Congressman Frank Pallone (New Jersey Democrat) believes the White House has not made the sort of effort, on Capitol Hill, that is required to push through a deal as major as the proposed India-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement.
As one of a handful of lawmakers in the House leading the effort to win Congressional approval for the India-US nuclear deal, do you believe Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's marathon testimony on April 5 before the Senate Foreign Relations and the House International Relations Committees converted the fence-sitters?
I believe she made a convincing argument and as you know, I am 100 percent supportive of it. But what I would say and you have heard this from others is I just don't think the Bush Administration is doing enough on a personal level. You just can't come before the committee and make your case. The administration has got to lobby and meet with members. I'm a big supporter of this, and I've not heard from the White House once. I mean, that's ridiculous.
Complete coverage: The Indo-US nuclear tango
You mean no senior Administration official has briefed you on an individual basis?
I am not using me as an example what I am asking is, what effort have they made? On a major agreement like this, you don't just come before a committee and testify and think that will do it. The President and his advisers have to get on the phone and call the key people. They should be sending people down to these offices, meeting with members, talking about this on a regular basis. I have to be perfectly honest with you, I mean, nobody's heard from them. I've never seen anything like it. Keep in mind that before he even went to India and after he's come back, we haven't heard from him at all. I mean, you can't operate that way. I've never seen the White House operate that way on any issue that they consider to be important, that requires Congressional approval; I've never known the White House to not make any real effort to contact members on a one-on-one basis.
Complete coverage: President Bush in India
Would you say the issue is important enough for the President to make a speech, perhaps making his case directly to the American people?
Absolutely. And besides that, the President should himself contact some of the key people on the Hill who can make the case on the floor of the House and the Senate. This has got to be almost like a war-room type of strategy, where the White House gets together on a regular basis and sends its people to the Hill, and we all plan strategy.
There has been some concern expressed that once Congress returns from its summer recess, it will get caught up in the approaching November elections and focus exclusively on domestic issues, thus delaying the ratification of the nuclear deal?
I believe that's a major fear because the longer it goes on, it's going to be forgotten almost.
Complete coverage: Dr Singh in Washington
The President's poll numbers have hit an all time low; he doesn't seem any longer to have the bully pulpit he once enjoyed, even among members of his own party. Does this downtrend in his personal fortunes impact on the deal?
Well, that's true to some extent, but don't misunderstand me -- I don't think the President has to use his own political capital, in the sense that he does not have to convince people to do something they normally wouldn't do. That is not the nature of this case; I don't want to give you the impression it is a difficult case to make. All I am saying is they have to make more of an effort, talk to people, have discussions. They cannot assume that there's going to be a straight up and down vote and everyone will say aye; they have to make a bit more of an effort to proselytise the deal, explain it. Absent that, getting it passed could be difficult.
Has this lack of thrust by the White House given the non-proliferation lobby an opportunity to organise better, to get on top of the situation?
I don't think that's true, I don't believe the opponents have mobilised either. I think it's just apathy on the part of the White House. More than anything else, it is just that the members aren't focusing on it, and legislation doesn't move on such an important issue without the White House talking some initiative.
People in Congress want this relationship; there is a lot of support for improving the relationship between India and the United States. I am not saying we cannot succeed without the White House making more of a push, but it is going to be a lot more difficult.
A mere handful of lawmakers besides yourself -- Congressmen (Gary) Ackerman (New York, Democrat), (Joe) Crowley (New York, Democrat), (Joe) Wilson (South Carolina, Republican) have taken to the floor of the House to speak out in support of the deal. We constantly brag about the India Caucus, which you founded, having close to 200 members now, so how is it we cannot seem to get more than half a dozen lawmakers to stand up in support of the deal, make it a part of their one-minute speeches that members can make every day?
It's always been the case that a handful of members in the Caucus that do most of the work. I am not suggesting that over the next few weeks we are not going to be successful in convincing people, nor am I saying that it is totally the responsibility of the White House. We have to go out there, we have to explain to members, and that process has started.
I am told a dozen India Caucus members have signed the legislation introduced by Congressman (Ed) Markey (Massachusetts Democrat) and Congressman (Fred) Upton (Michigan Republican) opposing the deal. Isn't this awkward, not to say terribly embarrassing?
The Caucus is not monolithic, it is not homogenous, you know that. You know there are some members of the Caucus more supportive of India than the others. So you cannot assume that just because a Congressman is part of the Caucus, he or she is going to be automatically supportive of the deal.
N-deal will be passed by June: Blackwill
In such cases, should they not withdraw from the Caucus rather than embarrass India, the Indian-American community and the caucus itself?
No, I don't think so. It is not necessarily an anti-India stance, it is just that some people believe strongly about nuclear proliferation. There are people who are against civilian nuclear power even in the US, for instance, and that does not mean those people are against the US itself.
The Indian-American community seems to be mobilising to project a united front on this issue ?
Starting to, I guess. I believe over the next few weeks, hopefully we can put together a strategy, and writing letters and so on is important too.
Does that really work? Bombarding members with letters, and blast e-mails and faxes?
I definitely think so, because you have to remember that most members are not thinking about this at all. They are not pro or con they are not thinking about it. So if they start getting letters and e-mails from their Indian-American constituents, they will get the message. I believe the community, if it mobilises and presents a united front, can play as important a role as the White House. It is more important to make their case to their individual Congressmen back in their districts than to come to Washington when you meet your Congressman, he knows you are from his district, a voter, and that underlines the importance.
If for some reason this deal doesn't go through, do you believe it could impact adversely on relations between the two countries?
Yes, I believe so. If it is not passed, it does have the potential of putting a crimp on improving relations. I am not saying that they won't continue to improve, but this is a very important part of that effort.