12-09-2006, 03:37 PM
It appears we have finally made it
Quote:
US House passes landmark Indian nuke deal
Washington, Dec. 9 (PTI): A legislation on the landmark Indo-US civilian nuclear deal inched closer to its implementation when the US House of Representatives today approved it by an overwhelming majority.
The Senate now has to approve the Bill, the last step before it is sent to President George W Bush to sign into a law, ending India's three decade-long nuclear isolation.
The House of Representatives voted in favour of the Bill by a margin of 330-59 votes after an hour-long debate with Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde, and Ranking Member Tom Lantos backing it, while Massachussetts Democrat, Edward Markey, vehemently spoke against it.
The senate approval is likely to come either today or tomorrow and the President may sign the legislation into a law on Monday.
Introducing the reconciled version of the Bill, Henry J Hyde, argued that the Conference Report is a "judicious balance of competing priorities" and that the Conference had gone to "great lengths" to accommodate the concerns of the administration.
The end-product provides the President the authority he requires, protects Congressional prerogatives and strengthens the global non-proliferation regime, the Illinois Republican stressed.
An agreement to have the civilian nuclear deal was reached between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush here in July last year. The deal was finalised when Bush visited India in March this year.
The 'Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006' that would allow US civilian nuclear trade with India was finalised by lawmakers either removing or diluting the language of several provisions objected to by India.
The legisation once signed, would give exemption in American law to allow US civilian nuclear trade with India. The legislation was needed because US law prevents nuclear trade with countries like India that have not signed nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
There have been "substantial" changes in the language and in a manner that addressed many of the key concerns of India, but not all. A number of changes in the Conference Report take into account apprehensions of New Delhi on issues including End-Use Monitoring and Sequencing and Iran.
India now has to conclude a bilateral 123 agreement with the US, engage the IAEA, and seek changes to the rules of 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
During the debate, senior Democrat and incoming Chair of the House International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos, expressed strong support for the legislation and stressed that India is a pre-eminent state in South Asia and as such should be at the centre of America's foreign policy and attention.
"This expansion of peaceful nuclear trade with India will usher in a new partnership between India and the United States based on our shared objective of preventing the spread of dangerous nuclear technology to countries and groups that would use it for evil purposes," he added.
On Iran, while lawmakers have retained their concern and apprehensions, the language has been re-worked from that of the Senate version of November 16, 2006 that called for a Presidential determination that India is "fully and actively participating" in the US and international efforts to dissuade, sanction and contain Tehran for its nuclear programme consistent with UN Security Council Resolutions.
Analysts pointed that India's objections to the issue of sequencing has also been addressed. This had to do with a Determination in the Original Senate Bill that an agreement between India and the IAEA on the application of safeguards in perpetuity has entered into force.
The 74-page Bill says that for the Presidential determination to occur, "India and the IAEA have concluded all legal steps prior to signature by the parties of an agreement requiring the application of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity..."
Also on the issue of the Prohibition on Certain Exports and Re-Exports in the original Senate Version in Section 106, the Bill said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may not authorise licences for the export or re-export to India of any equipments, materials or technology related to the enrichment of uranium, the re-processing of spent fuel or the production of heavy water.
Participating in the debate, Lantos said the current legislation strikes the right balance between giving the president the necessary flexibility to negotiate the best agreement possible with New Delhi, while at the same time preserving Congressional oversight and the right of consent to the resulting agreement.
"This is a historic day for this House and for the United States. I urge my colleagues to give their full support to this conference report and to help usher in a new day in US-India relations," Lantos said.
But Massachussetts Democrat Edward Markey, who had objected to the Conference Report during discussion and vote on Rules, repeated his sentiments terming the legislation a "historic mistake" which will send all the wrong signals to countries like Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and Egypt.
"The message that they are receiving is that there is going to be a double-standard," Markey said going on to make his argument once again that the civilian nuclear deal freeze up the domestic reserves of India for it to divert in expanding its nuclear arsenals.
"What we are doing here is pouring fuel on fire. We are turning a blind eye to what is happening in South Asia," Markey argued.
During the course of his remarks, the Massachussetts politician said that Bush has done a far better job with Congress in negotiating the agreement than he has done so with India.
The arguments in favour of the legislation from Congressmen Hyde and Lantos found strong support from lawmakers across the aisle.
The Florida Republican and incoming Ranking Member, Ilena Ros Lehtien, argued that the Conference Report assembled by the Conferees of the House and the Senate achives a "difficult balance" between United States' relations with India and its non-proliferation activities.
Democratic Congressman, Dennis Kucinich, said the United States "cannot speak out of one side of its mouth and tell Iran and North Korea don't you dare go in that direction" toward building a nuclear weapons programme, and "on the other hand, give a blessing to that same kind of arrangement" with a friendly India.
An ardent supporter of India and former Co-Chair of the Congressional India Caucus, Gary Ackerman, said that the Conference Report transformed the relations between India and the United States.
"If you liked this Bill in January, then you will love this Conference Report," the New York Democrat said, adding that the report sent a clear message to the nuclear rogue states.
"Let them understand the message 'Be responsible. Be a good international actor. Be like India. Be a real democracy'," Ackerman said.
Barbara Lee, Democrat from California, opposed the Conference Report saying it leads to problems by way of doing lasting damage to more than 30 years of non-proliferation policies, brought about double standards, and set in dangerous precedents.
"There is no need to rush this Conference Report on the last day of the 109th Congress. We need to go back to the drawing board," she said.
Expressing strong support to the Conference Report and the legislation another strong supporter of India on Capitol Hill, Joseph Crowley, of New York argued that this legislation is ending India's isolation and bringing it in the non-proliferation tent.
Washington stopped nuclear cooperation with India after it conducted its first nucelar test in 1974.
The original House version of the Bill, passed in July, included Section (4)(d)(4) which, although non-binding, urged the President to lobby other nations against supplying nuclear fuel to India if the United States terminated its nuclear cooperation with India. New Delhi called this a "deal killer".
This section has been dropped from the final draft. Instead, a Sense of the Congress Section 102(13) says that the US should not seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any other country if the deal is terminated under US law.
The revised bill also excludes parts of Section 107(3) of the original Senate draft that mandated a specific course of action for fallback safeguards and end-use monitoring.
Congressman Jos Wilson, a former Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, hailed the solid show of support for the Bill in the House of Representatives.
The landmark legislation cleared the House with 194 Republicans and 136 Democrats joining in a bipartisan show of support to the Bill.
"I am pleased we have taken the last step toward solidifying a civil nuclear agreement with India. This Bill is vital to continuing a prosperous relationship between our countries and moving our non-proliferation efforts forward," Wilson said in a statement.
Unquote
Quote:
US House passes landmark Indian nuke deal
Washington, Dec. 9 (PTI): A legislation on the landmark Indo-US civilian nuclear deal inched closer to its implementation when the US House of Representatives today approved it by an overwhelming majority.
The Senate now has to approve the Bill, the last step before it is sent to President George W Bush to sign into a law, ending India's three decade-long nuclear isolation.
The House of Representatives voted in favour of the Bill by a margin of 330-59 votes after an hour-long debate with Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde, and Ranking Member Tom Lantos backing it, while Massachussetts Democrat, Edward Markey, vehemently spoke against it.
The senate approval is likely to come either today or tomorrow and the President may sign the legislation into a law on Monday.
Introducing the reconciled version of the Bill, Henry J Hyde, argued that the Conference Report is a "judicious balance of competing priorities" and that the Conference had gone to "great lengths" to accommodate the concerns of the administration.
The end-product provides the President the authority he requires, protects Congressional prerogatives and strengthens the global non-proliferation regime, the Illinois Republican stressed.
An agreement to have the civilian nuclear deal was reached between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush here in July last year. The deal was finalised when Bush visited India in March this year.
The 'Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006' that would allow US civilian nuclear trade with India was finalised by lawmakers either removing or diluting the language of several provisions objected to by India.
The legisation once signed, would give exemption in American law to allow US civilian nuclear trade with India. The legislation was needed because US law prevents nuclear trade with countries like India that have not signed nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
There have been "substantial" changes in the language and in a manner that addressed many of the key concerns of India, but not all. A number of changes in the Conference Report take into account apprehensions of New Delhi on issues including End-Use Monitoring and Sequencing and Iran.
India now has to conclude a bilateral 123 agreement with the US, engage the IAEA, and seek changes to the rules of 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
During the debate, senior Democrat and incoming Chair of the House International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos, expressed strong support for the legislation and stressed that India is a pre-eminent state in South Asia and as such should be at the centre of America's foreign policy and attention.
"This expansion of peaceful nuclear trade with India will usher in a new partnership between India and the United States based on our shared objective of preventing the spread of dangerous nuclear technology to countries and groups that would use it for evil purposes," he added.
On Iran, while lawmakers have retained their concern and apprehensions, the language has been re-worked from that of the Senate version of November 16, 2006 that called for a Presidential determination that India is "fully and actively participating" in the US and international efforts to dissuade, sanction and contain Tehran for its nuclear programme consistent with UN Security Council Resolutions.
Analysts pointed that India's objections to the issue of sequencing has also been addressed. This had to do with a Determination in the Original Senate Bill that an agreement between India and the IAEA on the application of safeguards in perpetuity has entered into force.
The 74-page Bill says that for the Presidential determination to occur, "India and the IAEA have concluded all legal steps prior to signature by the parties of an agreement requiring the application of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity..."
Also on the issue of the Prohibition on Certain Exports and Re-Exports in the original Senate Version in Section 106, the Bill said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may not authorise licences for the export or re-export to India of any equipments, materials or technology related to the enrichment of uranium, the re-processing of spent fuel or the production of heavy water.
Participating in the debate, Lantos said the current legislation strikes the right balance between giving the president the necessary flexibility to negotiate the best agreement possible with New Delhi, while at the same time preserving Congressional oversight and the right of consent to the resulting agreement.
"This is a historic day for this House and for the United States. I urge my colleagues to give their full support to this conference report and to help usher in a new day in US-India relations," Lantos said.
But Massachussetts Democrat Edward Markey, who had objected to the Conference Report during discussion and vote on Rules, repeated his sentiments terming the legislation a "historic mistake" which will send all the wrong signals to countries like Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and Egypt.
"The message that they are receiving is that there is going to be a double-standard," Markey said going on to make his argument once again that the civilian nuclear deal freeze up the domestic reserves of India for it to divert in expanding its nuclear arsenals.
"What we are doing here is pouring fuel on fire. We are turning a blind eye to what is happening in South Asia," Markey argued.
During the course of his remarks, the Massachussetts politician said that Bush has done a far better job with Congress in negotiating the agreement than he has done so with India.
The arguments in favour of the legislation from Congressmen Hyde and Lantos found strong support from lawmakers across the aisle.
The Florida Republican and incoming Ranking Member, Ilena Ros Lehtien, argued that the Conference Report assembled by the Conferees of the House and the Senate achives a "difficult balance" between United States' relations with India and its non-proliferation activities.
Democratic Congressman, Dennis Kucinich, said the United States "cannot speak out of one side of its mouth and tell Iran and North Korea don't you dare go in that direction" toward building a nuclear weapons programme, and "on the other hand, give a blessing to that same kind of arrangement" with a friendly India.
An ardent supporter of India and former Co-Chair of the Congressional India Caucus, Gary Ackerman, said that the Conference Report transformed the relations between India and the United States.
"If you liked this Bill in January, then you will love this Conference Report," the New York Democrat said, adding that the report sent a clear message to the nuclear rogue states.
"Let them understand the message 'Be responsible. Be a good international actor. Be like India. Be a real democracy'," Ackerman said.
Barbara Lee, Democrat from California, opposed the Conference Report saying it leads to problems by way of doing lasting damage to more than 30 years of non-proliferation policies, brought about double standards, and set in dangerous precedents.
"There is no need to rush this Conference Report on the last day of the 109th Congress. We need to go back to the drawing board," she said.
Expressing strong support to the Conference Report and the legislation another strong supporter of India on Capitol Hill, Joseph Crowley, of New York argued that this legislation is ending India's isolation and bringing it in the non-proliferation tent.
Washington stopped nuclear cooperation with India after it conducted its first nucelar test in 1974.
The original House version of the Bill, passed in July, included Section (4)(d)(4) which, although non-binding, urged the President to lobby other nations against supplying nuclear fuel to India if the United States terminated its nuclear cooperation with India. New Delhi called this a "deal killer".
This section has been dropped from the final draft. Instead, a Sense of the Congress Section 102(13) says that the US should not seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any other country if the deal is terminated under US law.
The revised bill also excludes parts of Section 107(3) of the original Senate draft that mandated a specific course of action for fallback safeguards and end-use monitoring.
Congressman Jos Wilson, a former Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, hailed the solid show of support for the Bill in the House of Representatives.
The landmark legislation cleared the House with 194 Republicans and 136 Democrats joining in a bipartisan show of support to the Bill.
"I am pleased we have taken the last step toward solidifying a civil nuclear agreement with India. This Bill is vital to continuing a prosperous relationship between our countries and moving our non-proliferation efforts forward," Wilson said in a statement.
Unquote