Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise to remember Dave Newman who died on September 2, 2010. Most people in the Cleveland area will remember him as Cousin Dave Wilson, the host of the long-running show ``When the Roses Bloom Again'' every Thursday night on WRUW, 91.1 FM in Cleveland, the radio station of Case Western Reserve University. Cousin Dave has hosted the country music show since 1975 which has featured all manner of American roots music, including folk, blues, bluegrass, country & western, rockabilly, twang and many other similar genres. Cousin Dave was not only popular with college music listeners, but he also had a wide and diverse global audience which grew from the early days when WRUW operated around the campus at 10 watts, through power increases to 1000 watts and 15,000 watts, and in recent years as the station webcast at www.wruw.org. Cousin Dave, along with deejays Dan Ewry and Jim Gilliland who adopted the names Cousin Dan and Cousin Jimmie, took on the ``Wilson'' surname to honor and remember one of their early listeners and supporters, Rose Wilson, who could not find other sources in Cleveland for the beloved music of her native West Virginia. Cousin Dave changed the name of his show from ``Mather Jamboree'' to ``When the Roses Bloom Again'' after Rose Wilson died. Besides playing the music from vinyl and CDs, Cousin Dave featured live performers on an almost weekly basis with the help of his assistant James E. Guyette, also known as Mr. JG. Together, Cousin Dave and Mr. JG featured little-known performers who later developed large local, regional and national followings, such as Stacie Collins, Colette, David Childers, Charlie Christopherson, Hillbilly Idol, Al's Fast Freight, and Crossties, to name just a few. Dave Newman, Dave was his given name, David was a nickname, was born in Dayton and moved to the Cleveland area as a child. He graduated from Warrensville Heights High School in 1962 and Kent State University with a degree in Sociology in 1968. In 1969 he began his career as a caseworker for the Cuyahoga County welfare department and went on to become a casework supervisor before he retired in 2003. In his retirement, he started working at Sokolowski's University Inn in Cleveland's Tremont neighborhood until he was diagnosed with cancer in 2005. Surviving the cancer, Dave went on to serve as a liaison between the welfare department and the county Bureau of Developmental Disability, running a successful experimental program which enabled clients with disabilities to receive all the services and benefits to which they were entitled. Dave married Denise Kassoff in 1970 and they celebrated their 40th wedding anniversary on June 14 of this year. Together they had 3 children, Amanda, Zachary, and Benjamin Adon, who survive him. He is also survived by his mother Mary Newman and sister Joyce Norman. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembering Cousin Dave and giving our condolences to his family and his many friends in the Greater Cleveland community and beyond.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise to address H. Res. 1610 a resolution to express remembrance of the victims of, and sorrow for, the devastating effects the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had on our Nation. I mourn in remembrance of innocent lives lost. And I mourn in recognition that our response to the attacks has only led to more suffering, countless innocent lives lost abroad and an increasingly divided Nation here at home. This resolution expresses that the House of Representatives ``will continue to defend the people of the United States and to identify, intercept, and defeat terrorists, including providing the Armed Forces, intelligence agencies, the diplomatic service, and the law enforcement and homeland security communities with the resources and support necessary to effectively accomplish this mission.'' But the actions of the U.S. that have been taken in the name of achieving this mission have not brought us ``mission accomplished.'' As Pentagon and administration officials continue to tout the supposed end of the war in Iraq, there is no mention of the continued systematic use of the 9/11 attacks to justify sending our armed forces to invade and occupy a country that did not attack us. Almost 8 years later, over 4,200 U.S. soldiers and 1 million Iraqi civilians have been killed. How can we claim to remember the victims of 9/11 in good faith after we stood silent as billions of dollars were poured into a war based on lies? Congress continued its support of the war despite overwhelming evidence that the leaders or people of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/ 11. In the shadow of the policies pursued under the so-called ``War on Terror,'' our country remains more divided, more fearful and less trustful than ever. Perhaps even more troubling and more detrimental to our national security is the long-term damage our policies have had on our image in the international community. And in July of this year, the House of Representatives failed the victims of 9/11 yet again when it rejected legislation to provide health care for the first responders who rescued survivors of the attacks and who endure daily reminders of the attacks in the form of their failing health. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (now the longest war in U.S. history) serve as a daily reminder of the destructive path we have taken. We continue to dedicate billions of dollars to prop up a hopelessly corrupt and morally bankrupt central government in Afghanistan as the people of that country suffer with little education, access to clean water, health care and the ability to live a normal life. Here at home, our increasingly polarized communities bear the brunt of our missteps through record high unemployment rates, a continuing foreclosure crisis and crumbling infrastructure. How long can the policies we continue to pursue be justified in the name of the victims of 9/11? I oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the PATRIOT Act because I believe in the transformative power of truth and reconciliation. Almost ten years after 9/11, it is past time to pursue a new path forward. Our country is in peril, but our resolve to progress in a positive direction must not be. We do not need to export democracy around the world to keep our country safe; we need to demonstrate that America is a place where democracy is safe.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the Bolzan Family's 6th reunion, which will be held in Cleveland, Ohio from July 31 to August 6, 2010 and to acknowledge the family bonds that span generations and continents. Over 100 descendants of Benvenuto Antonio and Mathilde De Lorenzi Bolzan will gather from around the world in Cleveland, Ohio to celebrate their unbreakable bonds and unwavering support for each other. In a time of widespread use of cell phones, email, and video communication via the internet, it is important to recognize a family that prioritizes in-person interaction with family members. Of the six original siblings in this family, one remained in Italy while the others emigrated to Argentina, Luxembourg, France, and the United States. As a result, previous family reunions have taken place across Europe, including Italy during World War II, in France, and in Luxembourg. Many family members have chosen to extend their stays to include visits to other locations around the United States. In addition to sharing their fondest memories and exchanging news and other current events, the family has several tours planned during their visit, including those that will showcase Cleveland's cultural and artistic locations. I would like to particularly recognize Robert Milluzzi of Brecksville, Ohio, who is in charge of all of the arrangements for this memorable event. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in celebrating the Bolzan Family on the occasion of their reunion. May they continue this tradition that celebrates family, love, and commitment to each other for years.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4692, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010. Across America, and especially in Ohio, people are hurting. The national unemployment rate is hovering near 10%--that's 15 million people out of work. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have double-digit unemployment. In my home state of Ohio, which is home to over 20,000 manufacturing companies, unemployment is even higher-- 10.5%. Almost half of all unemployed workers have been out of work for over six months. There are simply not enough jobs, and if we are to change that, the key is to better support and enhance our manufacturing sector. With this bill, we are taking a first step toward creating a coordinated federal policy that puts the manufacturing sector back in its rightful place as an engine of the American economy. There are some encouraging signs: More than 135,000 manufacturing jobs were created in the last six months. Americans understand that creating manufacturing jobs should be among the highest priorities for government. In a recent poll 87 percent said they believed it is time we had a national manufacturing strategy. Where it is necessary, so-called ``legacy industries''--such as steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping industries--within our nation's manufacturing sector are adjusting to meet new economic realities. The government must do all that it can to make sure it does not get left behind countries like China who are rapidly growing their green manufacturing economies. Americans who were surveyed about our manufacturing economy rejected the idea that we can only rely on other sectors to keep the United States in its position as a world leader. They said that manufacturing is central to our economic strength. And they are right. With this bill we will take a vital and tangible step toward reinvigorating our manufacturing base.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. 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?

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material into the Record on House Concurrent Resolution 301.

Mr. KUCINICH. I continue to reserve.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1556, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 301) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Pakistan, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. U.S. forces are in Pakistan. Congress never voted expressly to send troops there. Congress has a constitutional responsibility under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. And I will insert Article I, Section 8, in the Record. Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment and counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it is Congress which has the power to declare war. Now, the War Powers Act extended the debate over Article I, Section 8 by pointing out that, if circumstances occurred where the President committed troops to imminent hostilities, that Congress has the right to create a debate and to create a vote over whether or not those troops should stay in those hostilities. Now, are there hostilities involving U.S. troops in Pakistan? The answer is that three U.S. troops were killed as a result of an IED in Pakistan in February. Now, that was reported last week in The Wall Street Journal. There's just no question that troops have been involved in imminent hostilities. In this case, they perished. Now, there are those who maintain that the War Powers Act is superseded 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,

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank my colleague for his support for the troops because we both support the troops. The question is that some of us believe that the best way to support the troops is to bring them home. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. I want to say to my friend from Indiana, who is my friend and with whom I have served in this Congress for 14 years and whose dedication to our Nation should never be questioned, I want to say to my friend from Indiana that this House Concurrent Resolution does not cut aid to Pakistan. It does not cut assistance to Pakistan. I will place in the Record an account of the direct U.S. Aid and military reimbursements to Pakistan from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2011.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself another half minute. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman supports the idea of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan on the ground, then your logic would follow perfectly. However, what I am saying is that following the language of the War Powers Resolution. We've had three troops killed there. The atmosphere for the U.S. in Pakistan is quite hostile. A Gallup poll demonstrated that. People don't want us in their country, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself 5 minutes. In response to the gentlelady's comments about training troops, the U.S. has been training troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for over 7 years now with arguably little or no sign of success; yet we are applying the same failed counterinsurgency strategies in Iraq, Afghanistan and now perhaps Pakistan. A seemingly endless stream of money, an estimated $1 trillion, has been poured into the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. Millions of dollars in taxpayer money spent to prop up a corrupt and unpopular central government and to train local security forces. Yet attacks on the U.S. and allied troops continue to rise. Documents released by WikiLeaks report that Pakistan intelligence service, the ISI, supports Taliban attacks on U.S. forces. This despite an average of $1 billion a year in aid from the U.S. Now, this raises a broader question, Mr. Speaker, which is really about today in Washington. Can the United States win the war in Afghanistan or hope to have any success there at all if our major ally, Pakistan, through their intelligence agency, is cooperating with the Taliban against our troops in Afghanistan? Listen to this. Even Afghanistan Government officials are complaining about this. I refer to an article from Reuters I would like to place in the Record. The title of the article, ``Afghanistan questions U.S. silence over Pakistan's role,'' where they are complaining that Pakistan's role in the insurgency is being ignored. And an official of the Afghanistan Security Council, according to Reuters, quote, ``warned that the war would not succeed unless there was a review of Afghan policy by Washington that focuses on Taliban sanctuaries and bases in Pakistan and their supporters.'' Now, when you have things so bad that even in Afghanistan, where the government is hopelessly corrupt, they're complaining about Pakistan, you see the kind of mess we could get into if we expand the footprint of our troops within the border of Pakistan. [From the Business & Financial News, Jul. 27, 2010] Afghanistan Questions U.S. Silence Over Pakistan's Role (By Sayed Salahuddin) Kabul (Reuters)--The United States has pursued a contradictory policy with regard to the Afghan war by ignoring Pakistan's role in the insurgency, the Afghan government said on Tuesday, following the leak of U.S. military documents. The classified documents released by the organization, WikiLeaks, show current and former members of Pakistan's spy agency were actively collaborating with the Taliban in plotting attacks in Afghanistan. On Tuesday, in its first reaction to the leak, Afghanistan's National Security Council said the United States had failed to attack the patrons and supporters of the Taliban hiding in Pakistan throughout the nine-year conflict. ``With regret . . . our allies did not show necessary attention about the external support for the international terrorists . . . for the regional stability and global security,'' the council said in a statement. Afghanistan has long blamed Pakistan for meddling in its affairs, accusing the neighbor of plotting attacks to destabilize it. Islamabad, which has had longstanding ties to the Taliban, denies involvement in the insurgency and says it is a victim of militancy itself. The National Security Council did not name Pakistan, but said use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy was a dangerous gamble and had to be stopped. ``Having a contradictory and vague policy against the forces who use terrorism as a tool for interference and sabotage against others, have had devastating results,'' it said. At a news conference later on Tuesday, council head Rangeen Dadfar Spanta was more specific, questioning the billions of dollars in cash aid and milita assistance Washington has given to Pakistan over the years. ``It is really not justifiable for the Afghan people that how come you give to one country $11 billion or more as help for reconstruction or strengthen its security or defensive forces, but from other side the very forces train terrorism,'' he said. He warned that the war would not succeed unless there was a review of Afghan policy by Washington that focuses on Taliban sanctuaries and bases in Pakistan and their supporters. Those supporting militants should be punished rather than be treated as an ally, said Spanta, who served for years as foreign minister in President Hamid Karzai's government until last year. The White House has condemned the WikiLeaks disclosures, saying it could threaten national security. Pakistan said leaking unprocessed reports from the battlefield was irresponsible. The documents numbering tens of thousands also said that coalition troops had killed hundreds of Afghan civilians in unreported incidents and often sought to cover up the mistakes that have shaken up confidence in the war effort among many in Afghanistan. On Monday, the Afghan government said it had spoken in private and in public meetings with its Western allies about the need to stop civilian deaths. ``In the past nine years (since Taliban's fall) thousands of citizens of Afghanistan and from our ally countries have become victimised,'' it said. It's been said early on in this debate that the WikiLeaks documents, 92,000 documents, I don't know who has had the time to read them all, but according to what's been said publicly, that it represents nothing new. Here's the key findings of these WikiLeaks documents that were reported in the New York Times in the last day: a point that our troops have been placed in mortal danger because of poor logistics; that countless innocent civilians have been killed by mistake; that the Afghan government is hopelessly corrupt; that Pakistan intelligence has collaborated with the Taliban against the U.S.; that the Pentagon has understated the firepower of the insurgents; and that a top Pakistani general was visiting a suicide bombing school on a monthly basis. Now, if this has been going on for years and it's nothing new, you have to ask the question then why in the world weren't we having that debate over the last 6 years? If this is nothing new, why didn't the American people know all about this? Why did it take a document dump by WikiLeaks to suddenly wake up the Congress to say, Hey, wait a minute, the war isn't going the way you thought it was? I mean it's not only a question of if we knew then what we know now, it's a question that do we remember what we knew then? And why isn't it affecting our policy right now? Why aren't we getting out of Afghanistan? Why are we pretending there is a withdrawal from Iraq if we leave 50,000 troops there? And why in the world would we be in this environment expanding our footprint in Pakistan? I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank Mr. McGovern and Mr. Dreier for enabling me to participate in this debate. A little bit later we're going to get into the substance of the War Powers Resolution. But I think it's very important for the record to state, as the Wall Street Journal in an article last week stated, that the United States is stepping up a ground presence in Pakistan, and as part of that ground presence, three United States troops were killed in Pakistan. This, according to the Wall Street Journal. And I will put this in the Record. [From The Wall Street Journal, July 20, 2010] U.S. Forces Step Up Pakistan Presence (By Julian E. Barnes) Washington--U.S. Special Operations Forces have begun venturing out with Pakistani forces on aid projects, deepening the American role in the effort to defeat Islamist militants in Pakistani territory that has been off limits to U.S. ground troops. The expansion of U.S. cooperation is significant given Pakistan's deep aversion to allowing foreign military forces on its territory. The Special Operations teams join the aid missions only when commanders determine there is relatively little security risk, a senior U.S. military official said, in an effort to avoid direct engagement that would call attention to U.S. participation. The U.S. troops are allowed to defend themselves and return fire if attacked. But the official emphasized the joint missions aren't supposed to be combat operations, and the Americans often participate in civilian garb. Pakistan has told the U.S. that troops need to keep a low profile. ``Going out in the open, that has negative optics, that is something we have to work out,'' said a Pakistani official. ``This whole exercise could be counterproductive if people see U.S. boots on the ground.'' Because of Pakistan's sensitivities, the U.S. role has developed slowly. In June 2008, top U.S. military officials announced 30 American troops would begin a military training program in Pakistan, but it took four months for Pakistan to allow the program to begin. The first U.S. Special Operations Forces were restricted to military classrooms and training bases. Pakistan has gradually allowed more trainers into the country and allowed the mission's scope to expand. Today, the U.S. has about 120 trainers in the country, and the program is set to expand again with new joint missions to oversee small-scale development projects aimed at winning over tribal leaders, according to officials familiar with the plan. Such aid projects are a pillar of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy, which the U.S. hopes to pass on to the Pakistanis through the training missions. U.S. military officials say if U.S. forces are able to help projects such as repairing infrastructure, distributing seeds and providing generators or solar panels, they can build trust with the Pakistani military, and encourage them to accept more training in the field. ``You have to bring something to the dance,'' said the senior military official. ``And the way to do it is to have cash ready to do everything from force protection to other things that will protect the population.'' Congressional leaders last month approved $10 million in funding for the aid missions, which will focus reconstruction projects in poor tribal areas that are off-limits to foreign civilian aid workers. The Pakistani government has warned the Pentagon that a more visible U.S. military presence could undermine the mission of pacifying the border region, which has provided a haven for militants staging attacks in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan. The U.S. has already aroused local animosity with drone strikes targeting militants in the tribal areas, though the missile strikes have the tacit support of the Pakistani government and often aid the Pakistani army's campaign against the militants. Providing money to U.S. troops to spend in communities they are trying to protect has been a tactic used for years to fight insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The move to accompany Pakistani forces in the field is even more significant, and repeats a pattern seen in the Philippines during the Bush administration, when Army 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.

Mr. KUCINICH. If I could get an extra minute.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to Mr. Dreier.

Mr. KUCINICH. 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.''

Mr. KUCINICH. I appreciate that. So we have special forces now at least 20 miles inside the border of Pakistan by news accounts, and they want us to help them there, while Pakistan at the same time is helping those who are shooting at our troops in Afghanistan. Now, who are our allies? Who are our enemies here? That's the danger of getting increasingly involved on the ground in Pakistan. That is why I brought this resolution forward with the help of Mr. Paul. We have to have this debate.

Mr. KUCINICH. The Times quotes General Petraeus as acknowledging ``longstanding ties between Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence'' and what he calls the ``bad guys.'' And the Times goes on to say in this editorial, ``The Times's report of the new documents suggests the collusion goes even deeper, that representatives of the ISI''--that's their spy agency in Pakistan-- ``have worked with the Taliban to organize networks of militants to fight American soldiers in Afghanistan and hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.'' I'm saying, do we want these people to be our partners, people who are playing a double game with us? This is why we've got to get out of Pakistan. We have to take a different approach here, and in the debate that will ensue in the next, you know, few hours, whenever it's scheduled, I hope to be able to get to some of the specifics of why this resolution is important at this time. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Dreier, for the opportunity.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, this year marks the 60th anniversary of the Korean War and the fifty-seventh anniversary of the signing of the July 1953 Armistice Agreement. The Korean War cost the lives of over 4 million people and a lasting peace remains elusive. The people on the Korean peninsula continue to suffer as they are caught in the midst of a perpetual state of war and heightened tension. Families are divided and they are left voiceless. The recent sinking of the Republic of Korea Ship (ROKS) Cheonan in May and the subsequent announcement that North Korea was severing all relations with South Korea is a symptom of a failed policy in the region. It highlights the need for a permanent peace settlement and for diplomatic efforts to bring North and South Korea to such a settlement. Following the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan, officials in the Administration vowed that the attack would not go unanswered. After 60 years, the United States has failed to establish formal diplomatic channels with North Korea that would be vital in diffusing such crises. The United States spends over one billion dollars per year to maintain its military presence in South Korea. At a time when millions of Americans are out of work and are struggling to pay their bills, one billion dollars per year is needlessly poured into further militarizing the Korean peninsula. There are debates in Washington over how we are going to pay for unemployment benefits. Yet no one asks how we are going to pay to maintain hundreds of U.S. military bases around the world. No one questions the costs to U.S. tax payers or the Korean people. I believe strongly in the power and necessity of diplomacy. The United States has a responsibility to utilize its unique role as an ally of South Korea to bring the nation closer to resolution with North Korea. The Administration can better express support for the people of the Republic of Korea by recommitting to promoting dialogue between the two nations. The expression of support for a possible military response to North Korea's actions can only serve to heighten the likelihood of a military confrontation. Military action in retaliation to North Korea's attack on the South Korean ship can only result in the further loss of life. Further militarization in the region can have adverse affects on U.S. national security and our support of a military response to North Korea can only undermine future prospects of peace. Further isolating North Korea from South Korea and the international community does not serve the interest of any country truly dedicated to regional stability. Let us use this somber anniversary to work toward peace and facilitate a lasting peace settlement between North and South Korea.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Saints Peter and Paul Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Cleveland, Ohio, as its members celebrate one hundred years of faith, hope and tradition. The history of Saints Peter and Paul Ukrainian Orthodox Church began on September 21, 1910 at 2280 West 7th Street in Cleveland when the structures of the church and rectory were officially dedicated. These buildings were built with the labor and generous donations of the parishioners, most of whom were immigrants from the Ukraine. Metropolitan Archbishop Andrew Sheptytsky of Lviv was present to provide a blessing to the newly opened parish. The buildings and grounds have since been restored and expanded, yet the original structures remain as strong and as beautiful as when first built. Saints Peter and Paul Ukrainian Orthodox Church grew quickly. It soon became a part of the community and a strong cultural connection for hundreds of Ukrainian families throughout Cleveland. To assist immigrants and families, the parish expanded services, including the establishment of a savings and loan to help young families secure loans to purchase homes. Picnics, concerts and fundraisers became a weekly tradition. The church offered musical treasures from Ukraine, including performances of a 60-string instrument, the bandura. Parishioners would also make and sell varenyky, a delectable Ukrainian dumpling, which quickly sold to Clevelanders of all ethnic backgrounds. Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor of the members of Saints Peter and Paul Ukrainian Orthodox Church, past and present, as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. Their contributions to our community are immeasurable. The church continues to stand as a beacon of culture and faith for Ukrainian Americans, for the diverse people in Cleveland's Tremont neighborhood and throughout our Greater Cleveland community.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. 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.