[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 11075]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             SMART SECURITY

  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 the first Presidential debate of the 
2004 Presidential election, moderator Jim Lehrer asked the candidates 
what they believe is the single most serious threat to the national 
security of the United States. Without delay, Senator Kerry responded 
``nuclear proliferation.'' When President Bush had the opportunity to 
respond, he agreed that nuclear nonproliferation is the biggest threat 
we face as a Nation.
  If the President agrees that nuclear nonproliferation is such a grave 
and immediate threat, why does he and why does his administration 
continue to seek the creation of new nuclear weapons? Why does the 
President continue to seek funds to study the creation of the robust 
nuclear Earth penetrator, otherwise known as the ``bunker buster'' 
bomb? Why does this year's defense authorization bill continue this 
ridiculous trend by recommending a Department of Defense study about 
the possibility of creating the bunker buster?
  Mr. Speaker, the stated purpose of the bunker buster is to destroy 
caves and difficult-to-reach terrorist hideouts, but the bunker buster 
is completely unnecessary. The United States military already is 
capable of bombing these remote locations, and they do not need to use 
nuclear weapons.
  The bunker buster is also extremely dangerous. A detonation of this 
deadly weapon would create an enormous, uncontrollable explosion, 
spreading toxic, radioactive materials over a large area; and an 
explosion could cause the death of thousands of innocent civilians and 
devastate large tracts of lands.
  How many times must we consider the merits or lack thereof of the 
bunker buster bomb? How many times must sensible nonproliferation 
priorities compete with a dangerous nuclear arms race?
  To address the true security threats we face, I have introduced the 
SMART Security resolution, H. Con. Res. 158, with the support of 49 of 
my House colleagues. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral American 
Response to Terrorism. It encourages renewed nonproliferation efforts 
over continued nuclear buildup.
  SMART urges sufficient funding and support for nonproliferation 
efforts in countries that possess nuclear weapons and nuclear 
materials. One of the best ways to accomplish this goal is through CTR, 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program successfully works with Russia to dismantle and 
safeguard excess nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the 
former Soviet Union.
  Under this program, more than 20,000 Russian scientists, formerly 
tasked with creating nuclear weapons, are now working to dismantle 
them. That is why SMART Security includes robust support for the 
current CTR model, including expanding the program to other nations 
such as Libya and Pakistan, nations that possess excess nuclear weapons 
and excess nuclear materials.
  To promote these efforts, earlier today I introduced an amendment to 
the Defense authorization bill to expand CTR. My amendment would bring 
this important program to Libya and Pakistan, two countries that are 
known to possess nuclear materials.
  We need to utilize our diplomatic relationships to encourage these 
two countries to give up their dangerous nuclear materials, and the 
best way to do so is through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program.

                              {time}  2200

  CTR is but one of the broad array of national security programs in 
SMART security and an effective one at that. But any attempt to rid the 
world of nuclear weapons must include nonproliferation efforts at home, 
in the United States. We must set an example for the rest of the world 
by fulfilling our international pledge to end our nuclear program and 
dismantle our existing weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, continued efforts to study the feasibility of the bunker 
buster bomb are the very antithesis of these international commitments. 
When the United States engages in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, 
we lower the threshold and actually encourage other countries to 
proliferate with the possibility of actually using nuclear weapons. 
Instead, let us get smart.
  Let us be smart about this issue and work both here at home and 
abroad to end the proliferation of any and all nuclear bombs. We owe 
this to our children and we owe this to their children.

                          ____________________