[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7049-7050]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             SMART SECURITY

  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, I rise today to offer a new SMART approach 
to national security, an approach that emphasizes brains instead of 
brawn, one that is consistent with American values.
  Talk about mistakes. It has been 1 year since the President of the 
United States, without just cause, or, in fact, being provoked, invaded 
Iraq. Hundreds of Americans have given their lives for this war, not to 
mention the thousands wounded, the billions of dollars spent, and the 
international goodwill squandered.
  We were told that this war was necessary to keep us safe. We were 
told Saddam Hussein had the world's most dangerous weapons aimed at 
American cities. Now even the President makes tacky jokes about looking 
for the missing weapons of mass destruction under his sofa.
  We were told by the administration that Saddam was in cahoots with al 
Qaeda. Now Richard Clark tells us that invading Iraq in response to 9/
11 was as senseless as it would have been if FDR had attacked Mexico in 
response to Pearl Harbor.
  The President's national security policy is not just immoral. It is 
incompetent. There has to be a better way and there is.
  I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform for 
the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American 
Response to Terrorism, and it has five major components.
  In the first section, we address preventing future acts of terrorism. 
SMART security is more vigilant than the President on fighting terror; 
but instead of military force, SMART emphasizes multilateral 
partnerships and stronger intelligence capabilities to track and detain 
terrorists.
  Second, we need to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction; 
and we can do it with aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear 
nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous 
inspection regimes.
  Third, we must address terrorism's root causes. The first front in 
the war on terror has to be confronting the despair and deprivation 
that foster it. That is why SMART security includes an ambitious 
international development agenda: democracy-building, human rights 
education, and sustainable development and education for women and 
girls in oppressive nations. Instead of troops, let's send scientists, 
teachers, urban planners, agricultural experts, and small business 
loans to troubled parts of the world.
  Fourth, let us rethink our budget priorities. We need stronger 
investments in peacekeeping and reconstruction, less spending on 
missile defense and outdated Cold War systems, a more serious financial 
commitment to homeland security and first responders, and a real 
strategy for energy independence, especially support for the 
development of renewable energy sources, because nothing threatens 
national security more than reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
  Fifth, and the final section of the SMART security platform, stresses 
that the United States must pursue to the fullest extent alternatives 
to war. SMART security calls for prevention over preemption. War should 
be the very last resort to be considered, only after every single 
diplomatic solution has been exhausted.
  The SMART legislation promotes more effective conflict assessment in 
early warning systems, multilateral rapid response mechanisms, human 
rights monitoring, civilian policing, and investments in civil society 
programs and fair judicial systems.

[[Page 7050]]



                              {time}  2030

  Keeping Americans safe must be the Federal Government's most urgent 
priority. On that point, the President and I agree. But his mistake is 
in equating security with aggression and military force. In fact, his 
appetite for belligerence and bloodshed only weakens us and makes us 
more vulnerable, encouraging further violence and increasing the risk 
of nuclear destruction.
  And while we are at it, maybe we ought to expand our definition of 
national security. Can a Nation whose public schools fail its poor 
children and leave more than 40 million of its people without health 
coverage truly be considered secure? The Bush doctrine has been tried, 
and it has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy.
  Smart security defends America by relying on the very best of 
America: Our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the 
people of the world, and our capacity to work with leadership around 
the world.

                          ____________________