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.…
Lynn C. Woolsey: “with today marking the 17th anniversary of the accident at Three Mile Island, this seems like an appropriate opportunity…”
Share
More from Lynn C. Woolsey
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we're ready to close, so I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, Mr. Speaker, once again, at a time when there are so many Americans looking for work and so many middle class families struggling…
I believe we have complete agreement with the first principle that you have referred to today, and that is that every able-bodied person should be working or preparing to work.
I'm proud to cosponsor the amendment offered by my friend from California. If approved, this amendment would accomplish two goals: One, to end this war, and two, to save the taxpayers $21 billion, something I think both sides of the aisle…
I just want to repeat what I said in my opening remarks. Nothing in the proposed rule would have applied to children working on their parents' family farm. The proposed rule maintains the parental exemption. But again, to remind everybody…





