Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is my understanding that a member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) offered an amendment in committee that was passed on voice vote. However, upon further reflection, I understand the Member has asked that the amendment language be removed. And what is happening here is that the committee is honoring that request. I would note, however, that the heart of the section 4(b)(7), and this is the section that the gentleman is concerned about, which states that the President must determine that the Nuclear Suppliers Group has decided by consensus, that remains intact, and that is the practice at the NSG. And let me just quote from the bill: ``The NSG has decided by consensus to permit supply to India of nuclear items covered by the guidelines of the NSG.'' So the heart of the determination remains intact. And, again, the removal of that particular language was at the request of a member of the committee, Mr. Sherman of California, who offered the original amendment that was accepted in committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the only change in this amendment is to name this bill after our distinguished chairman, Henry Hyde. The underlying amendment contains a series of technical and conforming changes which were needed to ensure the bill was properly drafted. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Hyde-Lantos amendment made in order by the rule be modified in the form which I have caused to be placed at the desk.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Hyde, I offer the Hyde-Lantos amendment which is made in order by the rule.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I would make several points. One, in terms of the program that is being laid out in the Washington Post, I think it was this Monday, explaining Pakistan's ambitions with respect to its nuclear buildup, that is clearly not something that can be characterized as a reaction to this new initiative with India. The reason I say that is because a careful reading of that Washington Post report shows that the construction of this very facility site began in the year 2000. The construction of the facility began 6 years ago. I will also point out that the supposition that it could be used for 40 to 50 nuclear bombs a year, the information we have is that is probably two or three. Yet the very existence of the facility itself shows why a fissile cutoff is, frankly, not practical to enforce, to attempt to enforce on India, except through negotiation. And I think, lastly, in conclusion, the attempt to equate Pakistan's efforts, now 6 years old, and tie that and say that that is in response to a deal that we are negotiating with India of less than a year old is clearly not germane to the argument that we have before us today. So I oppose the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, you know, while the United States is, in fact, leading the way on this agreement, it is a multilateral agreement in the sense that the NSG, 45 nations, must concur with this agreement; and Congress must approve a nuclear cooperation agreement that the administration is negotiating with India before technology is actually transferred. So I also want to make the point here that Congress is going to have a second crack at this agreement when it comes back. But here is the choice that we face: Either we continue to try to box in India and hope for the best, or we make this move, we engage India, and we hope to use our influence to move this increasingly important country in our direction. And this will help make India a true partner, a true partner as we enter what will be a decades-long struggle, I fear, against Islamist terrorism. This is not an ideal agreement, and the administration should be more aggressively pursuing an international fissile material cutoff. But this agreement is a good one which works through a difficult nonproliferation situation to strengthen an important relationship for us. That is why I ask my colleagues to approve this legislation. Frankly, it is a chance to strengthen an important relationship for us at a time when we need more strong relationships, especially with regional powers such as India; and, I will remind my colleagues, it strengthens a relationship with a democracy, based on the rule of law, a democracy that has a good record on nonproliferation. This deal is controversial in India. The coalition government of Prime Minister Singh has come under intense attack from the political extremes and from political opponents. He has been charged with selling out India, opening its nuclear facilities to international inspection, agreeing to check India's nuclear weapons production. So far the center has held. Let's not deliver India's Marxist and xenophobic forces a victory. They would like us to kill this deal. Let's pass this legislation. As Chairman Hyde argued and as the ranking member explained, let's pass this legislation. Let the administration negotiate a nuclear sharing agreement with India, and then look again and decide whether or not to proceed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, yes. I supported the gentleman's amendment in committee, and I will work with him to maintain it in the final bill.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. ROYCE. Any fuel reserve should be intended to give India protections against short-term fluctuations in the supply of nuclear fuel.

Mr. ROYCE. That is our understanding.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I supported the gentlewoman's amendment in committee. And while not necessarily concurring with all the views that she expressed in committee, I supported her amendment; and hers are helpful amendments which I will work to maintain in the final bill.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, allowing for a nuclear cooperation agreement with India. The last two administrations have forged closer ties with India. And India is a nation now of over 1 billion people. The last two administrations frankly have overcome the chilly relations of the Cold War with India. And last July's joint statement committed each country to a global partnership which has accelerated our cooperation on many issues, including on counterterrorism. As we saw 2 weeks ago, when a series of commuter train bombings hit Mumbai, killing over 200 Indian people, India is a frontline state in the struggle against Islamist terrorism. Congress has played a leading role promoting U.S.-India relations. There is an India Caucus which I cochaired in the 107th Congress. In 2001, I led a congressional delegation to India's earthquake-shattered Gujarat region. Other Members have focused on India. But nothing we have done is as significant as the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement that we are debating today. As our distinguished chairman has noted, the International Relations Committee has given this agreement close and extensive review. We held five hearings, which is certainly warranted given the high stakes. Supporters and detractors alike recognize the great significance of this policy shift that the Bush administration has engineered. I would like to commend Chairman Hyde. He took a weak administration legislative proposal, one dismissive of congressional prerogative and turned it around. I want to commend Ranking Member Lantos, too, for his detailed work on this challenging issue. While nuclear energy is controversial in the United States, it is not in India. Like in several other countries, nuclear energy is widely viewed as a critical technology, one central to uplifting hundreds of millions of impoverished Indians. So India will develop its nuclear energy sector, not as easily or as quickly without this deal, but it will nonetheless. And India will not relinquish its nuclear weapons at this point in time, which is understandable, given its security situation. So right now, many Indians view the United States as blocking India's technological and developmental aspirations by our opposition to their acquiring nuclear material and technology. With its growing economy, India is consuming more and more oil. It is competing on the world market, competing with American consumers for limited hydrocarbon resources. This gives Americans an interest in helping India expand its nuclear power industry, which this legislation does. It also encourages India to move away from burning its abundance of highly polluting coal. By passing this legislation, we also take a step toward internationalizing India's nuclear industry, which I believe would make it safer. Young Indian scientists and engineers in the nuclear field are interested in collaborating with their American counterparts. Today they are isolated. I would rather know more rather than less about India's nuclear work. Some have raised legitimate concerns about the impact of this agreement upon the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Indian nuclear weapons arsenal. I am not prepared, at this point, to call this agreement a nonproliferation plus, as some do, but neither is it the clear setback some opponents describe. For one, this agreement forces a separation between India's civilian and military nuclear programs. This is a good step. The agreement also is likely to increase India's cooperation with us in confronting countries seeking to break their NPT commitment by developing nuclear weapons. In my view, this agreement is more likely a wash in the nonproliferation category, while its broad benefits, primarily cultivating a more influential relationship with India, are big pluses.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina is indeed correct. It is our intent that section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act should apply prospectively to India. Should India conduct a nuclear test in the future, one likely consequence would be the discontinuation of nuclear fuel and technology sharing by the United States with India.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, recently the subcommittee on international terrorism and nonproliferation that I chair held a hearing on the growing Islamist terrorist threat in Somalia. The country's unsecured borders and proximity to the Arabian Peninsula provide a potential transit point and safe haven for terrorists there. Especially worrying is the powerful presence of the Union of Islamic Courts, which took over Mogadishu last month. This group is headed by a known associate of al Qaeda and aims to introduce Sharia law throughout Somalia. Mr. Speaker, we are living in an age in which threats in faraway places can hit us at home. The events unfolding in Somalia mark a critical point in our struggle against Islamist terrorism. Afghanistan is the lesson. I remember those on Afghanistan that said that the Taliban offered stability in that country because the country was deeply divided. I remember testifying that the Taliban and their support for terror training could lead to more World Trade Center-style attacks on America. That was 11 years ago. Now Somalia demands our focused attention.