Jeff Bingaman: “the amendment I am proposing here is not a killer amendment. I know the traditional approach in the Senate is that any…”

“the amendment I am proposing here is not a killer amendment. I know the traditional approach in the Senate is that any time an amendment is offered, it is characterized by its opponents as a killer amendment, so you could make the argument that anything we might change in the pending legislation would absolutely kill our prospects of getting anything done. But this amendment is not a killer amendment. As Senator Nunn has stated in his op-ed piece, it is not a killer amendment: Unless you believe that India will continue its weapons-usable nuclear material production, and that U.S. and Indian pledges to work for a fissile material cutoff treaty are insincere, meaningless gestures. If those pledges are sincere and meaningful, as I trust they are, then this amendment simply says they should be fulfilled before exports begin. Adoption of my amendment will significantly strengthen the agreement with India. As Senator Nunn has said: This two-stage approach would significantly strengthen the deal in a way that improves the protection of our core security interests, while ultimately allowing trade to proceed. By establishing a linkage between exports of nuclear material and the cessation of Indian production of nuclear weapons material, this amendment will maintain the integrity of an important U.S. security objective; that is, preventing the growth and spread of nuclear weapons-usable material around the globe.”