[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23610-23612]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 UNITED STATES-INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION APPROVAL AND NONPROLIFERATION 
                            ENHANCEMENT ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 7081, the United States-India agreement.


                           Amendment No. 5683

  There is 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the Bingaman-
Dorgan amendment No. 5683.
  The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote 
threshold on the Dorgan-Bingaman amendment No. 5683 be vitiated, unless 
the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment I and Senator Bingaman have 
offered is to the India nuclear agreement. We both feel it is a flawed 
agreement that would result in the production of additional nuclear 
weapons on this planet, exactly the last thing we need. But I 
understand--and I think Senator Bingaman understands--that this Senate 
will likely approve this agreement by a wide margin this evening.
  Our amendment is relatively simple. It says that if India tests 
nuclear weapons, this agreement is nullified and we work to try to shut 
off supplies from the other supplier groups. The last thing we ought to 
allow is to have India begin testing nuclear weapons without 
consequence to the agreement that has been negotiated with India. Once 
again, let me point out that this agreement, I believe, will result in 
the production of additional nuclear weapons on this planet--the last 
thing we need.
  Our amendment is a very important amendment dealing with the 
prohibition of nuclear testing, and we hope our colleagues will be 
supportive.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to convey some brief remarks 
regarding my views on the United States-India civil nuclear cooperation 
agreement. I cast a ``yes'' vote on this agreement, but not without 
some serious reservations regarding the likely damage this agreement 
will do to the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.
  I had the opportunity to visit India earlier this year, spending a 
day meeting senior government leaders in New Delhi and another day in 
Hyderabad, where I witnessed first hand the dynamic entrepreneurism 
that has recently transformed India into an economic powerhouse, albeit 
with still extreme poverty. Let me be clear: The United States and 
India, sharing a common commitment to democracy and personal freedoms, 
are natural allies. I congratulate President Bush for building upon the 
initial steps taken by his predecessor, President Clinton, in nurturing 
closer ties between our two great nations and laying the building 
blocks for an enduring strategic partnership.
  India's exclusion from global trade in civil nuclear energy, a direct 
consequence of its 1974 nuclear weapons test utilizing equipment and 
materials imported for a civilian energy program, represented a 
continuing thorn to an otherwise blossoming United States-Indian 
relationship. Right or wrong, it was always the United States that was 
viewed as the leading advocate of the firewall between India and global 
nuclear trade--even though India never signed the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, NPT. So I understand why a resolution to this 
issue was necessary if the United States and

[[Page 23611]]

India were to achieve a genuine partnership that could endure in coming 
decades.
  My strongest criticism of the United States-India nuclear cooperation 
agreement is that, in exchange for a historic exception to the 
principle that those states that refuse to abide by the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty cannot enjoy the fruits of global civilian nuclear 
trade, the United States did not ask enough in return from the Indian 
Government. We could have pressed New Delhi to sign the Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty and forswear all future nuclear weapons tests. But we 
did not. We could have urged New Delhi to agree to a national 
moratorium on production of nuclear fissile material, linking that 
moratorium to a similar pledge by Pakistan. But we did not.
  I worry over the message this agreement sends to states like North 
Korea and Iran. Are their leaders to believe that, with the passage of 
time, one day the international community will also accept their 
nuclear weapons programs as a de facto reality and move to accommodate 
such programs? How do we convince the international community to 
demonstrate solidarity against Iran's violations of the NPT while 
giving a pass to India's refusal to abide by this very same treaty? Of 
course I am not equating the two states--India is a democratic regime, 
a friend of the United States, and a force for stability in the world. 
There is no comparison. But I am concerned when we begin to divide the 
world into ``good'' proliferators and ``bad'' proliferators--instead, 
we need to send the message that all nuclear proliferation harms our 
security and increases the odds that a nuclear weapon will one day be 
used and kill millions.
  Nevertheless, at every step of the process over the last 3 years, 
administration officials often appeared excessively sensitive to the 
need to smooth over domestic political concerns in India while 
downplaying concerns expressed by nonproliferation experts. So I 
congratulate Chairman Biden and Ranking Member Lugar for their 
persistence in ensuring this final agreement is a real improvement over 
initial administration proposals. The legislation before us clarifies 
some of the deliberate ambiguities contained within the Article 123 
United States-India agreement and the international exemption for India 
provided by the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
  The United States-India civil nuclear initiative is a flawed 
agreement. Nonetheless, I am casting a ``yes'' vote for this 
legislation for two primary reasons. First, in many respects, the 
damage to the global non-proliferation regime has already been done. 
The decision taken last month by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to provide 
a universal exemption to permit India to participate in civil nuclear 
trade means that, even if the United States Congress were to reject 
this agreement, other nations like Russia and France are free to 
initiate their own civilian agreements with India. The net result of a 
United States rejection would likely only ensure that United States 
companies--and United States workers--will be unable to participate in 
the fruits of civilian nuclear trade with India.
  Second, a ``no'' vote on this agreement will be unfairly construed as 
a rejection of a broader strategic alliance between the United States 
and India. Through his rhetoric and actions, President Bush unwisely 
has transformed this nuclear cooperation agreement into the centerpiece 
of our bilateral relationship with New Delhi. In doing so, he has 
ignored the broad range of areas on which the United States and India 
can and should cooperate--ranging from science and technology to 
economic and business partnerships. In the security realm, our two 
nations should be doing more together on counterterrorism, especially 
in the wake of the devastating attacks in India over the past year.
  I strongly believe in the promise of the future partnership between 
our two great nations. I am voting in favor of this agreement, despite 
its serious nonproliferation flaws, because I do not want to jeopardize 
that emerging alliance that can bring so many benefits to both of our 
peoples.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to 
discuss my vote against the India Nuclear Agreement.
  In 2006, I voted in favor of the Henry J. Hyde United States and 
India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act, primarily because of the 
safeguards included in the act that would ensure that assistance to 
Indian's civilian nuclear program to meet its domestic energy needs, 
would not assist the Indian nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, I 
do not believe that the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation 
Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act that we voted on last 
night has the full scope of necessary protections.
  India is the largest democracy in the world. Its economy is growing 
by 8 percent annually. Their domestic energy needs are enormous and 
they simply do not have enough indigenous resources to meet them. India 
is an important ally and our nation has benefitted from a strong trade 
and defense relationship for decades. Furthermore, my State of Rhode 
Island has prospered because of a vibrant Indian community. I believe 
that the United States should do all that it can to assist India and 
further strengthen the partnership between the two countries.
  However, our country's relationship with India must be balanced with 
concerns about nuclear proliferation and the stability of the Middle 
East and Asia.
  I believe that proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons material 
and technology is the greatest threat facing our country today. The 
most effective method of controlling such proliferation is a 
multilateral regime where all countries are subject to the same 
standards.
  The agreement that was approved by the Senate last night establishes 
a separate and unique regime for India. This particular agreement would 
allow India to be treated like a nuclear weapons state but not impose 
upon India the responsibilities and commitments placed on other nuclear 
weapons states. As such I believe that this particular agreement is 
flawed. This agreement has the potential to actually weaken the 
carefully constructed, long-standing nuclear nonproliferation regime 
that the world depends on to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
  This agreement does provide some benefits. Under this agreement India 
will put 14 of its nuclear reactors under safeguards agreements with 
the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. This will help to 
ensure that these reactors and the fuel supplied to them will be used 
only for the peaceful production of nuclear poser. In addition the IAEA 
will bring its expertise to help to improve the operational safety of 
the reactors.
  On the other hand the rest of India's nuclear reactors will not come 
under the IAEA and these reactors can be used as India wishes to 
produce power or to produce more material for nuclear weapons. But it 
is troublesome to me that India retains the right to deny IAEA access 
to some or all of the reactors that it has now agreed will come under 
IAEA agreements.
  While this agreement will help India with its energy needs, India is 
also now free to use its limited indigenous uranium for to support a 
build up of its nuclear weapons stockpile. India has specifically 
preserved its ability to increase the number of nuclear weapons in its 
arsenal, its ability to increase the amount of nuclear weapons 
materials that it produces and its right to conduct a test of a nuclear 
weapon.
  While India has a voluntary moratorium on testing, India still 
refuses to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to support a 
fissile material cut-off treaty. Finally, I am greatly concerned about 
the effect this agreement will have on the region, particularly the 
reaction of Pakistan. Pakistan will undoubtedly seek a similar 
agreement if it perceives an increased threat from India. Pakistan may 
seek to partner with China--and the United States would have few 
grounds to protest. In such a case, Pakistan will have additional 
access to nuclear technology.
  While I believe that the United States should help India with its 
urgent energy needs, I believe we missed

[[Page 23612]]

an opportunity to provide assistance with adequate and necessary 
safeguards in place. For these reasons, I reluctantly decided to vote 
against this agreement. It is my hope that the United States and India 
continue to work together to make the world safer from nuclear 
proliferation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank Senator 
Richard Lugar and Senator Joseph Biden. Joe Biden is the chairman of 
the Foreign Relations Committee and he and Senator Lugar have worked on 
this for a long time. We have had five congressional hearings on that 
committee on the subject matter.
  I greatly respect my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Bingaman. 
However, I would point out to my colleagues that on this particular 
amendment they offer, the Atomic Energy Act, the Arms Support Control 
Act, the Hyde amendment, and this bill all have provisions in them that 
would allow us to respond should India decide to detonate a nuclear 
weapon.
  No one anywhere wants to see a further proliferation of nuclear 
weapons. India and the United States are the two largest democracies in 
the world. India is in a very tough and fragile neighborhood. It is 
important we develop and improve that relationship that has been a 
tense one since 1974.
  This agreement began with the work of President Clinton and was 
concluded by President Bush. We think it is an agreement worth 
supporting, and we urge our colleagues to do so and respectfully reject 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5683) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
equally divided prior to a vote on passage of the bill.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask all Senators to participate in a 
historic moment. This is an opportunity for the United States and India 
to come together in a way that historically is important for the world.
  India is a very important country for us, and this relationship is 
sealed in a very significant way by this agreement. We have tested it 
in the Foreign Relations Committee for 3 years, back and forth on the 
nonproliferation qualities. We had great testimony from our Secretary 
of State, strong advocacy from our President.
  We ask Senators to vote on this historic moment for a partnership 
that will be enduring, in my judgment, and will make a big difference 
in the history of the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have spoken. This is a very worthwhile 
bill. I commend Senator Lugar and Senator Biden for the tremendous work 
they have done on this legislation over an extended period of time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays and urge the adoption of the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--13

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Leahy
     Reed
     Sanders
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the previous order, the bill 
having attained 60 votes in the affirmative, the bill is passed.
  The bill (H.R. 7081) was passed.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________