The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there was a very compelling op-ed piece in The Washington Post last week by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker. In it, he paid tribute to the many American civilians who are risking their lives doing important humanitarian work to bring security and stability to Afghanistan.
I couldn't agree more with Ambassador Crocker that those men and women working for or contracting with the State Department or USAID are doing extraordinary work rebuilding infrastructure, helping children to go to school, improving infant and maternal health, wiring the Afghan people to the Internet.
Mr. Speaker, the burning question is this: If this work is so important, why aren't we doing more of it? The human need in Afghanistan is far greater than the resources we're devoting to the effort.
Source: CIVILIAN AID TO AFGHANISTAN: IF IT'S SO IMPORTANT, WHY AREN'T WE DOING MORE OF IT?
There are two answers to her question:
1. Are we moving toward the day when American believes that health care and "quality of life" are not only a right for all Americans, but for every human on the planet? Must we provide everything to everyone? Her "wiring the Afghan people to the Internet" eliminates limits on the possibilities.
2. Even if we could and should successfully provide all these things, are they things that will survive and thrive in their system of government? Does the Afghan worldview point people in the direction of these things? They are part of our worldview, and if they are not part of their worldview, do we have the cart before the proverbial horse?