This is the twelfth edition of the New Hampshire Progressive Newsletter for 2009.

In this issue:

Item 1: The NH House passes a difficult budget that makes many cuts, increases some existing taxes, and proposes three new taxes on capital gains, large estates, and gambling winnings. Predictably, Republicans have criticized it as bloated, but the increase in spending of state revenue is just 3%, which is probably less than expected inflation and population growth. (The overall budget increase is higher, but that is because the overall budget includes one-time stimulus money from the federal government.) Also predictably, the critics have not said where they would make additional cuts.

Item 2: New earmark rules in Washington mean that members of Congress and the Senate must post their requested earmarks on their web sites. Earmarks will be limited to an amount one-half of the earmarks passed in 2006.

Item 3: Citizens for Tax Justice releases a study showing that overall, considering state, local and federal taxes, the wealthy pay about the same percentage of income in tax as middle-income Americans.

Item 4: The CIA is closing its overseas prisons, often referred to as ‘ black sites.’

Item 5: In a couple speeches in Europe, President Obama changes the nation’s course on nuclear weapons, proposing talks to reduce nuclear weapons, a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons, and new efforts to stop nuclear proliferation.

Item 6: The text of the President’s speech in Prague. You should read at least part of this. The man is truly inspirational.

Mark Fernald

1. House okays budget along party lines

By NORMA LOVE (Associated Press Published: Wednesday, April 08, 2009

CONCORD — The N.H. House passed an $11.5 billion, two-year budget Wednesday that’s balanced with deep spending cuts, federal stimulus money and counts on yet-to-be adopted taxes on capital gains and estates.

The House voted 193-174 largely along party lines to send the budget to the Senate.

Democrats insisted hard times made for hard choices. They said they spread the pain so no single group bore the brunt too heavily.

“We struggled mightily to make sure we provided essential services to those people who had no other opportunity than to turn to the state,” said House Finance Chairwoman Marjorie Smith.

But Republicans were just as adamant that deeper spending cuts could avoid raising taxes and maintain two aid programs affecting local property taxes.

“It’s necessary for the state to do for itself what its citizens are doing (and cut spending),” said Weare Rep. Neal Kurk, the ranking Republican on the budget committee.

Keene Democrat Timothy Robertson voted against the budget not because it cut too little, but because it cut too much. He said New Hampshire needs a personal income tax to properly fund services.

“This is a day when those still doing well in the state should help those who are not,” he said. “I’ve been told I can’t vote against this budget because the ones following it are worse. I say kill them all and write a good one.”

The budget includes $3.1 billion in spending from general tax sources over two years, or about 3 percent more than the current budget. The House put off until today acting on a series of tax increases needed to pay for the spending plan.

Democrats fended off Republican efforts to make deeper cuts. They defeated a Republican proposal that called for spending $2.9 billion from general tax sources, or about 2 percent less than the current budget.

The Democratic budget contains few additions, most notably using $117 million in stimulus money to partially restore aid to municipalities that Gov. John Lynch had cut in his plan. Some department budgets were cut to 2008 spending levels.

The budget counts on increasing existing taxes on dining out, renting hotel rooms, cigarettes and new taxes on gambling winnings, a 5 percent tax on capital gains above $5,000 and an 8 percent tax on estates larger than $2 million. The House planned to vote on those taxes today and on freezing an insurance tax scheduled to decrease.

The pending tax portion of the budget package also includes a 15-cent increase in the state’s 19.6-cent gas tax, spreading the hike over three years on gas and over nine years on diesel.

The plan adopted by the House agrees with Lynch’s proposal to close a prison in Laconia and to lay off as many as 250 of the state’s 11,500 workers. The House budget spares 20 corrections officers from being laid off with the prison’s closure. About 40 people who work at a school for children with behavioral problems also got a reprieve. Rather than close the school July 1 as Lynch proposed, the House funded the school another year.

The plan also restored funding to a program for catastrophic illnesses that Lynch had eliminated, added $16 million in funding to reduce the wait by the disabled for services and added funding for senior volunteers, foster grandparents, senior companions, family planning, AIDS services, a cancer prevention program and alcohol prevention and treatment. All received less or no money in Lynch budget.

The House left it to the Senate to find $83 million for school construction aid.

Lynch wanted to borrow the money instead of including it in the operating budget where it had been historically. He put it in his capital budget, but the House Public Works and Highways Committee said that squeezed out too many construction projects and deleted the school aid. Instead, the House capital budget would spend $150 million on new construction projects in 20 communities. The projects are in all 10 counties.

The House also votes on the capital budget today.

++++++++++++++++++++

2. Lawmakers divulge their earmarks

By ALBERT McKEON (The Telegraph of Nashua Published: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 NASHUA — Just as spring sunshine improves a winter-ravaged landscape, two new legislative rules will shine more light on the previously dark process known as earmarking.

For the first time, federal legislators must reveal their earmark requests. Until now, only the earmarks that made the final versions of the annual spending bills saw the light of day; the thousands of requests that had hit committee cutting-room floors were largely unknown.

As Congress starts to prepare the budget for fiscal year 2010, a new rule enables voters to finally see early in the process just what educational, health, military and other projects New Hampshire’s four federal legislators want to fund with earmarks.

Earlier this month, U.S. Reps. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter each submitted 64 earmarks to House appropriations subcommittees. Hodes’ requests total about $230 million; Shea-Porter forwarded $156 million worth of appropriation bids.

U.S. Sens. Judd Gregg and Jeanne Shaheen will soon submit their earmark requests to Senate subcommittees. As with House members, another new rule will require senators to publicize their requests on their Web sites.

The Web sites of Hodes and Shea-Porter, both Democrats, reveal that they want to inject money into Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, fund work for several military contractors, purchase land for environmental conservation, and help programs that aim to create jobs and train workers.

Lawmakers can also request earmarks jointly. Hodes and Shea-Porter teamed up to help get $8 million for Hudson-based Polartec to make clothing systems for Navy aircrews, and they want to land $36 million for the restructuring of structural shop operations at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

Shea-Porter and Hodes acknowledge not all of their requests will be approved. They’re not only competing with several hundred legislators who submit requests — including those with more seniority and pull — but they’re working within a spending cap Congress placed on earmarks this year. Earmarks will be limited to 50 percent of what was spent in 2006 and to 1 percent of all funding that Congress annually approves.

The two legislators, who are both in second terms, said they don’t find 64 earmarks to be an excessive amount. Their staffs reviewed requests made by organizations, municipalities and companies, and submitted what they thought would best support the economy and other aspects of their districts.

Earmarks have their critics. As voiced famously by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., earmarks are denounced as nothing more than pork barrel spending. Critics also point to how a large number of legislators submit earmark requests on behalf of recipients from whom they also receive campaign donations.

A Telegraph review of earmarks last year found that Gregg and former U.S. Sen. John Sununu had accepted donations from recipients. Gregg and Sununu, both Republicans, said the donations had no bearing on which earmarks they requested. Shaheen, a Democrat, replaced Sununu in the Senate this year, and this is her first budget.

The review also found that Hodes had accepted some donations. But after being asked by The Telegraph about them, he said he didn’t realize the donations had come from earmark recipients and that he returned them. Hodes said last year he has a policy of not accepting donations from recipients, which he repeated again in an interview last week.

The Telegraph review found that Shea-Porter had accepted no donations from those who she sought earmarks. Her staff said last week that the policy remains in place.

Slowly but surely, Congress has implemented measures to make the process more transparent and thus make lawmakers more accountable. As recently as two years ago, it was anyone’s guess where appropriations went and how much money legislators received from donors who benefited from those earmarks.

But under great public pressure, in 2007 federal lawmakers voted to disclose the earmarks they sponsor. This transparency has allowed the public to now track whether legislators receive campaign contributions from earmark recipients.

This year, the House and Senate went a step further and required all members to post their earmark requests on the Internet early in the process. Those earmarks are headed to various legislative subcommittees with the hope of eventually making the major House and Senate appropriations committees.

Hodes and Shea-Porter fared well with several nonpartisan watchdog groups for their Web initiatives. Taxpayers for Common Sense, for one, noted that while New Hampshire’s two representatives met the deadline for Internet posting, 71 of their colleagues failed to do so. The group also found that many legislators posted earmark requests but didn’t make them easy to find on their Web sites.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

April 13, 2009 Contact: Bob McIntyre (202) 299-1066 x22

3. Is “Tax Day” Too Burdensome for the Rich?

The U.S. Tax System Is Not as Progressive as You Think Many politicians, pundits and media outlets have recently claimed that the richest one percent of American taxpayers are providing a hugely disproportionate share of the tax revenue we need to fund public services. New data from Citizens for Tax Justice show that this simply is not true. CTJ estimates that the share of total taxes (federal state and local taxes) paid by taxpayers in each income group is quite similar to the share of total income received by each income group in 2008. --The total federal, state and local effective tax rate for the richest one percent of Americans (30.9 percent) is only slightly higher than the average effective tax rate for the remaining 99 percent of Americans (29.4 percent). --From the middle-income ranges upward, total effective tax rates are virtually flat across income groups.

For the whole report, with charts, click on the link above

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Posted on Thursday, April 9, 2009

4. CIA to close secret overseas prisons, end security contracts By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The CIA is decommissioning the secret overseas prisons where top al Qaida suspects were subjected to interrogation methods, including simulated drowning, that Attorney General Eric Holder, allied governments, the Red Cross and numerous other experts consider torture, the agency said Thursday.

In an e-mail to the agency's work force outlining current interrogation and detention policies, CIA Director Leon Panetta also announced that agreements with the private security firms guarding the so-called black sites will be "promptly terminated," and contractors no longer will be used to conduct interrogations. Panetta, however, said that CIA officers who were involved in interrogations using "enhanced" methods authorized by the Justice Department during the Bush administration "should not be investigated, let alone punished."

The Justice Department is investigating the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, while the Senate Intelligence Committee has launched an inquiry into the interrogation and detention program authorized by the Bush administration as part of its post-9/11 "war on terrorism."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called for the creation of a truth commission to investigate the Bush administration's detainee policies, but so far the Obama administration has shown little appetite for the idea.

The steps announced by Panetta are consistent with a Jan. 22 executive order in which President Barack Obama directed the CIA to halt the use of its secret overseas detention facilities and use only interrogation procedures authorized by an Army Field Manual.

Panetta's actions follow the leaking of a confidential February 2007 International Committee of the Red Cross report, made public this week by The New York Review of Books, that concluded that descriptions of the interrogation methods provided in interviews by 14 detainees who underwent them "amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" under international law.

In his e-mail, a copy of which was released by the CIA, Panetta told his work force that he'd written letters to the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees outlining the agency's " current policy regarding interrogation of captured terrorists."

He said he wrote the letters because of ongoing "media and congressional interest" in the detention and interrogation procedures the CIA used from 2002 until Obama's executive order, as well as questions about the agency's use of contract interrogators.

"No CIA contractors will conduct interrogations," Panetta wrote.

Panetta said his agency's pursuit of al Qaida and allied groups has continued "undiminished" in "strict accord" with Obama's order.

"CIA officers do not tolerate, and will continue to promptly report, any inappropriate behavior or allegations of abuse. That holds true whether a suspect is in the custody of an American partner or foreign liaison service," he continued, adding that the agency hasn't detained any suspects since he became director in February.

The decision to terminate contract interrogators followed expressions of concern by lawmakers about the CIA's use of such personnel, one of whom, David Passaro, was convicted in 2006 of abusing an Afghan detainee in 2003 at a U.S. base in Afghanistan. The detainee later died.

Panetta said the CIA "no longer operates" detention facilities and has developed a plan to "decommission" them that includes terminating the contracts with the private security firms that guard them.

"I have directed our Agency personnel to take charge of the decommissioning process," he wrote. "It is estimated that our taking over site security will result in savings of up to $4 million."

Critics of the Bush administration's detainee policies welcomed Panetta's e-mail.

"I have long fought to ban the use of contractors in interrogations and detention operations," Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. " So, I am very pleased that Mr. Panetta has announced that contractors will no longer conduct interrogations."

The CIA has refused to disclose the locations of its detention facilities. They reportedly are in Afghanistan, Jordan, Poland, Romania and Thailand, and CIA officials have said that they held fewer than 100 suspected terrorists.

Panetta said that the CIA is still allowed to hold terror suspects " on a short-term transitory basis," but that, "We anticipate that we would quickly turn over any person in our custody to U.S. military authorities or to their country of jurisdiction, depending on the situation."

The "enhanced" interrogation methods authorized by the Bush administration starting in 2002 included waterboarding, a procedure that simulates drowning. At least three detainees were subjected to the procedure, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged chief architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. During his confirmation hearing, Holder departed from Bush administration policies by declaring that "waterboarding is torture" and that "no one is above the law."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5. The 52 Minutes of Obama Magic That Changed the Nuclear Rules Monday 06 April 2009 by: Ian Traynor | Visit article original @ The Guardian UK

Obama in Prague, where he delivered a second call to rid the world of nuclear weapons. (Photo: Getty Images) Two presidential speeches in two days signal end of cold war strategic thinking.

In his whirlwind debut European tour of summits in Britain, France, Germany and the Czech Republic, Barack Obama has delivered two speeches, both exactly 26 minutes long.

On Friday, in Strasbourg, he was rapturously applauded by French and German students when he said he wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons. In Prague yesterday, he spelled out his hopes, outlining a host of means to that end and denouncing fatalism in the face of the nuclear threat as a "deadly adversary."

The world's estimated arsenal of 24,000 nuclear warheads - all but 1,000 in the US and Russian armouries - was the worst legacy of the cold war, Obama said. If the risk of all-out nuclear war had faded, the danger of nuclear attack had increased, he added.

Disarmament

The president pledged a drive on nuclear disarmament, possibly bigger than any ever attempted. He spelled out how he would accelerate arms control agreements with Russia, following his first summit meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev last week. The deal to conclude a new arms reduction treaty with Moscow, which would slash stockpiles by about a third was a beginning, setting the stage for further cuts.

Building on the momentum of a new agreement with the Russians, Obama said he wanted to cajole the other nuclear powers into agreeing international arms cuts.

This would include Britain's independent nuclear deterrent as well as France's force de frappe and could run into resistance.

John Hutton, the defence secretary, said at the weekend "there would have to be a very significant breakthrough in international nuclear weapons negotiations" before Britain's arsenal could be put on the table.

Nuclear Testing

"It is time for testing of nuclear weapons to be banned," Obama said. He called for a resuscitation of the 1996 comprehensive test ban treaty outlawing all nuclear tests. Obama's Democrat predecessor, Bill Clinton, signed the treaty, but then gave up on it after running into resistance from the Republican-controlled Senate which refused to ratify it a decade ago. George Bush did not pursue the issue.

America is the most important country that has not ratified the treaty, although other nuclear countries such as China, Israel and Pakistan, as well as Iran have also declined to ratify.

Obama said he would pursue US ratification "immediately and aggressively".

Proliferation

As well as supporting the test ban treaty, Obama pledged to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which dates from 1968 and is the cornerstone of the effort to try to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.

He specified two ways of reinforcing the NPT regime - banning the production of fissile material used for nuclear warheads and establishing an "international fuel bank" which would supply and keep tabs on low-enriched uranium for peaceful nuclear purposes in electricity generation for countries that need it.

This is aimed at keeping countries, such as Iran, from developing their own fuel enrichment programmes and at restricting the growth of nuclear knowhow.

Low-enriched uranium is used in power plants. High-enriched uranium is used for warheads. The material can be diverted for weapons use and once you have mastered the fuel cycle for power generation, it is relatively easy to produce bomb-grade material.

Obama also insisted on greater resources and authority for international inspections - and "real and immediate consequences" for countries that violate the treaty.

Loose Nukes

Over the past 15 years there have been various efforts, mainly by the US, to secure and store nuclear materials stemming from the collapse of the Soviet Union to offset the dangers of "loose nukes", nuclear contraband, and black market trading in radioactive materials.

Obama said he wanted to re-energise this campaign to get all " vulnerable" nuclear materials in secure storage within four years.

He also said he would convene a world summit on nuclear security in the US within a year. The agenda and participants for such a conference remain unclear.

But the spread of nuclear knowhow and technology had to be stopped, he said, since it would become increasingly easy to "buy, build or steal" a nuclear bomb. The risk of terrorists being able to obtain a nuclear device was "the most immediate and extreme threat to global security."

National Security

Obama also promised to rewrite American military and national security strategy to downgrade the centrality of nuclear weapons, reversing a tendency among some senior former military officials to argue in favour of an increased reliance on nuclear weapons and a commitment to embrace preemptive nuclear strikes as an option.

The Timetable

The president conceded the nuclear challenge was daunting, would be a long haul, and could fail. "This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime. It would take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change." But he said it was time for a new, more robust international regime. "Rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something."

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

6. Remarks by President Obama in Prague(Hradcany Square(Prague, Czech Republic Sunday 05 April 2009

President Obama: Thank you so much. Thank you for this wonderful welcome. Thank you to the people of Prague. Thank you to the people of the Czech Republic. (Applause.)

Today, I'm proud to stand here with you in the middle of this great city, in the center of Europe. (Applause.)

And, to paraphrase one of my predecessors, I am also proud to be the man who brought Michelle Obama to Prague. (Applause.)

To Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, to all the dignitaries who are here, thank you for your extraordinary hospitality. And to the people of the Czech Republic, thank you for your friendship to the United States. (Applause.)

I've learned over many years to appreciate the good company and the good humor of the Czech people in my hometown of Chicago. (Applause.)

Behind me is a statue of a hero of the Czech people - Tomas Masaryk. (Applause.)

In 1918, after America had pledged its support for Czech independence, Masaryk spoke to a crowd in Chicago that was estimated to be over 100,000. I don't think I can match his record - (laughter) - but I am honored to follow his footsteps from Chicago to Prague. (Applause.)

For over a thousand years, Prague has set itself apart from any other city in any other place. You've known war and peace. You've seen empires rise and fall. You've led revolutions in the arts and science, in politics and in poetry. Through it all, the people of Prague have insisted on pursuing their own path, and defining their own destiny. And this city - this Golden City which is both ancient and youthful - stands as a living monument to your unconquerable spirit. When I was born, the world was divided, and our nations were faced with very different circumstances. Few people would have predicted that someone like me would one day become the President of the United States. (Applause.)

Few people would have predicted that an American President would one day be permitted to speak to an audience like this in Prague. (Applause.)

Few would have imagined that the Czech Republic would become a free nation, a member of NATO, a leader of a united Europe. Those ideas would have been dismissed as dreams. We are here today because enough people ignored the voices who told them that the world could not change. We're here today because of the courage of those who stood up and took risks to say that freedom is a right for all people, no matter what side of a wall they live on, and no matter what they look like. We are here today because of the Prague Spring - because the simple and principled pursuit of liberty and opportunity shamed those who relied on the power of tanks and arms to put down the will of a people. We are here today because 20 years ago, the people of this city took to the streets to claim the promise of a new day, and the fundamental human rights that had been denied them for far too long. Sametová Revoluce - (applause)

- the Velvet Revolution taught us many things. It showed us that peaceful protest could shake the foundations of an empire, and expose the emptiness of an ideology. It showed us that small countries can play a pivotal role in world events, and that young people can lead the way in overcoming old conflicts. (Applause.)

And it proved that moral leadership is more powerful than any weapon. That's why I'm speaking to you in the center of a Europe that is peaceful, united and free - because ordinary people believed that divisions could be bridged, even when their leaders did not. They believed that walls could come down; that peace could prevail. We are here today because Americans and Czechs believed against all odds that today could be possible. (Applause.)

Now, we share this common history. But now this generation - our generation - cannot stand still. We, too, have a choice to make. As the world has become less divided, it has become more interconnected. And we've seen events move faster than our ability to control them - a global economy in crisis, a changing climate, the persistent dangers of old conflicts, new threats and the spread of catastrophic weapons. None of these challenges can be solved quickly or easily. But all of them demand that we listen to one another and work together; that we focus on our common interests, not on occasional differences; and that we reaffirm our shared values, which are stronger than any force that could drive us apart. That is the work that we must carry on. That is the work that I have come to Europe to begin. (Applause.)

To renew our prosperity, we need action coordinated across borders. That means investments to create new jobs. That means resisting the walls of protectionism that stand in the way of growth. That means a change in our financial system, with new rules to prevent abuse and future crisis. (Applause.)

And we have an obligation to our common prosperity and our common humanity to extend a hand to those emerging markets and impoverished people who are suffering the most, even though they may have had very little to do with financial crises, which is why we set aside over a trillion dollars for the International Monetary Fund earlier this week, to make sure that everybody - everybody - receives some assistance. (Applause.)

Now, to protect our planet, now is the time to change the way that we use energy. (Applause.)

Together, we must confront climate change by ending the world's dependence on fossil fuels, by tapping the power of new sources of energy like the wind and sun, and calling upon all nations to do their part. And I pledge to you that in this global effort, the United States is now ready to lead. (Applause.)

To provide for our common security, we must strengthen our alliance. NATO was founded 60 years ago, after Communism took over Czechoslovakia. That was when the free world learned too late that it could not afford division. So we came together to forge the strongest alliance that the world has ever known. And we should - stood shoulder to shoulder - year after year, decade after decade - until an Iron Curtain was lifted, and freedom spread like flowing water. This marks the 10th year of NATO membership for the Czech Republic. And I know that many times in the 20th century, decisions were made without you at the table. Great powers let you down, or determined your destiny without your voice being heard. I am here to say that the United States will never turn its back on the people of this nation. (Applause.)

We are bound by shared values, shared history - (applause.)

We are bound by shared values and shared history and the enduring promise of our alliance. NATO's Article V states it clearly: An attack on one is an attack on all. That is a promise for our time, and for all time. The people of the Czech Republic kept that promise after America was attacked; thousands were killed on our soil, and NATO responded. NATO's mission in Afghanistan is fundamental to the safety of people on both sides of the Atlantic. We are targeting the same al Qaeda terrorists who have struck from New York to London, and helping the Afghan people take responsibility for their future. We are demonstrating that free nations can make common cause on behalf of our common security. And I want you to know that we honor the sacrifices of the Czech people in this endeavor, and mourn the loss of those you've lost. But no alliance can afford to stand still. We must work together as NATO members so that we have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from. We must strengthen our cooperation with one another, and with other nations and institutions around the world, to confront dangers that recognize no borders. And we must pursue constructive relations with Russia on issues of common concern. Now, one of those issues that I'll focus on today is fundamental to the security of our nations and to the peace of the world - that's the future of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that existed for centuries, that embodied the beauty and the talent of so much of humanity, would have ceased to exist. Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold. Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city - be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague - could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be - for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival. Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked - that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable. Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.)

And as nuclear power - as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it. So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.)

I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." (Applause.)

Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies - including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal. To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. (Applause.)

President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor. To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Applause.)

After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned. And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step. Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation. The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause. And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation. That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it's based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance peace opportunity for all people. But we go forward with no illusions. Some countries will break the rules. That's why we need a structure in place that ensures when any nation does, they will face consequences. Just this morning, we were reminded again of why we need a new and more rigorous approach to address this threat. North Korea broke the rules once again by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles. This provocation underscores the need for action - not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons. Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response - (applause)

- now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course. Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon. My administration will seek engagement with Iran based on mutual interests and mutual respect. We believe in dialogue. (Applause.)

But in that dialogue we will present a clear choice. We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That's a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all. So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. (Applause.)

If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed. (Applause.)

So, finally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon. This is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. One terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction. Al Qaeda has said it seeks a bomb and that it would have no problem with using it. And we know that there is unsecured nuclear material across the globe. To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay. So today I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials. We must also build on our efforts to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions. And we should start by having a Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year. (Applause.)

Now, I know that there are some who will question whether we can act on such a broad agenda. There are those who doubt whether true international cooperation is possible, given inevitable differences among nations. And there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it's worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve. But make no mistake: We know where that road leads. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp. We know the path when we choose fear over hope. To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy but also a cowardly thing to do. That's how wars begin. That's where human progress ends. There is violence and injustice in our world that must be confronted. We must confront it not by splitting apart but by standing together as free nations, as free people. (Applause.)

I know that a call to arms can stir the souls of men and women more than a call to lay them down. But that is why the voices for peace and progress must be raised together. (Applause.)

Those are the voices that still echo through the streets of Prague. Those are the ghosts of 1968. Those were the joyful sounds of the Velvet Revolution. Those were the Czechs who helped bring down a nuclear-armed empire without firing a shot. Human destiny will be what we make of it. And here in Prague, let us honor our past by reaching for a better future. Let us bridge our divisions, build upon our hopes, accept our responsibility to leave this world more prosperous and more peaceful than we found it. (Applause.)

Together we can do it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Prague. (Applause.)