[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 132 (Tuesday, December 5, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H8701-H8702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5682, HENRY J. HYDE UNITED STATES AND 
            INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION PROMOTION ACT OF 2006

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, 
disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by 
the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Lantos

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lantos moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 5682 be instructed 
     to recede to the provisions contained in section 105(8) of 
     the Senate amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
explain the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs the conferees to H.R. 5682, the 
U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act, to maintain section 
105(8) of the Senate amendment. This section requires a determination 
by the President that India is fully and actively participating in U.S. 
and international efforts to dissuade, sanction and contain Iran for 
its nuclear program consistent with United Nations Security Council 
resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of a motion to recommit H.R. 5682 that 
was offered by my friend Mr. Markey during floor consideration of the 
bill. That motion would have required a similar determination on Iran. 
I strongly believed that obtaining such an assessment of India's policy 
in this regard is a critical piece of information to aid our 
deliberations when we consider an actual agreement for civil nuclear 
cooperation with India as required by H.R. 5682.
  Mr. Speaker, my view has not changed. I am a strong supporter of 
expanding nuclear cooperation with India, which I believe will greatly 
benefit both of our great countries. But, Mr. Speaker, we should ensure 
that we have all relevant information that could pertain to our 
deliberations regarding expanding nuclear cooperation with India.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration has strongly requested that the 
conferees remove from the conference report Senator Harkin's amendment 
regarding Iran. This motion would instruct the House conferees to 
ensure that that language was retained in the conference report. This 
is one item that well-meaning Members can honorably dispute. But there 
is not enough time remaining to delay passage of this conference 
report. Therefore, I have no objection to the motion.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to Instruct 
Conferees. The recommital motion I offered when this bill came to the 
floor in July would have required the President to certify that India 
is fully supporting U.S. efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons 
of mass destruction. The gentleman from California Mr. Lantos supported 
my amendment, and I thank him for that, but my amendment unfortunately 
failed.
  In the Senate, a similar but less expansive amendment offered by Sen. 
Harkin was successful, and that is the amendment supported by this 
Motion to Instruct.
  The Harkin Amendment would require the President to certify that 
India was abiding by United Nations Security Council resolutions 
regarding Iran. Since those resolutions are already binding under 
international law, that is a low enough bar that the President could 
make such a certification for almost any country in the world. India 
would certainly pass.
  The Harkin Amendment doesn't do everything that I would like it to, 
but I believe that it is nonetheless an important provision to keep in 
the final bill.
  But now the Bush Administration is objecting to even this modest 
requirement. Last week, Secretary Rice wrote to Chairman Hyde and 
Ranking Member Lantos asking that all of the significant 
nonproliferation provisions added by the Congress be removed. She also 
argued that the Harkin Amendment would be viewed by India as an 
``additional condition,'' and therefore the requirement must be 
removed.
  So it seems that the Bush administration is refusing to ask a close 
ally, India, to abide by established international law and assist in 
preventing Iran from going nuclear.
  Apparently, the Bush Administration has entered the nuclear twilight 
zone. It can go to war in Iraq to disarm imaginary WMD, but not a word 
to India in this nuclear agreement about helping us stand up to Iran's 
WMD programs? I ask my colleagues: Whose foreign policy is the 
Administration promoting?
  This is a modest suggestion. I think we actually should be doing 
more, and I and other House Members have sent a letter to Chairman Hyde 
and Ranking Member Lantos outlining some of the other critical nuclear 
nonproliferation provisions that are the minimum requirements that we 
should be including in this bill. I hope that they are included in the 
final conference report.
  But we really do need to ensure that India is not able to 
simultaneously reap the benefits of nuclear cooperation with the U.S. 
and others, while continuing to support Iran's efforts to maintain a 
renegade nuclear program. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this 
Motion to Instruct Conferees, because we absolutely must halt Iran's 
nuclear ambitions.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to strongly 
support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:

[[Page H8702]]

  Messrs. Hyde, Boehner and Lantos.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________