Providing for consideration of 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.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Lake Jackson, Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 2 minutes.

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. 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.

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

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 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.''

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.

If I could get an extra minute.

I yield to Mr. Dreier.

I thank the gentleman, my friend.

I want to quote from The New York Times. You can understand how serious 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.''

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1556.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Polis.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

The time will be 30 minutes for Mr. Kucinich, and 30 minutes for the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

That's correct.

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.

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.

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.