[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16034-16039]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 16035]]

     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 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

[[Page 16036]]

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.
  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

[[Page 16037]]

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.
       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

[[Page 16038]]

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 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

[[Page 16039]]

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).
  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.

                          ____________________