U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

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

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 

(II)

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 

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 

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 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

MARKUP OF 

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 .................................. 2

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 ............................................................ 7

H.R. 5680, To encourage and facilitate the consolidation of security, human 

rights, democracy, and economic freedom in Ethiopia ...................................... 11

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 ......................................................................................... 29

Amendment to H. Res. 844 offered by the Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of New York ............................. 33

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 ...................................................................................................... 35

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 41

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 ..................................................................... 42

H.R. 5682, To exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement for cooperation with India .................. 49

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California .......................... 116

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Joseph Crowley, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of New York ............................. 127

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Howard L. Berman, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California .......................... 132

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Howard L. Berman ........ 145

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Edward R. Royce, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of California ............................. 151

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .................................... 153

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by Honorable Brad Sherman ...................... 155

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .................................... 162

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Shelley Berkley, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada ................................. 168

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Shelley Berkley .............. 169

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Shelley Berkley .............. 175

Amendment to H.R. 5682 offered by the Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of California ............................. 176

H.R. 4014, To reauthorize the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, and for 

other purposes ...................................................................................................... 75

Page

IV

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 ...................................................................................................... 99

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Robert Wexler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida: Prepared statement ........................................................................... 187

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Prepared statement ............................................. 187

(1)

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. 

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:]

2

1

IV

109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION 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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 28, 2006

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself and Mr. WEXLER) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

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.

Whereas ministers representing Member States of the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization have expressed the need to

amend the NATO alliance in order to enhance its ability

to address new threats;

Whereas the confluence of global terrorist threats necessitate

the geographic expansion of the alliance;


28425a.AAB
3

2

•HRES 700 IH

Whereas NATO Member States have been attacked by, and

continue to be threatened by, groups based in the Middle

East;

Whereas Israel’s geographic location and advanced military

and intelligence capabilities make it considerably able to

address such regional threats;

Whereas Israel is a valuable strategic ally of the United

States and other NATO Member States;

Whereas Israel has been a staunch ally in the global effort

to eradicate terror and a strong defender of democracy,

freedom, and human rights;

Whereas Israel faces a range of regional strategic threats and

is not a party to any organization, such as NATO, that

has a mutual security guarantee mechanism, such as Article 5 of the NATO Charter;

Whereas Israel has presented NATO with a plan for a stepby-step upgrade in bilateral cooperation entitled the ‘‘Individual Cooperation Program: Strategic Cooperative

Framework Between the State of Israel and NATO for

2006–2007’’ detailing a wide range of vehicles for enhanced cooperation between Israel and NATO, including

Israel’s willingness to provide NATO with assets to support NATO search and rescue operations, in addition to

disaster relief;

Whereas NATO has also sought to deepen its relationship

with Israel, including through the visit of NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer to Israel in February 2005, marking the first such visit to Israel by a

NATO Secretary General;

Whereas in February 2006, a delegation of multinational

military officers led by NATO Airborne Early Warning


28425a.AAC
4

3

•HRES 700 IH

and Control Force General Axel Tuttelman brought an

AWAC early warning surveillance plane to Israel, in

hopes of further enhancing security cooperation between

NATO and Israel in the war on global terrorism;

Whereas NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

stated that Israel ‘‘had shown a keen interest’’ in joining

NATO naval patrols in efforts to prevent terrorist smuggling of materials through the Mediterranean into Europe;

Whereas Israel is a member of the NATO Mediterranean

Dialogue, which has served as a forum for consultation

and practical cooperation between countries in the Mediterranean area for the past ten years;

Whereas the NATO Mediterranean Dialogue criteria precludes Israel from deepening its military and strategic relationship with NATO in a number of areas that would

be mutually beneficial to both Israel and NATO Member

States;

Whereas Israel and NATO have held joint military operations

and have explored the possibility of increasing joint

counter-proliferation efforts and intelligence sharing;

Whereas Israel is developing the technology to make its military assets interoperable with those of NATO forces;

Whereas Israel will place a liaison officer at NATO’s naval

headquarters in Naples, Italy;

Whereas Israel continues to demonstrate its commitment to

work with NATO Member States to enhance its policies

and programs regarding military capabilities, military

doctrine and exercises, border security, arms control, terrorist prevention, humanitarian efforts, public diplomacy,

and technological advancement to forge a relationship


28425a.AAD
5

4

•HRES 700 IH

with NATO which enhances the capabilities of the alliance;

Whereas Israel possesses a functioning democratic form of

government, market-based economy, and respect for the

political rights and liberties of minority groups, has demonstrated a strong commitment to peacefully settle disputes and the ability and willingness to contribute militarily to the alliance, and has in place a democratic civilmilitary structure; and

Whereas Israel meets the criteria for membership in NATO

and executes policies and upholds principles which are in

keeping with the objectives of the Washington Treaty and

in ensuring the alliance’s future relevance: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that—

3 (1) the pluralistic and geographic expansion of

4 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance is

5 necessary for the alliance’s continued effectiveness

6 and relevance;

7 (2) Israel’s demonstrated commitment to up8 hold democracy and to combat terrorism, in addition

9 to its strong strategic and military capabilities, make

10 Israel deserving of NATO membership, and would

11 make Israel an invaluable NATO ally;

12 (3) the United States, as Israel’s strong ally,

13 should take the lead in supporting an upgrade in

14 Israel’s relationship with NATO to that of a leading


28425a.AAE
6

5

•HRES 700 IH

1 member of NATO’s Individual Cooperation Pro2 gram, as a first step toward Israel’s inclusion in

3 NATO as a full member with all corresponding

4 rights, privileges, and responsibilities; and

5 (4) Israel’s deepened relationship with NATO

6 would be mutually beneficial to both Israel and

7 NATO Member States, including the United States.

Æ


28425a.AAF
7


28425b0001.eps
8


28425b0002.eps
9


28425b0003.eps
10


28425b0004.eps
11


28425c.eps
12

2

H.L.C.

1 (1) support the advancement of human rights,

2 democracy, independence of the judiciary, freedom of

3 the press, peacekeeping capacity building, and eco4 nomic development in the Federal Democratic Re5 public of Ethiopia;

6 (2) collaborate with Ethiopia in the Global War

7 on Terror;

8 (3) seek the unconditional release of all political

9 prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia;

10 (4) foster stability, democracy, and economic

11 development in the region; and

12 (5) strengthen United States-Ethiopian rela13 tions based on the policy objectives specified in para14 graphs (1) through (4).

15 SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

16 Congress finds the following:

17 (1) The people of Ethiopia have suffered for

18 decades due to military conflicts, natural disasters,

19 poverty and diseases, regional instability, and the

20 brutal dictatorship of the military junta under

21 Mengistu Haile Mariam. Hundreds of thousands of

22 civilians were brutally murdered by the Mengistu re23 gime, including women and children. Many more

24 sacrificed their lives fighting for freedom, respect for

25 human rights, and to bring an end to the brutal dicVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425c.AAC
13

3

H.L.C.

1 tatorship of the Mengistu regime. Members of that

2 murderous regime are currently living in Europe, the

3 United States, and Africa.

4 (2) In May 1991, the brutal dictatorship of the

5 Mengistu regime came to an abrupt end when the

6 Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front

7 (EPRDF) defeated the Mengistu army. In July

8 1991, the EPRDF and a coalition of other political

9 groups established a transitional government in

10 Ethiopia. A number of liberation movements joined

11 the transitional government in a spirit of a new start

12 and the building of a democratic Ethiopia. These

13 groups included the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF),

14 the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), and

15 many others.

16 (3) Since the ouster of the Mengistu regime in

17 1991, the EPRDF-led government instituted a

18 multiparty system and organized three regional and

19 national elections and a number of local elections.

20 The 1995 and 2000 elections were largely boycotted

21 and judged to be neither free nor fair. Some opposi22 tion groups participated in the 2000 elections, giving

23 such groups 12 seats in the 546-seat parliament.

24 (4) The May 2005 pre-election period and the

25 conduct of the elections in Ethiopia were seen by obVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425c.AAD
14

4

H.L.C.

1 servers to be transparent, competitive, and relatively

2 free and fair, although there were a number of prob3 lems reported. More than 90 percent of registered

4 voters participated and dozens of political parties

5 took part in the elections. Moreover, some inter6 national groups observed the elections, unprece7 dented access to the mass media was given to the

8 opposition, and there were televised debates between

9 the government and the opposition. Some political

10 parties and armed political groups boycotted the

11 2005 elections. However, trained local groups were

12 barred from observing the elections.

13 (5) Despite apparent improvement in the elec14 toral process, preliminary election results announced

15 by the Government of Ethiopia shortly after the May

16 15, 2005, elections were seen by observers as ques17 tionable. The opposition accused the Government of

18 Ethiopia of stealing the elections and called for civil

19 disobedience, which resulted in the killing of dem20 onstrators and detention of opposition leaders and

21 thousands of their followers, including 11 elected

22 members of parliament and the elected mayor of

23 Addis Ababa.

24 (6) The Coalition for Unity and Democracy

25 (CUD), the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces


28425c.AAE
15

5

H.L.C.

1 (UEDF), and the ruling EPRDF reached an agree2 ment to resolve disputed election results peacefully

3 with the help of the National Electoral Board

4 (NEB). The NEB investigated more than 299 com5 plaints and later agreed to hold reruns in 31 con6 stituencies. In late August 2005, the NEB held re7 runs in the 31 constituencies as well as in all 23

8 constituencies in the Somali region, where elections

9 had been postponed due to insecurity.

10 (7) Election results show that opposition parties

11 won 170 seats in the national parliament, a signifi12 cant increase from the 12 seats they won in the last

13 elections. Opposition parties also won the city coun14 cil in Addis Ababa, giving them control over the cap15 ital. An estimated 150 of the 170 opposition mem16 bers of parliament have taken their seats. In early

17 May 2006, the Government of Ethiopia appointed a

18 caretaker government in the capital. Members of

19 parliament from the CUD walked out of parliament

20 in protest. The CUD won the city, but the des21 ignated mayor has been in detention since November

22 2005.

23 (8) Human rights conditions deteriorated sig24 nificantly after the May 15, 2005, elections in Ethi25 opia and overall human rights conditions in the


28425c.AAF
16

6

H.L.C.

1 country remain poor. The Department of State, in

2 its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Prac3 tices, noted a myriad of human rights abuses by the

4 Government of Ethiopia. Moreover, journalists and

5 editors of the independent press have been and con6 tinue to face harassment and prosecution for alleged

7 violations of press laws in Ethiopia. Dozens of jour8 nalists have fled the country, and some are currently

9 in exile fearing prosecution or harassment.

10 (9) In June 2005, more than 35 demonstrators

11 were killed by Ethiopian Government security per12 sonnel and in November 2005 an estimated 53 peo13 ple were killed, including seven policemen, according

14 to Human Rights Watch and several other reports.

15 The violence against these victims occurred after

16 pro-opposition groups went to the streets of the cap17 ital to protest government actions in handling the

18 elections results of May 2005. Tens of thousands of

19 people suspected of being opposition supporters were

20 detained over the past months, although many of

21 these detainees were released. Nonetheless, govern22 ment security forces continue to abuse opposition

23 leaders, supporters, and family members.

24 (10) An estimated 112 political leaders, human

25 rights activists, community leaders, and journalists,


28425c.AAG
17

7

H.L.C.

1 including the chairman of the CUD (Hailu Shawel),

2 the newly elected Mayor of Addis Ababa (Berhanu

3 Nega), and the founder of the Ethiopian Human

4 Rights Council (Professor Mesfin Wolde Mariam),

5 were imprisoned and charged with treason and geno6 cide. These measures were deliberately taken to sti7 fle and criminalize opposition party activity in the

8 country. The measures also were intended to intimi9 date and silence independent press and civil society,

10 raising serious question about the Ethiopian Govern11 ment’s commitment to democracy and good govern12 ance.

13 SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN ETHIOPIA.

14 The Secretary of State shall—

15 (1) establish a mechanism to provide financial

16 support to local and national human rights groups

17 and other relevant civil society organizations to help

18 strengthen human rights monitoring and regular re19 porting on human rights conditions in Ethiopia;

20 (2) establish a program to provide legal support

21 for political prisoners and prisoners of conscience

22 and to assist local groups or groups from outside

23 Ethiopia that are active in monitoring the status of

24 political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in

25 Ethiopia;


28425c.AAH
18

8

H.L.C.

1 (3) seek to increase the independence of the

2 Ethiopian judiciary through facilitation of joint dis3 cussions for court personnel, officials from the Ethi4 opian Ministry of Justice, relevant members of the

5 legislature, and civil society representatives on inter6 national human rights standards;

7 (4) create and support a judicial monitoring

8 process, consisting of local and international groups,

9 to monitor judicial proceedings throughout Ethiopia,

10 with special focus on unwarranted government inter11 vention on strictly judicial matters, and to inves12 tigate and report on actions to strengthen an inde13 pendent judiciary;

14 (5) establish a program to strengthen private

15 media in Ethiopia, provide support for training pur16 poses, offer technical and other types of support as

17 necessary, and expand programming by the Voice of

18 America to Ethiopia; and

19 (6) establish a mechanism to identify and extra20 dite members of the Mengistu Haile Mariam regime

21 and the current government residing in the United

22 States who were engaged in gross human rights vio23 lations and work with other governments to identify

24 and extradite such persons, including Mengistu

25 Haile Mariam.


28425c.AAI
19

9

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 5. SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRATIZATION IN ETHIOPIA.

2 (a) STRENGTHENING LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND NA3 TIONAL DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES.—The Secretary of

4 State shall—

5 (1) provide assistance to strengthen local, re6 gional, and national parliaments and governments in

7 Ethiopia through training in consultation with gov8 ernment authorities, political parties, and civil soci9 ety groups;

10 (2) establish a program focused on reconcili11 ation efforts between the Government of Ethiopia

12 and peaceful political and civil society groups, in13 cluding in minority communities, in preparation for

14 negotiation and for participation in the political

15 process;

16 (3) strengthen training for political parties in

17 Ethiopia in areas such as organization building and

18 campaign management;

19 (4) provide training for civil society groups in

20 election monitoring in Ethiopia; and

21 (5) facilitate ongoing communications between

22 the Government of Ethiopia through the National

23 Election Board (NEB) in order to address issues

24 such as delimitation of constituencies, voter registra25 tion, political party registration, candidate registraVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425c.AAJ
20

10

H.L.C.

1 tion, and related matters to enhance the credibility

2 of the next elections in Ethiopia.

3 (b) DEMOCRACY ENHANCEMENT.—

4 (1) ASSISTANCE.—United States technical as5 sistance for democracy promotion in Ethiopia should

6 be made available to the ruling party as well as op7 position parties in Ethiopia.

8 (2) RESTRICTION.—

9 (A) IN GENERAL.—Nonessential United

10 States assistance shall not be made available to

11 the Government of Ethiopia if the Government

12 of Ethiopia acts to obstruct United States tech13 nical assistance to advance human rights, de14 mocracy, independence of the judiciary, freedom

15 of the press, economic development and eco16 nomic freedom in Ethiopia.

17 (B) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the

18 term ‘‘nonessential United States assistance’’

19 means assistance under any provision of law,

20 other than humanitarian assistance, assistance

21 under emergency food programs, assistance to

22 combat HIV/AIDS, and other health care as23 sistance.


28425c.AAK
21

11

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 6. ENSURING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR HUMAN

2 RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY, AND ECONOMIC DE3 VELOPMENT IN ETHIOPIA.

4 (a) LIMITATION ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE; TRAVEL

5 RESTRICTIONS.—

6 (1) LIMITATION ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE.—

7 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

8 subparagraph (B), security assistance shall not

9 be provided to Ethiopia until such time as the

10 certification described in paragraph (3) is made

11 in accordance with such paragraph.

12 (B) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (A) shall

13 not apply with respect to peacekeeping or

14 counter-terrorism assistance. Peacekeeping or

15 counter-terrorism assistance provided to Ethi16 opia shall not be used for any other security-re17 lated purpose or to provide training to security

18 personnel or units accused of human rights vio19 lations against civilians.

20 (2) TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS.—Beginning on the

21 date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment

22 of this Act and until such time as the certification

23 described in paragraph (3) is made in accordance

24 with such paragraph, the President shall deny a visa

25 and entry into the United States to—


28425c.AAL
22

12

H.L.C.

1 (A) any official of the Government of Ethi2 opia who—

3 (i) has been involved in giving orders

4 to use lethal force against peaceful dem5 onstrators in Ethiopia; or

6 (ii) has been accused of gross human

7 rights violations;

8 (B) security personnel of the Government

9 of Ethiopia who were involved in the June or

10 November 2005 shootings of demonstrators;

11 and

12 (C) Ethiopian civilians who were involved

13 in the November 2005 killings of seven police14 men in Ethiopia.

15 (3) CERTIFICATION.—The certification de16 scribed in this paragraph is a certification by the

17 President to Congress that the Government of Ethi18 opia is making credible, quantifiable efforts to en19 sure that—

20 (A) all political prisoners and prisoners of

21 conscience in Ethiopia have been released, their

22 civil and political rights restored, and their

23 property returned;

24 (B) prisoners held without charge or kept

25 in detention without fair trial in violation of the


28425c.AAM
23

13

H.L.C.

1 Constitution of Ethiopia are released or receive

2 a fair and speedy trial, and prisoners whose

3 charges have been dismissed or acquitted and

4 are still being held are released without delay;

5 (C) the Ethiopian judiciary is able to func6 tion independently and allowed to uphold the

7 Ethiopian Constitution and international

8 human rights standards;

9 (D) the investigation of the killing of civil10 ian protesters by Ethiopian security forces is

11 credible, transparent, and those involved in the

12 unlawful killing are punished;

13 (E) family members, legal counsel, and

14 others have unfettered access to visit detainees

15 in Ethiopian prisons;

16 (F) print and broadcast media in Ethiopia

17 are able to operate free from undue interference

18 and laws restricting media freedom, including

19 sections of the Ethiopian Federal Criminal

20 Code, are revised;

21 (G) licensing of independent radio and tel22 evision in Ethiopia is open and transparent;

23 (H) access in Ethiopia is provided to the

24 Internet and the ability of citizens to freely


28425c.AAN
24

14

H.L.C.

1 send and receive electronic mail and otherwise

2 obtain information is guaranteed;

3 (I) the National Election Board (NEB) in4 cludes representatives of political parties with

5 seats in the Ethiopian Parliament and guaran6 tees independence for the NEB in its decision7 making;

8 (J) representatives of international human

9 rights organizations engaged in human rights

10 monitoring work in Ethiopia are admitted to

11 Ethiopia without undue restriction; and

12 (K) Ethiopian human rights organizations

13 are able to operate in an environment free of

14 harassment, intimidation, and persecution.

15 (4) WAIVER.—

16 (A) IN GENERAL.—The President may

17 waive the application of paragraph (1) or (2) on

18 a case-by-case basis if the President determines

19 that—

20 (i) to the maximum extent practicable,

21 the Government of Ethiopia has met the

22 requirement of paragraph (3)(A); and

23 (ii) such a waiver is in the national in24 terests of the United States.


28425c.AAO
25

15

H.L.C.

1 (B) NOTIFICATION.—Prior to granting a

2 waiver under the authority of subparagraph

3 (A), the President shall transmit to Congress a

4 notification that includes the reasons for the

5 waiver.

6 (b) TREATMENT OF POLITICAL PRISONERS AND

7 PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE.—

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—The President, the Secretary

9 of State, and other relevant officials of the Govern10 ment of the United States shall call upon the Gov11 ernment of Ethiopia to immediately release all polit12 ical prisoners and prisoners of conscience, especially

13 prisoners held without charge.

14 (2) TORTURE VICTIM RELIEF.—While it is the

15 responsibility of the Government of Ethiopia to com16 pensate the victims of unlawful imprisonment and

17 torture and their families for their suffering and

18 losses, the President shall provide assistance for the

19 rehabilitation of victims of torture in Ethiopia at

20 centers established for such purposes pursuant to

21 section 130 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

22 (22 U.S.C. 2152).

23 (c) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con24 gress that the Government of the United States should—


28425c.AAP
26

16

H.L.C.

1 (1) encourage the Government of Ethiopia to

2 enter into discussions with the Oromo Liberation

3 Front to bring them into full participation in the po4 litical and economic affairs of Ethiopia, including

5 their legalization as a political party; and

6 (2) provide such assistance as is warranted and

7 necessary to help achieve the goal described in para8 graph (1).

9 SEC. 7. SUPPORT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN ETHI10 OPIA.

11 (a) ECONOMIC POLICY ASSISTANCE.—Utilizing train12 ing and other technical assistance programs offered by the

13 Department of the Treasury, the Office of the United

14 States Trade Representative, and the Department of Jus15 tice, the President shall assist the Government of Ethiopia

16 in developing policies that will address key economic obsta17 cles, including in such areas as budgeting, taxation, debt

18 management, bank supervision, anti-money laundering,

19 and land title security that inhibit private sector develop20 ment and limit participation in donor programs such as

21 the United States Millennium Challenge Account.

22 (b) FINANCING FOR UNITED STATES–ETHIOPIAN

23 COMMERCIAL VENTURES.—Pursuant to the Government

24 of Ethiopia’s acceptance of the reforms in subsection (a),

25 the President shall make available adequate financing for


28425c.AAQ
27

17

H.L.C.

1 United States and Ethiopian private commercial ventures,

2 including programs of the United States Agency for Inter3 national Development, the Small Business Administration

4 (including, but not limited to, the Export Express and Ex5 port Working Capital programs), the Overseas Private In6 vestment Corporation (including, but not limited to, the

7 Small Business Center and the Small and Medium Enter8 prise and Structural Finance programs), and the Export9 Import Bank of the United States (including, but not lim10 ited to, the Short-Term Africa Pilot Program).

11 (c) RESOURCE POLICY ASSISTANCE.—The President,

12 acting through the Administrator of the United States

13 Agency for International Development, shall provide as14 sistance for sustainable development of Ethiopia’s Nile

15 and Awash River resources, including assistance to help

16 Ethiopia with the technology necessary for the construc17 tion of irrigation systems and hydroelectric power that

18 might prevent future famine.

19 SEC. 8. REPORT.

20 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact21 ment of this Act, the President shall transmit to Congress

22 a report on the implementation of this Act, including a

23 description of a comprehensive plan to address the secu24 rity, human rights, democratization, and economic freeVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425c.AAR
28

18

H.L.C.

1 dom concerns that potentially threaten the stability of the

2 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

3 SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appro5 priated to carry out this Act $10,000,000 for each of the

6 fiscal years 2007 and 2008.

7 (b) AVAILABILITY.—Amounts appropriated pursuant

8 to the authorization of appropriations under subsection (a)

9 are authorized to remain available until expended.


28425c.AAS
29

1

IV

109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION 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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 2006

Mr. ENGEL (for himself, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. BERMAN,

Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. LEE, Mr. CROWLEY, Ms.

MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. CARNAHAN, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. PALLONE,

Mr. WAXMAN, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. NADLER, Mr. MCNULTY, Mrs.

MALONEY, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. HINOJOSA, Ms. BORDALLO,

Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr.

CUMMINGS, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Mr. RUSH, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas,

Mr. DOYLE, and Ms. BALDWIN) submitted the following resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Congratulating the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative on

ten years of significant achievement in the search for

an HIV/AIDS vaccine, and for other purposes.

Whereas HIV/AIDS has killed over 25,000,000 people worldwide and poses a serious threat to the economic and political stability of the countries hit hardest by this terrible

epidemic;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI)

was founded in 1996 as a public-private partnership with

a mission to ensure the development of safe, effective, acVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425d.AAB
30

2

•HRES 844 IH

cessible, preventive HIV/AIDS vaccines for use throughout the world, with a particular focus on developing countries, where the need is most urgent;

Whereas ten years ago, insufficient attention and resources

were devoted to the need for, and advantages of, a vaccine to bring an end to this disease;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative’s research

and policy programs have galvanized scientific efforts and

substantially increased financial and political support for

this vital effort;

Whereas since its founding, the International AIDS Vaccine

Initiative has advanced six vaccine candidates from concept to clinical trials, targeting the subtypes of HIV circulating in the developing world—a record matched only

by one large pharmaceutical company;

Whereas today, the majority of newly designed HIV/AIDS

vaccine candidates are focused on preventing HIV/AIDS

in the developing world, in large part due to the efforts

of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative;

Whereas ten years ago only a few developing countries had

participated in HIV/AIDS vaccine trials, but today several countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia are actively participating in HIV/AIDS vaccine trials, a reflection of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative’s activism and commitment to working collaboratively with developing country partners;

Whereas the model of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which closely links clinical trial site investigators to

product developers, has resulted in the first HIV/AIDS

vaccine trials being conducted in Kenya, Rwanda, and

India, as well as trials in Uganda and South Africa;


28425d.AAC
31

3

•HRES 844 IH

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative is committed to ensuring that vaccines will be accessible as soon

as possible to those who need them most urgently;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative is a

founding member of the Global HIV/AIDS Vaccine Enterprise, recognized by the G8 as an important actor in

the quest for a vaccine;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative is an affiliated member of the National Institutes of Health’s

Partnership for AIDS Vaccine Evaluation and is hosting

NIH trials at International AIDS Vaccine Initiative sites

in Africa;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative’s inclusive

approach unites scientists, academics, nonprofit organizations, and governments from the north and south, including communities of faith, communities of color, and many

others, in an effort to develop a vaccine to stop global

HIV infection rates of 14,000 a day;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative established a Core Clinical Immunology Laboratory and a network of field laboratories in the developing world to facilitate HIV/AIDS vaccine evaluation;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative’s Core

Clinical Immunology Laboratory was the first Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP) accredited laboratory

in the world to assess HIV/AIDS vaccines, and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative’s laboratory in Uganda

was the first to receive such accreditation in Africa;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative has pioneered a successful business model as the first global


28425d.AAD
32

4

•HRES 844 IH

health public-private partnership, building a bridge between research and product development; and

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative established a ground-breaking Neutralizing Antibody Consortium to address one of the key scientific challenges to

vaccine design: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) congratulates the International AIDS Vac3 cine Initiative on ten years of significant achieve4 ment in the search for an HIV/AIDS vaccine;

5 (2) recognizes the role of the International

6 AIDS Vaccine Initiative in raising awareness and in7 creasing financial and political support for this im8 portant cause;

9 (3) admires the commitment of the Inter10 national AIDS Vaccine Initiative to collaborating

11 with developing country researchers, governments,

12 and civil society in the common goal of finding a

13 vaccine;

14 (4) expresses support for the continued success

15 of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative; and

16 (5) directs the Clerk of the House of Represent17 atives to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution

18 to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative.

Æ


28425d.AAE
33

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H. RES. 844

OFFERED BY MR. ENGEL

Strike the preamble and insert the following:

Whereas HIV/AIDS has killed over 25,000,000 people worldwide and poses a serious threat to the economic and political stability of the countries hit hardest by this terrible

epidemic;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI)

was founded in 1996 as a public-private partnership with

a mission to ensure the development of safe, effective, accessible, preventive HIV/AIDS vaccines for use throughout the world, with a particular focus on developing countries, where the need is most urgent;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative’s research

and policy programs have galvanized scientific efforts and

substantially increased financial and political support for

this vital effort;

Whereas since its founding, the International AIDS Vaccine

Initiative has advanced six vaccine candidates from concept to clinical trials, targeting the subtypes of HIV circulating in the developing world—a record matched only

by one large pharmaceutical company;

Whereas ten years ago only a few developing countries had

participated in HIV/AIDS vaccine trials, but today several countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia are actively participating in HIV/AIDS vaccine trials, a reflection of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative’s activism and commitment to working collaboratively with developing country partners;


28425e.AAB
34

2

H.L.C.

Whereas the model of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which closely links clinical trial site investigators to

product developers, has resulted in the first HIV/AIDS

vaccine trials being conducted in Kenya, Rwanda, and

India, as well as trials in Uganda and South Africa;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative is a

founding member of the Global HIV/AIDS Vaccine Enterprise, recognized by the G–8 as an important actor in

the quest for a vaccine; is an affiliated member of the

National Institutes of Health’s Partnership for AIDS

Vaccine Evaluation; and is hosting NIH trials at International AIDS Vaccine Initiative sites in Africa;

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative’s Core

Clinical Immunology Laboratory was the first Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP) accredited laboratory

in the world to assess HIV/AIDS vaccines, and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative’s laboratory in Uganda

was the first to receive such accreditation in Africa; and

Whereas the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative established a ground-breaking Neutralizing Antibody Consortium to address one of the key scientific challenges to

vaccine design: Now, therefore, be it


28425e.AAC
35

1

H.L.C.

IV

[COMMITTEE PRINT]

JUNE 22, 2006

[Showing the Amendment Adopted by the Subcommittee on

Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations]

109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION 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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 9, 2006

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey submitted the following resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

JUNE 22, 2005

[Strike out the preamble and all after the resolving clause and insert the part

printed in roman]

RESOLUTION

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.

Whereas trafficking in human beings, for sexual or labor exploitation, is an egregious violation of human rights;


28425f.AAB
36

2

H.L.C.

•HRES 860 IH

Whereas Congress passed and the President signed into law

the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (division

A of Public Law 106–386), the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–

193), and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–186) in order to

promote vigorous efforts worldwide to combat all forms

of trafficking in human beings;

Whereas major sporting events, conventions, and other such

events that attract large numbers of people have been

shown to result in an increase in the demand for commercial sexual services;

Whereas ‘‘pimps’’ and traffickers are aware of this demand

and respond to it by trafficking women and girls for

prostitution at such events;

Whereas trafficked women are often persuaded to cross international borders by false promises of legitimate employment in other countries, before being forced to engage in

prostitution;

Whereas Germany is a major destination country for trafficking of women and children for prostitution, and there

are an estimated 400,000 women in prostitution in Germany, 75 percent of whom are foreigners;

Whereas the 2006 FIFA World Cup will be played in 12 German cities and millions of fans will be in attendance;

Whereas individuals and organized crime groups that traffic

women and girls for prostitution are expected to increase

their activity before and during the 2006 World Cup;

Whereas in December 2001, Germany officially declared that

prostitution is no longer to be seen as immoral and

amended its legal code to legalize the maintaining of a


28425f.AAC
37

3

H.L.C.

•HRES 860 IH

brothel, to permit ‘‘pimping’’, except when it involves exploiting a prostitute by impairing her personal or economic independence, and to elevate prostitution to the

status of a legitimate profession;

Whereas Germany’s legalized prostitution industry has been

preparing to increase its capacity in anticipation of the

2006 World Cup;

Whereas prostitution and related activities—including pimping and patronizing or maintaining brothels—provide a

fac ̧ade behind which sex traffickers can operate;

Whereas in March 2006 the European Parliament adopted a

resolution on ‘‘forced prostitution in the context of world

sports events’’, stating that major sporting events at

which large numbers of people congregate results in a

‘‘temporary and spectacular increase in the demand for

sexual services’’ and then listing a number of actions that

should be undertaken by Germany and others;

Whereas in April 2006, the European Union Justice and

Home Affairs Council adopted a list of best practices

that should be undertaken by member states holding

major international events, including the development

and implementation of measures that discourage the demand for trafficking victims;

Whereas Germany has signed and on June 14, 2006, ratified

the United Nations Convention against Transnational

Organized Crime and the United Nations Protocol to

Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons,

Especially Women and Children;

Whereas in February 2006 the United Nations Special

Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women

and children reported to the United Nations Commission


28425f.AAD
38

4

H.L.C.

•HRES 860 IH

on Human Rights: ‘‘For the most part, prostitution as

actually practised in the world usually does satisfy the

elements of trafficking. . . . Thus, State parties [to the

United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children] with legalized prostitution industries have a heavy

responsibility to ensure that the conditions which actually

pertain to the practice of prostitution within their borders are free from the illicit means delineated in subparagraph (a) of the [UN Protocol] definition, so as to ensure

that their legalized prostitution regimes are not simply

perpetuating widespread and systematic trafficking. As

current conditions throughout the world attest, States

parties that maintain legalized prostitution are far from

satisfying this obligation.’’; and

Whereas article 9, paragraph 5, of the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in

Persons, Especially Women and Children states: ‘‘States

Parties shall adopt or strengthen legislative or other

measures, such as educational, social or cultural measures, including through bilateral and multilateral cooperation, to discourage the demand that fosters all

forms of exploitation of persons, especially women and

children, that leads to trafficking.’’: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) calls on the Government of Germany to take

3 immediate action to combat sex trafficking in con4 nection with the 2006 FIFA World Cup;

5 (2) calls on Germany to take measures to dis6 courage the demand that fosters all forms of exploi7 tation of persons, especially women and children,


28425f.AAE
39

5

H.L.C.

•HRES 860 IH

1 that leads to trafficking, including by raising aware2 ness among potential users of prostitution and by re3 considering the effect of legalized prostitution in cre4 ating the demand for prostitution and trafficking;

5 (3) urges countries throughout Europe, includ6 ing Germany, to support vigorously public awareness

7 campaigns to inform and educate the general public,

8 particularly athletes, sports fans, and financial spon9 sors of the 2006 World Cup, about the potential for

10 trafficking in human beings in response to the rising

11 demand;

12 (4) encourages governments, international orga13 nizations, and nongovernmental organizations to en14 gage in campaigns targeting potential victims and

15 informing them of the risks and dangers of becom16 ing caught in human trafficking networks, particu17 larly at the time of the 2006 World Cup;

18 (5) commends the ‘‘Final Whistle—Stop Forced

19 Prostitution Campaign’’ launched by the National

20 Council of German Women’s Organizations and calls

21 on sports associations, including the Fe ́de ́ration

22 Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the

23 Union of European Football Associations (UEFA),

24 the German Football Association, and others to supVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425f.AAF
40

6

H.L.C.

•HRES 860 IH

1 port this campaign and roundly condemn trafficking

2 in human beings and forced prostitution;

3 (6) encourages sponsors of the 2006 World

4 Cup, as well as tour operators and air transportation

5 service providers, to join in the efforts to end the

6 sexual exploitation of women and girls and prevent

7 trafficking in human beings;

8 (7) urges athletes and coaches of teams com9 peting in the 2006 World Cup to denounce the sex10 ual exploitation of women and girls and to encourage

11 prevention of trafficking in human beings; and

12 (8) welcomes ratification by Germany of the

13 United Nations Convention against Transnational

14 Organized Crime and the United Nations Protocol to

15 Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Per16 sons, Especially Women and Children, and urges

17 Germany to fully implement such Convention and

18 Protocol as soon as practicable, including by adopt19 ing any implementing legislation necessary to do so.

Æ


28425f.AAG
41

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO THE COMMITTEE PRINT TO H.

RES. 860

OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY

In the 9th clause of the preamble, strike ‘‘to permit

‘pimping’ ’’ and insert ‘‘to permit the marketing and advertising of the prostitution of another person and the

obtaining of material benefits by supervising another person’s engagement in prostitution’’.

Page 4, line 3, strike ‘‘immediate’’ and insert ‘‘additional’’.

Page 5, line 1, strike ‘‘that leads to trafficking,’’.

Page 5, beginning on line 5, strike ‘‘, including Germany,’’.

Page 5, line 24, strike ‘‘the German Football Association,’’.

Page 6, line 18, strike ‘‘, including’’ and all that follows through line 19 and insert a period.


28425f1.AAB
42


28425g.eps
43

2

H.L.C.

Whereas the International Red Cross and Red Crescent

Movement is a worldwide institution in which all national

Red Cross and Red Crescent societies have equal status,

whose mission is to prevent and alleviate human suffering

wherever it may be found, without discrimination;

Whereas the Magen David Adom (Red Shield of David) Society is the national humanitarian society in the State of

Israel and has performed heroically, aiding all in need of

assistance, on a purely humanitarian basis, without bias,

even those responsible for acts of horrific violence against

Israeli civilians;

Whereas since 1949 the Magen David Adom Society has been

refused admission into the International Red Cross and

Red Crescent Movement and has been relegated to observer status without a vote because it has used the Red

Shield of David, the only such national organization denied membership in the Movement;

Whereas the red cross symbol was intended as the visible expression of the neutral status enjoyed by the medical

services of the armed forces and the protection thus conferred, and there is not, and has never been, any implicit

religious connection in the cross;

Whereas since its establishment in 1930, the Magen David

Adom Society, because it does not use either a red cross

or a red crescent, has been prevented from full membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent

Movement;

Whereas Israel acceded to the Geneva Conventions in 1951

with a reservation specifying their intent to continue to

use the Magen David Adom;


28425g.AAC
44

3

H.L.C.

Whereas international consultations among nations and national Red Cross Societies ensued until 1999, when the

International Committee of the Red Cross formally called

for adoption of a protocol to the Geneva Conventions creating a third neutral symbol; allowing the use of either

the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, or the third neutral

symbol; and allowing for the third neutral symbol to be

used in combination with other national Red Cross Society symbols—including the Magen David Adom;

Whereas a diplomatic conference to adopt this proposal into

the Geneva Conventions was scheduled for October 2000,

but was prevented by the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada;

Whereas the United States and the American Red Cross have

worked ceaselessly to resolve the issue of the third neutral symbol and achieve full membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement for the

Magen David Adom Society;

Whereas Congress has insisted that funds made available to

the International Committee of the Red Cross be contingent on a certification by the Secretary of State confirming that the Magen David Adom Society is a full participant in the activities of the International Committee

of the Red Cross;

Whereas the American Red Cross has stood alone among all

the national humanitarian aid societies, and has withheld

over $45,000,000 in dues to the Federation of the Red

Cross and Red Crescent Societies to protest the exclusion

of the Magen David Adom;

Whereas the Government of Switzerland, the depositary state

for the Geneva Conventions, convened a Diplomatic ConVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425g.AAD
45

4

H.L.C.

ference of the states parties to the Geneva Conventions

in December 2005 for the purpose of adopting a Third

Additional Protocol and rightly resisted efforts to block

the broad international consensus in favor of resolving

the third neutral symbol question;

Whereas the efforts by the United States and the American

Red Cross at the Diplomatic Conference in December

2005 were critical to achieving both an overwhelming

positive vote in favor of adopting the Third Additional

Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, as well as an extremely important memorandum of understanding between the Magen David Adom and the Palestinian Red

Crescent Society;

Whereas sustaining international support for the adoption of

the third neutral symbol against efforts to divert the conference into unrelated political matters required extraordinary diplomatic efforts by the United States and the

American Red Cross;

Whereas the Third Additional Protocol adopted in Geneva in

December 2005 established the new third neutral symbol,

the ‘‘red crystal’’ that can be used in conjunction with

the Red Shield of David and cleared the way for Israeli

membership in the international movement;

Whereas in June 2006 the states parties to the Geneva Conventions, the national humanitarian aid societies, the

Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,

and the International Committee of the Red Cross and

Red Crescent met in Geneva to adopt rules implementing

the Third Additional Protocol; and

Whereas at the June 2006 meeting in Geneva, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement accepted


28425g.AAE
46

5

H.L.C.

the Magen David Adom Society as a full member: Now,

therefore,

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That—

3 (1) Congress—

4 (A) commends the Magen David Adom So5 ciety for its long and distinguished record of

6 providing humanitarian assistance to all those

7 in need of aid, even those responsible for hei8 nous atrocities against Israeli civilians;

9 (B) congratulates the Magen David Adom

10 Society, and the Government and the people of

11 the State of Israel, for securing full member12 ship in the International Red Cross and Red

13 Crescent Movement, 57 years past due;

14 (C) thanks the President, the Secretary of

15 State, and United States diplomatic representa16 tives for their tireless pursuit and maintenance

17 of the international consensus that culminated

18 in the Magen David Adom Society’s recent ac19 ceptance as a full member in the International

20 Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement;

21 (D) thanks the American Red Cross for its

22 unwavering and unyielding insistence within the

23 International Red Cross and Red Crescent

24 Movement that the principles of international


28425g.AAF
47

6

H.L.C.

1 humanitarian law could not be reconciled with

2 continued exclusion of the Magen David Adom

3 Society; and

4 (E) thanks the Government of Switzerland

5 and officials of the International Committee of

6 the Red Cross for helping to prepare the nec7 essary consensus and carrying to completion the

8 adoption of the Third Additional Protocol by

9 the states parties to the Geneva Conventions

10 and the rules for its implementation; and

11 (2) Congress commends the President for—

12 (A) submitting the Third Additional Pro13 tocol to the Geneva Conventions to the Senate

14 for its advice and consent; and

15 (B) pending approval by the Senate, pre16 paring for congressional consideration and en17 actment of legislation necessary to carry into ef18 fect the Third Additional Protocol to the Gene19 va Conventions.


28425g.AAG
48

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. 

[H.R. 5682 follows:]

49


28425h.eps
50

2

H.L.C.

1 (1) preventing the proliferation of nuclear

2 weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, the

3 means to produce them, and the means to deliver

4 them are critical objectives for United States foreign

5 policy;

6 (2) sustaining the NPT and strengthening its

7 implementation, particularly its verification and

8 compliance, is the keystone of United States non9 proliferation policy;

10 (3) the NPT has been a significant success in

11 preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons capa12 bilities and maintaining a stable international secu13 rity situation;

14 (4) countries that have never become a party to

15 the NPT and remain outside that treaty’s legal re16 gime pose a potential challenge to the achievement

17 of the overall goals of global nonproliferation, be18 cause those countries have not undertaken the

19 NPT’s international obligation to prohibit the spread

20 of dangerous nuclear technologies;

21 (5) it is in the interest of the United States to

22 the fullest extent possible to ensure that those coun23 tries that are not NPT members are responsible

24 with any nuclear technology they develop;


28425h.AAC
51

3

H.L.C.

1 (6) it may be in the interest of the United

2 States to enter into an agreement for nuclear co3 operation as set forth in section 123 of the Atomic

4 Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153) with a coun5 try that has never been an NPT member with re6 spect to civilian nuclear technology if—

7 (A) the country has demonstrated respon8 sible behavior with respect to the nonprolifera9 tion of technology related to weapons of mass

10 destruction programs and the means to deliver

11 them;

12 (B) the country has a functioning and un13 interrupted democratic system of government,

14 has a foreign policy that is congruent to that of

15 the United States, and is working with the

16 United States in key foreign policy initiatives

17 related to non-proliferation;

18 (C) such cooperation induces the country

19 to implement the highest possible protections

20 against the proliferation of technology related

21 to weapons of mass destruction programs and

22 the means to deliver them, and to refrain from

23 actions that would further the development of

24 its nuclear weapons program; and


28425h.AAD
52

4

H.L.C.

1 (D) such cooperation will induce the coun2 try to give greater political and material sup3 port to the achievement of United States global

4 and regional nonproliferation objectives, espe5 cially with respect to dissuading, isolating, and,

6 if necessary, sanctioning and containing states

7 that sponsor terrorism and terrorist groups,

8 that are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons

9 capability or other weapons of mass destruction

10 capability and the means to deliver such weap11 ons; and

12 (7)(A) India meets the criteria described in this

13 subsection; and

14 (B) it is in the national security interest of the

15 United States to deepen its relationship with India

16 across a full range of issues, including peaceful nu17 clear cooperation.

18 SEC. 3. STATEMENTS OF POLICY.

19 (a) IN GENERAL.—The following shall be the policies

20 of the United States:

21 (1) Oppose the development of a capability to

22 produce nuclear weapons by any non-nuclear weapon

23 state, within or outside of the Treaty on the Non24 Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (21 UST 483;


28425h.AAE
53

5

H.L.C.

1 commonly referred to as the ‘‘Nuclear Non-Pro2 liferation Treaty’’ or the ‘‘NPT’’).

3 (2) Encourage states party to the NPT to in4 terpret the right to ‘‘develop research, production

5 and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes’’, as

6 described in Article IV of the NPT, as being a quali7 fied right that is conditioned by the overall purpose

8 of the NPT to prevent the spread of nuclear weap9 ons and nuclear weapons capability, including by re10 fraining from all nuclear cooperation with any state

11 party that has not demonstrated that it is in full

12 compliance with its NPT obligations, as determined

13 by the IAEA.

14 (3) Strengthen the Nuclear Suppliers Group

15 guidelines concerning consultation by members re16 garding violations of supplier and recipient under17 standings by instituting the practice of a timely and

18 coordinated response by NSG members to all such

19 violations, including termination of nuclear transfers

20 to an involved recipient, that discourages individual

21 NSG members from continuing cooperation with

22 such recipient until such time as a consensus regard23 ing a coordinated response has been achieved.


28425h.AAF
54

6

H.L.C.

1 (b) WITH RESPECT TO SOUTH ASIA.—The following

2 shall be the policies of the United States with respect to

3 South Asia:

4 (1) Achieve a moratorium on the production of

5 fissile material for nuclear explosive purposes by

6 India, Pakistan, and the People’s Republic of China

7 at the earliest possible date.

8 (2) Achieve, at the earliest possible date, the

9 conclusion and implementation of a treaty banning

10 the production of fissile material for nuclear weap11 ons to which both the United States and India be12 come parties.

13 (3) Secure India’s—

14 (A) full participation in the Proliferation

15 Security Initiative;

16 (B) formal commitment to the Statement

17 of Interdiction Principles;

18 (C) public announcement of its decision to

19 conform its export control laws, regulations,

20 and policies with the Australia Group and with

21 the Guidelines, Procedures, Criteria, and Con22 trol Lists of the Wassennaar Arrangement;

23 (D) demonstration of satisfactory progress

24 toward implementing the decision described in

25 subparagraph (C); and


28425h.AAG
55

7

H.L.C.

1 (E) ratification of or accession to the Con2 vention on Supplementary Compensation for

3 Nuclear Damage, done at Vienna on September

4 12, 1997.

5 (4) Secure India’s full and active participation

6 in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if

7 necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts

8 to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a

9 nuclear weapons capability (including the capability

10 to enrich or process nuclear materials), and the

11 means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

12 (5) Seek to halt the increase of nuclear weapon

13 arsenals in South Asia, and to promote their reduc14 tion and eventual elimination.

15 SEC. 4. WAIVER AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL AP16 PROVAL.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi18 sion of law, if the President makes the determination de19 scribed in subsection (b), the President may—

20 (1) exempt a proposed agreement for nuclear

21 cooperation with India (arranged pursuant to section

22 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.

23 2153)) from the requirement in section 123 a.(2) of

24 such Act, and such agreement for cooperation may


28425h.AAH
56

8

H.L.C.

1 only enter into force in accordance with subsections

2 (f) and (g);

3 (2) waive the application of section 128 of the

4 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2157) with

5 respect to India, provided that such waiver shall

6 cease to be effective if the President determines that

7 India has engaged in any activity described section

8 129 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2158), other than sec9 tion 129 a.(1)(D) or section 129 a.(2)(C) of such

10 Act, at any time after the date of the enactment of

11 this Act; and

12 (3) with respect to India—

13 (A) waive the restrictions of section 129

14 a.(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42

15 U.S.C. 2158 a.(1)(A)) for any activity that oc16 curred on or before July 18, 2005; and

17 (B) section 129 a.(1)(D) of such Act.

18 (b) DETERMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT.—The de19 termination referred to in subsection (a) is a determina20 tion by the President that the following actions have oc21 curred:

22 (1) India has provided the United States and

23 the International Atomic Energy Agency with a

24 credible plan to separate civil and military nuclear

25 facilities, materials, and programs, and has filed a


28425h.AAI
57

9

H.L.C.

1 declaration regarding its civil facilities with the

2 IAEA.

3 (2) India and the IAEA have concluded an

4 agreement requiring the application of IAEA safe5 guards in perpetuity in accordance with IAEA

6 standards, principles, and practices (including IAEA

7 Board of Governors Document GOV/1621 (1973))

8 to India’s civil nuclear facilities, materials, and pro9 grams as declared in the plan described in para10 graph (1), including materials used in or produced

11 through the use of India’s civil nuclear facilities.

12 (3) India and the IAEA are making substantial

13 progress toward concluding an Additional Protocol

14 consistent with IAEA principles, practices, and poli15 cies that would apply to India’s civil nuclear pro16 gram.

17 (4) India is working actively with the United

18 States for the early conclusion of a multilateral

19 Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty.

20 (5) India is working with and supporting

21 United States and international efforts to prevent

22 the spread of enrichment and reprocessing tech23 nology.


28425h.AAJ
58

10

H.L.C.

1 (6) India is taking the necessary steps to secure

2 nuclear and other sensitive materials and technology,

3 including through—

4 (A) the enactment and enforcement of

5 comprehensive export control legislation and

6 regulations;

7 (B) harmonization of its export control

8 laws, regulations, policies, and practices with

9 the policies and practices of the Missile Tech10 nology Control Regime and the Nuclear Sup11 pliers Group; and

12 (C) adherence to the MTCR and the NSG

13 in accordance with the procedures of those re14 gimes for unilateral adherence.

15 (7) The NSG has decided by consensus to per16 mit supply to India of nuclear items covered by the

17 guidelines of the NSG.

18 (c) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall submit

20 to the Committee on International Relations of the

21 House of Representatives and the Committee on

22 Foreign Relations of the Senate information con23 cerning any determination made pursuant to sub24 section (b), together with a report detailing the basis

25 for the determination.


28425h.AAK
59

11

H.L.C.

1 (2) INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED.—To the

2 fullest extent available to the United States, the in3 formation referred to in paragraph (1) shall include

4 the following:

5 (A) A summary of the plan provided by

6 India to the United States and the IAEA to

7 separate India’s civil and military nuclear facili8 ties, materials, and programs, and the declara9 tion made by India to the IAEA identifying In10 dia’s civil facilities to be placed under IAEA

11 safeguards, including an analysis of the credi12 bility of such plan and declaration, together

13 with copies of the plan and declaration.

14 (B) A summary of the agreement that has

15 been entered into between India and the IAEA

16 requiring the application of safeguards in ac17 cordance with IAEA practices to India’s civil

18 nuclear facilities as declared in the plan de19 scribed in subparagraph (A), together with a

20 copy of the agreement, and a description of the

21 progress toward its full implementation.

22 (C) A summary of the progress made to23 ward conclusion and implementation of an Ad24 ditional Protocol between India and the IAEA,


28425h.AAL
60

12

H.L.C.

1 including a description of the scope of such Ad2 ditional Protocol.

3 (D) A description of the steps that India

4 is taking to work with the United States for the

5 conclusion of a multilateral treaty banning the

6 production of fissile material for nuclear weap7 ons, including a description of the steps that

8 the United States has taken and will take to

9 encourage India to identify and declare a date

10 by which India would be willing to stop produc11 tion of fissile material for nuclear weapons uni12 laterally or pursuant to a multilateral morato13 rium or treaty.

14 (E) A description of the steps India is tak15 ing to prevent the spread of nuclear-related

16 technology, including enrichment and reprocess17 ing technology or materials that can be used to

18 acquire a nuclear weapons technology, as well

19 as the support that India is providing to the

20 United States to further United States objec21 tives to restrict the spread of such technology.

22 (F) A description of the steps that India is

23 taking to secure materials and technology appli24 cable for the development, acquisition, or manu25 facture of weapons of mass destruction and the


28425h.AAM
61

13

H.L.C.

1 means to deliver such weapons through the ap2 plication of comprehensive export control legis3 lation and regulations, and through harmoni4 zation and adherence to Missile Technology

5 Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group,

6 the Australia Group, Wassennaar guidelines,

7 and United Nations Security Council Resolution

8 1540, and participation in the Proliferation Se9 curity Initiative.

10 (G) A description of the decision taken

11 within the Nuclear Suppliers Group relating to

12 nuclear cooperation with India, including

13 whether nuclear cooperation by the United

14 States under an agreement for cooperation ar15 ranged pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic

16 Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153) is con17 sistent with the decision, practices, and policies

18 of the NSG.

19 (H) A description of the scope of peaceful

20 cooperation envisioned by the United States

21 and India that will be implemented under the

22 Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation, including

23 whether such cooperation will include the provi24 sion of enrichment and reprocessing technology.


28425h.AAN
62

14

H.L.C.

1 (d) RESTRICTIONS ON NUCLEAR TRANSFERS TO

2 INDIA.—

3 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the entry

4 into force of an agreement for cooperation with

5 India pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic Energy

6 Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153) and approved pursu7 ant to this Act, no item subject to such agreement

8 or subject to the transfer guidelines of the NSG may

9 be transferred to India if such transfer would violate

10 the transfer guidelines of the NSG as in effect on

11 the date of the transfer.

12 (2) TERMINATION OF NUCLEAR TRANSFERS TO

13 INDIA.—Notwithstanding the entry into force of an

14 agreement for nuclear cooperation with India (ar15 ranged pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic En16 ergy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153)), exports of nu17 clear and nuclear-related material, equipment, or

18 technology to India shall be terminated if India

19 makes any materially significant transfer of—

20 (A) nuclear or nuclear-related material,

21 equipment, or technology that does not conform

22 to NSG guidelines, or

23 (B) ballistic missiles or missile-related

24 equipment or technology that does not conform

25 to MTCR guidelines,


28425h.AAO
63

15

H.L.C.

1 unless the President determines that cessation of

2 such exports would be seriously prejudicial to the

3 achievement of United States nonproliferation objec4 tives or otherwise jeopardize the common defense

5 and security.

6 (3) PROHIBITION ON NUCLEAR TRANSFERS TO

7 INDIA.—If nuclear transfers to India are restricted

8 pursuant to this Act, the Atomic Energy Act of

9 1954, or the Arms Export Control Act, the Presi10 dent should seek to prevent the transfer to India of

11 nuclear equipment, materials, or technology from

12 other participating governments in the NSG or from

13 any other source.

14 (e) APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR NUCLEAR CO15 OPERATION REQUIRED.—

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (m),

17 an agreement for nuclear cooperation between the

18 United States and India submitted pursuant to this

19 section may become effective only if—

20 (A) the President submits to Congress the

21 agreement concluded between the United States

22 and India, including a copy of the safeguards

23 agreement entered into between the IAEA and

24 India relating to India’s declared civilian nu25 clear facilities, in accordance with the requireVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425h.AAP
64

16

H.L.C.

1 ments and procedures of section 123 of the

2 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (other than section

3 123 a.(2) of such Act) that are otherwise not

4 inconsistent with the provisions of this Act; and

5 (B) after the submission under subpara6 graph (A), the agreement is approved by a joint

7 resolution that is enacted into law.

8 (2) CONSULTATION.—Beginning one month

9 after the date of the enactment of this Act and every

10 month thereafter until the President submits to Con11 gress the agreement referred to in paragraph (1),

12 the President should consult with the Committee on

13 International Relations of the House of Representa14 tives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the

15 Senate regarding the status of the negotiations be16 tween the United States and India with respect to

17 civilian nuclear cooperation and between the IAEA

18 and India with respect to the safeguards agreement

19 described in subsection (b)(2).

20 (f) JOINT RESOLUTION.—For purposes of this sec21 tion, a joint resolution referred to in subsection (e)(1)(B)

22 is a joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress—

23 (1) the matter after the resolving clause of

24 which is as follows: ‘‘That the Congress hereby ap25 proves the Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation BeVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425h.AAQ
65

17

H.L.C.

1 tween the United States of America and the Repub2 lic of India submitted by the President on

3 lllllllllll.’’, with the blank space

4 being filled with the appropriate date;

5 (2) which does not have a preamble; and

6 (3) the title of which is as follows: ‘‘Joint Reso7 lution Approving an Agreement for Nuclear Co8 operation Between the United States and India’’.

9 (g) INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL.—

10 (1) INTRODUCTION.—A joint resolution shall,

11 on the day on which the submissions under sub12 section (e)(1)(A) are made (or, if either House of

13 Congress is not in session on that day, the first day

14 thereafter when that House is in session)—

15 (A) be introduced in the House of Rep16 resentatives by the majority leader, for himself

17 and the minority leader of the House, or by

18 Members of the House designated by the major19 ity leader and minority leader of the House;

20 and

21 (B) be introduced in the Senate by the ma22 jority leader, for himself and the minority lead23 er of the Senate, or by Members of the Senate

24 designated by the majority leader and minority

25 leader of the Senate.


28425h.AAR
66

18

H.L.C.

1 If either House of Congress is not in session on that

2 day, the joint resolution shall be introduced on the

3 first day thereafter when both Houses are in session.

4 (2) REFERRAL.—The joint resolution shall be

5 referred to the Committee on International Relations

6 of the House of Representatives and to the Com7 mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

8 (h) DISCHARGE OF COMMITTEES.—If a committee to

9 which a joint resolution is referred has not reported such

10 joint resolution by the end of 60 days beginning on the

11 date of its introduction, or the date of the submission of

12 the nonproliferation assessment statement described in

13 section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.

14 2153), whichever is later, such committee shall be dis15 charged from further consideration of such joint resolu16 tion, and such joint resolution shall be placed on the ap17 propriate calendar of the House involved.

18 (i) FLOOR CONSIDERATION IN THE HOUSE OF REP19 RESENTATIVES.—

20 (1) IN GENERAL.—On or after the third cal21 endar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal

22 holidays, except when the House of Representatives

23 is in session on such a day) after the date on which

24 the committee to which a joint resolution is referred

25 has reported, or has been discharged from further


28425h.AAS
67

19

H.L.C.

1 consideration of, such a joint resolution, it shall be

2 in order for any Member of the House to move to

3 proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution.

4 A Member of the House may make the motion only

5 on the day after the calendar day on which the

6 Member announces to the House the Member’s in7 tention to do so. Such motion shall be privileged and

8 shall not be debatable. The motion shall not be sub9 ject to amendment or to a motion to postpone. A

10 motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion

11 is agreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to pro12 ceed to the consideration of the joint resolution is

13 agreed to, the House shall immediately proceed to

14 consideration of the joint resolution which shall re15 main the unfinished business until disposed of.

16 (2) DEBATE.—Debate on a joint resolution, and

17 on all debatable motions and appeals in connection

18 therewith, shall be limited to not more than six

19 hours, which shall be divided equally between those

20 favoring and those opposing the joint resolution. An

21 amendment to the joint resolution shall not be in

22 order. A motion to further limit debate shall be in

23 order and shall not be debatable. A motion to table,

24 a motion to postpone, or a motion to recommit the

25 joint resolution shall not be in order. A motion to reVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425h.AAT
68

20

H.L.C.

1 consider the vote by which the joint resolution is

2 agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order.

3 (3) APPEALS.—Appeals from the decisions of

4 the Chair to the procedure relating to a joint resolu5 tion shall be decided without debate.

6 (j) FLOOR CONSIDERATION IN THE SENATE.—Any

7 joint resolution shall be considered in the Senate in ac8 cordance with the provisions of section 601(b)(4) of the

9 International Security Assistance and Arms Export Con10 trol Act of 1976.

11 (k) CONSIDERATION BY THE OTHER HOUSE.—If, be12 fore the passage by one House of a joint resolution of that

13 House, that House receives a joint resolution from the

14 other House, then the following procedures shall apply:

15 (1) The joint resolution of the other House

16 shall not be referred to a committee and may not be

17 considered in the House receiving it except in the

18 case of final passage as provided in paragraph

19 (2)(B).

20 (2) With respect to a joint resolution of the

21 House receiving the joint resolution—

22 (A) the procedure in that House shall be

23 the same as if no joint resolution had been re24 ceived from the other House; but


28425h.AAU
69

21

H.L.C.

1 (B) the vote on final passage shall be on

2 the joint resolution of the other House.

3 (3) Upon disposition of the joint resolution re4 ceived from the other House, it shall no longer be

5 in order to consider the joint resolution that origi6 nated in the receiving House.

7 (l) COMPUTATION OF DAYS.—In the computation of

8 the period of 60 days referred to in subsection (h), there

9 shall be excluded the days on which either House of Con10 gress is not in session because of an adjournment of more

11 than 3 days to a day certain or because of an adjournment

12 of the Congress sine die.

13 (m) SECTION 123 OF ATOMIC ENERGY ACT NOT AF14 FECTED.—Notwithstanding subsection (e)(1), this section

15 does not preclude the approval, under section 123 of the

16 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153), of an

17 agreement for cooperation in which India is the cooper18 ating party.

19 (n) SUNSET.—The procedures under this section

20 shall cease to be effective upon the enactment of a joint

21 resolution under this section.

22 (o) REPORTS.—

23 (1) POLICY OBJECTIVES.—The President shall,

24 not later than January 31, 2007, and not later than

25 January 31 of each year thereafter, submit to the


28425h.AAV
70

22

H.L.C.

1 Committee on International Relations of the House

2 of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign

3 Relations of the Senate a report on—

4 (A) the extent to which each policy objec5 tive in section 3(b) has been achieved;

6 (B) the steps taken by the United States

7 and India in the preceding calendar year to ac8 complish those objectives;

9 (C) the extent of cooperation by other

10 countries in achieving those objectives; and

11 (D) the steps the United States will take

12 in the current calendar year to accomplish those

13 objectives.

14 (2) NUCLEAR EXPORTS TO INDIA.—

15 (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year

16 after the date on which an agreement for nu17 clear cooperation between the United States

18 and India is approved by Congress under sec19 tion 4(f) and every year thereafter, the Presi20 dent shall submit to the Committee on Inter21 national Relations of the House of Representa22 tives and the Committee on Foreign Relations

23 of the Senate a report describing United States

24 exports to India for the preceding year pursu25 ant to such agreement and the anticipated exVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425h.AAW
71

23

H.L.C.

1 ports to India for the next year pursuant to

2 such agreement.

3 (B) NUCLEAR FUEL.—The report de4 scribed in subparagraph (A) shall also include

5 (in a classified form if necessary)—

6 (i) an estimate for the previous year

7 of the amount of uranium mined in India;

8 (ii) the amount of such uranium that

9 has likely been used or allocated for the

10 production of nuclear explosive devices;

11 (iii) the rate of production of—

12 (I) fissile material for nuclear ex13 plosive devices; and

14 (II) nuclear explosive devices;

15 and

16 (iv) an analysis as to whether im17 ported uranium has affected such rate of

18 production of nuclear explosive devices.

19 (p) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act:

20 (1) IAEA.—The term ‘‘IAEA’’ means the

21 International Atomic Energy Agency.

22 (2) MTCR.—The term ‘‘MTCR’’ means the

23 Missile Technology Control Regime.

24 (3) NPT.—The term ‘‘NPT’’ means the Treaty

25 on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.


28425h.AAX
72

24

H.L.C.

1 (4) NPT MEMBER.—The term ‘‘NPT member’’

2 means a country that is a party to the NPT.

3 (5) NSG.—The term ‘‘NSG’’ means the Nu4 clear Suppliers Group.


28425h.AAY
73

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. 

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 

74

actually accomplish several difficult goals that our two countries 

have already agreed must take place. 

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:]

75

1

I

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 4014

To reauthorize the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7, 2005

Mr. HYDE (for himself and Mr. LANTOS) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To reauthorize the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Millennium Challenge Reauthorization Act of 2005’’.

6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of

7 this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Declaration of policy.

TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO THE MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE ACT

OF 2003

Sec. 101. Purposes.

Sec. 102. Establishment and management of the Millennium Challenge Corporation.


28425i.AAB
76

2

•HR 4014 IH

Sec. 103. Authorization of assistance.

Sec. 104. Candidate countries.

Sec. 105. Eligible countries.

Sec. 106. Millennium Challenge Compact.

Sec. 107. Congressional and public notification of Compact.

Sec. 108. Suspension and termination of assistance.

Sec. 109. Disclosure.

Sec. 110. Annual report.

Sec. 111. Powers of the Corporation; related provisions.

Sec. 112. Assistance to certain candidate countries.

Sec. 113. General personnel authorities.

Sec. 114. Publicity and identification of programs, projects, and activities.

Sec. 115. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE II—TRANSFER OF THE MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE ACT OF

2003 TO THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

Sec. 201. Transfer of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

Sec. 202. Conforming amendment.

1 SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

2 Congress declares the following:

3 (1) The Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22

4 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) is the most important approach

5 to development assistance in a generation and is a

6 model for facilitating the transformation of needy

7 societies into communities of opportunity.

8 (2) It is the policy of the United States to con9 tinue to provide assistance under the Millennium

10 Challenge Act of 2003 to reduce overall poverty

11 through sustainable economic growth and develop12 ment in countries that receive assistance under such

13 Act.


28425i.AAC
77

3

•HR 4014 IH

1 TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO THE

2 MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE

3 ACT OF 2003

4 SEC. 101. PURPOSES.

5 Section 602(2) of the Millennium Challenge Act of

6 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘pro7 motes economic growth and the elimination of extreme

8 poverty’’ and inserting ‘‘promotes the reduction of overall

9 poverty through sustainable economic growth and develop10 ment’’.

11 SEC. 102. ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE MIL12 LENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION.

13 (a) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.—Section 604(b)(2)

14 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C.

15 7703(b)(2)) is amended—

16 (1) by striking ‘‘APPOINTMENT’’ and all that

17 follows through ‘‘the Chief Executive Officer shall be

18 appointed’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘APPOINT19 MENT.—The Chief Executive Officer shall be ap20 pointed’’; and

21 (2) by striking subparagraph (B).

22 (b) BOARD OF DIRECTORS.—It is the sense of Con23 gress that the President should appoint to the Board of

24 Directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation the in25 dividuals described in section 604(c)(3)(B) of the MillenVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425i.AAD
78

4

•HR 4014 IH

1 nium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7703(c)(3)(B)),

2 as soon as possible after the congressional leadership sub3 mits to the President the lists of individuals for nomina4 tion to the Board of Directors pursuant to clauses (i)

5 through (iv) of section 604(c)(3)(B) such Act.

6 SEC. 103. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE.

7 Section 605(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of

8 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7704(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘in

9 achieving lasting economic growth and poverty reduction’’

10 and inserting ‘‘in reducing overall poverty through sus11 tainable economic growth and development’’.

12 SEC. 104. CANDIDATE COUNTRIES.

13 (a) LOW INCOME COUNTRIES.—Section 606(a)(2)(A)

14 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C.

15 7705(a)(2)(A)) is amended—

16 (1) by striking ‘‘(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘(A)(i)’’;

17 (2) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end and inserting

18 ‘‘or’’ ; and

19 (3) by adding at the end the following new

20 clause:

21 ‘‘(ii) the average per capita income of the

22 country for the fiscal year involved and the 2

23 fiscal years most recently preceding the fiscal

24 year involved is equal to or less than the histor25 ical ceiling of the International Development


28425i.AAE
79

5

•HR 4014 IH

1 Association for the fiscal year involved, and the

2 country is eligible for assistance from the Inter3 national Development Association; and’’.

4 (b) LOWER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES.—Section

5 606(b)(1) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22

6 U.S.C. 7705(b)(1)) is amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to countries de8 scribed in subsection (a), a country shall be a can9 didate country for purposes of eligibility for assist10 ance for fiscal year 2006 or a subsequent fiscal year

11 if—

12 ‘‘(A) the average of the income classifica13 tion of the country in the then current edition

14 of the World Development Report for Recon15 struction and Development published by the

16 International Bank for Reconstruction and De17 velopment and the 2 most recently preceding

18 editions of the report is ‘lower-middle-income

19 economy’; and

20 ‘‘(B) the country meets the requirements

21 of subsection (a)(1)(B)’’.

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

23 subsections (a) and (b) apply with respect to eligibility of

24 countries for assistance under the Millennium Challenge


28425i.AAF
80

6

•HR 4014 IH

1 Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) for fiscal year 2007

2 and subsequent fiscal years.

3 SEC. 105. ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES.

4 (a) CRITERIA.—Section 607(b) of the Millennium

5 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7706(b)) is amended—

6 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting at the end

7 before the semicolon the following: ‘‘and refugees’’;

8 and

9 (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ‘‘citizens’’

10 and inserting ‘‘individuals’’.

11 (b) SELECTION BY THE BOARD.—Section

12 607(c)(2)(B) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22

13 U.S.C. 7706(c)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘and gen14 erate’’ and inserting ‘‘through’’.

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

16 subsections (a) and (b) apply with respect to eligibility of

17 countries for assistance under the Millennium Challenge

18 Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) for fiscal year 2007

19 and subsequent fiscal years.

20 SEC. 106. MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE COMPACT.

21 (a) ELEMENTS.—

22 (1) AMENDMENTS.—Section 609(b)(1) of the

23 Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C.

24 7708(b)(1)) is amended—

25 (A) in subparagraph (D)—


28425i.AAG
81

7

•HR 4014 IH

1 (i) by inserting before ‘‘an identifica2 tion’’ the following: ‘‘in order to dem3 onstrate that programs in Compacts are

4 designed to reduce overall poverty through

5 sustainable economic growth and develop6 ment,’’; and

7 (ii) by adding at the end before the

8 semicolon the following: ‘‘, and an analysis

9 of how the intended beneficiaries will par10 ticipate in, or be impacted by, each

11 project’’;

12 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (G)

13 through (K) as subparagraphs (H) through (L),

14 respectively;

15 (C) by inserting after subparagraph (F)

16 the following new subparagraph:

17 ‘‘(G) a description of the existing con18 straints to sustainable development in the coun19 try, including the productive capacity of the

20 poor, and a description of the role of the Cor21 poration and other donors in addressing such

22 constraints during the duration of the Com23 pact;’’;

24 (D) in subparagraph (K) (as redesig25 nated), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;


28425i.AAH
82

8

•HR 4014 IH

1 (E) in subparagraph (L) (as redesignated),

2 by striking the period at the end and inserting

3 a semicolon; and

4 (F) by adding at the end the following new

5 subparagraphs:

6 ‘‘(M) a detailed description of the extent to

7 which the government of the country met, and

8 continues to meet, the requirements of sub9 section (d) (relating to local input) in devel10 oping the Compact, a comprehensive summary

11 of the local input provided to the government by

12 individuals and organizations described in such

13 subsection, and an explanation of how the local

14 input will be reflected in projects carried out

15 under the Compact; and

16 ‘‘(N) an analysis of the extent to which

17 each project carried out under the Compact will

18 contribute to reducing aggregate poverty in the

19 country through sustainable economic growth

20 and development.’’.

21 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made

22 by paragraph (1) apply with respect to eligibility of

23 countries for assistance under the Millennium Chal24 lenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) for fiscal

25 year 2006 and subsequent fiscal years.


28425i.AAI
83

9

•HR 4014 IH

1 (b) DEFINITION.—Section 609(b)(3) of the Millen2 nium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7708(b)(3)) is

3 amended by striking ‘‘to achieve market-driven economic

4 growth and eliminate extreme poverty’’ and inserting ‘‘to

5 eliminate extreme poverty and reduce overall poverty

6 through sustainable economic growth and development’’.

7 (c) LOCAL INPUT.—Section 609(d) of the Millennium

8 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7708(d)) is amended—

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

10 end;

11 (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para12 graph (3);

13 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol14 lowing new paragraph:

15 ‘‘(2) consults with the national legislature of

16 the eligible country; and’’; and

17 (4) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated)—

18 (A) by inserting ‘‘national and inter19 national’’ before ‘‘private and voluntary organi20 zations’’; and

21 (B) by striking ‘‘other’’ and inserting ‘‘for22 eign’’.

23 (d) ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COMPACT.—

24 Section 609(g) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003

25 (22 U.S.C. 7708(g)) is amended—


28425i.AAJ
84

10

•HR 4014 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘enter into contracts or make

2 grants’’ and inserting ‘‘enter into contracts, make

3 grants, or provide personnel of the Corporation on

4 a temporary basis’’;

5 (2) by adding at the end before the period the

6 following: ‘‘, including facilitating the development of

7 the Compact proposal, implementation of the Com8 pact, and the development and implementation of

9 amendments to the Compact’’; and

10 (3) by further adding at the end the following

11 new sentence: ‘‘Such facilitation of the development

12 and implementation of the Compact may include

13 supporting the meaningful participation of a broad

14 spectrum of independent civil society representatives

15 in such development and implementation.’’.

16 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVAL BY THE BOARD.—

17 Section 609(h) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003

18 (22 U.S.C. 7708(h)) is amended—

19 (1) by striking ‘‘Each Compact’’ and inserting

20 the following:

21 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each Compact’’; and

22 (2) by adding at the end the following new

23 paragraph:


28425i.AAK
85

11

•HR 4014 IH

1 ‘‘(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of

2 Congress that the Board, acting through the Chief

3 Executive Officer, should—

4 ‘‘(A) establish and make known policies

5 that encourage each eligible country—

6 ‘‘(i) to submit to the Corporation its

7 Compact proposal not later than one year

8 after the date on which the country is

9 identified as an eligible country under sec10 tion 608(d)(2); and

11 ‘‘(ii) to seek to enter into a Compact

12 with the United States not later than two

13 years after the country has been identified

14 as such an eligible country; and

15 ‘‘(B) consider removing from eligibility

16 those countries that fail to submit a Compact

17 proposal or enter into a Compact with the

18 United States in a timely or good-faith manner,

19 but allow such countries to seek eligibility for

20 assistance under section 605 in subsequent

21 years, as appropriate.’’.

22 (f) DURATION OF COMPACT.—Section 609(j) of the

23 Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7708(j)) is

24 amended—


28425i.AAL
86

12

•HR 4014 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘The duration’’ and inserting

2 the following:

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para4 graph (2), the duration’’; and

5 (2) by adding at the end the following new

6 paragraph:

7 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A Compact shall not

9 include a project with a duration of more than

10 5 years unless the Board—

11 ‘‘(i) determines that the project can12 not be completed in 5 years or less; and

13 ‘‘(ii) approves a duration for the

14 project of not more than 10 years.

15 ‘‘(B) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.—

16 Not later than 15 days after the Board ap17 proves a duration for a project pursuant to sub18 paragraph (A)(ii), the Board, acting through

19 the Chief Executive Officer, shall submit to the

20 appropriate congressional committees a notifica21 tion of such approval, including a detailed ex22 planation for the determination and approval.’’.

23 (g) CONCURRENT AND SUBSEQUENT COMPACTS.—

24 Section 609 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22

25 U.S.C. 7708) is amended—


28425i.AAM
87

13

•HR 4014 IH

1 (1) by striking subsection (k); and

2 (2) by inserting at the end the following new

3 subsection:

4 ‘‘(k) CONCURRENT AND SUBSEQUENT COMPACTS.—

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the require6 ments of paragraph (2), an eligible country and the

7 United States—

8 ‘‘(A) may enter into and have in effect not

9 more than two Compacts at any given time

10 under this section; and

11 ‘‘(B) may enter into subsequent Compacts

12 in accordance with the requirements of this title

13 after the expiration of the existing Compact or

14 Compacts.

15 ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—

16 ‘‘(A) CONCURRENT COMPACTS.—An eligi17 ble country and the United States may enter

18 into a concurrent Compact only if the Board

19 determines that the country is making consider20 able and demonstrable progress in imple21 menting the terms of its existing Compact and

22 supplementary agreements thereto.

23 ‘‘(B) SUBSEQUENT COMPACTS.—An eligi24 ble country and the United States may enter

25 into subsequent Compacts if the Board deterVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425i.AAN
88

14

•HR 4014 IH

1 mines that the country substantially met the

2 objectives of prior Compacts between the coun3 try and the United States and supplementary

4 agreements thereto.’’.

5 (h) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

6 subsections (f) and (g) apply with respect to Compacts en7 tered into between the United States and an eligible coun8 try under the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22

9 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) before, on, or after the date of the

10 enactment of this Act.

11 SEC. 107. CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF

12 COMPACT.

13 (a) CONGRESSIONAL CONSULTATION PRIOR TO COM14 PACT NEGOTIATIONS.—Section 610(a) of the Millennium

15 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7709(a)) is amended—

16 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

17 end;

18 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at

19 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

20 (3) by adding at the end the following new

21 paragraph:

22 ‘‘(3) shall—

23 ‘‘(A) in the case of negotiations for a con24 current Compact with an eligible country, notify

25 the appropriate congressional committees of its


28425i.AAO
89

15

•HR 4014 IH

1 determination that the country is making con2 siderable and demonstrable progress in imple3 menting the terms of its existing Compact and

4 supplementary agreements thereto pursuant to

5 section 609(k); and

6 ‘‘(B) in the case of negotiations for a sub7 sequent Compact with an eligible country, no8 tify the appropriate congressional committees of

9 its determination that the country substantially

10 met the objectives of prior Compacts between

11 the country and the United States and supple12 mentary agreements thereto pursuant to section

13 609(k).’’.

14 (b) CONGRESSIONAL CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICA15 TION PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A COMPACT.—Section

16 610 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C.

17 7709(a)) is amended—

18 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub19 section (c); and

20 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol21 lowing new subsection:

22 ‘‘(b) CONGRESSIONAL CONSULTATION AND NOTIFI23 CATION PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A COMPACT.—

24 ‘‘(1) MEETING OF THE BOARD.—Not later than

25 15 days prior to a meeting of the Board for the purVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425i.AAP
90

16

•HR 4014 IH

1 pose of fulfilling the requirement of section 609(h),

2 the Board, acting through the Chief Executive Offi3 cer, should consult with the appropriate congres4 sional committees, and provide copies, in a classified

5 form if necessary, of the proposed Compact, includ6 ing annexes or supplementary agreements thereto, to

7 the appropriate congressional committees.

8 ‘‘(2) ENTRY INTO COMPACT.—Not later than

9 15 days prior to entering into a Compact with an el10 igible country, the Board, acting through the Chief

11 Executive Officer, shall provide notification of the

12 proposed Compact to the appropriate congressional

13 committees in accordance with the procedures appli14 cable to reprogramming notifications under section

15 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.’’.

16 (c) CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

17 AFTER ENTERING INTO A COMPACT.—Section 610(c)(2)

18 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (as redesignated

19 by subsection (b)(1) of this section) is amended to read

20 as follows:

21 ‘‘(2) shall publish such detailed summary of the

22 Compact in the Federal Register and shall publish

23 such detailed summary and the text of the Compact

24 (including a copy of any annexes or supplementary


28425i.AAQ
91

17

•HR 4014 IH

1 agreements thereto) on the Internet website of the

2 Corporation.’’.

3 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

4 subsections (a), (b), and (c) apply with respect to Com5 pacts entered into between the United States and an eligi6 ble country under the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003

7 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) on or after the date of the enact8 ment of this Act.

9 SEC. 108. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION OF ASSISTANCE.

10 (a) SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION OF ASSIST11 ANCE.—Section 611(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act

12 of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7710(a)) is amended in the matter

13 preceding paragraph (1)—

14 (1) by striking ‘‘After consultation with the

15 Board, the Chief Executive Officer’’ and inserting

16 ‘‘The Board, acting through the Chief Executive Of17 ficer,’’; and

18 (2) by striking ‘‘if the Chief Executive Officer’’

19 and inserting ‘‘if the Board’’.

20 (b) REINSTATEMENT.—Section 611(b) of the Millen21 nium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7710(b)) is

22 amended—

23 (1) by striking ‘‘The Chief Executive Officer’’

24 and inserting ‘‘The Board, acting through the Chief

25 Executive Officer,’’; and


28425i.AAR
92

18

•HR 4014 IH

1 (2) by striking ‘‘the Chief Executive Officer’’

2 and inserting ‘‘the Board’’.

3 (c) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.—Section 611(c)

4 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C.

5 7710(c)) is amended—

6 (1) by striking ‘‘the Chief Executive Officer’’

7 the first place it appears and inserting ‘‘the Board,

8 acting through the Chief Executive Officer,’’; and

9 (2) by striking ‘‘the Chief Executive Officer’’ in

10 each place it appears thereafter and inserting ‘‘the

11 Board’’.

12 (d) PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER OF CER13 TAIN CRITERIA.—Not later than 30 days after the date

14 of the enactment of this Act, the Chief Executive Officer

15 of the Millennium Challenge Corporation shall publish in

16 the Federal Register a detailed description of the criteria

17 used by the Corporation to determine whether or not to

18 suspend or terminate assistance in whole or in part for

19 a country or entity under section 611 of the Millennium

20 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7710).

21 SEC. 109. DISCLOSURE.

22 Section 612 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003

23 (22 U.S.C. 7711) is amended by adding at the end the

24 following new subsection:


28425i.AAS
93

19

•HR 4014 IH

1 ‘‘(c) FREEDOM OF INFORMATION.—The Corporation

2 and its officers and employees shall be subject to the provi3 sions of section 552 of title 5, United States Code (relat4 ing to freedom of information).’’.

5 SEC. 110. ANNUAL REPORT.

6 Section 613(b)(2) of the Millennium Challenge Act

7 of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7712(b)(2)) is amended to read as

8 follows:

9 ‘‘(2) For each eligible country, an assessment

10 (in quantifiable terms to the maximum extent prac11 ticable) of—

12 ‘‘(A) the progress of the country to submit

13 a Compact proposal and negotiate a Compact to

14 final approval;

15 ‘‘(B) the impact that the assistance pro16 vided under section 605 has had on reducing

17 overall poverty through sustainable economic

18 growth and development and otherwise achiev19 ing the objectives set out in the Compact en20 tered into by the country;

21 ‘‘(C) the extent to which assistance pro22 vided under section 605 has been effective in

23 helping the country to achieve such objectives,

24 including a description of the measures and ef25 forts of the country to implement the Compact;


28425i.AAT
94

20

•HR 4014 IH

1 ‘‘(D) the policy reforms of the country that

2 are conducive to economic development and the

3 furtherance of such objectives that have been,

4 or need to be, implemented;

5 ‘‘(E) the amount and type of economic as6 sistance provided by other major donors to the

7 country which further the purposes of this title;

8 and

9 ‘‘(F) the commitment and contribution of

10 the country to achieving the objectives set out

11 in the Compact entered into by the country.’’.

12 SEC. 111. POWERS OF THE CORPORATION; RELATED PROVI13 SIONS.

14 Section 614 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003

15 (22 U.S.C. 7713) is amended by adding at the end the

16 following new subsection:

17 ‘‘(h) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Chief Executive

18 Officer is authorized and encouraged to contract with any

19 nongovernmental organization (including a university,

20 independent foundation, or other organization) or private

21 entity to provide technical assistance to an eligible country

22 with respect to the merits and feasibility of the Compact

23 proposal of the eligible country or amendments to the

24 Compact of the eligible country.’’.


28425i.AAU
95

21

•HR 4014 IH

1 SEC. 112. ASSISTANCE TO CERTAIN CANDIDATE COUN2 TRIES.

3 Section 616(d) of the Millennium Challenge Act of

4 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7715(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘for fis5 cal year 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘for a fiscal year’’.

6 SEC. 113. GENERAL PERSONNEL AUTHORITIES.

7 It is the sense of Congress that the Millennium Chal8 lenge Corporation should employ approximately 300 per9 sons in order to ensure that the Corporation carries out

10 its activities, including activities in eligible countries, in

11 an efficient and timely manner.

12 SEC. 114. PUBLICITY AND IDENTIFICATION OF PROGRAMS,

13 PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES.

14 It is the sense of Congress that, pursuant to section

15 641 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.

16 2401), the Chief Executive Officer (or the Chief Executive

17 Officer’s designee), in consultation with the Administrator

18 of the United States Agency for International Develop19 ment and the heads of other appropriate departments and

20 agencies of the Government of the United States, should

21 promulgate regulations that require programs, projects,

22 and activities, including public communications and com23 modities, that are partially or fully funded by the Millen24 nium Challenge Corporation to be marked or otherwise

25 bear a visible standard graphic identity marking that


28425i.AAV
96

22

•HR 4014 IH

1 clearly communicates that the assistance is ‘‘From the

2 American people’’.

3 SEC. 115. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 619(a) of the Millennium

5 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7718(a)) is amended

6 by striking ‘‘fiscal years 2004 and 2005’’ and inserting

7 ‘‘fiscal years 2006 through 2008’’.

8 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—The amendment

9 made by subsection (a) shall not be construed to affect

10 the availability of funds appropriated pursuant to the au11 thorization of appropriations under section 619 of the Mil12 lennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7718(a)) be13 fore the date of the enactment of this Act.

14 TITLE II—TRANSFER OF THE

15 MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE

16 ACT OF 2003 TO THE FOREIGN

17 ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

18 SEC. 201. TRANSFER OF THE MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE

19 ACT OF 2003 TO THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

20 ACT OF 1961.

21 (a) TRANSFER.—The Millennium Challenge Act of

22 2003 (title VI of division D of the Consolidated Appropria23 tions Act, 2004; Public Law 108–199; 22 U.S.C. 7701

24 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is hereby—


28425i.AAW
97

23

•HR 4014 IH

1 (1) transferred from the Consolidated Appro2 priations Act, 2004, to the Foreign Assistance Act

3 of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.); and

4 (2) inserted after title VI of chapter 2 of part

5 I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

6 (b) REDESIGNATION.—Chapter 2 of part I of the

7 Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended—

8 (1) by redesignating the second title VI (as

9 added by subsection (a)) as title VII; and

10 (2) in title VII (as redesignated by paragraph

11 (1))—

12 (A) in the title heading, to read as follows:

13 ‘‘TITLE VII—MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE ACT OF

14 2003’’;

15 (B) by redesignating sections 601 through

16 620 as sections 261 through 280, respectively;

17 and

18 (C) by striking each reference in such title

19 to any of sections 601 through 620 and insert20 ing a reference to the corresponding section

21 number (as redesignated by subparagraph (B)).

22 (c) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—Section 269(g) of the

23 Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by subsection

24 (a) and redesignated by subsection (b) of this section) is

25 amended by inserting after ‘‘Notwithstanding subsection


28425i.AAX
98

24

•HR 4014 IH

1 (a)’’ the following: ‘‘or any other provision of law (other

2 than a provision of this title)’’.

3 (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con4 tents of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub5 lic Law 108–199) is amended by striking the item relating

6 to title VI of division D of such Act.

7 SEC. 202. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

8 Section 270(b)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of

9 1961 (as added by section 201(a) and redesignated by sec10 tion 201(b) of this Act) is amended by striking ‘‘section

11 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961’’ and insert12 ing ‘‘section 634A of this Act’’.

Æ


28425i.AAY
99

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

TO H.R. 4014

OFFERED BY MR. HYDE OF ILLINOIS AND MR.

LANTOS OF CALIFORNIA

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

2 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

3 ‘‘Millennium Challenge Reauthorization Act of 2006’’.

4 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of

5 this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Purposes.

Sec. 3. Establishment and management of Millennium Challenge Corporation.

Sec. 4. Authorization of assistance.

Sec. 5. Millennium Challenge Compact.

Sec. 6. Congressional and public notification of Compact.

Sec. 7. Annual report.

Sec. 8. Powers of the Corporation; related provisions.

Sec. 9. Assistance to certain candidate countries.

Sec. 10. Authorization of appropriations.

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

7 Section 602(2) of the Millennium Challenge Act of

8 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘eco9 nomic growth’’ and all that follows and inserting the fol10 lowing: ‘‘the reduction of poverty through sustainable,

11 broad-based economic growth, including by strengthening


28425j.AAB
100

2

H.L.C.

1 good governance, promoting economic opportunities, and

2 investing in people, as needed.’’.

3 SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF MILLEN4 NIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION.

5 Section 604(b)(2) of the Millennium Challenge Act

6 of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2)) is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘APPOINTMENT’’ and all that

8 follows through ‘‘the Chief Executive Officer shall be

9 appointed’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘APPOINT10 MENT.—The Chief Executive Officer shall be ap11 pointed’’; and

12 (2) by striking subparagraph (B).

13 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE.

14 (a) ASSISTANCE.—Section 605(a) of the Millennium

15 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7704(a)) is amended

16 by striking ‘‘in achieving lasting economic growth and pov17 erty reduction’’ and inserting ‘‘in reducing poverty

18 through sustainable, broad-based economic growth, includ19 ing by strengthening good governance, promoting eco20 nomic opportunities, and investing in people, as needed,’’.

21 (b) LIMITATIONS.—Section 605(e)(4) of the Millen22 nium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7704(e)(4)) is

23 amended in the second sentence—

24 (1) by striking ‘‘eleventh and fourteenth pro25 visos’’ and inserting ‘‘eighth and twelfth provisos’’;


28425j.AAC
101

3

H.L.C.

1 (2) by striking ‘‘division E of Public Law 108–

2 7 (117 Stat. 162)’’ and inserting ‘‘Public Law 109–

3 102 (119 Stat. 2174–2176)’’; and

4 (3) by striking ‘‘2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2007’’.

5 SEC. 5. MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE COMPACT.

6 (a) ELEMENTS.—Section 609(b)(1) of the Millen7 nium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7708(b)(1)) is

8 amended—

9 (1) in subparagraph (D), by adding at the end

10 before the semicolon the following: ‘‘, and an anal11 ysis of how the intended beneficiaries will participate

12 in, or be impacted by, each project’’;

13 (2) in subparagraph (J), by striking ‘‘and’’ at

14 the end;

15 (3) in subparagraph (K), by striking the period

16 at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

17 (4) by adding at the end the following new sub18 paragraph:

19 ‘‘(L) an analysis of the extent to which

20 each project carried out under the Compact will

21 contribute to reducing poverty through sustain22 able, broad-based economic growth, including by

23 strengthening good governance, promoting eco24 nomic opportunities, and investing in people, as

25 needed.’’.


28425j.AAD
102

4

H.L.C.

1 (b) LOCAL INPUT.—Section 609(d) of the Millennium

2 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7708(d)) is amended—

3 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

4 end;

5 (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para6 graph (3); and

7 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol8 lowing new paragraph:

9 ‘‘(2) consults with the national legislature of

10 the eligible country; and’’.

11 (c) DURATION OF COMPACT.—Section 609(j) of the

12 Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7708(j)) is

13 amended—

14 (1) by striking ‘‘The duration’’ and inserting

15 the following:

16 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para17 graph (2), the duration’’; and

18 (2) by adding at the end the following new

19 paragraph:

20 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—

21 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A Compact shall not

22 include a project with a duration of more than

23 5 years unless the Board—

24 ‘‘(i) determines that the project can25 not be completed in 5 years or less; and


28425j.AAE
103

5

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(ii) approves a duration for the

2 project of not more than 10 years.

3 ‘‘(B) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.—

4 Not later than 15 days after the Board ap5 proves a duration for a project pursuant to sub6 paragraph (A)(ii), the Board, acting through

7 the Chief Executive Officer, shall submit to the

8 appropriate congressional committees a notifica9 tion of such approval, including a detailed ex10 planation for the determination and approval.’’.

11 (d) CONCURRENT AND SUBSEQUENT COMPACTS.—

12 Section 609 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22

13 U.S.C. 7708) is amended—

14 (1) by striking subsection (k); and

15 (2) by inserting at the end the following new

16 subsection:

17 ‘‘(k) CONCURRENT AND SUBSEQUENT COMPACTS.—

18 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the require19 ments of paragraph (2), and in accordance with the

20 requirements of this title, an eligible country and the

21 United States—

22 ‘‘(A) may enter into and have in effect not

23 more than two Compacts at any given time

24 under this section; and


28425j.AAF
104

6

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(B) may enter into subsequent Compacts

2 after the expiration of the existing Compact or

3 Compacts.

4 ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—

5 ‘‘(A) CONCURRENT COMPACTS.—An eligi6 ble country and the United States may enter

7 into a concurrent Compact only if the Board

8 determines that the country is making consider9 able and demonstrable progress in imple10 menting the terms of its existing Compact and

11 supplementary agreements thereto.

12 ‘‘(B) SUBSEQUENT COMPACTS.—An eligi13 ble country and the United States may enter

14 into subsequent Compacts if the Board deter15 mines that the country substantially met the

16 objectives of prior Compacts between the coun17 try and the United States and supplementary

18 agreements thereto.’’.

19 (e) EFFECTIVE DATES.—

20 (1) AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ENTRY INTO

21 COMPACT.—The amendments made by subsections

22 (a) and (b) apply with respect to Compacts entered

23 into between the United States and an eligible coun24 try under the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22

25 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) on or after October 1, 2006,


28425j.AAG
105

7

H.L.C.

1 or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever

2 occurs later.

3 (2) AMENDMENTS RELATING TO DURATION AND

4 TYPE OF COMPACT.—The amendments made by sub5 sections (c) and (d) apply with respect to Compacts

6 entered into between the United States and an eligi7 ble country under the Millennium Challenge Act of

8 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) before, on, or after

9 the date of the enactment of this Act.

10 SEC. 6. CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF

11 COMPACT.

12 (a) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO SIGN13 ING A COMPACT.—Section 610 of the Millennium Chal14 lenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7709(a)) is amended—

15 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub16 section (c); and

17 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol18 lowing new subsection:

19 ‘‘(b) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO

20 SIGNING A COMPACT.—Not later than 15 days prior to

21 signing a Compact with an eligible country, the Board,

22 acting through the Chief Executive Officer, shall provide

23 notification of the proposed Compact, including a detailed

24 summary of the Compact and a copy of the text of the

25 Compact, to the appropriate congressional committees in


28425j.AAH
106

8

H.L.C.

1 accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogram2 ming notifications under section 634A of the Foreign As3 sistance Act of 1961.’’.

4 (b) PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AFTER ENTERING INTO

5 A COMPACT.—Section 610(c) of the Millennium Challenge

6 Act of 2003 (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this

7 section) is amended by striking ‘‘Chief Executive Officer’’

8 and all that follows through ‘‘(2) shall publish’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘Chief Executive Officer shall publish such detailed

10 summary of the Compact in the Federal Register and shall

11 publish such detailed summary and the text of the Com12 pact (including a copy of any annexes or supplementary

13 agreements thereto) on the Internet website of the Cor14 poration.’’.

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

16 subsections (a) and (b) apply with respect to Compacts

17 approved pursuant to section 609(h) of the Millennium

18 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7708(h)) on or after

19 the date of the enactment of this Act.

20 SEC. 7. ANNUAL REPORT.

21 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 613(b) of the Millennium

22 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7712(b)) is amended

23 by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

24 ‘‘(6) A description of recruitment and employ25 ment of members of minority groups at the CorporaVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425j.AAI
107

9

H.L.C.

1 tion, including, to the maximum extent practicable,

2 the numbers and percentages of members of all mi3 nority groups who have been recruited by and em4 ployed at the Corporation during the prior fiscal

5 year.

6 ‘‘(7) A description of the extent to which the re7 quirement of section 614(h) has been met for the

8 prior fiscal year, including, to the maximum extent

9 practicable, information on—

10 ‘‘(A) the numbers and percentages of

11 small, minority-owned, or disadvantaged busi12 ness enterprises that provide goods and services

13 that are financed with funds made available

14 under section 609(g), section 614(g), and sec15 tion 616 during such prior fiscal year;

16 ‘‘(B) the total number of contracts with

17 such business enterprises for such purposes

18 during such prior fiscal year;

19 ‘‘(C) the total dollar value of such con20 tracts; and

21 ‘‘(D) the percentage value represented by

22 such contracts proportionate to the total value

23 of all contracts held by the Corporation that are

24 financed with funds made available under secVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

28425j.AAJ
108

10

H.L.C.

1 tion 609(g), section 614(g), and section 616

2 during such prior fiscal year.’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 subsection (a) applies with respect to the report required

5 to be submitted to Congress under section 613 of the Mil6 lennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7712) for fiscal

7 year 2007 and each subsequent fiscal year.

8 SEC. 8. POWERS OF THE CORPORATION; RELATED PROVI9 SIONS.

10 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 614 of the Millennium

11 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7713) is amended by

12 adding at the end the following new subsection:

13 ‘‘(h) PARTICIPATION OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES

14 BUSINESSES.—To the maximum extent practicable, the

15 President, acting through the Chief Executive Officer,

16 shall ensure that United States small, minority-owned,

17 and disadvantaged business enterprises fully participate in

18 the provision of goods and services that are financed with

19 funds made available under section 609(g), subsection (g)

20 of this section, and section 616.’’.

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

22 subsection (a) applies with respect to funds made available

23 under the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C.

24 7701 et seq.) for fiscal year 2007 and each subsequent

25 fiscal year.


28425j.AAK
109

11

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 9. ASSISTANCE TO CERTAIN CANDIDATE COUNTRIES.

2 Section 616(d) of the Millennium Challenge Act of

3 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7715(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘for fis4 cal year 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘for a fiscal year’’.

5 SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

6 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 619(a) of the Millennium

7 Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7718(a)) is amended

8 by striking ‘‘fiscal years 2004 and 2005’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘fiscal years 2007 through 2009’’.

10 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—The amendment

11 made by subsection (a) shall not be construed to affect

12 the availability of funds appropriated pursuant to the au13 thorization of appropriations under section 619 of the Mil14 lennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7718(a)) be15 fore the date of the enactment of this Act.


28425j.AAL
110

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. 

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 NonAligned 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 

111

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. 

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. 

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. 

112

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. 

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 NonProliferation 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. 

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 conVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
113

trol 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. 

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, 

114

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. 

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. 

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. 

115

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. 

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. 

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:]

116

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. 

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 


28425k.eps
117

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. 

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. 

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. 

118

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-massdestruction 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. 

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 NonProliferation 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. 

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. 

119

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 StatesIndia 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. 

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 signaVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
120

ture and India was only months away from possessing nuclear 

weapons. 

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. 

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 StatesIndia 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. 

121

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. 

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. 

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 

122

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. 

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? 

123

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. 

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. 

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 

124

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. 

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. 

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 

125

indeed be able to get along and make sure that we are working collectively together for the benefit of all people. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

126

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. 

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. 

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:]

127

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. ll

OFFERED BY MR. CROWLEY OF NEW YORK

In section 4(o), add at the end the following new

paragraph:

1 (3) NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS OR FACILITIES.—

2 Not later than one year after the date of the enact3 ment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Presi4 dent shall submit to the Committee on International

5 Relations of the House of Representatives and the

6 Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a re7 port describing any new nuclear reactors or nuclear

8 facilities that the Government of India has des9 ignated as civilian and placed under inspections or

10 has designated as military.


28425l.AAB
128

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 memberVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
129

ship 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. 

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. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Engel of New York? 

130

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. 

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 

131

making sure that this United States-India agreement goes well and 

sticks. 

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——

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the 

amendment is dispensed with. 

[The amendment of Mr. Berman follows:]

132

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. ll

OFFERED BY MR. BERMAN OF CALIFORNIA

In section 4(b), add at the end the following new

paragraph:

1 (8) India—

2 (A) is adhering to a unilateral moratorium

3 on the production of fissile material for nuclear

4 weapons;

5 (B) is adhering to a multilateral morato6 rium on the production of fissile material for

7 nuclear weapons; or

8 (C) has signed and is adhering to a multi9 lateral treaty prohibiting the production of

10 fissile material for nuclear weapons.


28425m.AAB
133

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? 

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. 

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. 

134

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. 

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. 

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. 

135

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. 

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. 

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? 

136

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. 

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. 

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 

137

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.’’

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. 

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 

138

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. 

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. 

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 

139

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. 

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. 

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? 

Mr. Schiff? 

140

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. 

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? 

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 counVerDate Mar 21 2002 12:12 Nov 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062706M\28425.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
141

tries 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. 

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. 

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? 

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? 

142

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? 

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? 

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? 

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? 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes yes. 

Mr. Ackerman? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. No. 

143

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. 

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? 

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. 

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. 

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? 

144

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. 

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. 

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:]

145

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. ll

OFFERED BY MR. BERMAN OF CALIFORNIA

In section 4, insert after subsection (e) the following

new subsection:

1 (f) LIMITATION ON NUCLEAR TRANSFERS TO

2 INDIA.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nu3 clear transfers under an agreement for nuclear coopera4 tion with India (arranged pursuant to section 123 of the

5 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153)) shall not

6 include source material and special nuclear material (as

7 defined in section 11 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2014)) unless

8 the President determines that India—

9 (1) is adhering to a unilateral moratorium on

10 the production of fissile material for nuclear weap11 ons;

12 (2) is adhering to a multilateral moratorium on

13 the production of fissile material for nuclear weap14 ons; or

15 (3) has signed and is adhering to a multilateral

16 treaty prohibiting the production of fissile material

17 for nuclear weapons.


28425n.AAB
146

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. 

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. 

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——

147

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. 

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. 

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. 

148

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. 

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? 

[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? 

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. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Barrett votes no. 

Mr. Mack? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry? 

149

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? 

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? 

[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? 

[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.] 

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. 

150

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? 

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. 

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. 

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:]

151

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. 

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? 


28425o.eps
152

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. 

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? 

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. 

Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the Royce amendment. 

All those in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

153

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. 

[The amendment of Mr. Sherman follows:]

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——

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——


28425p.eps
154

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading is dispensed 

with. 

[The amendment of Mr. Sherman follows:]

155

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. ll

OFFERED BY MR. SHERMAN OF CALIFORNIA

Section 4(b) is amended by adding at the end the

following new paragraph:

1 (8) The amount of domestic uranium used in

2 India’s military program during a 12-month period

3 ending on the date of the determination is equal to

4 or less than the amount of domestic uranium used

5 in India’s military program during the 12-month pe6 riod ending on July 18, 2005.

In section 4, insert after subsection (o) the following

new subsection (and redesignate subsequent subsections

accordingly):

7 (p) ANNUAL CERTIFICATION; TERMINATION OF CO8 OPERATION.—Nuclear cooperation with India shall be ter9 minated unless one year after making the determination

10 described in subsection (b)(8), and annually thereafter,

11 the president certifies that during the previous 12-month

12 period the amount of domestic uranium used in India’s

13 military program is equal to or less than the amount of

14 domestic uranium used in India’s military program during

15 the 12-month period ending on July 18, 2005.


28425q.AAB
156

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. 

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. 

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. 

157

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. 

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. 

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 

158

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? 

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. 

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. 

159

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? 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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? 

160

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? 

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? 

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? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown? 

[No response.] 

Ms. RUSH. 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? 

[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? 

161

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. 

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? 

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. 

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. 

Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment. 

162

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:]

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. 

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 


28425r.eps
163

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? 

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. 

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 

164

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. 

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? 

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. 

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. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes no. 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. Tancredo? 

165

Mr. Tancredo. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes no. 

Mr. Paul? 

Mr. PAUL. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul votes no. 

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? 

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? 

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? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

mr. MCCAUL. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Poe? 

[No response.] 

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. 

166

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. 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? 

[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.] 

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? 

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? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

167

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. 

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:]

168

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. 

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. 


28425s.eps
169

[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 

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:]

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. 

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 


28425t.eps
170

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. 

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. 

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 

171

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. 

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. 

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? 

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 

172

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.] 

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. 

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.] 

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? 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes no. 

Mr. Weller? 

Mr. WELLER. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes no. 

173

Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes no. 

Mr. McCotter? 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes yes. 

Ms. Harris? 

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.] 

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. 

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? 

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. 

174

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes yes. 

Mr. Meeks? 

Mr. MEEKS. Yes. 

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.] 

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? 

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. 

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? 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gallegly inquires how he is recorded. 

175

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. 

[The amendment of Ms. Berkley follows:]

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? 

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:]


28425u.eps
176

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5682

OFFERED BY MR. SCHIFF OF CALIFORNIA

In section 3(b), add at the end the following new

paragraph:

1 (6) Pending implementation of a multilateral

2 moratorium, encourage India not to increase its pro3 duction of fissile material at unsafeguarded nuclear

4 facilities.

In section 4(c)(2), add at the end the following new

subparagraph:

5 (I) A description of the steps taken to en6 sure that proposed United States civil nuclear

7 assistance to India will not directly, or in any

8 other way, assist India’s nuclear weapons pro9 gram, including—

10 (i) the use of any United States

11 equipment, technology, or nuclear material

12 by India in an unsafeguarded nuclear facil13 ity or nuclear-weapons related complex;

14 (ii) the replication and subsequent use

15 of any United States technology in an

16 unsafeguarded nuclear facility or


28425v.AAB
177

2

H.L.C.

1 unsafeguarded nuclear weapons-related

2 complex, or for any activity related to the

3 research, development, testing, or manu4 facture of nuclear explosive devices; and

5 (iii) the provision of nuclear fuel in

6 such a manner as to facilitate the in7 creased production of highly-enriched ura8 nium or plutonium in unsafeguarded nu9 clear facilities.

In section 4(o)(2), add at the end the following new

subparagraph:

10 (C) UNSAFEGUARDED NUCLEAR FACILI11 TIES.—The report described in subparagraph

12 (A) shall also include (in a classified form if

13 necessary) a description of whether United

14 States civil nuclear assistance to India is di15 rectly, or in any other way, assisting India’s nu16 clear weapons program, including—

17 (i) the use of any United States

18 equipment, technology, or nuclear material

19 by India in an unsafeguarded nuclear facil20 ity or nuclear-weapons related complex;

21 (ii) the replication and subsequent use

22 of any United States technology in an

23 unsafeguarded nuclear facility or


28425v.AAC
178

3

H.L.C.

1 unsafeguarded nuclear weapons-related

2 complex, or for any activity related to the

3 research, development, testing, or manu4 facture of nuclear explosive devices; and

5 (iii) the provision of nuclear fuel in

6 such a manner as to facilitate the in7 creased production of highly-enriched ura8 nium or plutonium in unsafeguarded nu9 clear facilities.


28425v.AAD
179

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. 

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? 

[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. 

180

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? 

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. 

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? 

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. 

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. 

181

Mr. Royce? 

Mr. ROYCE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes yes. 

Mr. King? 

[No response.] 

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. 

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. 

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? 

[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? 

182

Mr. LANTOS. Yes. 

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? 

[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? 

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. 

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. 

Ms. McCollum? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Aye. 

Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes yes. 

183

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? 

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? 

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. 

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. 

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. 

184

Mr. Royce? 

Mr. ROYCE. Yes. 

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes yes. 

Mr. King? 

[No response.] 

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. 

Ms. Davis? 

[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. 

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? 

[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. 

185

Ms. RUSH. Mr. Poe votes no. 

Mr. Lantos? 

Mr. LANTOS. Yes. 

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? 

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.] 

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? 

[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. 

Ms. McCollum? 

186

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. 

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? 

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.] 

(187)

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. 

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. 

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.

Æ