Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. We are now prepared to vote in relation to the Ensign amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes. Vote on Amendment No. 5181

Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, just for clarification, I ask unanimous consent that the Feingold and Boxer amendments be in order, notwithstanding adoption of the Harkin amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for his very important contributions to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the specific contributions he has made to the discussion of this legislation. Reluctantly, I rise in opposition to his amendment. In my judgment--and I don't use the term unadvisedly--this is truly a killer amendment. If accepted, it would require the United States and India to renegotiate the civilian nuclear agreement on which we are having our debate this evening. I state categorically: India has nuclear weapons. Let me repeat that: India has nuclear weapons and has stated its intent to keep them. The critical issue we must consider in examining each of the amendments that have come before us is whether the U.S. national security is advanced by engaging India and by increasing the IAEA oversight of the India nuclear program. I believe the answer is yes, and as a result I support this agreement and I oppose amendments such as the one now before us that would require renegotiation or make implementation of the agreement impossible. While the Feingold amendment appears harmless, it requires the President to certify that no form of the U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with India will in any way assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture or otherwise acquire more nuclear weapons in the future. This certification demanded by the amendment is impossible to make, and even if it could be made, it would be ineffective. How do we expect the President of the United States to predict the future? Clearly we do not expect, plan, or intend for this agreement to aid India's nuclear program. We have taken numerous steps to prevent this from happening. We are confident that we have already put the necessary provisions in place in this agreement. A Presidential certification as required by the amendment is a legal pledge to Congress. Senate bill 3709 requires a number of certifications, but it does so based upon information in the President's possession. We do not ask the President to predict the future or make a judgment when the necessary information is unavailable. This is not the first time the Senator from Wisconsin has offered this amendment. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 13 to 5 to defeat the same amendment during our markup of S. 3709. During the markup, the administration strongly opposed the amendment and expressed its view that it was a killer amendment. Senator Biden and I do not believe this amendment is necessary. We share the concerns Senator Feingold has expressed, but we believe we have addressed them in the committee-passed bill in a manner consistent with our agreement with India and in a way that avoids renegotiation. First, the United States is obligated by article I of the nonproliferation treaty not to engage in any nuclear cooperation that would assist India's nuclear weapons program. Nothing in the United States-India agreement violates this obligation. In reality, this agreement encourages India to produce fewer nuclear weapons by requiring more Indian facilities to be placed under IAEA safeguards. We must remember that the United States will not cooperate with any Indian facility, site, or location that is not under IAEA safeguards. In other words, the IAEA will have inspection rights at those places where U.S. exports are utilized. Second, S. 3709 requires that the IAEA safeguards be supplemented by bilateral end-use monitoring requirements under section 107. In other words, if the IAEA were forced to suspend their oversight of India's commitments, the administration is required to have a backup plan in place to ensure that American technologies and materials are not misused or misdirected to India's nuclear program. Third, the bill requires the President of the United States to inform Congress of any Indian violation of their commitments under the agreement. This preserves Congress's oversight role and permits us to act should Indian behavior require a reexamination of the cooperative agreement. Fourth, section 109 states that no authority under S. 3709 can be used to violate U.S. commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. U.S. contributions to the Indian nuclear program would be a blatant violation of this treaty commitment. Senator Biden and I thought it was critically important to reinforce the Senate's strong support for the NPT by insisting that our country continue to comply with its requirements. Lastly, sensitive transfers most likely to aid India's nuclear programs are prohibited by this bill. Section 106 forbids trade in enrichment, reprocessing, and heavy water technologies unless those transfers are under international supervision and then only to create proliferation-resistant versions. By prohibiting the transfer of these technologies, we ensure that U.S. assistance does not inadvertently assist India's weapons program. India is not required to declare to the IAEA any information on the production of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Its nuclear enrichment and processing plants will also be outside IAEA safeguards. Without access to this information, it will be impossible for the United States to evaluate Indian production of fissile material. Consequently, it is impossible to determine whether an increase in Indian military fissile material production occurred because of foreign nuclear reactor fuel supply. In fact, India's own uranium mining and milling will probably play a much larger role in any analysis on this subject. In sum, it is simply not possible to verify the relationship between the delivery of foreign fuel exports to India and the possibility of increases in Indian production of highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium, nor is it possible to analyze the relationship between future exports and domestic production. India is not required to share this information. The IAEA does not have access to these facilities. Requiring the President of the United States to certify something he has insufficient information to determine is unwise and potentially harmful, and the amendment clearly demands that the President make that certification. Congress will be kept completely informed on developments in this area through the existing reporting requirements of S. 3709. Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I oppose this amendment. I ask Senators to vote no when the roll is called. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we have had a good debate. I note the presence of the distinguished Senator from California on the floor, which prompts me to inquire of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin whether he requires additional time? If the Senator is prepared to yield back his time, I will yield back time on our side, and then we could proceed to debate on the amendment of the Senator from California and maybe to a closer time for final passage, for Members who are requesting this of all of us.

Mr. LUGAR. I will yield the time on our side.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have listened carefully, as all Members do, to the distinguished Senator from California, who is such a valuable member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And she has expressed some of the views which are contained in her statement this evening during the very important hearings the committee conducted. I will just say very clearly that Members on both sides of the aisle in committee felt that there were improvements that could occur with regard to the agreement, even if the agreement was negotiated in a fairly short period of time. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has taken ample time to work through this with the administration as well as with each other. I regret that we did not have unanimity in the committee on final passage. A vote of 16 to 2, however, indicated a very strong coming together, which clearly has been expressed on the floor of the Senate today in the votes on various amendments. But I must say that the amendment offered by the Senator from California is, in my judgment, a killer amendment. It goes far beyond the scope of the July 18 Joint Statement issued by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh. The amendment as written would not permit the U.S.-India agreement to go into effect until India abandoned its military-to-military contacts with Iran. This is a killer condition that, if adopted by Congress, would require renegotiation of the agreement. Few, if any, Members of Congress disagree with the sentiment expressed in this amendment; namely, that Iran is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently wrote in the Washington Post: Everything returns to the challenge of Iran. It trains, finances and equips Hezbollah, the state within a state in Lebanon. It finances and supports Moqtada al-Sadr's militia, the state within a state in Iraq. It works on a nuclear weapons program which would drive nuclear proliferation out of control and provides a safety net for the systemic destruction of at least the regional order. Iran is a critical challenge to U.S. diplomacy and global security. In this difficult environment the U.S. must cultivate a strong multilateral response to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorism. An effective solution to the Iranian threat must include India. Holding New Delhi to a different standard than our closest allies or other nations we engage in nuclear commerce does not appear to be the best way to secure their support. On April 5, 2006, Secretary Rice testified before the Committee on Foreign Relations that India has ``low level military-to-military contacts.'' She noted ``that there are a number of countries that have relations with Iran, and it's, of course, the sovereign right of a country to have relations with whomever they would like to have relations.'' She argues that the U.S. ``is not going to do better in pulling India toward us by insisting that they cut off relations with other states.'' She concluded that she didn't ``think that's going to work very effectively.'' The Secretary of State argues that the international community is changing its approach to Iran. She cites the exodus of banking and financial institutions. Perhaps most importantly she points out that India was the only member of the non-a1igned movement to vote for referral of the Iran to the U.N. Security Council for its illegal nuclear program. This was an important development because India was a founder and a longtime leader of the movement. Let me be clear, this amendment will reverse the important trend of countries distancing themselves from Tehran and future Indian multilateral nonproliferation cooperation. Some experts have indicated that this amendment could very well have the opposite effect, forcing New Delhi away from the U.S.-Indian Agreement. The administration has frequently made U.S. policy on Iran clear to the Indian Government. The U.S. has consistently expressed our desire for India's support of our efforts and policies. One of the unheralded diplomatic accomplishments of the 2005 Joint Statement is India's commitment to support international efforts to limit the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies, including to states such as Iran. I emphasize that point. If, in fact, we are deeply concerned--and I am, and the Senator from California certainly is--about the developments in Iran of a nuclear program and the commitment of India to work with us, to limit that spread of enrichment and reprocessing is very important. To deliberately take action which scuttles this agreement and indicates to the Indians that they can look elsewhere for partnership is to court disaster. l am pleased that India is committed to being a responsible member of the international community and it has made the decision that it is in its own national security interest to oppose Iran's weapons of mass destruction program. On a number of occasions the Indian-Iranian military relationship has been greatly exaggerated. This year an article alleged that India was providing military training for Iranian sailors. Secretary Rice responded that while Iranian ships have made port calls at India ports, she reported that New Dehli had denied that Iranian sailors had been trained in India. It is unfortunate that the Senator from California constructed the amendment in this manner. It would be more appropriate to address this issue in the sense of Congress section or as a statement of U.S. policy. If the amendment was modified in this manner, I am prepared to recommend that it be adopted by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, in its current form it makes it impossible for the President to meet the requirement and thus implementation is impossible. If this amendment is adopted, in my judgment, the United States-India agreement will be scuttled. That, I believe, would be a tragedy. I urge Senators to vote against the Boxer amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. I will yield whatever time the Senator will consume.

Mr. LUGAR. Do we have any time remaining on the opposition side?

Mr. LUGAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Missouri.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would inquire of the Chair if the existing order now calls for a 2-minute debate on the Feingold amendment prior to a rollcall vote on that amendment?

Mr. LUGAR. Further, I would ask the Chair for clarification: Does the 2-minute debate then occur on the Boxer amendment, after the rollcall vote on Feingold?

Mr. LUGAR. Then, finally, an additional 2-minute debate before final passage of the bill, after the Boxer amendment is voted on?

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair for that clarification. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that--the first rollcall vote, we understand, is 15 minutes--the subsequent rollcall votes be 10 minutes each.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. Senator Feingold is now recognized.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5187

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Iran is a critical challenge to the United States, our diplomacy, our global security, but in this very difficult environment the United States must cultivate a strong multilateral response to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons in support of terrorism. I simply point out that India was the only member of the nonaligned movement to vote for referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council for its illegal nuclear program. Holding India to a different standard than all of our other closest allies or nations with whom we engage in nuclear commerce does not appear to be a good way to secure their support. Let me be very clear: If this amendment is adopted, the India nuclear agreement is kaput. This is it. This is a killer amendment, and I ask for Senators to vote no.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. nonproliferation consequences

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. Under our bill, the full force of section 129 would apply to any Indian detonation of a nuclear explosive device, any termination or abrogation of IAEA safeguards by India, and material violation of IAEA safeguards by India, all would result under section 129 in the termination of nuclear exports to India.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, under our bill, the only requirement which is waived is that in section 123.a(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, for full- scope safeguards. India's 123 agreement would still have to meet the requirement of section 123.a(4), which requires that in the event of a test by India of a nuclear explosive device the United States shall have the right to request the return of supplies as you have stipulated.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, that is our understanding.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, I hope that would be the case.