The votes cleared the path for full House and Senate votes on the deal.

The Senate and House committees both approved the legislation by overwhelming majorities and most Democrats on both committees voted with the majority Republicans on them. This ensured bipartisan support of the agreement, sending the message that future Democratic administrations would be as determined to uphold the agreement as Republican ones.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to approve the agreement by 16 to two. The House International Committee voted 37-5 in favor of the House's version of the bill.

The Senate and House must now approve their respective bills, reconcile the two, and ratify the nuclear deal in a final vote.

But before the U>S. Congress can finally pass the deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency must complete negotiations with India for inspections of its civilian nuclear facilities and the United States must settle on the technical details of the arrangement. Additionally, all 45 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group must approve the agreement.

The controversial nuclear energy deal grants India access to nuclear fuel, technology and reactors from the United States in return for opening up its civilian nuclear facilities to inspection.

The Senate bill's prime sponsor, Foreign Relation Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., lauded the deal as "the most important strategic diplomatic initiative undertaken by President Bush," which would improve global stability and expand diplomatic options.

Critics worry about that the deal will allow India to expand nuclear weapons production and generally corrode nonproliferation standards.

"It creates complexities and inconsistencies in our relationships with other countries that are going to have to be managed if this thing goes through," Christopher Paine, senior nuclear programs analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told United Press International. "It's going weaken our case with Iran; it's going to weaken our case with North Korea."

Other nations may view India's unique treatment as justification for them to develop their own nuclear weapons programs.

"If we're entitled to make an exception for our client state India, won't there be pressure within the China-Pakistan relationship to reach a similar kind of understanding where China starts to supply advanced civil nuclear technology to Pakistan outside of safeguards?" Paine asked. "And then where does it stop?"

Any nuclear technology transferred to India for civilian functions could also be used for military purposes, Paine said, and a thin line separates India's civilian and military programs.

At a nuclear research facility such as the Bhabha Atomic Research Center that contains both civilian and military sections, technology could easily migrate from one sector to the other. Or the resources freed up by importing fuel from the United States could be allocated to military efforts.

Congress should mandate a cap on India's production of uranium and plutonium at the current level so that any imports of technology or materials would not be used to boost India's weapons stockpile, Paine said.

And the United States should refrain from granting India access to advanced fuel cycle nuclear technology that is applicable to weapons production, while helping the country with other technology to steer it away from its current civilian energy program, which Paine says, "has been an economic and technological disaster for India."

Nuclear cooperation with India is positive, Paine said, so long as it does not lead to assistance in proliferation.

Related Links