Clock Ticking on U.S. Enabling Legislation for Indian Pact

By Jon Fox, Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — If the U.S. Senate fails to pass enabling legislation for the pending U.S.-Indian nuclear trade agreement before the end of year, Congress would have to start from scratch on the deal in 2007 (see GSN, Sept. 13).

The House of Representatives passed its version of the bill in July by a wide margin, and Bush administration officials have expressed hopes that senators would address the deal this month.

If there is no Senate vote before for the end of the year, however, both the House version and the bill that emerged from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would die.

With the U.S. midterm elections fast approaching, it is possible the Senate might delay a vote on the agreement until a possible lame-duck session after the November elections.  Just three weeks remain before the scheduled end of the current session.

Both parties are focusing on issues selected to resonate with the electorate in bids to burnish pre-election opinions, congressional experts said.  With political posturing and a heavy workload including critical appropriations bills, the nuclear agreement is likely to be pushed to the rear, they said.

“It’s not likely that Congress is going to pass much of anything between now and when Congress goes out,” said Michele Swers, an assistant professor of government at Georgetown University.

Despite the broad consensus in the House, the issue still has the potential to spark divisions in political ranks, Swers said.

“Both parties are trying to put forward the issues that make them look the best and don’t divide their conference.”  For Democrats, that means a focus on the war in Iraq, and for Republican the focus has shifted to antiterrorism initiatives, she said.

This week Republicans and Democrats engaged in election-year wrangling over a port security bill.  Democrats unsuccessfully attempted to attach a host of additions to the legislation, a move Republicans said could have killed the bill (see related GSN story, today).

“Politics is going to be the overriding issue of what does and does not get done,” said Steven Wayne, also a government professor at Georgetown.  Wayne did not anticipate action on the India deal before the scheduled Oct. 6 adjournment.

“There’s a real focus right now on port security and antiterror bills,” said John Drogin, spokesman for Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), co-chairman of the Senate’s India Caucus.

With a number of appropriation bills still to be addressed, a lame-duck session is all but assured for the beginning of December.

U.S. Ambassador to India David Mulford told reporters in New Delhi this week that the administration hoped the Senate would vote on legislation for the nuclear pact this month.  However, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) remained vague about this month’s schedule.

“There are ongoing discussions on trying to get this thing done,” Chuck Harper said.

There are also concerns that the enabling legislation could be waylaid by provisions implementing the Additional Protocol to the U.S. safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The protocol was approved by the full Senate in 2004, but its entry into force has been delayed by the lack of implementing legislation.

The protocol would allow the agency broader visitation powers at U.S. civilian nuclear facilities, but would not permit international inspectors access to military sites.

Language implementing the protocol has been included in the Senate’s bill to enable the Indian deal and has reportedly raised the hackles of some lawmakers who are concerned that U.S. defense-related sites might not be adequately insulated from IAEA eyes.

“This wariness is partially justified, and the issue of which sites are subject to the exclusion should be addressed,” according to a report released last week by the Heritage Foundation.

The report cautions that further delays in the approval of the deal — which would open India up to nuclear trade, including the sale of nuclear fuel, in exchange for giving international inspectors access to civilian nuclear sites — could erode Indian public support and make it difficult for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to continue to back the deal.

Either the so-called “Title II” provision, the Additional Protocol portion of the bill should be amended or it should be stripped from the legislation and addressed at a later date, the Heritage report states.  “Both the United States and India must keep their eyes on the prize and consider the lengthy and involved process that brought the deal to its current stage.”

Before the bilateral pact can go into effect, India must strike an inspections agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group must also reach a consensus to alter its rules to permit sales of technology and fuel to India (see related GSN story, today).  Current NSG guidelines bar the United States and other members from selling nuclear equipment and fuel to nations that do not open all their facilities to international safeguards.

The U.S.-Indian agreement in its final form must come before Congress for final approval.

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.