[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5238-5239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        NONPROLIFERATION BUDGET

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the proposed cuts 
to nuclear nonproliferation programs in the continuing resolution, 
which I believe seriously endangers our Nation's security. When the 
Senate was presented with H.R. 1, the House's fiscal year 2011 
appropriations bill, we all knew that sacrifices were needed. We knew 
that we needed to examine programs and determine which were broken, 
which were redundant, and which needed to be eliminated. Likewise, we 
also had a responsibility to determine which programs worked and 
provided positive returns on investments for our security and economic 
stability.
  I would assert that the National Nuclear Security Administration's, 
NNSA, nonproliferation programs fall into this category. For the past 
decade, one threat has dominated our national security agenda: the 
threat of a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist.
  Yet when H.R. 1 passed in February, the House proposed a 24-percent 
cut to the President's request for NNSA nonproliferation programs. 
These cuts

[[Page 5239]]

would endanger programs that have removed a total of 120 bombs' worth 
of highly enriched uranium, HEU, and nuclear material from six 
countries since April 2009. This past November, enough HEU to make 775 
nuclear weapons was removed from Kazakhstan. I would consider these 
outcomes an underreported, yet remarkable success. I question why such 
highly effective programs, vital to our national security interests, 
were targeted in the first place.
  I would contend that should a terrorist set off a nuclear or 
radiological explosion, the physical, psychological and economic 
consequences would far exceed the money saved by these shortsighted 
cuts.
  The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United 
States stated that ``the surest way to prevent nuclear terrorism is to 
deny acquisitions of nuclear weapons or fissile material,'' and that 
the United States should ``accelerate'' not decelerate the process of 
securing nuclear material. In the Commission's opinion this should be 
``the top priority'' for the United States, especially in light of al-
Qaida's expressed desire to obtain nuclear material or weapons.
  H.R. 1 cuts more than $600 million from the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative, which seeks to secure nuclear material before it ends up in 
terrorist hands. These program cuts are not only irresponsible, they 
are negligent.
  Nonproliferation programs are a vital part of our Nation's security 
and should be treated as such. This view is shared by former Presidents 
and national security experts and has been included in our National 
Security Strategy that was developed by various agencies, including the 
Departments of Defense, State and Energy, as well as the National 
Security Council. In a July 14, 2010 letter to the chairman and ranking 
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Secretary of 
State George Shultz and former Chair of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee Sam Nunn wrote that they ``believe the threat of nuclear 
terrorism remains urgent, fueled by the spread of nuclear weapons, 
materials and technology around the world.'' They further concluded 
that it ``is absolutely essential'' for the United States and Russia to 
lead these efforts.
  I urge my colleagues today for their support in ensuring that we do 
all we can to limit the ability of terrorists to get their hands on 
fissile material. We all recognize and have referred to this threat. 
And now we have an opportunity to do something about it. Nuclear 
proliferation is a top concern and we as a nation can effectively lead 
the world in nuclear security and decrease the threat posed by nuclear 
terrorism.

                          ____________________