US House rejects imposing stricter limits on aid to Pakistan

Amendment to defence bill would have blocked funds going toward Pakistan if it violates any conditions for aid


Web Desk June 11, 2015
PHOTO: REUTERS/ FILE

The US House of Representatives defeated a proposal on Thursday to prevent the Obama administration from waiving certain restrictions on aid to Pakistan deemed to be in the national security interest, The Hill reported.

Rep. Ted Poe's (R-Texas) amendment to the $578 billion annual defense appropriations bill would block funds going toward Pakistan if it violates any conditions for aid. It failed on a vote of 114-318.

The bill contains a provision that no funds can be provided to Pakistan unless the State and Defense Departments certify it is cooperating with the US in counterterrorism efforts; not supporting terrorist activities against the US or coalition forces in Afghanistan; dismantling improvised explosive devices; preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons; issuing visas in a "timely manner" for US visitors; and working with humanitarian organizations to assist Pakistani civilians.

However, the State and Defense Departments can waive the restrictions on a case-by-case basis if they establish to Congress that providing aid to Pakistan is nonetheless vital to national security.

Poe maintained that the Pakistani government can't be trusted, offering the circumstances of the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011 as an example.

"This amendment does one simple thing. It says you meet the conditions or you get no money from the United States," Poe said.

But Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), the chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that authored the defense spending bill, said it would be counterproductive.

"We need the cooperation of the Pakistanis. If we don't have any, we lose insight into the actions of those who would do our country harm," Frelinghuysen said.

The House also rejected amendments to rescind funding for the train-and-equip programs for Syrian rebels and Iraqi forces to fight the Islamic State.

Final passage of the defense appropriations measure is expected Thursday, though it could potentially take place Friday depending on the number of amendments offered.

President Barack Obama signed an annual defense policy bill on December 19 that authorised US training for Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting Islamic State rebels and sets overall defense spending at nearly $578 billion, including about $64 billion for wars abroad.

The bill approves a Pentagon base budget of $496 billion, in line with Obama's request, plus nearly $64 billion for conflicts abroad including the war in Afghanistan. It also authorizes $17.9 billion for Energy Department nuclear weapons work.

The measure formally endorses the Pentagon's plan to vet, train and equip a moderate Syrian opposition military force to fight Islamic State rebels, defend the Syrian people and promote conditions for a negotiated end to Syria's civil war.

COMMENTS (17)

Bob Mack | 9 years ago | Reply @Indian: Ha ha! You thought your influence was growing concerning Afghanistan too but see how your leadership has gone quiet in that respect. Following your PM's visit to China you thought your influence was growing but look at the kick Chinese have delivered back. We do know that with your growing trade with the U.S. you would always be doing some evil work against Pakistan but remember Pakistan's reliance on America will continue to reduce and we may not need anything next year regardless. And remember if America does favour you by ignoring Pakistan your country will have to pay back them. America may make from time to time make some statements unfavourable to Pakistan to keep its Indian babe happy, it would never want to see Pakistan weakened. A strong Pakistan is essential for America to do business with Idia on more favourable terms. The rest you can understand if you have a brain.
Muhammad | 9 years ago | Reply @harkol: Yes that can be dreamed to be protection money. Unfortunately great powers tend to have lot of enemies round the world and require protection which is understandable. Why would any country do a protection work without being provided with the necessary means.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ