[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 589-590]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                SMART SECURITY: INCREASE DEVELOPMENT AID

  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, it's not often that you'll hear me, Lynn 
Woolsey, say this, but I have recently found myself on the same page of 
a very important issue, at least in principle, with the leaders of the 
tea party movement and other top lawmakers on the other side of the 
aisle.
  They've said that the military budget must be on the table in any 
discussion about reducing Federal spending. I agree. I agree 
completely. The Progressive Caucus has for several years offered 
specific cuts that would in no way impact our ability to provide for 
the national defense but that would actually cut the Pentagon spending. 
Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker:
  When it came time for the rubber to meet the road, well, guess what 
happened. The Republican Study Group released their list of cuts last 
week, and lo and behold, not a single dime of actual Pentagon cuts was 
in there.
  What was included were irresponsible cuts to public housing, high-
speed rail and economic development, among other things, to say nothing 
of what would happen to funding for national parks, Pell Grants and 
NIH, if they followed through with their plans to cut non-defense 
discretionary spending to what they recommend--to 2006 levels. But 
perhaps the most reckless of all was the proposal to zero out funding 
for USAID, the United States Agency for International Development.
  It just goes to show the narrowness of their perspective when it 
comes to national security. When they think about protecting America, 
they think only of weapons and warfare. In fact, that's the approach 
our policymakers have taken for the last decade in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and it has cost us nearly 6,000 American lives, plus more 
than $1 trillion of the people's money, while doing next to nothing to 
defeat the terrorist threat.
  What we need instead is a SMART Security policy, with humanitarian 
aid like the kind distributed by USAID as a centerpiece. Instead of a 
military surge, we need a civilian surge. Wherever there is poverty and 
deprivation around the world, we need to be there with assistance that 
promotes stability and keeps terrorism from taking root in the first 
place. I'm talking about everything from debt relief to democracy 
promotion, to human rights, to sustainable development, to education, 
especially including education for women and girls.
  Mr. Speaker, development aid gives the taxpayer plenty of bang for 
the buck, and it actually costs pennies on the dollar. It represents a 
microscopic portion of the Federal budget. Yet development aid has 
great influence when it comes to creating the conditions for global 
stability and global peace.
  If we are serious about national security in the 21st century, if we 
are serious about projecting moral authority and honoring American 
values, then we must dramatically increase humanitarian aid, and we 
must not cut it. If

[[Page 590]]

we are serious about deficit reduction, it is time to address the real 
waste and excess--the Pentagon--which has enjoyed a blank check for far 
too long.
  So I applaud the majority if they are truly prepared to cut military 
spending; but so far, I hear more talking points than serious 
proposals. I have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it is all talk until 
it is not, and if the majority party wants to do something that would 
advance our security goals while dramatically reining in Federal 
spending, then they should join me in a call to immediately bring our 
troops home from Afghanistan.

                          ____________________