Recess Subject to the Call of the Chair

RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR -- (Senate - November 16, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last year President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ushered in a new era of cooperation between the United States and India on civilian nuclear energy. President Bush promised to seek the necessary changes in U.S. laws and policies to allow full cooperation and commerce in this area. In return, Prime Minister Singh has committed India to specific steps strengthening its adherence to various elements of the global nonproliferation regime. This agreement marks a historic milestone for U.S. relations with India, one of our most important friends, a natural ally, and a country that can be a close partner on a number of key issues including nuclear nonproliferation.

The legislation pending before us today is critically important because it sets the framework for Congress to consider a formal peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with India under section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. The Foreign Relations Committee passed this bill with strong bipartisan support shortly before the July 4th recess, and I hope the full Senate will follow suit. By passing this legislation, we will not only move the United States and India one step closer to energy cooperation but also send a clear message that a strong United States-India relationship is vital to both of our nations.

More and more, this bond is built on the bedrock of natural affinities--on shared interests and shared values. And it is no wonder--our two countries are natural partners. We should be partners in the war on terror, in the spread of democracy, in religious tolerance, in advancing technology, and in bringing stability and balance to Asia. In the post-9/11 world, we share interests and we share threats. India after all sees more terror attacks every year than any other country.

For a long time, South Asians and Americans have been extremely close--thanks to so many families spilt between the two countries and such a vibrant Indian-American community here at home. But now at last our Governments are finally catching up to our people and bringing our countries together.

I have long believed that it is in the interest of the United States and India to expand our strategic relationship. In 1994 I took a trade delegation from my home State of Massachusetts to India. It was clear to me that Cold War tensions had created a gulf between our nations that didn't serve either country. I believed then that India could and should be a critical American partner in South Asia. My subsequent trips in 1999 and again earlier this year have only reinforced that view.

With its strategic location in South Asia and its experience in maintaining a stable and religiously diverse democracy--India has nearly 150 Muslim citizens--India can be an important partner on a range of issues, from combating the threat of terrorism and proliferation to promoting democracy and regional security. Cooperating on the civilian nuclear front can help move this essential partnership forward.

I know from my discussions in India this past January with Prime Minister Singh and his National Security Adviser that they want our help in meeting India's energy needs. This is crucial if India is to continue to expand its economy and increase its stature as a major regional and global power. And they see this nuclear initiative, as we do, as an important foundation for our bilateral relationship.

And everywhere I went, I kept hearing from political leaders and businessmen just how important they consider American investment in India's economic future--and not just in technology. India wants our help. They see this nuclear initiative as a cornerstone of economic development and sensible energy policy, and I see it as a great chance for our countries to work together.

Civil nuclear cooperation is in India's interest, but it is also in ours. That is why during my trip to India in January I was one of the first Senators to express my support for the civil nuclear initiative in principle. Since then, I have been committed to working with my colleagues to find a way to make this deal work for all our interests. I am pleased that we have accomplished that with the legislation approved by the committee.

Obviously, there are ramifications for our nonproliferation efforts because for the first time we are agreeing to engage in nuclear cooperation with a country that has a nuclear weapons program but is not a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty or bound by its obligations. We cannot gloss over the fact that this is an unprecedented step. But it is not one taken lightly. I am convinced that this exception for India makes sense, despite its real costs, given India's record as a trustworthy steward of nuclear materials and technologies.

India can be an important ally in our global nonproliferation efforts, as demonstrated by their voting with us in the International Atomic Energy Agency to try to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. And, of course, India is critical to any regional effort to cap fissile material production. India has made a number of positive commitments with respect to its nuclear program, such as separating its civil and military facilities, putting more of its civilian facilities under IAEA safeguards, and working with the United States to achieve a multilateral fissile material cutoff treaty.

I believe this bill we are considering today will encourage India to fulfill these commitments while still allowing for timely consideration by Congress of the bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement--the so-called section 123 agreement--when it is concluded by Indian and American negotiators. As I said when Secretary Rice testified before the committee on this deal in early April, it is critical for us to see the safeguards agreement that India reaches with the IAEA before taking action on the section 123 agreement between us and India. This bill ensures that we will. I am pleased that it includes my language clarifying that India's safeguards agreement with the IAEA must provide for safeguards ``in perpetuity,'' as India has said it would.

Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican Senator from Michigan, used to say that partisan politics ought to stop at the water's edge. Crafting this legislation was not easy, but I am pleased to say that we have thus far met Vandenberg's challenge. And we must continue to do so.

To reach agreement, we had to balance a number of critically important interests: building a strong and comprehensive relationship with India, furthering our global nonproliferation efforts, and protecting congressional prerogatives to act on nuclear cooperation agreements between the United States and other countries. I recognize that there are aspects of this legislation that some on both sides of the debate wish had come out differently, but on the whole, I believe the legislation the committee has sent to the Senate is a good-faith--and ultimately successful--effort to meet those needs.

One of the most important aspects of the balance in the bill before us is the requirement that Congress review the formal peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with India, which must be submitted under section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. The bill passed by the House includes procedures which would deny Congress a full right of review. Such an approach would undermine the balance we have struck in this bill. I believe it is essential that the Senate conferees insist upon the procedures in the Senate bill for the consideration of the 123 agreement. The Senate bill is a good bill, and our goal should be to enact as much of it as possible.

We have taken an important step forward for one of our most promising and important relationships in the years to come.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/