draw the conclusion that the U.S. is 
engaged in hostilities with enemy forces. In fact, since U.S. forces 
are not engaged in hostilities in Pakistan, there is no factual basis 
for invoking the War Powers Act.
  Mr. Speaker, Pakistan is an important partner in the fight against 
extremism.

                              {time}  1630

  Last year Congress demonstrated America's long-term commitment to 
Pakistan by passing the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009. 
Any attempt to cut the military ties between our two countries would be 
counterproductive for our national security interest in the region.
  No matter what your position on the situation in Afghanistan, whether 
you think we should withdraw tomorrow, shift from a counterinsurgency 
strategy to a counterterrorism strategy, or send in even more troops, 
there is no reason to automatically conclude that we should cease our 
efforts to help Pakistan address the dire threats to its security.
  In 1990, we stopped providing military assistance and training to 
Pakistan for what seemed like a good reason at the time. But as a 
result, a whole generation of Pakistani military officers rose through 
the ranks without any connection or affinity with the United States, 
and that contributed to some of the suspicion and mistrust that we are 
still struggling to overcome.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Pakistan needs to step up in a 
number of important areas. We hope to improve cooperation on various 
security issues, strengthen the role of Pakistan's democratically 
elected government and achieve a greater parity between military and 
civilian assistance. The United States is aiding Pakistan because it is 
in our interest to ensure an economically and politically stable 
Pakistan does not provide sanctuary for al Qaeda and other terrorist 
organizations.
  The reports in recent days that elements of the Pakistani 
intelligence service may have been aiding our enemies is nothing new to 
those of us who have been following this issue and is not a reason to 
abandon our many friends in Pakistan who are struggling to modernize 
their economy, their political system, and their military. The security 
forces of Pakistan are steadily taking on a Taliban-backed insurgency, 
taking direct action against those who threaten Pakistan's security 
instability, including military operations in the Federally 
Administered Tribal Areas and the North West Frontier Province.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that using the War Powers Act to call for 
the removal of U.S. combat forces, which do not exist, will only serve 
to inflame Pakistan's sensibilities and do nothing to strengthen the 
partnership that we need to achieve our goals in this critical region.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. With all due respect to my friend from California, 
special operations troops are inside of Pakistan right now. Three 
troops have died. Maybe they didn't intend to be hostile, but somebody 
intended hostilities towards them. There is no question about the 
hostile climate.
  What I am trying to do here, with the help of Mr. Paul, is to stop 
expanding the U.S. forces' footprint in Pakistan so that we stop an 
expanding war.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for this resolution and 
also the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, ``To Die for a Mystique, the Lessons Our Leaders Didn't 
Learn From the Vietnam War''--that's why this debate is so important 
today. Because I remember Mr. Nixon saying, no, no, there are no troops 
in Cambodia. Then a year later, he acknowledges there are. That's all 
it takes is a little incursion here and a little incursion there, and 
before you know it, it's out of control.

[[Page H6116]]

  This article ``To Die for a Mystique'' was written by Andrew 
Bacevich, himself a Vietnam veteran, his son, a graduate of West Point, 
killed in Iraq.
  ``To Die for a Mystique.'' The dirty little secret to which few in 
Washington will own up is that the United States now faces the prospect 
of perpetual war and conflict. That's why this debate has to take 
place, whether we have three Americans killed in Pakistan or we have 33 
or we have 300.
  Where is Congress meeting its responsibility? That's what this is 
about.
  I will regret to the day I go to my grave that I voted to give 
President Bush the authority to go into Iraq. We did not meet our 
responsibilities. We passed some little resolution, and I voted for it. 
We trusted the President to not go to war unless it was absolutely 
necessary, but we went to war.
  Mr. Speaker, I have signed over 9,400 letters to families. This is my 
retribution to my God for not doing my job that day when I voted for 
that resolution. That's why I stand on the floor today with the 
gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Texas to say let's meet our 
responsibility. Let's not keep saying to the American kids, You need to 
die for a mystique. Let's give them purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, God, please bless our men and women in 
uniform.
  Please support this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I believe that this dangerous resolution is less about U.S. policy 
toward Pakistan than it is about Afghanistan and a back-door attempt to 
force U.S. withdrawal from that country. Because our success in 
Afghanistan is directly linked to our effort in Pakistan, withdraw from 
the latter, and you may bring defeat in both.
  In response to the September 11 attacks, Congress authorized the 
President to use all necessary and appropriate force against the 
perpetrators of those attacks, including against those who harbored 
such organizations or persons in order to prevent future acts of 
international terrorism against the United States.
  But al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan fit that description 
precisely. Our wonderful U.S. personnel in Afghanistan are there to 
train and support Pakistani military and security forces to enable them 
to battle their own insurgencies, including al Qaeda and other threats.
  Much of this training is not combat related, but instead is focused 
on helping Pakistan undertake civil, military operations aimed at 
establishing stable and effective civilian authority in areas that are 
now off limits and serve as safe havens for extremist groups.
  Far from withdrawing, we must work with Pakistan to do more against 
the militant networks in that country that use it and neighboring 
Afghanistan as a launching pad from which to direct attacks against us 
and our allies. The adoption of this resolution would undo our efforts 
to accomplish these goals and build trust and credibility with 
Pakistani leaders and the Pakistani people that will help provide for 
long-term stability and advance our long-term interests.
  Mr. Speaker, removing our personnel from Pakistan would present al 
Qaeda with a gift that it desperately needs and convince it and the 
world that it is winning the fight, thereby inevitably enhancing its 
prestige, confidence, ambitions, resources, and recruits. If this 
resolution were adopted, it would make it more difficult, and perhaps 
impossible, for General Petraeus to effectively implement the strategy 
that he is pursuing in Afghanistan and that is being carried out by our 
brave men and women serving there.
  Some will focus on the information reportedly contained in the many 
thousands of classified U.S. documents related to the conflict against 
al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that is, on a 
reckless and irresponsible act which compromises U.S. security as 
justification for this resolution.
  Some of those documents reflect the legacy of mistrust between the 
United States and Pakistan as well as between Pakistan and Afghanistan, 
a legacy which we are even now trying to overcome through enhanced 
dialogue.
  I am gravely concerned that those leaked documents may have put in 
jeopardy coalition troops and our military missions. As National 
Security Adviser General James Jones has warned, the leaks could ``put 
the lives of Americans and our partners at risk and threaten our 
national security.''
  But we would be compounding the risk and further undermining our 
efforts against radical Islamic militants in Pakistan and in 
Afghanistan if this Congress would take this knee-jerk approach to our 
national security and military strategy by adopting this resolution 
before us.
  Instead, we must remain focused on our mission, on success, on 
prevailing against the global jihadist network. These Islamist radicals 
in Pakistan and Afghanistan, who seek to destabilize our allies and 
attack our Nation and our interest, are driven and are focused on 
carrying out their deadly mission.
  We must, in turn, demonstrate that we possess the strength of 
character, the commitment, the wherewithal to counter al Qaeda, the 
Taliban and other enemies at every turn. We must not be looking at any 
opportunity or excuse to seek an immediate withdrawal from the 
epicenter of violent extremism, as Pakistan and Afghanistan have been 
described.

                              {time}  164

  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous measure, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady, for whom I have the greatest 
respect, for her concerns about the resolution. But I would like to 
respectfully suggest to her that the danger that's presented here is 
that this Congress ignores the WikiLeaks documents that point out a 
connection between Pakistani intelligence and the Afghanistan Taliban 
where they're actually helping the Taliban against our troops. We have 
to pay attention to that. I didn't create this resolution in order to 
link it with the Afghanistan war, but the Pakistan intelligence has 
created the link with the Afghanistan war because they are actually 
helping the Taliban. They created the link.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey), who 
has been a strong advocate for peace in this Congress.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support wholeheartedly Mr. 
Kucinich's and Mr. Paul's resolution to remove U.S. Armed Forces from 
Pakistan.
  The War Powers Act clearly states that the President must seek 
congressional approval before committing U.S. troops and before 
committing funds. As recent media reports confirmed, our troops are in 
Pakistan without congressional authorization, and they, as well as we, 
ask, To what end?
  Mr. Speaker, we are running up record deficits with two wars which 
have cost the United States in blood and treasure. Together, the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the American taxpayers over $1 
trillion and, worst of all, more than 5,600 men and women in uniform 
have given their lives. And what do we get for all of this, Mr. 
Speaker? Instead of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi and 
Afghan people, we're fueling hatred and insurgency, and now we want to 
export that to Pakistan. I don't think so. Let's not do it.
  I urge my colleagues to demand that the administration comply with 
the War Powers Act and remove our troops from Pakistan.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds in response to my 
friend from California's point.
  The War Powers Act, I repeat again, doesn't deal with the presence of 
military forces without an authorization from Congress. It deals with 
engaging in hostilities or imminent hostilities without the 
authorization of Congress.
  We have uniform personnel in Pakistan. They are working on the 
military assistance program. They are working in training Pakistani 
military. They are involved, as the Wall Street Journal revealed, in 
the delivering of humanitarian assistance in areas that are not secure 
enough for AID and civilian personnel to go.
  The WikiLeaks documents, with all the transparency that it provided 
for us about what the situation is, I'm unaware of any excerpt which 
indicates reports of U.S. military forces engaged in hostilities in 
Pakistan.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to introduce into the Record a Gallup poll that 
revealed that 59 percent of Pakistanis

[[Page H6117]]

view the U.S. as their biggest threat, and that 67 percent of 
Pakistanis polled were opposed to military operations in their country. 
Now, Mr. Speaker, if putting our troops inside the borders of 
Afghanistan, if we're not putting them in a hostile environment, with 
those poll results, I don't know what would be hostile.

                    [From Al Jazeera, Aug. 13, 2009]

                  Pakistanis See US as Biggest Threat

                             (By Owen Fay)

       A survey commissioned by Al Jazeera in Pakistan has 
     revealed a widespread disenchantment with the United States 
     for interfering with what most people consider internal 
     Pakistani affairs.
       The polling was conducted by Gallup Pakistan, an affiliate 
     of the Gallup International polling group, and more than 
     2,600 people took part.
       Interviews were conducted across the political spectrum in 
     all four of the country's provinces, and represented men and 
     women of every economic and ethnic background.
       When respondents were asked what they consider to be the 
     biggest threat to the nation of Pakistan, 11 per cent of the 
     population identified the Taliban fighters, who have been 
     blamed for scores of deadly bomb attacks across the country 
     in recent years.
       Another 18 per cent said that they believe that the 
     greatest threat came from neighbouring India, which has 
     fought three wars with Pakistan since partition in 1947.
       But an overwhelming number, 59 per cent of respondents, 
     said the greatest threat to Pakistan right now is, in fact, 
     the US, a donor of considerable amounts of military and 
     development aid.


                          Tackling the Taliban

       The resentment was made clearer when residents were asked 
     about the Pakistan's military efforts to tackle the Taliban.
       Keeping with recent trends a growing number of people, now 
     41 per cent, supported the campaign.
       About 24 per cent of people remained opposed, while another 
     22 per cent of Pakistanis remained neutral on the question.
       A recent offensive against Taliban fighters in the Swat, 
     Lower Dir and Buner districts of North West Frontier Province 
     killed at least 1,400 fighters, according to the military, 
     but also devastated the area and forced two million to leave 
     their homes.
       The military has declared the operation a success, however, 
     some analysts have suggested that many Taliban fighters 
     simply slipped away to other areas, surviving to fight 
     another day.
       When people were asked if they would support government-
     sanctioned dialogue with Taliban fighters if it were a viable 
     option the numbers change significantly.
       Although the same 41 per cent said they would still support 
     the military offensive, the number of those supporting 
     dialogue leaps up to 43 per cent.
       So clearly, Pakistanis are, right now, fairly evenly split 
     on how to deal with the Taliban threat.


                              Drone anger

       However, when asked if they support or oppose the US 
     military's drone attacks against what Washington claims are 
     Taliban and al-Qaeda targets, only nine per cent of 
     respondents reacted favourably.
       A massive 67 per cent say they oppose US military 
     operations on Pakistani soil.
       ``This is a fact that the hatred against the US is growing 
     very quickly, mainly because of these drone attacks,'' 
     Makhdoom Babar, the editor-in-chief of Pakistan's The Daily 
     Mail newspaper, said.
       ``Maybe the intelligence channels, the military channels 
     consider it productive, but for the general public it is 
     controversial . . . the drone attacks are causing collateral 
     damage,'' he told Al Jazeera.
       A senior US official told Al Jazeera he was not surprised 
     by the poll's findings.
       The US has a considerable amount of work to do to make 
     itself better understood to the Muslim world, he said.
       And it would take not only educational and economic work to 
     win over the Pakistani people but also a concerted effort to 
     help the Pakistani government deal with ``extremist 
     elements'' that are trying to disrupt security within 
     Pakistan, he added.
       Nearly 500 people, mostly suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda 
     fighters, are believed to have been killed in about 50 US 
     drone attacks since August last year, according to 
     intelligence agents, local government officials and 
     witnesses.
       Washington refuses to confirm the raids, but the US 
     military in neighbouring Afghanistan and the Central 
     Intelligence Agency (CIA) are the only forces operating in 
     the area that are known to have the technology.
       The government in Islamabad formally opposes the attacks 
     saying that they violate Pakistani sovereignty and cause 
     civilian casualties which turn public opinion against efforts 
     to battle the Taliban.
       Lieutenant-General Hamid Nawaz Khan, a former caretaker 
     interior minister of Pakistan, told Al Jazeera that US 
     pressure on Pakistan to take on the Taliban was one reason 
     for the backlash.
       ``Americans have forced us to fight this `war on terror'. . 
     . whatever Americans wanted they have been able to get 
     because this government was too weak to resist any of the 
     American vultures and they have been actually committing 
     themselves on the side of America much more than what even 
     [former president] Pervez Musharraf did,'' he said.


                          Pakistani leadership

       The consensus of opinion in opposition to US military 
     involvement in Pakistan is notable given the fact that on a 
     raft of internal issues there is a clear level of 
     disagreement, something which would be expected in a country 
     of this size.
       When asked for their opinions on Asif Ali Zardari, the 
     current Pakistani president, 42 per cent of respondents said 
     they believed he was doing a bad job. Around 11 per cent 
     approved of his leadership, and another 34 per cent had no 
     strong opinion either way.
       That pattern was reflected in a question about Zardari's 
     Pakistan People's party (PPP).
       Respondents were asked if they thought the PPP was good or 
     bad for the country.
       About 38 per cent said the PPP was bad for the country, 20 
     per cent believed it was good for the country and another 30 
     per cent said they had no strong opinion.
       Respondents were even more fractured when asked for their 
     views on how the country should be led.
       By far, the largest percentage would opt for Nawaz Sharif, 
     a former prime minister and leader of the Pakistan Muslim 
     League-N (PML-N) party, as leader. At least 38 per cent 
     backed him to run Pakistan.
       Last month, the Pakistani supreme court quashed Sharif's 
     conviction on charges of hijacking, opening the way for him 
     to run for political office again.


                          Zardari `unpopular'

       Zardari, the widower of assassinated former prime minister 
     Benazir Bhutto, received only nine per cent support, while 
     Reza Gilani, Pakistan's prime minister, had the backing of 13 
     per cent.
       But from there, opinions vary greatly. Eight per cent of 
     the population would support a military government, 11 per 
     cent back a political coalition of the PPP and the PML-N 
     party.
       Another six per cent would throw their support behind 
     religious parties and the remaining 15 per cent would either 
     back smaller groups or simply do not have an opinion.
       Babar told Al Jazeera that Zardari's unpopularity was 
     understandable given the challenges that the country had 
     faced since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US.
       ``Any president in Pakistan would be having the same 
     popularity that President Zardari is having, because under 
     this situation the president of Pakistan has to take a lot of 
     unpopular decisions,'' he said.
       ``He is in no position to not take unpopular decisions that 
     are actually in the wider interests of the country, but for 
     common people these are very unpopular decisions.''

  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who is the 
cosponsor of this resolution. I want to express to him my gratitude for 
his patriotism.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First off, I would like to address the subject about hostilities. It 
is true that there are no armies facing each other and shooting and 
killing each other, no tanks, no conventional type of hostilities. We 
don't live in a conventional era and we don't fight conventional wars, 
but there is a lot of hostile action going on.
  In looking and checking to find out if anybody has been killed, in 
the reports that I found, anywhere from 1,000 to 2,500 Pakistanis have 
been killed. Now, that sounds like it's rather hostile. And that comes 
not from our invasion in troop, but we've invaded them with our 
predators, with our drone missiles, and we drop bombs and we aim at 
targets, always at the bad people. But to the best of my knowledge from 
the information I get is that 14 al Qaeda leaders have been killed, and 
the rest have been civilians. And who knows exactly what their 
sentiments would be. Maybe a lot of them were defending their own 
country. Maybe they don't like foreign occupiers. But there is a lot of 
hostile action going on and a lot of people are dying.
  The gentleman from Ohio is quite correct. If you check with the 
people of Pakistan, they don't want us there. They don't want bombs 
dropped on them. How would we react in this country if all of a sudden 
there was a drone missile that landed on one of our cities and even one 
or two or three Americans were killed? We would be outraged and we 
would want to know about it. And here we do it constantly.
  I complain that we don't know enough about it and we give up our 
prerogatives. We allow the Presidents to do what they want and then we 
just capitulate and give them the money and do whatever. But I argue we 
don't know enough. We don't assume our responsibility. The American 
people don't know about it until we get deep into these quagmires and 
into these messes.

[[Page H6118]]

  But what about in Pakistan? There is a lot of conniving going on 
there because I am sure their leaders are quite satisfied with us going 
in there because we bribe them. The Congress just recently passed a 
bill that promises them $7.5 billion. That's how they stay in power, 
and it's also how they can help the Taliban who's fighting us.
  The whole thing is such a mess, but the people, if you ask the people 
of Pakistan, they're not going to support this. And the argument is 
that we have to support this because our generals want us to, because 
this is our mission. Well, what is our mission? Our mission ought to be 
to defend this country, preserve liberty, and show people what a free 
society looks like. We shouldn't be trying to tell other people how to 
live with bombs and threats. We give them two options: We tell them do 
it our way, and if they do, we give them a lot of money. If they don't 
do it our way, we start bombing them. But we don't achieve anything. 
That's my contention. We just go on and on.
  My big beef is with the overall policy. I know we're talking about 
the technicalities and we're talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan, 
but we don't solve any of these technical problems until we deal with 
the subject of what kind of a foreign policy we endorse. Are we 
supposed to be the policemen of the world? Are we supposed to be in 
nation building? Are we supposed to bankrupt our people? Are we 
supposed to support the infrastructure of others, building all around 
the world and neglect all of ours? It's coming to an end because this 
country is bankrupt, and we're going to have to change our policy 
whether we like it or not.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the 
ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution and I am 
pleased to join my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs and the Armed 
Services Committees who are opposed to this ill-timed and ill-conceived 
measure. I am disappointed that the House Democratic leadership would 
allow this resolution to come to the floor for a vote at this time.
  In April 2009, the President released his strategy for Afghanistan 
and Pakistan and began to make the case to the American people that 
security and stability in the region are vital to the U.S. national 
security interests. I support this strategy.
  In Pakistan, instability and violence have reached new highs with the 
insurgency moving eastward toward the capital of Islamabad and bombings 
and suicide attacks on the rise. This fight not only affects the people 
of Pakistan but our security, too. Moreover, Pakistan is an essential 
partner to the United States, both in the near and the long term, and 
we must remain committed to building trust between our two nations.

                              {time}  1650

  It remains in our national interest to defeat al Qaeda and its 
extremist allies and to ensure they will have no safe havens from which 
to attack the American people. In Pakistan, the government and people 
are increasingly seeing the insurgency operating from the tribal border 
areas as the most existential threat to their country.
  Despite Pakistan's increased military operations, the scale, nature, 
and frequency of violence in Pakistan makes it a nation more 
appropriately comparable to a combat zone, such as that found in 
Afghanistan, and it should be treated as such rather than as a central 
European country seeking foreign military financing.
  That is why our military partnership with Pakistan is essential. 
There are approximately 230 U.S. military personnel in Pakistan--all 
assigned to the Office of the Defense Representative to Pakistan. This 
small contingent is in Pakistan at the invitation of the Government of 
Pakistan to support security assistance programs and training to deepen 
our cooperative relationship with Pakistan.
  Let me be clear. This is not a combat mission but a train and equip 
role for the U.S. trainers in Pakistan. These trainers were selected 
based on the requirements established by the Government of Pakistan. 
These programs are key to Pakistan's counterinsurgency operations--
training which Pakistan needs to defeat al Qaeda and Taliban forces 
operating within their borders.
  Representative Kucinich's resolution, if enacted into law, would 
mandate the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Pakistan by the end of 
2010. Why consider this resolution now? Why second-guess the Commander 
in Chief and his commanders without giving the military a chance to 
implement the strategy?
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to send a clear message to our military 
men and women:
  This Congress believes in you. We support you, and we honor your 
dedication.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank my colleague for his support for the 
troops because we both support the troops. The question is that some of 
us believe that the best way to support the troops is to bring them 
home.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentleman for bringing this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, let there never be another war, military conflict, or 
armed hostilities involving U.S. military personnel that are not openly 
debated, expressly authorized and consented to, and scrupulously 
overseen by this Congress.
  We are the Congress. It is our job to do our constitutional duty. It 
is not second-guessing. It is oversight. It is engaging in the process 
of governance. There is nowhere in the Constitution that says that the 
President just gets to go fight wars without the oversight of the 
Congress. It is not unpatriotic. It is not being a poor citizen. It is 
our constitutional duty, if you are going to commit troops, to know 
why, when and how, and there are provisions in the Constitution and in 
the War Powers Act to make sure that Congress has the ability to 
exercise its constitutional responsibility. We can't shirk these duties 
constitutionally, not under the War Powers Act or anything else.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. ELLISON. We are in Pakistan. We are there with troops on the 
ground, apparently, and we are there in unmanned aerial vehicles. We 
have to exercise our responsibility. We cannot escape what history has 
assigned to us. We can't turn a blind eye when we know troops are there 
and engaged. It is not responsible. It is not right.
  The Pakistani public opinion is at an all-time low with regard to the 
United States. Why? We hardly know because we haven't dealt with this 
engagement in a forthright manner.
  Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to just, if I might, Mr. Speaker, respond to my friend from 
California who is in my neighboring district, the ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee. He made a reference to House leadership. He 
couldn't understand why it was setting this for debate.
  Firstly, this is a privileged resolution pursuant to the War Powers 
Act. That's why it is being set for debate. It is a privileged 
resolution. It is not up to the leadership whether or not to debate 
this issue unless we change the statute.
  Secondly, while I disagree with my friend from Ohio about whether the 
requisite requirements of the War Powers Act are met--because my 
conclusion is we are not engaged in hostilities as that term is used in 
the War Powers Act--I do want to say I don't understand, when seeking 
oversight, when making sure that taxpayers' funds are well spent, that 
our troops are protected and are being well served, and that our 
interests are being pursued by a particular operation, why the debate 
of that on the House floor is evidence of not supporting the troops.
  To the contrary, had we had more debate on the House floor over the 
past 10 years, perhaps $8 billion in military assistance to Iraq, which 
was lost and can't be accounted for, might not have happened.
  I know one thing. Perhaps we wouldn't have given the military leader 
of Pakistan free rein to cut deals with Talibani groups, appeasement 
agreements, in various parts of Pakistan during the period prior to his 
removal from office. Perhaps we would

[[Page H6119]]

have a greater sense--and here we do have a greater sense--of knowledge 
of where our defense aid is going and what our military assistance is 
being used for than ever before, in large part, thanks to the oversight 
responsibilities of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 
These are useful processes. They are much better than simply providing 
the money and then turning away until it is all over.
  I commend the gentleman for using what, I think, is the wrong vehicle 
but the appropriate subject of having an open discussion about the 
wisdom of what we are doing. I think that serves our forces. I think it 
serves our country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much 
time each side has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yarmuth). The gentleman from Ohio has 17 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Florida has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit more about our policy 
because, as I said before, I think it is the policy that gets us into 
these predicaments and that, if you deal with this as a strictly 
technical/tactical problem that we have to face in how to rectify our 
problems, I don't think it will occur. I think we have to deal in the 
overall policy.
  In many ways, we follow a schizophrenic type of foreign policy 
because, one time, they are our best friends, then later on they become 
our worst enemies. This was true with Saddam Hussein. In the 1980s, he 
was our friend. We took care of him. We encouraged him and supported 
his war. Then of course that changed. Even right before 9/11, the 
Taliban were still receiving money from us, and now they receive money 
from us indirectly. The Taliban gets money from the Pakistanis, or at 
least information as has been reported, but they literally get some of 
our money in the process because, in order for us to move equipment 
through Afghanistan, they literally end up getting American dollars 
from doing this.
  So here we are going into Pakistan. One of the arguments to go into 
Pakistan is that we have to go after the Taliban--that they are over 
there, that they are organizing and that they want to kill the American 
soldiers in Afghanistan. This means that now they are our archenemies. 
Yet the Taliban, especially in the 1980s, weren't called the Taliban; 
they were called the Mujahedeen. It was a precursor, but they were our 
best friends along with Osama bin Laden. We were allies with them 
because we supported the principle that it was wrong for the Soviets to 
be occupying Afghanistan.
  Now the tables have turned. Now we are the occupiers. Now the very 
people who used to help us are shooting and killing us. It has been 
revealed just recently with this release of information that they 
actually have some Stinger missiles, and as of the last month or so, 
three of our helicopters have been shot down.

                              {time}  1700

  So where does this all end?
  One thing about the reports in the newspaper, I think if they changed 
the definition or the use of one term, I think it would change 
everybody's attitude, if people came around to believing that the 
Taliban are people who aren't dedicated toward coming over here to kill 
us, like some of the al Qaeda are, but the Taliban are only interested 
in getting rid of the occupiers of their country.
  So we call them militant. So we go in, and we raid and shoot and kill 
and bomb, and then we say, aha, we killed 37 militants today.
  What if we reported this always like we did in the eighties.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield the gentleman another minute.
  Mr. PAUL. What if it was always reported that freedom fighters were 
killed, as it was when they were our friends and our allies? The whole 
thing would change.
  But, no, we call them militants and we call them insurgents. But they 
were formerly our allies and our so-called friends.
  So this is just a reflection on the ridiculousness of our analyst 
policy of intervention and how so often our allies and our friends turn 
against us, and how our money, taxpayers' money, so often is used 
against us. I think this is a perfect example.
  We would like to stop it. That's why we brought this resolution up. 
We don't want to see this war spread, and we want the American people 
to know about it, and we want this Congress to know about it, because 
foreign policy isn't even written in the Constitution.
  The responsibility of how we run our foreign affairs is with the U.S. 
Congress; and when we go to war, it should be a congressional function, 
not an executive function; and some day we may get there, but right 
now, today, we have to do our very best to let people know the 
shortcomings of the policy we're following in Pakistan.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking 
member on the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South 
Asia.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my 
colleagues who are so hell bent to get the training troops that we 
have, 230 U.S. troops, helping with the training in Pakistan, out of 
Pakistan, I'd like to remind them that on 9/11 we were attacked by al 
Qaeda terrorists, whose head was Osama bin Laden. And Osama bin Laden 
has been going back and forth across the Afghani/Pakistani border. And 
there has been training going on with terrorists there, and in Yemen, 
to try to foment more terrorism and to try to get them to move toward 
more attacks on the United States of America.
  This is a war that we're fighting to protect America, as well as make 
sure the entire region over there is stable.
  Pakistan is a nuclear power. If the Taliban and al Qaeda are 
successful in taking over that country, can you imagine what the rest 
of the world would have to deal with with them having the nuclear 
capability that they would have? That's one of the things we have to 
talk about.
  And without the training, I'd like to point this out, without the 
training of our troops that are in Pakistan as trainers, the 230 of 
them, the money that we're using to fight this war against the Taliban 
and al Qaeda would not be used as effectively and as efficiently 
because those people have to be trained to use the technology that 
we're giving them. And you have to have somebody over there that can 
train them and teach them about what this equipment can and will do.
  Now, let me just make a couple of points. First of all, if we cut 
military ties to Pakistan, it's crazy. The border between Pakistan and 
Afghanistan just goes all over the place. Nobody can really tell you 
when you cross the border and go back and forth. So you're going to 
have some mistakes made in going after the Taliban or al Qaeda 
terrorists in that region.
  And for us to cut aid and assistance to Pakistan at a time when we're 
trying to win the war and stop terrorism in Afghanistan would be, in my 
opinion, insane. We need to continue to work with Pakistan, not only 
for the stability of that country, but to make sure we stop the 
terrorist training that's taking place.
  Now, there's no question we have some differences, some policy 
differences with the Pakistani Government, but we have differences with 
a lot of our friends. But we still support them, especially when it's 
in our national interest to do so. And we are working with them, and 
helping with the training is extremely important, as I stated a moment 
ago.
  And as I said before, the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan has 
mountains and valleys, and it's extremely difficult to know where those 
borders are. And we must not allow the enemy to have sanctuary. That's 
why it's important for us to train their troops to be able to go after 
the Taliban and al Qaeda, because if Osama bin Laden can go into 
Pakistan with impunity, if the terrorists can go in there with 
impunity, if they can go back and forth across that border, we can 
never win the war.
  To say they can have sanctuary in Pakistan is like saying to a 
football team, win the game, but don't go beyond the 50-yard line. You 
cannot let

[[Page H6120]]

the enemy have sanctuary. If we didn't learn anything from Vietnam, we 
should have learned that.
  This is an entire breeding ground for terrorism, that border between 
Pakistan and Afghanistan, part of Pakistan and all of Afghanistan. And 
because we've been putting so much heat on the Taliban and al Qaeda, 
they have been moving their training grounds outside of Afghanistan 
into Yemen and into Pakistan, and that's why we must not allow them to 
have sanctuary.
  And another thing I would like to talk about that has not been 
mentioned is the rules of engagement. When I was coming in today, I 
heard on the radio an Afghanistan American soldier who had just gotten 
back from Afghanistan. And he said, the rules of engagement are crazy. 
He said, he'll go into a combat situation and he'll have an enemy 
target, and they'll say, you can't fire on that target unless you get 
approval from your commanding officer. And he says many times the 
soldiers who are put in that position will get killed before they get 
the approval to fire on their targets.

  We need to change those rules of engagement so we can go after the 
enemy, where they are and get the job done. Why should we handcuff our 
troops when they're in a combat situation? It makes absolutely no 
sense. That's a recipe for disaster.
  So if I were talking to the President or General Petraeus I would 
say, let the troops do their job. Don't give sanctuary to the enemy. 
Help the Pakistanis fight them, train the Pakistanis over there. And 
give our troops the ability, when they hit a target, to be able to go 
after that target, to knock that target out, and not wait for orders 
that might endanger their very lives. That's a good way to get all of 
our troops killed.
  We are in a war, not only in that area that's going to decide what's 
going to go on in the entire Middle East with Iran and Afghanistan and 
Pakistan, but we're in a war that may very well come back to the United 
States and hurt us a great deal.
  We cannot let the terrorists have the ability, with impunity, to be 
trained and be ready to attack the United States again or any of our 
allies. And that's why we, and our allies, must work together to make 
sure we stop the terrorists from having the ability to feel safe in 
their training practices in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, Yemen or wherever 
they are.
  This is a war. And it's a war for the survival of many parts of the 
world and, I believe, including the United States. And so we must do 
whatever is necessary to win that war.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I want to say to my friend from Indiana, who is my friend and with 
whom I have served in this Congress for 14 years and whose dedication 
to our Nation should never be questioned, I want to say to my friend 
from Indiana that this House Concurrent Resolution does not cut aid to 
Pakistan. It does not cut assistance to Pakistan.
  I will place in the Record an account of the direct U.S. Aid and 
military reimbursements to Pakistan from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal 
year 2011.

                                      DIRECT OVERT U.S. AID AND MILITARY REIMBURSEMENTS TO PAKISTAN, FY2002-FY2011
                                                      [rounded to the nearest millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                     Program or
                      Program or account                       FY2002-FY2004  FY 2005  FY 2006  FY 2007  FY 2008  FY 2009  FY 2010    account    FY 2011
                                                                                                                            (est.)     total      (req.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1206.........................................................          --          --       28       14       56      114        f          212        f
CN...........................................................          --           8       24       49       54       47     f 38          220        f
CSF a........................................................     c 3,121         964      862      731    1,019    g 685    g 756      g 8,138        g
FC...........................................................          --          --       --       --       75       25       --          100       --
FMF..........................................................         375         299      297      297      298      300   i 2981        2,164      296
IMET.........................................................           3           2        2        2        2        2        5           18        4
INCLE........................................................         154          32       38       24       22       88    i 170          528      140
NADR.........................................................          16           8        9       10       10       13       21           87       25
PCF/PCCF.....................................................          --          --       --       --       --      400      700        1,100    1,200
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Security-Related.................................       3,669       1,313    1,260    1,127    1,536  h 1,674    1,988       12,567    1,665
CSH/GHCS.....................................................          56          21       28       22       30       33       30          220       67
DA...........................................................          94          29       38       95       30       --       --          286       --
ESF..........................................................     d 1,003         298      337    e 394      347    1,114  i 1,277        4,770    1,322
Food Aid b...................................................          46          32       55       --       50       55       81          319       --
HRDF.........................................................           3           2        1       11       --       --       --           17       --
IDA..........................................................          --          --       70       50       50      103        9          282       --
MRA..........................................................          22           6       10        4       --       60       42          144       --
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Economic-Related.................................       1,224         388      539      576      507  h 1,365    1,439        6,038    1,389
                                                              ==========================================================================================
      Grand Total............................................       4,893       1,701    1,799    1,703    2,043  h 3,039  i 3,427       18,605   3,054
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Departments of State, Defense, and Agriculture; U.S. Agency for International Development
Abbreviations:
1206: Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2006 (P.L. 109-163, global train and equip)
CN: Countemarcotics Funds (Pentagon budget)
CSF: Coalition Support Funds (Pentagon budget)
CSH: Child Survival and Health (Global Health and Child Survival, or GHCS, from FY2010)
DA: Development Assistance
ESF: Economic Support Funds
FC: Section 1206 of the NDAA for FY2008 (P.L. 110-181, Pakistan Frontier Corp train and equip)
FMF: Foreign Military Financing
HRDF: Human Rights and Democracy Funds
IDA: International Disaster Assistance (Pakistani earthquake and internally displaced persons relief)
IMET: International Military Education and Training
INCLE: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (includes border security)
MRA: Migration and Refugee Assistance
NADR: Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related (the majority allocated for Pakistan is for anti-terrorism assistance)
PCF/PCCF: Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund/Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (transferred to State Department oversight in FY2010)
Notes:
a CSF is Pentagon funding to reimburse Pakistan for its support of U.S. military operations. It is not officially designated as foreign assistance.
b P.L.480 Title I (loans), P.L.480 Title II (grants), and Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (surplus agricultural commodity
  donations). Food aid totals do not include freight costs and total allocations are unavailable until the fiscal years's end.
c Includes $220 million for FY2002 Peacekeeping Operations reported by the State Department.
d Congress authorized Pakistan to use the FY2003 and FY2004 ESF allocations to cancel a total of about $1.5 billion in concessional debt to the U.S.
  government.
e Includes $110 million in Pentagon funds transferred to the State Department for projects in Pakistan's tribal areas (P.L. 110-28).
f This funding is ``requirements-based;'' there are no pre-allocation data.
g Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for FY2009 and $1.57 billion for FY2010, and the Administration requested $2 billion for FY2011, in additional CSF
  for all U.S. coalition partners. Pakistan has in the past received about 80% of such funds. FY2009-FY2011 may thus see an estimated $3.4 billion in
  additional CSF payments to Pakistan.
h Includes a ``bridge'' ESF appropriation of $150 million (P.L. 110-252), $15 million of which was later transferred to INCLE. Also includes FY2009
  supplemental appropriations of $539 million for ESF, $66 million for INCLE, $40 million for MRA, and $2 million for NADR.
i The Administration's request for supplemental FY2010 appropriations includes $244 million for ESF, $40 million for INCLE, and $60 million for FMF
  funds for Pakistan. These amounts are included in the estimated FY2010 total.
 

  In this, it points out the following: that coalition support funds, 
Pakistan during this period has received $8.11 billion; that with 
respect to foreign military financing, it has received $2.1 billion; 
and with respect to economic support funds, it has received $4.7 
billion.

                              {time}  1710

  I am not advocating that we strike those funds. What I am saying to 
my friend from Indiana and to others who are concerned about this 
resolution is that this resolution is about stopping the United States 
from getting deeper into Pakistan.

[[Page H6121]]

  Now some Members may feel that we should have troops in Pakistan, and 
this is the first time we've had this debate because since we do have 
troops there, we can at least have the debate, which is an appropriate 
role for Congress.
  But my friend from Indiana has raised several important questions. He 
has talked about Osama bin Laden. The Pakistan ISI, their intelligence, 
is extraordinary. They're so extraordinary that they can play a double 
game with the United States. They can ask us to help them go after the 
Taliban in Pakistan, which we do, while at the same time they aid the 
Taliban in Afghanistan against our own troops. Now someone who is that 
slick, who can basically con the United States, you can imagine what's 
going on in their mind with respect to helping the United States locate 
Osama bin Laden if in fact he is still alive.
  The other thing is, we have to be concerned that wherever we send our 
troops, that United States occupation fuels insurgencies. This is why 
we've had the casualties in Iraq. This is why we've had the casualties 
in Afghanistan. It is why if we continue to expand our footprint in 
Pakistan, why there will be more U.S. casualties there.
  The final thing that I want to answer my friend--and I will yield him 
time in a minute--he mentioned Vietnam. Prior to the beginning of the 
Vietnam War, in 1964, U.S. military advisers had been in and around 
South Vietnam for almost a decade. As the government of South Vietnam 
grew weaker, the number of military advisers grew in number.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself an additional minute.
  The U.S. poured billions of dollars of military aid into South 
Vietnam to prop up the increasingly weak government and prevent the 
ostensible expansion of communism in the world.
  Now does this scenario sound familiar? Well, it should, because it's 
exactly what is happening in Pakistan and why I am glad that the 
gentleman from Texas and I have been able to affect this debate.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The point I made in my floor statement, I 
would like to ask you about this. There are 230 military trainers in 
Pakistan. The men that were killed were there on a training mission. 
The money that we're giving to Pakistan has to be used efficiently and 
effectively. If we give them the money and the equipment and they don't 
know how to use it in the front lines, it's a waste of our money when 
they're fighting the enemy. And that's why it's important for the 230 
military trainers there to be there, to make sure that our tax dollars 
that are going over there to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda are used 
effectively and efficiently.
  I hope you agree with that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself another half minute.
  Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman supports the idea of the U.S. 
presence in Afghanistan on the ground, then your logic would follow 
perfectly. However, what I am saying is that following the language of 
the War Powers Resolution. We've had three troops killed there. The 
atmosphere for the U.S. in Pakistan is quite hostile. A Gallup poll 
demonstrated that. People don't want us in their country, as the 
gentleman from Texas pointed out.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. McMahon) will control the time of the gentleman from 
California.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished manager and I 
really applaud Congressman Kucinich for allowing us to come to the 
floor today and discuss a crucial aspect of America's foreign policy.
  Frankly, I believe it is time for us to come home from Afghanistan, 
having just returned just over 2 weeks ago, in the early part of July, 
when I was able to see the enormity of corruption and the lack of 
standing up by the Afghan Government. But I saw the resilience of the 
United States military and the willingness of the people in Afghanistan 
to be able to desire a better quality of life. I think that we are now 
poised to build the Afghan national security forces and to remove our 
forces from the dangers of the Taliban neighbors who live in 
Afghanistan, who are not leaving, who have a difference of opinion.
  In the instance of Pakistan, I think it is key that we recognize that 
there are some troubling circumstances. And yes, we do have some 
questions as relates to the people of Pakistan understanding the great 
humanitarian work that the American people have done; the work they've 
done with USAID, the work they've done in helping to build schools, and 
it is the responsibility of the Pakistan Government to be able to 
emphasize what the presence of the United States is all about.
  I do not want boots on the ground dealing with hostility. We have 
boots on the ground all around the world, but they're not engaged in 
hostility. They're providing, if you will, a level of peacekeeping and 
friendship and cooperation.
  Now we need to rid ourselves of the involvement of the ISI in 
undermining American soldiers in Afghanistan. They cannot be playing 
around with the Taliban while we are investing treasure. But at the 
same time Pakistani army or military forces is investing their treasure 
and we are trying to provide them with the training that is necessary.
  I believe that what Congressman Kucinich has done here is important, 
and he is absolutely right to be able to have this discussion and to 
recognize that something is awry. We've got to work together on the 
humanitarian side to be able to inform the Pakistani people and the 
Pakistan Parliament and government officials to not run away from the 
humanitarian work that the United States is doing. We have just passed 
a multi-billion-dollar bill that is going to work on building and 
helping to rebuild Pakistan from the education and social and health 
care-wise.
  So the training that is being done by our military should be done in 
a peaceful mode. That should be annunciated by the officials of the 
Pakistan Government, and they should not run away from the good things 
that we are doing there.
  My concern to be able to acknowledge or affirm that we have troops 
there under the War Powers Act would suggest that we are there in a 
hostile manner.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McMAHON. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. We are perceived with hostility because 
there has not been a standing up by our friends in Pakistan that we are 
working collaboratively in a diplomatic manner to enhance the quality 
of life and to provide for the security, if you will, of the Pakistan 
people, working with or with their military in the forefront.
  So I would argue that we have much work to do in Afghanistan, our 
troops need to come home, and the technical assistance that is being 
given to the neighbor Pakistan must be defined as that and not defined 
as a hostile manner.
  I'm looking forward to us clarifying the relationship and ensuring 
that the Pakistan intelligence is not undermining this diplomatic, 
civilian-focused effort of our military using training techniques and 
to be able to cooperate by allowing the Pakistani military to interact 
with our military for procedures and process. It is clear that we have 
a very contentious situation in the region; Pakistan, India, 
Bangladesh.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. McMAHON. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. We have a contentious relationship there, 
but I have great hope as the cochair of the Pakistan Caucus that, 
working with Pakistani Americans, building on the core of 
humanitarianism that we are working with with the Pakistan American 
Foundation that has been developed, that we can overcome the image and 
the perception the Pakistan

[[Page H6122]]

people have that we're not there to work with them to fight the 
Taliban, to fight against al Qaeda, to fight against Osama bin Laden, 
and to put them forward trained and equipped to be able to work on 
behalf of the Pakistan people.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time the 
respective debaters have here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 8\1/2\ minutes, 
the gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ minutes, and the gentlewoman 
from Florida has 1 minute.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  In response to the gentlelady's comments about training troops, the 
U.S. has been training troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for over 7 years 
now with arguably little or no sign of success; yet we are applying the 
same failed counterinsurgency strategies in Iraq, Afghanistan and now 
perhaps Pakistan.

                              {time}  1720

  A seemingly endless stream of money, an estimated $1 trillion, has 
been poured into the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. Millions of 
dollars in taxpayer money spent to prop up a corrupt and unpopular 
central government and to train local security forces. Yet attacks on 
the U.S. and allied troops continue to rise. Documents released by 
WikiLeaks report that Pakistan intelligence service, the ISI, supports 
Taliban attacks on U.S. forces. This despite an average of $1 billion a 
year in aid from the U.S.
  Now, this raises a broader question, Mr. Speaker, which is really 
about today in Washington. Can the United States win the war in 
Afghanistan or hope to have any success there at all if our major ally, 
Pakistan, through their intelligence agency, is cooperating with the 
Taliban against our troops in Afghanistan?
  Listen to this. Even Afghanistan Government officials are complaining 
about this.
  I refer to an article from Reuters I would like to place in the 
Record. The title of the article, ``Afghanistan questions U.S. silence 
over Pakistan's role,'' where they are complaining that Pakistan's role 
in the insurgency is being ignored. And an official of the Afghanistan 
Security Council, according to Reuters, quote, ``warned that the war 
would not succeed unless there was a review of Afghan policy by 
Washington that focuses on Taliban sanctuaries and bases in Pakistan 
and their supporters.'' Now, when you have things so bad that even in 
Afghanistan, where the government is hopelessly corrupt, they're 
complaining about Pakistan, you see the kind of mess we could get into 
if we expand the footprint of our troops within the border of Pakistan.

          [From the Business & Financial News, Jul. 27, 2010]

        Afghanistan Questions U.S. Silence Over Pakistan's Role

                         (By Sayed Salahuddin)

       Kabul (Reuters)--The United States has pursued a 
     contradictory policy with regard to the Afghan war by 
     ignoring Pakistan's role in the insurgency, the Afghan 
     government said on Tuesday, following the leak of U.S. 
     military documents.
       The classified documents released by the organization, 
     WikiLeaks, show current and former members of Pakistan's spy 
     agency were actively collaborating with the Taliban in 
     plotting attacks in Afghanistan.
       On Tuesday, in its first reaction to the leak, 
     Afghanistan's National Security Council said the United 
     States had failed to attack the patrons and supporters of the 
     Taliban hiding in Pakistan throughout the nine-year conflict.
       ``With regret . . . our allies did not show necessary 
     attention about the external support for the international 
     terrorists . . . for the regional stability and global 
     security,'' the council said in a statement.
       Afghanistan has long blamed Pakistan for meddling in its 
     affairs, accusing the neighbor of plotting attacks to 
     destabilize it. Islamabad, which has had longstanding ties to 
     the Taliban, denies involvement in the insurgency and says it 
     is a victim of militancy itself.
       The National Security Council did not name Pakistan, but 
     said use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy was a 
     dangerous gamble and had to be stopped.
       ``Having a contradictory and vague policy against the 
     forces who use terrorism as a tool for interference and 
     sabotage against others, have had devastating results,'' it 
     said.
       At a news conference later on Tuesday, council head Rangeen 
     Dadfar Spanta was more specific, questioning the billions of 
     dollars in cash aid and milita assistance Washington has 
     given to Pakistan over the years.
       ``It is really not justifiable for the Afghan people that 
     how come you give to one country $11 billion or more as help 
     for reconstruction or strengthen its security or defensive 
     forces, but from other side the very forces train 
     terrorism,'' he said.
       He warned that the war would not succeed unless there was a 
     review of Afghan policy by Washington that focuses on Taliban 
     sanctuaries and bases in Pakistan and their supporters.
       Those supporting militants should be punished rather than 
     be treated as an ally, said Spanta, who served for years as 
     foreign minister in President Hamid Karzai's government until 
     last year.
       The White House has condemned the WikiLeaks disclosures, 
     saying it could threaten national security. Pakistan said 
     leaking unprocessed reports from the battlefield was 
     irresponsible.
       The documents numbering tens of thousands also said that 
     coalition troops had killed hundreds of Afghan civilians in 
     unreported incidents and often sought to cover up the 
     mistakes that have shaken up confidence in the war effort 
     among many in Afghanistan.
       On Monday, the Afghan government said it had spoken in 
     private and in public meetings with its Western allies about 
     the need to stop civilian deaths.
       ``In the past nine years (since Taliban's fall) thousands 
     of citizens of Afghanistan and from our ally countries have 
     become victimised,'' it said.

  It's been said early on in this debate that the WikiLeaks documents, 
92,000 documents, I don't know who has had the time to read them all, 
but according to what's been said publicly, that it represents nothing 
new. Here's the key findings of these WikiLeaks documents that were 
reported in the New York Times in the last day: a point that our troops 
have been placed in mortal danger because of poor logistics; that 
countless innocent civilians have been killed by mistake; that the 
Afghan government is hopelessly corrupt; that Pakistan intelligence has 
collaborated with the Taliban against the U.S.; that the Pentagon has 
understated the firepower of the insurgents; and that a top Pakistani 
general was visiting a suicide bombing school on a monthly basis.
  Now, if this has been going on for years and it's nothing new, you 
have to ask the question then why in the world weren't we having that 
debate over the last 6 years? If this is nothing new, why didn't the 
American people know all about this? Why did it take a document dump by 
WikiLeaks to suddenly wake up the Congress to say, Hey, wait a minute, 
the war isn't going the way you thought it was?
  I mean it's not only a question of if we knew then what we know now, 
it's a question that do we remember what we knew then? And why isn't it 
affecting our policy right now? Why aren't we getting out of 
Afghanistan? Why are we pretending there is a withdrawal from Iraq if 
we leave 50,000 troops there? And why in the world would we be in this 
environment expanding our footprint in Pakistan?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McMAHON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I would like to ask how much time remains on each side, 
because I am going to reserve the right to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 3\1/2\ minutes. 
The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ minutes. The gentlewoman from 
Florida has 1 minute.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We all know that the U.S. relationship with Pakistan is one of the 
most complex and critically important in the world. While significant 
challenges remain, the U.S. and Pakistan have deepened mutual 
cooperation against insurgent groups. Counterterrorism cooperation has 
led to significant losses to al Qaeda's relationship and leadership 
within Pakistan, with more than half of al Qaeda's senior leaders being 
killed or captured.
  The Pakistani military has undertaken offensives in Swat and South 
Waziristan, putting sustained pressure on violent militant groups. The 
U.S. and Pakistan have also commenced a strategic dialogue, which has 
expanded cooperation on a wide range of critical issues.
  Even with these positive trends, the U.S. must continue to press the 
Pakistani Government, particularly its

[[Page H6123]]

military and intelligence services, to continue their strategic shift 
against extremists and stay on the offensive.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. needs to maintain steadiness in purpose in 
Pakistan, and I therefore urge the defeat of this dangerous resolution.


                             General Leave

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material into the Record on House Concurrent 
Resolution 301.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will just conclude by applauding the gentleman from Ohio for his 
passion and concern for our men and women in uniform, and certainly for 
the foreign policy of this Nation, even though I join in disagreement 
of his position with my colleague, the gentlelady from Florida, the 
ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
  I think it's quite clear to anyone that America's relationship with 
Pakistan is one that is fraught with uncertainty, cloudiness, and 
opaqueness. It's been clear since 1979, when the American embassy was 
stormed in Islamabad, and we realized that there are many different 
layers to this onion which is the society of Pakistan.
  That being said, however, we know from the many Pakistani Americans 
who live in our districts, who have come to this country that these are 
people, both here in this country and in Pakistan, who want to have in 
the majority a strong relationship with America. And that's why it's so 
important, Mr. Speaker, that we have these boots on the ground, as we 
said, these few hundred military personnel, who are making sure that 
not only our counterinsurgency funds, but also our civil funds that go 
to this country are used in the right way.
  We are not engaged in hostilities in Pakistan, and therefore this 
resolution is misguided. It is dangerous. It sends the wrong message. 
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in this 
House to oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. In closing, I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida 
for her commitment to this debate and for her passion to make sure 
American foreign policy always receives a very strong and ringing 
endorsement. I want to thank the gentleman from New York and also the 
gentleman from California for this. And I want to thank Mr. Paul, who 
has been a very powerful voice in this country to talk about the 
limitations of power.
  People have been asking why this resolution and why now? Because I 
strongly believe that we should nip in the bud an expansion of U.S. 
ground presence in Pakistan.

                              {time}  1730

  We need to do this to keep our troops out of harm's way. Now, it's no 
secret the administration ordered hundreds of drone attacks in Pakistan 
just this year resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent 
civilians. It's not been widely discussed until today that we had over 
120 U.S. military in the country ``training'' Pakistani security 
forces. We have to appreciate the Wall Street Journal's reporting on 
this where they covered the fact that there was an increase in the U.S. 
forces in Pakistan who are there to train Pakistan military forces, and 
it's a force comprised of the tribal regions.
  I want to say that the recent reports released by WikiLeaks and 
published in The New York Times and the Guardian on the war in 
Afghanistan confirmed to us what we already know: that 9 years on we're 
still uncovering an abundance of information that our presence in 
Afghanistan is counterproductive. And now we want to further expand 
attacks, drone attacks in the presence of U.S. Special Forces in 
Pakistan?
  The WikiLeaks reports also reveal that while we're in Pakistan 
spending billions to support them in their efforts to fight, to reshape 
their environment and also to fight the Pakistani Taliban, Pakistan is 
in Afghanistan to help the Taliban fight us.
  Now, regardless of one's support for or opposition to the way that 
the global war on terror has unfolded, this resolution has been about 
securing an open and meaningful debate, about the expansion of war into 
Pakistan.
  Mr. Speaker, Article I, section 8 puts very firmly in the hands of 
Congress the war powers. We have seen a series of imperial Presidencies 
and some that were not so imperial but, nevertheless, took this war 
power as their own, basically nullifying the position of Congress that 
has been with us since the founding of this country that it's Congress 
that's supposed to restrain the dog of war. This resolution is the way 
to put Congress back into the debate over whether or not America 
commits troops anywhere in the world.
  I support the President, but I don't support sending more troops, for 
whatever reason, into Pakistan. I don't support sending more troops 
into Afghanistan. I don't support sending more troops into Iraq. I 
support bringing them home. That's the way you can support the troops, 
in my view. Other Members here, in conscience and rightly, 
understanding the world in a different way, have a different point of 
view. I respect that. But it's time that Congress has a say in this.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the Kucinich Resolution is the wrong answer 
to the wrong question at the wrong time. It directs the U.S. under the 
War Powers Act to withdraw from a country where we are not in fact 
fighting a ``war,'' a country where the desperately needed assistance 
we are providing is fundamental to protecting the Homeland at a time 
when Pakistan is now aggressively fighting our common enemy.
  Here are the facts: we currently have less than 250 troops in 
Pakistan, and they are there only to train and equip Pakistan's 
security forces--not to fight. These troops report to the U.S. embassy 
and work with the full knowledge, permission, and support of Pakistan's 
civilian government. U.S. forces in Pakistan have nothing to do with 
alleged drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan's Federally 
Administered Tribal Area (FATA), and this resolution would have no 
impact on those.
  Pakistan is now aggressively fighting terrorists. In fact, it was 
Pakistani forces who, earlier this year, captured the Taliban's second-
in-command--the most significant capture since the start of the war. 
The Pakistan Army has suffered enormous casualties in this fight during 
the last year. We should not be confused by outdated, leaked 
information that doesn't reflect Pakistan's decision to truly take on 
the Taliban in 2009.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this fatally flawed resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support 
H. Con. Res. 301, calling on the President to withdraw U.S. Troops from 
Pakistan, and oppose H.R. 4899, the supplemental spending bill.
  The right way to foster democracy and opportunity in the region is to 
invest in infrastructure like schools and roads. The book ``Stones into 
Schools'' details how building schools in remote regions of Afghanistan 
and Pakistan opened up opportunities for young men and women, and 
helped promote peace. This is the type of aid we should be giving--not 
tanks and missiles.
  H. Con. Res. 301 would take a step in the right direction. With drone 
attacks killing civilians in Pakistan, a Gallup poll from August 2009 
shows that 59 percent of Pakistanis see the United States as their 
biggest threat. The recent documents posted on WikiLeaks show that 
Pakistan Intelligence has been working with the Taliban against U.S. 
troops. We need to stop aggressive military actions in Pakistan before 
the conflict escalates.
  The supplemental spending bill is the wrong approach. It would add 
$37 billion to the deficit to finance an additional 30,000 troops in 
Afghanistan. After nine years at war, we have little to show for our 
efforts despite $232 billion spent, over a thousand American lives 
lost, and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians dead.
  I urge my colleagues to stand for peace, vote for H. Con. Res. 301 to 
withdraw U.S. troops from Pakistan, and vote against the supplemental 
spending bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 301, 
which would direct the President to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from 
Pakistan within 30 days or, if the President deems it not safe within 
30 days, to withdraw the troops by December 31, 2010.
  Let me state unequivocally, I strongly support a vigorous debate on 
this matter, especially in light of the documents made available by 
WikiLeaks. I worry about leaks of classified information, especially 
when leaks could put our nation and our troops in harm's way. That 
said, the documents appear to make clear what we already knew, we are 
involved in a very messy and difficult war in the region.
  This is something that President Obama realized when he ordered a new 
strategy in Afghanistan. For eight years I called on President George 
W. Bush to increase our resources devoted to the War in Afghanistan,

[[Page H6124]]

which I don't need remind anyone is the nation from which the September 
11th attacks were launched. There were many others arguing the same 
thing. Finally, with President Obama we got serious policy review and a 
real strategy. It has been just 18 months since the President's speech 
at West Point which aptly reminded the nation that a very real threat 
still exists. Moreover, the additional 30,000 troops called for in that 
speech will not be fully deployed until September. It would be a 
mistake to abandon the President's plan now before we allow time for 
the plan to work. To do so could jeopardize the lives of our American 
troops.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues raising the 
issue of Congressional oversight in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the 
debate here today. I share their deep reservations about our engagement 
in the region, though I disagree with their invocation of the War 
Powers Act in this case. In fact, the targeted cooperation and training 
that U.S. Special Forces are said to be conducting in the mountainous 
border area of Pakistan will likely do more to help us in the long run 
than doubling down with a troop surge in Afghanistan.
  Though I cannot support this resolution, I support the spirit of 
oversight and accountability behind it. Because I believe our strategy 
in Afghanistan is fundamentally flawed and cannot succeed without a 
credible partner in the Afghan government, I hope we can have a serious 
and vigorous debate about this--the real issue--in the coming months.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1556, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting House Concurrent Resolution 301 will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on suspending the rules with regard to H.R. 
4899 and H.R. 4748.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 38, 
nays 372, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 473]

                                YEAS--38

     Baldwin
     Campbell
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Farr
     Filner
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Maffei
     McDermott
     Miller, George
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Pingree (ME)
     Quigley
     Rohrabacher
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Serrano
     Sires
     Stark
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Woolsey

                               NAYS--372

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Fattah
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--4

     Bartlett
     Honda
     Shea-Porter
     Slaughter

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Akin
     Carson (IN)
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Heller
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     King (IA)
     Meek (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Radanovich
     Tiahrt
     Waters
     Watson
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1800

  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Messrs. COSTA, SCHRADER, WALZ, SCOTT of 
Georgia, SESTAK, RANGEL, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. CARDOZA, and Ms. 
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``present.''
  So the concurrent resolution was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 473 on H. Con. Res. 
301, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 473, had I voted I 
would have voted ``no'' on the bill that opposes the mission of our 
troops and our foreign policy.

                          ____________________