Calling for the adoption of a Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism (SMART) security platform for the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to take a good, hard look at the role the United States is playing in Iraq and whether or not it is in our national interest to maintain a military presence.

We need to acknowledge the fact that Iraq's insurgency is growing in strength, not diminishing, and that the very presence of 150,000 American troops on Iraqi soil appears as though they see us as occupiers that actually unites the growing collection of insurgent forces.

Since our military presence actually encourages further fighting, this war will continue as long as U.S. troops remain in Iraq. That is why Congress must accept the fact that we cannot possibly bring our involvement in Iraq to any kind of successful conclusion through military means.

Yesterday, during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, I offered an amendment urging the President to develop a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Surprisingly, this was the first time the House has formally debated the possibility of withdrawal from Iraq. We were allotted only 30 minutes for the debate: 15 minutes on my side, 15 minutes on the side opposing my amendment. But it is no surprise, of course, the amendment was defeated. But in spite of that, it is clear that the Congress is starting to get serious about a plan for leaving Iraq. 128 Members, including five Republicans, voted for this amendment.

But there is much more work to do, Mr. Speaker. The Iraq war has now raged on for more than 2 years, and we are no closer to winning this conflict than we were when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations under an arrogant banner declaring ``Mission Accomplished.''

Despite this lack of progress, the war has exacted a deeply troubling human and financial toll. In just over 2 years of war, more than 1,600 American soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqi innocents have been killed. The Pentagon lists the number of Americans wounded as just over 12,000. But that does not take into account even the invisible wounds many of our soldiers will be bringing home and have already brought home, the painful mental trauma they have contracted from months and years of fighting. When accounting for these psychological injuries, the number of wounded jumps to nearly 40,000.

To date, Congress has appropriated more than $200 billion for military operations in Iraq, despite little to no oversight as to how these funds are going to be spent, which has allowed $9 billion in reconstruction funds to just vanish from the coffers of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was the American governing body that managed Iraq until the year 2004.

Given what is at stake here, do the American people not deserve a plan? Do our brave men and women, who are selflessly sacrificing their lives, not to mention their arms, legs, for a war that we should not be in in the first place, not deserve a plan?

Let us not forget that the legislative branch is constitutionally mandated to oversee expenditures from our National Treasury. Instead of allowing fat-cat war profiteers like Halliburton and its subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, to line their pockets as war profiteers, it is time Congress started fulfilling our responsibility.

We must develop a smarter agenda. We must develop an agenda that will help Iraq, and we will then be able to reduce our military occupation. We must insist on planning by the Bush administration. This 2-year war has left us disturbingly weak against the true security threats we face. Let us not forget that Osama bin laden is still at large and al Qaeda continues to recruit new members in Iraq as well as the rest of the Middle East.

Fortunately, there is a plan that would secure America for the future: the SMART Security concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 158, which I recently reintroduced with the support of 49 of my House colleagues. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century. It will help us address the threats we face as a Nation. SMART Security will prevent terrorism by addressing the very conditions which allow terrorism to take root: poverty, despair, resource scarcity, and lack of educational opportunity. Instead of rushing off to war under false pretenses, SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues.

Mr. Speaker, in the first Presidential debate of the 2004 Presidential election, moderator Jim Lehrer asked the candidates what they believe is the single most serious threat to the national security of the United States. Without delay, Senator Kerry responded ``nuclear proliferation.'' When President Bush had the opportunity to respond, he agreed that nuclear nonproliferation is the biggest threat we face as a Nation.

If the President agrees that nuclear nonproliferation is such a grave and immediate threat, why does he and why does his administration continue to seek the creation of new nuclear weapons? Why does the President continue to seek funds to study the creation of the robust nuclear Earth penetrator, otherwise known as the ``bunker buster'' bomb? Why does this year's defense authorization bill continue this ridiculous trend by recommending a Department of Defense study about the possibility of creating the bunker buster?

Mr. Speaker, the stated purpose of the bunker buster is to destroy caves and difficult-to-reach terrorist hideouts, but the bunker buster is completely unnecessary. The United States military already is capable of bombing these remote locations, and they do not need to use nuclear weapons.

The bunker buster is also extremely dangerous. A detonation of this deadly weapon would create an enormous, uncontrollable explosion, spreading toxic, radioactive materials over a large area; and an explosion could cause the death of thousands of innocent civilians and devastate large tracts of lands.

How many times must we consider the merits or lack thereof of the bunker buster bomb? How many times must sensible nonproliferation priorities compete with a dangerous nuclear arms race?

To address the true security threats we face, I have introduced the SMART Security resolution, H. Con. Res. 158, with the support of 49 of my House colleagues. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. It encourages renewed nonproliferation efforts over continued nuclear buildup.

SMART urges sufficient funding and support for nonproliferation efforts in countries that possess nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. One of the best ways to accomplish this goal is through CTR, the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program successfully works with Russia to dismantle and safeguard excess nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the former Soviet Union.

Under this program, more than 20,000 Russian scientists, formerly tasked with creating nuclear weapons, are now working to dismantle them. That is why SMART Security includes robust support for the current CTR model, including expanding the program to other nations such as Libya and Pakistan, nations that possess excess nuclear weapons and excess nuclear materials.

To promote these efforts, earlier today I introduced an amendment to the Defense authorization bill to expand CTR. My amendment would bring this important program to Libya and Pakistan, two countries that are known to possess nuclear materials.

We need to utilize our diplomatic relationships to encourage these two countries to give up their dangerous nuclear materials, and the best way to do so is through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program.

CTR is but one of the broad array of national security programs in SMART security and an effective one at that. But any attempt to rid the world of nuclear weapons must include nonproliferation efforts at home, in the United States. We must set an example for the rest of the world by fulfilling our international pledge to end our nuclear program and dismantle our existing weapons.

Mr. Speaker, continued efforts to study the feasibility of the bunker buster bomb are the very antithesis of these international commitments. When the United States engages in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we lower the threshold and actually encourage other countries to proliferate with the possibility of actually using nuclear weapons. Instead, let us get smart.

Let us be smart about this issue and work both here at home and abroad to end the proliferation of any and all nuclear bombs. We owe this to our children and we owe this to their children.

Mr. Speaker, I am more than disappointed by reports that last month's conference to review the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was not a success. At the treaty review conference, representatives from more than 150 nations met at the United Nations headquarters in New York for a month of meetings to address the most urgent global threat we face, the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This conference provided a great opportunity for the global community to improve its collective efforts to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons capabilities, deter terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons, and ensure that the current nuclear states work to reduce their nuclear stockpiles.

Let us not forget that the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which the United States ratified in 1972, does not just declare that non-nuclear states cannot develop nuclear weapons. It also states that the countries currently in possession of nuclear weapons must work to reduce their stockpiles, with the ultimate goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether. Clearly, the goals for the treaty review conference were challenging; but the United States could have, and should have, made headway by living up to our international commitments.

Unfortunately, a major reason that the NPT conference was considered a failure was America's focus on the threats posed by Iran and North Korea, while at the same time failing to agree to reduce our own nuclear arsenal. The United States currently possesses more than 10,000 nuclear weapons. In fact, at the same time the NPT conference was taking place, the Bush administration and many Republicans in Congress were actually pushing ahead with plans to fund a new nuclear weapon, the so-called bunker buster bomb. The Bush administration's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, while demanding that Iran and North Korea disarm, demonstrates a rare level of supreme arrogance and hypocrisy, even for this most arrogant of Presidential administrations.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree that the threats posed by Iran and North Korea must be taken seriously. If we fail to take the proper diplomatic actions, both nations could soon possess a sizable and dangerous nuclear arsenal. But why would we expect other countries to dismantle their nuclear infrastructures unless we maintain our nonproliferation commitments?

SMART security, H. Con. Res. 158, which is a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism, is a positive approach to this very challenge. SMART security promotes efforts to reduce the buildup of nuclear weapons and materials, using the cooperative threat reduction program as an

example of how to accomplish this important goal. Through CTR, the United States and Russia are working together to dismantle excess nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the former Soviet Union. And because of CTR, 20,000 Russian scientists who formerly worked to create nuclear weapons are now working to destroy them.

SMART security also urges an expansion of the successful CTR program to countries like Libya and Pakistan. Using our diplomatic relationships with these countries to encourage them to give up their dangerous nuclear materials is part of SMART security. But CTR is merely one of the broad array of national security initiatives in the SMART security platform. Any attempt to rid the world of nuclear weapons must begin with nonproliferation efforts here at home, in the United States of America. We must fulfill our international pledge to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles and resist building new nuclear weapons. President Bush's continued efforts to study and fund the bunker buster bomb is the exact opposite of these efforts.

The United States must set an example for the rest of the world by pursuing smart policies, policies that promote nuclear reduction, not nuclear proliferation; policies that support global initiatives to secure nuclear materials, not global nuclear buildup. It is time to end the era of nuclear weapons. This effort begins here in the United States Congress with SMART security.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to reduce the threat of terrorism against the United States, we must rust reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Nothing threatens our country and our security more than our reliance on oil from repressive Middle East regimes like Saudi Arabia and Libya.

Of the 21 million barrels of oil consumed by the U.S. each day, 14 million are imported from other countries. Most are imported from the Middle East, where as we know democracy is not pervasive. This lack of democracy allow the authoritarian leaders of many Middle East countries to pocket billions of dollars each year from American oil purchases.

So while the leaders of these countries are becoming increasingly wealthy, the rest of their people fail to benefit from the oil proceeds. Sadly, this economic disparity allows the powerful elite to tighten their hold over their people.

This repressive power structure allows the conditions which give rise to terrorism, resource scarcity, extreme poverty, and lack of education to run rampant. It is quite clear that we need to decrease our dependance on foreign oil in order to keep America safe from the threat of terrorism.

But there is a right way, and there is a wrong way to accomplish this goal. Many Members of Congress have suggested, today in fact, that we can simply drill for gas and oil off the coasts of our shores, or in places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to solve our energy crisis.

Unfortunately this suggestion is just plain wrong. In fact, drilling for oil in the United States would do little to immediately reduce our dependance on foreign oil, because it would take at least a decade to get a drilling operation up and running in ANWR or off our coasts, and even then there is no telling whether there is usable oil.

That does not sound like a comprehensive energy strategy to me. No. Drilling for oil just is not the answer. We need to accept the fact that fossil fuel is a thing of the past. To solve the current energy crisis and to prepare for a secure and successful future, we need to invest in conservation and renewable and efficient sources of energy.

For example, providing tax incentives for the construction of energy efficient buildings and manufacturing energy efficient heating and water heating equipment could save 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over 50 years.

By failing to take advantage of renewable energy technologies, we are continuing to promote our national insecurity by providing billions of dollars each year to repressive regimes.

That is why I have reintroduced the smart security resolution, H. Con. Res. 158. SMART is a sensible multilateral American response to terrorism.

SMART will help secure America for the future by preventing the threat of terrorism, by reducing nuclear stockpiles, eliminating the possible use of nuclear weapons through diplomatic means, and establishing a new Apollo project to secure America's energy independence.

Many Members of Congress understand the importance of reducing our dependance on foreign oil to ensure our national security, and that is why 49 of my colleagues signed on as original cosponsors to the SMART security resolution.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's energy and foreign policies are interconnected. One cannot address one without addressing the other. That is why SMART security promotes a new Apollo project that will ensure our Nation's energy security within the next 10 to 15 years.

If we fail to address this problem, we will only ensure the continuation of deep disparities of wealth in the Middle East. These misguided policies will encourage future acts of terrorism, which will encourage future warfare.

And speaking of warfare, do we know for sure that our reason for attacking Iraq was not to take control of Iraqi's oil? Until we are independent of our need for foreign oil, we will always be suspect. It is time to get serious about our reliance on foreign oil, which will lead directly to a smarter security strategy.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to discuss the war in Iraq and how to end the terrible suffering that it is causing our troops, their families and the Iraqi people.

First and foremost, I honor, I support the brave men and women who are serving our country in Iraq, and I believe that the best way to support them is to establish a plan to bring them home. In just over 2 years of war, more than 1,600 American soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. The number of American wounded, according to the Pentagon, is greater than 12,000 and that does not count the invisible mental wounds they are bringing home, which afflict as many as 25,000 more of our soldiers.

The war in Iraq has also cost our country about $200 billion in slightly more than 2 years. With this much money on the line, do the American people not deserve to know what the President's plan is for Iraq? How long he expects U.S. troops to remain there? How much this war will cost all told and how he plans to pay for it?

I credit the many brave individuals in Iraq who risked their lives to give back to the Iraqi people by voting in their January election, but after the election, our continued presence in Iraq has caused America to be seen by the Iraqi people as an occupying power, not as a liberating force.

Our continued military presence in Iraq works against efforts for democracy. It provides a rallying point for angry insurgents and ultimately makes the United States less safe. That is why earlier today I offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 2006. My amendment expressed the sense of the Congress that the President must develop a plan to bring our troops home and that he must submit this plan to the appropriate committee in our Congress.

We can truly support our troops by bringing them home. At the same time, withdrawing U.S. troops must not result in abandoning a country that has been devastated. We must assist Iraq, not through our military but through the international humanitarian efforts.

This humanitarian approach is reflected in the SMART Security legislation, H. Con. Res. 158, that I have introduced with the support of 49 of my House colleagues.

SMART security is a sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism for the 21st century.

The SMART approach would defend America by relying on the very best of American values: our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. This is the very essence of SMART security.

SMART security will prevent terrorism by addressing the very conditions which give rise to terrorism in the first place: poverty, despair, and resource scarcity. SMART will ensure America's security by reaching out and engaging in the Muslim world. Instead of rushing off to war for the wrong reasons, SMART security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues.

There is a demonstrated link between debt relief and lack of support for terrorism. That is why SMART security encourages the world's wealthy nations to provide debt relief and developmental aid for the world's poorest countries.

SMART security encourages democracy-building, human rights education, conflict resolution through nonmilitary means, educational opportunities, particularly for women and girls, and strengthening civil society programs in the developing world.

Mr. Speaker, our future efforts in Iraq must take the SMART approach: humanitarian assistance to rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic infrastructure. Congress must commit to this type of support for Iraq, not a continuation of a military approach.

It is time to support our troops and begin the difficult recovery process from a long and destructive war. The best way to do this is to bring our troops home. Mr. Speaker, our troops deserve nothing less.