NationStates Jolt Archive

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060316/dcth083.html?.v=1

US-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Bill Introduced in Senate and House;

USINPAC Reiterates Commitment to Urge the Successful Passage of this Deal

16/03/2006 - 21:57 - (BMS) - PRNewswire

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the US Senate and House of Representatives introduced legislation on behalf of the Bush Administration authorizing civilian nuclear cooperation between the US and India. The Senate bill was introduced by Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House bill was introduced by Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Ranking Member Tom Lantos (D-CA) of the Committee on International Relations.

Both the House and Senate bills will be debated by the House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before moving on to votes on the House and Senate floors. The House International Relations Committee is expected to have a hearing on this issue during the final week of March. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to have a classified briefing during the final week of March by Undersecretary Nicolas Burns and Robert Joseph, an open hearing with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the first week of April, and testimony from outside experts after the April recess. About the hearings, Senator Lugar said, "This schedule should be looked on as the beginning of the oversight and review process; it is possible additional Committee hearings and briefings will be necessary."

USINPAC has been on the forefront of representing the Indian American community's strong support for US-India civilian nuclear cooperation. Since July of 2005, USINPAC has been urging key Members of Congress to support this deal. In November of 2005 USINPAC worked with Congressman Eni Faleomavaega, Co-Chair of the Congressional Task Force on US-India Investment and Trade Relations, to organize a major event with Indian Ambassador Ronen Sen, and powerful Members of Congress whose support is critical for the passage of this deal. At the event, Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT), Co-Chair of the Congressional Task Force on US-India Investment and Trade Relations, said, "I am pleased to stand with you this evening and welcome India as a global partner. I commend my good friend, Sanjay Puri and USINPAC, for their visionary leadership in bringing together the Indian American community, the embassy, and key Members of the US Congress to discuss ways in which we can begin to address issues of critical importance including the civil nuclear cooperation agreement."

Other attendees of the event included House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Small Business Committee Chairman Don Manzullo, Ways and Means Ranking Member Charles Rangel, Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Chairman Chris Cannon, to name a few.

About the civilian nuclear agreement Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), commented, "The United States has established an important strategic partnership with India and the civil nuclear cooperation deal is a significant accomplishment. The agreement strengthens energy security for the United States and India, and promotes the development of stable and efficient energy markets in India to ensure adequate and affordable supplies." He continued, "I lend my personal support to the President's endeavor and will do what is necessary to strengthen its support in Congress. Its implementation is important for US-India relations. I also want to commend USINPAC for being a powerful voice for the Indian American community on this issue."

Congressman Joe Crowley said, "I commend the governments of the United States and India on the completion of the Civil Nuclear Cooperation agreement. As a strong supporter of strengthening the relationship between our two great democracies, I look forward to a lively Congressional debate on the issue and will work with my colleagues to ensure this deal becomes a reality. Given the importance of this agreement, I commend USINPAC for mobilizing the Indian American community and for tirelessly working to make sure your voice is heard."

USINPAC will continue keeping this issue at the forefront through meetings with Members of Congress and a strong grassroots campaign. USINPAC has unveiled a new section on their website, http://www.usinpac.com/, detailing the progress on obtaining Congressional support and outlining how the community can get involved.

USINPAC is a united, strong and clear voice representing the Indian American community on Capitol Hill, the White House and the State Capitols. We promote issues that are shaped by the emerging concerns of our community. Our mission is to ensure effective representation on issues of concern to Indian Americans. To that end, we provide bipartisan support to candidates for public office who address the community's concerns. For additional information about USINPAC please visit the website at http://www.usinpac.com/

The fight has now moved on to US senate and house now.

I am expecting the usual suspects of Pak-caucus senators (especially the pro-terrorist Dana Burton) and folks from NPT community (affectionately called Nuclear Proliferation Ayotullahs in Indian strategic circles for their ayotullah like behavior) like David Albright, Michael Krepon etc to weigh in. We may also see evangelical circles extracting their pound of flesh (freedom to proselytise) by bashing on with the usual sticks - dalits, poverty, hindoo fundamentalists etc.

All said, I think this deal will pull through due to the personal commitment of Bush, Rice etc and more importantly the fact that this deal is a win-win for both the countries (and the world).

India has made this deal as the sign that US has made an irreversible change to its years of mistreatment of India (with India voting against Iran as the quid pro quo of the irreversible step against Indo-Iranian partnership). Accordingly India voted against Iran twice. As expected, Bush has also given a firm commitment to this in his visit to India.

Although there have been many noise in the beginning and misgivings against this deal when it was first touted almost a year ago....I was very confident that this would pass through.

This could verily be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.;)

http://iht.com/articles/2006/03/16/opinion/edvictor.php
If the deal to supply India with nuclear technologies goes through, future generations may remember it for quite different reasons than the debate over nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming. And India, like most developing countries, has not been anxious to spend money to control its emissions of this and other so- called greenhouse gases.

India is embracing nuclear power for other reasons - because it can help the country solve its chronic failure to supply the electricity needed for a burgeoning economy. But in effect, the deal would marry their interest in power with ours in protecting the planet.

India is growing rapidly. In recent years its economy has swelled at more than 7 percent per year, and many analysts believe it is poised to grow even faster in the coming decade.

The economic growth is feeding a voracious appetite for electricity that India's bankrupt utilities are unable to satisfy. Blackouts are commonplace. Farmers, who account for about two-fifths of all the power consumed, can barely rely on getting power for half of every day. In industrial zones, the lifeblood of India's vibrant economy, unstable power supplies are such trouble that the biggest companies usually build their own power plants.

So most analysts expect that the demand for electricity will rise at about 10 percent a year. (For comparison, U.S. power demand notches up at just 2 percent annually.)

Over the past decade, about one third of India's new power supplies came from natural gas and hydro electricity. Both those sources have been good news for global warming - natural gas is the least carbon- intensive of all the fossil fuels, and most of India's hydroelectric dams probably emit almost no greenhouse gases.

However, the bloom is coming off those greenhouse-friendly roses. New supplies of natural gas cost about twice what Indians are used to paying, and environmental objections are likely to scupper the government's grand plans for new hydro dams.

That leaves coal - the most carbon-intensive of all fossil fuels. Already more than half of India's new power supplies come from coal, and that could grow rapidly.

Traditionally, the coal sector was plagued by inefficiencies. State coal mines were notoriously dangerous and inefficient. Coal-fired plants in western provinces, far from the coal fields and vulnerable to the dysfunctional rail network, often came within days of shutting operations due to lack of coal.

All that is changing. Private and highly efficient coal mines are grabbing growing shares of the coal market. Upgrades to the nation's high-tension power grid is making it feasible to generate electricity with new plants installed right at the coal mines.

These improvements make coal the fuel to beat.

So the deal struck with President George W. Bush matters. At the moment, India has just 3 gigawatts of nuclear plants connected to the grid. Government planners envision that nuclear supply will grow to 30 GW over the next generation, but that will remain a fantasy without access to advanced nuclear technologies and, especially, nuclear fuels - such as those offered under the deal with the Bush administration.

By 2020, even after discounting for the government's normal exuberance in its forecasts, a fresh start for nuclear power could increase nuclear generating capacity nearly ten-fold.

By displacing coal, that would avoid about 130 million tons of carbon dioxide per year (for comparison, the full range of emission cuts planned by the European Union under the Kyoto Protocol will total just 200 million tons per year).

The effort, if successful, would eclipse the scheme under the Kyoto Protocol, known as the Clean Development Mechanism, that was designed to reward developing countries that implement projects to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. The largest 100 of these CDM projects, in total, won't reduce emissions as much as a successful effort to help India embrace safe nuclear power.

The benefits in slowing global warming are not enough to make the deal a winner. Care is needed to tame the risks of proliferation, especially those connected from India's system of breeder reactors that make more weapons-capable fuel than they consume. And complementary efforts, led by Indians, are needed to fix the trouble in India's electricity sector that have so far discouraged private investors.

None of this will be easy. There are no silver bullets in cooling the greenhouse.

What is important is that the deal is not just a one- off venture, as the administration's backers, on the defensive, have suggested. It could frame a new approach to technology sharing and managing a more proliferation-proof fuel cycle that, in turn, will multiply the benefits of a cooler climate.

Coal-rich China is among the many other countries that would welcome more nuclear power and whose emissions of carbon dioxide are growing fast - even faster than India's.

Quite accidentally, it seems, the Bush administration has stumbled on part of an effective strategy to slow global warming. Now it should marry that clever scheme overseas with an effective plan here at home.

(David G. Victor is adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and director of the program on energy and sustainable development at Stanford University)

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/mar/17ndeal.htm
Senator Dick Lugar's statement on Indo-US N-deal bill


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/politics/17diplo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Many in Congress Want to Change Nuclear Deal With India
As Congressional debate began Thursday on bills that would approve the Bush administration's nuclear deal with India, many Senate and House members were telling administration officials that they wanted to rewrite parts of the agreement.

The administration contends that would kill the deal. "This is a complex agreement, and if we were to reopen it, we would never be able to reassemble it again," said R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs.

True. Any change which the Indian side has not agreed to as of now, will be viewed as a deal breaker. It has been really hard for the Manmohan Singh govt to get a consensus on this issue and he does not enjoy clear majority to have a greater say on this issue. His govt depends on support from the commies and commies are already crying sellout.


Last week, David Albright, a former United Nations nuclear inspector, concluded in a report that "onward proliferation" of Indian nuclear materials "is expected to become a serious problem" because India must get material for its weapons program in secret through "illegal or questionable overseas procurements."

Idiot Albright.

One of the selling point of the deal is that it will bring 14/22 reactors under international inspections. His worry that this deal would allow India to secretly get material for its weapons program is idiotic, since India can do that without this deal anyways if it feels that it is necessary.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/mar/15ndeal2.htm
Pro-India Congressman takes on N-deal spoiler

Aziz Haniffa in Washington DC | March 15, 2006 19:52 IST
Last Updated: March 16, 2006 10:59 IST

Congressman Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and former co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, who is an unambiguous supporter of the US-India civilian nuclear agreement, has taken on non-proliferation advocate Congressman Ed Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, co-chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, who has vowed to scuttle the deal and introduced legislation to do so.

In a 'Dear Colleague' letter, Wilson, wrote, "As Congress begins to consider legislation implementing the US-India civilian nuclear agreement, we should recognize both the historic nature of this deal and the emerging strategic importance of India in global affairs."

*
Indo-US nuclear tango

Wilson argued, "India has an excellent record on non-proliferation and its nuclear weapons programme is solely designed as a deterrent, based on India's own legitimate security assessments."

He pointed out that "India has pledged never to use nuclear weapons first. With China, Pakistan, and North Korea all maintaining nuclear weapons programmes, it is unfair to criticize democratic India for taking steps to ensure the safety of its citizens."

*
Bush in India

"Although many non-proliferation experts have raised objections to this agreement, every single contention they make can be refuted. Further, they blur the distinction between the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the possession of them. To them, India's possession of nuclear weapons makes it just as guilty as Iran, which is trying to acquire such weapons to threaten its neighbours and destabilise the Middle East," Wilson said.

The lawmaker argued that the US-India nuclear deal "takes a realistic assessment of India's nuclear weapons programme and enhances international nonproliferation efforts by working with the International Atomic Energy Agency and is a country we can trust".

"India has had four nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards for decades. Fourteen of their 22 reactors will be under permanent safeguards under this deal. This agreement will create American jobs, burn less fossil fuels, grow our economies, enhance mutual trust, and greatly develop our strategic relationship with India. I urge your support of this historic agreement," Wilson said.

"In light of the dangerous effects that nuclear trade with India could have on national and international security," Markey, along with Republican Congressman Fred Upton, Michigan Republican, had introduced House Congressional Resolution 318 "in order to promote a better alternative", he informed his colleagues.

He explained in his missive, "Our resolution supports strengthened ties between the US and India, including enhanced energy cooperation. However, it also expresses Congressional disapproval of any proposal for nuclear cooperation, which would result in the export of sensitive nuclear materials or technology to any country that has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, that has tested nuclear weapons, and that continues to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs."

Urging his colleagues to co-sponsor this resolution, Markey said, "It merely reiterates the standards established by the Congress in US law to govern nuclear cooperation with other countries."

*popups warning*
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=64471
We've set aside decades of mistrust: Bush
Washington, March 16: Describing the nuclear deal as a 'bold agreement' aimed at realising 'meaningful' cooperation with India, President George W Bush on Thursday said the US has 'set aside decades of mistrust' and put relations with New Delhi 'on a new and fruitful path'.

Russia already ready (sorry for the pun) to sell Uranium fuel

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/03/14/russfuelindia.shtml
Russia Informs U.S. of Plans to Sell Nuclear Fuel to India

There were some reports that the US opposes this Russian move but it appears that Bush was aware of this move even before he firmed his commitment to the deal while he was in India.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060316/asp/frontpage/story_5971767.asp
President George W. Bush was aware of Russian plans to supply nuclear fuel for the Tarapur atomic power plant before his visit to India.

Moscow informed Bush and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) almost simultaneously in February that it had taken this decision under the “safety exception clause”.

The Russian decision did not follow but preceded the Bush visit, sources said.

Reports that Russia will supply fuel have come out on the eve of Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov’s visit to India.

The Americans have reacted by saying such a step should be taken after Delhi fulfilled its obligations under the Indo-US nuclear pact concluded during Bush’s visit.

But the Russians began fabrication of the low-enriched uranium fuel for Tarapur in December 2005 — nearly three months before the Bush visit. This is evidence enough that the decision had little to do with India’s civilian and military nuclear separation plan presented to the US.

The Russian fuel is expected to reach in two consignments by air, with the first lot arriving any time now.

The Russian decision, according to the sources, was meant to demonstrate Moscow’s “real political commitment” to a strategic partnership with India.

Even now the consortium of nuclear fuel and technology suppliers, the NSG, has not ratified the Indo-US nuclear deal. Nor has the US Congress.

Russia, therefore, is not acting on a “go-ahead” from any external source. The talks with Moscow on fuel for Tarapur began last year when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went there on May 9.

President Vladimir Putin, the sources added, responded positively to the Indian request, but did not make a commitment. The deal was sewn up during the summit between Singh and Putin in December 2005.

Although the high-point of the visit, the decision was kept secret. Even now the Russian decision was leaked by the US state department before New Delhi confirmed it.

The Russians had insisted in their meetings with Singh in May 2005 that it would become easier for them to supply Tarapur fuel after India passed the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery System (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act. The act was passed by May 13. It seeks to prevent transfer of weapons of mass destruction and their technology.

The India-US joint statement of July 18, 2005 initially put a brake on the Russian decision on Tarapur fuel. The Russian foreign office wanted to wait till the India-US agreement went through.

In November 2005, after several high-level visits from India, Moscow indicated it would prefer to take the decision in May 2006 after the NSG meeting.

Last December, Singh took along with him Anil Kakodkar, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, to Moscow. Kakodkar held separate meetings with the Russian atomic energy chief in which he impressed upon him the need to get the fuel by March to ensure reliable and safe operations at Tarapur.

Around the same time, the Russian political assessment changed. Moscow believed that after the Indo-US July 18 statement, where the road map was laid for the nuclear agreement, Washington was unlikely to react negatively.

Subscription reqd. A very good read.
http://www.businessworldindia.com/issue/indepth05.asp]The truth about nuclear power

Will the ‘historic agreement’ on nuclear energy cooperation signed by the US and India put nuclear power centrestage? Going by the singular lack of radioactivity in the scientific establishment in the wake of the controversial accord on separation of military and civilian nuclear facilities, it seems unlikely. The pace, say insiders, will not quicken as a scientific bureaucracy obsessed with self-reliance takes stock of a clear victory. The fast breeder reactor (FBR) programme, which is central to the strategy of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for the next 15 years, will continue undisturbed because it will remain outside the purview of safeguards that the US has sought from its newfound nuclear ally. As one analyst notes: “It will be business as usual. If the FBR programme is successful, we will have capacity of 20,000 megawatt energy (MWe) by 2020.”

However, with costs of fossil fuel resources shooting up, India needs to take tough policy decisions. The unsettling statistics it faces include, first, its hydrocarbon usage. This is about 2.5 per cent of the global usage and is expected to balloon to 10 per cent. And second, coal usage — from around 6 per cent, it could cross 45 per cent! The question then is: will nuclear power occupy a larger share of the energy basket?

There are no indications that this will be the case. Added to the technology hump is the funds crunch. Even if the time lag in setting up projects has been slashed in recent years, the price tag remains high. Nuclear plants cost Rs 6 crore-7.45 crore per MWe compared with just Rs 2.6 crore-3 crore for a gas-fired plant and around Rs 4 crore for a coal-based project. This figure does not include the hidden R&D costs.

Progress, so far, has been plodding. Over the past four decades, India has added a total generating capacity of 3,310 MWe from 15 nuclear plants, or just about 3 per cent of the total power generated in the country. Spread over six locations, the facilities consist of two old boiling water reactors — the first two units of Tarapur Atomic Power Project (TAPP) were commissioned in 1969 — and a clutch of reactors in the standard 160-220 MWe range. The big achievement is the maturing of the pressurised heavy water reactor (PHWR) technology, especially for a country forced to make self-sufficiency its credo in the wake of international sanctions.

A few weeks from now, TAPP Unit 3 in Maharashtra will attain criticality. The second of the 540 MWe new generation plants will begin trial runs before going commercial by October this year. TAPP-3 and -4 (the latter was commissioned in September 2005) are significant. Design work on scaling up such reactors to 700 MWe is complete, and official sources say all new plants will be developed to this capacity.

Equally significant has been Nuclear Power Corporation of India’s (NPCIL) ability to break the five-year barrier in constructing new plants, thanks to major “structural and attitudinal changes in workflow and work culture within the company”.

Such achievements are almost embarrassing given the spectacular fission across the border. The People’s Republic has announced plans to build two nuclear power stations every year until 2020, and is all set to commercialise an audacious breakthrough. Physicists at Tsinghua University in Beijing are working on an advanced form of nuclear power generation, a Pebble-Bed Reactor that is cheap, easy to assemble and environmentally clean.

Work has just started on a commercial plant using the pebble-bed technology (a high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor technology that is said to be safer). If successful, it could turn out to be the biggest advance in nuclear technology in the last 25 years.

The difference in approach to nuclear power between the two neighbours could not be more marked. While India swears by autarchy, China has been buying reactors left, right and centre as it embarks on a $48-billion plan to expand nuclear power capacity almost six-fold by 2020 to cut its soaring oil import bill. Nine out of the 11 nuclear reactors that China operates are imported from France, Russia, the US and Canada.

India’s expansion programme pales in comparison. It has just eight plants in various stages of construction that will add 3,420 MWe by 2008 — and its research programme is less ambitious although unique in its way. But, even if the agreement signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George Bush has dragged India to centre-stage, there is no sign of any extra fission in the nuclear establishment, which is hardly cracking a smile. It offers rather guarded statements about the prospects of boosting nuclear power and refuses to be drawn into a discussion. Says a spokesman for the NPCIL, the arm of the Department of Atomic Energy which constructs and operates all civilian power projects: “We welcome this as additionality to our existing programme. It offers India the opportunity of participating with other countries in the open market.” It is a far from enthusiastic response.

For the domestic lobby, much hinges on its ability to push the FBR programme. The country’s uranium reserves are limited and of extremely poor quality, which makes the domestic fuel three to four times costlier than international supplies. At 61,000 tonnes (equivalent to 1.2 billion tonnes of coal reserves), it is enough to produce just 10,000 MW of electricity but the FBR could increase its potential to a staggering 530,000 MW. This will be done by deploying the abundant supplies of thorium, almost a third of global reserves, in the three-stage strategy (see graphic).

Even the expert committee on an integrated energy policy set up by the planning commission takes a dim view of nuclear power prospects. “Even if a 20-fold increase takes place in India’s nuclear capacity by 2031-32, the contribution of nuclear to the energy mix is at best expected to be 5-6 per cent.” That’s as optimistic as the draft report is willing to go. But it concedes that, theoretically, nuclear offers India “the most potent means to long-term energy security” — if it is able to crack the fast breeder reactor (FBR) technology.

Work has also begun on a prototype FBR, a 500 MWe plant in Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu that will cost Rs 3,500 crore. Simultaneously, the AEC is also developing advanced heavy water reactors and light water reactors, the latter through a tie-up with the Russians. Two large reactors of 1,000 MWe each are coming up in Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu under a turnkey agreement with Atomstroyexport of Russia, which will also provide the fuel. The Russian reactors are something of an exception in the web of nuclear facilities that have come up in India. They are the first foreign reactors to be set up here after GE and AECL of Canada provided the first lot in the 1960s and 1970s.

Sources in the nuclear establishment insist that the technology window that will open if the agreement with the US is ratified may not be the big opportunity it is made out to be. After all, the Kudankulam agreement, they point out, was signed by President Vladimir Putin in 2000 in defiance of the NSG. That argument may not hold because ties with Russia are in a special category; other suppliers are not likely to be persuaded unless the nuclear safeguards are well and truly in place.

Till this issue is resolved, the shortage of enriched uranium is likely to be the more critical bottleneck. Last year, the planning commission noted in its mid-term appraisal of the Tenth Plan that the plant load factor of nuclear plants has slipped sharply to 76 per cent for want of nuclear fuel.

The AEC is in a bind. It has just one mine in Jharkhand, and attempts to open new mines in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya have been stalled by popular protests. So while NPCIL has been adding capacity at a smart clip in recent years, fuel supplies have not kept pace.

If India decides to go nuclear more aggressively, it might find that a little help from outside could go a long way.

Leonstein,

This is for you. :p

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18495620-2,00.html
So how can you welcome, praise and support a deal designed to deliver nuclear material to India but simultaneously impose a ban on supplying nuclear materials to India?

The answer is you can't really.

The other answer is that this is what is diplomatic language is for. And the final answer is: watch Australian policy change over time.

Of course there's the US ignoring the NNPT, you know, the thing we keept hitting Iran and North Korea over the head with.

Yes, yes, I KNOW India isn't a signatory, but the US IS and the US is under obligation not to share nuclear technology with countries that are not signatories as well as those nations (beyond the 5 stated) who have developed nuclear weapons. India is a nation that has done both.

This scares me as President Bush has decided to ignore Russia, Britian, France, and China whose agreement he needed before declaring he would give that technology to India. They are now free to do the same, like say, Iran or North Korea.

The oposition isn't so much anti-India as it is trying to keep the treaties the US has already signed and ratified.

The oposition isn't so much anti-India as it is trying to keep the treaties the US has already signed and ratified.

What if the treaty itself is outdated and needs to incorporate changed realities?

If a major portion of India's nuke reactors come under inspections regime, is that not a win for the spirit of NPT?

Denying India nuke fuel citing NPT can very well lead to India being forced to consider Nigerian and Iranian options. We might as well proliferate if we have no choice. Is that a price worth denying fuel to India for the sake of preserving the world order as it was in 1965?

This scares me as President Bush has decided to ignore Russia, Britian, France, and China whose agreement he needed before declaring he would give that technology to India.

Russia, UK, France are all positive of this development. China is holding out, presumably to extract its own pound of flesh.

They are now free to do the same, like say, Iran or North Korea.


Have they not done it before this deal?

Has not China proliferated nukes to Pakistan, N.Korea?

Where were the "Oh we have to preserve NPT" people then? Or now for that matter?

They utter not a peep about Chinese proliferation.

congrats Aryavartha, I know this makes you very-very happy.. when/where is the party?

Of course there's the US ignoring the NNPT, you know, the thing we keept hitting Iran and North Korea over the head with.

Yes, yes, I KNOW India isn't a signatory, but the US IS and the US is under obligation not to share nuclear technology with countries that are not signatories as well as those nations (beyond the 5 stated) who have developed nuclear weapons. India is a nation that has done both.exactamente.

congrats Aryavartha, I know this makes you very-very happy.. when/where is the party?

Yes, I am very very happy because this will help India sustain its growth.

You might have to come over to California for the party. :p

Yes, I am very very happy because this will help India sustain its growth.That is good.. I am happy for that side of the issueYou might have to come over to California for the party. :pIll bring the Double cheese Nachos.. with mexican salsa. :)

Ill bring the Double cheese Nachos.. with mexican salsa.

Great. I'll make curry (veggie of course), but I will get you some great chicken kabobs. :D They go well with beer.

Great. I'll make curry (veggie of course), but I will get you some great chicken kabobs. :D They go well with beer.ahh..

beer with spicy food .. I love it

Congress should veto this deal.

India may not have signed the NPT, but America has and in doing so promised to not help other countries with their nuclear weapons development.

But that is basically what it is proposing to do.

Congress should veto this deal.


Why?

Can you make a case why and how knocking down this deal help in non-proliferation?


India may not have signed the NPT, but America has and in doing so promised to not help other countries with their nuclear weapons development.

But that is basically what it is proposing to do.

No.

Basically, you have not read anything on the subject. There is NO cooperation in weapons development.

Well, if Congress passes this after rejecting the Dubai Ports World deal, Musharraf would have to be a complete idiot to not figure out Pakistan's not really the United States' partner in the "War on Terror," but a convenient and disposable patsy.

Nicholas Burns.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1454119.cms
WASHINGTON: India has assured the United States that its joining the nuclear mainstream will result in producing greater electricity rather than cranking out more nuclear weapons, a top Bush administration official has disclosed.

New Delhi has told Washington that "eventually 80 to 90 per cent of its nuclear system" will be under safeguards because it is imperative for India to increase power production, undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns revealed at a briefing.

"Critics say this deal say it will lead to (nuclear) weapons expansion (by India). We disagree with that fundamentally. Our assessment is that, if the Congress and NSG approve the deal, India is going to embark on a massive expansion of its civil nuclear sector. A majority of its investment in the nuclear industry will fall on the civil side," Burns said.

Burns, who is the administration's pointman on the nuclear deal, said the US assessment was based on a year’s discussion with India on the subject.

Great, Iran and North Korea might ask for one of these from Russia now.

What if the treaty itself is outdated and needs to incorporate changed realities?
Then India should propose a treaty change to the UN and all signatories of the NPT.

See, the thing is, in the US, treaties do have the force of law, you can't ignore them just because you think they are out of date.

If a major portion of India's nuke reactors come under inspections regime, is that not a win for the spirit of NPT?
A major portion? So, it would be ok if only a major portion of Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan's reactors were inspected? It ain't the nuclear fuel, it's the nuclear warheads that is that the NPT is supposed to be stopping.

Denying India nuke fuel citing NPT can very well lead to India being forced to consider Nigerian and Iranian options. We might as well proliferate if we have no choice. Is that a price worth denying fuel to India for the sake of preserving the world order as it was in 1965?
:rolleyes: Great, nuclear blackmail. And, of course, India and Pakistan haven't been saber rattling more than the US and USSR ever did, nope, not them, they've been nice and peaceful and haven't threatened to use these things.

Russia, UK, France are all positive of this development. China is holding out, presumably to extract its own pound of flesh.
And President Bush can ignore Congress and pass his own laws if SCOTUS is in agreement. It don't work that way, all 5 must agree and vote on it. Again, if you think it's not fair, propose a treaty change, maybe India will behave itself and sign this time.

Have they not done it before this deal?

Has not China proliferated nukes to Pakistan, N.Korea?

Where were the "Oh we have to preserve NPT" people then? Or now for that matter?

They utter not a peep about Chinese proliferation.
One, show me proof that China proliferated nuclear weapons to both countries, and two, yes the preserve NPT folks have been busy. What do you think the US has been yelling at North Korea over as it had signed the NPT?

That treaty was put in place for a reason, a reason you seem to have forgotten. Thankfully, Congress must be convinced about this and I think they're not happy to play along this time.

Excellent. India gets power to fuel its economic development, and the US gets stronger ties with the world's largest democracy. This is a win-win no matter what, and I hope it provides us with the opportunity to create closer economic and political ties with the world's next superpower. A lot of people don't realize it, but India will be the world's largest economy, surpassing China, and if we support that, we will benefit even further.

Great, Iran and North Korea might ask for one of these from Russia now.

That wouldn't bother me; the weight of the world's economy is on that of the US and its supporters.

Time to revisit this thread because the debate has started in the house and senate committees.

Video of the congressional hearing can be found here.
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2006/hrg060405a.html

Here's a headcount as of now
http://www.usinpac.com/nuclear_deal/nuclear_deal_checklist.html


IMO, Condi Rice defended the deal amazingly well and countered the not so well thought criticisms. Some folks (Barack Obama) did ask genuinely good questions, but most were clueless and one particular person Barbara Boxer was really stupid going on some non arguments about Iranian navy trained in Indian ports (the fact being that it was a normal port call by the Iranian ships and there was no training whatsoever involved)....it seems like Barbara Boxer had some other axe to grind with Condi and ended up exposing her ignorance and idiocy. [http://www.financialexpress.com/latest_full_story.php?content_id=122237
"The so-called training visit was just a normal diplomatic call on Kochi port by two Iranian ships which were doing training in the Arabian Sea. We don't see those ships received formal training in India", an Indian diplomat said.]

Kerry made some pompous non-statements once again making me wonder how the heck did this guy came that close to being the president (well considering Bush....but that is not for this thread...). But he was in general supportive of the deal, but was apprehensive of China doing a similar thing with Pakistan.

In principle, I am not opposed to such a deal because it will bring the Pakistani reactors to IAEA control. It might even reveal the extent of Chinese proliferation to Pakistan. But I doubt that China or even Pakistan for that matter are interested in civilian nuclear energy for Pakistan a la India.

Joseph Biden was also in general supportive of the deal. Some folks were insisting on adding more conditions, but Rice made clear that more conditions would be a deal breaker. IMO, it would indeed be a deal maker because it would be very difficult for Indian administration to make any more compromises than they already have without the commie parties (whose support the ManMohan Singh govt depends on) crying sellout.

But what gladdened me the most was the way Condi batted for the deal. It was a welcome change to see somebody from an American administration to have a clear understanding of India and being articulate enough to lay out a vision for the very promising Indo-US partnership.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/1967.html
Rice rebuts critics on the Hill, point by point
Responding to exaggerated Congressional concerns on India’s ties with Iran, Rice had the courage to point out that it is the US that does not have relations with Tehran while most other countries do.

Putting the Iran question in perspective, Rice said, “Italy is Iran’s largest trading partner. Japan is a very large trading partner of Iran. The truth of the matter is that we are the ones that have no relationship with Iran; most of the world does have relations with Iran.”
..
Whatever might be the eventual outcome in the US Congress and the NSG, Rice’s defence of the nuclear deal, running into more than 100 printed pages of single space text, would be remembered for long in New Delhi for one simple reason.

By any measure, it is the strongest public defence of India’s policies by any foreign leader since the nation’s independence nearly sixty years ago.

It was also interesting to see friendly banter from both sides about a possible Rice nomination for Prez 2008. Maybe that set off Barbara Boxer..:eek:

Some more links on the hearings...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1479757.cms
Indo-US nuclear deal gets thumbs up in Senate hearing

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edritch.php
It makes sense to end India's nuclear isolation

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=133808
India and the nuke deal
The deal was a recognition that the world’s largest democracy has indeed formed a special relationship with our own nation. And while India has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it also has a 30-year track record of not having violated it either. Sometimes deeds ought to speak just as loudly as words on paper.

Even former presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) while noting, “It is not the deal I would have negotiated personally,” seemed inclined to approve it, adding, “the perfect world is not in our hands.”
But not so Rep. Ed Markey (D-Malden), who said of the India deal at a meeting of the New England Council last month, “I intend to work to kill it.”
“I will lead that effort on the House floor,” Markey insisted, proceeding to lump India in with the utterly lawless and autocratic Iran.
Rice said yesterday, “This agreement does bring India into the nonproliferation framework, and does strengthen the regime.”
Perhaps Markey ought to stick to telecommunications policy and his endless efforts to regulate roller coasters.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/06/EDGNSGUAKE1.DTL
India nuclear deal serves nonproliferation
The clear net gain is this: As part of the nuclear agreement, India has agreed to bear the same responsibilities as other nations with advanced nuclear technology. Some arms-control hawks argue that the five nuclear powers recognized by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty have all stopped producing weapons-related uranium and plutonium, therefore India must do so ALSO. This argument is misleading.

Countries such as the United States, the Great Britain and France, which have declared an end to their weapons-related fissile-material production, have several times more weapons and fissile stockpile in reserve than India. It is easy to stop grocery runs with a full pantry.

Despite its many successes in checking the spread of nuclear weapons, the inflexibility and the inequity of the nonproliferation treaty has made it ineffective as the sole mechanism to promote nonproliferation. The treaty allows no new country to join as a weapon state, but is powerless to force the existing weapon states to disarm, as per the treaty obligations. For many years, American policymakers have been trying to accommodate a rising and friendly India under the nonproliferation system, but India-U.S. ties were unlikely to reach full potential if a practical compromise was not on the cards.

Deal critics seem to believe that India could be forced to cap its weapons capability for the right price. Such a conclusion flies in the face of India's history of fiercely defending its strategic independence at any cost. Should this agreement fall through, India is not likely to choose between bombs and nuclear energy. Instead, India will probably choose to use its abundant supply of dirty coal for electricity and save its uranium stock for strategic contingencies. An India that burns gargantuan quantities of coal is definitely not in the interests of the world environment.

Another compelling reason to support the Bush administration's nuclear deal is that India is the only potential supplier of advanced nuclear power technology to be outside the nonproliferation mainstream. For the last 30 years, India voluntarily decided not to export nuclear technology to other countries, even though many nations such as Libya, Iran and Iraq offered to buy Indian nuclear expertise. As India continues to be stifled by the international nuclear order, there is no guarantee that Indians would continue to believe that virtue is its own reward and maintain their exemplary restraint. Unlike their predecessors' "nonaligned" vision, younger Indian leaders see a future where a growing India can aggressively leverage its economic muscle and technological capital to advance its national interests. This is why it is critical for nonproliferation to have India as a part of the system.

Yes, it is true that India will retain its ability to make nuclear weapons under the deal with America. It is also true that while Great Britain, the United States, France and Russia have indeed publicly committed to not increase their fissile stockpile, China has not made any such formal commitment and still gets to partake in civilian nuclear trade. China, in fact, even refused to subject American-supplied reactors to international safeguards. It would be unfair and illogical for the United States to constrain a deal with India with a condition that it does not enforce on other nuclear states.

India has, in fact, set an example for the nonproliferation treaty weapon states by agreeing to safeguards in perpetuity. India will also have 14 of its power reactors under safeguards as opposed to the five nonproliferation treaty powers who have just one power reactor -- combined -- safeguarded.

One, show me proof that China proliferated nuclear weapons to both countries,

Sorry for the late reply. I can't spoonfeed you what is common knowledge.

Google on ring magnets, Plutonium reactors to Pakistan, Pakistan - N Korea missile-nuke barter, C-130 planes carrying nuke parts to N.Korea refuelling in China etc etc...

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060405/nyw212.html?.v=6
According to the US-India Political Action Committee, several key Members of Congress who are critical to the passage of civilian nuclear cooperation have indicated support for the agreement.

These Members of Congress include Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Joseph Biden (D-DE) and John Kerry (D-MA) as well as Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), and Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY). They join Senators George Allen (R-VA), Sam Brownback (R-KS), John Cornyn (R-TX), Michael Crapo (R-ID), Kay Baylee Hutchison (R-TX), and Ted Stevens (R-AL) from the Senate and Tom Lantos, Eni Faleomavaega, Joe Crowley, Joe Wilson, Dan Burton and Gary Ackerman from the House of Representatives in supporting this initiative.

http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/060406/15/3zw3d.html
Australia's Howard Hints Uranium Sales To India Possible

CANBERRA (Dow Jones)--Australian Prime Minister John Howard Thursday gave the strongest indication yet his government may eventually allow uranium exports to India.

Australia, which holds one-third of the world's known reserves of uranium, will only sell the energy source to countries that have signed the nuclear nonproliferation pact.

ADVERTISEMENT
China, which signed the treaty in 1992, this week signed nuclear safeguard pacts with Australia that allow Australia's three uranium mines to export their product to China.

India hasn't signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty but has signed a civil nuclear cooperation treaty with the U.S., which the Australian government is carefully considering.

Nick Burns counters NPT guy Einhorn

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june06/india_4-5.html

Meanwhile, former PM of India, Vajpayee is against the deal citing that it makes the voluntary moratorium of India on future testing as a mandatory condition (among other gripes..)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1480247.cms
Indo-US nuke pact seriously flawed, says Vajpayee

Reviving this thread due to new developments.


he International Relations Committee of the US House of Representatives pass it 37 to 5 with 3 abstaining.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1730175,001301790001.htm
US House panel approves Indo-US nuclear deal bill

HT Correspondents

Washington/Delhi, June 27, 2006


The International Relations Committee of the US House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill seeking an exemption for India from the discriminatory nuclear regime that exists under the US law.

Of the 45 committee members who debated the bill, 37 voted in its favour, while five opposed it. The remaining three members abstained from voting.

The Bush administration and New Delhi, said officials, had always been confident of getting a majority for the bill. What was needed was an overwhelming majority to provide a political momentum for a parallel vote in the Senate on Thursday and, eventually, a vote in the full Congress.

Deal opponents had argued that other countries would also seek similar cooperation. Supporters were of the view that the proposed act strengthened the bilateral relationship and brought India into the nuclear mainstream.

Most congressmen who spoke were full of praise for India. Committee chair Henry Hyde said the bill was “profoundly satisfactory”. Ranking Democrat Tom Lantos called it a “defining moment in our relationship with India”.

After the debate, a series of amendments designed to wreck the bill — demanding, among other things, that India sign the NPT and cap its fissile-material production — were voted on by the committee. Four were defeated by over 30 votes. Only one cosmetic amendment was accepted.

Officials said the vote indicated that the strategy of incorporating rhetorical demands of various congressmen to broad base support seemed to have worked.


The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the bill it by 16 to 2.

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/29ndeal5.htm?q=tp&file=.htm
US Senate Committee passes N-deal bill

Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC | June 29, 2006 21:31 IST
Last Updated: June 29, 2006 23:25 IST

A day after the House International Relations Committee marked up the India-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement by an overwhelming 37-5 majority, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee went even better, in its turn marking up the bill with 16 members voting in favour and only two against it.

Senators Russell Feingold (Wisconsin) and Barbara Boxer (California) were the sole dissenters, as majority of the committee members almost tripped over one another to co-sponsor the legislation introduced by Senators Richard Lugar and Joe Biden, chair and ranking Democrat respectively on the Foreign Relations Committee.

As with the HIRC vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has now sent the bill for full debate and voting on the Senate floor; the overwhelming vote in favor signalling to the full Senate that the committee is solidly behind the bill and desirous of its passing.

Of the three amendments proposed at the Senate committee, two were approved by voice vote while one was rejected.

By a convincing margin of 13-5, the Committee rejected an amendment by Democrat Senator Russell Feingold requiring US President George W Bush to certify that he has assurances from India that all assistance from US would only be in the realm of civil nuclear cooperation.

The Committee gave its nod for an amendment by Lincoln Chaffee, Republican from Rhode Island, that the US was not supporting India's nuclear weapons programme directly or indirectly.

Piloted by Democrat Barak Obama from Illinois, the second amendment that was endorsed said if any action by India triggered a cut off in civil nuclear cooperation by the US, then Washington should not encourage other nations to undercut it (US).

Both these amendments are non-binding on India.

The bipartisan bill on United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation will now be put to vote in the full floor of the Senate next month.

The bill, which was for exempting US exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology to India from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, was sponsored by the Senate Committee chair Richard Lugar and had several co-sponsors.

Senator John Kerry, who was the Democrat candidate for the Presidential elections, spoke up for India's non-proliferation record.

In his opening remarks, Lugar said: "By concluding this pact and the far-reaching set of cooperative agreements that accompany it, US President George W Bush has embraced a long-term outlook that seeks to enhance the core strength of the US foreign policy in a way that will give them new diplomatic options and improve global stability."

The Republican Senator also outlined provisions of the bill, which in his view significantly strengthened the proposals that were first advanced by the administration especially as it related to Congressional oversight and procedures.

Noting that the deal allows India to access nuclear fuel, technology and reactors from the US, which were previously denied as New Delhi did not ratify the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Lugar said Washington will ensure that the civilian nuclear agreement would not 'undercut' its responsibilities under the treaty.

"The agreement can be a lasting incentive for India to abstain from further nuclear weapons tests and to cooperate closely with the United States in stopping proliferation," Lugar said.

The Senator said the deal has resulted in the improvement of relations between the two countries and the US was strategically benefited by it.

"India's votes at the International Atomic Energy Agency 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," he said.

With PTI Inputs

House of Representatives passes nuclear bill 359-68
http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/27ndeal5.htm?q=tp&file=.htm
At 9.17 PM Eastern, the United States House of Representatives passed by an overwhelming majority House Resolution 5682, also known as the 'United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006.'

The bill, authored by Congressmen Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois) and Tom Lantos (Democrat, California), chairman and ranking Democrat respectively of the House International Relations Committee, passed with 359 voting in favor to 68 against.

While the voting was largely on bipartisan lines, accounting for the thumping majority, a clear pattern that emerged through the evening of debates on various amendments and on the bill itself was for Republicans to favour the bill in far greater numbers than the Democrats.

Reflecting that bias, 219 Republicans voted in favor of the bill and just nine against; on the other side of the aisle, a thumping 140 Democrats voted in favour of the bill and 58 against (an Independent Congressman voted against).

In sum, the bill has now cleared the US House of Representatives by a substantial margin, and will now await the vote in the US Senate.

The Senate has not as on date scheduled a vote on corresponding legislation marked up by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and aides to key Senators indicated to rediff.com that such a vote is not likely before Congress shuts down for summer recess on August 4.

If and when the 100-member Senate takes up the bill for voting and approves it, senior members of both Houses of the US Congress will then meet in committee to reconcile differing language and provisions in the two bills.

They will then present one consolidated bill to the President for his signature -- when that is done, the US will have officially consented to amending its laws to permit civilian nuclear cooperation between the US and India.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1815253.cms
US Congress okays nuke deal; rejects killer amendments:p
En route to the historic vote, the House rejected at least three 'killer' amendments.

An amendment that would have the U.S audit India's fissile material stock annually was rejected by a 155-268 margin.

Another amendment that would restrict export to uranium to India until the President certified that India had frozen its fissile material production was rejected 184-241.

And finally, a move that would have tied the agreement to monitoring India's opposition to Iran was defeated 192-235.

At the end of almost five hours of marathon arguments and legislative procedures, the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006, renamed the Hyde Amendment after the lawmaker who engineered it, was passed by a handsome 369-58 margin.

update.

The pact was up for vote at the senate and has been passed by a very handsome margin.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061117/ap_on_go_co/us_india_nuclear
Senate endorses U.S.-India nuclear deal

By FOSTER KLUG, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 37 minutes ago

The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly endorsed a plan allowing the United States to ship civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, handing President Bush an important victory on one of his top foreign policy initiatives.

Senior lawmakers from both political parties championed the proposal, which reverses decades of U.S. anti-proliferation policy, saying it strengthens a key relationship with a friendly Asian power that has long maintained what the United States considers a responsible nuclear program. The vote was 85-12.

Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., called the plan "a lasting incentive" for India to shun future nuclear weapons tests and "to cooperate closely with the United States in stopping proliferation."

Bush, in a statement issued during a trip to Asia, praised the Senate for endorsing his plan, saying it will "bring India into the international nuclear nonproliferation mainstream and will increase the transparency of India's entire civilian nuclear program."

Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware said the endorsement pushes America "a giant step closer" to a "major shift in U.S.-Indian relations. "If we are right, this shift will increase the prospect for stability and progress in South Asia and in the world at large," he said.

Even with the strong approval by the Senate, however, several hurdles loom before India and the United States could begin civil nuclear trade.

First on that list, lawmakers in the House, which overwhelmingly endorsed the plan in July, and the Senate must now reconcile their versions into a single bill before the next congressional session begins in January. That bill would then be sent to Bush for his signature.

Critics argued that the plan would ruin the world's nonproliferation regime and boost India's nuclear arsenal. The extra civilian nuclear fuel that the deal would provide, they say, could free India's domestic uranium for use in its weapons program. Pakistan and China could respond by increasing their nuclear stockpiles, sparking a regional arms race.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., called the agreement "a horrible mistake" that "provides a green light" for India to produce more nuclear weapons. "I believe one day we will look back at this with great regret," he said.

During debate Thursday, supporters beat back changes they said would have killed the proposal by making it unacceptable to India. Critics said the changes were necessary to guard against nuclear proliferation.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., unsuccessfully proposed a condition that would have required India to cut off military-to-military ties with Iran before allowing civil nuclear cooperation.

Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a Democratic critic in the House, said the Senate's endorsement of the proposal "sends the wrong signal at a time when the world is trying to prevent Iran from getting" a nuclear bomb. The plan, he said, would set "a precedent that other nations can invoke when they seek nuclear cooperation with countries that also refuse to abide by nonproliferation rules."

The bill carves out an exemption in American law to allow U.S. civilian nuclear trade with India in exchange for Indian safeguards and inspections at its 14 civilian nuclear plants; eight military plants would be off-limits.

Congressional action is necessary because U.S. law bars nuclear trade with countries that have not submitted to full international inspections. India built its nuclear weapons program outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which provides civil nuclear trade in exchange for a pledge from nations not to pursue nuclear weapons.

There are other necessary steps before U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation could begin. An exception for India must be made by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material. Indian officials also must negotiate a safeguard agreement with the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

And once technical negotiations on an overall cooperation agreement are settled between India and the United States, the U.S. Congress would then hold another vote on the overall deal.


IMO, Barbara Boxer is the stupidest senator in office. And Hilary Clinton voted yes for her killer amendment. I used to be ambivalent about her, but now I officially don't like her. Being a member of the India caucus, what she did is very annoying.

This is the amendment.
"Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., unsuccessfully proposed a condition that would have required India to cut off military-to-military ties with Iran before allowing civil nuclear cooperation"

Really ? Let's do a simple comparision here.

How many Americans have died because of India's military-to-military ties with Iran? Zero.

How many Indians have died because of US's military-to-military ties with Pakistan? Thousands.

Sen. Joe Biden while responding to her killer amendment said "if we were to sanction India over Iran, why shouldn't the rest of the world sanction us over Pakistan?"

The 12 who voted against are

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay

ALL democrats. Disappointing to see Ted Kennedy up there.

And it was funny to see George "Macaca" Allen very pro-deal there. Trying to redeem himself maybe...lol..

I am still thinking why the hell did Hilary vote FOR a killer amendment and in the end voted FOR the deal too.

I think she just had the Kerry "I voted for the bill before I voted against the bill" moment. Now she can say "I voted for the amendment because I am tough on national security" and she can tell her Indian voters in NYC that she voted for the bill. And democrats wonder why they are called flip-flops and indecisive etc...:rolleyes:

Sen. Lugar's speech to the Senate

United States Senator Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the India Nuclear Agreement, delivered his floor statement on the US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy and US-IAEA Additional Protocol Implementation Act of 2006.

Following are extracts the text of the speech:

Mr President, today the Senate begins consideration of legislation on the US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement. This agreement is the most important strategic diplomatic initiative undertaken by President Bush.

By concluding this pact and the far-reaching set of cooperative agreements that accompany it, the President 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.

The Committee on Foreign Relations undertook an extensive review of this agreement.

We held four public hearings with testimony from 17 witnesses, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

We received a classified briefing from Undersecretaries of State Nick Burns and Bob Joseph. Numerous briefings were held for staff with experts from the Congressional Research Service, the State Department, and the National Security Council. I submitted 174 written questions for the record to the Department of State on details of the agreement and posted the answers on the Committee website.

The agreement allows India to receive nuclear fuel, technology, and reactors from the United States - benefits that were previously denied to India because of its status outside the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. This pact is a lasting incentive for India to abstain from further nuclear weapons tests and to cooperate closely with the United States in stopping proliferation.

The bill before us is an important step toward implementing the nuclear agreement with India, but we should understand that it is not the final step in the process. This legislation sets the rules for subsequent Congressional consideration of a so-called "123 Agreement" between the U.S. and India. A "123 Agreement" is the term for a peaceful nuclear cooperation pact with a foreign country under the conditions outlined in Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act.

Our legislation does not restrict nor does it predetermine Congressional action on the forthcoming 123 Agreement. Unlike the Administration's original legislative proposal, this bill preserves Congressional prerogatives with regard to consideration of a future 123 Agreement. Under the Administration's original proposal, the 123 Agreement would have entered into force 90 days after submission unless both houses of Congress voted against it, and with majorities that could overcome a likely Presidential veto.

I am pleased the Administration changed course on this matter and agreed to submit the 123 Agreement with India to Congress under normal procedures. This means that both the House and the Senate must cast a positive vote of support before the 123 Agreement can enter into force. In our view, this better protects Congress' role in the process and ensures Congressional views will be taken into consideration.

I thank Senator Biden for his close cooperation on developing this important bill. It reflects our shared views and concerns. He and his staff were valuable partners in the drafting of this legislation, and the final product is much improved because of their efforts. Together, we have constructed a bill that allows the US to seize an important strategic opportunity, while ensuring a strong Congressional oversight role, reinforcing U.S. non-proliferation efforts, and maintaining our responsibilities under the NPT. I also want to thank all Members of the Foreign Relations Committee for their support, and the work of their staffs, in crafting a bill that received the overwhelming support of the Committee last June.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS:

For the benefit of Senators, I offer the following section-by-section analysis.

Section 101 identifies the bill as the U.S.-India Peaceful Atomic Energy and U.S. Additional Protocol Implementation Act. Sections 102 and 103 of the Lugar-Biden bill include sense of the Congress provisions on U.S.-India relations and policy declarations.

These provisions give voice to a set of important policy issues involving bilateral relations, democratic values, nuclear non-proliferation regimes, fissile material production in South Asia, and support for IAEA safeguards and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. All of these concerns are reinforced by the bill's comprehensive reporting requirements.

Section 104 provides waiver authority from provisions in the Atomic Energy Act and removes the prohibition on cooperating with India due to its 1998 weapons tests and its existing weapons program. At the same time, Section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act, which is preserved under the Lugar-Biden bill, terminates nuclear cooperation if India conducts a nuclear test, proliferates nuclear weapons or materials, or breaks its agreements with the IAEA or the United States.

Section 105 of our proposal adopts all of the Administration's requirements to ensure that India is meeting its non-proliferation commitments. In addition, we require that decisions in the Nuclear Suppliers Group enabling nuclear trade with India are made by consensus and consistent with its rules. Our aim is to ensure that this multilateral organization will continue to play a vital role in global non-proliferation efforts.

Section 106 prohibits exports of equipment, materials or technology related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, or the production of heavy water. The provision allows narrow exceptions for the export of these items from the United States to India if they are for proliferation-resistant activities that involve the United States or have the sponsorship of a recognized international body like the IAEA. This provision is consistent with the Administration's policy regarding such transfers. It would allow cooperation in sensitive nuclear areas only if such cooperation could be implemented with no risk of proliferation.

Section 107 requires the creation of a system to ensure that no items exported to India are diverted to any uses that are not peaceful. This section seeks to ensure U.S. compliance with our NPT obligations.

Section 108 requires annual Presidential certifications that India is meeting its commitments under the July 2005 Joint Statement, its Separation Plan, New Dehli's Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol with the IAEA, the 123 Agreement, and applicable U.S. laws regarding U.S. exports to India. The President must also certify on an annual basis that U.S. trade with India in these areas remains in the national security interests of the United States.

Section 109 requires that no action be undertaken under this act that could violate any U.S. obligation under the NPT. Section 110 explicitly stipulates that if India conducts a nuclear test, U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation is terminated. Finally, Sections 111 and 112 clarify India's Missile Technology Control Regime status under U.S. law and various terms used in the bill.

The US-Indian agreement resulted from a delicately balanced negotiation. Neither side got everything it wanted. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration and the Indian Government came to the conclusion that the agreement was in the national security interest of both countries. I urge Senators to vote in favor of this legislation without conditions that would kill the agreement.

I would also note that Senator Biden and I included an important piece of non-proliferation legislation in the bill as Title II. In 2004, the Senate ratified the IAEA Additional Protocol, but Congress did not pass implementing legislation that is required for the treaty to go into effect. President Bush has called on the Senate to act on this important matter, and the Committee voted unanimously in favor of this bill in March.

COMMITTEE MARK-UP:

Mr President, the Committee approved this legislation with a bipartisan vote of 16 - 2. Furthermore, fifteen members of the Committee asked to be named as original cosponsors. Since that time, additional Senators have requested to be added as cosponsors.

Due to the fact that the legislation was an original bill, the Parliamentarian ruled that cosponsors were not permitted. This is unfortunate because the amount of support our legislation has received is impressive. I appreciate the strong support of Senators Biden, Hagel, Chafee, Allen, Coleman, Voinovich, Alexander, Sununu, Murkowski, Martinez, Dodd, Kerry, Nelson, Obama, Cornyn, Bayh, Hutchison, DeWine, and Lott.

During our markup, the Committee rejected an amendment offered by Senator Feingold. Under the amendment, the President would have had to determine with absolute certainty that no US nuclear fuel exports to India could increase its production of fissile materials for weapons.

New Delhi would rightly see this as moving the goalposts -- an unacceptable unilateral alteration of the pact. If the Feingold amendment or others like it are included in the final legislation, they would effectively kill the US-India Agreement.

I would have preferred that the US-India agreement had included a commitment by New Delhi to stop making nuclear bomb materials, but negotiations did not yield that result. Instead, the Bush Administration won an important commitment to negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. Such a multilateral approach is the best way to reduce nuclear tensions and threats associated with an arms race in South Asia.

The Lugar-Biden bill declares it the policy of the United States to achieve as quickly as possible a cessation of the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan. Our bill also includes an annual reporting requirement detailing: "United States efforts to promote national or regional progress by India and Pakistan in disclosing, securing, capping, and reducing their fissile material stockpiles, pending creation of a world-wide fissile material cut-off regime, including the institution of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty."

Mr President, I will oppose amendments that delay or impose additional conditions on the agreement before it can enter into force. The Senate will not advance U.S. national security in this case by making the perfect the enemy of the good. We should not hold up the significant nonproliferation gains afforded by this initiative in order to seek a fissile material cap that India has indicated it will not consider absent similar commitments by Pakistan and China.

The United States and India have engaged in initial discussions on a multilateral Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), to be negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. We should press for rapid progress in that context.

SECTION 106:

The Indian Government has expressed concern about Section 106 of our bill. This section prohibits the export of any equipment, materials or technology related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent fuel, or the production of heavy water. These technologies are not purely civilian in nature. They are considered critical elements to a modern nuclear weapons program.

This provision in our bill is entirely consistent with President Bush's policy announcement on this matter at the National Defense University on February 11, 2004. In his speech, the President said:

"The 40 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group should refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technologies to any state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants. This step will prevent new states from developing the means to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs. Proliferators must not be allowed to cynically manipulate the NPT to acquire the material and infrastructure necessary for manufacturing illegal weapons."

President Bush also said that, "enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

In response to questions for the record that I submitted, Undersecretaries of State Bob Joseph and Nick Burns amplified this administration policy as it applies to the nuclear agreement with India. They said:

"For the United States, 'full civil nuclear cooperation' with India means trade in most civil nuclear technologies, including fuel and reactors. But we do not intend to provide enrichment or reprocessing technology to India. As the President said in February 2004, 'enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.' We do not currently provide enrichment or reprocessing equipment to any country. We will also need to ensure that any cooperation is fully consistent with U.S. obligations under the NPT not to in any way assist India's nuclear weapons program, and with provisions of U.S. law."

Undersecretaries Burns and Joseph also answered that:

"We do not export enrichment or reprocessing technology to any state. Therefore, full civil nuclear cooperation with India will not include enrichment or reprocessing technology."

This answer is especially significant, since the phrase "full civil nuclear energy cooperation" is the phrase taken directly from the July 2005 Joint Statement.

In response to a question for the record that I submitted to Secretary Rice, she responded:

"The U.S. does not foresee transferring heavy water production equipment or technology to India, and the draft bilateral peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement accordingly makes no provisions for such transfers."

Our Committee bill, S. 3709, does not break any new ground in this area. This is not a new subject. The answers to these questions have been on the Committee's website for months. Nothing in this bill deviates from the President's policy, and we even go one step further by allowing the flexibility to export those items from the United States for proliferation-resistant activities with the U.S. or under international cooperation. I support Section 106, and I think it is important that we take the strong and definitive statements made by President Bush, Secretary Rice, Undersecretary of State Nick Burns, and Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph and put them into law.

SECTION 107 - END-USE MONITORING:

The Indian Government has also expressed concern about Section 107, which requires an end-use monitoring program to be carried out with respect to U.S. exports and re-exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology sold or leased to India. Some have argued that this provision is not needed because IAEA safeguards would verify the use of any U.S. exports to India. IAEA safeguards only apply, however, to nuclear materials, not to nuclear technology. Sensitive technology of the kind the United States might export to India that can be used in India's civilian nuclear program could also advance India's nuclear weapons program. This type of end-use system is not without precedent, as Congress required similar record-keeping for nuclear cooperation with China.

An end-use monitoring program can provide increased confidence in India's separation of its civilian and military nuclear programs. It also would further ensure United States compliance with Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The provision is not intended to cast doubt on the sincerity of India's July 18 Joint Statement commitments or its March and May 2006 separation documents. Rather, the Committee believes that by building and establishing a special program with India, the resulting coordination between India and U.S. regulatory agencies can provide a basis for even greater cooperation and commerce between the two nations.

Section 107 would confirm that only authorized recipients are receiving nuclear technology; that the nuclear technology identified for transfer will be used only for peaceful safeguarded nuclear activities; that the nuclear technology identified for transfer will not be retransferred without the prior consent of the United States; and that facilities, equipment, or materials derived through the use of transferred technology will not be transferred without the prior consent of the United States.

This section also requires that, in the absence of IAEA safeguards, the U.S. and India must arrange a bilateral system to ensure that safeguards in India remain on U.S. exports and re-exports in perpetuity.

Section 107 requirements could be met by applying to India those measures already governing atomic energy cooperation under the 123 agreement with China. Under Secretary Joseph testified before the Committee that, while the 123 agreement with India will not provide for full-scope safeguards, it "will allow for appropriate controls to help ensure that material or goods provided for civilian purposes remain within the civilian sector." So nothing in section 107 would be inconsistent with what may be concluded in the 123 agreement with India itself.

IAEA ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL:

Title II of the bill includes the Committee's IAEA Additional Protocol Implementing Legislation. This title permits the Additional Protocol the U.S. has concluded with the IAEA to go into effect.

In President Bush's 2004 speech at the National Defense University, he called on the Senate to ratify the U.S. Additional Protocol with the IAEA. He said:

"We must ensure that the IAEA has all the tools it needs to fulfill its essential mandate. America and other nations support what is called the Additional Protocol, which requires states to declare a broad range of nuclear activities and facilities, and allow the IAEA to inspect those facilities � Nations that are serious about fighting proliferation will approve and implement the Additional Protocol. I've submitted the Additional Protocol to the Senate. I urge the Senate to consent immediately to its ratification."

The Committee on Foreign Relations voted unanimously to approve a resolution of ratification on the U.S. Additional Protocol on March 4, 2004, and the full Senate approved it on March 31 by unanimous consent.

Unfortunately the Additional Protocol is not self-executing. Congress must adopt implementing legislation for the United States to submit its instruments of ratification. In other words, implementing legislation must be passed before the Additional Protocol can go into effect. The Committee on Foreign Relations unanimously approved the implementing legislation on March 4, 2006, but efforts to pass the legislation in the full Senate have been unsuccessful due to holds placed by several Senators.

At a time when the Administration and the Congress are demanding that India conclude such an Additional Protocol as part of our overall nuclear arrangements with India, Congress must muster the political will to act on the implementing legislation. Our credibility as the leader of global non-proliferation efforts is at stake. Along with many other nations, we are asking the IAEA to perform critical functions aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation. An effective IAEA is very much in the national security interest of the United States.

Some Senators expressed concern that the Additional Protocol and the implementing legislation will make it possible, even likely, that international inspectors will learn secrets about our nuclear weapons program. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Additional Protocol does not contain any new arms control or disarmament obligations for the United States. Although there are increased rights granted to the IAEA for the conduct of inspections in the United States, the Administration has assured the Foreign Relations Committee that the likelihood of an inspection occurring in our country is very low. Moreover, even if an inspection under the Additional Protocol is requested, the United States has the full right, through the National Security Exclusion, to prevent the inspection if we determined that it could be potentially harmful to U.S. national security interests.

On July 26, 2006, National Security Advisor, Steve Hadley, expressed the Administration's support for the language in Title II. He wrote: "The Administration urges both Houses of Congress to act to complete expeditious action on implementing legislation to enable the United States to meet its obligations under the Additional Protocol." More recently, President Bush's Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, John Rood, testified at his confirmation hearing that the Administration strongly supports the Additional Protocol and that it is important that the United States pass implementing legislation.

I am pleased to report that a compromise was reached between the Administration, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and those Senators who expressed concerns about the IAEA Additional Protocol implementing legislation. This is an important step for U.S. nonproliferation policy, and I thank all of the parties involved in the discussions for their support of our efforts.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to approve the U.S.-India agreement. This legislation will allow the United States to engage in peaceful nuclear cooperation while safeguarding U.S. national security and nonproliferation efforts, as well as Congressional prerogatives. It is an opportunity to build a vital strategic partnership with a nation that shares our democratic values and will exert increasing influence on the world stage. We should move forward now.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Update. Inching closer to the finish.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/dec/08ndeal.htm?q=tp&file=.htm
Indo-US nuclear deal clears final hurdle

Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC | December 08, 2006 | 00:34 IST
The House-Senate conference committee compromise legislation to faciliate the US-India civilian nuclear agreement has passed both chambers of Congress and will now go to the President's desk for signature.

Administration sources said a signing ceremony would take place on Monday, December 11 with President George W Bush signing the bill into law.

The legislation which had hit a procedural snag Wednesday afternoon when one of the House conferees House Majority Leader John Boehner had put a hold on the conference committee report, was resolved Thursday morning and with it was sent immediately to the House and Senate for a voice vote that was met with a resonding aye.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6219998.stm
US agrees on India nuclear bill
US Congress negotiators have agreed on a law which will allow the US to export civilian nuclear fuel to India.

The bill will still have to be approved by both houses of Congress. The House of Representatives is due to consider it on Friday.

The deal offers India US nuclear technology in exchange for inspectors' access to Indian civilian reactors.

The accord has been hailed as historic by some, but critics say it will damage non-proliferation efforts.

The exact details of the new law are not yet known.

'Compromise bill'

The BBC's Shahzeb Jillani in Washington says lawmakers have reportedly fine-tuned the language and softened certain conditions in the nuclear agreement in order to accommodate the Indian government's reservations about the deal.

Supporters of the bill, backed by the White House, are confident that the "compromise bill" will be acceptable to the Indian government, he says.

Earlier, a senior US state department official, Nicholas Burns - who is visiting the Indian capital, Delhi - said he anticipated what he described as a very successful and supportive bill, well within the parameters of an agreement signed between India and the US.

The proposed agreement reverses US policy to restrict nuclear co-operation with Delhi because it has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and has twice tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998.

US President George W Bush finalised the agreement during a landmark trip to India in March.

US Senate and House of Representatives committees backed the deal in June.

Under the deal, energy-hungry India will get access to US civil nuclear technology and fuel, in return for opening its civilian nuclear facilities to inspection.

But its nuclear weapons sites will remain off-limits.

Critics of the deal say it could boost India's nuclear arsenal and sends the wrong message to countries like Iran, whose nuclear ambitions Washington opposes.

India has made clear that the final agreement must not bind it to supporting the US policy on Iran and does not prevent it from developing its own fissile material.
...
NUCLEAR POWER IN INDIA
India has 14 reactors in commercial operation and nine under construction
Nuclear power supplies about 3% of India's electricity
By 2050, nuclear power is expected to provide 25% of the country's electricity
India has limited coal and uranium reserves
Its huge thorium reserves - about 25% of the world's total - are expected to fuel its nuclear power programme long-term
Source: Uranium Information Center


Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns is in India for negotiations.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Nuclear_waiver_to_India_permanent_reiterates_US/articleshow/744934.cms
Nuclear waiver to India permanent, says US
NEW DELHI: United States’ Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns on Friday said that the US was "very pleased" with the final civil nuclear legislation and stressed that the nuclear waiver to be granted to India will be a permanent one, not subject to annual reviews.

"The wavier from the existing rules that forbid the export of nuclear technology to countries which have not signed the nuclear NPT to India is going to be a permanent one," Burns said.

"Under the legislation, the waiver authority given to the US administration is permanent and is not going to be reviewed annually," Burns stressed, responding to anxieties that the US was trying to make the waiver subject to annual certification by the US president that India had not conducted any nuclear test.

The final legislation, which emerged after a reconciliation conference late Thursday, has replaced the provision for annual presidential certification as contained in the Senate provision of the bill with just an assessment by the president that India was compliant with its non-proliferation obligations.

It has also smoothed out another irritant, a linkage to the Iranian nuclear issue, by putting it in the non-binding section that enjoins upon the administration to submit its assessment to Congress that India was cooperating with US on the issue.

The bill asks the administration to give a "description and assessment of specific measures that India has taken to fully and actively participate in the US and international efforts to dissuade, isolate and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction".

In an interview to a private news channel, Burns described the final nuclear legislation, which will be voted upon by the two chambers of the US Congress on Friday, as a "100 per cent good deal" and hoped that both governments would welcome it.

"This is a big breakthrough. It's a symbol of this new strategic relationship between India and the US," Burns said.

Burns is in India on a four-day visit to discuss the bilateral 123 civil nuclear agreement and other aspects of Indo-US ties.

"India has been kept outside. As a great power and a friend of the US, India has to be brought in. They did the right thing to break with three decades of conventional wisdom," Burns said, underlining that the nuclear legislation will enable New Delhi to access civil nuclear technology and fuel after a long ban.

Burns also stressed that the final legislation met all the commitments made by the US and was in conformity with the July 18, 2005 understanding between the two countries and the March 2, 2006 agreement between the two countries.

Burns outlined a partnership between India and the US in the civilian nuclear industry. "We (India and the US) should make a formidable team in designing and modernising civil nuclear plants. I am confident it will be a very successful and supportive bill," Burns went on to say.

Business is gonna boom (pun unintented:p )

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6157947.stm
US firms seek opportunities in India
By Karishma Vaswani
Business correspondent, BBC News, Mumbai

The Indian US Business Summit comes to a close in Mumbai, the country's financial capital on Thursday.

It is the biggest trade mission from the US to any country in the world, bringing over 250 American firms to India.

At least 25 of these firms are from the civilian nuclear power sector, exploring opportunities with Indian businesses, ahead of the impending Indian-US nuclear deal.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/04/top11.htm

WASHINGTON, Dec 3: A US mining company has agreed to sell 500 metric tons of uranium a year to India, the US media reported on Sunday.

The agreement between WM Mining and India’s Nuclear Fuel Complex will be executed only after the Indo-US nuclear deal is concluded.

Both chambers of the US Congress have already approved the deal and a final approval is expected at a joint session sometime next week. The bill will then be sent to President George W Bush who has already agreed to sign it into a law.

The law would end a three-decade ban on nuclear commerce with India, enabling major US companies to benefit from the lucrative Indian market.

Last week, the US sent a 250-member trade delegation to Mumbai, representing 180 companies. As many as 30 members of the delegation represented 14 US firms in the nuclear sector.Representatives from nuclear reactor manufacturers Westinghouse, General Electric, BWX Technologies and fuel processing specialist Thorium Power also visited a nuclear site in India.

The US-India Business Council estimates that New Delhi will need at least $100 billion worth of investment to develop nuclear energy over the next 20 years.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200611301925.htm?headline=US~firm~ties~up~with~Nuclear~Fuel~Complex~for~uranium~supply
US firm ties up with Nuclear Fuel Complex for uranium supply

Mumbai, Nov. 30 (PTI): American uranium mining major W M Mining has agreed on a contract with India's Nuclear Fuel Complex to sell 500 metric tonnes of uranium a year and is waiting for the Indo-US civil nuclear deal to go through to execute it.

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=147845
More US nuclear companies to join the India bandwagon

Sanjay Jog

Mumbai, Dec 1 Impressed with the high quality of state-run Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd's (NPCIL) existing plants and the credibility of its expansion programme, the US government and the visiting American nuclear companies plan to organise one more visit to India to explore business opportunities. This was what representatives of US nuclear companies GE, Westinghouse, Thorium Power and Transco Products had to say during a presentation by NPCIL here on Friday.


If you are into stocks, NOW would be a very good time to invest in these companies.;) :)

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1061119/asp/frontpage/story_7022388.asp
Ron Somers, president of the US-India Business Council (USIBC), which took the initiative to create the CPI, said after the Senate passed the India-related bill: “In every regard, this bill presents a win.... It lays the foundation for major trade and investment opportunities in India for US companies. As many as 27,000 high quality jobs each year for the next 10 years will be created in the US nuclear industry alone as a result of this agreement.”

As many as 27,000 high quality jobs each year for the next 10 years will be created in the US nuclear industry alone as a result of this agreement.

That's what they said with all the job exporting....

That's what they said with all the job exporting....

The opportunity is there. It is upto the US industries to use it.

India needs energy and its awash with cash. If US cannot capitalize on this, somebody else will (Frenchies, Russkies etc).

I am still thinking why the hell did Hilary vote FOR a killer amendment and in the end voted FOR the deal too.

I think she just had the Kerry "I voted for the bill before I voted against the bill" moment. Now she can say "I voted for the amendment because I am tough on national security" and she can tell her Indian voters in NYC that she voted for the bill. And democrats wonder why they are called flip-flops and indecisive etc...:rolleyes:

It's more because she wants to run for president. It doesn't matter what the voters in NYC think, she'll win her senate seat regardless of how she votes on this issue.

I'm surprised that she's part of the so-called India caucus.

In another two decades India could wind up being the most important ally the US has, and, especially give the rising influence of China, having India around is a good idea.

It's more because she wants to run for president. It doesn't matter what the voters in NYC think, she'll win her senate seat regardless of how she votes on this issue.

I'm surprised that she's part of the so-called India caucus.

I found out that she is related to Sen. Barbara Boxer (her brother married Boxer's daughter).

She needs to be chucked out of the caucus.