Election watch: Indian nuclear deal lobbyists target Democrats

A DNA Analysis

NEW YORK: Supporters of the Indian nuclear deal are not waiting for the results to roll in from the US midterm elections to pitch their own campaign at the Democrats. They feel the Democrats tend to be more cautious on issues of nuclear proliferation and some even worry that if they recapture power in Congress it could embolden them to contravene Bush’s foreign policy agenda.

“There is bipartisan support for the nuclear deal but in a worst case scenario the bill may get snared in wrangling between Democrats and Republicans -- especially if the balance of power shifts after the elections,” said an Indian lobbyist.

Democrats need to pick up 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate to take Congress. Some say that if the Republicans cannot keep control of Congress, President Bush will have trouble winning approval for the Indian nuclear deal.

Lobbyists say the Democrats now hold the key to making the pact a reality. After all, obstruction by the opposition Democrats in the Senate forced the delay in the approval of the deal in the first place. There is nervousness in New Delhi that the pact could slip away if it is not taken up by the Senate when it returns for two short-burst “lame duck” sessions. The first starts on November 13 and ends in a week; then the Senate returns for another session in December.  

Senate failure to take up the nuclear bill would mean the approval process will have to be jump-started again after January 2007 and the bill will go through a new Senate and House of Representatives despite the House having already voted in support of the deal. 

“We have met Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and key Democrat leaders to press our case. We are optimistic that it is going to get done when the Senate returns,” said Anurag Verma, consul for the India-US Friendship Council, which is lobbying the nuclear deal on Capitol Hill.   

The “lame-duck” session is meant for taking up emergency business. But US captains of industry are leveraging Democrat senators and urging them not to hold up the nuclear deal. “The nuclear bill may be taken up in the Senate as the number two item on the agenda ahead of the domestic surveillance bill,” said a business lobbyist.   

Congressman Jim McDermott, a senior Democrat leader who is one of the five founders of the jumbo-sized Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans had told DNA way back in June that the Indian nuclear deal would not get done before the elections. 

“I have no doubt that there will be something worked out on this issue — I don’t foresee the Indian nuclear deal being something that is just left by the wayside. It would be nicer if it were resolved in a more orderly fashion without being mixed in with elections, but the fact is that the real world intervenes,” McDermott had told DNA.

“This will probably be decided in 2007 after the elections” he added while stressing that India should not read any delays as lack of support for the landmark nuclear agreement. 

The Senate could take up the bill when it returns for the lame duck session, but other approvals are needed beyond that and they are likely to push the deal’s kismet into 2007. Even if the Senate votes soon, its bill differs from the House version so the two bills must be reconciled, then approved again.

Even the optimistic like Verma expect Democrat senators to press for amendments; “The deal is a feather in President Bush’s cap so there are Democrats who need to find a way to stay consistent in their opposition to his policies. It is the political process playing out.” 

Democrat Senators earlier weighed down the bill by asking for 19 amendments. India made it clear it would not accept conditions that went beyond the agreement with Bush. 

The anti-nuclear lobby has been urging lawmakers, especially Democrats, to amend the bill. “US legislators should not perceive this agreement as a fait accompli and they still have a chance to address the deal’s more egregious flaws,” said Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association, a leading critic of the agreement.