Actual progress is measurable by the fact that the House International Relations Committee has scheduled the mark-up of the legislation to June 27, after having earlier mentioned June 21 as the date, while the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled its own mark-up to June 28.

Giving the deal a huge boost, Senator Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared that 'I believe it is critical that the US Congress come to conclusions about President Bush's proposed civilian nuclear agreement with India.'

In a commencement address to the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island,  Lugar, who has neither co-sponsored nor endorsed the bill thus far, said 'The India agreement represents the most important strategic diplomatic initiative undertaken by President Bush, and it represents a fundamental departure from the crisis management mentality that has dominated foreign policy in both the executive and legislative branches in recent years.'

In his strongest statement in support of the deal till date, Lugar argued that 'by concluding this pact and the far-reaching set of cooperative agreements that accompany it, President Bush has embraced a long-term outlook that seeks to enhance the core strength of our foreign policy in a way that will give us new diplomatic options and improve global stability.

'With this agreement, the President and Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice are asking Congress to see the opportunities that lie beyond the horizon of the current presidential term.

'As such, a Congressional rejection of the agreement -- or an open-ended delay -- risks wasting a critical opportunity to begin to expand beyond our Cold War alliance structure to include dynamic nations with whom our interests are converging.'

At the other end of the spectrum, Congressman Howard Berman of California, the second senior Democrat in the House International Relations Committee after fellow Californian Congressman Tom Lantos, sought to attach several conditions to the bill that could at best delay approval, and at worst scuttle it altogether.

Berman said his legislation -- HR 5430 -- is 'country-neutral because I thought that's more defensible than the India-specific approach' of the Administration bill.

In an interaction with reporters arranged by the Arms Control Association headed by Daryl Kimball, which has taken the lead in opposing the US-India deal, Berman said his measure 'sets a number of conditions for nuclear cooperation, including most importantly, a halt to the production of fissile material, and it would correct what I would consider to be a fundamental flaw in the Administration's legislative proposal � depriving Congress of a simple up and down vote once the actual nuclear cooperation agreement has been negotiated.'

India has said any conditions attached to the carefully negotiated agreement would render it a non-starter, and the Administration has warned that amendments such as those calling for a halt to fissile material production by India would be 'deal-breakers.'

Are Democrats trying to scuttle the N-deal?

Berman's legislation also called for the safeguards agreement between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency to be not just India-specific, 'but consistent with standard IAEA practices � that it doesn't deviate from those fundamental positions that the IAEA requires in its framework and safeguards agreements.

'Also, I want to maintain provisions in current law that require termination of the nuclear cooperation if India tests a nuclear weapon or violates IAEA safeguards, and I want to prohibit the President from helping India receive nuclear materials or technology from other countries if those transfers would be illegal under US law.'

He warned that if the bill being prepared by Congressman Henry Hyde, Illinois Republican and chairman of the Committee, does not address some of his key concerns, he will offer amendments at the mark-up stage.

Congressional sources have told rediff-India Abroad the Hyde legislation may contain some conditions that may not be palatable to the Administration and to India, but it is unlikely to contain the provision that India halt its production of fissile material.

Lugar meanwhile countered a point commonly made by the non-proliferation regime, when he said 'We should be concerned about the precedent set by this action, and we must ensure that this agreement does not undercut our own responsibilities under the Nonproliferation Treaty. I believe that we can do that satisfactorily.'

Experts back India on N-deal   

Noting that both Houses of Congress 'are working through language that would guide our policy toward India', he said, 'I believe that we can help solidify New Delhi's commitments to implement strong export controls, separate its civilian nuclear infrastructure from its weapons program, and place civilian facilities under IAEA safeguards.

'This agreement also would be a powerful incentive for India to cooperate closely with the United States in stopping proliferation and to abstain from further nuclear weapons tests. These outcomes could represent important advancements for nonproliferation policy.'

Arguing that India could be an anchor of stability in Asia and an engine of global economic growth, he said India can also 'be a key partner in countering global extremist trends'.

'We already are beginning to see strategic benefits from developing closer relations with India,' Lugar said. 'For instance, India's votes at the IAEA on the Iran issue last September and this past February demonstrate that New Delhi is able and willing to adjust its traditional foreign policies and play a constructive role on international issues.'

US against 'deal-breaker' changes to N-deal

Berman countered Lugar's contention that Congressional rejection or open-ended delay could be detrimental to the growing partnership with India, and said the nuclear deal is a complicated issue, and that it is worth taking time to explore all ramifications.

He acknowledged that it would be Hyde's prerogative as chairman of the Committee whether to seek some kind of consensus or not, but said it should not be forgotten that the Administration's bill is one 'that still has a great deal of concern and controversy.'

Congressional sources said besides Hyde, Senator Lugar and Joe Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, were also working on a draft bill for the mark-up this week that is expected to address 'some of the procedural anomalies' contained in the Administration's legislation.

The sources said the Hyde and Lugar/Biden drafts would address some of the 'substantive issues like what kinds of safeguards, the terms related to the 123 Agreement (the bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation agreement) and conditions regarding Indian nonproliferation behavior that clarify New Delhi's commitments beyond the July 18 US-India Joint Statement.'

Bill introduced that may scuttle N-deal

They pointed out that since Lugar and Biden were working on their joint draft in consultation with the Administration, it is unlikely that their bill would be one the Administration couldn't live with.

They predicted that the Hyde and Lugar/Biden drafts would require that the basic safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA cover all civil nuclear facilities and that they be set in perpetuity regardless of any assurances of fuel supplies.

The sources the concerned parties were still deliberating on what kind of determinations and/or conditions should be attached for termination of the agreement if New Delhi violates any concerns of Congress, such as India conducting a nuclear weapons test.

The sources said it was hard to predict whether the mark-ups would move expeditiously before the July 4 recess or drag out till the summer and beyond, before they are sent to the floors of the House and Senate for a debate and ultimately, an up or down vote.

They pointed out that there are many pending issues on the Senate and House floor, and the US-India nuclear deal is a controversial issue and "definitely something that will take days of debate on the floor, and the question is whether the Senate in particular has such time to devote to this issue."

The nuclear deal | Chats