[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4154-4155]
[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. Madam Speaker, with today marking the 17th anniversary 
of the accident at Three Mile Island, this seems like an appropriate 
opportunity to discuss the dangers posed by nuclear energy and nuclear 
weapons.
  As I have said from this floor many, many times before, I believe 
there is no greater national imperative than to bring our troops home 
from Iraq. But the end of the war must also be the beginning of some 
fresh and creative thinking about national security.
  We are in a desperate need, a need for new strategies for keeping 
America safe. Last summer, Madam Speaker, I introduced the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty Commitments Act. The concept behind the bill is 
very simple, and it is a really good starting point. America must keep 
its word and live up to the agreements it has made to reduce our 
nuclear arsenal. But we need to go even further.
  So along with the Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends for 
Peace, and WAND, I have developed a plan called SMART Security. SMART 
stands for sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism, 
which seeks peaceful and diplomatic solutions to international 
conflict. SMART addresses a range of issues including energy 
independence, democracy building, and global poverty. But at its core 
is a renewed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.
  SMART calls on the United States to stop the spread of weapons of 
mass destruction and to do it with strong diplomacy, with enhanced 
weapons regimes and regional security arrangements. Under SMART, we 
would set an example for the rest of the world by renouncing nuclear 
testing and development of new nuclear weapons. SMART would redouble 
our commitment to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which has 
been successful in reducing nuclear stockpiles and securing nuclear 
materials in the former Soviet Union.

[[Page 4155]]



                              {time}  1945

  SMART would stop the sale and transfer of weapons to regimes involved 
in human rights abuses, and it would ensure that highly enriched 
uranium is stored only in secure locations.
  Mr. Speaker, at just the moment that we need to be vigilant about 
nuclear proliferation, the Bush administration is asking Congress to 
give its approval to his dangerous and misguided nuclear energy deal 
with India. Here he is agreeing to share sensitive nuclear technologies 
with a nation that was testing nuclear weapons as recently as 1998. He 
would essentially reward India for its refusal to sign the 
nonproliferation treaty, feeding the nuclear appetite of a nation that 
has failed to show the responsibility expected of a nuclear state.
  What message does the India pact send to Iran and North Korea? What 
leverage do we have with these countries to give up their nuclear 
ambitions, especially since, despite the threats they represent, they 
have done actually nothing to violate their treaty obligations?
  If this India agreement were ratified, how would we deal with India's 
neighbor and rival Pakistan, which is likely to demand the same nuclear 
concessions from the United States and which has a dishonorable history 
of sharing nuclear technology with rogue actors?
  Mr. Speaker, there is a cruel irony to the U.S. nuclear policy. While 
we happily share nuclear technology with countries that have not always 
handled it responsibly, and while we continue to pursue a large and 
expensive nuclear arsenal of our own, we are fighting a bloody and 
expensive war over a nuclear weapon that never even existed. Remember, 
we are only in Iraq because our so-called leaders looked us in the eye 
and said there would be a mushroom cloud over American cities unless we 
sent our troops off to die.
  It is time for a 180-day degree turn in our thinking about these 
issues. It is time we stopped equating security with aggression. It is 
time we rejected the doctrine of preemption, instead of reaffirming it 
as the Bush administration did recently. It is time we got SMART about 
national security.
  It is time we protected America, not by invading other nations, but 
by relying on the very best of American values: our desire for peace, 
our capacity for global leadership, and our compassion for the people 
of the world.

                          ____________________