[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1712-H1713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        IRAQ DEMOCRACY PROMOTION

  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, the notion that the Iraq war is all about 
building freedom and democracy across the broader Middle East has been 
a staple of White House talking points for nearly as long as we have 
had our troops in harm's way.
  But a few weeks ago, courtesy of a front-page story in The Washington 
Post, we learned something interesting about the President's actual 
nuts and bolts commitment to democracy. He doesn't have one. That April 
5 story by Peter Baker reveals that when it comes to promoting 
democracy, the bottom line reality doesn't match all the fancy 
rhetoric.
  The administration, in fact, is dramatically reducing funding for 
programs and organizations that do the nitty-gritty work of helping 
nations train their people to build and sustain a democratic 
infrastructure, political parties, unions, a free press and other 
institutions.
  The National Democratic Institute of International Affairs and the 
International Republican Institute will, according to The Post, be 
running out of USAID grant dollars in a matter of days. Only a special 
earmark is keeping them open for business.
  The U.S. Institute of Peace has seen funding for its democracy 
programs in Iraq slashed by nearly two-thirds. The National Endowment 
for Democracy recently received its last $3 million to spend in Iraq. 
As one vice-president at the U.S. Institute of Peace pointed out to The 
Post, the combined cost of all the programs dedicated to encouraging 
Iraqi democracy amounts to less than what we spend on the military 
occupation in Iraq in a single day.
  Of course, in addition to being expensive in treasure, this military 
campaign has carried a devastating human cost, namely, 2,390 American 
men and women killed, all in the name of democracy that is in danger of 
never taking hold. It is not surprising, I guess, that this 
administration would shortchange democracy promotion. After all, these 
are the folks who thought there was no hard work involved in creating a 
free society. They thought all you had to do was drop a few bombs, kick 
out a brutal dictator, and democracy would miraculously and 
spontaneously spring from the oil wells or something. That is one of 
the reasons their post-war planning was so tragically inadequate.
  But this war was never really about building democracy in any real 
sense. If that had been the justification presented to the American 
people in 2002, this body and our colleagues on the other side of the 
Capitol would never have authorized the President to use military 
force.
  No, it was only after the whole weapons of mass destruction thing 
turned out to be a fraud that the administration started casting about 
for another rationale. And they came up with this fanciful notion that 
the war would give rise to democracy, not just in Iraq, but among its 
neighbors and across the region.
  Mr. Speaker, we can encourage democratic elements in Iraq without a 
military campaign that is killing Americans, killing Iraqis, and 
fomenting a civil war. It is time to bring our troops home and start 
investing in true democracy building efforts.
  I have offered a new approach to national security called SMART. This 
stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. And 
its core is the notion of investing in nations' democratic potential 
without resorting to military force.

[[Page H1713]]

  There are many elements to SMART. It calls for fighting terrorism and 
stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction through stronger 
multilateral relationships and improved intelligence. It demands that 
the United States live up to its nuclear nonproliferation commitments. 
It would redirect money we are spending on obsolete Cold War weapons 
toward homeland security and energy independence. But perhaps most 
important of all, it is a humanitarian program designed to improve 
living conditions in troubled regions of the world, to address the 
oppression and the deprivation that often give rise to terrorism in the 
very first place. That means supporting programs that promote 
sustainable development; human rights education; peaceful conflict 
resolution, educational opportunities, particularly for women and 
girls; and democracy building.
  It is time for the United States to actually put its money where its 
mouth is on promoting democracy.

                          ____________________