Calling for the adoption of a Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism ("SMART") Security Platform for the 21st Century.

Madam Speaker, the administration's war in Iraq has failed. It has failed to make the world a safer place. In fact, I fear that we are actually less safe from terrorism than we were. The world has actually been made less safe and more susceptible to acts of terror.

Who should be held accountable for this mess? The war is not going too well. Nearly 900 brave American soldiers have already lost their lives as a result of this deadly conflict, not to mention the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that have been killed. Worse, as many as 25,000 American troops have been evacuated from Iraq for medical reasons, 25,000. That is one-sixth of the number of troops currently stationed in Iraq.

This speaks to a systematic failure of leadership, and, sadly, examples of this failure are widespread and easily recalled: the failure to secure Iraq's borders, the failure to prevent postwar looting, and the failure to provide the security necessary for reconstruction. In fact, the abuse of POWs at the Abu Ghraib prison is yet another example of failed leadership by the Bush administration. And it is also an example of failed leadership in planning for the war and postwar reconstruction in Iraq.

But the most shameful aspect of our involvement in Iraq, our greatest failure of all, is our failure to provide adequately for our soldiers when it comes to equipment, the guidance, and the leadership they need to ensure their survival in Iraq and the success that they need to complete their stay in that country.

We failed to immediately provide our soldiers with the essential tools for their survival, body armor capable of stopping bullets, armor for tanks that would help prevent the destruction of U.S. military convoys, and the necessary water equipment to keep them hydrated in the desert heat. This issue is one that should have been accounted for during the planning phases of the war, not as an afterthought when our troops were stationed halfway across the world.

I ask my colleagues again who should be held accountable for this mess? Should it be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whom President Bush claimed was doing a ``superb job,'' and whom Vice President Cheney, in an absurd statement, called the best Secretary of Defense in our Nation's history? If Rumsfeld is doing a superb job, if he is the best Defense Secretary in history, then I really want to know who is the worst and what is a bad job.

Rumsfeld's consistent failure to adequately plan for the war in Iraq and the postwar phase, during which the lives of far more American soldiers have been lost than during the war itself, Donald Rumsfeld should resign his post with the best interests of the Nation in mind.

But we must also take heed of the quote made famous by President Harry S. Truman: ``The buck stops here.'' President Bush would be well served to embrace this policy, a policy that served President Truman and our Nation well during an earlier wartime. Secretary Rumsfeld must not be used as a scapegoat for the President's failures.

I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century, H. Con. Res. 392. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. Three wonderful organizations, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Women's Action for New Directions, helped in writing this legislation.

SMART treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation. And it aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations with an emphasis on women's health and women's education.

The Bush doctrine of unilateralism has been tried, and it has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy based on our commitment to peace, our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. Let us be smart about our future. SMART security, H. Res. 392, is tough, is pragmatic, is patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, American troops are being court-martialed daily for their role in the heinous crimes that took place in Abu Ghraib, the prison in Iraq. For sure, their role in these incidents is embarrassing and shameful.

But if we are searching for the true culprits for these abuses, which include the sexual assault, forced sodomy, and death of Iraqi prisoners, we need look no further than August 1, 2002.

That is the day the Justice Department advised the White House in a memo to Alberto Gonzalez, President Bush's top counsel, that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity ``may be justified.'' The memo also stated that ``necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability'' for the use of torture.

It is not just the physical abuses that took place in Iraqi prisons that is appalling. The thing that is just as appalling is that legal abuses took place here at home too within our own government, when high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice affirmed the use of torture as a war tactic.

The White House and the Pentagon approval of torture is not only shameful, it also flies in the face of America's human rights standards. And what happened to the United States setting a positive example for the rest of the world?

That is not what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would have us believe. Rumsfeld wants the American public to think that the use of torture was isolated to Abu Ghraib; that by merely court-martialing those directly responsible for inflicting the abuse who he called ``a few bad apples,'' well, now we have gotten to the bottom of it.

But the fact that torture occurred in separate places and under the command of different interrogators leads many to believe that a more systematic failure took place. And I believe that the discovery of the Justice Department's appalling sanctioning of torture confirms that belief.

Furthermore, an investigation by the New Yorker Magazine detailed a Pentagon operation that encouraged the physical coercion, otherwise known as torture, of Iraqi prisoners in an attempt to produce intelligence about the post-war insurgency in Iraq.

This information was also substantiated by Newsweek Magazine, and do not forget about the memo that called the use of torture ``justified.'' What more evidence does one need to understand that this administration condoned and approved the use of torture?

There is an eerie pattern at work here. First Guantanamo Bay, then Abu Ghraib. Now we are learning that prisoners in Afghanistan have been subjected to torture by American soldiers. It is becoming very clear that the really ``bad apples'' are at the top of the barrel. They are, in fact, in the White House.

There has to be a better way, Mr. Speaker, a more intelligent way, a way rooted in the values that we hold dear in the United States, and there is. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create smart security for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism.

SMART treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation; and it aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations,

with an emphasis on women's health and education.

SMART security means interrogation, not torture. It means an open government, one we can trust to do the right thing; not one that will hide behind Justice Department memos condoning torture and secret Pentagon plans on how to use torture to America's advantage during war.

The situation in the Middle East requires the best America has to offer. SMART security relies on the very best of America: our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership.

Let us be smart about our future in this country. SMART security is tough, SMART security is pragmatic and patriotic, and it will keep America safe and honored by the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to nuclear weapons, the policy of this administration looks like it was just pulled out of a 20-year-old time capsule. More than a decade after the fall of Soviet communism, President Bush and his national security team are still fighting the Cold War. Their budget called for more than $100 million for research and testing of new nuclear weapons, including the robust nuclear earth penetrator and a so-called low yield nuclear weapons program.

Fortunately, the Subcommittee on Energy and Water of the Committee on Appropriations lives in the year 2004 with the rest of us, and initially has rejected these requests.

Even India and Pakistan, two nations mired in generations of conflict, whose shared border has been called the world's most dangerous nuclear flashpoint, were recently able to reach a bilateral confidence building agreement on nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Bush administration enthusiastically jumps into the nuclear arms race. They believe the only good defense is a buildup of new nuclear weapons, which happens to violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that the United States signed in 1970.

They believe that the only good defense is a gigantic offense. But just how strong does our Nation need to be? We already have 9,000 strategic nuclear warheads. How many of these weapons of last resort do we require in order to be secure; how much money do we need to spend; how much money do we need to spend on nuclear weapons; how much more dangerous must we make the world; and how many domestic priorities must we neglect before we decide that enough is finally enough?

There has to be a better way, a more sensible way, an approach that, to use Abraham Lincoln's words, calls on the better angels of our nature, Mr. Speaker, there is.

I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392 to create a SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. SMART treats war as the absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction, with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation. And instead of saber rattling, instead of employing irresponsible rhetoric, like ``axis of evil,'' the SMART nonproliferation approach calls for aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements and vigorous inspection regimes.

SMART security means the United States will set an example for the rest of the world by renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons. SMART security requires that the United States honor its multilateral nonproliferation commitments. If we are going to throw our weight around, demanding that other nations cease their weapons programs, we had better make sure we are meeting our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Under SMART, we would invest fully in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the CTR, an innovative partnership in which the Pentagon is working with the former Soviet Union to dismantle the nuclear weapons that were once aimed at our cities. CTR is critical to controlling the loose nuclear materials that are scattered throughout the former Soviet Union, keeping them from falling into the hands of rogue nations or terrorist groups.

Think about the price we have already paid to control weapons of mass

destruction in Iraq, weapons that do not even exist: Hundreds of American lives lost, thousands of Iraqi lives lost, thousands and thousands, in fact over 25,000 American soldiers injured, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent. Should we not be investing in eliminating a genuine nuclear threat? And we ought to be applying the lessons of CTR's success in Russia to dealing with Iran and North Korea.

Mr. Speaker, SMART security is an example. It is tough, but it is diplomatic; it is aggressive, but peaceful; it is pragmatic, but idealistic.

Mr. Speaker, all of us who have listened to the suspension debates just before the Special Orders have to acknowledge that there are not nearly enough post offices in this country to honor all of those who have fallen as heroes in Iraq. We have to do something about that. In fact, when it comes to Iraq, the White House does not seem to know which way is up. Instead of relying on facts and truth, the Bush administration has two-timed the American people by relying on doublespeak, innuendos and, worst of all, bald-faced lies.

Last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that Iraq's elections will occur in January of 2005 regardless of what happens on the ground there. Even if half of Iraq's provinces are under the control of insurgents, preventing Iraqis from getting to the polls, elections will still take place. Secretary Rumsfeld validated this type of sham election by saying that, and I quote him, no election is perfect. Does that mean he would endorse an American Presidential election if only 25 of 50 States were able to participate? Then again, perhaps that is exactly what this administration would endorse.

Subsequent to Secretary Rumsfeld's remarks, Secretary of State Colin Powell had to slow down the administration's gears regarding the election issue, stating that the country must be secure for elections to take place. On ABC's ``This Week'' program, Secretary Powell also stated that, ``Yes, it's getting worse in Iraq. We have seen an increase in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.''

Getting worse in Iraq? That is one of the biggest understatements yet from the administration that specializes in understatements. During the past 2 weeks, 29 United States soldiers and at least 250 Iraqis have been killed, not to even mention how many of our troops have been severely wounded. U.S. forces now face 70 attacks by insurgents daily. That is up from 40 to 50 hostile incidents that occurred each day before the U.S. transferred authority to Iraq's interim government.

Contrast Secretary Powell's comments about Iraq with the unnecessarily rosy statements given by President Bush and his mouthpiece in Iraq, interim Iraqi President Ayad Allawi. Despite a disturbing wave of violence in the past several weeks, our President recently stated that Iraq is showing signs of steady progress. He has also made the outrageous claim that only a relative few of the 25 million Iraqis are trying to stop the march of freedom. In fact, there are thousands of insurgents fighting the American forces in Iraq and there are likely many, many more thousands who are sympathetic to the insurgency.

Nobody should be surprised by the Bush administration's doublespeak on this issue, because the White House has actually gotten quite good at lying directly to the American people while somehow managing to keep a straight face.

President Bush delivers only good news, like declaring the mission accomplished aboard a giant Navy ship. He paints an optimistic picture of Iraq, saying that the violence is decreasing in scope and intensity. Then the White House dispatches someone like Colin Powell to deliver the truth that Iraq is actually still mired in chaos and violence and that anti-Americanism is on the rise. It amounts to nothing less than an institutionalized method of a White House that speaks out of both sides of its mouth, telling lies to the American people. Lies instead of truth, in spite of the deaths of more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers, at least 13,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, and let us not forget about the more than 7,000 gravely wounded U.S. troops who have lost arms and legs and an inner peace they may never recover. I wonder if these individuals would agree with President Bush's assessment of steady progress in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way of handling the quagmire in Iraq. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism. If we had been following the SMART security, we would not be in Iraq in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, today, this Congress committed a shameful act of omission. When today's congressional session ended, so too ended the assault weapons ban that has helped to keep our streets safe for the past decade.

In 1994, President Clinton bravely ushered the assault weapons ban through Congress. This act took its political toll on not only President Clinton but also the Democratic Party, but he stuck to his guns, so to speak, and strongly supported passage of this important legislation.

As a result, the use of military-style automatic weapons in crimes dropped from 4 percent in 1995, before the ban had taken effect, to 1 percent in the year 2002. In fact, according to the Department of Justice, the proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped by 66 percent since 1995.

The refusal by the House Republican leadership to bring up an extension of the assault weapons ban and the failure of President Bush to push for its renewal is about much more than gun control. This issue is about nothing less than the very security of our Nation.

Today's failure to extend this important law will make Americans less safe. In fact, al Qaeda, in their training manuals that were recovered from Afghanistan, specifically cited the ease of obtaining automatic rifles and machine guns in the United States. To many terrorists around the world, America is known as the great gun bazaar.

Let us break down the facts: First, al Qaeda, our worst enemy, has specifically instructed terrorists on how to

exploit America's gun laws to obtain the weapons they intend to use to kill Americans.

Next, the United States had a proven and effective law on the books that made it difficult to purchase these deadly weapons, and this law needed to be renewed.

Finally, President Bush, who claims to be a huge homeland security supporter, stayed silent. Why did he remain silent? Why did the President not act? I believe the answer is really pretty simple.

The National Rifle Association, the NRA, refused to support President Bush's reelection bid until after the renewal date for the assault weapons ban came and went, that was today, came and went untouched by the White House. This President has been cowed by the NRA. The sad irony is that last week Vice President Dick Cheney made the outrageous claim that it is absolutely essential on November 2 that Americans make the right choice because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we will get hit again. I quote that from the Vice President's remarks.

This misleading connection in addition to insulting the intelligence of the American people wrongly asserts that a vote for John Kerry and John Edwards is a vote for terrorism. Instead, al Qaeda will be poised to hit us again because in large part on September 13, 2004, today, the Republican leadership has allowed Islamic militants and others to once again purchase American machine guns, all for the reelection of the President. How very, very shameful that is. If we truly want to secure our homeland, we need to pursue policies that are smarter than those that would decriminalize deadly weapons to elect someone to office. By the way, virtually every major law enforcement organization in the United States of America supports extending the ban.

That is why I have introduced a new SMART security platform for the 21st century. H. Con. Res. 392 is legislation to create a sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism. SMART security is stronger on national security than President Bush claims to be. SMART security will stop the sale of weapons to oppressive regimes and regimes involved in human rights abuses. SMART security will pursue enhanced inspection regimes and regional security arrangements to ensure that state sponsors of terrorism do not get ahold of more light weaponry, or even deadlier chemical or biological weapons.

Let us talk for a moment about presidential flip-flops. When it comes to keeping assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists, George Bush speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Mr. Speaker, there are few images more glamorous in our popular culture than that of the debonair spy. There is a reason that James Bond movies have been audience favorites for more than 40 years. But this is one case where art does not even come close to imitating life.

There is nothing romantic about the state of America's intelligence. It is a tired, rusty, bureaucratic, multi-headed beast that is letting down the American people. Fifteen different Federal Government agencies are a part of our intelligence apparatus, and that does not even include the ad hoc intelligence team the administration gathered to advance its phantom case that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Fifteen agencies. That is 15 chains of command, 15 unique institutional cultures, 15 fiefdoms. It is a recipe for disaster, for turf battles, and ego clashes which stand in the way of the most critical work imaginable: Keeping the American people safe.

According to Bob Woodward's book, former CIA Director George Tenet told the President that he had a ``slam dunk'' case for war. In reality, Tenet could not get the different players on his own team to pass the ball to one another.

Here is what I want to know: If organizing the hodgepodge Department of Homeland Security was so important that people were called unpatriotic for opposing it, then why is it not just as urgent to unite U.S. intelligence under a single umbrella?

Earlier this week, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence considered H.R. 4104 introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), which would have restructured the intelligence community. This bill would have coordinated the 15 intelligence agencies, making them accountable to a single Director of National Intelligence. The bill further integrates the agencies by promoting information sharing and creating incentives for cooperation between them. But the Republicans on the committee shot this bill down.

In the same meeting, the majority rejected an amendment to fully fund counterterrorism intelligence, instead providing only 25 percent of the additional funds that are needed. It is appalling that many of the same folks who were vigilant about keeping a tight lid on intelligence information have offered nothing more than a shrug at the news that Ahmad Chalabi revealed to the Iranians that he had intercepted their secret communication codes. It is unthinkable to me that on the heels of some of the most colossal and embarrassing intelligence failures in American history, the majority is eager to stick with the status quo.

This is a situation that is crying out for reform. We failed to connect the dots that might have enabled us to intercept the 9/11 plot. Our Iraqi intelligence in the run-up to the war was based on mistakes, at best; outright deception, at worst. The administration wants to rewrite the Constitution to say who can marry whom, to give tax breaks to the Americans who need them the least, to read our e-mail and examine our library-borrowing habits, neither of which has anything to do with detaining terrorists, but when faced with a genuine problem, like the state of American intelligence, one that truly endangers the American people, they do not have the will to act.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to act. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART security treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation. And to meet every one of its goals, SMART security will rely on a robust, efficient, integrated intelligence community.

Until we get serious about overhauling U.S. intelligence, I fear that that very term, U.S. intelligence, may become an oxymoron.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government Accountability Office issued a report stating that the Pentagon will need an estimated $12.3 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September.

The extraordinary amount of money needed to pay for our major military operations is not surprising. What greatly troubles me, once again, is the sheer unwillingness of the Bush administration to adequately plan and prepare for those military operations. The additional $12.3 billion is triple, triple the amount that General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, projected in April would be needed to make it through September. President Bush and the top brass at the Pentagon have, once again, underestimated the resources needed to sustain our military halfway across the world.

The sad part is that many of us have actually come to expect President Bush to shortchange our troops. Military operations are costing more than the Pentagon estimated, in part because top officials expected that Iraq would be a peaceful democracy by now and we could start bringing our troops home. But it does not take a genius to realize that rebuilding a country from the ground up, an entire country that has been decimated by a brutal dictator, takes years, possibly decades.

The costs of these failures are adding up, Mr. Speaker, both in human and in financial terms. Two days ago the United States reached another disheartening milestone when the 900th American soldier was killed in Iraq. Moreover, due to a shortage of qualified soldiers, the Pentagon has shamefully reenlisted the Ready Reserve, a group of retired soldiers who have moved on to civilian life.

Congress has already appropriated nearly $200 billion in supplemental funds to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That number could easily reach $1 trillion before the end of this decade. We cannot possibly fund the war in Iraq at the rate we are going, especially if we want to truly address the threat of terrorism, that threat which, by the way, was never in Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found. Instead of rooting out terrorist networks in Afghanistan, the Bush administration chose to focus on Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to al-Qaeda.

In the process, we have not only failed to adequately address the growing terrorist threat; we have actually added to that threat by incurring the wrath of thousands of Muslims who think we are fighting a war against Islam.

We need to be much smarter about how we address America's national security, Mr. Speaker. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. In crafting this legislation, my staff and I received the help and support of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Women's Action for New Directions. Without the counsel of these organizations, SMART security would not have happened as it did.

SMART security is more vigilant than President Bush claims to be in fighting terror. Instead of emphasizing military force, SMART focuses on multilateral partnerships and stronger intelligence capabilities to track and detain terrorists, and it does so while respecting human and civil rights.

Terrorism is an international problem, and so it makes sense that the fight against terrorism should involve the international community. That is why SMART security calls for working closely with the U.N. and with NATO to achieve our goals. Only by actively involving other nations in this fight can we hope to prevent future acts of terrorism.

It is time America got smart about its national security. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this vitally important resolution, H. Con. Res. 392, because SMART security is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, in their public speeches about the war in Iraq, President Bush and Vice President Cheney often invoke the notion of sacrifice and responsibility. They insist that every American support their war in Iraq, and those that do not are labeled un- American, traitors, even treasonous.

According to this model, then, it follows that the White House would encourage patriotic, trustworthy companies to carry out the reconstruction of Iraq's war-torn infrastructure, their schools and hospitals, public buildings, roads and more. But that is just not happening.

Halliburton, which has been awarded reconstruction contracts left and right, does not seem terribly motivated by Bush and Cheney's notion of sacrifice and responsibility. Perhaps all those no-bid contracts have gone to their heads, or perhaps Halliburton is still reeling from the fumes of the millions of gallons of gasoline it has been contracted to import into Iraq, one of many hefty contracts specifically coordinated by Dick Cheney's office.

You may recall that Vice President Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton. The problem is that, once again, the Vice President has lied to the American people about his involvement with his old employer, an employer that still pays him nearly $200,000 each year in deferred salary and with whom he holds nearly 500,000 company shares.

On September 4 of last year, Vice President Cheney said on ``Meet the Press,'' ``As Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts let by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government.''

But that statement deeply contradicts an internal Pentagon e-mail obtained by Time Magazine, sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official on March 5, 2003, stating that the Vice President's office specifically coordinated a recent multibillion dollar contract in Iraq with Halliburton. That is the Vice President's office.

The e-mail specifies that Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith had appallingly ``coordinated'' the contract with the Vice President's office.

I wonder if Vice President Cheney's coordination of lucrative contracts for his former employer appeals to the same high patriotic standards that he regularly invokes for the rest of us in his speeches. Or perhaps there is a double standard at work, a policy of patriotism when it is convenient, and another policy of sheer greed and selfishness when Halliburton comes knocking on the door with its $200,000 in annual deferred salary for the Vice President.

There has to be a better way, because the Bush doctrine of cronyism has been tried; and it has failed utterly. It is time for a new security strategy, one that emphasizes brains instead of brawn, depends on quality and sincerity in all business negotiations, and one that is consistent with the best American values.

I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. SMART treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships that control the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation; and it aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations, with an emphasis on women's health and education.

The United States can no longer afford foreign presidents watching as our national leaders reward their buddies with contracts worth billions of dollars and then turn around and call dissenters unpatriotic and un- American.

Instead, let us rely on the very best of America, our commitment to peace, our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership.

Let us be smart about our future. SMART security is tough, SMART security is pragmatic and patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, not all Members of Congress supported the war in Iraq, but we all have to live with its consequences. The global havoc wreaked by this war will affect the world in ways that we can only imagine today.

Let us not forget that more than 1,200 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Over 9,000 have been wounded, and an estimated 16,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of this war. In fact, 16,000 is probably a very low estimate.

The growing Iraqi insurgency, like the global War on Terror, cannot be won by being stronger than the insurgents. We cannot win this war with guns and bombs, because for every insurgent we kill, three more sign up. We have to be smarter than the insurgents. We are going to win this battle of conflicting ideologies only if we use our good senses and our good hearts.

We know that the anger at the heart of the Iraqi insurgency stems from, at least in part, a deep resentment over the American presence in their country. After years of Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime, the Iraqi people see the United States as just another occupying force.

We have to make a choice in Iraq. Do we want to address the root causes of the insurgency or do we want to continue down our current path, shooting

and bombing everything in sight and perpetually fighting a losing battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?

We must reopen the debate about the situation in Iraq to determine why our current policies are not working. We must figure out why the insurgency continues to grow despite our military efforts. Only through a robust, public dialogue can we begin to get to the bottom of these questions.

To address the root cause of terrorism around the world, such as the current insurgency in Iraq, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a SMART Security Resolution for the 21st Century. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism.

SMART security calls for the United States to address the root causes of terrorism by engaging our United Nations partners, by engaging also the world humanitarian community and all of our United States allies in the international and civilian-led reconstruction and political transition processes that we are involved in.

Can my colleagues imagine what Iraq might look like if, instead of rushing to invade the country, we had waited just a few months and continued to engage the rest of the world community in the weapons inspection process? We would have learned that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. We would have prevented the deaths of thousands of American troops and innocent Iraqi civilians.

Imagine if, after the invasion, we had allowed other Nations and the U.N. to partner with the United States in engaging the Iraqis in the reconstruction program. We would not be faced with billions of dollars of debt because the finances of cleanup would have been offset by dozens of other donor Nations.

SMART security calls for increased developmental aid for programs that are integrated with peace building and conflict prevention measures. Unfortunately, we are struggling to provide funds for Iraqi's development because we are too busy paying for military operations, and the insurgents are busy working against our every effort in that regard.

Already, the White House has asked Congress to pilfer $3 billion from Iraq's reconstruction funds in order to pay for military operations. That request represents a complete failure to adequately plan and prepare for this war.

Mr. Speaker, the United States must stop engaging in this reckless national security strategy, a strategy whose current path only encourages future terrorist activities.

It is time we pursued a SMART security strategy for America, a strategy that will secure Iraq, a strategy that will keep America safe and secure for the future, because, if we do not, all we will be left with are the consequences of our current failed policies.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the 1,000th American soldier was killed in Iraq; 1,000 young men and women who will never again return to their homes and experience the warm embrace of their parents and others who love them.

Young men and young women have died for a war the United States entered not of necessity, but out of choice. An attack against a country that never possessed the illegal weapons it was accused of possessing, a war in a country that never once threatened the United States. And this war is not over.

Worst of all, of the 1,000 soldiers that have died in Iraq, over 850 of them were killed after President Bush declared the ``end of major combat operations.'' He made his now-infamous speech aboard a Navy vessel displaying a banner that read ``Mission Accomplished.'' That was 15 months ago yesterday.

Obviously the Bush administration has failed, failed dramatically in its postwar custodianship of Iraq.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib have emboldened our enemies and provided them with ammunition for the war of images waged on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. The moral support shared by countries around the world in the months after September 11, 2001, has long since evaporated.

When it comes to supporting our troops abroad, we have not done much better. A recent Pentagon study acknowledged that about one-third of all American casualties in Iraq could have been prevented if the military had outfitted every soldier with state-of-the-art body armor. Thirty thousand troops, most of them members of the Army Reserve and National Guard, did not have vital equipment for several months after facing battle situations in Iraq.

In addition to the 1,000 soldiers killed in the war in Iraq, this war has cost the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, which some estimate to be as high as 15,000. And it is estimated that 7,000 of our troops and our civilian forces have died, or 20,000 have been evacuated out of Iraq for medical reasons.

This is a failure. This is a war that has failed. It has taken a huge economic toll in the form of a whopping $200 billion in congressional appropriations, money that should have been invested here at home and used to pay for the real war against terrorism, a war that never has included Iraq. The Bush administration's line is that the war in Iraq was essential in fighting the so-called war on terrorism. Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan, commenting on the number of troops

killed, claimed that ``the best way to honor all those who lost their lives in the war on terrorism is to continue to wage a broad war and spread freedom throughout a dangerous part of the world.'' What a shameful thing that was to say.

It is clearly time for a new national security policy. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392 to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART security treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. SMART security invests in the development of impoverished nations to prevent terrorism from taking root in the first place.

SMART security is about preventing war, as opposed to preemptive war. It emphasizes brains over brawn. It is tough, but diplomatic; aggressive, but peaceful; pragmatic, but idealistic.

President Bush loves to think that those who support his efforts in Iraq are patriotic, and those that think there is a better way are unpatriotic, or, worse, un-American. But I can think of nothing more patriotic than pursuing a national security policy that protects America by relying on the noblest of American values: our capacity for global leadership, our compassion for the people of the world, our commitment to peace and freedom.

Madam Speaker, in the days and weeks after September 11, 2001, Americans pulled together to restore our country after the worst terrorist attack in United States history. For the rest of September that year, there were no Democrats, there were no Republicans, there were only Americans.

In those trying times in the fall of the year 2001, I believe that no American would have hesitated to make a substantial sacrifice for the good of the country, just as Americans have done

in other times of need, like during World War II and the 1979 energy crisis.

If President Bush had asked America in the days after September 11 to cut down on the use of fossil fuels in order to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil, America would have responded. Sadly, the President did not ask us to do any such thing.

Instead of asking Americans to sacrifice, President Bush irresponsibly gave the top 1 percent of Americans a huge tax cut, leaving our children and their children to pick up the tab for the unnecessary war in Iraq, a cost already over $200 billion. Because nothing endangers America's security more than our reliance on Mideast oil, instead of promoting these reckless tax cuts, the Bush administration should have advocated immediate development of sustainable and renewable energy alternatives.

I am not the only one who realizes this. Just ask the good people at Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Women's Action For New Direction. These groups understand that our dependence on unsustainable energy sources, like Mideast oil, undermines America's security and our health.

And speaking about health, 50 years from now, our children will ask us how we allowed starvation, poverty, and diseases like HIV and AIDS and tuberculosis to flourish in other countries while the citizens of wealthy nations who have so much were not inflicted as greatly. That is why any attempt to fight terrorism must also include providing humanitarian aid to the poorest nations. Humanitarian aid in the form of food and medical supplies would restore hope to the world's poorest people. Nothing breeds terrorism like the hopelessness and despair brought about by starvation, disease and poverty.

For sure, the United States needs to lead the rest of the world when it comes to fighting terrorism, but the U.S., the strongest and richest country in the world, must lead by example rather than through invading other nations and killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process.

Throwing our weight around will not gain the support of other nations. Instead, we must meet our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. There has to be a better way to respond to the threats America faces. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism.

SMART security treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships, and it controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements and vigorous inspection regimes. SMART security defends America by relying on the very best of America, not our nuclear capabilities but our capacity for multinational leadership and our commitment to peace and freedom around the world.

Madam Speaker, the true moral test of our government is not how many wars we win, it is our compassion, our compassion for those in the world who are less fortunate than we are. It is how we treat these individuals that determines the true moral quality of America. Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Women's Action For New Direction, and many Americans understand this.