[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 116 (Thursday, September 23, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7543-H7544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           SMART SECURITY AND ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in June of this year, the Committee on 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water bravely stood up to the 
Bush White House by reducing, or flat out rejecting all of the 
administration's requests for nuclear weapons funding in its fiscal 
year 2005 appropriations bill. This subcommittee's move, under the 
sensible leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) is one of 
the only bipartisan instances of Members of Congress standing up to the 
heavy-handed Bush administration since this President took office in 
January of 2001.
  The Subcommittee on Energy and Water wisely rejected White House 
requests of nearly $70 million for research and development of new 
nuclear weapons. Specifically, the White House requested $28 million 
for research on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, otherwise known as 
the Bunker Buster; $30 million for planning a modern pit facility to 
produce new plutonium triggers; and $9 million for a new nuclear 
weapons initiative.
  Moreover, the new energy and water appropriations bill in its current 
form would reduce the administration's request for the Cruise Missile 
warhead by $40 million and limit funds for all nuclear stockpile 
activities. In total, the subcommittee's changes would save American 
taxpayers over $150 million.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) said the Bush 
administration's requests, quoting the chairman here, ``were 
technically questionable and frankly unnecessarily provocative in the 
international arena.'' He went on to say, ``They also cost a bunch of 
money.'' ``Unnecessarily provocative'' are the key words here.
  Despite the unnecessarily provocative nature of these requests for 
new nuclear weapons, the Bush administration is trying to force the 
funding through anyway.
  Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Energy Secretary Spencer 
Abraham outlined their concerns about the lack of funding for new 
nuclear weapons in a recent letter to the Republican House leadership 
in an attempt to dismiss entirely the tried and true appropriations 
process. Of course, they did not send this letter to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Chairman Hobson) or his counterpart, Senator Pete Domenici, 
unless the letters got lost in the mail. To me, it seems like the Bush 
administration is up to its usual tricks.
  Mr. Speaker, this White House has demonstrated nothing but callous 
disregard for the Congress and the congressional process. President 
Bush and his cohorts have given no pause when it comes to freezing out 
anyone who will not toe the line on their fiscally unsound, budget-
busting spending plans.
  When it comes to nuclear weapons in particular, President Bush just 
does not get it. Instead of investing in programs that will truly 
secure America, like nonproliferation initiatives and vigorous 
inspection regimes whenever possible, President Bush has spent 
America's money on more and bigger weapons, in an attempt, I believe, 
to be tough and also to avoid working with other nations.
  Sometimes it seems like the Oval Office is run by a third grade 
bully. How many nuclear weapons can the United States possibly need? We 
already possess 9,000 strategic warheads. Do we really need to spend 
another $150 million to develop new weapons systems?
  Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way, because investing in new 
nuclear weapons does not prevent America from being attacked. In fact, 
it encourages a nuclear attack, because such investments incite our 
enemies and encourage other nations, like Iran, to develop nuclear 
weapons of their own.
  That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a Smart Security 
Platform For America's future. SMART

[[Page H7544]]

stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. 
Instead of a renewed buildup of nuclear weapons, SMART security calls 
for aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, 
strong regional security arrangements and inspection regimes. Being 
smart about national security requires the United States to set an 
example for young democracies so that they can follow.
  The U.S. must renounce first use of nuclear weapons and the 
development of new nuclear weapons. The Bush doctrine of arrogant 
nuclear proliferation has been tried and it has failed. Instead of 
engaging in a nuclear arms race for the 21st century, the United States 
must engage in a SMART security strategy for the 21st century.

                          ____________________