[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 13190]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     REGARDING THE INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 6298, TO RESTRICT NUCLEAR 
              COOPERATION WITH THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BRAD SHERMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 19, 2008

  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\ 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.

                          ____________________