International - India & World   

Endorsement followed intense debate on nuclear deal

Lawmakers move about a dozen amendments and some even insisted on a division

Washington: The four-hour debate to endorse the India-United States nuclear deal witnessed heated arguments in the House International Relations Committee with lawmakers moving about a dozen amendments and some even insisting on a division.

As the House assembled for the crucial meeting on Tuesday, House Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, who piloted the Bill seeking implementation of the deal, and Ranking member Tom Lantos made it clear that they were open to amendments but would not entertain any ``killer'' amendments that would wreck it.

The 50-member House Committee was debating legislation designed to make exemptions in the 1954 Atomic Energy Act to enable the U.S. to sell nuclear fuel and technology in return for non- proliferation and safeguard commitments from India. It passed the legislation 37-5.

While a host of amendments were introduced, three of them were defeated by a thumping majority, including one, which sought to add language in the Bill to the effect that India should sign the Non- Proliferation Treaty.

Some amendments were carried by a voice vote while others were rejected or approved in a bipartisan fashion.

Only one lawmaker withdrew his amendment that asked the U.S. to provide India only cost effective technology that had the ``least potential'' to develop weapons grade material. Dana Rohrabacher withdrew his amendment at the suggestion of Mr. Hyde.

The amendment proposed by Barbara Lee from California, which sought to add language in the Bill to the effect that India should sign the NPT, was defeated 36-4.

Another amendment came from senior Democrat member Howard Berman who pitched in for a Presidential determination that India is adhering to a unilateral moratorium on the production of fissile material and also to a multilateral moratorium on the production of fissile material.

Calling it a ``quintessential deal breaker,'' Mr. Lantos argued that the proposed legislation did not have as its intention disarmament of India and that the U.S. could not use New Delhi's strained civilian energy situation to squeeze its strategic programme.

``That choice must be made by India ... It is folly to think that we can force'' this requirement on India, Mr. Lanton, who was supported by Mr. Hyde, Gary Ackerman and Mr. Rohrabacher, said.

India was in a ``touch'' neighbourhood that had nuclear China and nuclear Pakistan, Mr. Ackerman said. Refuting the arguments, Mr. Berman said his idea was not to disarm India. The amendment went down 32-13.

Mr. Berman's second amendment also faced the same fate (32-12). It sought to place limitations on nuclear transfers unless a presidential determination was made regarding India's adherence to a unilateral moratorium on production of fissile material.

Mr. Berman's Democratic colleague, Brad Sherman, also moved two amendments. The first one, approved by a voice vote, said any decision of the Nuclear Suppliers Group would not permit civil nuclear commerce with any other non-nuclear weapons state that did not have IAEA safeguards ``within its territory, under its jurisdiction or carried out under its control anywhere.''

Killer amendment

But with Mr. Lantos terming it a ``killer amendment'' and Mr. Hyde expressing his opposition, Mr. Berman's second amendment was defeated in the House committee (32-10).

But Mr. Sherman suffered a setback when his second amendment — stipulating that the amount of domestic uranium used in India's military programme during a 12-month period ending on the date of determination is equal to or less than the amount of domestic uranium used in India's military programme during the 12-month period ending July 18, 2005 — was rejected.

The Committee approved by a voice vote the amendment brought by Joseph Crowley which stipulated that the President submit to the House and Senate international committees a report ``describing any nuclear reactors or nuclear facilities that India has designated as civilian and placed under inspection or has designated as military.''

It approved by a voice vote a proposal by Ed Royce that nothing in the Act or agreement pursuant to the Act should be interpreted as permitting any civilian nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and India that would encourage India to manufacture or acquire nuclear explosive devices. — PTI

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Palestinians flee as Israeli troops enter Gaza Strip
17 die as Navy, LTTE clash
Putin slams U.S.
More troops for war on terror: Pakistan
Pressure on E.U. members to own up renditions
Speculation rife about Pakistan's nominee
22 die in coalmine blast
Jail for Egyptian Editor
Endorsement followed intense debate on nuclear deal
Research: India, U.K. scientists to team up
We won't accept discriminatory treatment: Pakistan

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu