Calling for the adoption of a smart security platform for the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, between September 11, 2001, and January, 2009, the United States relied on military force as the primary tool of foreign policy. Now we see the tragic results of this tragedy. We remain bogged down in Iraq, Afghanistan is in turmoil, Pakistan is on the brink of chaos, and the threat of nuclear weapons continues to haunt the world.

It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the military option hasn't worked. That is why I believe it is time for a new and better approach to our foreign policy. This new approach must focus on diplomacy, international cooperation, conflict prevention and ending the threat of nuclear weapons.

I have sponsored a comprehensive plan to achieve all of these goals. It is called the ``Smart Security Platform For the 21st Century.'' I invite all of my colleagues to consider House Resolution 363, which describes this plan in detail.

The Smart Security Platform would help to eliminate the root causes of instability and violent conflict in the world by increasing development aid and debt relief to the poorest countries. It would further address the root causes of violence by supporting programs that promote conflict resolution, human rights and democracy building. It would also support educational opportunities for the girls and women who hardly ever see the inside of a classroom.

The Smart Security Platform, Mr. Speaker, also calls for the United States to work with the U.N. and NATO and other multilateral institutions to strengthen international institutions and international law. It calls for reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons by supporting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Biological and Chemical Weapons Convention. It calls for the adequate funding of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to secure nuclear materials in Russia and to secure nuclear materials and other materials in other countries as well and to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

It calls upon the United States to set an example for the rest of the world by renouncing the development of new nuclear weapons and working towards achieving Ronald Reagan's vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. It would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by

investing in renewable energy alternatives, thereby stopping the flow of hundreds of billions of American dollars to irresponsible regimes. It includes strategies to strengthen international intelligence and law enforcement operations to bring individuals involved in violent acts to justice, while respecting human and civil rights. And it supports civil organizations and programs in the developing world because they play a critically important role in preventing or resolving conflicts.

I want to thank the cosponsors of H. Res. 363, Chairman John Conyers, Chairman Ed Markey, Congresswomen Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, cofounders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, and Congresswoman Gwen Moore, a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the Smart Security Platform For the 21st Century is ambitious, wide-ranging and tough. It uses the many national security tools that we have. It would make us safer here at home. It would cost less than what we are spending now on national security. And it isn't ``soft'' power, Mr. Speaker. It is real power. It is smart power. It is the kind of power we need to make America and the world more secure for ourselves and for our children.

Madam Speaker, the supplemental appropriations bill to continue our military operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan will soon return to the House for another vote. I voted against it in the first place, and I am going to vote against it again. I cannot support it because it will prolong our military involvement in Iraq and it will increase our military buildup in Afghanistan.

I would gladly vote to fund the safe withdrawal of our troops and contractors out of Iraq. But the supplemental gives me a feeling of deja vu. Haven't we been there before, voting to include billions of dollars for the occupation of Iraq?

Congress has voted to increase funding for Iraq many times, even though the American people want the occupation to end, and it seems the Iraqi people want us out of their country as well.

The supplemental also calls for sending more troops to a foreign land, this time Afghanistan, with no exit strategy. Talk about repeating past mistakes. Talk about deja vu. Afghanistan feels exactly the same as Iraq did to me.

President Obama has said that a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets and bombs alone. He is absolutely correct about that. But the money in the supplemental is overwhelmingly devoted to military operations. It includes very little for the economic development, humanitarian aid, and diplomatic efforts that we really need to stop extremists in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

The ratio is 90-10, 90 percent to the Department of Defense, 10 percent to the smart alternatives. I believe the supplemental also violates the spirit of President Obama's historic speech in Cairo where he offered the Muslim world the hand of friendship. In that speech he said that we must leave Iraq to the Iraqis. But the supplemental will only delay the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

And then there is the little matter of the recession, Madam Speaker. When the American people are feeling such great pain and need so much help right here at home, we can't afford to squander another $100 billion on foreign military adventures that will not make our country safe.

Instead of approving the supplemental bill, the House should be urging the administration to fundamentally change our mission in Iraq, and our mission in Afghanistan. We can do this in several ways.

First, we should support the bill offered by Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, which calls upon the administration to submit an exit strategy for Afghanistan.

Second, I urge my colleagues to consider the plan that I have offered in House Resolution 363. It's called the Smart Security Platform For the 21st Century. Smart Security attacks the root causes of violence by fighting poverty and giving people hope for a better future. It controls the spread of nuclear and conventional weapons of mass destruction, and it strengthens our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

And finally, we should insist that at least 80 percent of all future funding for Afghanistan be devoted to the Smart Security I just described. Right now, the supplemental, as I told you, devotes more than 90 percent of its dollars to purely military efforts, efforts that are getting us nowhere.

Madam Speaker, we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. We've got to stop writing more blank checks for open-ended occupations. This is what the American people want, and Congress must listen.

Madam Speaker, the White House is figuring how they should treat Afghanistan, what to do about Afghanistan. As they review the situation, they must be asking themselves a lot of questions: Should our strategy be counterinsurgency or counterterrorism? Should we send in 40,000 more troops, or 20,000 more troops, or should we send in any more at all? And is the Taliban really a threat to our national security?

Meanwhile, the American people are asking the most important question of all: Is the war a war of necessity? And most Americans are coming to the conclusion that it is not. And I agree with them.

Our military presence in Afghanistan is not necessary because al Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11, simply isn't in Afghanistan anymore. In fact, it's estimated that only about 100 al Qaeda fighters remain in the country. Our military presence isn't necessary because it will lead us into another foreign quagmire. Escalating the war will require massive numbers of troops. They will be fighting an endless war with many casualties, no exit strategy at this point, and the American people will not put up with that.

This war is not necessary because it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. That's the money we need to put the American people back to work, Madam Speaker, and to get our economy back on track. And finally, this war is not necessary because we have better alternatives.

First and foremost, these alternatives include smart security. Smoking out and stopping the violent extremists in Afghanistan requires the effective surgical tool of smart security, not the blunt instrument of massive military occupancy. Smart security calls for strengthening our intelligence and surveillance capabilities. That's absolutely essential because the best way to stop the extremists in Afghanistan is to penetrate and disrupt their networks.

Smart security calls for improvements in civilian policing. A well- trained police force is a highly effective counterinsurgency tool because it's right there in the communities where the extremists are. Smart security calls for a regional diplomatic surge. Afghanistan's neighbors have an interest in stabilizing the country just

as we do. Those nations include Russia, China and Iran. They need to be engaged.

Smart security also recognizes that al Qaeda and other extremist groups have the ability to shift gears and set up shop in other places around the world, probably in the poorest places they can find.

That's why smart security supports investments in the development of impoverished nations, to give people the hope and the opportunity they need to reject violence and hatred in the first place. And because we need to keep the extremists away from weapons of mass destruction, smart security calls for vigorous inspection regimes and a renewed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.

In this session of Congress, Madam Speaker, I have introduced House Resolution 363, the ``Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century.'' It is the blueprint we need to defeat extremism in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. Madam Speaker, the strategy I have described is tough. It is pragmatic. It will protect the lives of our brave troops, and it will keep our Nation safe.

As the administration conducts its review of the situation in Afghanistan, I urge them to choose this strategy because it is the winning strategy.

Madam Speaker, last week, the Hill newspaper here in Washington asked CRS, the Congressional Research Service, to provide information on the cost of the war in Afghanistan.

The CRS reported that it now costs the United States about $3.6 billion per month, on average, or more than $43 billion a year. The CRS also reported that it costs about $1 million to send a U.S. soldier to Afghanistan for 1 year. So, if President Obama listens to the advice he is getting from some of those around him and if he sends 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, the war will cost another $40 billion a year, or nearly double.

Yet what have we been getting, I ask you, Madam Speaker, for all of that money? The answer is: Higher casualty rates, a growing insurgency and an Afghan public that increasingly sees America as an occupier, not as a liberator.

This is the result of a fatal flaw in our Afghan policy since the war began. We have relied far too much on the military option alone while, at the same time, putting very few dollars into what would really work in Afghanistan. Instead, what would work is better intelligence and better policing to disrupt terrorist networks; better governance, justice systems, economic development, and humanitarian aid. The Afghan people desperately need all of these to have hope for a better future and to have reasons to reject violent extremism.

The supplemental funding request for Afghanistan, which I opposed in May, was a lost opportunity to take a more successful approach to our relationships in Afghanistan as 90 percent of the funding went to purely military activities while only 10 percent of the supplemental funds was devoted to development activities and to the civilian surge, which are so badly needed. To correct this disastrous imbalance, Madam Speaker, America must have a foreign policy based on SMART security instead of military power alone.

One of the advantages of SMART security is that it works to eliminate the root causes of violent extremism by emphasizing economic development and debt relief to the world's poorest countries. The SMART Security Platform for the 21st century, which I have proposed in House Resolution 363, calls for these policies.

The need to increase aid to the Third World was underscored last week, Madam Speaker, when the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reported that a record 1 billion people worldwide are now going hungry. The world's poorest and hungriest nations are potential safe havens for violent extremists. The governments are too weak or are too corrupt to keep them out, so the extremists are likely to find new recruits among the discontented populations, and those recruits become terrorists by training, and they are trained to attack the United States and other countries.

Even if the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan were to disappear into thin air today, a new terror threat is likely to pop up somewhere else in the world where people are hungry, where people are desperate. If we do a better job of feeding the hungry, we will do a better job of starving terrorism, and we will take an important step toward restoring our moral leadership in the world.

I know that President Obama understands this. I urge him to incorporate that understanding into his policies and to use the effective tools of SMART security to make our Nation and the world safer.

Madam Speaker, the administration is currently reviewing our military strategy in Afghanistan. General McChrystal, the leader of U.S. and NATO forces, is expected to give his report to the President in just a few weeks.

But the President isn't the only one who should be reviewing our policy. Every Member of this House should be reviewing our policy too, because we are once again relying on the military

option, just like we did in Iraq. And that's just not the best way to stop the violent extremists who threaten us.

If you need proof of that, just remember that al Qaeda has launched more attacks since 9/11 than before 9/11. And our National Intelligence Estimates have warned us that al Qaeda is getting stronger--stronger-- not weaker. And if you need even more proof, Madam Speaker, that military force doesn't work, I urge you to read the RAND Corporation report entitled ``How Terrorist Groups End.''

RAND studied 648 extremists groups that existed between 1968 and 2006. It found that military force was effective against these groups only 7 percent of the time. In its analysis, RAND discovered two strategies that actually worked better. The first was negotiated political settlements; the second was the use of intelligence and police agencies to penetrate and disrupt extremist organizations. Combined, these two strategies were effective 83 percent of the time.

RAND applied its analysis to al Qaeda and concluded that ``policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts.'' And they believe this to be true in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. This is because ``al Qaeda consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested,'' which requires the cooperation of U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies.

RAND also said that America ``should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase'' the recruitment of violent extremists.

Madam Speaker, instead of using military force, we must change our mission in Afghanistan. We must use the far more effective tools of SMART power. SMART power can do a much better job of ending violent extremism than bombs, bullets, invasions, and occupations.

In this session of Congress, I have introduced House Resolution 363, the SMART Security Platform For the 21st century. It calls for strengthening intelligence and law enforcement agencies to track and arrest those involved in violent acts, while still respecting the rule of law.

SMART security also calls for improvements in civilian policing. A well-trained police force is a highly effective counterinsurgency tool because it is located where the extremists actually lurk. My SMART security platform also includes many other initiatives to provide for stopping extremism in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. SMART security addresses the root causes of violence and it encourages diplomatic and multilateral action. It promotes nuclear nonproliferation, and it ends our dependence on foreign oil.

Madam Speaker, the death toll in Afghanistan is on the rise. A summer of heavy fighting is ahead of us. Let's stop this bloodshed before we have another Iraq on our hands. Let's do the smart thing. Let's change our strategy before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, one of President Obama's greatest challenges has been to restore America's moral leadership and reputation in the world because it sunk to new lows under the previous administration.

To achieve this goal, the President has taken several important steps. He has renounced the use of torture. He has called for a nuclear-free world. He has reached out to the Muslim world, and he has promised to emphasize diplomacy and international cooperation.

We are now seeing the results of these changes. Last week, the Pew Global Attitudes Project reported the results of its latest survey of opinions about the United States. It found that the image of the United States has improved significantly under President Obama. People in Western Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia now have a much more positive opinion of the United States. America's reputation has even improved, Mr. Speaker, in some countries which are predominantly Muslim.

The survey also compared attitudes about President Obama and Osama bin Laden in the Muslim world. For the first time in the survey's history, people in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria, and Indonesia have a better opinion of the American President than bin Laden.

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that the people of the world have more trust and respect for America these days. It means our moral authority is being restored, and moral authority matters. When America is trusted, we have a much greater capacity for global leadership.

But even though our country's good name is being restored throughout the world, there is much more to be done. Most importantly, we need a foreign policy based on the principles of ``smart power.''

Smart power emphasizes preventing war instead of preemptive war. It relies on diplomacy and international cooperation instead of military occupation, and it gives the people of the world the hope and the opportunity they need to reject a life of violence and hatred.

The principles of smart power are included in my ``Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century,'' which I have proposed in House Resolution 363. The Smart Platform calls for America to work with multilateral organizations to cut off funding and support for extremist networks. It strengthens international intelligence and law enforcement operations to track down extremists while respecting civil liberties. It helps eliminate the root causes of instability by promoting economic development, Third World debt relief, conflict resolution, global health programs, and universal education. It increases support for civil society, which plays a key role in stopping violence. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable alternatives.

Smart calls for diplomatic efforts enhanced by inspection regimes and regional security arrangements to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. It calls for the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by the Senate, and it provides adequate funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure nuclear materials in Russia and other countries.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for America to start relying on smart power to protect our country because the smarter we are, the safer we are going to be.

Madam Speaker, a report written by General McChrystal, the commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, was leaked to the press yesterday. In this report, General McChrystal warns that the conflict in Afghanistan ``will likely result in failure'' if we don't send in more troops.

The leak was an apparent attempt to put pressure on the White House and the Presidency to escalate the conflict. But, to its credit, the administration didn't go there and did not cave in.

President Obama said that he is skeptical that sending in more troops will do any good. And he said, ``I'm certainly not somebody who believes in indefinite occupations of other countries.''

Madam Speaker, I'm relieved that we have somebody in the White House who will think long and hard before sending America's men and women into harm's way. But the President will certainly face a lot more pressure in the coming weeks to increase troop levels. I urge him to resist the idea for three very good reasons.

First, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. We tried it for over 8 years. Our troops have fought with incredible skill and courage. But sending in more troops will only fuel anti-Americanism, and it will convince the Afghan people that the United States is an occupying force that must be resisted.

Second, poll after poll shows that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan, and the majority now believe that the war in Afghanistan is simply not worth fighting.

Third, Madam Speaker, we cannot afford to keep pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into this conflict. We need every one of those dollars to meet our urgent domestic needs here at home. We need to use our resources to dig out of the recession, not dig into a quagmire in Afghanistan.

For all these reasons, the President and his advisers must rethink our mission in Afghanistan and look at changing our strategy.

The Rand Corporation has produced a study of extremist groups that should help us develop the right strategy. Rand studied the history of 648 extremist groups, finding that military force was effective against these groups only 7 percent of the time. Two strategies that work better were negotiated political settlements and the use of intelligence and police agencies to dismantle extremist networks. Combined, these two strategies were effective 83--83 percent of the time. That's about 12 times better than the military option.

Rand also applied its analysis to the current situation in Afghanistan and

concluded that ``policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts'' against al Qaeda in that region.

That's why policing and intelligence are two key components of my national security plan, which is described in House Resolution 363, the Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century. My plan also emphasizes economic development, infrastructure, jobs, education, and better governance for Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, by refusing to be rushed and sending more troops to Afghanistan, President Obama has shown that he is willing to change course. And we must change course. The American people want an exit strategy for Afghanistan, not an escalation strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I stood up in the House in late July and said the following words, ``Five American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan this week. That brings the death toll in July to 31, making this the deadliest month for our troops since the conflict in Afghanistan began.''

Tragically, Mr. Speaker, July didn't hold the record for long. It was quickly replaced by August as the deadliest month. Now, 55 of our troops have died in October, making this the deadliest month yet.

We can't blame the troops for this, of course. They continue to fight with tremendous skill and with bravery. They do everything our Nation asks of them.

So what's to blame? It's our strategy. It's a strategy which has relied almost exclusively on military action for over 8 years while ignoring the critically important political, economic, and cultural aspects of the conflict. Yet President Obama is now being urged to double down on the military-only policy that has failed us and send in another 40,000 troops.

If we go down that road, what can the American people expect? They can expect higher troop levels, higher casualty rates, and many years of war that can end up costing us over a trillion dollars. Even if we do all that, the odds will still be stacked against us. That's not a strategy for success, Mr. Speaker. I think we can do better.

If we want to succeed in Afghanistan, we must change the way we do business there. Instead of fighting extremists after they have gotten a foothold, let's invest our resources on what would prevent violent extremism from taking root in the first place. That includes economic development, jobs, reconstruction, education, health care, civil affairs, and diplomacy. All would help stabilize Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, a serious commitment to a civilian surge of experts and aid workers to help the Afghan people develop their economy would make a huge difference over there. We must also develop a much better set of rigorous metrics to evaluate progress and report the results to the American people. Then we could develop an exit strategy. We could send the message that our involvement in Afghanistan is not open-ended.

It would also help to reassure the Afghan people that we have no intention of occupying their land, because right now too many Afghan citizens see America as an occupying force. That, more than anything else, Mr. Speaker, is fueling anti-Americanism and the insurgency. We must also do everything we can to assure a credible central government in Kabul to help with humanitarian and other efforts to improve the lives of the Afghan people. These are just some of the elements of smart security that we need to use in Afghanistan.

I have offered a comprehensive strategy for smart security in House Resolution 363, because I firmly believe that it would be a blueprint for victory against extremism in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. Mr. Speaker, by shifting from military power only to smart power, we can help Afghanistan to build a stable and functioning State. We can save the lives of our troops, and we can go a long way toward defeating the extremists who threaten America and the world.