[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 129 (Wednesday, November 15, 2006)]
[House]
[Page H8658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             SMART SECURITY

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last week the American people voted for a 
new direction in the Nation's Iraq policy. If anything, with the 
mandate this Democratic majority received, we can be more unapologetic 
than ever about demanding an end to the Iraq occupation and insisting 
that we bring our troops home.
  But I believe Iraq is a symptom of an even larger problem, that is, a 
foreign policy that chooses saber rattling over diplomacy and 
negotiation.
  We need an entirely new national security paradigm. For too long, we 
have equated national security with war and with conquest. It is time 
we used less brawn and more brains to protect our people and our 
interests.
  Iraq is exhibit A in the case that hawkishness does not necessarily 
make America safer.
  That is where a SMART security plan comes. SMART stands for sensible, 
multilateral, American response to terrorism.
  At its core is a belief that war is a very last resort, that 
peacekeeping and diplomacy, not invasion and occupation, must be the 
guiding lights of our foreign policy.
  SMART also focuses on stopping the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction. Not by deposing regimes that do not have them, but with 
diplomacy, with vigorous inspection regimes and regional security 
arrangements.
  SMART calls for a renewed commitment to the cooperative threat 
reduction program and calls on the United States to set an example for 
the world by living up to our own commitments to draw down our nuclear 
arsenal.
  Because, Mr. Speaker, what moral authority do we have to pressure 
Iran or North Korea about their nuclear ambitions when our government 
consistently undermines the nuclear and ignores our multilateral 
obligations in this very area?
  Being smart about national security means dramatically rearranging 
our budget priorities, which in turn means fewer obsolete Cold War 
weapons systems and more investment in strategies that actually address 
the security challenges of a new era.
  Any smart approach to national security must include an ambitious 
international development program for impoverished nations, debt 
relief, democracy building, schooling for women and girls, human rights 
education, environmental programs, infrastructure development and more.
  Think about this, Mr. Speaker. With the money spent on the invasion 
and occupation of Iraq, we could have fully funded global antihunger 
efforts for 14 years or provided basic immunization to children around 
the world for 113 years or fully funded worldwide AIDS programs for 34 
years. We could have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to save 
lives, instead of destroying them.
  For the sake of the next generation, the only future that we have 
got, before we have destroyed civilization itself, we should strive for 
nothing less than the end of all wars.
  Because of the insanity of war and its disproportionate impact on 
children, I am pledging never again to cast a vote in Congress in favor 
of any military action, barring an attack on the United States or 
protecting against genocide and/or ethnic cleansing, and then only with 
multilateral humanitarian intervention.
  Nor will I pick sides in violent global conflicts, except to condemn 
all acts of war and terror regardless of ideology, regardless of 
national interests or religion that motivates them. I refuse to decide 
who is less wrong.
  If I could be persuaded that taking up arms actually builds enduring 
stability, I would reconsider my position, but this notion that war 
begets peace is as illogical as it sounds. Our preemptive strike on 
Iraq has, in fact, been a catalyst for increased violence and higher 
rates of terrorism. Our continued occupation is emboldening the 
insurgents rather than defeating them. Instead of liberating a nation, 
the Bush doctrine has ripped it apart, ripped it apart at the seams, 
and instead of protecting America, it has dealt a blow to our very 
security.
  ``War,'' said Martin Luther King, Junior, ``is a poor chisel to carve 
out tomorrow.'' Tomorrow belongs to our children. So for their sake, 
Mr. Speaker, let us protect America by relying not on our basest 
impulses, but on the most honorable and humane of American values, and 
let us bring our troops home now from Iraq.

                          ____________________