Smart Security: Increase Development Aid

Floor Speech

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 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.

Source