Nuclear accord opposed

Democrats and Republicans in the House are opposing the Bush administration's civilian nuclear agreement with Russia, pending before Congress, over concerns that Moscow is still supplying dangerous weapons and technology to Iran and other rogue states.

Fourteen House Republicans wrote to President Bush last week to tell him to withdraw the proposed civilian nuclear cooperation accord over concerns the administration can't certify that Moscow has stopped supplying missile and other weaponry to Iran.

The lawmakers are opposing the so-called "123 Agreement" on peaceful nuclear cooperation with Russia, which the Bush administration is touting as a positive step in gaining Russian nonproliferation cooperation.

The lawmakers, led by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, based their opposition on a recent presidential waiver request to allow U.S. space cooperation with Russia. The need for a waiver indicated Russia is not in compliance with the terms of a U.S. nonproliferation law aimed at blocking Iranian, North Korean and Syrian weapons programs.

On the Democratic side, Reps. John Dingell and Bart Stupak, both of Michigan, wrote earlier to the president asking about continued Russian nuclear assistance to Iran. Mr. Dingell and Mr. Stupak stated that any civilian nuclear agreement should include a prohibition on Russian nuclear cooperation with Iran, including apparent ongoing transfers of nuclear technology and training of Iranian nuclear scientists.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing Thursday on the accord, which goes into effect automatically unless Congress acts to modify the agreement, which will permit transfers of nuclear materials and reactors.

Henry Sokolski, director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said he opposes the nuclear agreement unless conditions are added that would seek to halt Russian support to Iran's nuclear program, in light of international efforts to pressure Tehran. "In the politically charged environment of presidential politics, some might call this appeasement," he said of approving the accord in its current form.

Bush administration defends Russia deal

By DESMOND BUTLER – 27 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Bush administration official was seeking to convince skeptical lawmakers Thursday that a U.S.-Russian agreement on civilian nuclear power would not undermine efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program.

Although announcement of the deal last month provoked swift criticism from lawmakers, it remains unclear whether opponents have sufficient votes to block it.

The administration views the agreement as an important breakthrough in cooperation reached at a time of rising tension between Washington and Moscow over issues including missile defense, NATO expansion and differences on Iran. It would give the United States access to state-of-the-art Russian nuclear technology and would help Russia establish an international nuclear fuel storage facility.

John Rood, undersecretary for arms control and international security, was testifying on the deal to the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee.

The committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Howard Berman, opened the hearing with a statement that raised questions about Russia's commitment to stopping Iran's program. He promised a hard look at the agreement but did not come down clearly for or against it.

The committee's ranking Republican member, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, left no doubt that the agreement should be rejected because of the Russian government's "continuing assistance to Iran.."

"The agreement will inevitably be seen in Moscow, and elsewhere, as a political reward bestowed by the U.S," she said.

Another opponent, Rep. Edward Markey, a Democrat, said "it is true Russia has supported sanctions against Iran," but he added, Russia continues to proliferate nuclear and missile technology to Iran, finalizing construction of the Bushehr nuclear reactor and providing Iran with advanced conventional weapons.

The agreement, he said, is part of President George W. Bush's program to support civilian nuclear reprocessing, which he called "unnecessary, horribly expensive and dangerous."

Critics of the agreement believe that Russia is not doing enough to help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and should not be rewarded. Some are also critical of Russia's human rights record.

In testimony prepared for delivery at the hearing, Rood noted the opposition of some members but called the proposal "a good, solid agreement" that "contains all the necessary nonproliferation conditions and controls that Congress has written into law."

He compared the agreement to those already in effect with China, Japan and the European Atomic Energy Community, which codifies cooperation with the 27 member states of the European Union. The pact is called a 123 agreement because its requirements are set in section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act. Rood said in the prepared text that a Russian 123 agreement was important "both to build a closer relationship as well as to improve our ability to address major challenges we face in the 21st century."

Among them, Rood said, are growing energy demands, nuclear nonproliferation and possible nuclear terror.

Under U.S. law, Bush's notification of Congress on May 13 began a process to complete the deal. The agreement will take effect unless both chambers of Congress pass resolutions blocking it within 90 working days.

Lawmakers would have to pass the resolutions by two-thirds majorities to avoid a presidential veto. That feat is unlikely. They could pass legislation, however, that would hinder the administration or its successors from implementing the deal, either by withholding money or imposing restrictions.

Members of Congress also are exploring whether the administration made a clerical miscalculation that could kill the deal. A report by the Congressional Research Service that was requested by an aide to Ros-Lehtinen found that the administration may have informed Congress too late to meet the requirement for 90 days of consideration. Republican aides conceded the full implications of the apparent glitch remain unclear.

The agreement would be a boost for efforts in the United States to ramp up nuclear energy development, which has slowed drastically since a 1979 U.S. nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island plant in the state of Pennsylvania.

The deal also would help Russia in its efforts for a nuclear fuel storage facility. It cannot achieve that goal without signing the deal, since the United States controls the vast majority of the world's nuclear fuel.

Work on the agreement began after former Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bush promised in 2006 to increase nuclear cooperation.

Dubious Russian nuclear deal

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Tomorrow morning, the House Foreign Affairs Committee holds a hearing on a U.S.-Russia nuclear cooperation agreement signed last month in Moscow.

The State Department has been touting the accord as a means to win Russian support for peaceful nuclear cooperation with the international community. But absent a verifiable halt to Russian support for Iran's missile and nuclear weapons programs, the deal should be killed.

Washington and Moscow have long disagreed on whether Iran should receive atomic assistance. Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush declined to negotiate an agreement to permit civil nuclear cooperation with Russia until Moscow ended all nuclear and missile aid to Tehran. During the current President Bush's first term, Washington strongly opposed Russian assistance for Iran's light-water reactor at Bushehr. The Department of Energy estimated that the reactor could produce enough plutonium to build between 50 and 60 nuclear weapons. Washington withheld funding for Russian work on the international space station because of Moscow's support for Tehran's efforts to develop nuclear-capable missiles.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gestures as he greets supporters in Ilam province, western Iran, today. A new U.S. intelligence review concluding Iran stopped developing an atomic weapons program in 2003 is a "declaration of victory" for Iran's nuclear program, Ahmadinejad said.

However, during Mr. Bush's second term, the administration has softened its approach to Bushehr and purported "peaceful" nuclear cooperation involving Moscow and Tehran. In a joint declaration signed by Mr. Bush and then-Russian President Vladimir Putin on April 6, the two leaders described Moscow's completion and fueling of Bushehr as a "welcome step"

that would undercut Tehran's argument in favor of enriching uranium. The administration also persuaded Congress to lift the ban on U.S. payments for the space station.

But the agreement will likely face considerable bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. Last September, the House voted 397-16 in favor of H.R.

1400, which would block any U.S.-Russian nuclear agreement until the president certifies that advanced Russian-Iranian nuclear and missile cooperation have ended. The Senate version of the bill (H.R. 970) has 71 cosponsors. Congressional skepticism is well warranted. In a March 2007 letter to the State Department, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded: "We assess that individual Russian entities continue to provide assistance to Iran's ballistic missile programs. We judge that Russian-entity assistance, along with assistance from entities in China and North Korea, has helped Iran move toward self-sufficiency in the production of ballistic missiles." While this has taken place, Moscow has angrily protested U.S. and NATO-backed efforts to build a limited ballistic missile defense system in part to protect the United States and Europe from Iranian missiles.