[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1312-E1313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. JIM MATHESON

                                of utah

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 20, 2005

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2863) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes:

  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, for the past few years, I have voted to 
redirect funding in support of smart bombs and other weapons that are 
actually usable against hardened, deeply buried targets. I'm pleased to 
see that this appropriations bill provides funding for conventional 
studies to defeat hard and deeply

[[Page E1313]]

buried targets. I also understand that the funding provided within this 
bill for B2 bomber integration efforts is also intended for non-nuclear 
earth penetrators.
  Last month, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the use 
of a nuclear ``bunker buster'' would cause massive civilian causalities 
if used. That's assuming we can overcome serious design problems and 
assuming we can live with the consequences of putting U.S. troops in 
danger from radioactive fallout if we ever used an RNEP or a similar 
weapon.
  In the past, Utahns suffering from cancer as a result of radioactive 
fallout exposure had to wait to receive compensation because federal 
funds ran out. It's wrong to spend precious dollars on unusable fantasy 
weapons that our military doesn't seem to need or want.
  We live in an era when terrorism and national security concerns 
dominate the political landscape, as well they should. We should focus 
limited funding dollars on usable warheads that can actually make a 
difference in combating our enemies.
  I have always been a strong supporter of the military and I'm well 
aware of the unconventional war we face against terrorists. However, 
the threats we face as a nation provide the best reason for Congress to 
fund only the best usable weaponry to support American soldiers.
  Many of my colleagues in the House recognize the importance of this 
issue and they share my concerns about competing efforts in the Senate 
to fund RNEP. I hope that during conference negotiations on this bill, 
the conferees maintain this language.

                          ____________________