[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5562-5563]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 5563]]

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.

                          ____________________