[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 19, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H6077-H6078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        SMART SECURITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow, we are debating the 
foreign relations authorization bill, a comprehensive piece of 
legislation dealing with matters that are important, even if they are 
not headline grabbers: passports, scholarships for international 
students, death benefits for American foreign service officers, just to 
name a few.
  I intend to vote for this bill on final passage, Mr. Speaker, but not 
without some reservation and not without a great deal of 
disappointment.

                              {time}  1815

  Here we are essentially affirming American foreign policy for the 
next 2 years. And what does the bill have to say about Iraq, the 
greatest foreign policy challenge of our time? Virtually nothing. Three 
hundred-plus pages of legislative language and not a word about Iraq 
until the very end of the bill where it calls on the President to 
transmit a plan to provide for a stable and secure government of Iraq 
and an Iraqi military and police force that will allow the United 
States military presence in Iraq to be diminished. That is it. This is 
like writing an essay about the significance of December 25 and saying 
at the end, oh, by the way, it is Christmas too.

[[Page H6078]]

  Some amendments have been offered that address aspects of the Iraq 
war. These amendments only serve to advance the current failed policy. 
Instead of giving us the new direction and the fresh thinking that we 
so badly need, this policy, these amendments continue what already 
exists.
  I oppose, for example, one amendment mandating that we must turn over 
Iraq's security to the Iraqis only when they are ready for that 
responsibility and that we must not, and I quote, withdraw prematurely 
the U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq, unquote. Prematurely.
  Mr. Speaker, do more than 2,000 Americans have to die, or 2,000 more 
Americans have to die before we recognize that bringing our troops home 
is not premature, but a fact that is long overdue?
  This amendment also states that troop withdrawal cannot happen until 
we are close to realizing a free and stable Iraq that is at peace and 
not a threat to its neighbors. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that such a policy 
would make this an endless war because the amendment has it exactly 
backwards. There can be no stability in Iraq while our troops are still 
there. It is our very military presence and the resentment that it is 
breeding that is emboldening the insurgency. It is only by ending the 
occupation that we can hope to quell the violence and give the Iraqi 
people some hope for peace and security.
  As I said, I will vote for H.R. 2601 because I believe there is 
plenty that is good and important in this bill. The architects of the 
legislation should be commended for authorizing billions in foreign aid 
that will go a long way toward improving lives around the globe.
  But once again, and I repeat, this bill represents a missed 
opportunity to completely reexamine Iraq and foreign policy more 
generally. With this bill we could have charted a new course, launched 
a new and more peaceful strategy for helping Iraq stand on its own two 
feet. But all we have done on Iraq is declared it U.S. policy to extend 
our military presence indefinitely.
  In Iraq, and around the world, I believe we need to adopt what I call 
a SMART security plan. SMART stands for sensible multilateral American 
response to terrorism. It would make military action not a reflex, but 
a very last resort. SMART would fight terrorism with brains, not brawn, 
with stronger multilateral alliances, improved intelligence 
capabilities and vigorous weapons inspections. It would forbid the sale 
and transfer of weapons to regions of conflict. The agreement reached 
yesterday with India most certainly would not meet the standards of 
SMART.
  SMART also calls on the United States to set an example for the world 
by living up to its own nuclear nonproliferation commitments, something 
H.R. 2601 clearly does not mandate. SMART would divert resources from 
Cold War weapons systems, reinvesting them in Homeland Security and 
energy independence. And SMART would attack terrorism at its roots with 
an ambitious international development plan for the troubled regions 
around the world.
  Democracy building support, human rights education, education 
programs, small business development, these are the cures to the 
poverty, oppression and hopelessness that breed terrorism in the first 
place.
  Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for H.R. 2601. But I lament its 
failure to substantially or realistically address the most pressing 
foreign policy challenge in our generation, the supremely misguided war 
in Iraq.

                          ____________________