[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 114 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H7836-H7837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SMART SECURITY AND THE FREEDOM MARCH

  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, as we all know, Sunday marked 4 years since 
the painful terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 Americans at the World 
Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in rural Pennsylvania. Sunday 
was a day for solemn reflection and remembrance, but our Government, 
specifically the Department of Defense, threw a propaganda party 
instead.
  Sunday's so-called Americans Support Your Freedom Walk included a

[[Page H7837]]

pro-war speech by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a concert on 
the National Mall by Clint Black, whose lyrics implicitly accuse war 
protesters of standing with Saddam.
  Sunday was supposedly about honoring our troops. The problems is, Mr. 
Speaker, most of our currently deployed troops are on a mission that 
has nothing to do with 9/11. It has long been established that there 
was no connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the murderous plot 
executed by al-Qaeda 4 years ago.
  Ironically, Sunday's march, which was supposedly about celebrating 
freedom, took place in the most tightly controlled circumstances 
imaginable. March participants were required to pre-register. Tall 
fencing encased the marchers throughout. The media was kept at bay. 
Helicopters flew overhead. The Park Police issued a public threat that 
they would arrest anyone who joined without the proper credentials. And 
what were those credentials? Enrolling 2 days in advance to be checked 
out to ensure that participants were what? Pro Bush? Pro war? Pro 
propaganda? Pro continuing the lies of 9/11 linking to Saddam Hussein? 
And, for good measure, a Pentagon spokeswoman declared that protesting 
the march would be the equivalent of protesting our veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, this was nothing more than mere propaganda, a 
transparent attempt to shore up the President's dwindling poll numbers, 
especially his poor marks on Iraq.
  For the umpteenth time, they are trying to use the national unity 
inspired by 9/11 to justify a divisive, controversial and immoral war 
in Iraq, a war that has cost us nearly 2,000 American lives, thousands 
of severely wounded veterans, and thousands upon thousands of Iraqi 
civilians killed and maimed.
  If we want to support the troops, the best thing we can do, the only 
thing we can do, is to bring them home, out of Iraq, where their very 
presence is animating the insurgency and giving rise to more intense 
anti-Americanism than ever.
  For some time now, I have been calling for hearings on Iraq. But 
having received no satisfactory response, I am convening my very own 
hearing scheduled for this Thursday, September the 15th, from 10 to 1 
p.m. in Room 122 of the Cannon Office Building.
  We will hear from respected Middle East experts and military leaders 
about how we might achieve military disengagement while still playing a 
constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraq. We hope to break the 
silence on Capitol Hill, help fill the policy vacuum and spark a 
broader public debate about our policy options in Iraq.
  Bringing the troops home, Mr. Speaker, and ending this occupation 
should be the beginning, not the end of a complete reassessment of our 
national security priority. National security means more than the use 
of military force which, as we have seen in Iraq, can have the 
appearance of strength but can undermine our national security rather 
than enhance it.
  To that end, I propose a new approach. It is called SMART security, 
which stands for a Sensible Multilateral American Response to 
Terrorism. SMART is based on the belief that war should be an absolute 
last resort, to be undertaken only under the most extreme 
circumstances.
  But that does not mean that SMART is not serious and smart about 
protecting America. It is vigilant about fighting terrorism and weapons 
of mass destruction, but it does so with stronger multilateral 
alliances, improved intelligence capabilities, vigorous inspection 
regimes and aggressive diplomacy.

                              {time}  1945

  SMART would reshuffle our national security budget. No more billions 
thrown at outdated Cold War weapons programs. That money would instead 
be invested in energy independence and other efforts that are truly 
relevant to the modern security threats that we face. SMART Security 
protects America by relying on the very best of American values, our 
capacity for global leadership, our dedication to peace and freedom, 
and our compassion for the people of the world.

                          ____________________