no way no cochran no martinez no stevens no the adoption amendment the eyes are twenty seven the nays are seventy one the ensign amendment is not agreed to on the table without objection that's right and this president under the previous order the senator from wisconsin for parliamentary inquiry you'll be surprised at how long we spent on that last fifteen minute roll call we spent approximately thirty nine minutes thirty nine retirement recognition where the vice president was being held and that was probably the delay for the meeting present the relationship between the united states and india is very important as we look ahead to the coming decades it is clear that the us india relations will be  sustainable and prosperous international system not only in the asian region but around the world as india increasingly grows into its role as a global power and of course india in many ways is a natural ally of the united states we share a great deal in common as ethnically diverse for a religiously tolerant democratic society our peoples are innovative group driven and eager to participate in the global economy and we bowled of face the threat of terrorism india occupies an important position in an important part of the world and by itself represents over seventeen percent of the world's total population we absolutely should be working to strengthen our relationship with this important partner and seeking ways to deepen our strategic ties so mr president while i want to strengthen the relationship between the united states and india this bill would do more than simply bring our two nations closer together it would pave the way for civilian nuclear cooperation between the united states and india for the first time since india exploded a nuclear device in the one nine hundred seventy s if this bill is passed it will dramatically shift thirty years of nonproliferation policy specifically this bill would have serious consequences for the nuclear nonproliferation treaty the international nonproliferation regime and u s national security such a fundamental change in policy mr president should not be undertaken lightly which is why it is crucial that this body fully discuss and understand the locations of this bill and my work on the phone relations committee i've had a chance to study this issue and this legislation closely i've talked to a number of people on all sides of this issue senior officials from the administration and business groups nonproliferation and arms control experts indian officials and concerned citizens in my home state of wisconsin the committee held a number of hearings to examine the issue and the panelists we heard from represented a wide range of opinions on the prospect of nuclear cooperation with india and after all this careful consideration mr president i have to report that i am still left with some deep concerns regarding what this legislation means for united states national security the primary consideration for us the united states senate as we debate this bill should be this will this legislation make the citizens of the united states more secure or less as we consider this fundamental shift in the international nonproliferation regime we must make sure that we have adequate protections in place to guard against the further spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology the threat of nuclear weapons to the united states and the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear material are among the greatest dangers dangers that our country faces it is crucial to our national security that the nuclear nonproliferation framework remains strong i want to make sure that the united states as a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty is working to strengthen the international treaties and regimes that have been designed to perfect prevent the spread of nuclear weapons the world with more nuclear weapons is simply put a more dangerous world so that is why i am offering a meme to this bill that spells out in greater that nuclear cooperation between the united states and india will be only civilian in nature and that none of the assistance the united states provide will be used for strengthening or further developing india's nuclear weapons arsenal  this is completely in line with president bush's and secretary rice's statements about the deal and it's something the united states has already committed to under article one of the n p t imm it simply makes it a binding requirement before the nuclear cooperation agreement to go into effect the present united states must certify that the scope and content of the agreement does nothing to contribute directly or indirectly to the development of india's nuclear weapons ar will strengthen this bill it will enhance prince transparency and it will send a clear message to the world that the united states will in fact advised by its commitments and is working within the letter and spirit of the agreements and the treaties to which it is a part to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly and not in any way to assist encourage or induce any non quote not in any way to assist encourage or induce any non nuclear weapon state the manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices india is considered to be a non nuclear weapon state for purposes of the n p t and we are there or mr president prohibited we are prohibited from misess in their nuclear weapons program my m m it will require the president to make determinations to ensure that we are in line with that treaty obligation first the president would have to certify to congress that the scope and content of the nuclear cooperation agreement that it negotiates will not contribute to india's nuclear weapons program specifically that it does not allow for the use of u s origin equipment technology or material in an unsafe guarded indian nuclear facility or allow for the replication and subsequent use of u s origin technology for any activity related to nuclear explosive devices second the president would have to certify that he had received sufficient assurances from the government of india that nuclear fuel provided by the united states will not facilitate the increased production by india material for weapons use now mr president both india and the united states should feel comfortable with this event it only requires that the united states certify that this deal is in line with our current commitments will go a long way to enhance transparency and reassure all sides that this civil nuclear cooperation agreement does not have any military aspect of this is particularly important as we face nuclear crises in north korea and iran we are pressuring those countries to submit to international inspection and to abide by the nuclear nonproliferation liberation treaty it is crucial that we not simultaneously be seen iran to north korea and to other states that we are not taking seriously our international commitments and that the n p t is no longer relevant as you can see by memon is quite detailed and spelling out exactly how assistance to india's weapons program is defined and what activities should be prohibited under the terms of the agreement the second determination which relates to the provision of nuclear fuel by the united states is particularly important because it gets to the heart of concerns about a possible build up of nuclear weapons currently india's production of weapons grade plutonium is constrained by its limited domestic supply of natural uranium experts from former senator sam nunn t former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation bob einhorn have expressed concern that by providing nuclear fuel to india through this agreement india's domestic supply of uranium might be freed up in order to accelerate the production of nuclear weapons materials and in fact the indians themselves has a have expressed this possibility a former head of the indian national security advisory board said this in december two thousand five hundred indians uranium one crunch and the need to build up our minimum credible nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast as possible it is to india's advantage to categorize as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refueled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons grade plutonium production as reported in india nuclear deal times of india the summer twelfth two thousand and five rather this is a former high level indian government official arguing less than a year ago that india should increase its production of weapons material through the provision of imported uranium i am frankly concerned by that prospect india said that its strategic nuclear weapons program and the production of fissile material is unrelated to this deal secretary rice and other members of ministration have assured us of the same thing in fact in its official response to one of senator lugar's questions last year the state department noted quote nothing to be provided to india under the initiative will be used to enhance india's military capability or to add to its military stockpile unquote that's really the case and i believe both sides when they say that expanding india's nuclear weapons arsenal is not the goal of this agreement then my m m should be absolutely uncontroversial it simply makes those claims binding by requiring the president to make such a determination of some of my colleagues might ask if we are already committed to not assistance under the  and if the members of the administration have assured us that this is the case why is this amendment necessary after all requiring a presidential determination is a big deal my response was that this issue is a big deal not assistance to india's nuclear programs weapons program is such a critical aspect of this agreement that it must be spelled out within the legislation in clear and concrete terms leaving no question or ambiguity it is that issue th demands a high bar of a presidential determination to congress and yes there is significant precedent for such a determination the one hundred eighty five agreement for nuclear cooperation between the united states and china requires a presidential determination on not assistance to china's nuclear weapons program one of only two binding presidential determinations included in that legislation specifically the last state of the us china nuclear cooperation agreement could not go in to force in till the president provided a certification to congress that the agreement was designed to be effective in ensuring that any nuclear material facilities or components provided in the agreement shall be utilized soley for intended peaceful purposes as set forth in the agreement for present one hundred five the members of this body deemed that one of the two things the president united states would have to make a certification about a prior to nuclear cooperate with another country was that our civilian would in no way assist that country's weapons program my m m it is identical in scope and purpose and should be passed if anything there are even more reasons to push for such a determination with regard to india given that india is a non signatory to the nuclear non proliferation treaty some may argue that the president cannot make such a determination that the president cannot know in advance what india will do with material  material we provide to them but this amendment is about the scope and content of the agreement itself and about assurances received from the indian government it is of our current actions and the strength of the agreement that the president negotiates and in fact the president made exactly such a determination in one thousand nine hundred eighty when he submitted presidential determination ninety eight dashed into the u s congress to enable nuclear cooperation with china to move forward under that agreement at this body is afraid that the president would be unable to make such a determination with respect india i would ask one question why then are we pursuing this deal if we cannot be reasonably certain that this agreement will not help india to expand it nuclear arsenal i'll get a deal is this this should be a simple calculation based on the best interest of the united states i colleagues are aware that i voted against this legislation in committee i stayed at the time i vote that i was not opposed to the deal in principle it was committed to working constructively to strengthen this bill when it came to the floor because i still had concerns that had not been addressed i stand by that statement i would like to see an agreement that brings our countries closer together strategically w preserving our national security interests however and since the time of the committee hearing even more information has come to light that further justifies the concerns i expressed earlier and which i would like to briefly share with my colleagues first of since that time the state department released a report sanctioning two indian firms for illicit missile missile related transactions with iran this report was ten months overdue and was not released until one day after the holiday season one day after the house voted on its version of this legislation there are a number of things that i find troubling about this report the way it was released but the vegas is that it seems to contravene the bush administration's assertion that india has a stellar nonproliferation record at a minimum this report demonstrates there continues to be legitimate concerns about the spread of dangerous weapons technology know how and equipment in india and elsewhere secondly there have been troubling signals coming from the indian government itself about its commitment to nonproliferation control in august seventeenth speech to the indian parliament prime minister saying declared that india would not agree to any changes to the nuclear deal imposed by the united states congress quote we will stick to the parameters of the agreement signed in washington last year and this alone will be the basis of nuclear cooperation unquote he said he specifically noted that india would not allow external supervision of its strategic nuclear programs and argued that president bush had committed to providing and  terrupted supply of fuel and presumably even if india were to detonate another nuclear device singh also stated there is no question of india being bound by a law passed by a foreign legislature now this raises significant concerns of my mind as to whether india would accept the important elements of this legislation the united states congress will put in place if it passes finally there have been signs of an increasingly warm official relationship between india  i note the irony of the timing at the same time that we are debating a passage of a bill that will lead considerable assistance to india's nuclear program we are doing everything in our power to prevent iran from further furthering oh nuclear program i'd like to political ties with iran and he expressed regret over the misunderstanding caused about india's stance on iran's peaceful nuclear program status stressing that india would quote never join any efforts against iran unquote i don't think it takes very much reading between the that india will support us in our efforts to contain the oil to curtail iran's nuclear program one of the most important national security challenges facing our country at this time for presents for as further evidence of the support f i would like to submit for the record a letter that was recently signed by a wide range of nonproliferation experts former senior government officials and respected scientists and friends and i ask unanimous consent that this letter be placed in the their four recommendations for improvements of that there be a determination in annual certification that u s civil nuclear nuclear does not in any way assist or encourage india's nuclear weapons program i m m it is directly in line with the advice of these leading experts and addresses an important shortfall in the legislation as it now stands now that the u s business community has come out strongly in support of this legislation i'd only like to add a note of caution to their optimism there nothing in this deal that would secure u s contracts or guarantee an increase in u s business u s is not the only one of the nuclear market australia and russia have already indicated they're working with india to sell fuel and companies from great  britain france and russia have a viable civil reactor technology that they will certainly pitch to india it is far from a foregone conclusion that u s companies will directly benefit from the deal and the eight years of nuclear trade has been permitted with china the united states has sold exactly zero a nuclear reactors to china zero i bring this up to a point that some of the point out some of the benefits of this deal may be exaggerated and we should remember the overriding priority as we consider this legislation whether it will make the citizens of the united states more safe or less present closing for this part of my time i'd like to put in a brief word of appreciation for the substantial amount of work on this bill by senator lugar and senator biden and their staffs this bill is a real improvement over the original proposal put forward by the administration but there are still a few shortcomings that remain my m m that would address w many others see as one of the main outstanding concerns with the bill that will ensure that disagreement is in line with our nonproliferation obligation and protects us national security without putting any undue burden on the united this is truly a killer amendment except that it would require the united states and n d s to renegotiate the civilian nuclear agreement which we are having our debate this evening i would does categorically indiana rather india has nuclear weapons them repeat that india has nuclear weapons and stated its intent to keep them critical issue we must consider and examining each of the amendments that have come before us as if the united states national security is advanced by engaging india and by increasing the i a e a oversight of the in the nuclear program i believe the answer is yes and as a result i support this agreement and i oppose amendments such as the one now before us that would require renegotiation or make implementation of the agreement impossible while the feingold amendment appears harmless that requires the president to certify that no form of united states civilian nuclear cooperation with india will in any way assist encourage or induce india to manufacture or otherwise acquire more nuclear weapons in the future this certification demanded by the amendment is impossible to make and even if it could be made it would be in effect how do we expect the president of the united states to predict the future clearly we do not expect plan or intend for this agreement to aid and his nuclear program we have taken numerous steps to prevent this from happening we're confident that we have already put the necessary provisions in place in this agreement a presidential certification as required by the amendment as a legal pledge to congress sent a bill thirty seven zero nine requires a number of certifications but it does so based upon information in the president's possession  not ask the presence of predict the future or make a judgment on the necessary information is unavailable this is not the first time the center from wisconsin has offered this amend amendment and expressed his view that it was a killer amendment senator biden and i do not believe this amendment is necessary we share the concerns senator feingold expressed but we believe we have addressed them and the committee passed a bill in a manner consistent with our agreement with india and in a way that avoids renegotiation first the united states is obligated by article one of the cooperate with any indian facility site or location that is not under i a e a safeguards in other words the i a e a will have inspection rights at those places where u s exports are utilized secondly senegal thirty seven zero nine requires that the i a e a safeguards be supplemented by bilateral and use monitoring of harman's under section zero seven other words if the i a e a were forced to suspend their oversight of india's commitments ministration is required to have a backup plan in place to ensure that american technologies and materials are not misused or mr rexford to india's nuclear program third the bill requires the president of united states and form by insisting that our country continue to comply with its requirements last the sensitive transfers most likely to aid india's nuclear programs are prohibited by this bill resistance versions for hitting the transfer of these technologies we ensure that united states assistance does not inadvertently assist in the as weapons program india is safeguards that access to this information it will be impossible for the united states will evaluate indian production of fissile material consequently it is impossible to determine whether an increase in indian military fissile material production occurred because of foreign nuclear reactor fuel supply in fact india's own uranium mining and milling will probably play a much larger role and any analysis on this subject and some it is simply not possible to verify the relationship between the delivery of foreign fuel exports to india and the possibility of increases in indian production of highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium nor is it possible analyze the relationship between future exports and domestic production india not require just share this information the i a e a does not have access to these facilities requiring then the president of united states the certify something he has insufficient information to determine is unwise and potentially harmful and the amendments clearly demands that the president make that certification the congress will be kept completely informed on developments in this area friends senator from wisconsin thank the senator from indiana and i just i know people slating people probably a sense of where they're going to go on the cement but i do want to make a couple points for the record given how important this amendment is on home for in this agreement as chairman suggests that what we would do here if there's a memo and some of course the renegotiation of the agreement i don't accept that notion but i would say given the importance of making sure this is news for nuclear weapons it is well worth reading goshi if it actually required that i don't think it does or importantly it just doesn't make any sense to me that has such an amendment would require the full renegotiation of the agreement when you look at the fact that the bill before us today already in section one hundred five requires eight different presidential determination i'm just adding two additional ones so there's already additional presidential determinations that have to be made so how can it be that the additional requirement that there be terminations by the president united states not by any individual how can that force the renegotiation of this agreement it doesn't direct the indians to do anything so i reject the notion that somehow this would require the renegotiation of the agreement and if it did i think would it would be better than not doing it changing it now the biggest problem with the  argument is that he is relying on an earlier version of our investment which we offered in committee which i thought was worth passing but the chairman correctly notes that we were defeated in committee thirteen to five and one of the criticisms was that somehow this and then it would force the president to certify some facts that he couldn't necessarily know for sure what the unions were exactly doing or what they might do in the future and i recognize that point and that is why i grafted this amendment to only relate to the scope and content of the agreement there is nothing in my m m of the requires the president to certify what might happen in the future and this is this is the critical distinction this amendment does not have the flaw that was argue committee it only talks about the president certifying with regard to the scope and content of this agreement and also getting assurances from the indian government that the purpose of this agreement is not about nuclear weapons but is about civil purposes so it is in fact different from the m m it in committee and that's an important distinction as members think about whether they want to vote for this version on the floor of the senate is more modest modest but it still accomplishes an important goal and this is of this is exactly what was done in the china agreement in the one nine hundred eighty s i described in my original statement the agreement called for a presidential certification of this kind it worked and the president in fact made such a certification so this is both necessary and practical from that point of view so mr president i believe i've responded to each of the arguments made by the senator from indiana viciously have enormous respect for him and his leadership of the committee but i would my colleagues to to join me in in supporting this amendment which which would allow me to feel comfortable supporting this agreement because i do want to have a good agreement india i just think we need to have this sort of an assurance of my ame provides for  mr president senator from new york was the gentleman yields four minutes from his town or from new york at such time as he needs thank you mr president and mr president i rise to support the india the india civilian nuclear trade agreement because it strengthens america's relationship with a critical ally but it also creates strong incentives for other countries to support our nonproliferation efforts by rewarding them with our valuable nuclear technology proliferation of nuclear technology is a very a serious issue make no mistake about that india has a good nonproliferation record will be a true partner in our efforts to prevent nuclear weapons technology from falling into the wrong hands india's history of nonproliferation of dual use nuclear technology and its willingness to implement guidelines and standards at nuclear facilities make india a welcome member of the global nuclear community of course the devil is in the details that's why it's so important that this bill preserves congressional oversight of any agreement the administration reaches with the indian government it is carefully crafted so that the u s agreement will not undermine the nuclear non proliferation treaty or our obligations to the nuclear suppliers group under this bill cooperation would end if india tests a nuclear weapon proliferates nuclear weapons or materials or breaks its agreements with the us or the i india's access to nuclear cooperation will depend on its continued participation as a good citizen of the global nuclear community to a close relationship with india in general will help us to align our mutual goal of co both our nations have been victims of serious attacks of terrorism and we know that the greatest danger we face is a nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands neither of us one else hiatt again a nuclear weapon neither of us want iran to go nuclear and the best way to ensure india's proper handling of its nuclear technology is not quite distancing it but by working with it to address issues of mutual concern economic ties continue to bind our two countries through an include creasing flow of goods services and cultural exchange it is vital that we recognize this improving relationship and work towards common goals for international policy and standards the build up of nuclear weapons throughout the world is one of the most serious dangers humanity faces especially in today's world we must ensure that nuclear technology has developed a new system according to global standards as set forth by the i a e a the international atomic energy association for peaceful purposes and agreement with the u s will also provide an incentive for india to refrain from conducting future nuclear weapon testing and to work with our government to curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons most importantly this legislation creates incentives for other countries that cooperate with our nonproliferation efforts it will encourage other countries around the world to cooperate with the united states efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons are rewarding those countries that the have responsibility with advanced american technology mr president i yield back the remaining time i have my friend from wisconsin additional time and if the sort of repair to your back is time i will yield back time on our side and then we could proceed to debate on the senator from california's amendments and maybe to  senator from california mrs boxer proposes an amendment numbered fifty want to eighty seven on page eight beginning on line eight strike group and all that follows through nuclear on line nine and insert the following group eight india has agreed to suspend military to military cooperation with iran including training exercises until such time as the government of iran no deal i should not go forward till india has agreed to cut off military to military ties with iran and that the president so certified and mr president the nuclear nonproliferation treaty is the keystone of our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world back in the sixty's there was widespread concern that dozens of nations would have nuclear weapons within a decade just months before his death president kennedy warned of this dire threat saying quote i ask you to stop and think for a moment what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in so many hands that they would be no rest for anyone then no stability no real security no chance of effective disarmament be a chance of accidental war and increase the size of the for the great powers to involve themselves in what hundred sixty eight more nations have ended nuclear weapons program than have the government countries such as brazil south africa japan decided to abandon their nuclear weapons program and join the peaceful purposes but it failed to keep that promise a special deal to both possess nuclear weapons and receive civil nuclear assistance it will be harder to convince non nuclear weapon states to keep their commitment to forego nuclear weapons mr president the timing could not be worse right now the international community is trying to convince one non nuclear member the  n p t india is becoming a de facto recognized nuclear power but it is not required to take on any of the commitments made by the five recognized nuclear powers a perhaps made in india touching off an arms race in the region that would not be in any hundred countries including our own now secretary rice has argued that we're not helping india's nuclear weapons program because only a small amount of indigenous uranium would be needed for india's military weapons program but listen to what the congressional research service says mr president quote the question for the united states is not whether india intends to wrap up its weapons program which freed up uranium but whether the us and other states actions create a new capability for india to do so this concern every single senator but i'm fortunately mr president it doesn't appear to concern every senator who believes that the proliferation of nuclear materials is the most dangerous issue facing the country material for weapons i am offering that the clerk is read to us address a second area where the administration has failed to receive commitments from india and that have to do with india's military to military relationship with iran last spring at the very same time that the president our president was in india to the us india of all nuclear cooperation agreement in reining in warships were visiting the headquarters of the indian navy's southern command let me reiterate that at the very day that president bush was in india to sign the s india's civil nuclear cooperation agreement or a war ships were visiting the headquarters of the indian navy southern command iranian warships were participating in a training program under a military cooperation agreement with iran that was signed in two thousand and three the fact that india would conduct training exercises with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism while the president is on the  military to military cooperation with iran so long as the government of iran continues to support international terrorism so mr president my amendment doesn't say never have  according to a march two thousand and six defense news article in two thousand and three india and iran signed a strategic agreement to cooperate in defense and other matters their deal was cemented by the visit of  president mohammad khatami to the republic day parade in new delhi and are usually reserved for key allies india considers iran to be a key ally and this agreement on military cooperation is still in place even though actions are leading to the deaths of american soldiers in iraq general has said that iran is using surrogates to conduct terrorist operations both against us and against the iraqi people he went on to say quote we are quite confident that the iranians through the special operations forces are providing weapons technology and training to  have military to military exercises and relationships with a country that is bringing and destruction to our sons and daughters or to third countries for interrogation and for trial so it seems to me we should convince our friends india to suspend it's military to military cooperation with imposed sanctions on indian scientists for nuclear related transfers to iran scientists were high ranking officials in the nuclear power corporation of india limited in december o regulation and some observers have stated that does not have the necessary regulations in place to implement the law and that resources for implementation are remarkably limited in other words they have be a problem i thought it would be treated in many ways as the the president it seems to have made every military ties with iran a precondition to civil nuclear cooperation but i'm fortunately the united states is giving away more than it receives in this deal and my friends who want to see this passed and i'd so desperately just voting down amendment after  indian population are endo americans are prominent in our state i support strong relations with india the world's largest democracy and it is for us to work together to promote our mutual interest i am proud to be a member of the senate india caucus and i have nothing but the most of respect for the indian people but is not a good deal for america this is not a good deal for the world proponents of this legislation say that our bilateral relationship with india is important  really with them and i have great hopes for the future of our nation so important that we work together but somebody tell me we're better off when military relationship with iran before this goes ahead somebody explained it to me because it has been explained now i'm very happy that the harkin amendment was adopted india have to work with us for nonproliferation last securing india's commitment to suspend its military relationship with iran as robert einhorn a nonproliferation expert at the center for strategic and international studies told the and expresses expressed some of the views in tain your statement this evening during very important hearings the committee conducted i would just say that very clearly members on both sides of the aisle in the committee felt that there were improvements that could occur as for guards or the agreements and anything else the agreement was negotiated in a fairly short period of time the senate foreign relations committee has taken as ample time to work through this with the administration as well as with each other and i regret that that we did not have unanimity in the committee on final passage of the vote of sixteen to two however indicated a very strong coming together which clearly has been expressed on the floor today and in the votes on various amendments but i must was present that the amendment now offered by the senator from california is in my judgment a killer and then once it moves far beyond the scope of the july eighteenth join statements issued by president bush and prime minister saying the amendment as written would not permit the united states in the agreement to go into effect until india a ban and its military disagree with the sentiment expressed by the center for the dallas morning and namely that iran is a destabilizing force in the middle east as former secretary of state henry kissinger recently wrote in the washington post and i quote everything returns to the challenge of iran's trains finances and it quits hezbollah a state within a state and lebanon's finances and supports  solders militia the stage within the states and irak it works on a nuclear weapons program which would drive nuclear proliferation out of control and vies a safety net for this yst destruction of the least the regional order end of quote from secretary kissinger iran is a critical challenge the united states diplomacy and a global security in this difficult environment the united states must cultivate a strong multilateral response so we ran for suit of nuclear weapons and support of terrorism and effective solutions to the iranian threat must include india holding new delhi to a different standard than our closest allies or other nations we engage in nuclear commerce does not appear to be the best way to secure the support of india on april five two thousand and six secretary rice testify before the committee on foreign relations indiana has and i close the secretary  level military to military contacts in a quote she noted and i quote that there are a number of countries that have relations with iran and is of course the sovereign right of  by insisting they cut off relations with other states and of quote seeking food aid that she didn't vote think that's going to work very effectively and a vote the secretary of state argues that the international community is changing its approach to iran she cites the exodus of banking and financial institutions perhaps most important as she points out that india was the only member of the nonaligned movement to vote for referral of the iran situation to the united states security council for as illegal nuclear program this was an important development because and future and involved i lateral nobs of ration cooperation some experts have indicated this a member could very well have the opposite effect forcing new delhi away from the u s india agreement diplomatic accomplished of the two thousand and five joint statement is india's commitment to support international efforts to limit the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies including the states as iran and mr president i emphasize that point if in fact we are deeply concerned and i am in the center from california certainly is about the developments in iran of  nuclear program become advent of india to work with us to limit that spread of enrichment and reprocessing is very important and to deliberately take action us agreements and then to cases the indians that they can look elsewhere for partnership is really to court disaster i'm pleased that india is committed to being a responsible member of the international community and has made the decision that has in its own national security interest to oppose iran's weapons of mass destruction program on a number of occasions the end in iranian military relationship has been greatly exaggerated this year an article alleged that india was providing military training for any and sailors that very rice responded that while iranian ships have made port calls at india ports she reported the new delhi a denied that rainy and sailors had been trained in india it is unfortunate that the center for california constructed the amendment in this manner it might have been more appropriate to address the issue in a sense of a congress action or as a statement of u s policy and of the amendment was modified in this manner i would be prepared to recommend that it would be adopted by unanimous consent unfortunately in its current form it makes it impossible for the present to meet the requirement and thus ends on the station is impossible time how much time remains in opposition fourteen minutes i wonder if the chair would just give me three minutes and whatever time i'll be very brief for two reasons one i just want to make two points actually three the first is that right now if india were doing gaijin transferring any lethal weaponry to concern of my friends in california i think if i read or correctly and i may not is that so how this agreement is going to yield the pa specs that india will be in a better position to transfer some kind of technology in this military to military relationship to iran that will help arrange and get a nuclear capability and the truth of the matter is that that is this as a chairman  pointed out they've entered an agreement with us to not do that but secondly they have voted in the i a e a with the board of governors to sanction iran to take issue with the random reported to the u n a vote with us in the u n so they are openly taking on taking on iran in terms of the thing of greatest concern to us although i know my friend spoke eloquently to the support of terror via ran and the implication is that any military to military assistance goes directly to helping the capability of the iranians to help support hezbollah and other organizations that are terrorist organizations around the world i would just make the following observation that and she also stated accurately that indian entities have been sanctioned for transferring material to  organization would in fact provide assistance to arrange in a way that would generate u s sanctions and spain recently is the most recent offender but had that famous old expression that you know a country i don't have permanent friends they're permanent interest and if you look at where where india resides and we're in resides the one country are most concerned about one of the country's most concerned about is pakistan now it is not reasonable i think to assume that india and pakistan would not want to have a military relationship where they shared information and or concerns relative to pakistan so for them to foreswear any kind of relationship at all with india that has a military  i military relationship is to essentially suggest to them that they should not deal with a common enemy look at what we're doing we are dealing with a country that we s before that we've clearly decided is not a democratic country that clearly has probably the largest percentage of jihad is residing in it with arguably the least significant effort to deal with these jihadi a country pakistan i want to review because we have permanent interests and our interests are that we have support in the war jihadi and al qaida and and terrorist organizations that we are cooperating with a country we otherwise probably would not cooperate how would we feel if european country or any other country around the world said or india said we will not raid with you the united states of america as long as you continue to have a military to military relationship with pakistan a country that is in fact export ing or if they're not exporting export if they're not exporting at least cooperating with or turning a blind eye to the care organizations that reside within their country we would say whoa whoa wait a minute you want to trade with us trade with us you want to talk about whether to tell us whether or not out of our self interest we can cooperate with pakistan which is not what you call a model democracy then i think we would say no the only generic point i want to make here i know of no evidence it ma sense but i'm unaware of it where india is materially cooperating with iran in order for it to be able to better supply support and or encourage terrorists i know of no such it and no such a circumstance maybe my friend and i and she may know what i go she may have gotten a recent briefing with involved ready or somebody said that i'm going to wear any such cooperation that has the net effect of promoting care what i do know is that we have built into the law now the ability to sanction india if in fact india does supply lethal weapons or in any way we're cooperating with promoting a range nuclear program beyond that it would break the spirit of the entire agreement we have with india if it came to light that somehow there was evidence that india was in any way cooperating with iran's nuclear program this deal is done this is over it's vanished it's going on because at the root of this overall agreement which my colleagues understandably does not like underlying issue here is this agreement between india and united states the underlying premise is based upon  notion of a touring relationship based on trust that they will not not only violate the letter but will not violate the spirit of this agreement let me conclude by saying what the spirit of the agreement is the spirit agreement is we're not going to do anything united states of america that we would not otherwise be able to do we're not going to anything with what you provide for us that will increase our capacity our ability or our desire our intent to deal with our nuclear program they said straightforwardly the same time we're keeping our nuclear program we give it up it's a little bit like i say now this would be my last statement this war on terror we are going to sanction pakistan we're not going to cooperate with pakistan we're going to do nothing practically even though even though we acknowledge that might give greater so i would just suggest that if we're going to impose upon india requirement to cease and desist with any military to military relationships notwithstanding they have common enemies and common concerns with the ran as bad as iran is not withstanding the fact there's no evidence that they're promoting and are giving the ability to support terror is a greater thrust notwithstanding the fact they've agreed to stuff to do everything they can to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear power if we're going to sanction them this way then i ask the rhetorical question why would the rest of the world's scientists us sanction us for our relationship with pakistan and why are we cooperating with pakistan if anybody in the deal is not the ideal partner right now is pakistan what do we do i'm paraphrasing the former president i think is close to a quote we've got to accept the world as we find it make the best out of it promote our interest to the greatest extent and sometimes it means we make less than perfect deal i believe that chairman lugar been president lugar i believe had senator boxer been president boxer i believe i've been there secretary of state i could have got the better deal  and we got but the fact of the matter is we are where we are is that all try to expression goes and i believe the downside of rejecting this treaty is so much further down that any downside that flows from ratifying sort of supporting walang is the go forward that in that sense is not a close call so i would suggest to my friend i think everything she says has merit in the abstract but we are living in the world we live in now based on the parameters that we are looking at i think this amendment which would kill the agreement is not worth the candle president had signed the historic agreements and i walked into a meeting of distinguished indian officials asking if we could possibly confirm this this treaty this agreement and  do nothing about it so i did a tremendous amount of quick work with our agency there to check out what the dangers might be and they came back and they told me that india was was the one most least likely to engage in nuclear proliferation saw this as a tremendous opportunity for us to improve our relations with a country that had for too long been in the soviet slash russian sphere we have an opportunity to help them they are a growing country they have many needs civil nuclear power is the one most important thing that they need because of their tremendous pollution problems this enables us to help them reduce pollution so this is not only are we interested in nuclear nonproliferation shinwari interested in pollution nonproliferation this moves us forward and the beyond that securing a close relationship with india is one of our most important steps towards developing a peaceful environment and prosperity in south asia this this opportunity cannot be wasted this particular man as has been stated which is well intentioned and understood of the public's understandable can concerns is nevertheless a poison pill many countries have relations with iran and we don't like but many of those countries with which we have good working relationships don't like our relations with israel we're not going to change our relations with israel we're not going to stop helping them but we're going to continue to work with those countries and as the senator from delaware has pointed out we have relations with pakistan and there are lots of reasons there are lots of questions about that if we want to work with the indians and develop a good relationship so they will not deal with iran the best thing we can do is to defeat these poison pill amendments and confirm the six minutes as president i don't think i'm trying not to take the full time that i want to respond to my colleagues i feel that the debate here has been much ado about a very straightforward and is right says a lot of other countries have relationships with iran no other country gets a deal like this where we give nuclear technology and there's absolutely no control on the number of india could build experts tell us it could be as many as now i don't think that the world safer but to help me help me with this with this treaty to give my constituents with the leading terrorist nation in the world iran a nation that is at this very moment hurting our troops in the field in iraq me it's about giving nuclear technology to country that have in fact been called out by our own country because it has in fact in the past transferred information about w m d's nuclear weapons missiles to iraq we call them out on that so why can't we asked simply to stop these military to military programs that they have with the run again