[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[House]
[Page 16721]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 SMART SECURITY AND NPT REINTRODUCTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty Commitments Act. It calls on the Bush 
administration to keep America's word, to live up to the agreements we 
have made to reduce our arsenal of nuclear weapons.
  The Cold War has been over for about 15 years. I can accept, although 
I disagree, with the argument that an aggressive nuclear arms race 
might have been the right approach in a bipolar standoff between rival 
superpowers, but at a time when our greatest threat comes from 
stateless terrorists there are smarter ways to protect America.
  Mr. Speaker, 33 years after the United States signed onto the 
Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, our government is actively seeking to 
undermine it. Last year, for example, the Bush administration sought 
$70 million for a new and completely unnecessary nuclear weapon, the 
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, commonly known as the ``bunker 
buster.''
  Mr. Speaker, the United States of America already possesses 10,000 
nuclear weapons. We already spend $6 billion annually on nuclear weapon 
activities, activities which represent a substantial increase over Cold 
War era expenditures.
  Do we really need to spend more money on weapons that will make the 
world more dangerous while ignoring other national security priorities, 
thumbing our nose at international law, and losing global credibility 
in the process? Why is it that this administration is enthusiastic 
about leading a global military coalition to occupy and invade a 
sovereign nation, but reluctant to show global leadership on important 
initiatives for peace?
  The potential nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea are 
legitimate threats and we ought to be engaged diplomatically to keep 
these nations from developing a nuclear program, but what moral 
authority do we have to apply that kind of pressure if we will not 
agree to even a modest drawdown of our own nuclear weapons?
  Now the administration has reached an agreement that will allow India 
greater access to nuclear technologies. This is a terrible policy. 
While India is not Iran or North Korea in terms of its threat to 
American security, we are talking about a nation that never signed the 
NPT, has a history of nuclear detonation, and whose border with 
Pakistan represents the world's most dangerous nuclear flashpoint. 
There has to be a smarter way, Madam Speaker, and there is.
  I have proposed a new approach to national security. I call it SMART 
Security. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to 
Terrorism. SMART calls on the United States to lead by example, to 
honor its treaties and meet its nonproliferation obligations. SMART 
would enhance and expand the cooperative threat reduction program which 
has led to the dismantling of nuclear weapons and materials in the 
former Soviet Union.
  SMART has also held that military forces should be the last possible 
resort preventing war, not preemptive war. It calls on us to fight 
terrorism and weapons of proliferation with strong global alliances, 
improved intelligence capabilities and vigorous inspection regimes.
  SMART includes an ambitious international development program to 
combat the poverty and hopelessness that give rise to terrorism in the 
first place, and it diverts resources from Cold War weapons systems to 
priorities like homeland security and energy independence, which are 
more relevant to current national security threats.
  There is some irony in the administration's nonproliferation policy. 
Think about it. We have sacrificed nearly 2,000 American lives, 
thousands of our troops have been seriously wounded, and hundreds of 
billions of dollars to end an Iraqi nuclear threat that did not even 
exist. And as part of a misleading campaign to convince the Nation that 
there actually was an Iraqi nuclear threat, it appears government 
officials were even willing to compromise national security by blowing 
the cover of a CIA agent.
  Meanwhile, genuine nuclear threats are going dangerously unaddressed, 
and our own government continues to pursue a large and expensive 
nuclear arsenal.
  We need a SMART approach. We need a complete reassessment of our 
nonproliferation strategy and our national security priorities, 
something that will not happen overnight. In the meantime, however, I 
urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty Commitment Act. At the very least, we can set 
an example by keeping the promises we have already made.

                          ____________________