Speeches and Remarks 2006
Transcript of Ambassador David C. Mulford's
On-the-Record Interaction with
Indian Diplomatic Correspondents
June 30, 2006
Roosevelt House,
U.S. Embassy, New Delhi
Opening remarks by Ambassador Mulford: Welcome to Roosevelt House. I am glad you could stop by today. You may have noticed that we have been relatively quiet here, awaiting the activity that we have all been watching the last few days, not wishing in any way to presume on the Congress of the United States. So we decided that this is the right time to meet with you and answer your questions.
But first I might just make a few opening remarks. The first and most important thing perhaps is to introduce the new Deputy Chief of Mission of the United States Mission to India, Geoff Pyatt, whom I think you all know. He has just taken up this post, which I am extremely pleased to announce, as of a few days ago. Geoff is a very knowledgeable, experienced officer and we are having some transitions in the U.S. Mission at this point of time and therefore to have Geoff as the onward serving DCM is extremely good fortune. So he is the DCM now and you will have regular and easy access to him. I am sure and we are just delighted to have him in that position.
The second point is to emphasize something about the civil nuclear agreement that I think is important to bear in mind as we talk about the issues today, so that I don't have to repeat it. First that this is a unique event, a unique piece of legislation, a unique agreement, a unique initiative conducted by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of India. And now engaged fully by the Congress of the United States. And you would have to look a long time for issues that have had the kind of senior or top level commitment of expenditure of capital that this issue has had over a period of the last 18 months dating back to, say March, when the Secretary of State came here March 2006 and the July agreement of the White House in July 2005, and all the work that has been done since then, both in terms of the engagement between the two countries but also the onward political work in the Congress and so on by top members of the administration--the President, the Secretary, Nicholas Burns, myself.
So it has been a rare and unique experience because in this process, in this legislation, a single country is being singled out for a major transformation of United States' law, and in a way more importantly, the post World War II United States policy in the nuclear area. Now that is major historical stuff and I think it is important to keep it in mind when we discuss the issues, the details of who does what and so on along the way, that this is something utterly and totally unique special to India and recognizes and is being recognized-- you may have noticed -- by members of Congress as an historic achievement that reflects this relationship between the United States and India at this key moment and time as we go forward into the 21st century. So, I just wanted to set the stage with those views.
Next, there is of course additional work to be done and this will begin right after the recess, the 4th of July recess of the Congress. We can discuss the various steps. I will be going over to Washington the week of July 10th specifically for the purpose to begin to be in touch now with members of Congress as we approach the time for the conference between the House and the Senate that needs to take place to rationalize the two bills, and secondly, to hopefully move forward to accomplish floor action on the final legislation. So this would be a very busy few weeks coming up with a lot of additional effort to be made and once again you will see a commitment made from the top levels of the administration to advance this process. And with these remarks I am happy to open up to your specific questions.
Question 1: Aditi Phadnis from the Business Standard newspaper. Excellency, before we go into the actual modalities of the bill in discussion, could you just go over with us the calendar because we are all confused about whether it is a law yet or is it not a law or what is the status?
Ambassador Mulford: Well, what's happened up till now is that the two relevant committees in the House and the Senate--the foreign relations, foreign affairs committees--have what we call marked up the legislation, and in each case the committees have voted out a bill that will be the bill that goes to the floor of the House on the one hand, and the Senate on the other, for a vote. And that bill will then-- once that vote takes place, which we hope will be between July 10 and the end of the Congressional session which is around August 1-- so we hope that takes place during that period and this is a function of a number of different things. Among them, the problems of simply the calendar for floor action in the two chambers, which is very crowded, and sort of working out a timetable where there can be time set aside for debate and then presentation debate and the final vote. That is partly mechanical but it is also a political process.
Then the bill comes out of the two chambers and they have a conference, which is convened by the leaders of the two chambers and has a very limited membership attendance in the Conference. And that conference is closed of course to the administration and the purpose of the conference is to work out and eliminate the difference between the two bills and they come to a single what's called a conference report which in fact amalgamates the bills effectively. That conference report then is returned to the two chambers and once again they have to pass on that report and that has the effect of creating a single bill which is then presented to the President for signature and when he signs it the law is changed. And that is the time table for that part of the transaction. There is a second vote, we can get into, over the 123 bilateral agreement, which is under negotiation and that will have to be voted on later. But the change in law will take place as promised by the administration upfront.
Question 2: Ramesh Bhan from UNI. Sir, there are conflicting statements about the Iran riders. Is there any Iran rider?
Ambassador Mulford: Well, what happens in legislation of this type is that there are legislative provisions and there are also declaratory statements in the legislation which sometimes specify or remind people what U.S. policy is or they indicate a sense of the Congress in a way that is not a binding or legal matter but is a sense of the Congress and the references to Iran which appear in the house bill are in that category. They are the sense of the Congress type of pronouncements, they are not part of the section of the bill which is the change in law and bears the weight and power of law. It is a sort of statement of policy and opinion by the members of the Congress. So it is not a rider. So you wouldn't use the word 'rider' to apply to it.
Question 3: Rajeev Sharma from The Tribune. I think that the wide margins with which the two bills have been cleared by the Senate committee and the House committee. Are you confident that that wide margin would be replicated when the two houses: the House and the Senate will take it up?
Ambassador Mulford: Well, yes! When I said that this was an historic time and I talked about the capital invested by the senior members of the administration I should have also mentioned that the Congress has acted in committees in a strong bipartisan fashion with very strong majorities--in the case of the Senate it was a 16 votes to 2 including 6 Democrats and 10 Republicans and 2 members who voted against. On the house side the committee I think is about 50 people and there were 37 votes in favor and there were 5 votes against. There were some people who were not present and there are, I think, something like 26 members of that committee who were Republicans. I don't happen to know the exact count of the Democrats my guess is it is probably 10 or 11. So these are strong bipartisan statements. There is every reason to believe that in the subsequent floor vote that strong pattern will be replicated. So the momentum, as we say, for the legislation has been established by these very powerful expressions of support in the two committees and you have to remember, as I know you do, because you are diplomatic correspondents, Democrats and Republicans are not agreeing on everything today in Washington you may have noticed. So, here is a strong bipartisan statement about what is perceived by both parties as the national interest of the United States. In other words, the two parties have risen above sort of everyday politics to make an important policy gesture which reflects the sort of historic nature of this agreement and of the relationship between the United States and India as you look into the future.
Question 4: Rajeev Sharma from The Tribune. By what time do you expect the Congressional approval? By what time to do you expect the Congressional approval?
Ambassador Mulford: We can't commit the Congress because they are a sovereign body. They run their own agenda, but the leadership of both committees has expressed a strong interest in trying to bring these two bills to the floor for action during the month of July in order to complete that phase. And if they did that, then the chances are very good that this would be signed into law during the course of July. Because that, if first floor action conference only will take a day and then the report comes back, that's another vote but not with debate and then the bill goes to the President. So the key thing is the scheduling of the first floor action in each house on the bill that has come out of committee.
Question 5: Ambassador, Saurabh Shukla from the India Today. Ambassador how difficult was it for the administration to convince the non-proliferation lobby in Washington, and what really in the end do you think really clinched it for you? Can you give us a sense of some kind of what kind of back channel efforts went into it, the diplomatic activities that went into it?
Ambassador Mulford: Well, I think everything contributed. The Congress, of course, took note of the fact that this is a Presidential initiative in foreign policy that carries a lot of weight. As I said, senior members of the administration have been really on this thing as a priority matter. There's been a lot of lobbying--as we call it--where groups that have a point of view, express that interest, either by calling on members of Congress or sending letters or whatever. And those groups include U.S. business on the one hand; it's the Indian American community on the other hand which has great strength because it has contacts on both sides of the political spectrum with both Republicans and Democrats. The American Jewish committee came out in support, which is a conglomeration of various Jewish lobbying groups who decided to be supportive of this specific gesture for India, which is very important because there is always the risk that somebody would say well you should open this for all countries so other people can qualify but no, this is a India specific legislation. And then I would say on the side of the Congress, there has been a process that you have seen yourself here going on for sometime. We have had many visitors here from Congress; they have seen senior members of the government here, including the Prime Minister. They have visited India; we have had large numbers of them over the last 15 or 18 months. And these people have all come away, in every case I can think of, even people who were not expected to be supportive, have come away basically positive. John Kerry was one, you remember that. Dan Burton was another. John Kerry voted for this. So, that's been part of the scene, the sort of impact of India on visiting members of the Congress and finally the sort of sense in the Congress, as I would put it, that this is a really important matter because Americans have been living with nuclear issues for 70-60 years and they take this very seriously.
The elected members of Congress have examined this very carefully and they have judged that India is too important to leave outside the nuclear international architecture. It should be brought in and in doing so it should be brought in a way that strengthens the Non-Proliferation regime, or architecture, of the world. And that is, if you read the texts of the debate, you will see that point comes up again and again. Does this strengthen the system? Is this going to advance security in the world? That's a major test. And then of course there is the general feeling that the U.S. India relationship is very important-- two big democracies looking to the future, large economies, free people-- all the other attributes we have between us which have caused people to say, you know, I want to be on the right side of history on this one because we are going to have this key relationship running into the next century. So I would add all those things up.
Question 6: I am Amit Baruah from the Hindu. I have two questions. First is what is the status of this123 agreement, by when do you expect that it can be concluded? And secondly as far as the language on the bill, as far as the House of Representatives is concerned on Iran, would the administration press for its removal or are you comfortable with that language?
Ambassador Mulford: Well, first of all, on the 123 agreement. That negotiation is going on, we have already had the first exchanges of paper and then we have had the first meeting as you know here. And a lot of progress has been made on that, it's a really complicated agreement because it is the agreement which enshrines the operational arrangement that gives life to this change and so that negotiation is ongoing and I think it is probably, I don't know 60 per cent done maybe. There are provisions that are now going to be reviewed again; there will be another meeting shortly. I would think that will be by the middle of July and we will move, I think, fairly quickly to the conclusion of that agreement. There are no new issues in there, there are some wording issues, there are some issues that need to be sort of defined but basically there is broad agreement on what we are doing there, that's already done. It is really a question of capturing the July 18th understanding and also the legislative change and so on, and get that into a working format. That agreement then will be submitted to the Congress and when that happens, the Congress we expect, this is not a set thing, but we expect the Congress will agree that they look at that agreement and they have a chance to vote on it. And it will be what we call an up or down vote, which means they can't debate that agreement and amend it. They have to either accept it or reject it. And there will be a time limit that would be put on that process so that they are not able to drag that out. I can't say what that will be, but it will probably be set in terms of a number of days for them once it is submitted to vote on that. And, that will be the Congress's second chance to make sure, and it is quite understandable that they should do this, to make absolutely sure that that agreement conforms to their intension in changing the legislation, that it in fact implements that change, as it is understood it will be implemented. So that's a key and they will have to make that judgment on the basis of the whole agreement.
The other point you raised about the language, I think it is important for people in India to understand that the United States Congress is a branch of the U.S. government that is absolutely free and sovereign. It is not the executive branch, it doesn't work for the executive branch, it is a separate branch of government, it has its own power. And it is entirely free in our system to express any views it wants. So in legislation, it will often express views or it will express its sense of U.S. policy. Now in this case what is important to recognize is that they have done that, in what I call the declaratory language-- which is not the operable legal legislative language. So this is the statement by members of Congress of certain views, which you have to realize, instead of trying to put them into the legislation as conditions, they have settled for expressing these in the declaratory section of the legislation. Which means it is their business, they can say what they want and they can express these views and these will carry the weight of an expressed view of the Congress of the United States when the legislation is passed so I don't anticipate that these things will be removed. They will continue to exist there.
Well, unless in Conference the two houses agree to remove things that could always happen. It is not there in the Senate bill. Obviously when the bills are rationalized they will have to decide what they do with all these differences, they have to work those out and get to a single piece of legislation. Well, a single Bill which has both sections in it. So they will have to work that out and that will be in their hands.
Question 7: Ambassador, I am Arti Jerath from DNA. You know the two bills are quite different in many ways. The Senate bill is much longer than the House bill. Secondly the Senate bill also goes into a lot of technicalities like on the verifications and so on. So what do you, and this is not a part of the sense of the Congress or the sense of the Senate part of the bill. So what do you make of the inclusion of all these technical details in the Senate bill?
Ambassador Mulford: Well, first of all I would not agree with your preliminary comment. It is, to me, remarkable that the two bills are as similar as they are. I mean there are differences but it is a remarkable achievement that the two bills are as similar as they are and therefore when the conference convenes the likelihood is it will function very quickly because there is not a lot of divergence. If you look at the history of a lot of U.S. legislation these conferences sometimes can go on, they can be adjourned, they can come back, there are huge battles over differences. But you are not going to see this I am sure in this case because both bills are reasonably similar. The differences are to some extent reflected by the institutions that are involved. The House of Representatives is a body that is filled with people who represent districts in the United States who are elected every two years. They have shorter terms of service. They, therefore, don't spend as much time on substance often as much as members of Senate do. They have staff that is much more oriented towards their home constituency and the need to represent their particular groups of people. Senators serve for 6 years terms and they represent states not specific districts. So they have a broader purview and they tend to be people who because they are there for a longer period of time are more steeped in the details of policy and so on. They are supported by staff who is more in a way experienced, more substantive and, therefore, that explains I think why you see more substantive preoccupation in the Senate bill and in the House bill you see less on the substantive side and more on the sort of declaratory side, broad policy issues and so on. But in the end there will be one bill and both houses will pass that bill and so you will get an amalgamation of the two.
Question 8: Arati Jerath. So is there a possibility that some of the technical details in the Senate bill would be dropped like the references to end use verification and (inaudible)?
Ambassador Mulford: There is every possibility that in the course of a move to make a single bill there is some giving and taking and it may well be that some provisions will be modified or dropped or may be the language will be changed because the people sense that it would be better to say something one way rather than the other way or whatever. So I think there is a possibility but that's in the hands of the Congress, it's not in the hands of the administration, and it will be up to them. We will be able to speak to them and point out to them as we will provisions that we think could use a little further examination if I could put it that way and urge them to carefully look at things before they put them into the law and that may produce some willingness on their part to review some provisions and modify them or drop them altogether.
Question 9: Ranjit from Navbharat Times. After the bill is passed by both the houses the scene will move to the Nuclear Suppliers Group where some of the members have expressed reservations. Is the U.S. administration planning to deal with those members and convince them?
Ambassador Mulford: Well, the job that is to be done in the Nuclear Suppliers Group of which there are 45 countries, you may remember-- quite a lot of countries. That is a job that falls to the Nuclear Suppliers Group first of all, to review themselves, which they are doing. Secondly, it falls to India to discuss these issues themselves with the suppliers group, which they are doing, and it falls to the United States to also explain the bill. I think what will happen is that the Nuclear Suppliers Group has been listening, discussing and it will, when the Congress acts, it will then, I think, be galvanized into real considerate action because they are the ones who will have to change the rules by which they comply with the global system. It's in their hands as well as the U.S. law. These things go together. So they will wish to bring themselves together in compliance with the law change. They will do that by consensus, that's a process that has its own mystery about it so they will they will do that and I hope they do it as soon as possible because of course they wish some of them to begin to take part in the nuclear trade with India--investment technology etc. So they have a reason to move forward but that will be a second important step.
Question 10: Srinjoy Chaudhury, Times Now. If India explodes a nuclear device say 3 years or 5 years from now, the deal goes. But the Senate bill says exploding a nuclear device; does that refer to sub-critical experiments as well?
Ambassador Mulford: Does it refer to what?
Question: Sub-critical experiments, a lab experiment?
Ambassador Mulford: The answer to that is a nuclear detonation is a nuclear detonation. And the thing that is important to remember is that the commitment not to engage in tests or detonation is an Indian commitment freely given initially by the BJP, repeated by the Prime Minister in Washington in July of last year as a unilateral declaration by India of what it will no longer do. So, what the legislation does, as it stands now, but remember it still goes to conference-- the legislation says that if something like that happens, the provisions of the July 18th agreement will no longer be applicable and the President will have the right to withdraw. So that's how that is characterized.
Question 11: Your Excellency, this is Sanjay, I represent Aajtak. If everything goes smooth as per schedule when can we think of this bill, the law being amended?
Ambassador Mulford: Well, I think you can, if things go as expected or as people would wish them to go now, the law will be amended by the end of July. And the President of the United States made the commitment and the Congress has made that commitment that it will act upfront and change the law. That we hope happens by the end of July. The activation of the changed law or the implementation of those changes will be conditioned on certain other events. One of those events will be the presentation to the Congress, of the 123 bilateral agreement to be reviewed to make sure it is in line with what was expected. That's one of things that will have to be certified by the President as having taken place, the Congress will vote and that will signal the implementation of the law. My guess is that the Congress will wish to see that the Nuclear Suppliers Group has also acted in that period of time and has changed the rules and is on the way to doing their part of this thing, and also the IAEA, which India has already met with and is working out India's specific safeguards with. That group will reconvene here, as I understand it July 10th or sometime like that, to continue their discussion. As we have always said there are lots of moving parts and they have to come together somehow to achieve the final result. But of course, probably the second vote, which is a critical vote on 123 agreement, that probably will not take place until the autumn, because the Congress will adjourn in August and then come back in September. And, it will be around September or October, then we have an election in November. So I think optimistically you would hope that the entire process is completed before the end of this year. To answer what I think your question is, when is everything finished? Hopefully by the end of the year. But I have to emphasize the key step is the U.S. Congress changing the law and the first highly significant step of that process has been taken in the last three days, in an overwhelmingly supportive fashion and that gives this thing real momentum. So it is a major step forward, but it's not the whole story.
Question 12: Ambassador, I am Nilova with the Hindustan Times. Sir, after these two votes have taken place, are there any further potential deal breakers which you can anticipate?
Ambassador Mulford: I can't see why there would be, really. I mean I think it completes the process, you know.
Question 13: There is nothing that could really, sort of stop it?
Ambassador Mulford: I don't, I can't see anything. I mean, you have to assume that the NSG group and the IAEA will complete their part of the process but there's every reason to expect that they will. I don't think the IAEA process needs to be that complicated and the NSG is a consensus process, and those things usually take a little time, but there's every reason to think they will wish to move ahead and complete the process, so I don't see any real reason why, once two votes are accomplished, there would be any further barriers to activity.
Anybody else? Ok well, thank you for coming today. Pleasure to see you.