On the eve of the debate and vote on the House floor of the enabling legislation to facilitate the US-India civilian nuclear agreement, the White House, while strongly endorsing the bill authored by Congressmen Henry Hyde, Illinois Republican and chairman of the House International Relations Committee and Tom Lantos of California, ranking Democrat on the panel, has expressed reservations over certain provisions of the legislation and requested that the House place a sunset provision on such reporting requirements.
A Statement of Administration Policy by the White House Office of Management and Budget obtained by rediff.com, said, 'The Administration strongly supports House passage of HR 5682 -- the United States and India Nuclear Promotion Act of 2006 -- and appreciates the House International Relations Committee's endorsement of this historic initiative.'
It acknowledged that 'the legislation will facilitate nuclear energy cooperation between the world's two largest democracies,' and described it as a 'part of a profound transformation in the way the United States and India are partnering to promote energy security, prosperity, democracy, stability, and peace in the region and around the world.'
The statement said, 'The Administration is pleased that the bill grants the President authorities related to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, consistent with the Joint Statement of President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Singh in July 2005. An important feature of this legislation is the procedure for a joint resolution of approval that ensures an up-or-down vote without amendment on a proposed nuclear energy cooperation agreement with India.'
But the White House said, 'The Administration has concerns with certain provisions of the bill,' and noted that Section 4(d), 'which restricts nuclear transfers to India, would codify political guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group for future supply to India, with the result that the US would be the only NSG country legally bound by these requirements.'
'Such a provision will not advance US nonproliferation objectives and could prove counterproductive, in effect limiting the ability of the United States to negotiate with other NSG members and weakening the voluntary, cooperative nature of the NSG regime, which is the foundation of its success,' it said.
The statement said that Section 3, 'which purports to dictate the foreign policy of the United States with respect to critical national security issues, would infringe upon the President's constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs.'
It further stated that Sections 4 (c ) and (o ), which would require the President to disclose the current status of, and future strategy for, diplomatic negotiations regarding nonproliferation issues, would infringe upon the President's constitutional responsibility over the timing and the contents of the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic information.'
Consequently, the White House said, 'The Administration urges consolidation of the many reporting requirements found in this legislation and requests that the House place a sunset provision on such reporting requirements.'
It said that 'the Administration would oppose any amendment that would require renegotiation of what was agreed to in the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement, such as requiring India to cap its production of fissile material before cooperation could occur.'
The White House argued that 'the United States should not hold up the significant nonproliferation gains afforded by this Initiative in order to seek a fissile material cap to which India has indicated it cannot agree, absent a similar undertaking by Pakistan and China.'
'Moreover, the United States and India are engaged in discussions on a multilateral Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, to be negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament, and the United States is pressing for substantial progress in that context,' it added.
The White House also warned in its statement that 'the Administration would also oppose any amendment conditioning cooperation with India upon India's policies toward Iran, which would be beyond the scope of our July 2005 commitments.'
It pointed out that 'India has agreed to support international efforts to limit the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies, including to states such as Iran. As a responsible member of the international community, India has supported our efforts to address Iran's nuclear programme, voting twice in the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors to find Iran in noncompliance with IAEA safeguards and to report the issue to the UN Security Council. India has made the decision that it is in its own national security interest to oppose the development of Iran's nuclear weapons program.'
'The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to address these and other concerns as this significant piece of legislation moves through the legislative process,' the statement said.
Last week, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, the key US negotiator of the US-India nuclear deal, told rediff.com that neither the Administration nor India is happy with the enabling legislation approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month by a vote of 16-2, but was satisfied with the bill approved by the House International Relations Committee, also by an overwhelming margin of 37-5.
Burns said, 'I spent Thursday (July 20) in Paris meeting with Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, and we spent five hours going through the House bill and the Senate bill. Our position is that the House has done a great job, we support the bill. But in the Senate bill, there are just a couple of amendments that we would hope in conference might be transformed, because we made a commitment to the government of India that we would stand up for the deal we have negotiated.'
