U.S.-INDIA AGREEMENT MAKES WORLD
A MORE DANGEROUS PLACE
(House of Representatives - March 02, 2006)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as if we haven't done enough damage to the cause of global peace and security in Iraq, today the President has continued to make the world a more dangerous place with his misguided agreement on nuclear energy with India. If this deal is ratified by the Congress, and, believe me, I will do everything in my power to see that it is not, we will be sharing sensitive nuclear technology with a nation that was testing nuclear weapons as recently as 1998. We will be rewarding India for its refusal to sign on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a treaty which has helped keep the world safe in this nuclear age for nearly four decades.

What message does the India pact send to Iran and North Korea? What leverage do we now have with these countries to give up their nuclear ambitions? Especially when, even though they are dangerous regimes, they have done nothing to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

While Great Britain, France and Germany are going back to the negotiating table to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program, the United States is giving away nuclear technology to a nation that has rejected the NPT. How can we call ourselves a responsible global superpower when we thumb our noses at established international law? Is it any wonder that America is losing credibility and respect around the globe?

How will we now deal with India's neighbor and rival, Pakistan, which will likely demand the same nuclear concessions from the United States, and which has a dishonorable history of sharing nuclear technologies with other rogue states? The India-Pakistan border, which has been called the world's most dangerous nuclear flash point, will now be more dangerous, thanks to this agreement.

The President claims that this deal is about easing the pressure on the global energy supply given India's enormous population and soaring energy demands. First of all, where does the confidence come from that there can be an airtight firewall between India `s civilian and military nuclear programs? Technology used for one can inevitably benefit the other.

Furthermore, it is laughable to hear concern about fossil fuel consumption from a President who never saw an ocean floor or wildlife refuge he didn't want to drill holes in. But I don't support nuclear power plants, because I believe it is not the answer to global energy and our energy challenge.

So if the President is serious about this issue, he will aggressively promote conservation and renewable energy right here in our very own United States of America, the world's hungriest energy consumer; and he will do it with real programs and investments, not a few lines of rhetoric in the State of the Union. But I am not holding my breath.

This acquiescence to India underscores more than ever that we need a new approach to our national security. To that end, I have offered a new strategy called SMART Security, SMART standing for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. I have been working on this idea with groups like Physicians For Social Responsibility, the Friends Committee For National Legislation, and Women's Action For New Directions.

SMART has five major components: first, prevent future acts of terrorism, not with military force, but better intelligence and multilateral cooperation; second, stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, vigorous inspection and a commitment to nonproliferation; third, address terrorism's root causes with a humanitarian effort to invest in poor nations and conquer the depravation and despair that fosters terrorism in the very first place; fourth, rethink our budget priorities, in other words, less spending on Cold War weapons systems and more spending on efforts like energy independence that are relevant to the security threats we face today; and, fifth, pursue alternatives to war, exhausting every conceivable diplomatic channel before resorting to armed conflict.

Finally, let me note the ironies of the President's deal with India. On the one hand, here we are feeding the nuclear appetite of a nation that has failed to show the responsibility expected of a nuclear state. On the other hand, we have sacrifice 2,300 Americans and $250 billion on a war that was launched because of nuclear weapons that never existed.

This material is circulated by the Council of Khalistan, which is registered with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, DC under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as an agent of the Council of Khalistan, Golden Temple, Amritsar, Punjab. The material is filed with the DOJ where the required registration is available for inspection. Registration does not indicate approval of the contents by the U.S. Government.