Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of United States Senator George Voinovich as he is named the Honorary President of the American Nationality Movement at the Annual Captive Nations Commemoration held in Cleveland, Ohio. During his career, Senator Voinovich has served as a State Representative, County Auditor, Lieutenant Governor, Governor, Mayor of Cleveland and Senator. In each capacity, he served with honor and dignity.

Senator Voinovich learned early on the significance of family, heritage and faith. He was born and raised in the working class, ethnically diverse neighborhood of Collinwood along Cleveland's northeast side. His parents encouraged him to go to college, and he graduated with a BA degree from Ohio University, and in 1961, a law degree from The Ohio State University.

Since his first election to public office as a Member of the Ohio House of Representatives in 1967, Senator Voinovich has focused his public service on issues and causes that require strong leadership. He has focused on children's issues, environmental issues, economic issues and government accountability. As Governor of the State of Ohio, Senator Voinovich brought together members of both parties to strengthen and enact new laws in the areas of child support, child safety and early childhood education. He also enacted stricter laws against child abusers and predators.

Since his election to the United States Senate in 1999, Senator Voinovich has served on numerous committees where he has worked diligently to ensure that the Federal Government works as efficiently and resourcefully as possible. In the 111th Congress, Senator Voinovich has continued his work protecting and preserving our environment including our most significant natural resource--our Great Lakes. He serves as co-chair of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force where he has worked to clean up and restore the Great Lakes, to safeguard the Great Lakes from oil and gas drilling, and to protect the Lakes from invasive species like the Asian carp.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Senator George Voinovich as he is named as Honorary President by the American Nationalities Movement. Senator Voinovich's lifelong public service reflects hard work, accomplishment and dedication on behalf of our community and our Nation.

Wake up, America. WikiLeaks' release of secret war documents gave us 92,000 reasons to end the wars. Pick one.

Wake up, America. Main Street is falling apart, businesses have closed, bankruptcies abound, people are losing their jobs, their homes, losing their retirement security, the middle class is falling apart, workers' rights are not being protected, the government's out of money. There's not even money for childhood nutrition.

Wake up, America. There's unlimited money for war, money for a corrupt government in Afghanistan. When U.S. money is not going to the Karzai mob's personal use, it goes to help the Taliban kill our troops. There's money for a corrupt government in Pakistan, which helps the Taliban in Afghanistan kill our troops. Meanwhile, our troops are committing suicide in record numbers.

Wake up, America. How can we solve the world's problems if we can't solve our own problems here at home?

Wikileaks released 92,000 previously secret documents, totaling 200,000 pages, any one of which could conceivably be a case for a congressional hearing, which demonstrate that Congress has not been given a true account of the war by either the military or by two administrations. It would be good if Congress had announced hearings once WikiLeaks documents came forward.

But what we've learned is this: our troops are being placed in mortal peril because of poor logistics, countless innocent civilians killed by mistake, an Afghanistan Government which is hopelessly corrupt, Pakistan intelligence collaborating with the Taliban against the U.S., the Pentagon understating the fire power of the insurgents, a top Pakistani general visiting a suicide bombing school monthly.

Will we go deeper in this war in Afghanistan despite an abundance of information that it's time to get out?

We need to make the decision now. Today, vote against the supplemental.

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, 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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Cleveland Police Officer Emil Cielec, a devoted husband, father, grandfather, friend to many and lifelong guardian and protector of the people of the City of Cleveland. Officer Cielec retired from the Cleveland Police Department less than two years ago. He left behind a legacy that will forever reflect excellence, honesty and bravery.-

Mr. Cielec was raised by parents who came to America from Poland in search of a better life for their family. Growing up on the west side of Cleveland as one of eleven children, he learned early on the significance of hard work and community. He lived his life in dedication to his family and to his Roman Catholic faith. Mr. Cielec graduated from Lincoln High School and then served our nation in the United States Army. He was working on the production line at General Motors when he learned that the City of Cleveland Police Department was hiring. He immediately applied and diligently studied for the test. In 1957, Mr. Cielec was sworn in as a Cleveland Police officer and served with honor until his retirement in 2008.

Officer Cielec had a stellar reputation as an officer who treated all people with dignity, fairness, and respect. He was tough, yet compassionate and honorable. During his tenure with the Cleveland Police Department, Officer Cielec saw twenty-two Police Chiefs come and go. He weathered many storms--on the streets and in City Hall. His reputation was

known throughout the department, and he was often approached by other officers seeking his insight, wisdom and expertise.

Beyond the job, his family was his foundation and his greatest love. His devotion to his wife, Dorothy, to his sons, Kevin and Alan, to his daughter Sandy, and to his grandchildren was unconditional and unwavering.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Police Officer Emil Cielec, who lived life with great love and devotion to his family and to those he served. Officer Cielec's work made our Cleveland community a better place to live. He will be remembered and honored forever.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4213, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Act of 2010. This legislation extends unemployment benefits to millions of Americans in need through November and retroactively restores benefits to those that recently lost theirs due to Congressional inaction. Unemployment in Ohio is at 10.5 percent. It is the number one request when I talk to my constituents at home.

Even with passage of this important legislation, many of my constituents in the greater Cleveland area will continue to suffer. Many will be ineligible for the benefits provided by this bill because they have exhausted the emergency temporary assistance granted by Congress. Still others are at a greater disadvantage than most; according to the latest unemployment statistics from the Department of Labor, members of the African-American and Latino communities continue to experience disproportionately high long-term unemployment rates at 15.4 percent and 12.4 percent, respectively. While Congress endeavors to provide direct help to those needing it the most, we must also focus on creating jobs.

Our domestic manufacturing sector has been decimated under the weight of the economy, bad trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, and policy neglect. We cannot have a strong American economy without a strong industrial manufacturing sector. We need a coordinated Federal policy that puts the manufacturing sector back in its rightful place as an

engine of the American economy. In recognition of that need, I authored H. Res. 444, which says that the steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping industries are vital to America's national and economic security.

Extending unemployment benefits alone will not address the needs of all Americans currently looking for work across various employment sectors, but it can serve to shore up our local communities and our economy. I urge passage of H.R. 4213, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Act of 2010.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Mr. Anthony Zielinski, devoted and much-loved father, son, brother and friend, whose public service continues to raise the Parma community onto a platform of strength, viability, unity and opportunity.

Mr. Zielinski grew up in the City of Parma and continues to call Parma his home. He attended Parma public schools and graduated from Cleveland State University with advanced degrees. His public service reflects integrity, expertise, dedication and most importantly, it consistently reflects heart, compassion and sincere concern regarding the needs of others.

Because of his vision and leadership, Parma has resources and opportunities for residents of all ages. Mr. Zielinski served as councilman in Parma's Ward 8 neighborhood for nearly 8 years. As councilman, he served as Majority Leader and Finance Chairman, working energetically on behalf of residents and creating strong partnerships between the public and private sectors. He served on the City of Parma's Zoning Board of Appeals, and was appointed to the position of Treasurer of the City of Parma in 2005, and elected to serve another term in 2009.

His outstanding work as Treasurer is framed by integrity, expertise and dedication to protecting the public trust by making wise investments to obtain the highest return on taxpayers dollars. In addition, Mr. Zielinski has a rare ability to bring people and departments together--unifying the community for the common good--with a special commitment to the children of Parma. He led several student- government programs, and was instrumental in organizing the Leadership for Tomorrow Program, which allows every fifth grade student to experience, in person, the workings of city government. Though humble, Mr. Zielinski's volunteer efforts have been noticed by others. He was named the Parma Democrat of the Year; and was honored as the Pride Award Recipient by the Parma Chamber of Commerce.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honor and recognition of my friend, Mr. Anthony Zielinski. Mr. Zielinski's work and approach to city government continues to create strong bonds between residents and city hall. He is a role model as a man, a father, a son, and a friend. It is Mr. Zielinski's warmth, heart, honesty and willingness to help others that enriches and strengthens the lives of all us--his family and friends in Parma, Ohio and throughout our community.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the United States House of Representatives that Gerry Nelson has been awarded the honor of Democrat of the Year in Lakewood, Ohio. An unreconstructed, New Deal Democrat, Gerry Nelson has long stood for the values of dignity for workers, jobs for all, health care for all, and peace.

Gerry Nelson has demonstrated a lifetime of service to her community. She has long been active with railroad retirees, where she has taken lessons from a long career of work into a sphere where she continues to protect the rights of working men and women to a secure retirement. Gerry Nelson is also a stalwart supporter of the activities of the Northcoast AFL-CIO.

In addition to her commitment to the rights of workers, Gerry Nelson has become a champion of senior citizens, especially in Lakewood, Ohio. She has been their advocate, their voice, a person who will carry seniors' concerns to every level of government to ensure their health and safety.

Gerry Nelson performed outstanding service as a member of the 10th District Congressional staff, doing case work and field work

with equal excellence. She became a popular figure in the community because she always seems to be at the right place at the right time whenever people need help.

That Gerry Nelson should be recognized as the Lakewood Democrat of the Year is a culmination of a life of service to the Democratic Party and to the Lakewood community.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in congratulating Gerry Nelson not only for her work in Lakewood, Ohio, but because she represents a lifetime of dedication to others which makes her a great American.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and works of Harvey Pekar. Best known for his work as an underground comic book writer, Mr. Pekar was an artist and critic of many talents. His brilliance touched the lives of many in his native Cleveland home and throughout the world.

In 1976, Mr. Pekar self-published the first issue of what went on to become his most famous comic series: American Splendor. In this series, he depicted the trials and tribulations of a mundane working class life in Cleveland. This raw depiction of the modern human condition slowly attracted a readership within the underground comic book scene and peaked with a circulation of 10,000 in the early 1990s. In 2003, his American Splendor series was adapted for film, receiving wide critical acclaim.

His artistic and critical talents were reflected in far more than just his defining series. Harvey Pekar was a distinguished essayist, jazz critic, and he collaborated on musical theatre productions.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the life of the artist Harvey Pekar. Pekar's talent and works are unparalleled in his field. The world has lost a great treasure in his passing. He will be missed by those who knew him and knew of his work, especially his wife Joyce Brabner and his adopted daughter Danielle.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Mr. Gerald ``Gerry'' Trafis, a devoted father to Matthew and Brian, friend, and community leader on the occasion of his 60th birthday.

Early in his life, Mr. Trafis learned the importance of faith, family, and hard work. He grew up in the Slavic Village neighborhood of Cleveland, and graduated from St. Peter Chanel High School. He then enrolled and graduated from the University of Dayton and earned his CPA license shortly thereafter. As a longtime resident of Seven Hills, Ohio, Mr. Trafis continues to dedicate his time and focus toward improving the community.

From 1991 to 1995, Mr. Trafis served as Director of Finance for the City of Seven Hills. In 1995, he was elected to serve as Mayor, where he served for nearly ten years until 2003. He then served one term as a Council Representative in Seven Hills until 2005. Mr. Trafis also served as the CFO for Creativity for Kids and Megas Beauty Care. He was entrusted to serve as the Chairman of the Board of the Regional Income Tax Agency and is founder and president of Pleasant Valley Estates Association. Mr. Trafis is an active member and leader within many organizations, including the Seven Hills Democratic Club, St. Columbkille Holy Name Society, St. Peter Chanel High School Hall of Fame, and the Pulaski Franciscan Community Development Corporation.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Mr. Gerald Trafis, on the occasion of his 60th birthday. His dedication to family, friends and community continues to uplift the lives of many throughout the Cleveland area. I wish my good friend Gerry a very happy birthday and health, peace and happiness in the coming years.

I thank my colleague and all Members for their support of this bill: Mr. Davis, Mr. Chaffetz, and my colleague Ms. Sutton.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to offer today H.R. 5390, which renames the post office located at 13301 Smith Road in Cleveland, Ohio, as the ``David John Donafee Post Office Building.'' I would like to thank Chairman Lynch for his efforts to bring H.R. 5390 to the floor of the House.

David John Donafee was a lifelong northeast Ohioan who committed his life to family and community. He was born and raised in Brook Park, Ohio, and graduated from Polaris High School in Berea.

He served northeast Ohio as a postal carrier for 14 years. His coworkers knew David for his geniality and positive spirit, his sense of humor and willingness to go out of his way for anyone. One coworker remarked, ``He was the guy that made the place a little better.''

David was well known in the local hockey community for his support of and involvement in his son's youth hockey league. He announced and scored the games. He was the ``heart of all of the teams,'' according to his wife, Sandi.

Mr. Speaker, on February 14, 2008, Valentine's Day, David Donafee was walking his mail route in Parma Heights, Ohio. He was delivering the mail to people on his route just like he did every other day, but this day was different. He was struck by a car while in the line of his duties as a postal worker, as a mail carrier, and he was killed. His tragic death resounded in the community and resounded with his coworkers.

He left behind his wife, Sandi, and their two sons, Derek and Liam. And my thoughts and the thoughts of the people in the community continue to be with the Donafee family as they adjust to life without their beloved David.

In honoring David John Donafee by naming a post office building after him, we actually honor all of those who deliver the mail, showing that when something like an unexpected tragedy happens, that this Congress does appreciate the work of those who make it possible for the commerce of the country to move by virtue of the mail.

So I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life of David John Donafee and honoring his legacy. I urge passage of H.R. 5390.

[From cleveland.com, Sept. 4, 2008]

Southwest Brewfest To Benefit Family of Deceased Letter Carrier David

Donafee

(By Damon Sims)

Neither snow nor rain nor gloom of night kept David Donafee

from his appointed rounds.

Nor could a little foul weather keep the 42-year-old letter

carrier from scoring his son's Padua High School hockey

games, or from the Friday night beer-and-bull session with

his buddies at the Brew Kettle Taproom & Smokehouse in

Strongsville.

``It was like `Cheers,' '' said Donafee's wife, Sandi. ``My

husband was kind of the life of the party, but in a quiet,

gentle way.''

That all changed on a gloomy Valentine's Day this year.

Donafee, a postman for 14 years, was making his rounds about

noon when he was struck by a car and killed while crossing

York Road near Valley Forge High School in Parma Heights. The

driver, a 19-year-old Cleveland man, was questioned. No

charges have been filed, and the accident remains under

investigation.

Donafee, of Brunswick, is survived by his wife, Sandi, and

sons, Derek, 15, and Liam, 11. His death also left a void in

the youth-hockey community, with his postal-worker colleagues

and with his friends at the Brew Kettle, who remember him as

a fun and convivial companion.

``He was one of the happiest, most positive people I've

ever met,'' said the Brew Kettle's owner, Chris McKim. ``When

the world loses a grouch, it's sad. When it loses a guy like

Dave, a guy who was always upbeat and always on his A-game,

it's a tragedy.''

The different forces that helped define Donafee's life--

good friends, good music, good beer--are coming together

Saturday for an event designed to honor his memory and help

his family. McKim has organized the first Southwest Brewfest,

a charity craft-beer festival at the Chalet near the

Cleveland Metroparks' toboggan chutes in the Mill Stream Run

Reservation in Strongsville.

The festival will feature beer from brewers in Cleveland's

southern and western suburbs: Brew Kettle, Rocky River

Brewing Co., Cornerstone Brewing Co. and Buckeye Brewing.

Musicians David Fayne, Woody Leffel and the Armstrong

Bearcat Band will provide the soundtrack to the event, which

takes place from 1 to 7 p.m. The $30 ticket will include a

commemorative glass along with 10 four-ounce beer samples.

Proceeds will help the Donafee family with Derek's $8,300

annual tuition at Padua, a Catholic preparatory school in

Parma Heights.

The annual event will also help send Liam, now a sixth-

grader, to Padua. Leftover money will go directly to Padua to

benefit other students.

That would have meant a lot to Donafee, who said Derek's

experience at Padua turned around his son's academic career,

according to McKim, himself a Padua graduate.

Donafee's death didn't escape the notice of the powers-

that-be. Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich paid

tribute to the mail carrier on the floor of the House. Sandi

Donafee has the congressman's words inscribed on a plaque in

her living room.

``May his life be an example of how we should lead our

own,'' Kucinich told colleagues.

And what would the genial mailman have thought of all the

attention?

``It would have made Dave smile,'' McKim said with a

chuckle.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Captain Joseph Sadie of the Cleveland Police Department. For 43 years, Captain Sadie rose through the ranks of the Cleveland Police Department, tirelessly protecting and defending our local communities.

In addition to his dedicated police service, Captain Sadie ran a local program called Cops & Kids. In the last 20 years, this program provided clothes, toys, food, appliances, and other necessities to 20,000 families in need.

Captain Sadie's passion for helping the community had him on call all year round; people close to him said his phone never stopped ringing. Despite the overwhelming need and number of requests, Captain Sadie always came through.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Captain Joseph Sadie of the Cleveland Police Department. Captain Sadie's leadership, kindness, compassion, and concern for others have made the local communities in and around Cleveland a better place. The impact of his dedication will carry on in the lives of all of those he helped.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Bob Fritz, as he celebrates his retirement after nearly 40 years of unwavering leadership, kindness and devotion as CEO of Avtron Manufacturing, Inc., of Independence, Ohio.

The son of Dwain and Carolyn Fritz, founders of Avtron Manufacturing Inc., Bob Fritz's parents instilled within him a strong work ethic and values. He graduated from Shaw High School and enrolled at Carnegie Melon University, where he graduated with honors and a degree in physics. He later earned an MBA from Harvard Business School, where he was awarded a National Honorary Fellowship.

Mr. Fritz's intellect is matched by his kindness, ability to relate to others, and build upon a new vision. Within a few years of becoming CEO, Avtron soared to new levels in the areas of sales, product development, and a renewed focus on the welfare of employees. In the past 36 years, Avtron increased its number of employees from 100 to 400, 95% of whom live in Cuyahoga County. During his tenure, Avtron was honored numerous times, including three North Coast 99 Awards for being one of the best places to work in Northeast Ohio. Mr. Fritz has also volunteered his time as both a member and a leader of several community organizations, including Vistage, an organization of CEOs that focus on guiding, mentoring and assisting struggling businesses.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Bob Fritz on the occasion of his retirement as leader of Avtron Manufacturing, Inc. His devotion to his family, employees, and community serves to strengthen the foundation of greater Cleveland. I wish him, his wife Linnet, and their entire family an abundance of health and happiness as he journeys onward.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Patricia A. Dorr, devoted wife, mother, grandmother, sister and friend. Mrs. Dorr was also a community activist who served for many years as a Councilwoman representing the City of Berea.

Mrs. Dorr created a warm and inviting home for her family, friends and neighbors. She was an active participant in the lives and special events of her family. Her unwavering devotion to her family was reflected in the close relationships she shared with her children and grandchildren. Mrs. Dorr's strong sense of faith was a source of strength throughout her life. She was a devoted and loved member of St. Mary's Catholic Church in Berea, Ohio.

Patricia was known for her kindness, energy and dedication to community. Following her dedicated service as Berea City Councilwoman, Mrs. Dorr remained active and participated in numerous community events and fundraisers. Her dedication to making a difference in the lives of others remained constant throughout her life.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and memory of Mrs. Patricia A. Dorr, whose energetic spirit and joy for living will endure within the hearts and memories of those who loved and knew her best. I extend my deepest condolences to her children, James, Cynthia, Robert, Brian, Mary, and Brigitte; to her twelve grandchildren and special grandson; and to her extended family members and many friends.