[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H8984-H8988]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5682, HENRY 
   J. HYDE U.S.-INDIA PEACEFUL ATOMIC ENERGY COOPERATION ACT OF 2006

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1101 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows

                              H. Res. 1101

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider the conference report to 
     accompany 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. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern); 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. BISHOP of Utah asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1101 allows for 
consideration of the conference report on House Resolution 5682, the 
Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation 
Act of 2006. It provides for a closed rule with 1 hour general debate, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on International Relations. It waives all 
points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration, and it provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read.
  The underlying bill is not only an excellent bipartisan bill, but 
also a tribute to the skill and wisdom of one of the body's most 
distinguished and respected representatives, the Honorable Henry Hyde, 
Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, a 
representative from Illinois's Sixth Congressional District for the 
last 32 years.
  It is fitting that this underlying bill is named after Chairman Hyde, 
in recognition for his long and faithful service and commitment to 
American ideals as well as nonproliferation activities. Yesterday we 
had many people pay their respect to this great man, and this is a 
fitting conclusion with this bill today.
  I would also be remiss if I did not also thank the ranking member, 
Representative Lantos of California, for his repeated efforts and his 
strong efforts in pushing this legislation forward and the hard work he 
also put in, in a dedicated and respected manner, to come up with a 
truly bipartisan bill and a bipartisan conference report.
  We should also thank the conferees for their efforts to come in here 
with a conference report that is focused, that is clean, that is direct 
and without extraneous materials added to it. It is one that actually 
goes to the heart of the issue in a very direct report and is a very 
good conference report.
  To the substance of the bill, which was passed on July 26 of this 
year by an overwhelming majority, with 359 of our colleagues supporting 
the bill, it contained a myriad of important measures, beginning with a 
Sense of Congress Resolution that the preventing of proliferation of 
nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the means to 
produce them, and the means to deliver them are critical objectives

[[Page H8985]]

of United States foreign policy, and that sustaining the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty and strengthening its implementation, 
particularly its verification and compliance, is the keystone of the 
United States' nonproliferation policy.
  We live in an uncertain world where any number of demagogues would 
pay any price to obtain the technology to inflict pain and suffering on 
the world's inhabitants.

                              {time}  1000

  Because of that it is important that India's commitment to nuclear 
nonproliferation and America's commitment is the same, and it makes the 
world a safer place.
  This bill, with additions added by the Senate, and one of those 
unique elements actually strengthens the overall bill itself. It 
provides for the administration to report to Congress of its activities 
in forwarding this particular agreement. It provides for an affirmative 
response by Congress to that agreement that is there. And it provides 
for greater control on nonproliferation efforts between both of our 
countries in this very uncomfortable and unstable world.
  I have to commend Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Lantos, the entire 
conference committee that did a wonderful job, excellent work with this 
particular committee report.
  With that, I urge adoption of the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the time, and yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S.-India Nuclear 
Cooperation Promotion Act. I, too, want to commend Chairman Hyde and 
Ranking Member Lantos and the members of International Relations 
Committee for their work on this. This conference report that comes 
before us has been signed by all of the conferees, the process has been 
good, and I support the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts 
for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong support of 
the U.S.-India Nuclear deal conference report. I would like to thank 
Chairman Hyde and incoming Chairman Lantos for their hard work to help 
ensure passage of this bill after the agreement was announced. I would 
also like to thank the House and Senate conferees who negotiated 
throughout the night to reconcile differences and reach a compromise.
  The U.S. has an important strategic partnership with India, and this 
civilian nuclear cooperation deal is a critical component to a 
continued successful partnership. The agreement strengthens energy 
security for the U.S. and India, and promotes the development of stable 
and efficient energy markets in India to ensure adequate and affordable 
supplies.
  This deal is also the foundation of a promising U.S.-India alliance 
that will serve as a defense against terrorism and nuclear 
proliferation. The U.S. has an important stake in ensuring regional 
stability in South Asia, even as Pakistan continues to produce and test 
nuclear weapons without proper safeguards.
  With the rising power of Communist China in the region and Osama bin 
Laden continuing to hide in Afghanistan or Pakistan, we need India as 
our strategic ally. The bill before us today has a new policy that will 
solidify the U.S.-India bilateral relationship. India has been a 
responsible nuclear power and deserves to be treated that way.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both the rule and the 
conference report
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my concern about the 
impact that this agreement will have on the state of nonproliferation 
in the world. The United States has not had a nonproliferation policy, 
per se. As a matter of fact, if we look at the administration, this 
administration has moved to build new nuclear weapons called bunker 
busters. They have moved to discourage efforts at nuclear disarmament. 
They have, in the first days of their administration, canceled the 
antiballistic treaty with Russia. This administration does not have a 
commitment to nonproliferation, and the world knows that.
  Iran knows that. That is why it is very difficult for us to be able 
to simultaneously discourage Iran from acquiring nuclear technology, 
and at the same time speak to the imperative of a bilateral progress 
with India.
  The United States has to have a consistent policy with respect to 
nuclear nonproliferation. This country cannot speak out of one side of 
its mouth and tell Iran and North Korea, don't you dare go in that 
direction, don't you dare try to acquire nuclear technology, because we 
cannot see whether you can separate civilian and military, and on the 
other hand give a blessing to that same kind of an arrangement with a 
country that, yes, we have a great relationship with; yes, it is the 
longest and the oldest democracy in the world; yes, there is a lot to 
be said about the people in the Indian Government being responsible 
people.
  My point here is not in any way to diminish the role that India has 
in trying to develop social and technological progress in the world, 
but it is to speak to our responsibility as citizens of the United 
States to ask: What is the impact of any agreement that we have with 
India on the rest of the world?
  And I would say that with this administration not being willing to 
talk to Iran with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions, with this 
administration not being ready to talk to North Korea with respect to 
North Korea's nuclear ambitions, this is a dangerous time to be 
approving such an agreement, because it will be seen as a license to 
other countries which have nuclear ambitions to proceed whether they 
are talking to the United States or not.
  The imperative of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at its 
inception was not to manage proliferation, but it was to do away with 
all nuclear weapons. Read the treaty. We are at a moment in human 
history where we have not found a way to be able to resolve our 
differences without war.
  Witness the failed policies of this administration with respect to 
Iraq. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, but we chose to 
attract Iraq anyway. Policies of unilateralism, of first strike breed 
the same kind of policies around the world.
  It is premature for us to be promoting an agreement with India when 
we have not shown the capacity as a Nation to take a direction which 
prizes diplomacy, which shows that we can use the science of human 
relations to be able to avert conflict. We have to show a capacity to 
demonstrate that war is not inevitable; we have not done that.
  And so when we are on the threshold of approving a new nuclear 
agreement with India, notwithstanding our good relations with that 
country, we cannot do that without looking at the impact that will have 
on the rest of the world.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, without speaking to the merits of the allegations made 
by gentleman from Ohio, he should indeed be happy with this particular 
resolution and conference report coming to us. For not only does it 
take the country of India that did not sign the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty and provide that both the United States and 
India will work together to try and combine ourselves so we are working 
within the parameters of that treaty, it also provides for the 
administration to present any results of their negotiation back to 
Congress, and forcing Congress to actually take an affirmative approach 
``yea'' or ``nay'' on the results of those negotiations, which once 
again will allow all Members of Congress to again have some kind of say 
in the ultimate process.
  I also appreciate once again what the conferees did with this report 
in trying to narrow the focus down to the specifics of how the United 
States and India deal together in separating civilian and military uses 
of this new type of energy, and not trying to expand it into other 
areas which may indeed

[[Page H8986]]

make the process much more complex and the questions much more 
difficult to answer.
  Madam Speaker, this once again is a very clean, specific and focused 
conference report
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and 
the underlying legislation. When I was a child, this country sold F-15s 
to Iran so that Iran could be our offset to Soviet power in South Asia. 
And because we sold F-15s and other arms to Iran, we wound up selling 
chemical weapon precursor materials to Iraq to offset Iranian power in 
the Middle East, and today we have 135,000 troops in Iraq, in part, 
because of those unwise decisions.
  Now, we are told that we should sell nuclear materials to India, 
which would free up Indian nuclear reactors to produce many more 
nuclear weapons for the Indian nuclear weapons program as an offset to 
Chinese power in Asia.
  If we approved this deal with India, it would encourage China to 
increase its nuclear arsenal, and I submit to you that we, that we are 
one of the potential targets of that enhanced Chinese nuclear arsenal.
  Even more worrisome is that an Indian nuclear build-up would further 
accelerate the Pakistani nuclear build-up. While I have strong 
confidence in the stability of the Indian Government and in the 
stability of Indian democracy, I have much, much less faith in the 
stability of the Pakistani Government and of Pakistani democracy, and 
of the Pakistani Government's ability to keep under control those 
nuclear weapons which it already has and the additional weapons it 
would build because of an Indian nuclear build-up.
  If there is a military coup in Pakistan, we should be very, very 
concerned about the stability of not only South Asia, but of the world. 
There have been three military coups in Pakistan since its independence 
in 1947. Rather than approving nonsignatory states like India in 
violation of nonproliferation treaties, the better course of action is 
to respect international agreements and immediately bring to the Senate 
a total ban on nuclear testing and a comprehensive set of treaties to 
curtail nuclear proliferation.
  Back in July, just this summer, there were only 68 of us in this 
Chamber who voted against approving the legislation to permit sales of 
nuclear materials to India. I ask more of my colleagues to join me 
today at this historic moment to prevent adding fuel to the fire of 
nuclear proliferation in South Asia. This legislation and the following 
sale of nuclear materials to India blows out of the water any hope we 
have of treaty constraints on the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  I want to make it clear for this record and for history that the 
actions of this administration in containing nuclear proliferation have 
been patently irresponsible. This administration has underfunded the 
Nunn-Lugar legislation which takes nuclear materials out of the open 
market which would otherwise be available for sale to terrorists. This 
administration has failed to support internal treaties limiting nuclear 
weapon proliferation, and now, and now it has proposed a treaty with 
India that would sell India nuclear materials, which would result in a 
nuclear arms race between India and China and between India and 
Pakistan.
  Pakistan is not a stable country. It is already leaking nuclear 
weapons technology to other countries and groups. Let the Record show 
that if or when a mushroom cloud ever erupts over an American city, 
that event will be traced back to this unwise vote in the United States 
Senate and to the bone-headed policy of this administration toward 
treaty obligations, Nunn-Lugar, and the sale of nuclear materials to 
India.
  Ladies and gentlemen, compared to this legislation, the authorization 
to go to war in Iraq was a piker. This is the moment to pull back from 
the brink of a new nuclear arms race.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Twenty minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, it is with great respect for my good friends I 
consider this conference report the right start in the face of 
challenge of nuclear nonproliferation. It is a start. And even though 
this conference report allows a relationship with India and the United 
States to pursue civilian nuclear research and investment, this is not 
the final stop.
  There is a responsibility that there is an agreement with the IAEA 
that the Indian Government must assure that their purposes are for 
civilian purposes only. We do need to continue the friendship between 
India, the United States, and Pakistan. And I would much rather affirm 
the fact that there are two governments who are allies of the United 
States in the South Asia region, India and Pakistan, and to include 
both of those countries in our discussions in the war against terror, 
and as well the isolation of Iran and certainly the resolution in Iraq.
  To do so we must show the respect and the friendship that India has 
shown to us. And so this is an important step.
  I might say that this conference report ensures that safeguards in 
the agreements between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency 
is finalized before the President can exempt India from certain legal 
restrictions.
  It also provides for end-use monitoring of U.S. exports to India, and 
as well it strengthens the Nuclear Supplier Group, the group of 
countries that try to stem nuclear nonproliferation around the world. 
It helps us, in fact, by having India in the family of 
nonproliferation, but also having civilian use.
  Madam Speaker, I am also glad that my amendment stayed in that I 
offered in the House, remained in the conference report. And that 
amendment particularly talks about the fact that there are two 
important countries in South Asia, and that is India and Pakistan, and 
that relationships should continue with both of them.
  Madam Speaker, this is, in fact, the right start. There is a second 
chance, and that second chance is the atomic energy agency. We do have 
the opportunity to maintain our friendship, to pass this legislation, 
to allow India to do its research in civilian nonproliferation nuclear 
use, and at the same time provide a buffer for those countries who 
refuse to adhere to international guidelines. India has shown itself a 
democracy, shown itself to be a friend, and I would encourage that this 
conference report be a roadmap, if you will, for ensuring the 
friendship of the United States with India and Pakistan, and at the 
same time recognizing the longstanding democracy that India has been.
  I believe it is a good step. I think it is a first step. I think that 
we have the checks and balances that would support the idea that we are 
not promoting the proliferation of nuclear use; we are helping to 
provide for the safe nonproliferation use of nuclear devices, 
particularly in the civilian area
  I thank the Gentleman for yielding, I thank the Rules Committee for 
making consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 5682, 
the ``United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 
2006'' in order.
  Madam Speaker, the United States' relationship with India and 
Pakistan is of paramount importance to our nation's political and 
economic future. With the receding of the Cold War's global divisions 
and the new realities of globalization and trans-national terrorism, we 
have embarked on a new era of promise, possibility and uncertainty. 
This means the United States, the world's only superpower, bears an 
especially heavy responsibility to remain engaged in all regions of the 
world, with all nation-states. It is in the national interest for the 
United States to continue our policy of engagement, collaboration, and 
exchange which has served the nation well in the past, particularly in 
the South Asia region.

[[Page H8987]]

  It is important that we are considering this conference report today. 
I also want to thank my colleagues for adopting my amendment to H.R. 
5682. My bipartisan amendment, which was endorsed and co-sponsored by 
Congressman Burton, and which was not opposed by either the Majority or 
Minority of the Committee on International Relations, simply states 
that the ``South Asia region is so important that the United States 
should continue its policy of engagement, collaboration, and exchanges 
with and between India and Pakistan.''
  Peaceful nuclear cooperation with India can serve multiple U.S. 
foreign policy objectives so long as it is undertaken in a manner that 
minimizes potential risks to the nonproliferation regime. This will be 
best achieved by sustained and active engagement and cooperation 
between India and the United States.
  Similarly, Pakistan has been a critical ally in the global war on 
terror. Pakistan has been a good friend to the people of the United 
States. Although H.R. 5682 signals no change in this country's 
relationship with Pakistan, it is not difficult to understand why it 
may give pause to some supporters of Pakistan. This is another reason 
why it is vital for the United States to continue to engage both 
Pakistan and India in ongoing political engagement, economic and 
technological collaborations, and personal exchanges, which will bring 
the United States closer to these two vitally important democracies in 
the South Asia region and will bring India and Pakistan closer to each 
other.
  I support this Rule, this Bill with my Amendment, and this Conference 
Report. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Texas for her very 
articulate expression of what this resolution and this conference 
report does indeed do, and refocusing the debate on the specifics that 
brought an unusual harmony together from both sides of the aisle and to 
a specific report and specific conference report that is here.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has been a leader in 
this area for some time here in the Congress
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding me time.
  This bill that we are considering is an historic mistake, a mistake 
which will come back to haunt the United States and the world. India 
has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran is a 
signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
  We are asking the U.N. to isolate Iran, to force it to comply with 
its signature on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, not to use 
civilian nuclear materials in order to create a military nuclear 
weapon.
  What are we doing here today? We are saying to India, you do not have 
to abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at all. You never 
signed it, we put it on the books because of India, we know that it 
created an arms race with Pakistan, and instead of enforcing our own 
law, our own law, we are now out here going to carve out an exception.
  Now, what do the experts say? Well, the experts say that India 
produces approximately seven nuclear bombs per year, but they have a 
limited amount of nuclear material. What are we doing? We are going to 
provide the nuclear materials for their civilian nuclear program so 
that it will free up their domestic nuclear materials for their weapons 
program.
  What do the experts say? The experts say that is going to increase 
India's capacity to make nuclear weapons to 40 to 50 nuclear bombs per 
year. Now, people here say, well, that is fine. Why worry about it? 
India is a country that we trust. Well, you know who does not trust 
India? I will tell you who does not trust India: Pakistan does not 
trust India. Pakistan, the home of al-Qaeda. Pakistan, the home of A.Q. 
Khan, the nuclear Pied Piper, the nuclear Johnny Appleseed, who spread 
nuclear weapons material across the world.
  Here is what we have learned now: We have learned that Pakistan is 
constructing its own nuclear weapons manufacturing facility that will 
increase their capacity from 2 to 3 nuclear bombs per year to 40 to 50 
nuclear bombs per year.
  Now, the Bush administration, as we all know, has already made a mess 
of our nuclear nonproliferation policy in North Korea, a mess of our 
nuclear nonproliferation policy in Iraq, a mess of our nuclear 
nonproliferation policy in Iran. And the world is now looking at us. 
Pakistan is looking at us. Iran is looking at us. North Korea, 
Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. How will we handle this challenge on 
the Asian subcontinent? The answer: We are just going to do away with 
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, because that is what this vote 
will be on the House floor today.
  We are just basically saying: It is all over. The rest of the world 
will not listen to us again. The consequences, the domino effect, the 
nuclear weapons domino effect begins here, ladies and gentlemen. It 
begins today. It begins with a policy that says that it is not enough 
for the United States to have high-tech commerce with India, to have 
outsourcing of our jobs to India, to have massive increases in 
diplomatic relations and dozens of other areas with India. No, as a 
gesture of our friendship with India, we are going to gut our own 
nuclear nonproliferation policy.
  Now, back in the debates of 2004, there was really only one thing 
that George Bush and John Kerry agreed upon, and that was that the most 
important issue in the world was nuclear nonproliferation. And here we 
are on the last day of the Republican era in the United States Congress 
gutting the most important policy, the policy which has kept the reins 
imperfectly but significantly on the spread of nuclear weapons over the 
last generation.
  And this is in a way almost the exclamation point on the end of this 
Republican era, on the Bush administration's efforts to control nuclear 
weapons. This era will be looked back at as the era where the Bush 
administration and the Republicans in this Congress said: Anything 
goes. Anything for trade with India. When asked, we will surrender our 
nuclear nonproliferation policy.
  Pakistan is now in a massive escalation of its nuclear weapons 
program. Al-Qaeda is headquartered in Pakistan. A.Q. Khan lives in 
Pakistan in a palace, still not under arrest, still not in prison, his 
people who helped to spread these nuclear weapons still walking the 
streets of Pakistan. What kind of administration do we have that 
instead of saying, we are going to put together a conference that deals 
with that issue which will threaten us here in the United States, 
because these materials will escalate massively in the Asian 
subcontinent.
  This is in many ways comical. I mean, it really is comical. We are 
going to debate the end of the nuclear nonproliferation regime in the 
United States for an hour on the last day of Congress. It is comical. I 
am scraping here to get an extra minute out of this paltry amount of 
time to debate what the consequences are of what we are doing. And so, 
yeah, this is a going-away present to the Bush administration. There 
has been such a mismanagement of the nuclear nonproliferation policy 
over these last 6 years that this probably does represent, in a crazy 
kind of a way, you know, the final statement.
  But I will tell you, we are going to come back and we will rue this 
day, because the Pakistanis and the Iranians, they are not going to sit 
on their hands and allow this to happen. They are going to look at us 
and they are going to say: These Americans, they preach temperance from 
a bar stool. They are going to say that this is an era of historic 
hypocrisy, where the United States expects the rest of the world to 
listen to us when we tell them that they should not pursue nuclear 
weapons, while we selectively grant exceptions to countries that never 
signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in the first place.
  It is a nonsustainable policy. It will come back to haunt us, not 
today, not tomorrow, but there will be a day in 5 years or 10 years 
when everyone here today will be able to point back to this moment and 
say that is the day the historic mistake was made
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report.
  For over three decades it has been the policy of the United States to 
restrict nuclear trade with India. Why? Because in 1974 India violated 
its pledges to the United States and Canada to use American and 
Canadian nuclear technologies only for peaceful purposes.

[[Page H8988]]

Instead, India used our technology to develop and explode a nuclear 
bomb.
  Despite that history, despite the refusal of India to sign the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or to honor its contractual obligations 
to the United States, this Administration has now undertaken to ignore 
the past and to ask Congress to approve legislation that will, 
according to nonproliferation experts from across the political 
spectrum, enhance India's nuclear bomb-making capacity from 7 bombs a 
year to over 40 bombs a year.
  This is exactly the reverse of what we should be doing if we are 
serious about reducing the spread of nuclear weapons in the world. In 
fact, it was India's blatant misuse of peaceful American nuclear 
technologies for a weapons program that prompted the Congress to 
radically strengthen our nonproliferation laws. And when we were done 
with that, we went to our allies and established new international 
guidelines to prevent any other country from doing what India had done: 
misusing imported nuclear technologies for a secret weapons program. 
And now, in an act fraught with hypocrisy, irony, and hubris, the 
Congress will approve a sweeping exception from our nonproliferation 
laws for the very country that prompted us to strengthen those laws.
  I fully support strengthening American ties with India on trade, 
high-tech, military cooperation, and so many other issues, but why do 
we need to gut our nonproliferation laws at the same time? The simple 
fact is that we DON'T have to gut our nonproliferation laws in order to 
improve our relationship with India, but the President took us into the 
nuclear Twilight Zone, instead.
  During the Conference, the Bush Administration, reportedly at New 
Delhi's urging, tried to strip out the few good nonproliferation 
provisions that the Congress inserted into what is a deeply flawed 
piece of legislation.
  Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote a letter asking 
Congress to remove a requirement that India help us prevent Iran from 
going nuclear. I don't know what the administration was thinking, 
telling the Congress that we can't ask for India's help on Iran's 
nuclear program.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for 
fighting to ensure that at least an ongoing assessment of India's 
cooperation with U.S. and international efforts to curb Iran's nuclear 
ambitions be performed, both at the time that the formal nuclear 
cooperation agreement is submitted to Congress and every year 
thereafter. While the Gentleman and I may disagree on the underlying 
legislation, I appreciate his efforts, and those of Chairman Hyde, to 
try to address this issue and to try to mitigate some of the damage 
that this agreement may do to our nation's nuclear nonproliferation 
policies.
  But the bottom line is that under the President's plan to fuel 
India's nuclear power reactors, we're going to free up their nuclear 
material for weapons. And just this summer, we learned that India's 
arch-rival Pakistan is building a huge new reactor to make nuclear bomb 
material.
  There's a nuclear arms race on in South Asia, and the United States 
is about to become an accomplice to this arms race.
  If we want the rest of the world to stop fueling the proliferation of 
new nuclear weapons, we had better stop throwing gasoline on the fire 
ourselves. The India Nuclear Deal is bad for U.S. security. It 
undermines U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts around the world, and 
it risks fueling an accelerated nuclear arms race in South Asia.
  Madam Speaker, this is a watershed moment for the world. If the 
United States goes soft on nuclear weapons proliferation, the entire 
world will go soft. Countries which in good faith abstained from 
nuclear weapons development will have a green light to go ahead 
following the India-U.S. model. In my view, this is a prelude to 
catastrophe. I cannot imagine that the House will ever again confront a 
vote that is so central to our leadership, our standing, our moral 
authority on the issue of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this Conference Report.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of The U.S.-India 
Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act. As Chairman Henry Hyde said earlier 
in the year in the House Rules Committee, this is the single most 
important piece of legislation that has come through the International 
Relations Committee this year and 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 
a 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.
  This legislation will provide production 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 and incoming Chairman Tom Lantos said 
in July and no doubt will repeat shortly, 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.
  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.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our 
time.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to urge Members' support of 
the rule, providing for the consideration of the conference report for 
this particular piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan bill. It was 
based in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion, which is a unique 
combination we have.
  It is a nice, harmonious way to actually end this particular session 
of Congress on something that does move us forward when you focus in on 
what the bill is actually about, and the issues that are actually 
handled in this particular report
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. 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 X, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________