To amend Chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to establish a national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, India today is the preeminent state in South Asia. It is becoming a political and economic powerhouse of over 1.1 billion people with a thriving economy and a vibrant democracy. By these and other measures, India is a state that should be at the very center of our foreign policy and our attention. Regrettably, during the Cold War our two countries were unnaturally estranged by the dynamics of the international system. Slowly, during the 1990s our countries' interests began to converge and our relationship warmed.

Then, Mr. Speaker, 6\1/2\ years ago President Clinton made a historic trip to India and ushered in a new era of cooperation between our two great democratic nations. Washington and New Delhi have wisely built upon the foundations that President Clinton laid. Today they expand this mighty architecture of cooperation and friendship by approving, on a strongly bipartisan basis, the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006.

With this legislation, the House of Representatives steps forth into the spotlight to offer its judgment on one critical element of this new relationship, civilian nuclear cooperation, and it establishes the process by which Congress will in the near future review and vote on the final agreement to implement such cooperation. 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.

This is not the administration's bill, Mr. Speaker. Their original proposal sought to give the President complete authority to waive all restrictions under current law that would have complicated implementation of the U.S.-India nuclear trade and to severely limit congressional oversight by securing a preapproval for whatever agreement the U.S. and India conclude. There would have been no effective subsequent review by the Congress. By contrast, at our insistence, this 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.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report follows the model laid out in the Hyde-Lantos legislation overwhelmingly approved by the House last July. It ensures that Congress will have the final word on whether or not the final agreement for cooperation with India can become law. This conference report will provide the President with only partial authority to waive current provisions of U.S. law to allow peaceful nuclear-related trade with India to take place. But cooperation could only take place after Congress has approved the agreement of cooperation itself.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation will help fashion a partnership with India to further U.S. nonproliferation goals. The passage of the conference report will also adopt the implementing legislation for the U.S.-IAEA additional protocol. That legislation will finally allow us to bring that protocol in force which will promote the U.S. goal of all states adopting the enhanced safeguards contained in the additional protocol.

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day for this House and for the United States. I urge all of my colleagues to give their full support to this conference report and to help usher in a new day in U.S.-India relations.

Mr. Speaker, it is only fitting that on the last day of this session of Congress, Chairman Hyde is chairing a bipartisan agreement done with cooperation in both Chambers. H.R. 5682 represents the right way of legislating, ample preparation, consideration of all ideas, bipartisan cooperation, cordial relations with the other body, and keen attention to institutional prerogatives. It is especially fitting that it will be forever identified with the outgoing chairman of the House International Relations Committee. And if it weren't for his astonishing array of accomplishments, the Henry J. Hyde United States- India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act could easily become known as the crowning achievement of the gentleman from Illinois.

But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, this groundbreaking legislation is but one of the innumerable milestones in Henry Hyde's impressive record of public service. Henry is retiring from Congress after choosing not to seek a 17th consecutive term. He would have loved to stay with us longer, but as he recently told an interviewer, Father Time and Mother Nature have a way of beating up on me.

By contrast, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that history will be kind to Henry Hyde. A member of the International Relations Committee since 1982, Henry has been a key figure in crucial debates and decisions about war and peace, international arms control, the expansion of NATO, United Nation's reform, and halting the spread of HIV/AIDS, which he has astutely compared to the bubonic plague in its tragic scope.

Henry has also served with great distinction on the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committees, but I will let another speak to his achievements there, and of course the continued, devoted support by his constituents through 16 terms in Congress speak volumes about his work on behalf of his district.

It was in the political caldron of Chicago that Henry Hyde became entranced with politics early in life. He grew up as an Irish Catholic Democrat, but strayed from the faith in time to vote for Dwight David Eisenhower for President, so he became a Republican sometime in the 1940s.

But, Mr. Speaker, I prefer not to dwell on the things that divide me from my dear friend, Henry Hyde. Rather, I would like to point out that both of us came of age during the Second World War, and this has formed our world views and forged our common value, and it is on this basis that we have often seen eye to eye and found ourselves shoulder to shoulder in struggles that consistently have been of service to our national security from the intricacies of key institutional agreements to the staggeringly complex issues involved in the fight against global terrorism.

Henry has held a firm grip on the gavel in the International Relations Committee these past 6 years, through some of the most pivotal and riveting challenges of our times. He wielded his authority with fairness, intellectual honesty and no small amount of wit. As The Washington Post noted in 1998, he has managed to maintain a reputation for evenhandedness, for patience and restraint, a remarkable feat for someone known both for his savagely held beliefs and for his keen sense which way the wind blows.

Mr. Speaker, the International Relations Committee flourished under Henry Hyde's direction. It will be daunting for me to take up the gavel as Henry Hyde leaves us, Mr. Speaker. Anyone who knows him will understand how much Henry will be missed in our committee and in this House.

Earlier this week, we commemorated Henry's contributions by lending his name to a room in this very building of the Capitol. He will, therefore, always have a place here, and what is far more important, he will have a place in the hearts of his colleagues.

Some of us may disagree with some of his policies, but he is one of the institutional treasures around here, a true gentleman of the House.

Mr. Speaker, section 104(b)(2) requires that the President determine that India and the IAEA have completed all legal steps required prior to signature for an IAEA-India safeguards. That agreement must apply safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with IAEA standards, principles and practices. It references IAEA Board of Governors Document GOV/1621 (1973) as one of the IAEA guiding documents relating to standards for perpetuity of safeguards. I attach that document for the Record.

Safeguards

(b) THE FORMULATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN AGREEMENTS UNDER THE

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), a senior distinguished member of the International Relations Committee and one of our outstanding experts on U.S.-India relations.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of the International Relations Committee, my good friend, a recognized expert on U.S.-India relations.

Yes, we do.

We are very grateful for your gesture. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

I share my opponent's concern about the danger of nuclear proliferation. This legislation is the exact opposite of nuclear proliferation. It opens up for the first time in history all of India's current civilian nuclear plants and all future nuclear plants to international control. This is a control measure. It is a measure which will dramatically enhance the historic strategic cooperation between the democratic state of India and the United States of America. When historians will look at this historic vote we are about to take, they will view this as the most significant vote for democracy, peace, and control of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.

The Senate voted 85 to 15 for this legislation. It passed the House on a bipartisan basis, overwhelmingly. Tonight we have an opportunity to reaffirm that vote, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim the time in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

First, let me begin by complimenting the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde. Like Mr. Hyde, I was born a Democrat and baptized a Catholic just 7 days later. So I know how big a decision it must have been to have abandoned that Democratic birthright. But he has been a historic figure in this institution. I want to associate myself with everything that the gentleman from California said about you.

But I do believe that this bill is a historic mistake. The world is looking at this institution this evening. It is wondering what in the world the United States is thinking in giving an exemption to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act to a country which is a nonsignatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

What is the signal that that will send to Pakistan? What is the signal that that will send to Iran, to Syria, to Egypt, to Venezuela, to North Korea? What is the signal that we are sending with regard to the entire nuclear nonproliferation regime which has served this world well since the 1960s?

I think that the message they are receiving is that there is going to be a double standard, and a double standard which, unfortunately, from my perspective, is going to lead to a rapid escalation of the development of nuclear weapons programs in country after country around the world.

Right now, India has a nuclear weapons program that experts estimate produces approximately 7 per year. Because the nuclear fuel, which this bill will make possible, frees up the domestic uranium supply in India, experts estimate that it will increase to 40 to 50 the number of nuclear weapons which India can produce per year, because we, the United States, in passing this legislation, will ensure the supply of their civilian nuclear energy needs.

Why should we care about that? Well, the reason that we should care about that is that Pakistan is now developing and building their own nuclear material production facility, which experts indicate will increase from two to three nuclear bombs per year to 40 to 50 nuclear bombs per year. That is what a nuclear arms race looks like. That is what the nuclear arms race between the United States and Soviet Union looked like in the 1950s, in the 1960s and in the 1970s, and what we are doing out here is pouring fuel onto this fire, rather than calling an international conference to bring together these parties and others in order to put in place a real nuclear weapons control regime. Instead we are turning a blind eye to the reality of what is going on in the South Asian continent.

So, ladies and gentlemen, this is a historic moment, a moment that we will look back on, not perhaps tomorrow, or next week, but 5 years from now, 10 years from now. People will point back to this night, this last night of the Republican control of Congress, this last night when the Republican-controlled House and Senate can produce for President Bush this anti-nuclear weapons control policy that he has been engaging in for the last 6 years and say this was the moment that crossed the line where ever country said to themselves, why should we, as signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, abide by those rules when the United States selectively gives exemptions to countries that are not signatories to the nuclear nonproliferation policy.

You cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. The hypocrisy coefficient is at historic heights when the United States believes that the rest of the world will listen to us as we preach that they should not be interested in nuclear weapons, even as they are helping to facilitate the Indians in developing an ever greater capacity to produce nuclear weapons inspect that country.

Why should we care? We should care because A. Q. Khan, the nuclear Johnny Appleseed, the nuclear Pied Piper, who spread nuclear weapons from North Korea through the Middle East, is still living in Pakistan, living in a palace, still not in prison. His associates, his men, still walking the streets of Pakistan. Al Qaeda is headquartered in Pakistan, still unapprehended.

What is the message that we are sending? We are sending a message that the nuclear arms sellers are back on the road, selling to anyone who will purchase. That is the message that we are sending.

So tonight is a historic vote. It is a vote that will be looked back at as one of the most important that we have ever cast here in Congress. Sadly, it is

not going to receive even a fraction of the attention which it deserves.

But I tell you this, ladies and gentlemen, when and if this nuclear war breaks out, we will look back. At least we should be able to say we tried, we really tried to put an end to the nuclear arms race on the South Asian continent. This is what this debate tonight is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/6\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, could you advise us how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Could we get a final review here of where we are, Mr. Speaker?

I am the last speaker, so I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This is an historically bad deal. President Bush has done a far better job in negotiating with the Congress to gain acceptance for this deal than he did with the Indians and getting them to accept the essentials of a real nuclear nonproliferation agreement.

In this agreement, as we send nuclear materials to India and free up so that the Russians and others can do so as well, here is what is not inspected: Six of India's plutonium-producing reactors will not be inspected. Their heavy-water production facets, not inspected. Plutonium separation facilities, not inspected. Uranium mines, not inspected. Uranium enrichment facilities, not inspected. In other words, their nuclear weapons program, not inspected.

This is the deal which we are cutting. This is the deal which the Congress is being asked tonight to bless. Do you know who would accept a deal like that? A.Q. Kahn would accept a deal like that for Pakistan. In fact, President Musharraf of Pakistan said to President Bush on his visit to Pakistan right after his visit to India, he said to President Bush, ``I too would like that deal that you are offering to India.'' President Bush said, ``We cannot give you that deal.''

What are we going to say when China offers that deal to Pakistan? Because they will, ladies and gentlemen. What will we say when all of those plutonium-producing reactors are not inspected? What will we say in 2 years when the Russians offer that same deal to the Iranians? What will we say to the Russians, to the Iranians?

If we don't set the standard for nuclear nonproliferation here in the United States in our negotiations with our allies, do not expect there to be higher standards in the negotiations between the Chinese and their allies or the Russians and their allies. Wherever we set the standard, that is going to be the global standard. And when we turn to these other countries and we tell them, no, your standards are not high enough, they are going to call us hypocrites.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is an historic night, it is an historic vote. People will look back at this as the moment when the nuclear nonproliferation regime of the world was destroyed. Vote ``no''. Vote ``no'' for history. Vote ``no'' for your conscience. When you look back, this will be one of those moments when you are glad that you voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, and I believe this may be Mr. Hyde's last time as chairman on the International Relations Committee, and I want to offer to him my sincerest appreciation for his service to America. I have had the honor and privilege of serving with him on the Judiciary Committee, and I thank him for his service.

I thank Mr. Lantos for the cooperative spirit that has been evidenced by this conference report and certainly congratulate him on his ascending to be Chair in this next Congress of the International Relations Committee.

I listened to Lee Hamilton and Jim Baker as they began to try to bridge the gap and the schism in the Iraq war. One of the most, or more stranger, recommendations for many was the engagement of Syria and Iran, for many were aghast that we would talk to those who have been so reckless in their relationship with the United States. I believe in engagement, but is it not interesting that a democracy, the largest, a nation that has embedded itself in democracy since its birth, India, is a friend of the United States, and yet we are hesitant to engage India.

That is what this legislation represents. It is an engagement of a friend, working with them on the civilian use of nuclear power, addressing the concerns of enormous population and enormous poverty. Although the middle class of India is growing, this legislation will begin the engagement of a friend, and it will provide a fixture in the South Asian community that has both the capabilities to use nuclear materials in a friendly way and it will be an engagement of a friend with the United States.

I happen to be, of course, engaged with the people of Pakistan, and I am grateful that my amendment remained in this legislation that said that we continue to engage in the South Asian region with India and Pakistan. For even though there may be citing of the inequities or the issues as it relates to Pakistan, they too should be engaged with.

But what we are doing today is a start. And I am very grateful, Mr. Lantos, that there are bridges and firewalls in this legislation. This legislation allows the vetting of India to begin. It allows the International Atomic Energy Agency to vet this program. And before the President goes forward, he must be convinced or she must be convinced that this is an appropriate step to make. If we can engage with Iran and Syria, though it is a difficult proposition for many, why not engage with a democracy and a friend who will benefit by the utilization of nuclear power? And so I would hope that we would look at this in a manner that says this is a good step for there is control over what is being utilized, unlike so many of those who have the access to nuclear power. I hope my colleagues will support this forward step and that they will see the checks and balances that are so necessary and continue to support the South Asia region that includes not only India but Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the Rules Committee for making consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 5682, the ``United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006'' in order.

The United States' relationship with India and Pakistan is of paramount importance to our Nation's political and economic future. With the receding of the Cold War's global divisions and the new realities of globalization and trans-national terrorism, we have embarked on a new era of promise, possibility and uncertainty. This means the United States, the world's only superpower, bears an especially heavy responsibility to remain engaged in all regions of the world, with all nation-states. It is in the national interest for the United States to continue our policy of engagement, collaboration, and exchange which has served the Nation well in the past, particularly in the South Asia region.

It is important that we are considering this conference report today. I also want to thank my colleagues for adopting my amendment to H.R. 5682. My bipartisan amendment, which was endorsed and co-sponsored by Congressman Burton, simply stated that the ``South Asia region is so important that the United States should continue its policy of engagement, collaboration, and exchanges with and between India and Pakistan.''

Pakistan has been a critical ally in the global war on terror. Pakistan has been a good friend to the people of the United States. Although H.R. 5682 signals no change in this country's relationship with Pakistan, it is not difficult to understand why it may give pause to some supporters of Pakistan. This is another reason why it is vital for the United States to continue to engage both Pakistan and India in ongoing political engagement, economic and technological collaborations, and personal exchanges, which will bring the United States closer to these two vitally important democracies in the South Asia region and will bring India and Pakistan closer to each other.

Peaceful nuclear cooperation with India can serve multiple U.S. foreign policy objectives so long as it is undertaken in a manner that minimizes potential risks to the nonproliferation regime. This will be best achieved by sustained and active engagement and cooperation between the India and the United States.

This landmark legislation serves both our strategic interests and our long-standing nonproliferation objectives. We should heed the sage words of the Iraq Study Group which recommends engaging rather than abandoning the possibilities dialogue offers. Our engagement and subsequent abandonment of Iran has resulted in their current pursuit of nuclear technology. We should not make the same mistake in South Asia. We need to remain engaged with India and Pakistan so that they remain our most important allies rather than our adversaries.

We are on the path to fostering an enduring relationship of mutually beneficial cooperation with India. The new realities of globalization and interdependence have brought a convergence of interests between the world's largest democracy and the world's most powerful one. I accompanied President Clinton in his groundbreaking trip to India marking a new phase in the bonds that bind our two countries. This conference report builds on this relationship by permitting an invigorated relationship in the field of nuclear cooperation, an area of critical importance given India's increasing energy demands.

This conference report incorporates a host of important nonproliferation measures that will anchor India in the international nonproliferation framework by including: safeguards between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); end use monitoring of

U.S. exports to India; and strengthening the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which are the group of countries that restrict nuclear proliferation throughout the world.

In addition, this conference report maintains Congressional oversight over the ongoing relationship of nuclear cooperation between U.S.- India. By implementing this legislation, we are furthering our critical nonproliferation objectives of advancing the IAEA's Additional Protocol by allowing the U.S. to become a party to this critical nonproliferation arrangement. We will enhance our nonproliferation policy and bolster our argument that the rest of the world should agree to this robust inspection regime.

In conclusion, I support the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006 with my Amendment, and this conference report. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5682) to exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement for cooperation with India.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the conference report to H.R. 5682.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the President has said that legislation to permit the establishment of civil nuclear trade with India is essential to establishing a new global partnership between the United States and India. The conference report before this House is the product of more than a year of effort by Members and staff of the House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is based on the separate bills passed overwhelmingly in the House and the Senate and preserves the key provisions of both.

The conferees believe that this report represents a judicious balancing of competing priorities that encompass a broad range of subjects from U.S. policy in South Asia to the highly technical and complex world of nuclear export licenses. It is the product of months of discussions with the administration regarding virtually every section, and the conferees have gone to great lengths to accommodate the administration on its issues of concern.

I would like to express my appreciation for the cooperation of the Committee on Science, the Judiciary, Energy, Government Reform, Armed Services and Rules in helping expedite

the consideration of this conference report. Their cooperation should not be interpreted as having any impact on their rights under the jurisdictional rules and precedents of the House.

I insert for the Record some correspondence related to this issue.

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, December 5, 2006.

Hon. Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hyde: I write concerning H.R. 5682, the Henry

J. Hyde United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion

Act of 2006, as amended. As you know, the Committee on Energy

and Commerce has jurisdiction over Title II of the amended

text.

I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before

the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not

exercise my Committee's right to a full referral on the bill.

By agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, however,

the Committee on Energy and Commerce does not waive its

jurisdiction over H.R. 5682.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the incoming ranking Republican on the International Relations Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ackerman for a brilliant statement, as well as his cordial sentiments.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, who has an awful lot to do with the ultimate product that we are voting on today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr. Lantos if he needs some additional time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), if that will help, for purposes of control.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the right to close the debate, so I am reserving my time. I have no further requests, so I will close.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments that have been made so ably by the gentleman from Massachusetts have been anticipated and, in my judgment, well met by Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, Mr. Royce, and others, so I will not consume the few moments we have left repeating them; suffice to say this is an excellent step forward. It recognizes the reality, the nuclear reality of India, and is a very progressive step. It is the conference report of the House bill and the Senate bill, both of which passed overwhelmingly, and so it is truly bipartisan and is something that ought to pass.

I would like to take this final opportunity to express, inadequately, I am afraid, my respect and admiration for Mr. Lantos. I congratulate the Democratic Party in selecting him to head the International Relations Committee, because foreign policy is going to be critical in the coming months and the coming years, and the Congress could not be in better hands in that area than it is with Mr. Lantos as chairman of the committee. He brings a grasp of history that is unequaled because he has lived through so much of it, as well as studied with high scholarship. So it is an honor and privilege and experience and an adventure to have served with him for so long and learned so much about foreign policy at his hand.

I also want to say the staffs, both the Democratic and Republican staffs, are superior people.

In Camelot, King Arthur once said we are all of us tiny drops in a vast ocean, but some of them sparkle. Well, we have a lot of sparklers who are staffs of both Republicans and Democrats. Mr. Mooney, Tom Mooney, who is not only my friend and my chief of staff, but a brilliant administrator and student of foreign policy, has been especially helpful. I couldn't begin to express my appreciation to him.

Horace Mann, a great educator, once said a man should be ashamed to die until he has won some victory for humanity. I think every Member of Congress attains a victory for humanity every time Congress is in session and a vote is cast. Democracy is more than simply a set of rules as to how we elect people or how we litigate against each other; it ascribes individual worth to every human being, every member of the human family, and you in Congress are custodians of democracy. That is a very high calling.

To be in Washington as a representative of well over half a million people and to stand in the shadow of Jefferson and Lincoln and Washington is no small thing. I am proud to have had the honor and the privilege to serve with so many people who are so dedicated to the success and the flourishing of this great country.

I thank God for each one of you. My wish is that you all live to be a thousand years old and the last voice you hear will be mine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lantos, our soon-to-be chairman of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, today is truly a historic day for U.S.-India relations. Chairman Hyde, who deserves all of the accolades that he received today, has worked very hard, and, together with Ranking Member Lantos, they have done extraordinary work to bring before us a conference report that will transform our relationship with India and bring reality to the process of nuclear nonproliferation. I congratulate them both for their tremendous efforts and for their tremendous and enormous achievement.

Mr. Speaker, if you liked this bill in January, and you overwhelmingly did, then you are going to love this conference report. If you were worried about seeing the agreement before it was final, then you will love this conference report, because it gives Congress another chance to scrutinize and vote on approving the final deal.

If you wanted the IAEA to be able to inspect India's nuclear facilities, then you are for this conference report, because two-thirds of all of India's nuclear facilities will now be under IAEA safeguards. It is a no-brainer. Without this, we get to inspect zero; with this, two-thirds of India's nuclear facilities.

If you wanted India for the first time ever to commit to the MTCR guidelines, then you get that in this conference report.

If you wanted India for the first time ever to adhere to the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines, you get that in this conference report.

If you wanted to send a clear message to nuclear rogue states about how to behave, then you are for this conference report. You are for it because it shows that responsible nuclear powers are welcomed by the international community and not sanctioned.

If you wanted a broad, deep, enduring strategic relationship with India, then you are for this conference report.

For 30 years, U.S. policy towards India has been defined and constrained by our insistence on punishing India for its sovereign decision not to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Truth be told, if India had conducted its nuclear tests a little earlier, it would have been treated the way we treat China and Russia and France and Britain and ourselves; in short, as a grandfathered member of the nuclear weapons club. But they did not test earlier, and nothing we have tried over the last 3 decades has convinced them to give up their nuclear weapons program, and nothing we say over the next 3 decades will convince them either.

India is a responsible nuclear power and deserves to be treated that way. The conference report before us does just that.

Critics have expressed concerns regarding the bill's impact on our nonproliferation policy, and clearly Iran and Pakistan and North Korea are looking for clues about what this deal means for them and their nuclear programs. Let them understand the message. If you want to be treated like India, be like India. Be responsible. Be a good international actor with regard to weapons of mass destruction technology. Be like India. Don't sell your technology to the highest bidder. Be like India. Don't provide it to terrorists. Be a democracy, a real democracy, such as India, and work with us on important foreign policy objectives, and not against us.

That is the message that we are going to send today.

Does it warm your heart and make you comfortable that Iran and North Korea signed the NPT, but they are now running away from their fully accepted and freely accepted obligations and away from IAEA inspections? India

didn't sign the NPT, and yet it is embracing the IAEA and embracing nonproliferation norms and is a democracy. India's attitude should be recognized and commended, not criticized and condemned.

Practically speaking, there are only two options, and they are before us today: One is to vote ``no'' and continue the status quo, which means India goes on pursuing its national interests as it has been doing outside of the nonproliferation mainstream, and we get to inspect nothing. The other is to vote ``yes,'' make the deal with India and get for the United States and the international community a window in perpetuity into two-thirds of India's existing nuclear facilities and all of its future civilian nuclear facilities.

The choice is clear. The conference report brings India into the nonproliferation mainstream and gets the United States and international community access to India's civilian nuclear facilities.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for a 21st century policy toward India, one that supports and encourages India's emergence as a responsible global power and solidifies the U.S.-India bilateral relationship for decades to come.

Not that it needs it, but the bill gives a great name, that of Henry Hyde, to this remarkable piece of legislation. We salute you, Mr. Chairman.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5632.