[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 2, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1626-E1627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   UNITED STATES AND INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION PROMOTION ACT OF 2006

                               speech of

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 26, 2006

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration 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:

  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my 
concerns with the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion 
Act of 2006, H.R. 5682. While I intend to vote in support of this 
legislation, I do so with serious concerns that must be articulated to 
the Administration.
  The President and the State Department failed to seriously consult 
with Congress prior to announcing this proposed partnership, and 
therefore left little room for Congress to either voice concern or make 
any substantial change to the proposed partnership. Without any serious 
Congressional discussions on the issue, the Administration felt it 
acceptable to announce last July that it would seek to bypass the 
global nonproliferation regime that has served to provide international 
security for decades. The White House's tacit acknowledgement that such 
a proposition would require legislative approval once again shows how 
this Administration lacks any respect for the balance of powers 
enumerated in Constitution, and the principle that Congress is an equal 
branch of government.
  In the face of this serious lapse of judgment on the part of the 
Administration, the Committee on International Relations should be 
commended for its bipartisan work undertaken to strengthen this 
legislation, and improve upon the poor proposal the Administration 
originally proposed. Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos took the 
serious concerns expressed by many members, both those on the Committee 
and those not, into consideration to drastically improve the bill now 
before us, guaranteeing Congress the right to see the agreement prior 
to final Congressional approval. In addition, India will open its 
civilian nuclear facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency 
for inspections, and should India perform any weapons tests in the 
future, all U.S. cooperation would cease, permanently. India must work 
with the U.S. to conclude a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty as well.
  The overarching goal of this legislation, to increase positive 
diplomatic ties between the U.S. and India, is laudable. India is the 
world's largest democracy, and is a growing economic and political 
influence not only in Southeast Asia, but in the greater global 
community. There is bipartisan agreement that India is a friendly and 
growing partner of the U.S. in many respects. When India reached out to 
the United States in the 1960s, seeking partnership and increased 
friendly relations with us, we rebuffed them. It was a mistake to do so 
then, and it would be a mistake to do so now and allow an opportunity 
to warm relations with India to slip by.
  However, I have serious concerns that prior to any civil nuclear 
agreement can move forward, safeguards be in place to ensure that India 
does not use any of this technology to further its production of 
nuclear weapons. This legislation fails to ensure that India does not 
divert its domestic supply of enriched uranium to its weapons program, 
nor does it place India's military facilities under IAEA inspections, 
all regrettable. In addition, despite the fact that the five current 
nuclear weapons states are believed to have suspended the production of 
fissile material, this proposed agreement does not force India to do 
the same and operate under these same guidelines.
  I am extremely disturbed by recent media reports, however, that the 
Administration was aware of two Indian firms that had sold missile 
parts to Iran, but failed to inform Congress prior to this bill being 
debated before us. The fact that the Administration failed to present 
to Congress on July 1 a mandated report regarding weapons suppliers to 
Iran and Syria, is a case of neglect, but the timing of this severe 
neglect of duty could not have been worse. The Administration, despite 
its assertions that India has an impeccable nonproliferation record, 
has deemed it proper to sanction the two companies, but did not feel 
that it would be prudent for Congress to know this information prior to 
this vote. This oversight demonstrates a serious lack of judgment on 
the part of the Administration, and calls into question all given 
assurances of security safeguards on the proposed nuclear deal. Had 
this information been available prior to this debate, I believe it 
would have greatly influenced not only the content of the legislation 
before us, but the outcome of the vote we are about to take.
  I voted in favor of this legislation in Committee, and intend to 
support, this legislation now, in the hopes that the Administration 
would continue working to obtain assurances from the Indian government 
that there will be no transfer of nuclear technology, either deliberate 
or accidental, to either the Indian weapons program, or to rogue 
regimes who are attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction. I 
strongly urge the Administration to urge that all Indian facilities be 
placed under IAEA inspections, and that the Indian government 
voluntarily halt the production of fissile material.

[[Page E1627]]

                       SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

  Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February 
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized 
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees, 
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This 
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate 
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules committee--of the time, place, 
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or 
changes in the meetings as they occur.
  As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this 
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this 
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the 
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
  Meetings scheduled for Thursday, August 3, 2006 may be found in the 
Daily Digest of today's Record.