Congress Considers Nuclear Pact with Russia

During the Cold War, it would have been hard to imagine -- Congress is considering an agreement with Russia that would promote official government cooperation on a broad range of nuclear issues.

The agreement, signed by U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Burns and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, would allow companies in both countries to negotiate trade in nuclear materials directly among themselves, opening the door for billions of dollars worth of commercial trade between the former rivals.

But the pact is controversial, and some members of Congress want to block the deal. For many of us, the word ‘nuclear’ has powerful negative connotations, conjuring images of three-eyed fish at best - and apocalyptic destruction at worst.

More specifically, members of Congress want assurances that Russia will end its support for Iranian weapons and nuclear fuel programs, saying that Russia has undermined U.S. foreign policy by aiding Iran’s attempts to go nuclear. 

But there is also a growing consensus that nuclear energy could be part of the solution to the energy crisis in this country and abroad. 

The U.S. - Russia agreement

The new deal would give the United States access to new nuclear technologies like recycling nuclear fuel, and allow the U.S. to buy Russian-enriched uranium.

Russia, in turn, would be able to achieve its long-term goal of establishing an international nuclear fuel storage facility by allowing other countries to store spent nuclear fuel in Russia, for a price.

Under the new pact, Russia's vast uranium fields could conceivably replace oil and gas as a crucial source of both income and diplomatic power for Russia’s government. For the Russian government, lucrative fuel storage contracts could provide a needed cash-infusion.

Despite having the world's seventh-biggest oil reserves, Russian tax policies have caused oil and gas production to fall steadily. A government export duty of 65%, plus various corporate, payroll and production taxes discourage production by eating up as much as 92% of profits for oil and gas companies. The Russian government offers tax breaks on production from older fields, causing oil and gas firms to concentrating on squeezing as much oil as they can out of those rather than developing new reserves. Despite high taxes, falling production has made the Russian government unable to take full advantage of soaring fuel prices.

Environmentalists and some Russians are opposed to storing fuel in Russia, however, saying it turns Russia into the world’s nuclear dump. 

Congress must approve

The U.S Atomic Energy Act - passed in 1946 following WWII and amended in 1954 to give the civilian nuclear energy program further access to nuclear technology - requires Congressional approval of nuclear deals between the U.S. and any other nation. Under section 123, nuclear cooperation agreements must be reviewed by Congress on an individual basis – the United States already has so-called 123-Agreements with China and others, but in this case, the politics of Iran are also a factor.

The U.S. House of Representatives is already on record as saying the United States should reject civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia because of Moscow's aid in building a plant in Iran and supplying it with fuel. A similar resolution is pending in the Senate with some 70 co-sponsors. The House version passed 397-16, on Sept. 25, 2007.

Opponents of the nuclear pact say that these broad bills that sanction Iran already contain language that would block agreements with Russia and have enough Congressional support to overcome presidential vetoes if need be.

Congress can block the pact itself in one of two ways – by enacting a joint resolution within 90 days, or by doing nothing. The president could veto the joint resolution option, requiring a two-thirds majority from both chambers to override. Or, Congress can kill the agreement by sitting on it.

The U.S. - Russia nuclear pact needs to reside with Congress for 90 continuous days before going into effect. If Congress adjourns by September 26^th, 2008, as it intends, it will fall short of the 90-day requirement and kill the deal.

Proliferation

Russia and the U.S. already cooperate on one nuclear effort: preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. 

Under the 1993 Megatons to Megawatts agreement, high- enriched uranium (HEU) from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons is converted into low-enriched uranium (LEU), which is then converted into nuclear fuel for use in U.S. commercial reactors. In 2008, fuel arriving in the United States under the program powers 40 percent of US reactors. Also known as the HEU-LEU project, the contract expires in 2013.

Driving the new pact were recent US court decisions eliminating high tariffs that blocked imports of Russian uranium to the United States, except for those covered by the Megatons to Megawatts agreement. Since the nonproliferation program was protected by the high tariffs, some U.S. proliferation experts fear that the agreement would undermine efforts to reduce Russia’s stockpile of weapons.

Top officials in both countries, however, say that the pact will aid non-proliferation efforts by allowing Washington and Moscow to move forward on proposals for international nuclear fuel banks. Hosted by Russia, but controlled jointly by Russia, the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the fuel bank would sell access to nuclear fuel services to countries that do not have enrichment capabilities of their own - discouraging nations seeking nuclear power from pursuing uranium enrichment themselves, as Iran has done. 

The House of Representatives has already passed a bill approving the release of $50 million of funding for a fuel bank, a gesture aimed to undermine Iran’s argument that it needs to enrich nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The bill would also, however, bar the Tehran government from participating in the fuel bank as long as it is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Advocates on both sides of the debate frame the ‘nuclear issue’ in black and white terms. But the reality is that in this country we already have both nuclear bombs and nuclear power. As the complexity of the Congressional debate reveals, it’s becoming more difficult to talk about weapons and energy separately - or to prevent other countries from following our lead.

What do you think?

Tell your representatives in Congress what you think!

About WomenMatter

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• To explore our archive of past Security Life Issue updates, click here.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.