Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act of 2010

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.

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

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,

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).

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.

I want to introduce into the Record a Gallup poll that revealed that 59 percent of Pakistanis

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.)

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).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

I yield the gentleman another minute.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time the respective debaters have here.

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.

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.

I would like to ask how much time remains on each side, because I am going to reserve the right to close.

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.

I continue to reserve.

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.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I missed the following votes from Friday, December 17 through Wednesday, December 22, 2010. I would have voted ``yes'' on the following votes:

Friday:

H.J. Res. 105--Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Obey--Appropriations) (Voice vote)

1. H. Res. 1377--Honoring the accomplishments of Norman Yoshio Mineta (Representative Honda--House Administration)

2. Senate Amendment to H.R. 1107--To enact certain laws relating to public contracts as title 41, United States Code, ``Public Contracts'' (Representative Conyers--Judiciary)

3. Senate Amendment to H.R. 628--To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges (Representative Issa-- Judiciary)

4. H. Res. 1733--Recognizing Mark Twain as one of America's most famous literary icons on the 175th anniversary of his birth and the 100th anniversary of his death (Representative Snyder--Oversight and Government Reform)

5. H. Res. 1621--Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the historic founding of Catholic Charities USA (Representative Holt--Oversight and Government Reform)

6. H. Res. 1767--Commending the Wisconsin Badger football team for an outstanding season and 2011 Rose Bowl bid (Representative Baldwin-- Education and Labor)

7. H. Con. Res. 335--Honoring the exceptional achievements of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and recognizing the monumental contributions he has made to United States national security, humanitarian causes, and peaceful resolutions of international conflict (Representative Lowey--Foreign Affairs)

8. S. 3874--Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (Senator Boxer-- Energy and Commerce)

9. H.R. 6533--To implement the recommendations of the Federal Communications Commission report to the Congress regarding low-power FM service (Representative Doyle--Energy and Commerce)

10. H.R. 6523--Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Skelton--Armed Services)

11. H.R. 2142--Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act of 2009 (Representative Cuellar--Oversight and Government Reform)

12. H.R. 5510--Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure Act of 2010 (Representative Kaptur--Financial Services)

Tuesday:

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5116--America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Representative Gordon--Science and Technology)(228-130)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2142--Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act (Representative Cuellar--Oversight and Government Reform) (216-139)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2751--FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (Representatives Waxman/Dingell--Energy and Commerce) (215-144)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3082--Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Obey-- Appropriations) (193-165)

1. S. 3592--A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, as the ``First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building'' (Senator Chambliss--Oversight and Government Reform)

2. Senate Amendment to H.R. 81--Shark Conservation Act (Representative Bordallo--Natural Resources)

3. Senate Amendment to H.R. 5809--Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 (Representative Inslee--Energy and Commerce)

4. H.R. 6540--To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess (Representative Inslee--Armed Services)

5. H.R. 6547--To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require criminal background checks for school employees (Representative George Miller--Education and Labor)

6. S. 118--Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act (Senator Kohl--Financial Services)

7. S. 1481--Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act (Senator Menendez--Financial Services)

8. S. 3243--Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 (Senator Pryor/ Representative Shuler--Homeland Security)

9. S. 2925--Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2010 (Senator Wyden--Judiciary)

10. Senate Amendment to H.R. 4748--Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act of 2010 (Representative Owens--Judiciary)

11. Senate Amendment to H.R. 1746--Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009 (Representative Oberstar--Transportation and Infrastructure)

Wednesday:

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 847--James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (Representative Maloney--Energy and Commerce)(206-60)

Bills Adopted By Unanimous Consent (13):

1. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6523--Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Skelton--Armed Services)

2. S. 3481--Amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Federal responsibility for stormwater pollution (Senator Cardin--Transportation and Infrastructure)

3. House Amendment to S. 372--Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (Senator Akaka--Oversight and Government Reform)

4. H. Res. 1461--Supporting Olympic Day on June 23, 2010, and congratulating Team USA and World Fit participants (Representative Langevin--Oversight and Government Reform)

5. S. 4036--A bill to clarify the National Credit Union Administration authority to make stabilization fund expenditures without borrowing from the Treasury (Senator Dodd--Financial Services)

6. S. Con. Res. 67--A concurrent resolution celebrating 130 years of United States-Romanian diplomatic relations, congratulating the Romanian people on their achievements as a great nation, and reaffirming the deep bonds of trust and values between the United States and Romania, a trusted and most valued ally (Senator Voinovich-- Foreign Affairs)

7. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6560--Removal Clarification Act of 2010 (Representative Hank Johnson--Judiciary)

8. H. Res. 1779--Honoring the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Riders (Representative John Lewis (GA)--Judiciary)

9. Senate Amendment to H.R. 5901--Real Estate Jobs and Investment Act of 2010 (Representative Joe Crowley--Ways & Means)

10. H. Res. 1783--Technical Correction to H. Res. 1757 (Representative Brady (PA)--House Administration)

11. S. 4058--Helping Heroes Keep Their Homes Act of 2010 (Senator Kerry--Veterans' Affairs)

12. S. 3903--To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo (Senator Udall--Natural Resources)

13. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6517--To extend trade adjustment assistance and certain trade preference programs, to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, and for other purposes (Representative Levin-- Ways and Means)

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

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.

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.