Wednesday, June 28 2006 10:35 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

Washington: The four-hour-long debate to 'mark up' the Indo-US nuclear deal witnessed passionate arguments in the House International Relations Committee with US lawmakers moving about a dozen amendments and some even insisting on a division.

As the House assembled for the crucial meeting, 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.

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 otherswere rejected or approved in a bipartisan fashion.

Only one lawmaker withdrew his amendment that asked the US 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 Hyde.

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

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 a 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 'quintissential deal breaker', Lantos argued that the proposed legislation does not have as its intention for India to disarm and that the US cannot 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, Lanton, who was supported by Hyde, Gary Ackerman and Rohrabacher, said.

India is in a 'touch' neighbourhood that has nuclear China and nuclear Pakistan, Ackerman said. RefuTing the arguments, Berman countered that his idea was not to disarm India. The amendment went down 32-13.

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

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

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