Smart Security and Energy and Water Appropriations

SMART SECURITY AND ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS -- (House of Representatives - September 23, 2004)

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 June of this year, the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water bravely stood up to the Bush White House by reducing, or flat out rejecting all of the administration's requests for nuclear weapons funding in its fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill. This subcommittee's move, under the sensible leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) is one of the only bipartisan instances of Members of Congress standing up to the heavy-handed Bush administration since this President took office in January of 2001.

The Subcommittee on Energy and Water wisely rejected White House requests of nearly $70 million for research and development of new nuclear weapons. Specifically, the White House requested $28 million for research on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, otherwise known as the Bunker Buster; $30 million for planning a modern pit facility to produce new plutonium triggers; and $9 million for a new nuclear weapons initiative.

Moreover, the new energy and water appropriations bill in its current form would reduce the administration's request for the Cruise Missile warhead by $40 million and limit funds for all nuclear stockpile activities. In total, the subcommittee's changes would save American taxpayers over $150 million.

The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) said the Bush administration's requests, quoting the chairman here, "were technically questionable and frankly unnecessarily provocative in the international arena." He went on to say, "They also cost a bunch of money." "Unnecessarily provocative" are the key words here.

Despite the unnecessarily provocative nature of these requests for new nuclear weapons, the Bush administration is trying to force the funding through anyway.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham outlined their concerns about the lack of funding for new nuclear weapons in a recent letter to the Republican House leadership in an attempt to dismiss entirely the tried and true appropriations process. Of course, they did not send this letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman HOBSON) or his counterpart, Senator PETE DOMENICI, unless the letters got lost in the mail. To me, it seems like the Bush administration is up to its usual tricks.

Mr. Speaker, this White House has demonstrated nothing but callous disregard for the Congress and the congressional process. President Bush and his cohorts have given no pause when it comes to freezing out anyone who will not toe the line on their fiscally unsound, budget-busting spending plans.

When it comes to nuclear weapons in particular, President Bush just does not get it. Instead of investing in programs that will truly secure America, like nonproliferation initiatives and vigorous inspection regimes whenever possible, President Bush has spent America's money on more and bigger weapons, in an attempt, I believe, to be tough and also to avoid working with other nations.

Sometimes it seems like the Oval Office is run by a third grade bully. How many nuclear weapons can the United States possibly need? We already possess 9,000 strategic warheads. Do we really need to spend another $150 million to develop new weapons systems?

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way, because investing in new nuclear weapons does not prevent America from being attacked. In fact, it encourages a nuclear attack, because such investments incite our enemies and encourage other nations, like Iran, to develop nuclear weapons of their own.

That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a Smart Security Platform For America's future. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. Instead of a renewed buildup of nuclear weapons, SMART security calls for aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements and inspection regimes. Being smart about national security requires the United States to set an example for young democracies so that they can follow.

The U.S. must renounce first use of nuclear weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons. The Bush doctrine of arrogant nuclear proliferation has been tried and it has failed. Instead of engaging in a nuclear arms race for the 21st century, the United States must engage in a SMART security strategy for the 21st century.