Lawmakers’ Retort to Obama’s ‘Flexible’ Nuclear Trade Policy: Potential New Limits

Students look at a model of a nuclear power plant jointly designed by Hitachi and General Electric on display at an international nuclear power exhibition held in Hanoi in October 2012. On the eve of signing a nuclear trade pact with Vietnam, the Obama team is recasting an existing negotiating policy and seeing pushback from Capitol Hill.
National Journal
Elaine M. Grossman
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Elaine M. Grossman
Dec. 12, 2013, 11:02 a.m.

Lead­ing House and Sen­ate law­makers will of­fer le­gis­la­tion as early as Fri­day to tight­en con­gres­sion­al re­view of U.S. nuc­le­ar trade pacts.

The move is in re­sponse to the con­clu­sion this week of an in­tern­al Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion re­view, which has been un­der way for sev­er­al years.

In an ex­pec­ted Thursday af­ter­noon an­nounce­ment, Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire has learned that the State and En­ergy de­part­ments will double down on a de facto policy to­ward “flex­ible” ne­go­ti­ations on nuc­le­ar trade and non­pro­lif­er­a­tion that a num­ber of Cap­it­ol Hill Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans con­tend would not ad­equately pro­tect glob­al se­cur­ity.

Sen­at­or Ed­ward Mar­key (D-Mass.) joined Rep­res­ent­at­ives Ileana Ros-Le­htin­en (R-Fla.) and Brad Sher­man (D-Cal­if.) on Wed­nes­day in an­noun­cing they plan to in­tro­duce a meas­ure that could make it tough­er for the White House to win con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al for shar­ing sens­it­ive nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­als, re­act­or equip­ment and know-how with in­ter­na­tion­al trade part­ners.

U.S. nuc­le­ar-co­oper­a­tion ac­cords with na­tions that agree to fore­go an in­di­gen­ous ca­pa­city for mak­ing nuc­le­ar fuel would get more fast-track treat­ment un­der the pro­posed bill. Its pro­ponents fear that al­low­ing na­tions to man­u­fac­ture their own fuel for en­ergy pur­poses could make it easi­er to con­struct il­li­cit nuc­le­ar bombs.

The le­gis­la­tion is ex­pec­ted to be al­most identic­al to a bi­par­tis­an meas­ure in­tro­duced by Ros-Le­htin­en in March 2011 that the U.S. nuc­le­ar-en­ergy in­dustry op­posed and which failed to at­tract the sup­port of House Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship. It passed with un­an­im­ous sup­port of the House For­eign Af­fairs Com­mit­tee, which Ros-Le­htin­en chaired at the time, but nev­er went to a floor vote.

The law­makers spoke at a Wed­nes­day event on Cap­it­ol Hill sponsored by the Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Policy Edu­ca­tion Cen­ter, in ad­vance of an an­ti­cip­ated Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion policy an­nounce­ment by Rose Got­te­moeller, the act­ing un­der­sec­ret­ary of State for arms con­trol and in­ter­na­tion­al se­cur­ity, and Daniel Pone­man, the deputy En­ergy sec­ret­ary.

Speak­ing at the At­lantic Coun­cil on Thursday, the pair is ex­pec­ted to de­scribe what is now be­ing termed a “flex­ible” U.S. ap­proach to ne­go­ti­at­ing nuc­le­ar co­oper­a­tion with for­eign na­tions.

Un­der the policy, Wash­ing­ton will at­tempt to in­terest new nuc­le­ar-trade in­ter­locutors in mak­ing either leg­ally bind­ing or polit­ic­al pledges not to do­mest­ic­ally en­rich urani­um or re­pro­cess plutoni­um, ac­cord­ing to a State De­part­ment of­fi­cial in­ter­viewed on Wed­nes­day.

However, the Obama team will not al­low the lack of so-called nuc­le­ar non­pro­lif­er­a­tion “gold stand­ard” pro­vi­sions to stop any de­sired trade ac­cord from go­ing for­ward, be­cause of the eco­nom­ic be­ne­fits these pacts can bring, the of­fi­cial ex­plained.

The an­ti­cip­ated Thursday an­nounce­ment comes after years of in­tern­al policy re­views about wheth­er the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion should im­ple­ment its long-pro­posed “case-by-case” ap­proach to ne­go­ti­at­ing nuc­le­ar trade agree­ments.

That ap­proach has re­ceived strong and con­sist­ent push­back from lead­ing fig­ures on Cap­it­ol Hill. These Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans have sought in­stead more ag­gress­ive cham­pi­on­ing of a no-en­rich­ment-and-re­pro­cessing pledge by trade part­ners in ex­change for Wash­ing­ton’s in­flu­en­tial “bless­ing” on their bud­ding nuc­le­ar-en­ergy pro­grams.

The State De­part­ment of­fi­cial, speak­ing on con­di­tion of not be­ing named, told GSN on Wed­nes­day that the flex­ible ne­go­ti­at­ing ap­proach be­ing un­veiled this week is es­sen­tially the same as the con­tro­ver­sial case-by-case ap­proach touted in earli­er years, but that “flex­ible” seemed like a more ac­cur­ate de­scrip­tion.

Got­te­moeller and Pone­man are set­ting the stage for Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry’s vis­it to Vi­et­nam next week, where he is ex­pec­ted to sign a form­al nuc­le­ar co­oper­a­tion agree­ment with the South­east Asi­an na­tion. Kerry and his Vi­et­namese coun­ter­part ini­tialed the pact on a pre­vi­ous vis­it to the re­gion in Oc­to­ber.

Cap­it­ol Hill aides said the ques­tion of wheth­er to al­low con­tin­ued urani­um en­rich­ment in Ir­an in a fu­ture long-term deal with West­ern powers — des­pite con­cerns about Tehran’s widely sus­pec­ted am­bi­tions of de­vel­op­ing a nuc­le­ar-arms cap­ab­il­ity — have stoked the push in Con­gress to re­sus­cit­ate the earli­er shelved le­gis­la­tion.

Un­der the up­com­ing meas­ure, any nuc­le­ar trade pact that lacks leg­ally bind­ing pro­vi­sions that leave open the pos­sib­il­ity of a new trade part­ner’s do­mest­ic en­rich­ment or re­pro­cessing would re­quire a ma­jor­ity vote by the House and Sen­ate be­fore go­ing for­ward in­to im­ple­ment­a­tion.

Those that do con­tain bars against in­di­gen­ous re­pro­cessing or en­rich­ment would pro­ceed along the same, more per­missive con­gres­sion­al re­view pro­cess that ap­plies to all atom­ic trade agree­ments today — namely, a 90-day con­tinu­ous-ses­sion wait­ing peri­od of con­gres­sion­al re­view after which the pact can be im­ple­men­ted, with no Cap­it­ol Hill votes re­quired.

Con­cerns are not lim­ited to the situ­ation with Ir­an, though. The up­com­ing U.S. nuc­le­ar trade ac­cord with Hanoi con­tains a pre­amble that says any for­eign re­act­ors built on Vi­et­namese soil will use for­eign fuel, rather than do­mest­ic­ally en­riched urani­um or re­pro­cessed plutoni­um, ac­cord­ing to key sources.

However, this non­pro­lif­er­a­tion safe­guard is not in the main text of the agree­ment and thus is not con­sidered leg­ally bind­ing. U.S. of­fi­cials have said they were un­able to win a leg­ally en­force­able gold-stand­ard prom­ise from Vi­et­nam, but they be­lieve the pact suf­fi­ciently as­sures se­cur­ity and re­mains in U.S. eco­nom­ic in­terests.

Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials re­portedly have told Cap­it­ol Hill that they will de­term­ine wheth­er to de­mand gold-stand­ard pro­vi­sions in fu­ture nuc­le­ar trade agree­ments based on three factors: The re­l­at­ive sta­bil­ity or in­stabil­ity of the re­gion in­volved; the past be­ha­vi­or of the par­tic­u­lar na­tion; and wheth­er that na­tion would walk away from a pact with Wash­ing­ton if such a pledge were re­quired.

Sev­er­al key law­makers who sup­por­ted en­act­ing new le­gis­lat­ive re­straints on nuc­le­ar trade agree­ments in the past are no longer on Cap­it­ol Hill or serving in lead­er­ship po­s­i­tions — to in­clude Ros-Le­htin­en, who is no longer the For­eign Af­fairs com­mit­tee chair­man, and former Rep­res­ent­at­ive Howard Ber­man (D-Cal­if.) and Sen­at­or Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), both voted out of of­fice.

The re­newed bi­par­tis­an push this week by sit­ting law­makers, though, guar­an­tees that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s head­aches on nuc­le­ar trade talks and non­pro­lif­er­a­tion is­sues are far from over, just as the Vi­et­nam agree­ment gets sent up to Cap­it­ol Hill.

“Dis­cour­aging the spread of en­rich­ment and re­pro­cessing tech­no­logy by whatever means should be a pri­or­ity goal for the ad­min­is­tra­tion, es­pe­cially giv­en where we are with Ir­an,” one con­gres­sion­al aide told GSN on Thursday.

This art­icle was pub­lished in Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire, which is pro­duced in­de­pend­ently by Na­tion­al Journ­al Group un­der con­tract with the Nuc­le­ar Threat Ini­ti­at­ive. NTI is a non­profit, non­par­tis­an group work­ing to re­duce glob­al threats from nuc­le­ar, bio­lo­gic­al, and chem­ic­al weapons.

What We're Following See More »
CFPB Decision May Reverberate to Other Agencies
48 minutes ago

"A federal appeals court's decision that declared the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau an arm of the White House relies on a novel interpretation of the constitution's separation of powers clause that could have broader effects on how other regulators" like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Morning Consult Poll: Clinton Decisively Won Debate
59 minutes ago

"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."

Twitter Bots Dominated First Debate
2 hours ago

Twitter bots, "automated social media accounts that interact with other users," accounted for a large part of the online discussion during the first presidential debate. Bots made up 22 percent of conversation about Hillary Clinton on the social media platform, and a whopping one third of Twitter conversation about Donald Trump.

Center for Public Integrity to Spin Off Journalism Arm
2 hours ago

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the nonprofit that published the Panama Papers earlier this year, is being spun off from its parent organization, the Center for Public Integrity. According to a statement, "CPI’s Board of Directors has decided that enabling the ICIJ to chart its own course will help both journalistic teams build on the massive impact they have had as one organization."

EPA Didn’t Warn Flint Residents Soon Enough
2 hours ago

According to a new report, the Environmental Protection Agency waited too long before informing the residents of Flint, Mich. that their water was contaminated with lead. Written by the EPA's inspector general, it places blame squarely at the foot of the agency itself, saying it had enough information by June 2015 to issue an emergency order. However, the order wasn't issued until the end of January 2016.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.