[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 13]
[House]
[Page 17655]
[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 to register my continued sadness and 
frustration with the Nation's Iraq policy. As much of Washington now 
focuses on a Supreme Court nomination, and as many Americans prepare 
for August vacations, I hope none of us forget the sacrifice of our men 
and women in uniform and the disastrous decisions that put them in 
harm's way in the very first place.
  We are fast approaching 1,800 deaths in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, and for 
what? Are we any safer from terrorism? The recent attacks in London 
would seem to indicate that we are not. If the Iraq war has done so 
much to enhance American Security, why did we have to expand the 
PATRIOT Act last week and clamp down even further on our civil 
liberties?
  The truth is our military presence in Iraq is contributing to the 
chaos there, not alleviating it. The occupation has sparked more 
intense feelings of anti-Americanism and breathed new life into the 
insurgency. A recent government report even voices concerns that 
terrorists and insurgents are succeeding at infiltrating the Iraqi 
police force.
  Like all of my friends in Congress, I believe nothing is more 
important than supporting our troops, but I believe the best way to 
support them is to bring them home to their families as soon as 
possible. Ending the war should be the first step in a complete 
overhaul in our approach to a national security policy. We must 
redirect our priorities and our resources so that peace and diplomacy, 
not aggression and chest-beating, become the guiding lights of our 
foreign policy.
  I have come up with a plan that I have labeled SMART Security, with 
SMART standing for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to 
Terrorism. There are five components to SMART.
  First, stop future acts of terrorism, not by arbitrarily invading 
sovereign nations, but by collaborating with NATO and the U.N., by 
strengthening our intelligence capabilities, and by enhancing efforts 
to cut off financing of terrorist organizations.
  Second, stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, not by 
deposing regimes that do not have them, but with diplomacy, enhanced 
inspection regimes, and regional security arrangements. The United 
States should also work more closely with the states of the Soviet 
Union to secure loose nuclear material, and we should set an example 
for the world by living up to our own international nonproliferation 
commitments.
  Third, address root causes of terrorism, like instability, despair 
and hopelessness. So SMART includes an ambitious international 
development program, debt relief, democracy building, sustainable 
development education, especially for women and for girls, and more for 
poor nations.
  Fourth, shift U.S. budget priorities. Does it make any sense at all, 
Mr. Speaker, that we continue to invest billions of dollars in a 
missile defense shield? The Cold War is over, and our defense 
priorities should reflect the new threats of a new era. Among other 
things, we ought to be investing in renewable energy sources that will 
help wean the Nation from Middle Eastern oil. It is unbelievable to me 
that the Congress may soon pass an energy bill that costs us billions 
of dollars, but barely addresses the problem of dependence on oil 
imports.
  Fifth, pursue alternatives to war. At its core, SMART is about 
choosing peace over war and resorting to force only in the most extreme 
circumstances. So it includes an emphasis on effective conflict 
assessment, early warning systems, multilateral response mechanisms, 
and other tools that will help avoid military action.
  Mr. Speaker, our current national security posture is not only 
morally questionable, it is functionally flawed. My objection is not 
just a philosophical one, but a practical one. What we are doing now is 
not making America safer.
  It is time to get smart about national security. It is time for a new 
strategy that protects America by relying on the very best of American 
values, our love of peace, our capacity for global leadership, our 
belief in freedom and opportunity, and our compassionate fellowship 
with the people of the world.

                          ____________________