[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 53 (Thursday, April 15, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2332-S2333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak this morning about two
topics. One is the recent work the President has done on nuclear
security and some progress we have made this week, and the issue of tax
policy in the United States of America.
First, I rise today to talk about the threat posed by nuclear
terrorism and the historic progress made by President Obama and his
administration at the Nuclear Security Summit this week and some
observations on Iran's nuclear program.
The threat posed by so-called loose nuclear material is real. We know
that more than 2,000 tons--2,000 tons--of plutonium and highly enriched
uranium exist in dozens of countries with a variety of peaceful as well
as military uses. There have been 18 documented cases of theft or loss
of highly enriched uranium or plutonium--that is 18 documented cases--
throughout the world.
In September of 1961, President Kennedy addressed nuclear weapons in
a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. He said:
Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of
Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of
being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or
madness.
Today, the threat of a nuclear strike is more likely to come from
terrorist actors, not a state. These groups are harder to deter because
they may not have a geographic base. Moreover, they are not threatened
by the concept of mutually assured destruction.
President Obama noted that we are paradoxically more vulnerable today
to a nuclear attack than we were during the Cold War. Today's sword of
Damocles still hangs by the slenderest of threads, but we have the
ability to prevent this threat by minimizing the access such terrorist
groups would have to nuclear materiel.
So what did the United States accomplish at the Nuclear Security
Summit? First, I believe it was important for the President to elevate
this threat in the minds of international leaders, particularly among
the so-called nonaligned movement--those nations across the world that
are not aligned on these issues.
Many leaders around the world do not see nuclear terrorism as an
existential threat. This summit was an important first step towards
accurately defining the threat that nuclear terrorism holds for us all
and building broad political support for higher security standards.
This political support is important because we can't stop nuclear
terrorism on our own. Securing nuclear materials requires the active
participation of a host of actors including governments, militaries,
border guards, parliaments, intelligence services, local law
enforcement, and citizens. We need increased vigilance and an
understanding that a nuclear strike anywhere in the world will have a
profound impact on us all.
The administration was also able to attract concrete support for
several initiatives. In fact, every country in attendance pledged to do
more to tighten regulation of nuclear materials and several made
concrete commitments to comply with international treaties on nuclear
security. Most notably, our allies decided to do the following: By way
of example, Canada returned a large amount of spent highly enriched
uranium fuel from their medical isotope production reactor to the
United States and committed to funding highly enriched uranium removals
from Mexico and Vietnam; Chile removed all highly enriched uranium in
March; Italy and the U.A.E. signed Megaports agreements with the U.S.
which will include installation of detection equipment at ports;
Kazakhstan will convert a highly enriched uranium research reactor and
eliminate its remaining highly enriched uranium; Mexico will convert a
highly enriched uranium research reactor and eliminate their remaining
highly enriched uranium by working through IAEA; Norway will contribute
$3.3 million over the next 4 years to the IAEA nuclear security fund
which are flexible funds for activities in developing countries; Russia
signed the Plutonium Disposition protocol, decided to end plutonium
production and will make contributions to the International Atomic
Energy Agency's Nuclear Security Fund; finally, Ukraine will remove all
highly enriched uranium by the next Nuclear Security Summit in 2012 and
half of it by year's end.
This conference was only the beginning of a renewed international
focus on fulfilling commitments to U.N. resolution 1540 and the nuclear
nonproliferation treaty. In December, representatives from each
participating country will reconvene to measure commitments made
against concrete results. This effort to focus the international
community will lead to even more tangible progress looking ahead to the
next nuclear security summit in Seoul in 2012.
Ultimately, real progress will be found in the consistent enforcement
of rules already in place for monitoring and controlling the
establishment and movement of nuclear material in these countries. This
is not exciting work but very important as countries safeguard and
reduce their weapons-grade material, and we will begin to build a more
secure future.
I was also encouraged at President Obama's ability to use the summit
to continue building support for strong sanctions on Iran. I believe
that his face to face meeting with President Hu will pay dividends as
the U.N. Security Council negotiated a resolution imposing sanctions on
Iran. Given China's recent opposition to new sanctions, I was
encouraged by President Hu's apparent willingness to consider the
resolution. We are not there yet, but the administration has laid the
diplomatic groundwork necessary for a strong sanctions package. We need
to move forward on this pressure track and we need to move quickly.
At the end of March, I traveled to the International Atomic Energy
Agency--IAEA--in Vienna for an update on its work to track the Iranian
nuclear program. While I was impressed with the agency staff and
leadership of Director General Yukiya Amano, I came away convinced that
the international community needed to do more to confront Iran's
nuclear program.
My concerns have grown with reports that Iran may be planning two
additional nuclear enrichment sites. In a recent interview with the
Iranian Student News Agency, the head of Iran's
[[Page S2333]]
Atomic Energy Organization said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had
ordered work to begin soon on the two new enrichment plants. The
plants, he said, ``will be built inside mountains,'' presumably to
protect them from attacks.
If Iran's nuclear program were peaceful in nature, they would have
nothing to hide from international inspectors. Iran has all but
rejected the Geneva deal of October 1, 2009, that would have seen
Iran's low enriched uranium--L.E.U.--shipped out the country and the
eventual return of uranium enriched to 20 percent, well below weapons
grade, for use in a Tehran medical research reactor. Iran would have
agreed to this very good deal offered repeatedly by the international
community if it wanted a nuclear program for medical and other peaceful
purposes.
If the United States is committed to demonstrating that international
law is not an empty promise, obligations must be kept and treaties must
be enforced so that the Iranian regime knows we mean business. The
Iranian regime must face penalties for violating its commitments to the
U.N. and the IAEA. France, the United Kingdom, the U.S., China, Russia
and Germany have made serious attempts to engage with Iran through the
P5+1 process. These efforts have been repeatedly rebuffed and in some
cases scorned by the regime in Tehran. Iran's leaders continue to pass
up extraordinary opportunities to integrate their country with the rest
of the world, a desire felt by so many of Iran's citizens.
I supported these engagement efforts as a means towards changing the
behavior of the regime. Unfortunately, it has not worked. Noncompliance
with the U.N. and IAEA must have consequences and the international
community must move quickly to show Iran that we are serious.
During my trip, I also attended a conference on transatlantic
relations in Brussels with American and European leaders. I called on
our European allies to support an aggressive multilateral sanctions
package and was heartened to see that many participants heeded this
call to action. I appeared on a panel alongside Yossi Kuperwasser,
Deputy Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs,
who also made an impassioned appeal to those assembled, not only on
behalf of Israel but the broader international community. Iran's
pursuit of nuclear weapons would spark an arms race in the region,
which does not advance Iran's or any other country's security. The
clock is ticking, he said, and free people around the world have a
shared interest in stopping Iran's nuclear program.
I could not agree more with our friend from Israel when he made that
statement.
Tax Policy
Next, I will move for a few moments to the other topic I want to
speak about briefly, tax policy. We are in this season of not only
taxes--the focus on Tax Day, it is April 15--but we are also in the
season of debate about the budget and about our economic future. That
is as it should be. But I think when we step back and look at what has
happened over the last 18 months or so, we see, and I think the
evidence is abundantly clear now, that Democrats in the Senate, working
with President Obama and a very few number of Republicans, have
provided meaningful tax cuts to hard-working middle-class families
throughout America.
Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the so-called
stimulus bill, or the recovery bill as I like to call it, we will
continue to fight to provide this kind of tax relief for middle-income
families so they can fully reap the benefits of their hard work and
stabilize their families' finances.
I think, on this side of the aisle, if we look at the record of the
last more than a year, we have been on the side of middle-income
families as they work very hard to make ends meet in a very difficult
economy. I think this record stands in stark contrast with the record
of our Republican friends who tried to sell their tax breaks over the
past decade as beneficial to all Americans, when in reality they gave
away nearly $3 trillion--let me say that again--$3 trillion in tax cuts
to the wealthiest 20 percent of U.S. households.
What happened after that? Our economy went into the ditch, and we
have been in the ditch for far too long. At the same time that was
happening, Democrats were trying and have been succeeding in making
sure we understand what middle-income families are up against. In the
past year, Democrats have provided 98 percent of Americans with a tax
cut. A new study shows middle-class tax cuts included in the recovery
bill have saved taxpayers an average of $1,158 on their tax returns
this year. Every single working- and middle-class family and
individual--and here we are talking about the bottom 80 percent of
income earners--have received a tax cut.
This analysis accounts for the following parts of our policy: First,
the Making Work Pay tax credit, which has been available to 94 percent
of all working families and individuals; second, changes to the child
tax credit; third, an increase in the earned-income tax credit; and,
finally, relief from the alternative minimum tax, as well as a new,
partially refundable education tax credit. The cite for this is
Citizens for Tax Justice, April 13 of this year.
I think the record is pretty clear when it comes to recent history on
tax policy. Democrats have been on the side of middle-income families,
providing tax cuts for so many Americans who were not getting that kind
of relief before. Republicans in Washington have a long record of
making sure wealthy Americans get their tax cuts. But what we see from
that is an economy in the ditch. We are thankfully moving out of that
ditch.
We saw in January and February of 2009 more than 1.5 million jobs
lost. Contrast that with January and February of 2010. There was much
less job loss, in the tens of thousands, and even by the revised
estimates actual growth in jobs, certainly growth in jobs in the month
of March 2010. I think the record is pretty clear.
With that, I yield the floor for my colleague from Delaware, Senator
Kaufman.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
____________________