[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 2517]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        U.S.-INDIA AGREEMENT MAKES WORLD A MORE DANGEROUS PLACE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as if we haven't done enough damage to the 
cause of global peace and security in Iraq, today the President has 
continued to make the world a more dangerous place with his misguided 
agreement on nuclear energy with India. If this deal is ratified by the 
Congress, and, believe me, I will do everything in my power to see that 
it is not, we will be sharing sensitive nuclear technology with a 
nation that was testing nuclear weapons as recently as 1998. We will be 
rewarding India for its refusal to sign on to the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty, a treaty which has helped keep the world safe 
in this nuclear age for nearly four decades.
  What message does the India pact send to Iran and North Korea? What 
leverage do we now have with these countries to give up their nuclear 
ambitions? Especially when, even though they are dangerous regimes, 
they have done nothing to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  While Great Britain, France and Germany are going back to the 
negotiating table to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program, the 
United States is giving away nuclear technology to a nation that has 
rejected the NPT. How can we call ourselves a responsible global 
superpower when we thumb our noses at established international law? Is 
it any wonder that America is losing credibility and respect around the 
globe?
  How will we now deal with India's neighbor and rival, Pakistan, which 
will likely demand the same nuclear concessions from the United States, 
and which has a dishonorable history of sharing nuclear technologies 
with other rogue states? The India-Pakistan border, which has been 
called the world's most dangerous nuclear flash point, will now be more 
dangerous, thanks to this agreement.
  The President claims that this deal is about easing the pressure on 
the global energy supply given India's enormous population and soaring 
energy demands. First of all, where does the confidence come from that 
there can be an airtight firewall between India `s civilian and 
military nuclear programs? Technology used for one can inevitably 
benefit the other.
  Furthermore, it is laughable to hear concern about fossil fuel 
consumption from a President who never saw an ocean floor or wildlife 
refuge he didn't want to drill holes in. But I don't support nuclear 
power plants, because I believe it is not the answer to global energy 
and our energy challenge.
  So if the President is serious about this issue, he will aggressively 
promote conservation and renewable energy right here in our very own 
United States of America, the world's hungriest energy consumer; and he 
will do it with real programs and investments, not a few lines of 
rhetoric in the State of the Union. But I am not holding my breath.
  This acquiescence to India underscores more than ever that we need a 
new approach to our national security. To that end, I have offered a 
new strategy called SMART Security, SMART standing for Sensible, 
Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. I have been working on 
this idea with groups like Physicians For Social Responsibility, the 
Friends Committee For National Legislation, and Women's Action For New 
Directions.
  SMART has five major components: first, prevent future acts of 
terrorism, not with military force, but better intelligence and 
multilateral cooperation; second, stop the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction with aggressive diplomacy, vigorous inspection and a 
commitment to nonproliferation; third, address terrorism's root causes 
with a humanitarian effort to invest in poor nations and conquer the 
depravation and despair that fosters terrorism in the very first place; 
fourth, rethink our budget priorities, in other words, less spending on 
Cold War weapons systems and more spending on efforts like energy 
independence that are relevant to the security threats we face today; 
and, fifth, pursue alternatives to war, exhausting every conceivable 
diplomatic channel before resorting to armed conflict.
  Finally, let me note the ironies of the President's deal with India. 
On the one hand, here we are feeding the nuclear appetite of a nation 
that has failed to show the responsibility expected of a nuclear state. 
On the other hand, we have sacrifice 2,300 Americans and $250 billion 
on a war that was launched because of nuclear weapons that never 
existed.

                          ____________________