[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 88 (Monday, July 10, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Page S7281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  U.S.-INDIA CIVIL NUCLEAR COOPERATION

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee recently 
had an opportunity to mark up historic legislation that would permit 
civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and India. I say 
historic because such cooperation will dramatically shift 30 years of 
nonproliferation policy towards India and potentially set the United 
States-India relationship on a new foundation.
  Our relationship with India is one of our most important. As we look 
ahead to the coming decades, it is clear that United States-India 
relations will be crucial to establishing a secure, sustainable, and 
prosperous global system. But as we consider a fundamental shift in the 
international nonproliferation regime, we must also make sure we have 
adequate protections in place to guard against the spread of nuclear 
weapons and weapons technology.
  I appreciate the fact that the legislation we were asked to mark up 
represented a substantial amount of work from Chairman Lugar, Ranking 
Member Biden, and their staffs. This bill was a substantial improvement 
over the original proposal, which would have removed any meaningful 
congressional oversight from consideration of a nuclear cooperation 
agreement with India and which had virtually no protections for 
nonproliferation concerns.
  However, I remain concerned with the broader implications of this 
legislation. My primary concern is this: the threat of nuclear weapons 
to the United States and the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear 
material are among the gravest dangers that our country faces. It is 
crucial to our national security that the nuclear nonproliferation 
framework remains strong. I want to make sure that the United States, 
as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is working to 
strengthen the international treaties and regimes that have been 
designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
  That is why I offered an amendment that would simply spell out in 
greater detail that this deal will be only civilian in nature and that 
none of the assistance the United States provides to India will be used 
for strengthening or further developing India's nuclear weapons 
arsenal. This is something we are already committed to under article 1 
of the NPT. The amendment would have required the President to certify 
that he had received sufficient assurances that U.S. assistance would 
not contribute directly or indirectly to the development of India's 
nuclear weapons arsenal.
  This should not have been a controversial requirement, but 
unfortunately my amendment was defeated during markup. However, I was 
pleased to have four of my Democratic colleagues vote in favor of my 
amendment. They recognized that this is an important, legitimate 
concern and that a Presidential determination along these lines would 
have provided protections against the diversion of U.S. technology, 
equipment, and fuel toward a nuclear weapons program. In the absence of 
such protections, I was compelled to vote against this legislation.
  My ``no'' vote does not mean that I am opposed to the entire deal. I 
will work with my colleagues to ensure that the final version of this 
bill contains adequate protections against the spread of nuclear 
weapons technology.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________