[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14298-14299]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  SMART SECURITY AND NONPROLIFERATION

  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, when it comes to nuclear weapons, the 
policy of this administration looks like it was just pulled out of a 
20-year-old time capsule. More than a decade after the fall of Soviet 
communism, President Bush and his national security team are still 
fighting the Cold War. Their budget called for more than $100 million 
for research and testing of new nuclear weapons, including the robust 
nuclear earth penetrator and a so-called low yield nuclear weapons 
program.

[[Page 14299]]

  Fortunately, the Subcommittee on Energy and Water of the Committee on 
Appropriations lives in the year 2004 with the rest of us, and 
initially has rejected these requests.
  Even India and Pakistan, two nations mired in generations of 
conflict, whose shared border has been called the world's most 
dangerous nuclear flashpoint, were recently able to reach a bilateral 
confidence building agreement on nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Bush 
administration enthusiastically jumps into the nuclear arms race. They 
believe the only good defense is a buildup of new nuclear weapons, 
which happens to violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that the 
United States signed in 1970.
  They believe that the only good defense is a gigantic offense. But 
just how strong does our Nation need to be? We already have 9,000 
strategic nuclear warheads. How many of these weapons of last resort do 
we require in order to be secure; how much money do we need to spend; 
how much money do we need to spend on nuclear weapons; how much more 
dangerous must we make the world; and how many domestic priorities must 
we neglect before we decide that enough is finally enough?
  There has to be a better way, a more sensible way, an approach that, 
to use Abraham Lincoln's words, calls on the better angels of our 
nature, Mr. Speaker, there is.
  I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392 to create a SMART Security 
Platform for the 21st Century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, 
American Response to Terrorism. SMART treats war as the absolute last 
resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral 
partnerships. It aggressively invests in the development of 
impoverished nations. It controls the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction, with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation. And instead 
of saber rattling, instead of employing irresponsible rhetoric, like 
``axis of evil,'' the SMART nonproliferation approach calls for 
aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements and 
vigorous inspection regimes.
  SMART security means the United States will set an example for the 
rest of the world by renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons and 
the development of new nuclear weapons. SMART security requires that 
the United States honor its multilateral nonproliferation commitments. 
If we are going to throw our weight around, demanding that other 
nations cease their weapons programs, we had better make sure we are 
meeting our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention and 
the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  Under SMART, we would invest fully in the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program, the CTR, an innovative partnership in which the 
Pentagon is working with the former Soviet Union to dismantle the 
nuclear weapons that were once aimed at our cities. CTR is critical to 
controlling the loose nuclear materials that are scattered throughout 
the former Soviet Union, keeping them from falling into the hands of 
rogue nations or terrorist groups.
  Think about the price we have already paid to control weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq, weapons that do not even exist: Hundreds of 
American lives lost, thousands of Iraqi lives lost, thousands and 
thousands, in fact over 25,000 American soldiers injured, and hundreds 
of billions of dollars spent. Should we not be investing in eliminating 
a genuine nuclear threat? And we ought to be applying the lessons of 
CTR's success in Russia to dealing with Iran and North Korea.
  Mr. Speaker, SMART security is an example. It is tough, but it is 
diplomatic; it is aggressive, but peaceful; it is pragmatic, but 
idealistic.

                          ____________________