[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.
____________________