Regarding the Introduction of H.R. 6298, to Restrict Nuclear Cooperation with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I was proud to join as an original cosponsor of H.R. 6298, restricting nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia, authored by Congressman ED MARKEY of Massachusetts and Congresswoman ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN of Florida. However, I do not believe Congress should permanently close the door on nuclear cooperation with any state, even a state that has large petro-carbon and other energy resources, provided that the country make, as part of any agreement providing for nuclear cooperation, permanent commitments that will enhance U.S. nonproliferation goals.

The Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia regarding potential nuclear cooperation could lead to the transfer of nuclear technology from the United States without such commitments on the part of the Saudis, and would otherwise not advance our nonproliferation goals.

The restrictions on nuclear cooperation set forth in H.R 6298 can be modified by future legislation. Even after enactment, Congress should review any proposal by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for nuclear cooperation which contains unambiguous, permanent, enforceable and verifiable commitments by the Kingdom to prevent proliferation, including especially a binding commitment by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to never develop sensitive aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Nuclear cooperation is an important aspect of commercial relations between countries, and Congress must more effectively exercise its Constitutional authority in this area. The current mechanism for Congressional review of nuclear cooperation agreements laid out in Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act does not serve us well in that regard. Currently, the Administration may negotiate an agreement and put it into force simply by laying it before the Congress for 90 continuous session days. Congress, if it disapproves of a proposed ``123 Agreement'' would have to pass a resolution of disapproval, and would have to override a presumptive veto of such a resolution by a 2/3 rds vote.

There is no reason for us to impose on Congress the requirement to achieve a super- majority in order to prevail in a dispute with the Executive Branch on an issue where Congress clearly has the Constitutional prerogative, namely international commerce (see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). 1 look forward to efforts to overhaul the Atomic Energy Act to require affirmative approval by Congress before a nuclear cooperation agreement can enter into force.

Source