[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 26, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5894-H5899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5682, UNITED STATES AND INDIA
NUCLEAR COOPERATION PROMOTION ACT OF 2006
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 947 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 947
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5682) to exempt from certain requirements of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement
for cooperation with India. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on International Relations. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on International
Relations now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted
in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the
purpose of further amendment and shall be considered as read.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment
to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules.
Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed
in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as
amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 947 provides for a structured rule,
with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled between
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
International Relations, and waives all points of order against
consideration of this bill, and provides for a motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
This rule also makes in order several amendments brought forward to
the Rules Committee, two of which are Democrat amendments, two are
Republican, and two are bipartisan amendments, so the rule is fair in
allowing a wide range of debate on issues that will be affecting
nuclear technology, U.S. foreign policy and our strategic partnership
between the world's two largest democracies, India and the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, there was a time when I acted in a great many plays, one
of which was the children's theater ``Willy Wonka and the Chocolate
Factory.'' And Willy Wonka has a song
[[Page H5895]]
that he sings in there called ``Pure Imagination,'' with the wonderful
lyrics like ``there is no life I know that compares with pure
imagination,'' which may work well for the stage or for a children's
book after which it was based but not in the reality of our partnership
between India and the United States.
There we must face reality, and the reality is India has had nuclear
technology for four decades, they are a nuclear power, they have been
in the possession of that technology since 1974 when they conducted
their first nuclear test, they have never signed the nuclear
nonproliferation treaty, nor do they have the international Atomic
Energy Agency safeguards, and since that time they have sought to
increase the development of nuclear energy to support the needs of
their large population.
In June of last year, President Bush announced an agreement with
Prime Minister Singh of India on increasing cooperation on various
fronts, including civilian energy production, which will hopefully
ensure that India will join with the rest of the world and with us in
the nonproliferation mainstream.
This underlying bill, H.R. 5682, builds upon those principles
outlined in the President's agreement with India and grants the
President certain prerogatives to waive restrictions of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 to facilitate transfers of civilian nuclear
technology and materials, while specifically preserving the right of
the Congress to ultimately approve or disapprove those waivers by
requiring an unamendable joint resolution of approval by Congress in
order for any of the formal detailed agreements to be entered into
force.
{time} 1600
In that regard, the Committee did well in protecting the rights and
prerogatives of Congress. The bill also increases congressional
oversight of nuclear cooperation with India by requiring detailed
annual reports on India's activities.
Finally, the legislation requires the President, prior to requesting
a waiver of the Atomic Energy Act prohibitions to certify to Congress
very specific conditions that have been met by India, which would
include: A credible plan for a separation of India's civilian and
military facilities, increased safeguards and inspection of India's
nuclear facilities, strengthened controls on India's export of nuclear
technology, and an agreement that India will work with the United
States towards the FMC treaty, which will also certify that the NSG has
consensus agreement on the guideline modifications that will be
enacted.
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member on the International Relations
Committee said at the Rules Committee hearing yesterday on this bill,
it is perhaps the single most important bill in this area of
international relations that this Congress will have acted upon.
Our country has much to gain by working cooperatively with India in
exchange for tighter controls than by not engaging them on these
matters at all.
Without this agreement, India could move unilaterally into a nuclear
realm without our Nation's consent or cooperation. Since September 11,
2001, India has demonstrated that it is an important partner with the
United States in combating the war on terror. It is a nation of
strategic and economic interests, and it is one in which we need to
further our cooperation with India.
One of the most concise yet persuasive concepts for us to consider as
well is that by facilitating civilian nuclear energy in India through
cooperative agreements with our country, we will also have a
significant influence on the international impact of oil, of emissions
and jobs.
This is one of those bills, unlike some of the others we do, that
does not expand the scope of government, it does not impose a mandate,
has congressional authority, and if you are watching or reading one of
the newspapers passed around this Hill today was supported by eight
different veterans groups today.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5682 is a bipartisan bill. It enjoys a broad range
of support. I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. I thank my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the U.S.-India Nuclear
Cooperation Promotion Act. As our colleague, Chairman Hyde, said
yesterday in the House Rules Committee, this is the single most
important piece of legislation that has come through the International
Relations Committee this year.
We must do everything in our power to pass it today. India, the
world's largest democracy, and the United States, the world's oldest
democracy, must come together and strengthen their friendship. After
centuries of an unsteady relationship, there has been dramatic
improvement starting with the Clinton administration and continuing
today.
This bill tells India that we believe in them, and that we want to
support them just like they have consistently supported us. The
civilian nuclear initiative will deepen the U.S.-India strategic
partnership. The initiative reflects U.S. trust in India as a global
tactical partner, and indicates our admiration for India's democratic
traditions, her commitment to tolerance and her commitment to freedom.
I, as well as many of our colleagues, have had the great pleasure of
traveling to the country of India on several different occasions. Any
person who goes to India recognizes the crucial necessity of clean
energy.
This legislation will provide productions of clean energy, and can
potentially reduce further pollution on the environment through
decreasing the dependency on fossil fuels.
Civil nuclear cooperation is vital to the development of a clean and
safe environment for our Indian friends. As our distinguished
colleague, the ranking member of International Relations, Tom Lantos,
said in the Rules Committee yesterday, India is a nuclear
nonproliferator.
India has pledged to identify and separate her civil and military
nuclear facilities and programs and place the civil portions under IAEA
safeguards. I would urge my colleagues who have some hesitancy about
this legislation to pay particular attention to that particular part of
the legislation.
This bill will bring India closer to the international
nonproliferation mainstream. India has ensured that 65 percent of her
current and planned power reactors will come under IAEA safeguards.
This, in the legislation, would rise to as high as 90 percent in future
years as India constructs new reactors.
Without this initiative, 81 percent of India's current power reactors
and all future power programs would remain unclear. Energy power and
clean air are necessities for the Republic of India, especially because
the excessive harm of global warming that is affecting India and indeed
the world every day.
The amount of carbon dioxide emitted through the combustion of fossil
fuels, otherwise known as the carbon footprint, is constantly upsetting
this region.
Their need for alternative sources of energy is staggering, and we
must pass this legislation to make a change in this region possible.
India, America's strongest ally in the Southeast Asia region, is on the
verge of an energy crisis. India is the sixth largest energy consumer
in the world.
But in order to maintain their strong economic growth, India's energy
consumption will need to increase substantially. The facts are
astounding, and civilian nuclear cooperation is the only way India's
energy can remain secure.
On a note of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
Sonal Patel, a young woman who is interning in my office this summer.
She worked hard on this issue, and she and other young Indian nationals
who are interning here on the Hill this summer worked very actively,
along with my friends, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Pallone and others, to bring to
the floor the legislation dealing with the condemnation of the horrible
bombing incidents that took place in India.
This is a year where many of our interns are demonstrating staff-like
work, and certainly, she qualifies in that category. The facts are
astounding, and civilian nuclear cooperation is the only way India's
energy can remain secure.
[[Page H5896]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairwoman of the subcommittee,
and one of the experts we have here in the House on international
relations.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this legislation, as well as
the co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans,
I rise in strong support of House Resolution 5682, the United States
and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act.
I would like to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for
their dedicated work on this important issue, and for their willingness
to work with me as well as other Members of the House International
Relations Committee to ensure that the bill before us today achieves
that delicate balance between strengthening our democratic ally, India,
and expanding our bilateral strategic efforts, while promoting U.S.
nonproliferation priorities.
Given the overwhelming positive committee vote on this measure, I am
confident that we have achieved this balance, Mr. Speaker. By providing
the legal foundation for full civilian nuclear cooperation, this bill
supports the strategic objectives for our global partnership with
India, and that was signed a year ago by President Bush and Prime
Minister Singh.
As India stands firm with the United States and our efforts to
confront and eliminate the scourge of global terrorism, and to prevent
the spread of dangerous nuclear technology, this bill seeks to reward
and recognize India's commitment, while building upon our bilateral
cooperation and strategic relationship to address broader U.S. national
security priorities.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a proposal that we would offer to just any
nation. It is a venture we would only enter with our most trusted and
proven democratic allies. As such, the bill we will be considering
today clearly notes that India is a special case. It outlines the
record of achievement that distinguishes India from the pack, and that
has earned India this special treatment.
Notably, I am referring to section 2 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which
defines certain criteria that are crucial to the U.S. and which India
has met. Section 2 recognizes that India is a country that has
demonstrated responsible behavior with respect to the nonproliferation
of technology related to weapons of mass destruction programs, and the
means to deliver them; that India is working with the United States in
key foreign policy initiatives related to nonproliferation.
India's commitment to cooperate with us on such major issues as the
spread of nuclear weapons material and technology to groups and
countries of concern, such as Iran, advances the strategic security
interests of us in the United States.
However, to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to go beyond the
status quo, and it builds upon existing commitments and cooperation.
Section 3 of the bill focuses our policy on securing India's full and
active involvement in dissuading, isolating, and if necessary,
sanctioning and containing Iran for its efforts to acquire chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons capability, and the means to deliver
those deadly unconventional weapons.
This section also establishes, as U.S. official policy, the need to
secure India's participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative,
including a formal commitment to the statement of interdiction
principles.
It also calls for the achievement of a moratorium by India, by
Pakistan, and by China, of fissile materials for nuclear explosives
purposes. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill ensures that Congress can
exercise its congressional oversight, and it outlines a number of steps
that the President must determine and report to the Congress that have
taken place before we consider the final agreement.
Among other conditions, the certification under section 4 requires
that India provide the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency
with a credible plan to separate its nuclear facilities, and that India
file a declaration with the IAEA regarding the civilian sites.
It calls for India and the International Atomic Energy Agency to have
concluded an agreement that subjects these nuclear facilities to
perpetual safeguards. The President must also certify that India is
taking concrete steps to prevent the spread of dangerous nuclear-
related technology, such as by enacting and enforcing comprehensive
export controls and regulations that are in keeping with the highest
regional and international standards, such as those of the Nuclear
Suppliers Club.
More importantly, Mr. Speaker, Congress will be able to review and
approve the final framework agreement for U.S.-India nuclear
agreements. Lastly, H.R. 5682 calls on the U.S. Government to provide
Congress with detailed annual reports on implementation of this deal
and on U.S. nonproliferation policy throughout South Asia.
{time} 1615
In short, nuclear cooperation under this proposed legislation could
enhance not just U.S. security but actually international security as a
whole.
In light of the vital implications of this legislation, Mr. Speaker,
I urge my colleagues in joining me and voting ``yes'' on the U.S. and
India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act. I thank my good friend for the
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). Without objection, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will control the time of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the International Relations
Committee, one of the distinguished former co-chairs of the House India
Caucus.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for
the India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act, and I thank the gentleman
from Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
This rule provides debate for relevant amendments to the proposed
civilian nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and India.
I strongly support the passage of this bill, as do many former Clinton
administration officials.
Former Defense Secretary Richard Cohen said, and I quote, ``The most
important strategic agreement that we will have reached in recent times
has been that of the United States and India on this non-nuclear
agreement.''
Former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Rick Inderfurth
said, and I quote, ``It is the right call for us in the world, really.
This is a way to bring India into a global nonproliferation regime,
rather than leaving it on the outside.''
Former Ambassador and career Foreign Service Officer Terestia
Schaffer said, and I quote, ``The nuclear system will be much more
robust and potentially more effective with India on the inside than on
the outside.''
And today former Ambassadors to India Tom Pickering and Frank Wisner
wrote an op/ed supporting the deal, which I would like to ask unanimous
consent to have added to the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
[From the Washington Times, July 26, 2006]
Triumphant India Policy
(By Tom Pickering/Frank Wisner)
When the House of Representatives votes today on civil
nuclear cooperation with India, President Bush, marching
hand-in-hand with Congress, will be a step closer to a
foreign policy trophy commensurable with Nixon's opening to
China: a flourishing strategic partnership with India.
Cementing this partnership would overcome decades of
unrealistic and futile attempts to force India to abandon its
nuclear arsenal while sandwiched between two nuclear-armed
rivals.
The House International Relations Committee earlier voted
by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 37-5 to approve the
civil nuclear cooperation bill (H.R. 5682), and the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee has approved a companion bill by
16-2. The terms of the legislation have been scrupulously
crafted in a collaborative endeavor between the executive and
legislative branches to answer nonproliferation concerns,
among other issues.
[[Page H5897]]
Civil nuclear cooperation with India would catalyze
alignment of the two great democracies for the 21st century.
Prospects for enactment are sanguine during the 106th
Congress. It demonstrates how much a president can accomplish
in foreign and national security affairs if Congress gets a
ticket for the take-off as well as for the landing, to borrow
from former Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, Michigan Republican.
Virtually every member of Congress understands the
centrality of India to U.S. national security interests.
India appreciates the horror of international terrorism
because it has suffered on a scale reminiscent of September
11, 2001: hundreds of casualties recently in Mumbai from
bombs planted on six commuter trains; an attack on India's
parliament; and recurrent horrors in Kashmir.
When India's prime minister addressed the U.S. Congress
last year, he vowed: ``We must fight terrorism wherever it
exists, because terrorism anywhere threatens democracy
everywhere.'' During a return trip to India, President Bush
responded: ``He is right. And so America and India are allies
in the war against terror.''
India generally supports the U.S. over Iran's nuclear
ambitions, peace in the Middle East, reconstruction of
Afghanistan, and spread of democracy in Nepal and elsewhere.
The two countries are co-founders of the Global Democracy
Initiative.
India is a secular democracy, featuring religious
pluralism. It is a majority Hindu nation with a Muslim
president, a Sikh prime minister, and a Christian leader of
its largest political party. Its permanent interests on
energy, free enterprise, the environment and
nonproliferation, and a balance of power in Asia converge
with those of the United States.
The U.S-India strategic partnership has been frustrated
more than 30 years by a rigid statutory prohibition on
sharing civil nuclear technology with India, whereas sharing
is permitted with China and other less friendly or
responsible nations. India has felt estranged and demeaned.
The pending legislation would pluck the ``cinder in the eye''
of the U.S.-India relationship on terms eminently fair to
both.
India would join the international nonproliferation
framework. It would place all of its civilian reactors under
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections to
prevent diversion of nuclear assistance to military use. It
would upgrade its export controls on missile and nuclear
technology to the standards of the Missile Technology Control
Regime and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. It would continue its
moratorium on nuclear testing, and negotiate in tandem with
the United States a multilateral Fissile Material Cut-Off
Treaty.
The legislation has elicited the enthusiastic support of
two directors general of the IAEA, the G-8, and Great
Britain, France and Russia. IAEA Director General and Nobel
Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei has effused: ``The agreement .
. . would bring India closer as an important partner in the
nonproliferation regime. It would be a milestone, timely for
ongoing efforts to consolidate the nonproliferation regime,
combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety.''
Contrary to detractors, the prospective U.S.-India civil
nuclear cooperation has not diminished international
opposition to the nuclear adventurism of Iran or North Korea.
It has not provoked any nation to consider withdrawal from
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, because the legislation
harmonizes with its terms and objectives. It has not ignited
an arms race in South Asia.
By any sensible nonproliferation measure, the legislation
for civil nuclear cooperation with India will make the world
safer. India's already commendable export control record
would further improve. It has not proliferated to third
countries, unlike the A.Q. Khan network. Its indigenous
development of nuclear weapons was consistent with its
international obligations and an understandable response to
the NPT's tilt in favor of five defined nuclear-weapons
states: China, Russia, the United States, Great Britain and
France. And nuclear assistance to India's civilian sector
will not ``free up'' indigenous uranium to boost its military
arsenal because India's uranium reserves are enough for both
programs, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has told
Congress.
In sum, to vote for civil nuclear cooperation with India is
to vote on the right side of history, for nonproliferation,
and in the U.S. supreme national interests.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, NPT, the Nonproliferation Treaty, is
something that we all hold in great respect. But I believe, as do many
of my colleagues, the ``T'' needs to stand for tent. We need to find a
way to bring India into the tent of nonproliferators, as she has always
been a nonproliferating country. She has never once proliferated beyond
her borders, unlike some of her neighbors.
If you want to have a similar deal as has been struck between the
United States and India, you need to act as Gary Ackerman says, like
India.
I urge all my colleagues to support the rule and final passage of a
clean bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5682 and
the rule for this legislation, the U.S. and India Nuclear Cooperation
Promotion Act of 2006.
I want to also compliment the distinguished chairman of the House
International Relations Committee, Mr. Hyde, and ranking member, Mr.
Lantos, for their leadership in bringing forward this important
implementing legislation.
I also want to commend the administration for recognizing that we can
learn from our mistakes, a mistake whereby we have failed in the past
to link our foreign policy with our energy policy, and this is a very
good first step to correcting such mistakes.
This is a very far-reaching agreement whereby the world's oldest
democracy will join with the world's largest democracy to work together
on foreign policy and energy policy. This is a model for the future
where we can work on energy, cooperative agreements, and also fit
within our strategic framework.
India for the past 32 years has been a nonproliferator, and we should
reward India for that historic effort. In recent years, India has
certainly been a critically important ally in the global war on terror.
It has proven to be a reliable and secure state when it comes to
nonproliferation. We need to build on this relationship and this new-
found trust, and this implementing legislation that will allow us to do
this is a critical first step in deepening this cooperation.
India, in working with the IAEA to increase inspections of existing
and future reactors and maintaining India's moratorium on weapons
testing, and given their assurances to work with us to prevent
proliferation throughout the region, will prove to be a great example
for other countries in the region to follow.
This is not only just a good bill for India. It is also good for
American business. It allows us to increase energy trade, which really
has not happened in the past three decades with India.
This is great for the environment. It helps us reduce carbon
emissions by some 300 million tons, more than half the total Kyoto
protocols; and it is going to reduce India's dependence on foreign
sources of energy such as natural gas, which it is heavily dependent
upon.
This is a very important piece of foreign policy and energy policy. I
urge its passage. I urge passage of the rule so that we can move
forward.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Florida, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about the underlying bill. We
will do that a little later on today. But, instead, I want to take a
couple of minutes to speak about the rule and about what I believe is a
flawed process that Members of this House are forced to operate within.
It is easy in this Congress to get as much time as you want to debate
trivial issues. We spend hours and hours honoring sports teams, we name
post offices, we do all kinds of things like that. But when it comes to
serious issues, all of a sudden there never seems to be the time.
There were a number of amendments that were proposed in the Rules
Committee last night. Some of them were not made in order, and I regret
the fact that those amendments were not made in order. But a number of
those that were made in order have been limited to 10 minutes, 10
minutes, to talk about issues dealing with nuclear proliferation and
arms control, 10 minutes to talk about issues that impact U.S. treaty
obligations, 10 minutes to talk about how we prevent this world from
being extinguished in one terrible nuclear flash.
That is what the leadership of this House thinks about issues of arms
control and nuclear nonproliferation, 10 minutes; 5 minutes pro, 5
minutes against.
My colleagues, Congressman Berman and Congresswoman Tauscher, have an
amendment that restricts exports of
[[Page H5898]]
nuclear reactor fuel to India until the President determines that India
has halted the production of fissile material for the use in nuclear
weapons. It is a serious issue. Regardless of whether you believe it
should be part of this underlying bill or not, it is an issue that
deserves debate and that the more debate that it gets on the floor the
more of an indication we are going to send to our negotiators and to
the Government of India that these issues are important to those of us
in this Congress.
Congressman Markey and Congressman Upton had an amendment that
essentially would require the President to determine that the U.S. has
received India's support in preventing Iran from acquiring weapons of
mass destruction before the U.S. engages in nuclear cooperation with
India.
The President and Members of this Congress take to this well
constantly to talk about how we are concerned about Iran possibly
acquiring weapons of mass destruction. This seems like a reasonable
amendment. It was not made in order, so now we are forced to use it as
a motion to recommit. We get 10 minutes to debate that, 5 minutes in
favor, 5 minutes against.
We need to get our priorities straight in this House. We give
resolutions honoring sports teams 40 minutes, 40 minutes; and we can
only give 10 minutes to deal with amendments that are dealing with
issues of whether or not we are going to see this arms race proliferate
throughout this world? We need to get our priorities straight.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this rule.
Regardless of how you want to vote on the final passage of this bill,
we should demand, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, that serious
issues that get debated, get debated with enough time on this floor, at
least as much as we give to these trivial issues like honoring sports
teams.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/
2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich) and former mayor of Cleveland.
Mr. KUCINICH. I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill. This proposal would threaten global security and unilaterally
modify the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
This administration has pursued contradictory policies with respect
to the NPT, both misusing and disregarding the NPT to suit its
stumbling interests. Regarding Iran, for example, the administration
cited Iran for minor breaches of the NPT and are trying to rally
support based on that for a military attack. At the same time, the
administration itself undermines the NPT by this proposal which would
help develop nuclear weapons.
The NPT requires that nuclear weapons states keep their weapons to
themselves and allows nonweapons states to receive civilian nuclear
technology only in exchange for their refusal to produce nuclear
weapons. Yet this deal, in this deal the U.S. will provide India with
civilian nuclear technology even though India is not a signatory to the
NPT, is known to possess nuclear weapons and has no intention of
limiting its nuclear weapons cache or production capability.
Moreover, since the U.S. will supply India with uranium fuel, India
will be able to use more of its own limited uranium reserves to produce
nuclear weapons. It is estimated India will be able to produce dozens
more nuclear weapons per year under this deal.
We are going in the wrong direction here. At this time of great
crisis in the world, we should be looking towards nuclear disarmament,
nuclear abolition, saving the world, not ramping up for Armageddon by
nuclear proliferation.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on the rule for the bill that was
passed out by a bipartisan vote of 37-5, I reserve my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield to my good friend from New Jersey, the distinguished
gentleman, Mr. Pallone, 1 minute.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in
support of the bill.
India has been a strong U.S. ally and should be viewed as a credible
and worthy nation of our help and support. India is ready to accept all
the responsibilities of the world's leading states with respect to
advanced nuclear technology.
India has no record of proliferating dual-use nuclear technology to
other countries. It understands the danger of the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and has agreed to key international
nonproliferation requirements. India has committed to separate its
military and peaceful programs and adhere to international nuclear and
missile control restrictions. It is actively working with the Nuclear
Suppliers Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency to place all
of its nuclear facilities under international safeguards.
This nuclear agreement strengthens energy security for the U.S. and
India and promotes the development of stable and efficient energy
markets in India. Development and expansion of U.S.-India civil nuclear
cooperation should over time lessen India's dependence on imported
hydrocarbons, including those from Iran.
Today, the world's two largest democracies have established a
remarkable strategic partnership. A civil nuclear cooperation would be
a great accomplishment. Its implementation is important for national
security and for U.S.-India relations. I urge my colleagues to vote an
``aye'' on this bill.
I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their hard
work in constructing a bill that both the administration and the House
could support. Their version will set the process by which Congress
will in the future review and vote on the final framework agreement to
implement the nuclear cooperation deal.
Based on their shared values of diversity, democracy and prosperity,
the United States and India have a natural connection. Recently, we
fostered a transformed relationship that is central to the future
success of the international community; and this important legislation
would solidify this relationship.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield myself such
time as I may consume; and I am going to take just a small amount of
time hoping that colleagues who have demonstrated an interest would
have time to get to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has not been mentioned by anyone
that I believe that this legislation will assist in is providing safe
reactors.
I had the misfortune and at the same time distinguished privilege to
serve as the lead election monitor of the elections in Belarus, and
while there I had an opportunity to see the horrible effects of a
nuclear disaster. Some folks who remember Chernobyl think of it as
Ukrainian and Russian in terms of the damage that was done, but the
downwind aspects of that disaster fell on Belarusians, and it was
devastating, and the effects of that are still showing.
{time} 1630
We have had, with the exception of the Three Mile Island incident in
Pennsylvania, extremely safe nuclear reactors in the United States, and
our technology, indeed, some of technology in the world, may very well
provide for even safer reactors. Thus, bringing India under the aegis
of the IAEA can only assist in providing safe reactors.
Additionally, as we well know, Indian scientists are extremely
resourceful. The residual from nuclear technology has produced the
waste that the world needs to determine how best to handle. I believe,
without knowing, nor do I think this legislation standing alone will
cause that to occur, but I believe that Indian scientists, working with
others throughout the world, may very well assist in developing the
technology that will handle the nuclear waste that is such a tremendous
problem, not only for this country, but indeed the world.
So there are other benefits that may be derived from this
legislation, in addition to civilian pursuits that will help to reduce
the carbon footprint.
Mr. Speaker, I did take enough time to let one of my colleagues
arrive, and that said, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my
classmate and good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey).
[[Page H5899]]
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be something missing from
the debate today. It is like the elephant in the room, no one wants to
talk about it. Whatever happens to the United States' own commitment to
nonproliferation?
Yesterday, I went before the Rules Committee, and I had an amendment
that was quite simple. It stated that until the President has
implemented and observed all of our NPT obligations and revised its own
policies relating to them, no item may be transferred to India,
including exports of nuclear and nuclear-related material, equipment or
technology. Unfortunately, my amendment was not included in this
restrictive rule.
As many of my colleagues have stated, this objection is not about the
deal or our alliance with India. This is about how the Bush
administration has made a mockery of the NPT and encouraged other
countries to go around the treaty. Basically, the bill says that if a
country ignores the NPT, the United States will cut a deal down the
road.
If anything, the U.S. is contributing to global nuclear proliferation
with this agreement.
Vote against the rule because in a world that is becoming more, not
less, violent by the day we must face the facts. Until the United
States lives up to its nonproliferation obligations, how can we
possibly ask others to do so?
Today, I will vote against this misguided bill. I will vote against
the rule. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just to illustrate what the Rules Committee actually did do, there
were 10 amendments that were proposed to the Rules Committee, one
withdrawn, two not germane. The one recently referred to was ruled not
germane because it referred to all NPTs, not specifically this
particular one. Of the seven that were remaining, six were actually
made in order.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, without further closing, in
light of the fact that I have already, I yield back the balance of our
time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and his presentation. I am very
proud that I was able to go through this entire discussion and I hope
to say ``nuclear'' correctly. It was the biggest fear I had.
I support the rule; I urge all those to support this rule and the
consideration for H.R. 5682.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time and I move the previous question on
the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________