[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14160-14166]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 301, 
                     PAKISTAN WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1556 and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 14161]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1556

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House 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, if called up by Representative 
     Kucinich of Ohio or his designee. The concurrent resolution 
     shall be considered as read. The concurrent resolution shall 
     be debatable for one hour, with 30 minutes controlled by 
     Representative Kucinich of Ohio or his designee and 30 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening 
     motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1556.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1556 provides for the consideration of 
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. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate in the House, with 
30 minutes controlled by Representative Kucinich and 30 minutes 
controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The rule waives all 
points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution, and 
provides that the concurrent resolution shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for pressing for 
greater scrutiny on our involvement in Pakistan. By introducing this 
resolution, Representative Kucinich triggered an expedited process for 
consideration that can be modified only by a special rule. This is why 
we are doing this concurrent resolution today.
  I'm sure my good friends on the other side of the aisle will remember 
that this is the exact same process used in 1998 and 1999, when the 
House Republican majority introduced resolutions to withdraw U.S. 
troops from Bosnia and the Republic of Yugoslavia while our American 
men and women were stationed in those countries.
  As Democrats, we welcome a vigorous debate on this resolution. Just 
like the debates we have had over U.S. policy and military operations 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and countless other places around the world, 
debate has never jeopardized the safety of our troops in the field. 
American troops are never endangered by Congress doing its job, looking 
closely at and debating the merits of where we send our troops and the 
price they might pay for our putting them in harm's way.
  There are many reasons, Mr. Speaker, why we should have a broader 
debate about U.S. military involvement in Pakistan. Over the past 9 
years, the United States has provided $18.6 billion to Pakistan, with 
about $12.5 billion of that in security-related aid. The administration 
has asked for $3 billion for fiscal year 2011, with over half of those 
funds going to security assistance.
  There are currently about 120 U.S. military trainers, mainly Special 
Operations personnel, in Pakistan according to a July 11 New York Times 
article. Pakistan has set that cap on the number of U.S. military 
personnel, although other statements from the Defense Department 
indicate that the number of total U.S. military personnel may be as 
high as 200.
  The New York Times also reported on July 13 that the Pakistan 
intelligence agency exerts great sway over the Afghan Taliban and a 
wide range of other militant groups that operate from inside Pakistan. 
Yesterday's revelations in the documents published by WikiLeaks echoed 
these disturbing conclusions.
  There have been a rising number of terrorist plots in the United 
States with links to militant groups in Pakistan, most recently the 
failed car bombing in Times Square. A recent study by the Rand 
Corporation concluded that this might be due in part to continued 
support by Pakistani leaders for these groups so that Pakistan may 
continue to influence events in Afghanistan, as well as a U.S.-Pakistan 
counterinsurgency effort that has not yet proven to be effective, and 
fails to protect the local population.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, there is Pakistan's continuing development 
of nuclear weapons and purchase of nuclear reactors from China.
  Having said all this, at the same time there are many things the U.S. 
is doing right in Pakistan: supporting the strengthening of democratic 
institutions; providing substantial support for primary, middle, 
technical, and higher education; supporting agricultural development; 
and providing substantial aid for populations displaced by violence.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the privilege of the gentleman from Ohio to 
bring this matter before the House and present his arguments on the 
need to remove all U.S. military personnel from Pakistan.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very 
good friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that Pakistan 
is ground zero in our struggle against violent extremism. The porous 
border with Afghanistan allowed the Taliban to retreat into Pakistan, 
regroup, and launch new offenses against our troops. Homegrown 
insurgents within Pakistan have perpetrated countless attacks killing 
thousands, including targeting their attacks against our fellow 
Americans.
  And recent news reports that we've just had over this past weekend 
have only underscored how critically important it is that civilian 
control--again, Mr. Speaker, civilian control--of the Pakistani 
military and intelligence services is fully exercised. Again, these 
reports that we've had just this past weekend underscore the fact that 
we cannot entrust, we cannot see these other entities within the ISI 
empowered without having civilian oversight within that structure of 
democracy that they have.
  Mr. Speaker, the democratically elected Government of Pakistan is 
working to eradicate the terrorist threat on their own soil, to secure 
the border with Afghanistan, and ensure accountability for the 
military. Working with the Pakistani Government to ensure that they're 
successful in doing this is vital to our national security interests. 
For the sake of our troops in Afghanistan and for the sake of stability 
and security in a critical region, we must remain engaged with the 
democratically elected government in Islamabad.
  This engagement takes a number of different forms. While we have no 
combat troops in Pakistan, our military commanders have been building 
relationships with their Pakistani counterparts. Particularly, as 
Pakistan continues to go on the offensive against insurgent groups in 
the tribal border region, the technical advisory role of our military 
is a very limited yet a very important one.
  Mr. Speaker, our national security leaders--Secretary of Defense 
Gates; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen; Secretary 
of State Clinton; and the Special Envoy, Ambassador Holbrooke--all 
agree the democratic and economic development in Pakistan is at the 
heart of our national security interests. Building strong institutions 
will ultimately ensure that Pakistan is able to fully eradicate the 
violent extremism that

[[Page 14162]]

threatens both our troops in Afghanistan and stability for the entire 
region. That's why Secretary Clinton along with Ambassador Holbrooke 
and USAID Administrator Shah have put such a heavy emphasis on 
development during their visits just this past week.
  There can be no long-term solution to the security challenges we face 
in South Central Asia without Democratic and economic capacity 
building. We have a number of ongoing programs, including, I'm very 
happy to say, our 20-member House Democracy Partnership, on which I 
have the privilege of serving with our great chairman, David Price. We 
are currently working, Mr. Speaker, with the Pakistani legislature. And 
I underscore the House Democracy Partnership because, sadly, not many 
Members of this institution or among the American people are aware of 
the work of the House Democracy Partnership.
  We have partnered with 15 legislatures in new and reemerging 
democracies around the world to help build up their parliament. We have 
one of these programs going with the Pakistani Parliament. Through this 
partnership, Members of the United States House of Representatives have 
the opportunity to engage with our counterparts in Islamabad. We've 
been sharing our experiences as a democracy, providing support and 
technical assistance in their efforts to strengthen their legislative 
institutions.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, in the case of civilian control of the military, 
this has a very clear and direct tie to our national security issues, 
to the overall national security issues, and to our national security 
interests. But the connections go well beyond the most obvious arenas. 
By improving the capacity of the legislature overall, making the 
government more responsive and accountable to the Pakistani people, 
support for democracy can be solidified.
  Now, as we look at this issue, as Democratic institutions strengthen, 
so does the economic environment, providing new opportunity and 
prosperity. There is this interdependence between political and 
economic liberalization. That's why I also introduced a resolution that 
will call for us to begin embarking on negotiations for an FTA with 
Pakistan.
  We know very well that democracy and economic opportunity, as I say, 
are the only effective bulwarks against extremism in the long run. 
Through greater trade engagement, we can help build the capacity that 
enables economic growth, which will help to create a more secure, 
stable, free, and open Pakistan. This is clearly in our own strategic 
interest.
  The resolution before us today is one that is likely motivated by 
frustrations that many of us share. My very good friend from Cleveland 
and I, Mr. Kucinich and I, share a high level of frustration, 
especially, as I said earlier, with the reports that just came out this 
past weekend, the WikiLeaks report that has been carried widely in The 
New York Times and in other media outlets.
  We see the very difficult challenges that our troops are facing in 
the region, and we know that we must do everything we can to address 
them. But, frankly, it's a little puzzling why we would attempt to 
address these challenges through a resolution calling for the 
withdrawal of combat troops from a country where none are deployed. We 
should be focusing our efforts, instead, on the kinds of programs that 
I have described that focus on building of those democratic 
institutions and creating greater, greater economic liberalization.
  As we look at this challenge, we all seek peace and prosperity around 
the world, but in this most troubled spot in South Central Asia, we 
have redoubled our efforts to ensure that that happens.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for every single one of my 
colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, when I say that we want our 
troops in Afghanistan to come home safely, successfully, and soon, as 
soon as possible, and we want to ensure that we will not have to deploy 
them again.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know, repeatedly, as we look at nations 
around the world where we have focused in on crises that they have gone 
through jeopardizing our national security interests, we've chosen to 
deal with them often quickly but we have failed to recognize how 
important it is in the long term for us to do the kinds of things that 
will build up democratic institutions and ensure greater economic 
opportunity for these people in these regions. I believe that's a goal 
that we all share and we're all committed to.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank Mr. McGovern and Mr. Dreier for enabling me to 
participate in this debate. A little bit later we're going to get into 
the substance of the War Powers Resolution.
  But I think it's very important for the record to state, as the Wall 
Street Journal in an article last week stated, that the United States 
is stepping up a ground presence in Pakistan, and as part of that 
ground presence, three United States troops were killed in Pakistan. 
This, according to the Wall Street Journal. And I will put this in the 
Record.

             [From The Wall Street Journal, July 20, 2010]

                 U.S. Forces Step Up Pakistan Presence

                         (By Julian E. Barnes)

       Washington--U.S. Special Operations Forces have begun 
     venturing out with Pakistani forces on aid projects, 
     deepening the American role in the effort to defeat Islamist 
     militants in Pakistani territory that has been off limits to 
     U.S. ground troops.
       The expansion of U.S. cooperation is significant given 
     Pakistan's deep aversion to allowing foreign military forces 
     on its territory. The Special Operations teams join the aid 
     missions only when commanders determine there is relatively 
     little security risk, a senior U.S. military official said, 
     in an effort to avoid direct engagement that would call 
     attention to U.S. participation.
       The U.S. troops are allowed to defend themselves and return 
     fire if attacked. But the official emphasized the joint 
     missions aren't supposed to be combat operations, and the 
     Americans often participate in civilian garb.
       Pakistan has told the U.S. that troops need to keep a low 
     profile. ``Going out in the open, that has negative optics, 
     that is something we have to work out,'' said a Pakistani 
     official. ``This whole exercise could be counterproductive if 
     people see U.S. boots on the ground.''
       Because of Pakistan's sensitivities, the U.S. role has 
     developed slowly. In June 2008, top U.S. military officials 
     announced 30 American troops would begin a military training 
     program in Pakistan, but it took four months for Pakistan to 
     allow the program to begin.
       The first U.S. Special Operations Forces were restricted to 
     military classrooms and training bases. Pakistan has 
     gradually allowed more trainers into the country and allowed 
     the mission's scope to expand. Today, the U.S. has about 120 
     trainers in the country, and the program is set to expand 
     again with new joint missions to oversee small-scale 
     development projects aimed at winning over tribal leaders, 
     according to officials familiar with the plan.
       Such aid projects are a pillar of the U.S. 
     counterinsurgency strategy, which the U.S. hopes to pass on 
     to the Pakistanis through the training missions.
       U.S. military officials say if U.S. forces are able to help 
     projects such as repairing infrastructure, distributing seeds 
     and providing generators or solar panels, they can build 
     trust with the Pakistani military, and encourage them to 
     accept more training in the field.
       ``You have to bring something to the dance,'' said the 
     senior military official. ``And the way to do it is to have 
     cash ready to do everything from force protection to other 
     things that will protect the population.''
       Congressional leaders last month approved $10 million in 
     funding for the aid missions, which will focus reconstruction 
     projects in poor tribal areas that are off-limits to foreign 
     civilian aid workers.
       The Pakistani government has warned the Pentagon that a 
     more visible U.S. military presence could undermine the 
     mission of pacifying the border region, which has provided a 
     haven for militants staging attacks in Pakistan as well as 
     Afghanistan.
       The U.S. has already aroused local animosity with drone 
     strikes targeting militants in the tribal areas, though the 
     missile strikes have the tacit support of the Pakistani 
     government and often aid the Pakistani army's campaign 
     against the militants.
       Providing money to U.S. troops to spend in communities they 
     are trying to protect has been a tactic used for years to 
     fight insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       The move to accompany Pakistani forces in the field is even 
     more significant, and repeats a pattern seen in the 
     Philippines during the Bush administration, when Army

[[Page 14163]]

     Green Berets took a gradually more expansive role in Manila's 
     fight against the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf in the southern 
     islands of Mindanao.
       There, the Green Berets started in a limited training role, 
     and their initial deployment unleashed a political backlash 
     against the Philippine president. But as the Philippine 
     military began to improve their counterinsurgency skills, 
     Special Operations Forces accompanied them on major 
     offensives throughout the southern part of the archipelago.
       In Pakistan, the U.S. military helps train both the regular 
     military and the Frontier Corps, a force drawn from residents 
     of the tribal regions but led by Pakistani Army officers.
       The senior military official said the U.S. Special 
     Operations Forces have developed a closer relationship with 
     the Frontier Corps, and go out into the field more frequently 
     with those units. ``The Frontier Corps are more accepting 
     partners,'' said the official.
       For years the Frontier Corps was underfunded and struggled 
     to provide basic equipment for its soldiers. A U.S. effort to 
     help equip the force has made them more accepting of outside 
     help.
       Traveling with the Frontier Corps is dangerous. In 
     February, three Army soldiers were killed in Pakistan's 
     Northwest Frontier Province when a roadside bomb detonated 
     near their convoy. The soldiers, assigned to train the 
     Frontier Corps, were traveling out of uniform to the opening 
     of a school that had been renovated with U.S. money.
       The regular Pakistani military also operates in the tribal 
     areas of Pakistan, but they are less willing to go on 
     missions with U.S. forces off the base, in part because they 
     believe appearing to accept U.S. help will make them look 
     weak, the senior U.S. military official said. The Pakistani 
     official said the military simply doesn't need foreign help.
       During the past two years, Pakistan has stepped up military 
     operations against the militant groups that operate in the 
     tribal areas. Although Washington has praised the Pakistani 
     offensives, Pentagon officials have said Pakistan's military 
     needs help winning support among tribal elders. If 
     successful, More interactive graphics and photos the joint 
     missions and projects may help the Pakistani military retain 
     control of areas in South Waziristan, the Swat valley and 
     other border regions they have cleared of militants.
       In Pakistan, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad will retain 
     final approval for all projects, according to Defense 
     officials. But congressional staffers briefed on the program 
     said the intent is to have Pakistani military forces hand out 
     any of the goods bought with the funding or pay any local 
     workers hired.
       ``The goal is never to have a U.S. footprint on any of 
     these efforts,'' said a congressional staffer.

  Now, the War Powers Resolution requires the President to report to 
Congress when he introduces U.S. Armed Forces abroad in certain 
situations. And section 4(a) requires reporting within 48 hours 
whenever, and in the absence of a declaration of war or congressional 
authorization, the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces ``into hostilities 
or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly 
indicated by the circumstances.''

                              {time}  1500

  This is a report from the Congressional Research Service which 
indicates that, since we have had troops involved in hostilities, 
otherwise they would not have been killed by roadside bombs, that in 
effect the War Powers Act is triggered.
  So this debate is in order and the purpose of the debate, to remove 
us from Pakistan, becomes urgent in light of the WikiLeaks expose, 
which has indicated that the intelligence agency in Pakistan has been 
collaborating with the Taliban in Afghanistan against our troops. 
Pakistan wants us in Pakistan to help the Pakistan Government resist 
the Taliban in Pakistan, but they want to play a double game, as the 
New York Times pointed out in an editorial today, with the United 
States by aiding the Taliban against our troops in Afghanistan. How can 
we advance our national interests when a country which is supposed to 
be our partner is duplicitous?
  I insert the New York Times editorial in the Record.

                [From the New York Times, July 26, 2010]

                         Pakistan's Double Game

       There is a lot to be disturbed by in the battlefield 
     reports from Afghanistan released Sunday by WikiLeaks. The 
     close-up details of war are always unsettling, even more so 
     with this war, which was so badly neglected and bungled by 
     President George W. Bush.
       But the most alarming of the reports were the ones that 
     described the cynical collusion between Pakistan's military 
     intelligence service and the Taliban. Despite the billions of 
     dollars the United States has sent in aid to Pakistan since 
     Sept. 11, they offer powerful new evidence that crucial 
     elements of Islamabad's power structure have been actively 
     helping to direct and support the forces attacking the 
     American-led military coalition.
       The time line of the documents from WikiLeaks, an 
     organization devoted to exposing secrets, stops before 
     President Obama put his own military and political strategy 
     into effect last December. Administration officials say they 
     have made progress with Pakistan since, but it is hard to see 
     much evidence of that so far.
       Most of the WikiLeaks documents, which were the subject of 
     in-depth coverage in The Times on Monday, cannot be verified. 
     However, they confirm a picture of Pakistani double-dealing 
     that has been building for years.
       On a trip to Pakistan last October, Secretary of State 
     Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested that officials in the 
     Pakistani government knew where Al Qaeda leaders were hiding. 
     Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in 
     Afghanistan, recently acknowledged longstanding ties between 
     Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, known 
     as the ISI, and the ``bad guys.''
       The Times's report of the new documents suggests the 
     collusion goes even deeper, that representatives of the ISI 
     have worked with the Taliban to organize networks of 
     militants to fight American soldiers in Afghanistan and hatch 
     plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.
       The article painted a chilling picture of the activities of 
     Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul of Pakistan, who ran the ISI from 1987 to 
     1989, when the agency and the C.I.A. were together arming the 
     Afghan militias fighting Soviet troops. General Gul kept 
     working with those forces, which eventually formed the 
     Taliban.
       Pakistan's ambassador to the United States said the reports 
     were unsubstantiated and ``do not reflect the current on-
     ground realities.'' But at this point, denials about links 
     with the militants are simply not credible.
       Why would Pakistan play this dangerous game? The ISI has 
     long seen the Afghan Taliban as a proxy force, a way to 
     ensure its influence on the other side of the border and keep 
     India's influence at bay.
       Pakistani officials also privately insist that they have 
     little choice but to hedge their bets given their suspicions 
     that Washington will once again lose interest as it did after 
     the Soviets were ousted from Afghanistan in 1989. And until 
     last year, when the Pakistani Taliban came within 60 miles of 
     Islamabad, the country's military and intelligence 
     establishment continued to believe it could control the 
     extremists when it needed to.
       In recent months, the Obama administration has said and 
     done many of the right things toward building a long-term 
     relationship with Pakistan. It has committed to long-term 
     economic aid. It is encouraging better relations between 
     Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is constantly reminding 
     Pakistani leaders that the extremists, on both sides of the 
     border, pose a mortal threat to Pakistan's fragile 
     democracy--and their own survival. We don't know if they're 
     getting through. We know they have to.
       It has been only seven months since Mr. Obama announced his 
     new strategy for Afghanistan, and a few weeks since General 
     Petraeus took command. But Americans are increasingly weary 
     of this costly war. If Mr. Obama cannot persuade Islamabad to 
     cut its ties to, and then aggressively fight, the extremists 
     in Pakistan, there is no hope of defeating the Taliban in 
     Afghanistan.

  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. If I could get an extra minute.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me just say very quickly that obviously I'm very sympathetic with 
the concern and I argue that the revelation of this WikiLeaks, you 
know, thousands and thousands of documents that came forward, is 
evidence that we need to work to continue to build the democratic 
institutions and greater economic opportunity and civilian control.
  Now it is no secret over the past several decades the relationship 
between the ISI and problems in Afghanistan; everyone has been aware of 
that. These documents have underscored the importance of it, but I 
would argue, Mr. Speaker, that it is essential for us to make sure we 
build up greater civilian control, and I think that's what we are 
trying to do.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman, my friend.
  I want to quote from The New York Times. You can understand how 
serious

[[Page 14164]]

this debate is. The Times said, ``But the most alarming of the 
reports'' relating to WikiLeaks ``were the ones that described the 
cynical collusion between Pakistan's military intelligence service and 
the Taliban. Despite the billions of dollars the United States has sent 
in aid to Pakistan since September 11, they offer powerful new evidence 
that crucial elements of Islamabad's power structure have been actively 
helping to direct and support the forces attacking the American-led 
military coalition.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I appreciate that.
  So we have special forces now at least 20 miles inside the border of 
Pakistan by news accounts, and they want us to help them there, while 
Pakistan at the same time is helping those who are shooting at our 
troops in Afghanistan.
  Now, who are our allies? Who are our enemies here? That's the danger 
of getting increasingly involved on the ground in Pakistan. That is why 
I brought this resolution forward with the help of Mr. Paul. We have to 
have this debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an 
additional minute.
  Mr. KUCINICH. The Times quotes General Petraeus as acknowledging 
``longstanding ties between Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services 
Intelligence'' and what he calls the ``bad guys.''
  And the Times goes on to say in this editorial, ``The Times's report 
of the new documents suggests the collusion goes even deeper, that 
representatives of the ISI''--that's their spy agency in Pakistan--
``have worked with the Taliban to organize networks of militants to 
fight American soldiers in Afghanistan and hatch plots to assassinate 
Afghan leaders.''
  I'm saying, do we want these people to be our partners, people who 
are playing a double game with us? This is why we've got to get out of 
Pakistan. We have to take a different approach here, and in the debate 
that will ensue in the next, you know, few hours, whenever it's 
scheduled, I hope to be able to get to some of the specifics of why 
this resolution is important at this time.
  Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Dreier, for the opportunity.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good 
friend from Lake Jackson, Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I 
thank you both for bringing this rule to the floor. Even though it is a 
privileged resolution, a privileged resolution has to qualify under the 
law, and under the War Powers Resolution, this does qualify.
  The question is, why are we doing it at this time? It seems like 
Pakistan is a minor problem compared to what's going on in Afghanistan 
as well as Iraq, but I think people have to realize that we go into war 
differently these days. We don't make declarations of war and the 
people get behind it. We slip into war. We fall into war. We get into 
these messes, and it seems to me like it's so much easier to get into 
these problems than getting out. We debate endlessly about getting out 
of Afghanistan. We've debated for years about how and when it's ever 
going to end in Iraq, and we bring this up now because this is an 
appropriate time. It is escalating. The war is spreading, and we're 
trying to stop this. We're trying to let the people know and let the 
Congress know that this war is getting bigger. It is not getting 
smaller. A lot of people thought with this administration war would get 
smaller and we would end some of this.
  It has been said that we need to be in Pakistan for national security 
reasons. I disagree with that. I think the fact that we're in there 
makes me feel more threatened because Pakistan is not about to attack 
us. We talk about the few troops there and that they're insignificant 
and we shouldn't worry about it, it's not significant, but that's the 
way we started in Vietnam. People were training soldiers, and before 
you knew it, we lost 60,000 people.
  But you know, in this day and age, with the type of wars that we 
fight, occupation with combat troops is not exactly how we get 
involved, and I believe the way I read the War Powers Resolution, it 
does involve attacks on countries with bombs. This is what we're doing. 
We're attacking this country. The people of Pakistan don't like it. The 
number of drone attacks in Pakistan now has doubled the number that it 
was under the Bush administration. So it is escalating. There have been 
14 al Qaeda leaders killed by these drone attacks, but there were also 
687 civilians killed. So, therefore, the efficiency of this isn't all 
that good, and now there's reports coming out that these drones don't 
always come back, and a lot of times they crash, and a lot of times we 
have to go out and find them. So there's a lot of activity going on.
  There is another reason we bring this up at this time. It is 
financial. We can't afford to expand the war. We can't afford the wars 
we have already. We can't afford to take care of our people at home. 
This costs money, and since we see this as an escalation and more 
provocation and a greater danger to us, because people are going to get 
upset. The people don't like this. There has actually already been a 
court ruling in Pakistan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  But the finances are certainly important. In the Congress, because 
we're slipping into this war, we have just recently granted $7.5 
billion of aid to Pakistan. And what did they do with this money?

                              {time}  1510

  Well, it's supposed to not be military. It's supposed to help rebuild 
their country, help their infrastructure. Well, we need a couple of 
dollars here for our infrastructure. But they can take that money; it's 
fungible. It goes into their intelligence. Their intelligence 
observations are being used for the Taliban, and we are fighting the 
Taliban.
  So it's totally inconsistent that we are on both sides of so many 
wars and what's going on. The mujahedin, they were our allies and we 
were fighting the occupation of the Soviets. It's the occupation that 
is the issue, and we were on their side and the Soviets were run out.
  But now that same group, who are called the Taliban now, the Taliban, 
we have to remember, had nothing to do with 9/11. It was the al Qaeda, 
not the Taliban. The Taliban are people who are unified with one issue, 
one concern they have, foreign occupation or foreign bombings of those 
countries.
  We need to make sure the American people know what's going on and 
that there are sometimes revelations that we don't hear about. Too 
often our government is involved in secret wars. There was secret 
bombing of Cambodia back in the 1960s, and here we are slipping and 
sliding once more into the escalation of this war which, unfortunately, 
is going to cost us a lot of money; it's going to cost us a lot of 
lives, a lot of innocent lives.
  Unfortunately, I wish I could believe that we are going to be more 
secure for this. I think we are going to be less secure because of this 
activity, and we will finally someday have to meet up to the question 
of why do they want to come here to kill us? Do they want to do it 
because of their religion? Do they want to do it because we are rich 
and because we are free? No. They want to come here because we occupy 
their territory.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Polis.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in 
opposition to the supplemental funding to escalate the war in 
Afghanistan.
  This Nation does face a very real terrorist threat, but the terrorist 
threat is a stateless menace, a menace that is

[[Page 14165]]

not rooted in any one location or has any dominion in one particular 
area and is, in fact, mobile. In fact, the two countries that our 
Nation continues to occupy, namely, Iraq and Afghanistan are not 
significant bases of operation for al Qaeda.
  This discussion should absolutely include Pakistan and the border 
area, particularly between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have in 
Pakistan a better partner than we have in Afghanistan with regard to 
the war on terror. It is not an ideal partner, but it is a better 
partner than we have found, and I hope our Nation continues to work 
with the good people of Pakistan and the good forces within the 
Government of Pakistan to help keep the American people safe and the 
Pakistani people safe.
  We need to continue our efforts to battle terrorists wherever they 
are. How to focus on this stateless menace? We need to use intelligence 
gathering, targeted special operations, and a refocused emphasis on 
homeland security. All these are very costly and expensive and are 
ongoing and an indefinite occupation of Afghanistan reduces our ability 
to do the things we need to do to keep the American people safe.
  That's why I have consistently opposed the escalation of troops in 
Afghanistan and will continue to do so today by voting against the 
supplemental funding. There is a real threat, but the answer is not to 
continue to indefinitely occupy countries where we only breed more 
sympathy with those who would do us harm. We must bring the war in 
Afghanistan to a responsible end. That's why I will vote against the 
war supplemental, and I call upon my colleagues to join me in helping 
to protect Americans with a new foreign policy in the region.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have to say it's fascinating to see my two very good friends, our 
former Presidential candidates, Mr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich, who have 
obviously come together working very thoughtfully on this. I think, Mr. 
Speaker, they are both making some very interesting arguments about the 
cost, about the challenges that exist, and I do concur with that.
  I would simply say that we are where we are today. It's very 
unfortunate that we are where we are today. Where we are, we are; but 
fact of the matter is, that is what we do face.
  There are a number of people who, as leaders on this issue within the 
Obama administration, are working overtime to seek to address this. I 
mentioned Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, Secretary Clinton and 
Ambassador Holbrooke. I have spent time with virtually all of them 
talking about the challenge of this issue.
  As I mentioned earlier, I am very privileged to work closely with 
David Price and the other 18 members of our House Democracy Partnership 
because we concur, the notion of anything other than civilian control 
of the military and the intelligence services in Pakistan or any other 
country for that matter is not acceptable. And that's why I believe 
that while we look at the cost of both lives, as well as the financial 
burden that is imposed on us, we need to ensure that we are not going 
to face the kind of threat that we have before.
  Now, we know that al Qaeda and those al Qaeda-inspired terrorists, 
not necessarily tied to al Qaeda, but inspired, exist all over the 
world. We recognize that; but we also have to, Mr. Speaker, realize 
that Pakistan to this day continues to be ground zero.
  As I said, the porous border with Afghanistan has provided an 
invitation for al Qaeda in Afghanistan to move into Pakistan. As we 
look at the difficulty that exists, for decades, there have been 
problems with the ISI. I just mentioned in a private discussion I had 
with my friend from Cleveland that I remember very vividly in the 
1980s, in 1987, to be exact, when I had the opportunity to travel with 
our former colleague, the late Charlie Wilson, who took me to Pakistan 
and at that time we witnessed problems within the ISI.
  But the fact that there are problems within the ISI, appropriately or 
inappropriately, I mean the leaks that came out, I know that there are 
more than a few who believe this could jeopardize the lives of our 
fellow Americans who are over there. But the fact of the matter is, it 
is not a completely new revelation.
  That's why doing everything within our power to strengthen democratic 
institutions and opportunities for greater economic liberalization so 
that we can see the economy of this country of 140 million people in 
South Central Asia grow to the point where we will diminish the kind of 
threat that we faced on September 11. I mean, it's hard to believe that 
here it is now, almost August, and we will be marking the ninth 
anniversary of one of the most tragic days in our Nation's history.
  I mean, that is the reason that we are doing what we are in Pakistan 
and Afghanistan. Has it gone perfectly? Absolutely not. No one can 
point to a war that has gone absolutely perfectly. Maybe Grenada, the 
invasion that Ronald Reagan had in the 1980s; but it is very rare that 
one can point to a conflict, the likes of which we have never seen 
before, and come to the conclusion that this has been handled 
perfectly.
  Confirmation hearings are going on right now for the new CENTCOM 
leader. We have a new general who is leading the effort in Afghanistan, 
the highly, highly acclaimed General David Petraeus, who successfully 
oversaw the surge in Iraq. We are all very gratified that we are seeing 
the democratic institutions build up in Iraq. Still problems: just the 
news this morning of an al Qaeda attack in Mosul in Iraq.
  So we are continuing to see problems, but I believe that if we were 
to take this action that we would undermine the ability for us to 
continue our quest to strengthen both the democratic institutions and 
the opportunity for greater economic opportunity to exist in this very, 
very critically important country.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have one question about the rule: How will the time be divided?
  Mr. McGOVERN. The time will be 30 minutes for Mr. Kucinich, and 30 
minutes for the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. PAUL. So it will be a total of 1 hour?
  Mr. McGOVERN. That's correct.
  Mr. PAUL. Thank you.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
simply use this opportunity to again talk about the very important work 
that is taking place in Pakistan today.
  We all know that it is among the most troubled regions in the world. 
We just had the resolution read from the desk. As we look, 1 year from 
this coming September will mark the 10th anniversary of September 11. 
And it was, as I said a moment ago, one of the most tragic days in our 
Nation's history. We all can, those of us who were privileged to be 
serving in the Congress, recount the time here in the Capitol on 
September 11. And of course I'm immediately thinking about what a 
horrible, horrible day it was. Like many people, I knew people who were 
killed on September 11, and it changed our world forever.
  We are dealing with a difficult and absolutely unprecedented 
situation. And I have to say that I am troubled with the notion of this 
resolution, respecting my colleagues, and actually agreeing with a 
number of the arguments that they make. But I believe that the 
resolution that will be made in order under this rule--as was said, we 
don't actually need a rule to do it, but the structure that has been 
put in place under this rule that will allow for consideration of the 
gentleman's resolution--is one that I think could create the potential 
to undermine something that I believe we all want to achieve, and that 
is we want to make sure that Pakistan, as it's developing its sea 
legs--and I was just thinking about a meeting that Mr. Price and I and 
other members of our House Democracy Partnership had with Prime 
Minister Gilani not long ago and with the Speaker of the Pakistani 
Parliament.

[[Page 14166]]

  And as we look at these democratically elected leaders there who, on 
a daily basis, are striving to make sure that they can have adequate 
oversight of both the military and the intelligence agencies--I 
remember seeing General Musharraf, who was President at the same time. 
I was with him the day that he gave up his military uniform and became 
a civilian leader. So they are continuing to work through this. And the 
support that we are providing, which is in our national security 
interest, is very important.
  And I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the notion of a free trade agreement 
with Pakistan. I think that creating an opportunity for the greater 
free flow of goods and services will strengthen, again, the economies 
of both the United States of America and Pakistan as well. So these are 
the kinds of things that need to be done in our national security 
interest.
  If I've said this once, I've said it 100 times here on the House 
floor. The five most important words in the preamble of our U.S. 
Constitution--that inspired document authored by the great Virginian, 
James Madison--the five most important words are ``provide for the 
common defense.'' Virtually everything else that's done can be done by 
other levels of government, whether it be individuals, families, 
churches or synagogues or mosques, cities, counties, States, but 
national security can only be handled by the United States of America's 
Federal Government. That is why I believe that we need to do what we 
can to ensure that we are successful and, as I said, that our men and 
women come home as quickly as possible and safely.
  So I will say that my colleagues are working diligently on this, but 
I do believe that, at the end of the day, this resolution is not worthy 
of our support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me, first of all, begin by saying I'm not sure whether the 
underlying resolution introduced by Mr. Kucinich is necessarily the 
right way to approach this issue, but he and Mr. Paul are reflecting 
the anxiety, the growing anxiety, the growing fear of a lot of Members 
of Congress and a lot of people throughout this country that the United 
States of America is continuously getting sucked into wars that have no 
end, wars that are costing us dearly in terms of the lives of our brave 
men and women who serve in uniform, and it is costing us dearly in 
terms of our treasury. We're going bankrupt.
  People talk about the deficit all the time around here, but the 
reality is that these wars, by and large, are not paid for--the war in 
Afghanistan, the war in Iraq. It's all going onto our credit card, and 
it's going to be paid for by my kids and my grandkids and my great-
grandkids. We are going bankrupt by the wars that we are fighting.
  And I think they also reflect this feeling that we seem unable to 
make the necessary adjustments to our policy when they appear to not be 
working in the way we would like them to work. In Afghanistan, for 
example, we've been there for nearly 10 years. And the WikiLeaks 
documents that were published all over the world yesterday remind us 
that, notwithstanding all the sacrifices of the American soldiers and 
their families and all the money we have poured into that country, that 
we don't have any reliable partners.
  The Afghan Government is corrupt and incompetent. The President of 
that country oversaw an election where they stuffed the ballot boxes, 
and our men and women are sacrificing their lives to prop that 
government up. We don't have a reliable partner in the Afghan police or 
in the Afghan military. And as we learned from these documents--again, 
it isn't new, but it was emphasized by the release of these documents--
that we don't have a reliable partner, by and large, with certain 
elements of Pakistan. That does not mean that we should walk away from 
Pakistan, and I want to agree with much of what my colleague from 
California (Mr. Dreier) said.
  I believe it is important for the United States to support civilian 
institutions and to support democratic movements in Pakistan. I want 
the civilian government in Pakistan to be able to have control over the 
security forces and the military forces in a way that we believe that 
they are actually in control.
  So I think this debate that we are going to have here today on the 
Pakistan War Powers Act is important. I'm not quite sure that this is 
the way we should deal with Pakistan with the underlying resolution, 
but I will conclude by making reference to another measure we are going 
to be voting on here today, and that is the supplemental war funding 
bill.
  In light of what was released yesterday, in light of all the 
questions that have been raised, it seems to me that it is 
inappropriate for us to vote ``yes'' on a blank check for this 
administration to do whatever they want in Afghanistan. I have great 
respect for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State and the 
President of the United States, but I have to tell you I am deeply 
troubled that, with all that is coming out, that we are not doing 
hearings, we're not doing our oversight. We're basically going to be 
asked to vote for a $33 billion package--all borrowed money--and kick 
the can down the road and let's hope when we come back in September 
that maybe things will get better.
  We were told almost 1 year ago that we would never have another 
supplemental. Well, here we are doing another supplemental and we have 
a policy in Afghanistan that is not clearly defined. And so I 
understand the anxiety and the frustration of Mr. Paul and Mr. 
Kucinich. I share that anxiety and frustration as well. But it seems to 
me that we in Congress have a responsibility, too. These wars are not 
just the administration's wars. They are our wars, too. We fund them. 
We're the ones who go along with it. We're the ones who decide whether 
we're going to condition aid or whether we're going to withhold aid, 
and I think we should be doing a better job.
  We have known for a long time that the Pakistan intelligence agencies 
have been undercutting our efforts in Afghanistan. They have put our 
soldiers at risk. We have known that for a long time, yet what have we 
done? So this may be a time for us to raise some of these issues, raise 
some of these questions, hopefully prompt more Members of this body to 
get involved in this debate, but also to send a signal to the 
administration that we really need to reevaluate what we're doing. We 
need to rethink some of these strategies. And if we are going in the 
wrong direction, we need to have the courage to change course if 
necessary.

                              {time}  1530

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________