SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
28–425PDF
2006
SUPPORTING AN UPGRADE IN ISRAEL'S RELATIONSHIP WITH NATO; ETHIOPIA FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 2006; CONGRATULATING THE INTERNATIONAL AIDS VACCINE INITIATIVE; CALLING ON GERMANY TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO COMBAT SEX TRAFFICKING IN CONNECTION WITH THE 2006 FIFA WORLD CUP; CONGRATULATING ISRAEL'S DAVID ADOM SOCIETY; UNITED STATES AND INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION PROMOTION ACT OF 2006; AND MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H. Res. 700, H.R. 5680, H. Res. 844, H. Res. 860,
H. Con. Res. 435, H.R. 5682 and H.R. 4014
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JUNE 27, 2006
Serial No. 109–216
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Vice Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
DARRELL ISSA, California
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
CONNIE MACK, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas
TED POE, Texas
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
DANIEL FREEMAN, Counsel/Parliamentarian
JEAN CARROLL, Full Committee Hearing Coordinator
C O N T E N T S
MARKUP OF
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H. Res. 700, Supporting an upgrade in Israel's relationship with NATO to that of a leading member of NATO's Individual Cooperation Program, as a first step toward Israel's inclusion in NATO as a full member with all corresponding rights, privileges, and responsibilities
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 700 offered by the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, and the Honorable Robert Wexler, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
H.R. 5680, To encourage and facilitate the consolidation of security, human rights, democracy, and economic freedom in Ethiopia
H. Res. 844, Congratulating the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative on ten years of significant achievement in the search for an HIV/AIDS vaccine, and for other purposes
Amendment to H. Res. 844 offered by the Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
Committee Print showing the amendment adopted by the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations to H. Res. 860, Calling on the Government of Germany to take immediate action to combat sex trafficking in connection with the 2006 FIFA World Cup, and for other purposes
Amendment to the Committee Print to H. Res. 860 offered by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey and Vice Chairman, Committee on International Relations
H. Con. Res. 435, Congratulating Israel's Magen David Adom Society for achieving full membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and for other purposes
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 5682, To exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement for cooperation with India
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Joseph Crowley, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Howard L. Berman
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by Honorable Brad Sherman
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Shelley Berkley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Shelley Berkley
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Shelley Berkley
Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
H.R. 4014, To reauthorize the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, and for other purposes
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4014 offered by the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations, and the Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
APPENDIX
The Honorable Robert Wexler, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida: Prepared statement
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Prepared statement
SUPPORTING AN UPGRADE IN ISRAEL'S RELATIONSHIP WITH NATO; ETHIOPIA FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 2006; CONGRATULATING THE INTERNATIONAL AIDS VACCINE INITIATIVE; CALLING ON GERMANY TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO COMBAT SEX TRAFFICKING IN CONNECTION WITH THE 2006 FIFA WORLD CUP; CONGRATULATING ISRAEL'S DAVID ADOM SOCIETY; UNITED STATES AND INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION PROMOTION ACT OF 2006; AND MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. The business meeting of the Committee will come to order. We have several noncontroversial bills on the agenda. It is the intention of the Chair to consider these measures en bloc, and by unanimous consent I authorize the Chair to seek consideration of the bills under suspension of the rules, and the amendments which the Members have before them will be deemed adopted. All Members are given leave to insert remarks on the measures into the record, should they choose to do so.
I will also request unanimous consent to order H.R. 4014, the Millennium Challenge Reauthorization Act of 2005, reported favorably as amended. Accordingly, without objection, the Chairman is authorized to seek consideration of the following bills under suspension of the rules, and the amendments to those measures which the Members have before them shall be deemed adopted: H. Res. 700, Supporting Israel's relationship with NATO, as amended; H.R. 5680, the Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights Advancement Act of 2006; H. Res. 844, Congratulating the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative on ten years of significant achievement, as amended; H. Res. 860, Calling on the Government of Germany to take immediate action to combat sex trafficking in connection with the 2006 FIFA World Cup, as amended; and H. Con. Res. 435, Congratulating Israel's David Adom Society for achieving full membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
[The information referred to follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. Pursuant to notice, I call up 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 for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[H.R. 5682 follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. Today's markup is of H.R. 5682. This bill is a modified version of H.R. 4974, which Mr. Lantos and I introduced last year at the request of Secretary Rice. I want to take a very few minutes to explain the principal changes that have been made to that original proposal.
Over the course of the past several months, the Committee has held five hearings, benefitted from the counsel of scores of experts across the country, had numerous briefings by Administration officials, and conducted extensive research, notably, with the assistance of the Congressional Research Service. As a result of this comprehensive process, we now have much greater clarity regarding the many elements of this very complex subject. The knowledge gained has governed the crafting of the legislation Mr. Lantos and I have introduced and that is now before this Committee.
This new bill is based upon the Administration's original proposal but has been amended with several significant changes, the most prominent of which concerns the role of Congress. I must note at the outset that the original bill was conceived in a profoundly unsatisfactory manner in several respects. It would have granted the Administration an unprecedented and sweeping freedom of action by waiving almost wholesale the existing laws regarding civil nuclear commerce with foreign countries even as it reduced the role of Congress to a bare minimum. In effect, Congress was being asked to vote to remove itself from the process almost entirely and abandon its constitutional role.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 5682 changes the process by which Congress will consider and pass judgment on a negotiated agreement regarding civil nuclear cooperation with India. Whereas in the Administration's version, Congress would have been restricted to a relatively minor role of review and able to make its influence felt only with heroic effort, the new language restores its traditional role in these types of agreements.
Once an agreement has been submitted to Congress, it must be approved by both Houses by means of an unamendable joint resolution of approval and an up or down vote.
To open the door to amendments to a negotiated agreement would, in effect, to render the process of negotiation untenable. That approval, however, is by no means assured. So I would caution the Administration to pay close attention to congressional concerns. To further strengthen the role of Congress, a number of reporting requirements and other consultative measures have been added, but I will not describe those in detail as they are comprehensible by a straightforward reading of the text.
A Sense of Congress section has been added that lays out conditions regarding when civil nuclear cooperation with other countries may be in order. In addition, there is a statement of policy section that clarifies United States policy in a number of areas, in particular, the nuclear suppliers group, the interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and a series of goals regarding India and South Asia.
Regarding the key section of the bill, namely, the waivers to existing law needed to allow civil nuclear trade with India to proceed, the certifications the President will need to make have been significantly tightened and broadened with a focus on ensuring that India actually accomplish several difficult goals that our two countries have already agreed must take place.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The provisions regarding the nuclear suppliers group have been significantly strengthened.
That is a brief overview of the changes to the President's original proposal. I know there will be a number of amendments offered today. I should note that we have already gone to great lengths to incorporate several suggestions from Members, all of which have improved the text. There are also some that have been put forward and considered but which we could not include for a variety of reasons ranging from not being germane to imposing conditions on India or the Administration which would have had the effect of killing any possibility of an agreement.
I do not intend to vote for any of the amendments of which I am aware except a couple which we are going to upset. I would ask other Members to refrain from supporting the amendment.
The Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum, and, without objection, the Committee orders favorably reported the bill, H.R. 4014, the Millennium Challenge Reauthorization Act of 2005. The amendment in the nature of a substitute which the Members have before them will be deemed adopted, and all Members are given leave to insert their remarks on this bill in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. With that, I turn to my good friend, Tom Lantos, for any remarks he chooses to make.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me first pay tribute to all of my colleagues on the Republican side and on our side who have taken this particular assignment of dealing with this legislation with the seriousness and the commitment that it makes. I also want to pay tribute to the Republican staff and to several members of the Democratic staff: David Fite, David Abramowitz, Peter Yeo, and the chief of staff on the Democratic side, Dr. Bob King. They have done a remarkable job, and we are all deeply in their debt.
I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extraordinary degree of statesmanship you have exhibited during these very difficult negotiations and discussions.
Before I come to substantive comments, let me recognize Under Secretary of State Nick Burns and his staff for their invaluable contributions to our work.
Mr. Chairman, this is an historic hearing. As we open this hearing, I am reminded of the opening to China in 1971. While there are significant differences between that historic move and the historic move we are about to make, in terms of the impact of this legislation on the new geostrategic alignment between India and the United States for the balance of the 21st century, the importance of this legislation cannot be overstated.
As I did my work on this bill, I was reminded of a meeting I had in 1955 when we celebrated the tenth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco. I had a series of analytical debates and discussions with international leaders on television. One of them was India's then Foreign Minister Krishna Menon, who exemplified a political orientation which, to quite an extent, characterized Indian foreign policy during the entire Cold War. It was not a friendly orientation toward the United States and toward Western values.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The end of the Cold War liberated Indian foreign policy. We typically talk about the end of the Cold War as having brought about the liberation of Central and Eastern Europe and some constituent republics of the Soviet Union. But perhaps one of the most significant items that the end of the Cold War liberated was Indian foreign policy.
It is not totally liberated, because India, to some extent, occasionally still feels obligated to pay tribute to the so-called ''Non-Aligned Movement,'' and just as I had difficulty understanding what the Non-Aligned Movement meant during the Cold War, I have an even greater degree of difficulty understanding what the Non-Aligned Movement means at a time when the civilized world is on one side and global terrorism and dictatorships are on the other.
But be that as it may, we are about to see a sweeping strategic realignment of India's global policies for the 21st century, and we can facilitate that realignment.
In 2005 and in 2006, in two critical votes at the International Atomic Energy Agency, India voted with the United States. I commend the Government of India on these votes, despite powerful domestic opposition within the Indian coalition. Before we consider this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I think we should also take note of the fact that the most recent Pew survey indicates that favorable attitudes toward the United States in India are on the rise. This is in sharp contrast to many other countries.
In 2002, 54 percent of India's population had a favorable view of the United States. In 2005, this figure has jumped to 71 percent.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to say a word about the concept of legislation being India-specific because, to some extent, this is an accurate characterization. May I just comment that if there is another country which is democratic, has a population of 1,100,000,000, and wants to build a closer relationship with the United States, I think this Committee would be more than happy to expand this legislation to that second democratic, 1.1 billion population country.
India is unique, and this legislation is, in a very fundamental sense, unique. India also shares our passionate opposition to violent, militant Islam, and this is a position that India has not just today but, I am convinced, for the balance of this century.
Mr. Chairman, we are about to consider ground-breaking legislation that tailors United States policy to new global realities, advances our country's nonproliferation goals, and reinforces the critical role of congressional oversight of the Executive Branch. I am very pleased by the bipartisan way in which we were able to bring this legislation to this moment. With important contributions from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we will be able to move the historic United States-India civilian nuclear accord forward while ensuring that Congress will be able to guarantee that its views are considered every step of the way from here on in.
This is a defining moment in our relationship with the great nation of India. After decades of disengagement punctuated with hostility, we now have the opportunity to achieve what will be an historic geostrategic realignment of the world's largest democracy, India, with the world's oldest democracy, the United States. This was not a process that was achieved overnight. President Clinton's historic visit to Delhi in the year 2000 broke the long-standing barriers to closer cooperation between our two great democracies. President Bush built upon this new foundation during his visit to India this year, which culminated in the historic civilian nuclear accord.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But the nuclear agreement not only marks a geostrategic realignment. It is also an unmistakable opportunity to advance our nonproliferation goals by rewarding a country that possesses nuclear technology but has not used it to spread nuclear weapons capabilities around the globe—India has no A.Q. Khan. India is a country with positive bilateral relations with the United States that can serve, and I am convinced will serve, as a model for others, and our agreement ensures that many nuclear facilities that are not under safe guards today will be in the future, as a result of this legislation.
The legislation before our Committee, Mr. Chairman, like any product of long and extended negotiations between two great sovereign nations, will not please everyone in its entirety. The Administration wanted Congress to approve the nuclear cooperation deal in advance, even though important elements of the accord had yet to be negotiated. We firmly rejected that request.
As I proposed last month, Congress will be required to vote a second time. Let me repeat this. Congress will be required to vote a second time before any nuclear cooperation with India can move forward. This second vote will take place only after Congress will have reviewed all of the details of the agreement for cooperation that are currently being negotiated, after India and the International Atomic Energy Agency will have concluded a safeguards agreement, and after the nuclear suppliers group will have acted to allow nuclear cooperation with India.
The Administration also asks that Congress waive all of the current prohibitions on nuclear cooperation with India. Our balanced legislation before us today will provide the Administration with some of the authority it sought to allow expanded peaceful, nuclear-related trade with India to take place, but certainly not all.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the nuclear agreement is the product of negotiations between two great nations, and, by definition, it is a compromise. No agreement between sovereign nations is ever perfect, with both sides feeling that they are getting everything they wanted. Such is the nature of international negotiations. We must keep our attention focused on moving our political, security, and nonproliferation cooperation with India moving forward, and not run it aground licensing to the siren song of phantom perfection.
As we move forward with today's markup, I look forward to a healthy debate on the underlying legislation and on the several amendments that will be offered. I will support amendments which are consistent with the United States-India Nuclear Agreement and which perfect the underlying legislation. Amendments that represent fundamental changes to the terms of the deal worked out between the United States and India, I will firmly oppose.
I ask everyone on the Committee to support this historic agreement. It is my strong hope that we can have the bill on the House Floor in July, and then, with House passage, we will have opened a new era in United States-India relations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the comments of both the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member. I would only add a little bit of caution to what has been said.
This is a new day in United States-India relations. It is also a sad day in the world of arms control and the rule of law. The Non-Proliferation Treaty has been the linchpin of all United States arms control in modern times. We are making an exception for India. There is a case for this, and there is no doubt if we were in an India-specific world, there would be a credible case for it.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The interesting phenomenon is that the premise behind all of this is a decision in Washington, and perhaps in Delhi, that we should have a warming of relations. I do not know a Member of Congress that does not support that.
Then the United States was given basically two policy options. One was to go forth with the nuclear deal. The second was to support Indian membership in the Security Council. We chose the first and have yet to affirm the second. Part of this relates to a lack of appreciation, I believe, in some places in Washington for arms control itself. Part of it relates to an attitude toward the United Nations, but I cannot think of any better alternative than firm support of India on the Security Council. We rejected it.
The tragedy is, and I would only disagree with one bit of facileness of your statement, Mr. Lantos; it is true there is only one other country that is not a member of the nuclear arms club with 1.1 billion people, but there are very few countries in the world that look at numbers that way. Once this agreement goes forward, we are going to have a whole spectrum of countries that are going to make comparable claims, whether they be South Korea, whether they be Japan, whether they be Brazil, countries with which we have credible relations. There are going to be other countries with which we do not, one of which is Iran, one of which is North Korea.
We had visits in the last month by high-level, Pakistani representatives who made it very clear, if this deal goes through, Pakistan will respond with more nuclear weapons.
So affirmation of this agreement is affirmation of other countries going forward in a nuclear way in ways that the law of the world, the NPT, to some degree, represented some protection. Now the difficulty for the United States is, and this is a great irony, we talk about a warming of United States-India relations, and that is absolutely implicit and true; but on the other hand, because of the United States' announcement, Russia has already offered to give India all of the nuclear energy that we have implied in this agreement. That agreement has gone forward.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In other words, the Executive announcement, which was done without consultation with Congress, which requires an Act of Congress, has been preempted by another state, and so what we are doing is almost irrelevant. The NPT has been knifed by an Executive action, and another country is already going forth with this agreement.
I will tell you, I think advice to the Administration before this went forward would have been very clear-cut. This is a foolish direction to go on. Now that the Administration has taken that action, Congress is on the spot, and I think this is a very close call. As Mr. Lantos has said, and Mr. Hyde has said, this is an improved agreement over what the Administration has suggested, and I acknowledge that, and I would also acknowledge that I am really in a dilemma as an individual making a judgment. But anyone that wants to present this as a happy day is making a very serious mistake.
This is a dilemma for the international world that we have undercut the most serious arms control treaty perhaps ever negotiated, and we are doing it without, in my judgment, the kind of consideration in advance that was needed. Some of that consideration has gone into this particular measure, but it is not a happy day for the world. Thank you.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend both you and our Ranking Member, Tom Lantos, and your staff for all you have done to make this legislation a substantial improvement over the Administration's legislative proposal. I think the points that my colleague, Mr. Leach, made are serious and must be considered, but I think I would like to just take a couple of moments to mention some of the good ones but then point out some of the specific deficiencies that still remain.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As has been said, Congress will have to approve a nuclear cooperation agreement under this bill with India by an affirmative majority vote, and we will have copies of the cooperation agreement and the safeguards agreement negotiated between India and the IAEA before we take that vote. That is much better than the original bill.
My strong preference was to give Congress the ability to amend the cooperation agreement, but that proved to be incompatible with the expedited procedures this bill establishes for congressional consideration of the agreement.
Also on the plus side, this bill prevents the President from waiving some very important provisions in the Atomic Energy Act that place conditions on India's handling of nuclear materials received from the United States. It also maintains the applicability of other provisions in existing law that provide for the termination of nuclear cooperation in the event that India resumes nuclear testing, violating its IAEA safeguards agreement, or violating the terms of our bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement.
It requires the nuclear supplier group to approve an exemption for India before Congress votes on the cooperation agreement, and that NSU decision must be made by consensus. It directs the President to take steps to prevent other countries from making nuclear transfers to India if India takes certain actions, like testing a nuclear weapon or violating IAEA safeguards, that lead to a termination of United States nuclear exports. And the bill includes language that I had suggested prohibiting nuclear transfers to India if, having agreed to adhere to NSG and missile technology control regime guidelines, India exports items to other countries in violation of the agreement.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But the bill also does not address several very important issues. It does nothing to limit India's production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. If we are going to change the internationally accepted rules on nuclear trade, then we had better have a compelling, nonproliferation gain, like a freeze on the production of fissile material, to justify those changes. Otherwise, we risk starting down a slippery slope where the nonproliferation rules become more and more malleable, other countries try to cut special deals for their friends, and pretty soon we have got a free for all with all of us coming out losers in the end.
To ensure that a nuclear deal is a net plus for nonproliferation, I offer two amendments to condition nuclear cooperation with India on India's willingness to stop making more plutonium and highly enriched uranium.
Mr. Chairman, the strategic value represented by this deal and the potential for a future closer relationship with India is extremely important to me and extremely important in terms of United States foreign policy interests. As part of that, I welcome civilian nuclear cooperation as long as it is done in a responsible way that does not undermine U.S. and international efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
Normally, we would recognize Members for 1 minute to make an opening statement. What we have done is recognize Members for 5 minutes to strike the last words. We will continue to do that. I do not want anybody foreclosed from making a statement, but I would remind you that it is not mandatory that you make a statement. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for purposes of an amendment.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me agree with both you and Ranking Member Mr. Lantos in his statement that this is a very historic piece of legislation, and we are engaged in an historic moment. NATO, of course, took care of stability needs and helped us create a force for peace in the world during the Cold War. NATO is no longer capable, I believe, of providing that type of force in the world. In fact, I believe that a new alliance needs to be developed, should we pursue our global leadership role and have an alliance to depend upon. In other words, I do not believe our European allies are reliable as they were during the Cold War. We will need another alliance in order to meet the challenges of the new millennium.
This new alliance probably will be, as far as I can see now, a coalition between the United States, Japan, India, and Russia. If democracy continues to evolve in the right direction in Russia and not going the opposite way. This vision that I believe the President shares is something that we need to pursue, and the step in establishing a new relationship with India is certainly one of the first steps that needs to be taken if we are to have this alliance between the United States, Russia, India, and Japan in order to create a new force in the world for prosperity and security and peace.
However, as Mr. Berman just stated, and, I believe, accurately stated, we must look very carefully at what we are doing to ensure that we are not totally undermining another important goal that was established in the last 40 years. That is the goal of limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons material and nuclear weapons because an out-of-control proliferation of nuclear weapons material would be a threat to whatever type of alliance we form to establish stability in this world.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So as we launch this new initiative to develop India's energy system that will help us provide a new relationship with India, we have to have the proliferation issue addressed. My amendment is aimed at ensuring that we do our best to see that the issue of proliferation is addressed by insisting that nuclear energy technology provided to India is that technology which will have the least negative impact on the proliferation of nuclear weapons material, as well as insisting that we offer technology that is the most cost effective.
[The amendment of Mr. Rohrabacher follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think that if we provide India nuclear technology to help them meet their energy needs, and they end up spending more and more money on nuclear weapons, it would be a tremendous disservice to the Indian people. Those weapons are totally wasteful for a country that needs to focus its resources on their own economy and uplifting their own people.
So I would suggest that my amendment will help us guide our decisions in that way. In fact, there are alternatives, if we do insist upon them, that will provide India the capability of producing electricity and energy through nuclear materials but, at the same time, minimize the proliferation danger.
There is a high-pressure gas reactor—it is a new reactor in the sense that it has not been widely used in the world. Although it has been used in Japan for 20 years successfully. This system is different from the old reactors in that it will not provide the huge amount of material that can be used for creating nuclear bombs. It eats plutonium, for example. And I might add, General Atomics in California, although not in my district, General Atomics has a joint agreement with Russian companies in order to build these types of reactors. Which are the safest and most cost-effective ways of proceeding with this initiative about providing other countries, especially India, nuclear technology for the production of energy.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So my amendment is aimed at insisting that as we move forward with this initiative, that we do so with the technology that, when operated, creates the least potential to develop weapons-grade material and is the most cost effective technology.
Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will.
Chairman HYDE. I want to thank the gentleman for a most useful discussion. I think the aims that the gentleman seeks are worthy and desirable, but the enforcement of this amendment would be virtually impossible. It is a restriction put only on India, not on any other country in the world, but you have a point, and I am wondering if you would withdraw this amendment. We will study the subject some more and see if there is not some other way to get where the gentleman wants to go.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will be very happy to take the Chairman's admonition that this is an amendment that would affect only India, and I think that the idea of moving forward with projects like this should not be just aimed at India. We should have as a general rule for all countries that we are providing cost-effective nuclear technology as well as the technology that creates the least potential to develop weapons-grade material. So I will withdraw my amendment. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman. The bill is open for amendment. Any Member may offer a pro forma amendment to strike the last words and thus get 5 minutes. So anybody who wishes recognition—one at a time, please. Mr. Ackerman.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, today, the Committee has an opportunity to make a choice of historic proportions and profound consequences. Today, we will chart the path of United States-India relations for decades to come, with one-sixth of the planet's population, and we will see the fruition of years of efforts by Members of both sides of the aisle and Presidents from both parties to bring the United States and India closer together.
I am very proud to be an original co-sponsor of the legislation. I believe the bill produces the right balance between addressing the legitimate nonproliferation concerns of many of our colleagues, but does not go so far as to mandate new conditions that would require the Administration to return to an unfruitful negotiating table.
The bill also provides an opportunity for the Congress to exercise its judgment over the agreement itself, as well as requiring the IAEA safeguards agreement and additional protocol and the nuclear suppliers group agreement. All should be in place before we move ahead on the second vote with nuclear cooperation with India.
The expedited procedures in the bill will ensure that Congress can act quickly once all of the elements are in place while preserving our opportunity to review the agreement thoroughly.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think everyone agrees, Mr. Chairman, that a closer relationship with India is in America's interests. I think most everyone would also concede that this agreement will help us achieve that closer relationship.
The criticism has been over the potential impact of the deal on U.S. nonproliferation policy. Make no mistake: This bill represents a significant change in long-standing U.S. policy and deserves careful consideration.
On balance, I think we are better off with India in the nonproliferation mainstream. Which is what this bill will achieve, rather than defeating the bill, which is what we would do if we change the agreement.
I would like to address for a moment some of the very thoughtful comments of Mr. Leach, which were, indeed, thoughts and concerns that many of us have considered as we have pondered this change.
First of all, it would be foolhardy if we had a one-size-fits-all foreign policy. We treat different nations differently. We do not even treat members of the evil axis in the same way as other members of the axis are treated. Indeed, Iran and North Korea and Pakistan are looking for clues about what this deal means for them and their nuclear programs.
I think the message to them is clear: If you want to be treated like India, be like India. If you want to be treated like India, be a responsible international actor with regard to weapons-of-mass-destruction technologies. Do not sell your nuclear technology to the highest bidder. Do not provide it to terrorists. Be a democracy, a real democracy, regardless of your size, and work with us on important foreign policy objectives and not against us.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would disagree that the NPT is being knifed. I think what we are doing here in recognizing the differences between countries is that the NPT is being skillfully and surgically modified. There is a rumor about qualitative judgments about the nature of states in our nonproliferation policy, Mr. Chairman, and India is a nation that deserves, in my judgment, at least, to be treated as a responsible nuclear power. I would urge all of our colleagues to support the legislation and ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Smith is recognized, of New Jersey. Mr. Smith is not here. Mr. Gallegly? Ms. Davis of Virginia? Mr. Weller? Mr. Weller is here. All right. Mr. McCotter from Michigan?
Mr. MCCOTTER. In regards to this, I understand the theoretical concerns of some Members, but the question to me is the differentiation between the theoretical and the actual. Whereas the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a wonderful, multilateral document, and it did not stop certain nations, one of which is India and others, from acquiring nuclear capabilities and nuclear weapons. It seems to me that in that context what the United States is trying to do, acting bilaterally with India, is actually to help augment the Non-Proliferation Treaty by coming closer to India and trying to bring India into more of a nonproliferation mode through its bilateral relationship with the United States. So far from seeing the NPT ''knifed in the back,'' I see it actually being defended by this bilateral agreement.
One of my other concerns, too, a Member from a State that makes automobiles, is that one of the problems we have seen with rising gas prices is international demand. We have seen the growing economies of places, specifically, China and India, countries of over a billion people, are continuing to place demands upon the world's oil and energy resources. It would seem to me that the more quickly India can develop its energy resources on the nuclear front, that will help over time to alleviate some of the demand upon fossil fuels that are causing us such heartburn at the gas pumps today.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, I think Mr. Lantos, as he always does, put the issue squarely in front of us for the great future. When we look at the future, we see that the United States, as a global competitor, faces rising economies and perhaps rising militarism in Communist China and faces rising economic competition from democratic India. It would seem to me that the move that we are about to make by increasing our ties with India makes absolute sense as we look at the course of the 21st century because the United States today has a relationship which I believe is unfortunate with Communist China.
When we look down the road, it would be far better for the United States to have a long-standing relationship not with a Communist country but with a democratic country, and today we will take that great leap forward—no pun intended—to build that relationship up, and I totally support this action on behalf of this Committee. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move to strike the last word.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, it is fair enough for intelligent people to disagree about the pros and cons of United States-India civil nuclear cooperation. I sincerely hope that at the end of this day the Committee will vote in favor of this agreement in support of what you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Lantos have provided for the Members of this Committee to vote upon.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I honestly believe that this will happen and sincerely hope that it will happen because it needs to happen because the time has come for the United States to support its ally and set right our failed policies which excluded India from the nuclear club and barred her from acquiring nuclear technology and materials for civilian use more than 25 years ago.
While critics may argue that India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, I submit that had it not been for our benign neglect India may have been a member of the nuclear club and our discussion about the nuclear proliferation treaty would have been a moot point.
In the early 1960s, despite having a civilian nuclear program, India called for global disarmament but our nation turned a deaf ear. In 1962, China attacked India claiming it was responding to border provocation. The United States responded by saying it might protect India against a future attack. But when China exploded its first nuclear bomb in 1964, our nation welcomed China as a member of the nuclear club and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
In 1965, believing India was weakened from its war with China, Pakistan attacked India in an effort to control and the current crisis is now occurring over the control of Kashmir.
In response, our nation remained neutral while China outspokenly supported Pakistan. Concerned for its own security and having little reason to rely on our nation, India announced in 1966 that it would produce nuclear weapons within 18 months. But in 1967, our nation joined with the Soviet Union in crafting a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which to this day states that only the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and France are permitted to own nuclear weapons because only these five possessed nuclear weapons at the time the treaty was open for signature in 1968. Again, India had had a civilian nuclear program in place prior to the nuclear proliferation treaty being open for signature and India was only months away from possessing nuclear weapons.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So while critics may argue that India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, I respectfully submit that I agree with India's position that the NPT is and has always been flawed and discriminatory.
As a result of the NPT, China, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and our country are the only permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and this also is not right.
Yes, India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, but recently the U.S. State Department declassified documents on United States foreign policy which show that India had little choice but to protect its sovereign interests given the hostile attitude assumed by the United States toward India during the Nixon-Kissinger years.
As we all can agree, India then and India today lives in one of the world's tougher neighborhoods and it is a bit Euro-centric and somewhat racist, if I might mention, Mr. Chairman, for our nation to treat India as if she is beholden to us for the safety, protection and well being of her people.
It is no grand gesture on our part that we now offer India civil nuclear cooperation. Instead, United States-India civil nuclear cooperation is only long overdue and, quite frankly the deal is as good for us as it is for India.
First, it is in our strategic interests for the world's oldest democracy to stand with the world's largest democracy as we seek to stabilize one of the most volatile regions in the world.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Two, with one-sixth of the world's population, and with India's growing energy demands expected to increase more than threefold for the next 30 years, lessening India's demand for fossil fuels means lower prices as the gas pumps for all Americans.
Three, civil nuclear cooperation being the linchpin of our relations translates into more jobs for U.S. workers in other sectors.
Mr. Chairman, when all is said and done, the United States-India civil nuclear cooperation is the right thing to do and I commend Prime Minister Singh and President Bush for bringing this historic initiative to the table.
I also commend you, Mr. Chairman, and our Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, for your leadership. Mr. Lantos stood by India when it was not so popular to do so and without his support and your support, Mr. Chairman, this bill would be dead on arrival.
I also want to commend Mr. Sanjay Puri for the outstanding work that he has done to keep this deal alive. Today's vote, and I expect and sincerely hope that tomorrow's favorable vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will be a victory for the India-American community and for this gentleman's tireless efforts.
While others will rush to the media to take credit, at a single reception, no one worked harder on behalf of the India-American community than Mr. Puri. Since the day this deal was first announced more than a year ago, this gentleman, Mr. Puri, without compensation or personal gain, united his Indian-American community, visited personally with Members of the House and the Senate, and worked cooperatively with the State Department and Mr. Burns.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you.
Mr. Burton of India?
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to be redundant and go into all the reasons why this is a good agreement that have already been mentioned. I would like to say that I would like to associate myself in particular with the remarks of the Chairman, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Lantos and Mr. McCotter, who is always very eloquent. I appreciate their kind remarks. I think they are very appropriate.
I would just like to say that along with Mr. Wilson of Service Center I took a number of other Members of Congress to India and Pakistan recently and we met with Prime Minister Singh and President Musharraf to talk about issues such as Kashmir and the punjab and some of the problems that have been occurring up there for a long, long time that need to be resolved.
In addition to that we had an opportunity to talk to Prime Minister Singh, his defense minister, a large number of the members of their parliament about this nuclear agreement. After having met with him and talked with him, I am convinced that there will be a clear delineation between civil and military use of nuclear technology that is sold to them by the United States of America. That is why I think this agreement has a lot of merit.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think it is extremely important that India gain the ability to build nuclear energy facilities because they have probably 800 million people that are living on less than $2.00 a day and they have a great opportunity to expand their workforce and their economy if they get the technology to produce the kind of energy that is necessary for economic expansion. That will help not only their economy but hundreds of millions of people over there who are living in very, very dire straits. I believe India can be a great ally of the United States, already is, but I think they will be a greater ally than they have been in the past.
In the past, I have been a very strong critic of India, but based upon what I learned during this trip and what I have seen recently, I think that they are going to be a good partner down the road and I think this is a good agreement and we should be supporting it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Sherman of California?
Mr. SHERMAN. Move to strike the last word.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this agreement goes to the heart of our work on the International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee and so I do have a lot to say and I will try to say it quickly.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will be offering three amendments. None of them is a killer amendment, though I am sure that those who disagree with them may say that it might be, because our role here in this Committee is to push to make this agreement better.
We will hear pained cries that this or that amendment is a ''killer amendment'' and then we will know we are doing our job. No pain, no gain. Our job is to push this agreement just as far as it will go and, of course, in that process, we will be told that we are pushing it just a little too far.
The simplest of my amendments will be to put back in the bill a few words that were taken out from last week's draft to the draft that is before us in our folders today.
The bill requires that we go forward with this agreement only with the support of the nuclear suppliers group. The original text or the text of last week said, ''and that action by the nuclear suppliers group has to affect only India and no other country.''
It is dangerous, I think, that those words have been removed from the draft in front of us and I will seek to restore them because it implies that there are those who would agree to a deal in the nuclear suppliers group in which they would agree to supply India and Pakistan. I would expect China to try to push for that kind of package and we need to put in this bill before it leaves this Committee the words that were in the bill last week to say that what we need to secure for this deal to go forward is an agreement with nuclear suppliers group affecting only India.
Second, I will propose an amendment stating that if we are going to provide all this help to India's energy sector, India should not go forward—and I think they have already decided not to go forward—with a pipeline from Iran and this provision will be waivable by the President so if the Administration determines that it is in our national security interests to waive that provision the Administration will be able to do so.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The third and most important amendment I will offer is kind of Berman-lite and I will support Mr. Berman's amendment but, if for some reason, his does not pass, what mine amendment will do is recognize a few facts.
First, India, although they have a lot of uranium in the ground, it is low grade ore and they are only able to produce 300 tons. They need almost all of that for their energy sector. They are diverting some of their domestic uranium that they need for their energy sector to their nuclear bomb creation sector. Uranium is fungible and if we allow this deal to go forward without an amendment then India will be able to take all its domestic uranium and use it for building bombs and use the world's uranium to fund their nuclear energy facilities.
I think it is important that when this bill leaves the Committee it be designed not to punish India for having nuclear weapons, not even to prevent India from building more India weapons, but at least to keep our hands clean and make sure that we are not helping India build more weapons in 2007 than they were able to build in 2005.
This is important because the world does not need more nuclear weapons. It is important because if we facilitate more Indian nuclear weapons, the response from China and Pakistan will not be to our liking. Finally, it is important because of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That treaty says that we are bound not to assist India in building nuclear weapons and if we take a look at the ground today, we see that India has to choose what to do with its domestic uranium production: Does it use that production for the production of weapons or for electricity?
They are currently underfueling their electric generating nuclear plants in order to build weapons. They want to do both. We should not assist them in building more nuclear weapons than they are able to today.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For that reason, my most important amendment will say that for this deal to go forward the President must certify that the amount of uranium going to India's nuclear weapons program has not increased.
Those are the amendments I will offer.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Move to strike the last word.
I am recognized, Mr. Chairman?
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman. this legislation highlights India's stature as an important strategic partner for the United States, its strong democratic history, its responsible behavior on nonproliferation of technology and materials related to deadly unconventional weapons which has earned it such a preferred status.
Among many provisions, the bill articulates the United States nonproliferation priorities to oppose the efforts of any country to develop nuclear weapons capability, to achieve a halt to the production of materials for nuclear explosives, and to secure India's full and active participation in United States and global nonproliferation efforts and, specifically, United States efforts to sanction and contain the Iranian regime for its pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Specifically, this bill requires that prior to a congressional yes or no vote on the agreement the President must issue a determination that India, among other things, has provided the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency with a credible plan separating its civilian and military facilities, that it has concluded an agreement with the IAEA submitting its civilian facilities to IAEA safeguards in perpetuity and it has agreed to an additional protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency consistent with the IAEA standards and practices.
In short, Mr. Chairman, this bill strikes a balance while enhancing our bilateral relations with India and promoting our foreign security and policy objectives in Asia, while strengthening nonproliferation strategies by further integrating India into United States and international efforts and I would hope that this Committee would give it its full support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you.
Ms. Lee of California?
Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
I find myself in concert with much of what has been said already and I would simply want to highlight one point which has been referenced already which gives me great confidence in terms of the ramifications of what we are about to do. It has been referenced earlier that the nuclear suppliers group must approve this agreement and I think it is worth highlighting that that approval is not on a majority basis, but on a consensus basis so practically what it means is that any country of the 38 or 40 that makes up that group can veto this agreement if it wishes.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
People talk about the potential arms race or the ramifications in terms of Pakistan or China and so forth. I think it is very important to point out that China, of course, is a member of the nuclear suppliers group and should China at any point conclude that the consequences of this agreement are such that it wished to veto it, it could.
Now, to China's credit, my understanding is that it will choose not to veto this arrangement, but I think the whole point is that requiring a consensus amongst such a disparate group of countries requires a degree of cooperation and international understanding that creates an environment of moderation of which both India and others will be operating.
That gives me a degree of confidence that what we are about to do will enhance the existing nonproliferation international environment rather than detract from it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
I do also subscribe to much of what has been said already. Change is really a difficult situation and when you think about the world that we currently live in, to one degree one will say that it is much better than it has ever been in the history of the world and others will say it is also more dangerous than it has ever been in the history of the world.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So the question then is how do we bring this hodgepodge of countries, the United States included, so that we can talk about those aspects that make this world that we share more dangerous?
I agree with Mr. Ackerman when said that we need to make sure that individuals know that when they have demonstrated a sophistication and a position of responsibility that we can then share technology, the technology that will in fact help millions of people with reference to energy in India, so that they too can have a better life.
When I look around and see what some of the problems are in the world, it is that some see the quality of life and the standard of life in one part of the world and the lack of the same qualities in the other, and at the same time try to make sure that we have responsible governments governing because some of this, the creation of the nuclear weapons and atom bomb was initially done for peaceful purposes, but, of course, they could be utilized for bad. So we have to figure out how we can make sure that what is now prevalent on the Earth is utilized for the benefit of all.
India has proven that it is in fact a responsible government, so therefor I think it is important that we allow India to utilize certain India civil programs, civil nuclear programs. And I think that sends a message. I do not think that we should even look at this necessarily at China as a competitor in the sense that we have to do this because it is China. I think that eventually we have to figure out how we talk to China and other nations to make them all responsible and this could be one of the ways that we do that, by utilizing India as an example for the rest of the world, that we can indeed be able to get along and make sure that we are working collectively together for the benefit of all people.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I am going to listen to some of the amendments, because I think some of the amendments may be very good, because we do have to be very careful. We want to make sure that we have as many checks as we possibly can and so I am not ruling out voting for some of the amendments, those that are not poison pills but some of the amendments, I think, are very good, but I am going to support this and I think that it is important for us to support it because I think it sends a message to some of the nations who may not be as responsible as we would like that if they can clean up their act we can all work together because indeed we have to share this place that we call Earth. Nuclear weapons going off anyplace endanger us all and we have to figure out how we share it together and the only we can do that is by working and coming to agreements together.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just two brief observations. I am deeply concerned about the way that we kind of rushed into this. I think the Administration got a little over its skis, on this. This is too important, too vital to our interests, too vital for the subcontinent and, frankly, for the potential complication of our other nonproliferation efforts as it relates to Iran, for instance.
But I do appreciate the efforts of our Committee leadership to provide a framework to build broader support within Congress while we deal with our concerns and it is one of those instances where this Committee can, in doing its job, help point the Administration in the right direction and I think there is every likelihood that we will do this at the end of the day.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciate that effort and I look forward to moving this forward and for our Committee continuing vigorous oversight and our participation to make sure that it does not go sideways.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Crowley of New York?
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the time.
I strike the requisite number of words and I will take the Chairman's advice into hand and combine both my statement and my amendment at the same time. Is that okay with the Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Schiff of California?
Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief as well.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Schiff, I was too precipitous.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I think you did just fine.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Crowley has an amendment.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and commend you and Ranking Member Lantos for your bipartisan effort in bringing this legislation forward today.
I support this cooperation and this new language because I believe in the new phase in the relationship of the United States and India and what we will be creating today.
A relationship with India is in our national interests and our future is with those who share the ideals of democracy and free thought. India is just such a nation.
This will be a historic day, the day the United States and India broke free of the Cold War mindset and embraced each other as true allies.
India has paid the price for its pursuant of nuclear weapons for the past 32 years. To my friends who are concerned about India not signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I share your concerns. While we believe that Congress should do all that we can to have a strong NPT, we must also recognize the new paradigm we are dealing with.
In the case of India, the T should not stand for treaty but for tent and that tent of nonproliferators is one we want to bring India into. She already belongs there, but we want to bring her officially into that. This agreement, I believe, goes a long way to doing that.
What I find commendable is that instead of spreading this technology or trying to hide it from the rest of the world they were honest about their own national security concerns and respected the rule of law and freedoms those laws granted to the people of India.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe that good behavior must be rewarded and that is why I strongly support the legislation of a clean bill today. Poison pill or killer amendments will not just kill this bill but will our relationship back to the days before President Clinton made a decision to create a stronger relationship with India. Thankfully, President Bush recognized this potential and built upon that work.
This legislation is a major step in a process that was began under President Clinton and is a continuation of the next steps in a strategic partnership with India.
Before we change our laws, the President must finish negotiations with the Government of India, India must complete new protocols and safeguards with the IAEA and the nuclear suppliers group will have to agree to allow nuclear exports to India.
Our decision today will create a stronger relationship between our two nations and I am proud to be playing a role in this historic event.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Move the waiving of the reading, if that is proper.
Chairman HYDE. Let her report the amendment.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Would you report the Crowley amendment?
Ms. RUSH. Amendment by Mr. Crowley of New York. In section 4(o), add at the end the following new paragraph——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading is dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Crowley follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CROWLEY. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is simple and straightforward.
The amendment requires an annual report to Congress describing any new nuclear reactors or nuclear facilities that the Government of India has designated as civilian and placed under inspections or has designated as military.
This legislation we have before us today includes incentives for India to designate reactors and facilities as civilian and I believe we should have reporting requirements on whether or not they are working.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I strongly believe that the future reactors and nuclear facilities should be designated as civilian and placed under India specific IAEA safeguards, not military.
While my amendment does not limit India's ability to designate future reactors or facilities as military, the annual reporting will bring attention to the India program and their intentions to our President and to our Congress.
I trust the Government of Prime Minister Singh and I trust Prime Minister Singh, but, as you would expect with any democracy, he will not always be Prime Minister, and it is in our interests to be sure that India is using all of the new technologies that are at her disposal for energy and not weapons of production.
I believe this is a noncontroversial amendment and my hope is that my colleagues will support it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair is prepared to accept the amendment but will yield to Mr. Lantos first.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to support my friend's amendment. This amendment adds a useful report to the Congress so that over time we will have a very clear picture as to the breakdown of the civilian and military composition of India's new nuclear reactor facilities.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Is there any further discussion?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. If not, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Crowley.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. All those opposed, nay.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
I want to begin by thanking the Chair and Ranking Member for the work they have done to improve the legislation before us and, in particular, to give us the opportunity to study a proposed agreement and have an up or down vote on it after it has been completed.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also, though, want to echo the sentiments expressed by Mr. Leach of Iowa. There were many ways to improve the relationship with India. We could do it through an enhanced nuclear cooperation agreement. We could do it through supporting India's membership in the UN Security Council. We could do it through increased economic cooperation or any number of means. It was not inevitable that this be the course and there is, I think, a very clear cost to the nonproliferation effort and a cost to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that all of us will have to weigh.
I want to echo the sentiment that support for this legislation does not commit any Member and should not be read as an indication of ultimate support for the agreement and, as the Chair admonished, the Administration would be wise to work closely with this Committee and with the Congress to make sure that what it pursues ultimately has the support of the Congress.
I will be offering one amendment this afternoon that is designed to ensure that our support of India's nuclear program does not allow it to increase its fissile material production and that it is not used in effect to support an accelerated nuclear weapons program.
I have drafted the amendment in consultation with nonproliferation experts and it has been drafted in such a way that it goes as far as I think we can go to try to accomplish that objective without being a deal breaker for the broader agreement and I would ask my colleagues to consider it when I bring the matter up.
Again, I appreciate the work that has been done this far. I agree again with Mr. Leach that the announcement of the proposed agreement in itself changed the landscape. I am sure that was done deliberately prior to having consultations with Congress to have exactly that impact and that has made our job more difficult, but I appreciate greatly the work the Chair and the Ranking Member have done to give us more influence over what may be the single most important decision in the nonproliferation field for decades to come.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Watson of California.
Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Lantos.
I will probably be the only one who is not ready to support this legislation with the amendments as it is in front of us today because to give the President waiver authority to exempt India from the restrictions that were in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is very worrisome to me.
Pakistan has been in partnership with the United States in its war on terrorism, but not the democracy that India is and we all understand that, but are you going to reward them with the same kind of consideration and this bill as it is in front of us today gives the authority to the President to make that decision.
I would like to see the bill written saying that the President submits to Congress a determination that India has submitted a credible plan to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and programs, that a safeguard agreement has been concluded with the IAEA and that the NSG has amended its guidelines to allow nuclear exports to India and the waiver authority given only to Congress. Only to Congress.
And with that, I could support it. In its current form, I cannot.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Engel of New York?
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Lantos.
I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support this agreement. I am glad that the Chairman and the Ranking Member are working together to come up with amendments and to come up with a bill that we think is very, very important.
I am a very big supporter of a stronger United States-India relationship. I think it is natural. I think the two countries share so many common interests. I think that during the Cold War with the Soviet Union there was a problem. That does not exist any more. I think that one of our policy objectives should be trying to make India and the United States strong allies and bring India closer together with the United States and I think that this bill achieves that.
When Secretary Rice was here several months ago, I publicly said that I support this idea and I think it is a very, very important idea.
I reject the fact that the United States has to somehow treat all countries the same when it comes to nuclear weapons. I think there is a different standard for countries, frankly, that are our friends and want to work with us and then for countries who are not, like Iran and North Korea, so I do not think that this agreement has any impact on Iran and North Korea. When Iran and North Korea become democracies like India, when Iran and North Korea become pro-American like India, when Iran and North Korea show that they can handle themselves in terms of democracy like India, then I think that we can consider that as well but that is really not the case.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are so many things that are common between the U.S. and industry. The biggest democracy, that is India. We have the longest democracy, the oldest democracy, the United States. In that region of the world, one needs to contrast India with Pakistan. India has had a democracy since 1947, since it became independent. Look at Pakistan. It unfortunately has not. So I do not think you can talk about the two.
India faces a threat of terrorism and, frankly, so does the United States. India keeps one eye, frankly, toward China and I think the United States needs to do that as well. So I think there is a convergence of interests here and, again, this makes a lot of sense.
We were talking the other day about surveys that were done in countries. The population of India has come up as one of the most pro-U.S. countries in the world and I think that is important and I think the Indian-American community, frankly, can play a great role and will play a great role and does play a great role in terms of bringing the two countries together and that is something that I like and support.
Again, when I look at this bill and I look at the concept, I think it is very, very important for the United States; very, very important for India.
Again, I wholeheartedly support it and I think, again, the Administration should work with this Committee and, frankly, the Administration has shown that it wants to work with this Committee and with Members on both sides of the aisle in terms of making sure that this United States-India agreement goes well and sticks.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am delighted that we have it here. I am delighted that we are doing this. I think this is very, very important for India and the United States as we march into the 21st century together and I again wholeheartedly support this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair would like to get to the amendments. Are there any more Members who wish to make an opening statement?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. If not, we will go to the amendments.
Mr. Berman is recognized for an amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like, if possible, to have the Committee's indulgence to offer two of my amendments in order because they are directly related.
The first amendment I would like to offer is amendment 64.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Berman of California. In section 4(b), add at the end the following new paragraph——
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Berman follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment is quite straightforward. It requires the President to make a determination that India has halted production of fissile material for nuclear weapons before he can grant a waiver to key provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and submit the nuclear cooperation agreement to Congress.
There are three different ways in which India could meet this agreement. First, by declaring a unilateral moratorium on the production of fissile material; secondly, they could adhere to a multilateral moratorium with China and Pakistan, for instance; or, third, it could sign and adhere to a multilateral fissile material cutoff treaty.
Given that India already has nuclear weapons, why is it so important to restrain its future ability to build more?
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think three reasons. If we are going to change long established nonproliferation rules for one country, we had better be able to point to some compelling nonproliferation gain to justify those changes and help ensure it does not become a precedent for other countries seeking to cut deals with their friends.
My friend the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, says we should treat different countries differently, but it is not going to work like that. We do this with India and we will have friends, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, that are going to say maybe we want to go down this path India did. They will pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and seek to obtain the same kind of operation.
India's other nonproliferation commitments in the context of this nuclear deal, stringent export controls, adhering to nuclear suppliers group and missile technology control guidelines, accepting IAEA safeguards in civilian facilities, these are positive steps in the right direction, but for the most part they are merely a reflection of India's existing policies or largely symbolic. Only a halt of fissile material production would make this deal a net plus for nonproliferation.
The second argument for requiring India to do this is the impact this deal could have on India's neighbors. As I mentioned earlier, almost every nonproliferation expert, but Republicans and Democrats, believe this deal will enable India to increase its production of fissile material. Why? Because India now faces a shortage of domestic uranium. It is forced to make a choice between generating electricity and making bombs.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If and when the NSG decides to make an exception for India and Congress approves the nuclear cooperation agreement, India will be able to purchase uranium on the international market and will no longer face this dilemma. From that point on, India will be free to devote all of its domestic uranium supply to its weapons program.
Indian counterparts are saying exactly that. In a recent article from The Hindu, a major India newspaper, a former high level official in India's intelligence service argues this deal will allow India to produce about 50 bombs a year, a significant increase over the current number.
This is not to say that India will immediately begin a massive build up of nuclear arms, but they will have the capability to do so and that is a critical point for China and Pakistan, which will inevitably make their own strategic decisions based on worst case assessments of India's arsenal. In other words, many experts believe this deal will probably lead Pakistan and possibly China to build more of their own nuclear weapons.
With all due respect to President Musharraf on his assistance with the war on terror, I would argue the last thing anything of us should want is a Pakistan with even more fissile material and nuclear weapons than it already has.
Nowhere else in the world is there a greater risk of radical Islamic terrorists getting their hands on the ultimate weapon.
The third argument of this amendment is India's commitment in the July 18, 2005 Bush-Singh joint statement to assume the practices and responsibilities of other advanced nuclear weapon states. Four of the five recognized nuclear weapons states, the United States, Great Britain, France and Russia, have all stopped producing fissile material for nuclear weapons as a matter of policy. The fifth, China, has also halted production. It is hard to think of a more important practice for India to assume.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today includes some very nice language expressing the importance of achieving a fissile material production moratorium in South Asia. Unfortunately, it is contained in the statements of policy section of the bill, which, as we all know, is meaningless from a legal standpoint.
Another provision of the bill requires the President to determine that India is working after the United States for the conclusion of a multilateral fissile material cutoff treaty. That sounds good on the surface, but in many ways this, too, is largely devoid of meaning.
The U.S. recently introduced a draft fissile material cutoff treaty at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. This draft did not include any verification mechanism.
The Indian position, by contrast, is that the treaty must provide for verification and on this one I think India is right. Given that our two governments have diametrically opposed views regarding verification issues, it is not clear to me that the Indian commitment to work with us for the conclusion of such a treaty has very much practical value.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BERMAN. 30 seconds additional?
Chairman HYDE. Without objection.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I suggest for this Committee the most important question that one should ask on this amendment is not whether it is perceived as a deal breaker or will be acceptable to the Indians. The real test is whether it is a good policy and serves American national security interests. On both those counts, I would argue that it does.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
There is considerable merit and logic in my good friend's amendment. Nevertheless, I must strongly oppose it.
I need to urge all of my colleagues to remember that this legislation was never intended to be nor could it ever be a mechanism to force India to disarm or to halt its strategic nuclear program. Had that been the intention, we would never have had this agreement or any other agreement.
We simply cannot use India's increasing restrained energy situation, as some advocate, as leverage over the strategic choices New Delhi makes in terms of its own national security and its very national existence. Such an effort is certain to fail.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I agree that it would be highly desirable for New Delhi to decide soon that it does indeed have more than enough nuclear weapons to defend its existence against China or Pakistan or anyone else, but, Mr. Chairman, that choice must be made by Indians. I wish to repeat that. We are not in a position to make the most fundamental national security choices for the nation of India with its 1.1 billion people. They must come to the realization themselves that more nuclear weapons will not yield more security, a lesson we took decades to learn.
It is folly to think that we can force that choice upon a proud and great power such as India. Such an effort would not, in my judgment, be successful. Even if it were, it would be seen by New Delhi as a decision made through extortion, to be overturned at the very first opportunity. If the tables were turned, the United States would react the very same way.
We must take every opportunity to engage and persuade New Delhi to make this choice and to cease producing fissile material for nuclear weapons, hopefully in concert with its neighbors.
There are provisions in this bill that require the Administration to do precisely that. They provide that the policy of the United States is to support both a fissile material moratorium and a fissile material treaty, with both the United States and India as parties.
It also provides that it shall be United States policy to create a cap on nuclear arsenals in South Asia and it requires an annual report on the actions by the United States and India in the future to carry out these objectives.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The debate we are having today and next month on the House Floor on this issue will impress upon New Delhi and the Administration the deep concern that Congress has over this issue. There is no greater step that India can take to avoid an arms race on the subcontinent than to halt the production of fissile material for explosive purposes, but we must not make this a condition for our agreement, for if we do, we will find that we have sacrificed the benefits of this agreement, benefits that include a new foundation for nonproliferation cooperation and IAEA safeguards on many Indian nuclear facilities in order to achieve absolutely nothing. I repeat, in order to achieve absolutely nothing.
This amendment is a quintessential deal breaker. It kills the Indian-United States nuclear cooperation agreement and I urge all of my colleagues to vote against it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Ackerman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the Chairman and, with great reluctance, would like to oppose the very thoughtful amendment of my good friend, Mr. Berman, as well as that of Mr. Sherman and the Sherman-Berman California thing, whatever.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me try to recap where we are, if I can.
I think we all share the concerns that are being addressed here in a very, very thoughtful and important way, but there is an important reality. The NPT is very important. It is a very noble, historic agreement which expressed the ideal of its time. The reality of today is different.
India is an independent, democratic, sovereign nation that is going to do what it has to do in its own national security interests, as all countries do. The treaty and our best wishes will not, have not, cannot change that.
But what we have here is a country in India that is different than so many of the other countries that we are talking about, concerned with, listening to or watching. The reality is that nations today, despite the treaty, if they can steal, buy or develop nuclear technology are going to dabble and try to do that, the treaty notwithstanding. We are going to have to deal with this, not only today but in the future.
In India, we have a different kind of deal in that they are a democracy. We have asked the ask and they are doing everything that we are asking of them at this point.
The details of this, without getting very specific, India has approximately 22 nuclear plants. They are willing to put two-thirds of them open to transparency, open to inspection by the IAEA, under full safeguards and inspection. No other country is doing that. Pakistan is running away from the NPT. North Korea is running away from the NPT. China has no transparency.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
India lives in a tough neighborhood. If you have a neighborhood in which you have a nuclear China, in which you have a nuclear Pakistan, if there was not an India we would have to invent one. Put $2.00 on India. That is my suggestion. Two-thirds is better than having none. Two-thirds open to inspection, 14 existing plants that the IAEA can walk into that the world can see. And when they do that, what we do is we help them on the civilian side, not on the military side, by helping them acquire material to keep those energy plants going.
The world is going with nuclear energy. Realize it. Nobody is building overland telephone poles. Nobody is building old-fashioned energy plants. Nuclear is the way that countries who have voracious appetites for energy are going to go. We have to deal with that somehow and one of the ways is the way that this thoughtful legislation carefully crafted by the Chairman and Mr. Lantos addresses.
India is in compliance, willing to be in compliance with that and to open up. This is of critical import. We have asked them and they are willing to do it, unlike any other country.
Mr. Chairman, there was an old lady, she was walking along the beach with her grandson. All of a sudden, a giant 250-foot wave came from the ocean, reached the shore, grabbed the young man and dragged him 300 feet out to sea where he was going down for the third time. The old woman looked up to the heavens and said, ''God, please help me. I have lived a righteous life, I have never done anything wrong in my entire life. This is the only son of my only son. Please save him. I will ask nothing else of you in the rest of my life.'' Suddenly, the clouds parted, a hand reached down from the heavens and under the sea, scooped up the child and placed him on the beach next to the old lady and she looked up and said, ''He had a hat.''
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My colleagues, we have asked the ask of India. Do not push for the hat.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. India has already agreed to work with the United States toward a fissile material cutoff treaty and keeping that pledge is already a requirement in the list of determinations in this document. The United States, Britain and France have a unilateral moratorium in place. It would be very difficult to press India to do so without China doing the same.
India and the Administration have said mandatory caps on fissile material production are unacceptable and so I oppose this well-intentioned amendment.
I am pleased to recognize Ms. McCollum.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to than you and Mr. Lantos for all the thoughtful work you have done on the markup that we are working off of. I truly do appreciate it.
The term ''deal breaker'' has been used here and I do believe that both the Chairman and the Ranking Member with all the work that they have done on behalf of this Committee and the people of the United States do understand what a deal breaker is. However, I am going to be supporting the Berman amendment and I would just like to state for the record why.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I did not make an opening statement. When President Bush announced this significant change in United States policy with India, it was with bittersweetness. I was thrilled with the prospect of working closer with India, but sad in the way that it was already decided, the direction we were going to go with this nuclear agreement, before coming to the Congress and having a full, open debate.
My good friend from American Samoa reminded me in his comments of what it was like being a child in the 1960s hearing about nuclear explosions and tests all around the world and I cannot help but think as a Member of Congress and having spoken with people from my district that they want to see a reduction in nuclear weapons. I think the Berman amendment—and the reason why I am supporting it—gives us an opportunity to ask for India's help, to ask for India's help in the future in making sure that countries as they move forward with nuclear reactors go forward in a direction that is for peaceful means only.
I thank Mr. Berman for offering this amendment and I would vote for it, with the understanding that India knows that this is not a deal breaker. It is asking India to put pen to paper with what it already so strongly does by moving forward with this agreement. In saying that, we should move forward with nuclear production that is not making weapon of mass destruction but moving forward with nuclear production that provides power, opportunity and hope for the world.
With that, Mr. Chair, I thank you for the time and I thank Mr. Berman for offering this amendment.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Lee of California?
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support the Berman amendment. I think it is a step forward in nonproliferation efforts as relates to this agreement and I would like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Berman.
Chairman HYDE. The question——
Ms. LEE. I would like to yield some time to Mr. Berman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Just very quickly, number one, this is not an effort to disarm India. I come into this entire debate accepting the reality of India as a state with nuclear weapons and that they have no intention of abandoning their nuclear weapons. India wants something that we and the nuclear suppliers group have, which is a great deal of technology and equipment and fuel, for them to move ahead on their economic progress in terms of intelligent energy policies and they want that from us.
We do not know if it is a deal breaker until we put it to them. I would just like our Congress to negotiate as toughly as the Indians do in this whole process. The adoption of this amendment will let India know that we are serious about this. This is a country with a credible minimal nuclear deterrent against both China and Pakistan. They have a serious nuclear arsenal. Surely this alternative with a ban on fissile material production is a better alternative than refueling an arms race that—remember, China has halted its production of fissile material and then we come down on Pakistan. That is why I think on balance let us test the proposition here and let us do something that is clearly in our interests and we think in the long term in India's interests, India will have to obviously make that decision for itself.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. I rise in support of the amendment. It is tougher than I would be, but I think being a little too strong in favor of controlling nuclear weapons and nonproliferation is better than the base text of the bill, which is way too weak.
The facts are that India has lots of ore in the ground, but it is low quality ore. They are only able to produce 300 tons of uranium a year and they want to both have electric power and build nuclear weapons. They face a Hobson's choice. They end up using half their uranium, roughly, to build nuclear bombs and they are building fewer than they want to. They use about half their uranium production for their existing nuclear power plants and those plants cannot be run at full capacity even though India has a crying need for electricity because they can only allocate or choose only to allocate half their uranium production to those nuclear power plants.
If this agreement goes through, if the base bill goes through, then all 300 tons of uranium production can be used by India to create fissile material for nuclear bombs. It is not in our interests for India to build more nuclear bombs than they do this year. It is certainly not in our interests to see China and Pakistan react to an acceleration of the Indian nuclear program. Finally, we are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which states in part that we agree not to assist India in building nuclear weapons. Uranium is fungible. The India nuclear weapons program does not have as much uranium as India would like to give it and for us to provide or facilitate the providing of uranium for all their civilian needs so that all their domestic production can go toward making bombs is for us to assist India in building nuclear bombs.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My good friend from New York points out that under this agreement two-thirds of India's plants will be subject to inspection, but India's problem is to plants. They have plenty of plants and even the one-third of the plants that are not subject to inspection will be plenty to build the nuclear weapons they want to build.
India's constraint is uranium, quality uranium ore, and this lifts that restraint if we pass the bill in its form, a form that would be dramatically improved if we adopt the Berman amendment.
India has asked for help with its energy sector. It very much needs that help. It has asked for our help, perhaps it has prayed for our help. They do not need the hat, too. They do not need us to also facilitate them building more nuclear weapons than they could in the absence of this agreement.
Finally, while it is good that India has committed to ''work with us'' toward a worldwide treaty limiting or banning the creation of fissile material, to ''work with us'' is an incredibly vague commitment and not a substitute for the Berman amendment. That is why I hope this amendment is adopted and will give us a dramatically improved bill.
I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me just note that technology is available to achieve this end and, again, I repeat that this should be looked at by our Government as we move forward.
Also, let me note, however, if we in some way imperil this particular deal that we have made with India, we are going to have the opposite results of what Mr. Berman is intending by his amendment because the fact is then India will feel even more compelled to produce nuclear weapons. The closer India is to the United States the more—if we have a close relationship which they know they can count on the United States, they are less likely to waste their money on nuclear weapons when they can rely on the United States in times of emergency.
Although I certainly support the spirit of what Mr. Berman has in mind and I, too, hope to accomplish this nonproliferation end, we should not imperil this agreement in this way.
Thank you very much.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Berman.
All those——
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Who seeks recognition?
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for another 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. And, again, I will not take up the 5 minutes.
I do want to speak very briefly in support of my colleague's, Mr. Berman's, amendment. The issue is not here, I think, using this proposed agreement to put the brakes on India's nuclear weapons program. The issue, I think, is to make sure that this agreement does not in fact put the foot to the accelerator in expanding India's nuclear weapons program and the proposal to seek a moratorium on the production of new fissile material will at least ensure we are not stepping on the accelerator.
I think perhaps the better analogy than the child coming up on the beach without the hat is the child coming up on the beach without its head, or at least blinded.
I would encourage a strong vote on this amendment because in addition to what we are discussing here today, when the further details of this agreement are being hammered out, it would be useful for the negotiators to know that Congress feels strongly that this agreement should not be used to accelerate India's nuclear weapons program.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank you and yield back.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I have the highest respect for my good friend from California for his proposed amendment. I think there is considerable concern to say that every effort should be made for the purpose of reduction of nuclear weapons. I am not an expert on the specifics and the complexities of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but I will submit, Mr. Chairman, this child has matured since 1974 and I go back again. India, when it first exploded its nuclear bomb in 1974, the Prime Minister of India at that time made an appeal before the United Nation General Assembly saying, look, we can also explode a nuclear bomb, let us be serious about dismantling nuclear weapons all together.
Guess what? Total silence from the members of the nuclear five club, including our own country.
So what right is it there to say that only five canters of the world can continue owning nuclear weapons and telling the rest of the world they cannot do the same?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think that is the sense of hypocrisy that I in my own humble way of saying, Mr. Chairman, that this is a contradiction. This a hypocrisy. We are saying that we want to get rid of nuclear weapons all together, but having different rules for different countries and India is caught in the middle.
Why are we subjecting this one country to these further added restrictions when others cannot do the same?
I think I respectfully cannot support my good friend's amendment, but I will say the child has matured since 1974, it has made an appeal to get rid of nuclear weapons all together, but this has not happened and I had hoped that maybe the five nuclear countries could take such an initiative perhaps to get rid of this madness, no nuclear weapons all together, and I am certain that India will probably follow likewise. But this has not happened and I can understand why India refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, simply because the others have it and India cannot have one, when you have Pakistan and China as its neighbors? And I am not saying that there is going to be any nuclear war among these three countries, but just the fact that if I were an Indian, I would be very uncomfortable sleeping overnight knowing that China and Pakistan have the bomb and I do not.
Now, that may sound too simplistic in my humble opinion, Mr. Chairman, but I think that is really the bottom line when we talk about nonproliferation on one end, making restrictions on some countries like India, but it is okay for other countries to continue to have nuclear weapons and use it when it is in their national interests and I have some concerns about that.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Berman.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[Chorus of nays.]
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Rollcall, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. A rollcall has been called for.
The clerk will call the role.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes yes.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Tancredo?
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Tancredo. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes no.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Issa votes no.
Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes no.
Ms. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green?
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GREEN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes no.
Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes no.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. PENCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes no.
Ms. Harris?
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HARRIS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Boozman?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett?
Mr. BARRETT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett votes no.
Mr. Mack?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry?
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FORTENBERRY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
mr. MCCAUL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. POE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERMAN. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes yes.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
Mr. Payne?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes no.
Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes yes.
Mr. Meeks?
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MEEKS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes no.
Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer votes yes.
Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. No.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes no.
Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes yes.
Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes yes.
Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes yes.
Mr. Smith of Washington?
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. No.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes no.
Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes yes.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. CHANDLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chandler votes yes.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. CARDOZA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Cardoza votes no.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. CARNAHAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes no.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Mr. BERMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to vote?
Chairman HYDE. Are there any other Members who wish to vote or change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Wexler.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes no.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On this vote, there are 13 ayes and 32 noes.
Chairman HYDE. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Berman is recognized for another amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try to be much briefer on this one.
Amendment 63.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Berman of California. In section 4, insert after subsection (e)——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading is dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Berman follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I would call this amendment, well, we do not want to be a deal breaker, but let us not be an enabler.
This is a proposal made by Senator Sam Nunn, former Senator Nunn, one of our most respected voices on the nonproliferation issue. It allows exports of nuclear reactors, components and other technology to India as soon as the nuclear suppliers group decides by consensus to make an exemption for India and Congress approves the agreement. That is what the base bill provides. But it restricts transfer of uranium and other types of nuclear reactor fuel, source material and special nuclear material in the parlance of the Atomic Energy Act until the President determines that India has stopped the production of fissile material.
I do not need to repeat all the arguments on the merits of India halting its production of fissile material, but what this does is say all other aspects of nuclear technology you can get, but we are not going to sign on for a nuclear cooperation agreement which provides you the substitute fuel so that you can divert your domestic fuel into making more nuclear weapons, so it restricts that one aspect of nuclear exports and that is the proposal. It is a much more modest proposal than my earlier one and I submit it to you for your consideration.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be extremely brief.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I strongly oppose this amendment basically for the same reasons I opposed the earlier amendment, which our Committee wisely rejected.
This amendment is also a killer amendment. There is an additional reason for opposing this amendment which was not present in the earlier one. If the nuclear suppliers group does not adopt the identical approach proposed in this amendment, then we will have succeeded in ensuring that our own industry will be prevented from exporting to India. I think it is utterly unlikely that the nuclear suppliers group will set exactly the conditions that this amendment proposes, which means that France and Russia or any other country may export to India once they have decided that India deserves an exemption to its guidelines.
The French, the Russians will be free to export everything while we could not export anything. Indeed, I would expect that India would be disinclined to purchase any reactors or technology from the United States under the circumstances specified in this amendment.
I urge all of my colleagues——
Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield just for a brief response?
Mr. LANTOS. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. BERMAN. I thank him very much for yielding.
First, the nuclear suppliers group only makes its decisions by consensus, so the United States can block any change in their guidelines which would allow nuclear fuel to go to India. The United States does have in effect the veto on that, so we will not see a situation——
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. Reclaiming my time, it will be total hypocrisy for the United States to pursue a policy which is diametrically opposed to the policy the United States Government is now advocating.
I have reclaimed my time and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Issa.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. ISSA. I will be brief in opposition to this amendment for a slightly different reason than the Ranking Member and that is that the entire premise of this amendment is that we will deny India the ability for peaceful use of importation of uranium because by blocking their peaceful use—if in fact we block their peaceful use we will force them to use their limited amount of uranium for their weapons.
They have already proven that they can in fact get the amount necessary to produce weapons, so the only purpose of this, if it were to succeed, would be to not have peaceful nuclear energy in India, not to have their terrible environment cleaned up by zero emissions reactors, not to have all of those other uses, but even Mr. Berman on this statement never claimed that if you succeeded with this that somehow you would stop them from enriching additional fissile material.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For that reason, this amendment serves no purpose but to actually stop, if it were to succeed, to stop peaceful nuclear work, which is exactly what the President was trying to achieve in this agreement, was to enable the peaceful work, recognizing that to the extent that India wants to continue to produce nuclear weapons, they can do that with or without an agreement.
With that, I would yield back.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair states that he is informed there will be votes around 12:30. I do not know how close that will be, but I would like to make as much progress as we can with these amendments.
The question is on the Berman amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[Chorus of nays.]
Mr. LANTOS. Rollcall, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. A rollcall is requested and we shall have it.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes yes.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. No.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes no.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes no.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Issa votes no.
Mr. Flake?
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green?
Mr. GREEN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes no.
Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes no.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. PENCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. McCotter?
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCCOTTER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes no.
Ms. Harris?
Ms. HARRIS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Boozman?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett?
Mr. BARRETT. No.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett votes no.
Mr. Mack?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry votes yes.
Mr. McCaul?
mr. MCCAUL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. POE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Lantos?
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes yes.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
Mr. Payne?
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes no.
Mr. Delahunt?
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes no.
Mr. Blumenauer?
[No response.]
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes no.
Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes yes.
Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes yes.
Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes yes.
Mr. Smith of Washington?
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes no.
Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes yes.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. CHANDLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chandler votes yes.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. CARDOZA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Cardoza votes no.
Mr. Carnahan?
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CARNAHAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Chairman Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes no.
Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?
Mr. Mack?
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Mack votes no.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. On this vote, there are 12 ayes and 31 noes.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Royce of California is recognized.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Royce of California. section 4(d), insert before paragraph (1) the following new paragraph——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Royce follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be brief.
I think the amendment is straightforward and I believe it is noncontroversial.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During hearings on this agreement, several Members expressed concerns that it would somehow bolster India's weapons program and that in turn that would lead to an arms race in Asia.
When presenting this agreement to the Committee, Secretary Rice met that criticism, I thought, head on. These were her words, she said, ''Nothing we are proposing would violate our obligation that we not in any way assist India's nuclear weapons program.''
What this amendment does is to put the Secretary's words, Administration policy, into this bill. What the amendment does is add a new section that states that pursuant to U.S. obligations under article 1 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty no form of civil assistance from the United States shall be used to assist India's strategic weapons program.
As Chairman of the International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee, I believe it is important that Congress go on record and make clear that this is not the intent of the agreement and I believe you, Mr. Chairman, are in support of this agreement and that the Administration is as well, but I think it is important we put this into the measure.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I have not asked every Member on our side but I believe there is no opposition to this amendment. I strongly support this amendment and urge all my colleagues to do so.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. So do I.
The question occurs on the Royce amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. SHERMAN. Brad Sherman seeks recognition.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. I support this amendment, I am just trying to figure out whether it is a general expression of good thoughts or whether it will have some real legal teeth to it.
Chairman HYDE. Either way, you support it, right?
Mr. SHERMAN. Either way I support it, but understanding it may be just as important as supporting it.
If Mr. Royce will indulge me here, this says that we would not assist India to manufacture nuclear weapons. Does that include providing all the uranium that India needs for its existing nuclear power plants so that it can change its policy and devote all of its domestic uranium to the production of nuclear weapons?
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Does the phrase ''assist India to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons'' deal with the fact that uranium is fungible?
Mr. ROYCE. This is not a statement of policy. This puts into the law that we are going to abide by our article 1 obligations and if you will recall from some of our hearings we did have witnesses who did think that the United States should assist in building up India's nuclear program. This puts into law the words of the Secretary of State and restates our obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So I think it is an important addition to the bill and I urge your support.
Mr. SHERMAN. I would yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is sort of rewriting Abraham Lincoln's story. He was asked if you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? Assuming a sheep has a tale. And Lincoln said four because calling a tail a leg does not make it one. I am for this amendment, but saying we are not going to——
Mr. LANTOS. Would the gentleman restate his last——
Mr. BERMAN. Yes. When my friend from California offers an amendment that says nothing here shall be construed as permitting any civil nuclear cooperation between United States and India to assist them in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, I am saying it is nice, but that does not make it so. For reasons we have covered extensively and will be raised again when Mr. Sherman and Mr. Schiff offer their amendments, the fact is that this does allow the diversion of their domestic uranium to the production of nuclear weapons.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the Royce amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have three amendments, the first of which, which is labeled number 4, just to confuse the Committee, is one that we have worked with your staff on and I hope very much would be accepted. It deals with the issue of whether when the nuclear suppliers group changes its rules to allow supplying India to make sure that that is not some sort of package deal that includes Pakistan or any other country.
I would go on with my wonderful arguments, except if you are prepared to accept the amendment, I would like to move forward.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The amendment of Mr. Sherman follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. I am certainly under those circumstances prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be accepted.
Chairman HYDE. It is accepted.
All those in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have another——
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will designate the next Sherman amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. SHERMAN. On my Iran amendment or on the——
Chairman HYDE. The amendment that is now coming forward.
Mr. SHERMAN. This is Sherman number 1, about half as strong as Mr. Berman's amendment, so let us go forward with it.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Sherman of California. Section 4(b) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: (8) The amount of domestic uranium used in India's military program during a 12-month period ending on the date of the determination——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading is dispensed with.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The amendment of Mr. Sherman follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. This amendment is designed to effectuate and put teeth into Mr. Royce's amendment which we just supported. Mr. Royce's amendment sets forward the concept that we should not assist India build more nuclear weapons than it would have otherwise.
Now, I agree with Mr. Berman that it would be great if we could get India, as part of this agreement, to stop building any nuclear weapons, to join with so many nuclear states in stopping the creation of fissile material, but this amendment does not go near that far. It does not tell India that it should reduce in any way the amount of nuclear weapons that it is creating. It simply says that India should not use this agreement to increase the number of nuclear weapons that it creates.
Now, Mr. Royce's amendment says pretty much the same thing, but Mr. Royce's amendment at least as far as I can tell does not have the teeth that I would like to see.
I would go on for the 4 or 5 minutes except I think I have already made these points before to the Committee. India right now has to choose between its energy sector and its bomb making capacity for its use of its domestic supply. It is dividing that supply roughly half and half. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that the amount of India's domestic uranium going to its nuclear bomb program is not increased, that we do not by providing uranium fuel for India's existing nuclear electric facilities, that we do not in the words of Mr. Royce's amendment in building nuclear weapons.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is an amendment that does not punish India for becoming a nuclear state. It does not prevent India from continuing its nuclear program the way they have been running it up until now, prevent them from building as many bombs in 2007 as they did in 2005. It simply says that our hands must be clean, that the world will not assist in India in building more nuclear weapons.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
Chairman HYDE. You withdraw your point of order?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir.
Chairman HYDE. All right. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I first want to commend my friend from California for having his first amendment approved by this Committee, but I have to oppose this one. There are two reasons why I oppose this one. One is a policy reason, the other is a reason of practicality.
Regarding the policy reason, it sets as a new policy that India must never increase its rate of production for fissile material for military nuclear purposes, even with its own domestic uranium used in reactors and facilities that India has declared and the United States has accepted as outside of international oversight and inspection, regardless of New Delhi's judgments regarding its own strategic requirements to safeguard its national security.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Make no mistake. This is a killer amendment. The result is that we would sacrifice the benefits of the United States-India civilian nuclear cooperation agreement and in the end we will have achieved nothing.
Regarding the problem of practicality, it would be impossible for the President of the United States to provide certification. I do not believe that we know either through intelligence or other means the information required by this amendment, at least not with enough confidence for a Presidential certification to Congress. I sincerely doubt—that is an understatement. The Indians would never open their most secret military books for our perusal, just as we would not open ours to them.
Mr. Chairman, we all believe that we should be capping nuclear arsenals in South Asia and that we should be proceeding with a multilateral moratorium or treaty to ban the production of fissile material and the legislation before us already states that.
Under the underlying legislation, we require reporting on the steps India and the United States are taking to complete such a ban. The underlying legislation also requires reports on India's production of fissile material so that we can try to conduct oversight in this important arena.
In reality, however, this amendment is intended as a deal killer. I urge my colleagues to rely on the underlying text and strongly oppose this amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The proposed language sets up an impossible test. We cannot know with any certainty how much fissile material India will use for its military program. At best, we have a rough estimate and the President could never make this determination with any confidence. This would make nuclear cooperation with India impossible, no matter how difficult or how hard we tried and so I, too, oppose this amendment.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Is there further discussion?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. If not, the question occurs——
Mr. SHERMAN. Is the gentlewoman from California seeking time?
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
While I certainly do not question a lot of what has been said because I do not have any information other than what I read here, I still feel that we need to be able to be a little more proactive in being able to identify how it is going to be used and that we do not allow other countries to move forward in more nuclear proliferation that will start wars in other areas.
I would like to yield to Mr. Sherman the rest of my time.
Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentlelady from California.
I do want to respond to the practicality argument. First, it is a matter of public record how much uranium India is mining. Second, India could provide us with information as to how much they are mining and how much they are using for purposes other than their civilian sector, their electric generation sector.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a matter of fact, how much they mine is already public record and a portion of it is supposed to be used in the two-thirds of the plants that were going to be entirely transparent, so if we can subtract one public number from another public number, we know exactly how much uranium India is using for purposes other than electric generation at its open and transparent plants.
Finally, if we do not have any information and India will not give us any information, then there is no way this deal can go forward without violating article 1 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which requires us not to take action that assists India in building additional nuclear weapons.
So this amendment can be carried out practically and offers us a chance to do two things: Help India go forward with its civilian electric generation facilities using nuclear power and, at the same time, be able to tell our children and our constituents that we have not assisted India in building more nuclear weapons than they would have otherwise and that we have not made a mockery of article 1 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
With that, I yield back to the gentlelady of California.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ackerman?
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to take issue with the premise that is being argued here. First, we do not know, despite the assertions, how much fissile material, uranium, the Indians are producing. The public record indicates a range and the upper limit double that of the lower limit, so even if they doubled what we thought it was, we have no idea.
If you do not know the number, how can the President certify—although the President does seem to certify things that some of us have issue with—but how could he certify a number or a percentage of a bottom line figure that is completely unknown except for a very, very wide range?
The second premise that I would like to take issue with is that India does not have access to its own supply of uranium. That is not true. What they do have is some technical problems because of the difficulty of mining some of it and that is basically an issue that is being addressed and that is a cost problem that, if need be, they will address.
What we are concerned about stopping here we are not stopping. India is going a long way. The real concern, I think, is if you think that Prime Minister Singh represents the people of North Korea and he is going to rip off his Gandhi mask and suddenly reveal that he is really Kim Jong Il, then there is cause to be concerned. But what we are dealing with is a historic, long-term, demonstrable ally of the United States that has experienced terrorism in and of itself, knows the dangers therein, is cooperating with us here in a deal in which they are moving as close to the NPT as any other country could ever be expected to and that is good behavior. Good behavior is something that we have to acknowledge and recognize in the real world. It is very different behavior than other countries have and they should learn the lesson from India and we have to teach that lesson by showing that good behavior does get rewarded.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Sherman.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[Chorus of nays.]
Mr. LANTOS. Request to record that vote, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. A recorded vote is requested.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes yes.
Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes no.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Issa?
Mr. ISSA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Issa votes no.
Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes no.
Ms. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green?
Mr. GREEN. No.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes no.
Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes no.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. PENCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes no.
Ms. Harris?
Ms. HARRIS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes no.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Boozman?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett?
Mr. BARRETT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett votes no.
Mr. Mack?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry votes yes.
Mr. McCaul?
mr. MCCAUL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. POE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes yes.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
Mr. Payne?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes no.
Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes no.
Mr. Blumenauer?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes no.
Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes yes.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes yes.
Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes yes.
Mr. Smith of Washington?
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes no.
Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes yes.
Mr. Chandler?
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHANDLER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chandler votes no.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. CARDOZA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Cardoza votes no.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. CARNAHAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Chairman Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes no.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman? This is Mr. Burton. I vote no.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul votes no.
On this vote, there are 10 ayes and 32 noes.
Chairman HYDE. The amendment is not agreed to.
We now go to Sherman number 3.
The clerk will report.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer not to offer that amendment at this time. I know Mr. Schiff has an amendment dealing with the same subject that is wonderfully crafted, and while I might want to introduce other amendments later, I think the Committee has heard this voice long enough.
Chairman HYDE. Very well. We go to Ms. Lee of California.
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Ms. Lee of California. In section 4(b), add at the end the following new paragraph: (8) India has signed the NPT.
[The amendment of Ms. Lee follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Like many of my colleagues, I strongly believe that it is very important to strengthen our ties with India. I had the privilege to visit India with my colleague Mr. Crowley a couple of years ago and witnessed firsthand the vibrancy of the economy, quite frankly the brilliance and the spirit and the commitment to democracy of the Indian people.
The July 2005 joint statement and agreement between President Bush and Prime Minister Singh represents a significant effort to advance the relationship between our to great nations.
Now, unlike the majority of this Committee, I believe that any cooperative agreement must not sacrifice decades of nuclear nonproliferation work by the United States and nonproliferation efforts around the world.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Frankly, what we do here today will have broad ranging implications on our efforts to hold Iran and North Korea to international standards and I must disagree with the majority of Members on the Committee that we should have different standards for different countries when it comes to nuclear nonproliferation. We should try to rid the world of nuclear weapons and I must respectfully disagree with my colleague Mr. Faleomavaega, not just because there are two wrongs or five wrongs, that does not make a right, and so I think that we are going down the wrong path with this.
My amendment is very simple. It would add an eighth item to the list of determinations that the President would make in order to allow this agreement to go through. This determination is that India has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Mr. Chairman, we have all heard that the Administration and this Committee continue to tout the benefits of civil nuclear cooperation. As the President said in his radio address in March 2006, this agreement is good because it will bring India's civilian nuclear program into the international nonproliferation mainstream. But I ask you, what is more mainstream than having India as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Requiring India to co-sign the treaty would be the most meaningful bargain in this agreement.
Some may question whether it is realistic for us to press India to join the NPT, given that it already has nuclear weapons, but I would turn that around, Mr. Chairman, and question what incentive does India now have or would have to join in, as the President has put it, the nonproliferation mainstream when it can secure valuable agreements like the one we are currently debating when it is outside of the mainstream?
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The fact is if India were a signatory to the NPT, we would not have to worry about devising creative workarounds and exemptions from law. We would simply be working through established channels as prescribed by the Atomic Energy Act.
Now, this Saturday, July 1st, marks the 38th anniversary of the NPT and I think we should make sure that our actions today are worthy of this milestone.
I worry that this is the beginning of an arms race and in no way should we ever allow—ever allow any nuclear deal outside of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That is, of course, if we are serious about arms control. The world is really way too dangerous for us to go down this path and I think it is a dangerous precedent for us to set here today, Mr. Chairman, and I urge support for this amendment which is very basic, very simple, and that is that we should add compliance with the NPT as a requirement for this deal to pass.
Thank you and I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
Who wishes to be heard?
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank the gentlelady for the spirit in which she offers this amendment, but I do believe this amendment will be characterized as a deal breaker in the sense that it is a non-starter for the Indians. The Indians cannot sign the NPT. The detonated a device back in 1974, I believe, and once they did that they continued to develop nuclear weapons whether we liked it or not which further prohibited their ability to sign the NPT.
It is not, as you said yourself, realistic that India will now, surrounded by Pakistan, China, and other signatories to the NPT, some of how have proliferated since their signing of that document, developing nuclear weapons and then proliferating those weapons as well, that it is not realistic to expect that India will sign the NPT, although we all wish that initially she had.
This is, again, I think, too much emphasis on the issue of nuclear weapons as opposed to what this is really about, in my opinion, nuclear power.
Secretary Rice was before us not that long ago and a colleague from the other side of the aisle asked whether or not the negotiators had asked the India negotiators about their nuclear arms strategy, whether or not they had one. The response was, yes, they did, and they asked them to disclose that strategy and the answer from Secretary Rice was apparently that they had asked that. I found that profound, that a country like India, a proud country as well who has a nuclear arms strategy, finds herself in a very difficult portion of the world, as Mr. Ackerman and others have mentioned before.
My question then to Secretary Rice was does the United States, does Russia, does China, does Great Britain, does France have a nuclear arms strategy? Her response was yes.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Do we ask them what their strategy is? The answer is no. And if we did, would we expect an answer? The answer was no.
So to hold India to a different standard than we do any other nation in the world I think is also unrealistic.
Again, I do respect the gentlelady incredibly and I understand where she is coming from on this, but I would also respectfully suggest that this amendment is not acceptable in terms of my position in terms of wanting to see this legislation pass and see the deal go through and for that I will oppose this amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the Lee amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[Chorus of nays.]
Chairman HYDE. The noes have it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a rollcall vote, please?
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. You certainly may.
Ms. LEE. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady will get a rollcall.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes yes.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton votes no.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes no.
Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul votes no.
Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes no.
Ms. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green?
Mr. GREEN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes no.
Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes no.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. PENCE. No.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes no.
Ms. Harris?
Ms. HARRIS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Boozman?
[No response.]
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett?
Mr. BARRETT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett votes no.
Mr. Mack?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
mr. MCCAUL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
[No response.]
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Payne?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes no.
Mr. Delahunt?
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes no.
Mr. Blumenauer?
[No response.]
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes no.
Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes no.
Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes no.
Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes yes.
Mr. Smith of Washington?
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes no.
Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes no.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. CHANDLER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chandler votes no.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. CARDOZA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Cardoza votes no.
Mr. Carnahan?
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CARNAHAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Chairman Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes no.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes no.
On this vote, there are four ayes and 36 noes.
Chairman HYDE. The amendment is not agreed to.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Berkley.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ranking Member Lantos, for holding this hearing, for what is, in my opinion, a very historic piece of legislation.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the desk numbered 48 and 47. I would like to have the Committee consider 48 first.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Ms. Berkley of Nevada. In section 4(o), add at the end the following new paragraph: (3)——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
[The amendment of Ms. Berkley follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her amendment.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first amendment adds a reporting requirement to the bill. After passage of this agreement, the President would be required to issue an annual report to Congress describing the disposal of spent nuclear fuel from India's civilian nuclear program. If India is generating massive amounts of nuclear waste, we should know where it is going, how it is being transported and how it is being stored.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very constructive amendment. I strongly support it and urge all of my colleagues to do so.
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. If not, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Berkley.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Ms. Berkley has a second amendment
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My second amendment would prohibit spent nuclear fuel from India from being permanently stored in the United States.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will designate the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Ms. Berkley of Nevada. In section 4(d), add at the end the following new paragraph——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
[The amendment of Ms. Berkley follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her amendment.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wholeheartedly support this agreement with India, too, because it is in India's best interests, but because I believe it is in America's national security interests that we pass this legislation.
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, I have serious concerns regarding the disposition of waste from a new generation of nuclear reactors. Nuclear waste is radioactive and deadly for hundreds of thousands of years. This is a major problem that we face domestically. Despite two decades of research and billions of dollars, we still have not figured out what to do with our domestic nuclear waste.
I can assure you Yucca Mountain is not the answer and that the people of the State of Nevada do not wish to be this nation's nuclear garbage dump.
Before we enter into any agreement to support an increase in nuclear power, I would like to know where the waste that is generated is going to be stored. I also want to make sure that it does not come to the United States for permanent storage.
If India or any other nation wishes to supplement its energy supply with nuclear power, I have no objections with that. I do, however, believe if a nation is satisfying its energy needs with nuclear power it ought to be responsible for the disposal of the radioactive nuclear waste that is produced.
I have serious concerns with the President's offer to help other nations build nuclear reactors at the same time he is proposing to expand the capacity of Yucca Mountain, Nevada by almost 100 percent. Just as Nevadans do not wish to be this nation's nuclear waste garbage dump the United States of America should not become the world's nuclear waste garbage pail.
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I do not think any of us want to explain why as our domestic nuclear waste is piling up all over the country, where licensing of Yucca Mountain is at least 10 years behind schedule, where no canister currently exists that will not corrode and is incapable of storing nuclear waste for any amount of time, where there are no EPA radiation standards that currently exist and no terrorist threat assessment that has been made to the best of my knowledge when it comes to the transportation why we would be accepting other nations' nuclear waste with no place to bury it.
Chairman HYDE. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. BERKLEY. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. We have a vote on, a series of votes. There will be three votes. The Chair would like to recess until 2:00, when we will pick up on the Berkley amendment and another amendments that are yet to be dealt with.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. We will be back at 2 o'clock.
[Recess.]
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order.
When the Committee recessed, we were reading the bill H.R. 5682 for amendment. The Berkley amendment was the pending business.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Does anyone seek recognition on the Berkley amendment?
Ms. Berkley, you are still moving forward?
Ms. BERKLEY. I am still moving forward, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Always forward.
Ms. BERKLEY. Always forward.
Chairman HYDE. And upward, too.
Ms. BERKLEY. May I have a moment to complete my thoughts?
Chairman HYDE. You may have 5 minutes.
Ms. BERKLEY. That is very gracious of you.
I am not going to reiterate what I said earlier before we broke because everybody that will be voting on this measure was here to hear it, but I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that there has to be a limit to this nation's generosity. My particular limit is storing another country's nuclear waste.
Let me be very clear about this. Nuclear waste reaches its peak radiation levels after 300,000 years within our own borders.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To my colleagues, I ask them, since Yucca Mountain is so far away from completion and, in my opinion, will never be certified and licensed to accept domestic nuclear waste and there is no other repository that is on the horizon, would any one of my colleagues be willing to store India's or any other nation's nuclear waste within their borders, within their congressional district, within miles of their constituents, where their children go to school, where they go to hospitals, where they are on the roads and the highways and the freeways of their particular congressional district?
If you cannot answer that question honestly with a yes, you would be willing to accept that nuclear waste, then I suggest that you support this amendment.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Very well.
Does anybody seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. I will recognize myself to strike the last words and suggest that the gentlelady's amendment is not acceptable because it adds a requirement that has not been part of any agreement between the United States and India and this same subject is covered by the safeguards agreement that India will negotiate with the International Atomic Agency.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This could force India to reprocess our fuel to which we have not yet agreed and may not agree and we have no plans to import any nuclear products and there has to be some flexibility in these arrangements.
With knowledge that the gentlelady has another amendment on the heels of this one that is more acceptable, I would oppose this amendment.
The question is on the——
Ms. BERKLEY. Do I get to reclaim a bit of my time? I think I reserved the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. I never deny the gentlelady time.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I did not understand the procedure but I did not realize that what we are doing now is the final version of this bill and I would hate to think that there are no other corrections to be made to make it an even more perfect bill.
I am not opposed to reprocessing nuclear fuel. What I am opposed to is having nuclear waste that is produced by the creation of nuclear energy from being shipped from India back to the United States for burial here in this country. As long as India has no plans to do that, why do we not put that in law and make it a permanent decision?
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Every country in the world—why just pick on India?
Ms. BERKLEY. If I may reclaim my time, because that is the country that we are discussing now. But I quite agree with you. I do not think this nation should accept any other country's nuclear waste. We are having a big enough challenge trying to figure out what we are going to do with the nuclear waste that is generated here domestically.
Chairman HYDE. All right. Does anybody else wish to be heard?
Is the gentlelady prepared to yield back?
Ms. BERKLEY. I am prepared to yield back. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. All right. The question occurs on the Berkley amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, no?
[Chorus of noes.]
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BERKLEY. On that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for the yeas.
Chairman HYDE. You cannot stand prosperity.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BERKLEY. All politics is local, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes no.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes no.
Ms. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green?
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GREEN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes no.
Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes no.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. PENCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes yes.
Ms. Harris?
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HARRIS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Boozman?
Mr. BOOZMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Boozman votes no.
Mr. Barrett?
Mr. BARRETT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett votes no.
Mr. Mack?
[No response.]
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
mr. MCCAUL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. POE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes no.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Unfortunately, no.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
Mr. Payne?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman?
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes yes.
Mr. Engel?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes yes.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. Yes.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes yes.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes yes.
Ms. Napolitano?
[No response.]
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes yes.
Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes yes.
Mr. Smith of Washington?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes yes.
Mr. Chandler?
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHANDLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chandler votes yes.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. CARDOZA. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Cardoza votes yes.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. CARNAHAN. Pass.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Carnahan passes.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Carnahan votes yes.
Chairman Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. No.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes no.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes no.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Mr. GALLEGLY. How am I recorded?
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gallegly inquires how he is recorded.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly is recorded as voting no.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. On this vote, there are 15 ayes and 19 noes.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Berkley has a third amendment.
Ms. BERKLEY. Having experienced bitter defeat with the previous amendment, I would like to introduce another amendment at this time.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Ms. Berkley of Nevada. New section 3 (6), to ensure that——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The amendment of Ms. Berkley follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her amendment which we are prepared to accept.
Ms. BERKLEY. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for looking out for the interests of the people of the United States of America and the people of the State of Nevada.
Chairman HYDE. I thank you and the question occurs on the Berkley amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Schiff?
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a revised amendment at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Schiff of California. In section 3(b), add at the end the following new paragraph——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Schiff follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment and I would like to tell the gentleman that we are prepared to accept your amendment, so any brevity in support thereof would be most welcome.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support and I will be brief. I just want to clarify a couple of things which I think are important.
This amendment attempts to flesh out some of the sentiments expressed by my colleagues Mr. Berman and Mr. Sherman and Mr. Royce and to give greater content than Mr. Royce's amendment perhaps or more specific content to what we want the Administration to do to ensure that while we are not trying to turn back India's program, we are also not trying to accelerate it by providing civilian cooperation. This amendment requires the Administration to report to us prior to our vote on the agreement a description of the steps that it has taken to make sure that our civilian nuclear assistance will not directly or indirect assist India's nuclear weapons program and, in particular, we want to make sure that our equipment, technology and material is not used in the military complex, the unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. We want to make sure that our technology is not replicated and used on the military side by India. And, finally, we want to take steps as much as we can to ensure that the nuclear fuel that we provide is provided in such a manner that we are not facilitating increased production of highly enriched uranium or plutonium in these unsafeguarded nuclear facilities.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It also provides a reporting requirement after the agreement is entered into effect to make sure that we are following through on these steps to ensure that our civilian cooperation is not turning into military cooperation.
I thank the Chairman for his assistance and the Ranking Member for his support and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. We are prepared to accept the amendment and, unless there is important discussion, ready to intervene.
I do not see any, so the question occurs on the Schiff amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill favorably as amended.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Who is seeking recognition?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Congressman Fortenberry.
Chairman HYDE. Yes?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that some of us on the front row here did not receive the Berkley amendment, the substitute amendment, I would like to move for reconsideration of that and ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman HYDE. Did you vote on the prevailing side?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes.
Chairman HYDE. That is in order. All those in favor of reconsidering the vote——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, a point of information? Which Berkley amendment?
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FORTENBERRY. The substitute amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The one we accepted?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. The one we accepted. I do not have the number. The last Berkley amendment.
Chairman HYDE. That is Berkley 3.
Have you read it? It is perfectly simple.
Ms. BERKLEY. I would object to that, Mr. Chairman. May I?
Chairman HYDE. Well, it is not unanimous consent. He has a right to move to reconsider if he voted on the prevailing side, but I am trying to see if we can avoid that.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, a point of information?
Chairman HYDE. Yes?
Mr. ACKERMAN. If a vote was taken by voice vote, either in the House or the Committee, it is impossible to tell if somebody voted on the prevailing side.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Well, we operate on the honor system.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, may I speak?
Chairman HYDE. Yes, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I simply would like a recorded vote on it.
Chairman HYDE. You would what?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I am moving to reconsider so that we can have a recorded vote, since we now have the language.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BERKLEY. May I be heard on the motion to reconsider?
Is the gentleman aware that the Administration has provided the language for that?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes.
Ms. BERKLEY. And has agreed to it, as has the Chairman of the Committee?
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I am. I would like my vote yes to be on record.
Chairman HYDE. Let us go through the rollcall. By the time we finish, we could be home in bed.
Go ahead and call the roll on Berkley 3.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes yes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Mr. King?
[No response.]
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes yes.
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green?
Mr. GREEN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes yes.
Mr. Weller?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes yes.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Harris?
Ms. HARRIS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes yes.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wilson votes yes.
Mr. Boozman?
Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Boozman votes yes.
Mr. Barrett?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett votes yes.
Mr. Mack?
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry votes yes.
Mr. McCaul?
mr. MCCAUL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCaul votes yes.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. POE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Poe votes yes.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes yes.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.
Mr. Payne?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown?
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes yes.
Mr. Engel?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks?
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MEEKS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes yes.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes yes.
Mr. Blumenauer?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes yes.
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes yes.
Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes yes.
Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes yes.
Mr. Smith of Washington?
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes yes.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes yes.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. CHANDLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chandler votes yes.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. CARDOZA. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Cardoza votes yes.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Carnahan votes yes.
Chairman Hyde?
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Chris Smith?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. Yes, I did vote.
Chairman HYDE. You did vote?
Mr. Pence?
Mr. PENCE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Weller?
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WELLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. On this vote, there are 39 yeses and zero noes.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. If not, the question occurs on the motion to report the bill favorably as amended.
All in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. All opposed, no.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. A recorded vote has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes no.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes no.
Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes yes.
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Mr. King?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Yes.
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes yes.
Ms. Davis?
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green?
Mr. GREEN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes yes.
Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes yes.
Mr. Pence?
mr. PENCE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes yes.
Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes yes.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Harris?
Ms. HARRIS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes yes.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wilson votes yes.
Mr. Boozman?
Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Boozman votes yes.
Mr. Barrett?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett votes yes.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Mack?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry votes yes.
Mr. McCaul?
McCaul. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCaul votes yes.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. POE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes yes.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.
Mr. Payne?
[No response.]
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes yes.
Mr. Engel?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes yes.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes no.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes yes.
Mr. Blumenauer?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley?
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes yes.
Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes yes.
Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes no.
Mr. Smith of Washington?
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes yes.
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes yes.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. CHANDLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chandler votes yes.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. CARDOZA. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Cardoza votes yes.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Carnahan votes yes.
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. I vote aye, please.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?
Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Delahunt votes yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Mr. Mack?
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MACK. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Mack votes yes.
On this vote, there are 37 ayes and five noes.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is agreed to. The ayes have it and the motion to report favorably is adopted and with objection the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendments adopted by the Committee and the staff is directed to make technical and conforming amendments and the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT WEXLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for bringing up this resolution, which supports an enhanced relationship between Israel and NATO. I also want to thank Congresswomen Ros-Lehtinen, Congressman Gallegly and their staff for working with my office to move this initiative forward.
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since the end of the Cold War, the scope of NATO's international role has shifted, and its theater of operations has expanded beyond Europe to include Central Asia, Africa and the Middle East. This is a clear reflection of shifting global threats to the Transatlantic Alliance, the majority of which now emanate from the Middle East. Most prominent among them are Iran's support of terrorism and development of nuclear weapons.
At this juncture, NATO must reach out to allies in the war on terror—such as Israel—who possess the desire, capability, and experience to assist in countering such global threats. While Israel has been a member of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue for the past 10 years, there are limitations to this partnership. There is no question that Israel's enhanced relationship with NATO would be mutually beneficial to both Israel as well as NATO member states.
Israel has demonstrated its interest in deepening its relationship with NATO, and has recently presented NATO officials with a plan for a step-by-step upgrade in bilateral cooperation. At the same time, NATO has sought to deepen its relationship with Israel, including through the visit of NATO's Secretary General [Jaap de Hoop Scheffer] to Israel and—more recently—the visit of a delegation of NATO multinational military officers to Israel to share surveillance technology with the Israeli Air Force. This week, Israel will fully participate for the first time in a NATO navel exercise in the Black Sea.
As Israel pursues a deepened NATO partnership, the United States should take the lead in advocating for its adoption. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of H.Res.700.
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Chairman, I was absent for three votes on H.R. 5682 regarding U.S.-India nuclear cooperation. Were I present, on the second amendment offered by Rep. Berkley, I would have voted yes, on the third amendment offered by Rep. Berkley, I would have voted yes, and on reporting the bill favorably, as amended, I would have voted yes.