Congressional Democrats have introduced a resolution seeking to block a U.S.-Saudi civil nuclear cooperation agreement, citing concerns about uranium enrichment and limits on international inspections.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, along with Reps. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), and Don Beyer (D-Va.), introduced the joint resolution of disapproval Sept. 17, shortly before lawmakers left Washington ahead of the November midterm elections.
The proposed resolution comes during a 90-day congressional review period for the agreement, which was formally transmitted to Congress in August under Section 123 of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. If Congress does not pass a resolution of disapproval, the agreement will take effect after the review period.
In the other chamber, Sens. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced their own joint resolution. The Senators also said in a Sept. 16 statement they both led a “bipartisan group of Senators” to press the Donald Trump administration into publicly releasing text, which has never been classified in past agreements, accompanying the nuclear agreement.
The agreement, called a 123 agreement, would facilitate U.S. participation in Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear program, potentially involving tens of billions of dollars in nuclear energy projects and the construction of AP1000 reactors.
A 123 agreement, otherwise called the “gold standard” nuclear agreement, is a legal framework that calls for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and another country, requiring a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation between both parties in order for the United States to export nuclear material, according to the State Department.
The agreement has drawn scrutiny because it does not explicitly prohibit Saudi Arabia from pursuing uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing, both terms usually required in 123 agreements. It also provides for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards focused on declared nuclear facilities rather than the broader access associated with the IAEA’s Additional Protocol.
“This U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement dangerously departs from decades of nonproliferation standards and presents considerable risks,” the House resolution said. “For decades, across administrations of both parties, the United States has committed to a clear nonproliferation policy that no new countries should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons… The proposed nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia fails to secure these critical safety measures.”
The agreement includes a joint U.S.-Saudi study on the feasibility of uranium enrichment in the kingdom.
“Access to the full text is required for the Senate and the public to have a clear understanding of the commitments being made on the nation’s behalf and those being made by Saudi Arabia to the United States,” the Senators wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. Included in the bipartisan group is Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
The Trump administration has defended the agreement as a way to ensure U.S. companies participate in Saudi Arabia’s nuclear development rather than competitors from countries including China and Russia.
This is not the first time Democratic lawmakers have expressed concern over the U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement. Democrats in the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations committees in March expressed similar concerns to a State Department official testifying before Congress. Merkley (D-Ore.) has also pushed back on the deal in the form of legislation.
The review and any potential vote are expected to continue after Congress returns following the November elections.
