Uranium enrichment is the process of increasing the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope relative to uranium-238 in a quantity of uranium. Natural uranium consists of approximately 0.7 percent of the fissile uranium-235 isotope, while uranium used in commercial nuclear power reactors generally consists of 3 to 5 percent uranium-235 and uranium for nuclear weapons requires a higher concentration of uranium-235. In addition, as a nuclear reactor operates, some of the uranium in the reactor fuel is converted to plutonium, which can also be used as a weapons material when it is separated from other elements of the irradiated, or spent, fuel through a process known as reprocessing. Plutonium and enriched uranium are “special nuclear material” under the Atomic Energy Act. The processes for obtaining such material— enrichment and reprocessing—are called sensitive nuclear technologies. Under the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force in 1970, non-nuclear weapon state parties to the treaty may not acquire nuclear weapons and must conclude a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). IAEA is an independent international organization affiliated with the United Nations that has the dual mission of promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and verifying, through a set of technical measures called safeguards, that nuclear technologies and materials are not diverted from peaceful uses to military purposes. Most countries have also brought into force an Additional Protocol to their CSAs, which provides IAEA with a broader range of information on the country’s nuclear and nuclear-related activities than under a CSA alone and gives the agency’s inspectors access to an expanded range of locations. For example, the Additional Protocol requires states to declare the location and status, among other things, of uranium mines and uranium and thorium mills. Under a CSA alone, material in mining or ore processing activities (e.g., uranium at mines and mills) is not subject to the agency’s safeguards as it is not yet suitable for enrichment. The United States promotes universal adoption of the Additional Protocol as a policy, but it is not a requirement for the conclusion of a nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States. Figure 1 shows the safeguards arrangements of the partners with which the United States has nuclear cooperation agreements. Section 123 of the AEA establishes a framework for civilian nuclear cooperation agreements, which are a prerequisite for the export of certain nuclear material and equipment, including major components of nuclear reactors. The United States has 23 such agreements with other nations and entities. Section 123 generally requires that nuclear cooperation agreements include nine nonproliferation conditions, such as a guarantee from the cooperating party that transfers will not be used for any military purpose. The President may exempt an agreement from any of these requirements, provided that the president determines that the inclusion of any such requirement would be seriously prejudicial to United States nonproliferation objectives or otherwise jeopardize the common defense and security. See Table 1 for a list of the nine requirements. Section 123 of the AEA also requires that State supply the President with an unclassified Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement (NPAS) for each proposed agreement, accompanied by a classified annex prepared in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence. The NPAS describes how the agreement meets AEA nonproliferation requirements and usually includes an overview of the other party’s nuclear energy program and related infrastructure, nonproliferation policies, and relations with countries of proliferation concern. Section 123 also lays out requirements for informing congressional committees and obtaining congressional review. It requires that the President submit any proposed agreement along with the NPAS to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for consultation for a period of at least 30 days of continuous session. The proposed agreement, with the NPAS, must subsequently be submitted to Congress as a whole (and referred to the abovementioned committees) for a period of 60 days of continuous session, during which the committees consider it and submit recommendations to the House and Senate, respectively, as to whether to approve the agreement. As a general matter, the agreement may then be brought into effect unless a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted before the end of this period. Section 123 also requires the President to keep the abovementioned committees “fully and currently informed” of any initiative or negotiations relating to a new or amended agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation. Figure 2 depicts the stages and time frames for negotiation and conclusion of nuclear cooperation agreements. Another section of the AEA, Section 57(b), governs the direct or indirect engagement or participation in the development or production of special nuclear material outside the United States. Under this provision, DOE regulates exports of commercial nuclear technology and assistance. DOE has promulgated these regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 810; authorizations under these regulations are accordingly referred to as “Part 810 authorizations.” Activities authorized under section 57(b) may not require a nuclear cooperation agreement. The Secretary of Energy signed seven “Part 810” authorizations for the export of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia between December 2017 and February 2019. For more information about Part 810, see table 2. In negotiating nuclear cooperation agreements, the United States has sometimes pursued nonproliferation measures beyond the nine conditions specified by the AEA. For example, the agreement that the United States concluded with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2009 includes a provision in which UAE agreed to forswear enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. This broad restriction on any enrichment and reprocessing, which became known as the “gold standard,” goes beyond the enrichment and reprocessing restriction required by Section 123 of the AEA, because it applies to all nuclear material rather than just U.S.- obligated material. U.S.-obligated material includes material transferred by the United States or material used in, or produced through, the use of material or facilities transferred by the United States. Following the conclusion of the UAE agreement, the NSC deliberated requiring the so- called “gold standard” for all nuclear cooperation agreements as a policy, but ultimately adopted a policy of pursuing it on a case-by-case basis. The nuclear cooperation agreement that the United States concluded with Taiwan in 2014 included a similar provision. By contrast, the agreement concluded with Vietnam the same year includes a political commitment, rather than a legal one, not to acquire enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. In addition to the roles of State, DOE, and the NSC discussed previously, additional U.S. agencies such as Commerce, DOD, and NRC are involved in matters related to international nuclear cooperation and the negotiation and conclusion of a nuclear cooperation agreement. Table 2 describes agency roles related to nuclear cooperation. Stakeholders we interviewed identified various potential nonproliferation benefits and concerns related to negotiating a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia. Specifically, stakeholders identified the following benefits: A nuclear cooperation agreement would limit production of weapons-usable material. Several stakeholders told us that a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia would give the United States the opportunity to directly restrict Saudi Arabia’s proliferation potential. For example, a U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation agreement would include a term required by the AEA that would limit Saudi Arabia’s production of weapons-usable material by prohibiting Saudi Arabia from separating plutonium accumulated in any reactor supplied under the agreement without U.S. consent. According to some stakeholders, other potential supplier countries likely would not impose such restrictions as conditions of supplying Saudi Arabia with nuclear materials or equipment. Cooperation would help the United States retain influence. Several stakeholders noted that nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia could help revitalize the United States as a global nuclear supplier, which would help the United States retain its current influence over global nonproliferation norms and rules. For example, as a global nuclear supplier, the United States would have greater influence in international nuclear forums such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which establishes nonproliferation guidelines. According to one stakeholder, the United States’ political leverage to promote strong global nonproliferation norms depends upon the United States’ retaining a leadership role in nuclear energy. Another stakeholder said that nuclear cooperation agreements provide the United States with influence over countries’ proliferation decisions. For instance, this stakeholder said that nuclear cooperation agreements include legal conditions that reinforce the legal obligations of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons and create an additional disincentive to violate those conditions or withdraw from the treaty. Stakeholders we interviewed also identified several proliferation concerns that U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation may not mitigate, and could potentially aggravate. According to these stakeholders, concerns include the following: Concerns about stated Saudi nuclear weapon ambitions and commitment to obligations. Some stakeholders expressed concern over Saudi officials’ stated interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. As previously noted, senior Saudi officials have said publicly that there could be conditions under which the country would seek to acquire nuclear weapons or develop a nuclear weapons program. For example, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said publicly in 2018 that if Iran develops or obtains a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia would also work to do so. In 2009 and 2012, respectively, King Abdullah and Prince Turki al- Faisal were reported to have made similar statements. Some stakeholders said that the intent behind such statements was to send a message about Saudi Arabia’s posture toward Iran, but some other stakeholders said that lower-lever Saudi officials have also indicated that the country is open to pursuing nuclear weapons. Several stakeholders said that such statements should be taken seriously as indicators of Saudi nuclear weapons ambitions. One stakeholder said that such statements raise concerns as to Saudi Arabia’s commitment to its obligations under the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This stakeholder also said that Saudi Arabia has demonstrated willingness to disregard the terms of transfers of U.S. conventional arms to the country, calling into question whether the country could be trusted to abide by the terms of the nuclear cooperation agreement. Concerns about the extent to which a nuclear cooperation agreement would mitigate the risks of a Saudi weapons program. Several stakeholders questioned whether the terms of an agreement would meaningfully restrict proliferation behavior. For example, notwithstanding the provision of Section 123 of the AEA that prohibits a partner country from using U.S.-obligated material or equipment for weapons purposes, some stakeholders said that another risk of nuclear cooperation is that it would provide Saudi Arabia with the infrastructure and knowledge to produce nuclear material for a future weapons program. In addition, some stakeholders said that there were questions as to whether the United States could enforce the terms of an agreement if it was breached—for example, whether in practice the United States would be able to retrieve U.S.-obligated nuclear material from another country. One stakeholder also noted that the terms of a nuclear cooperation agreement would only be relevant in mitigating proliferation risks if Saudi Arabia contracted with a U.S. company to build the reactors. If Saudi Arabia purchases reactors from other suppliers, its nuclear program will not be bound by the section 123-mandated restrictions of a nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States, since those restrictions only apply to U.S.-obligated material. Concerns about the thoroughness of a U.S. assessment of Saudi proliferation risks. Some stakeholders raised concerns about whether the NPAS process would adequately assess Saudi proliferation risks. We have previously identified weaknesses in the NPAS process related to interagency consultation and a robust, transparent review process. As described above, an NPAS for a U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation agreement would be expected to include an overview of Saudi Arabia’s nuclear energy program and related infrastructure, nonproliferation policies, and relations with countries of proliferation concern. An NPAS would also include an analysis of the adequacy of safeguards and other control mechanisms to ensure that assistance provided under the U.S.- Saudi agreement is not used to further any nuclear weapons effort. Some stakeholders said that it would be important for the NPAS for Saudi Arabia to address the questions regarding the country’s stated intentions to develop a nuclear weapons program. One stakeholder questioned whether an NPAS would provide a sufficient assessment of Saudi nuclear proliferation behavior or potential because the statutory requirement for intelligence community input into the NPAS is narrowly worded. Specifically, the addendum that the intelligence community is to provide to each NPAS is required to contain a comprehensive analysis of the country’s export control system with respect to nuclear-related matters, including interactions with other countries of proliferation concern and the actual or suspected nuclear, dual-use, or missile-related transfers to such countries, but the requirement does not call for the intelligence community to assess the country’s intent to develop nuclear weapons. State officials declined to tell us whether they had begun drafting an NPAS in anticipation of an agreement with Saudi Arabia. However, State officials noted that their engagement with the intelligence community in the development of an NPAS goes beyond the requirements of that statute, but they also said that the legal requirement was limited. Concerns about regional proliferation risks and undermining of global nonproliferation norms. Several stakeholders expressed concerns about the regional and international nonproliferation implications of a U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation agreement. For example, several stakeholders said that an agreement without restrictions on enrichment and reprocessing could lead to the renegotiation of the agreement with the UAE. The agreement with the UAE, which includes a commitment to forswear enrichment and reprocessing, also contains a provision that would allow the UAE to request renegotiation of its agreement if another country in the region concludes a less restrictive agreement with the United States. Several stakeholders also raised the concern that a nuclear cooperation agreement without additional nonproliferation conditions would undermine U.S. and global nonproliferation norms by sending the message that such norms were negotiable. For example, in addition to the Additional Protocol being a mechanism to prevent diversion of nuclear material, many stakeholders said that insisting on the Additional Protocol was critical and emphasized the importance of the Additional Protocol as a global nonproliferation norm. Several stakeholders also questioned the premise that supplying Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program would allow the United States to retain influence over international nonproliferation norms. One stakeholder said that the United States has not been a significant nuclear exporter for decades and has nonetheless retained its influence. The United States and Saudi Arabia have not made significant progress toward a nuclear cooperation agreement because of persistent differences between the parties over nonproliferation conditions, including U.S. insistence that Saudi Arabia conclude an Additional Protocol with IAEA and that Saudi Arabia agree to restrictions on enrichment and reprocessing, based on our analysis of available information. The United States and Saudi Arabia first held formal nuclear cooperation negotiations in 2012, during which the United States provided a draft agreement text to Saudi officials that included the nine nonproliferation conditions required under Section 123 of the AEA, according to NNSA officials. In that round of negotiations, Saudi officials accepted “the vast majority” of the conditions in the draft text, according to NNSA officials; these officials estimated that approximately three pages of the text remained to be negotiated. NNSA officials told us that the areas of disagreement include provisions required by the AEA. In the next formal negotiations in 2018, there was no progress in resolving the remaining issues, and no changes to the text of the agreement were made at the time, according to agency officials. The areas of disagreement that were not resolved in 2012—including those regarding provisions required by the AEA—remained unresolved as of January 2020, according to agency officials. These areas of disagreement include: Additional Protocol. The United States has urged Saudi Arabia to conclude an Additional Protocol with IAEA, according to a September 2019 letter from the Secretary of Energy to the Saudi Minister of Energy, Industry, and Mineral Resources and based on public statements by the Secretary of Energy and another government official. Several former agency officials and other stakeholders said that Saudi Arabia has expressed an unwillingness to conclude an Additional Protocol with IAEA. Restriction on enrichment and reprocessing. According to public statements by agency officials, the United States supports a permanent restriction on enrichment and reprocessing. According to the Secretary’s September 2019 letter and to former officials we interviewed, however, the United States may be willing to accept a temporary restriction on enrichment and reprocessing in its negotiations with Saudi Arabia. According to these former officials, such a temporary restriction would allow the United States and other countries more time to work with Saudi Arabia to reach agreement on mutually acceptable terms. However, one stakeholder said that this option would not be attractive to Saudi Arabia and would not be useful to the United States as a nonproliferation measure because an existing nuclear cooperation agreement and any nuclear infrastructure that it would have enabled would reduce U.S. leverage to influence Saudi enrichment and reprocessing decisions in the future. Despite the lingering disagreement on certain provisions between both countries, NNSA officials told us in November 2019 they believed the negotiations had made progress since 2012 because the continued interactions with Saudi officials over this time were useful in advancing Saudi understanding of the United States’ position on the nonproliferation conditions of a potential agreement. We are unable to characterize Saudi views on the status of the negotiations or on other aspects of our review, because State did not respond to our repeated requests for assistance in facilitating travel to Saudi Arabia and interviews with relevant Saudi officials. We also did not receive a response to our written request to the Saudi ambassador to the United States for an opportunity to interview relevant Saudi officials about the negotiations. Agency management of U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation negotiations remains unclear with regard to agency roles and informing Congress. We were unable to confirm U.S. agency roles at a range of U.S.-Saudi interactions where nuclear cooperation was or may have been discussed. We were also unable to determine whether the agencies kept the relevant congressional committees fully and currently informed of the negotiations. The roles various U.S. agencies have played in U.S.-Saudi nuclear negotiations remain unclear because DOE and State did not provide us with information to clarify or corroborate such roles. According to a State official and DOE officials, State would have “by definition” led any negotiations and without State present, any interactions between U.S. and Saudi officials on nuclear cooperation did not constitute negotiations. The AEA stipulates that State conduct any nuclear cooperation negotiations but does not define “negotiations.” According to one stakeholder, during an NSC meeting in late 2017, during which nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia was discussed, the NSC made a decision to reinforce established agency roles, including specifying that State would lead any negotiations. We were unable to confirm whether NSC made such a decision because NSC did not respond to our requests for interviews or documentation. However, through our interviews with State, DOE, and NRC officials, we determined that representatives of each agency participated in the 2012 and March 2018 formal nuclear cooperation negotiations with Saudi Arabia. State and DOE officials did not provide information that we requested about interactions between the United States and Saudi Arabia, such as the dates and agency participants. However, despite the limited cooperation from State and DOE, we were able to identify through our analysis of documentation and interviews with other stakeholders, a range of interactions between the United States and Saudi Arabia where nuclear cooperation was or may have been discussed. The interactions we were able to identify during which potential nuclear cooperation was discussed are as follows: five bilateral meetings, including a September 2018 meeting in Washington, D.C., a December 2018 meeting in Saudi Arabia, and an August 2019 meeting in Washington, D.C.; a Civil Nuclear Energy Roundtable in Saudi Arabia in December 2017, a commercial nuclear mission to Saudi Arabia in April 2018, in partnership with DOE; and the letter from the Secretary of Energy to his Saudi counterpart in September 2019 conveying U.S. positions on nonproliferation conditions for U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation. We also identified five interactions where the U.S. Secretary of Energy and Saudi officials may have discussed nuclear cooperation, including a phone call in November 2017 and meetings on the sidelines of four events: the IAEA General Conference in Austria in September 2017, the Bilateral Energy Dialogue in Saudi Arabia in December 2017, the World Economic Forum in Switzerland in January 2018, and the Future Investment Initiative in Saudi Arabia in October 2019. Figure 3 illustrates U.S.-Saudi negotiations and other interactions, and appendix II includes a detailed list of the interactions we were able to identify. Because State and DOE did not cooperate with our information requests, we cannot confirm that the interactions we identified constitute all of the interactions between the United States and Saudi Arabia on potential nuclear cooperation since 2012. Furthermore, we were unable to determine whether the agencies followed the established roles in the other interactions with Saudi Arabia where nuclear cooperation was or may have been discussed because NSC, State, and DOE did not respond to our requests for information to clarify these matters. Specifically, with the exception of the April 2018 commercial nuclear mission to Saudi Arabia, we were unable to determine whether State or other agency officials authorized, were present for, or were aware of a number of DOE–led interactions with Saudi Arabia described above. In addition, State and DOE officials declined to confirm whether State authorized the September 2019 letter from the Secretary of Energy to his Saudi counterpart regarding U.S. positions on the nonproliferation conditions for nuclear cooperation. It is unclear whether the agencies kept the relevant committees fully and currently informed of U.S.-Saudi negotiations. State officials stated that they consistently provide information to Congress, but the limited information they provided to us does not support this position. As previously stated, section 123 of the AEA requires that the President keep certain congressional committees “fully and currently informed of any initiative or negotiations relating to a new or amended agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation.” State officials told us during our May 2019 interview that they consistently provided information to Congress on the nuclear cooperation negotiations and other interactions with Saudi Arabia. However, neither State nor DOE provided documentation within the time frame of our review to support these statements. DOE did not respond to our request for information on any dates or related details of any congressional briefings related to U.S.- Saudi nuclear cooperation negotiations. State did not respond to our initial request in May 2019 for information on dates and related details of any congressional briefings it held on U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation negotiations. However, in January 2020, after reviewing a preliminary draft of this report, State officials provided a list of congressional briefings on U.S. nuclear cooperation initiatives since 2013. We reviewed this list and identified two briefings specifically focused on nuclear cooperation negotiations with Saudi Arabia: one held in January 2018 for House Committee on Foreign Affairs staff and another held in May 2019 for House Committee on Oversight and Reform staff. State officials also noted that U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation may have been discussed in other State briefings that focused on nuclear cooperation in general or with other countries, such as briefings to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in July 2019 and November 2019. State officials declined to discuss the details of any congressional briefings with us, including the participating agencies, substantive issues, and other details. Consequently, we could not establish the extent and substance of information the agencies provided to Congress on U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation negotiations. After State did not provide us with the information we requested, we reached out to a number of current and former staff of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, representing both parties. Through our interviews with eight of these staff, we were able to identify one congressional briefing by the agencies in December 2017 on the status of U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation negotiations. However, based on our interviews with congressional staff, we were unable to identify the dates of any other briefings by the agencies on the U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation negotiations. Notably, based on our review of the documentation and interviews with congressional staff, it does not appear that the agencies provided a briefing to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs or Senate Committee on Foreign Relations until more than a year after the last formal U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation negotiations in March 2018. Current and former congressional staff we interviewed also described their frustration in trying to obtain information, beyond briefings, from the agencies on the status of the negotiations. Several current and former congressional committee staff we interviewed told us that they learned of developments in the U.S.-Saudi negotiations through the press or from representatives of the nuclear industry, rather than directly from the agencies, despite having asked the executive branch to keep them informed of any developments. For example, one former staff member of a relevant committee told us that they learned of the March 2018 formal negotiations just days before the meeting through a press article. Another former congressional committee staff member said that since late 2017, the agencies have only provided information to Congress about the negotiations in response to forceful measures, such as holds on nominations or legislation. According to many of the current and former congressional staff we interviewed, this stands in contrast to past practice in which agencies regularly briefed the committees on nuclear cooperation negotiations without coercion, and sometimes even initiated the meetings. State and DOE provided Congress with contradictory justifications for not providing such information to Congress, according to our review of documents and interviews with congressional staff. For example, one congressional committee staff member told us that agency officials said they were not obligated to keep the committee currently and fully informed of negotiations because the United States was not in negotiations with Saudi Arabia. On another occasion, when pressed by members of Congress in congressional hearings, an agency official said he could not discuss nuclear cooperation negotiations with Saudi Arabia because negotiations were ongoing. Specifically, in September 2019, the Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation stated in a hearing that he could not get into details of nuclear cooperation negotiations with Saudi Arabia because the negotiations were ongoing. These contradictory justifications may have led to inconsistency in the agencies providing information to Congress on nuclear cooperation negotiations. By committing to regularly scheduled, substantive briefings to Congress on nuclear cooperation initiatives and negotiations, State and DOE could enhance transparency and build confidence with Congress on nuclear cooperation, preemptively address congressional concerns about cooperation with certain countries, and support congressional oversight on nonproliferation matters. Former congressional staff, including those involved in drafting Section 123(e) in 2008—the “fully and currently informed” provision—said the intent of the provision was to promote transparency on the status of any nuclear cooperation negotiations to the congressional committees of jurisdiction to lay the groundwork for congressional consideration of any agreement. However, some former congressional staff said that the provision allows for broad interpretation and that it may be up to Congress to more clearly define the “fully and currently informed” requirement. By specifying, through an amendment to the AEA, its expectations for timeliness and information provided by the agencies on nuclear cooperation negotiations and initiatives, Congress could have better assurance that it will get the information it needs for its oversight of nuclear nonproliferation matters. State officials told us that they consistently provided information to Congress on the nuclear cooperation negotiations and other interactions with Saudi Arabia. They later provided a list of congressional briefings on U.S. nuclear cooperation initiatives since 2013 but did not specify what was discussed. Based on this limited information, it is unclear whether the briefings by State kept Congress fully and currently informed of developments in the negotiations with Saudi Arabia, and congressional staff provided us with examples of having to find information on the negotiations from other sources, such as press articles. NNSA is a separately organized agency within the Department of Energy, with responsibility for its nuclear weapons and nonproliferation programs, among other things. transparency and build confidence with Congress on nuclear cooperation, preemptively address concerns about cooperation with certain countries, and support congressional oversight on nuclear nonproliferation matters. Former congressional staff involved in drafting the “fully and currently informed” provision said that its intent was to promote transparency and lay the groundwork for congressional consideration of any agreement. However, some said that this provision allows for broad interpretation of the “fully and currently informed” requirement. By specifying, through an amendment to the AEA, its expectations for timeliness and information provided by the agencies regarding nuclear cooperation negotiations and initiatives, Congress could have better assurance that it will get the information it needs for its oversight of nuclear nonproliferation matters. Congress should consider amending the Atomic Energy Act to require regularly scheduled briefings, for instance, on a quarterly basis, and specify expectations for the content of such briefings, such as potential difficulties in negotiating nonproliferation conditions with partner countries. The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, should commit to regularly scheduled, substantive briefings for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on all initiatives and negotiations related to nuclear cooperation in order to enhance transparency and establish greater confidence with Congress on nuclear cooperation matters. (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of State, Energy, Defense, and Commerce, and to the Chairman of the NRC for review and comment. In its written comments, reproduced in appendix III, State neither agreed nor disagreed with our findings, and concurred with our recommendation. State also noted in its response that it is already implementing the recommendation; specifically, that it conducted briefings on nuclear cooperation in 2018 and 2019 to Congress. However, as we noted in our report, because State officials declined to discuss the details of these briefings, we could not establish the extent and substance of information the agencies provided to Congress on U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation negotiations. Furthermore, as we reported, staff of the relevant congressional committees we interviewed were able to identify only one briefing on U.S.-Saudi nuclear negotiations and several staff expressed frustration in trying to get information about the negotiations, including learning of developments through the press. NRC also provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix IV; NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. DOE provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOD and Commerce did not have any comments. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. NNSA is a separately organized agency within the Department of Energy, with responsibility for its nuclear weapons and nonproliferation programs, among other things. Saudi nuclear cooperation negotiations and any areas of disagreement, we also reviewed official documentation such as agency correspondence to Saudi officials and transcripts of congressional hearings. In addition, we submitted to the Saudi Ambassador to the United States a written request for an opportunity to interview relevant Saudi officials about the negotiations, but did not receive a response. To examine U.S. agency management of the negotiations, including how the agencies have informed Congress about the negotiations, we reviewed official documentation such as agency correspondence to Saudi officials, certain export authorization application packages, dates of congressional briefings on nuclear cooperation, and agency documentation related to U.S. government advocacy for U.S. businesses related to nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia. We also requested a list of dates and participants of U.S.-Saudi interactions pertaining to nuclear cooperation, as well as materials used for briefings, if any, by the agencies to Congress. The agencies provided us with limited information in response to some categories we requested and did not provide information in other categories. Specifically, beginning in May 2019, we requested from the Departments of State and Energy and the National Security Council (NSC) basic factual information on license applications for the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia; the dates of any discussions or negotiations between U.S. and Saudi officials; the U.S. and Saudi agencies, offices, and representatives present at such meetings; and the types of records produced from such meetings. DOE provided us with information on the license applications, and State and DOE provided us with limited information on their general processes relating to the negotiation of agreements. State officials also provided a list of congressional briefings on U.S. nuclear cooperation initiatives since 2013 in January 2020, after reviewing a preliminary draft of this report, but declined to discuss the details of the briefings with us, including the participating agencies, substantive issues, and other details that would have allowed us to establish the extent of information provided to Congress on U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation negotiations. Furthermore, neither agency nor NSC provided substantive information in any of the other categories we requested; in order to complete this review within a time frame responsive to the needs of our congressional requesters, we adjusted our audit objectives to focus on examining the status of the negotiations and management of the negotiations process. Because State, NSC, and DOE did not provide information to fully address these adjusted objectives, we obtained documentation and information from other agency officials and over 30 other stakeholders, including, as previously noted, former senior U.S. government officials, current and former congressional staff, and nuclear industry representatives and knowledgeable nongovernmental experts who have followed the negotiations. We conducted our work from April 2019 through April 2020 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Since the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a memorandum of understanding on nuclear energy cooperation in 2008, there have been a variety of interactions between the United Sates and Saudi Arabia regarding potential nuclear cooperation between both countries, as well as other developments related to such cooperation. The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) does not define “negotiations.” In this report, we use “formal nuclear cooperation negotiations” and “formal negotiations” to signify sessions where parties aim to agree on specific terms and conditions in the text of an agreement. We use the term “interactions” for all U.S.-Saudi encounters on potential nuclear cooperation other than the two formal negotiations explicitly identified by agency officials. Table 3 provides information on dates we identified of formal U.S.-Saudi negotiations; other U.S.-Saudi interactions; National Security Council meetings to discuss policy and related matters on U.S.-Saudi negotiations; agency briefings to Congress on the negotiations; and other related developments, including developments in Saudi Arabia related to its planned nuclear power program. See table 3 for more information. In addition to the individual named above, other key contributors to this report were William Hoehn, Assistant Director; Alisa Beyninson, Analyst in Charge; Antoinette Capaccio; Tara Congdon; Camille Pease; Steven Putansu; Dan Royer; Sara Sullivan; and Madeline Welter.
U.S. policy has long sought to balance U.S. civilian nuclear exports with the nation's obligation to ensure that they are not used to proliferate nuclear weapons. The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) provides a framework for certain civilian nuclear exports and outlines the requirements for nuclear cooperation agreements, including that certain nonproliferation conditions be met; that State conduct negotiations with the technical assistance and concurrence of DOE; and that the President keep certain congressional committees fully and currently informed of negotiations or initiatives. This report describes, among other things, (1) the status of U.S.-Saudi negotiations and any areas of disagreement and (2) what is known about U.S. agency management of the negotiations. GAO reviewed the AEA and documentation of interactions between U.S. and Saudi officials regarding nuclear cooperation. GAO received limited information from State and DOE officials during the review but interviewed over 30 other stakeholders, including former senior executive branch officials, former congressional staff, and others with knowledge of and insights into nuclear cooperation issues and the negotiations. Since 2008, when the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a memorandum of understanding on nuclear energy cooperation, the current and prior U.S. administrations have engaged in discussions and negotiations about nuclear cooperation with the Saudi government. However, these negotiations are stalled; the two countries have not been able to resolve disagreements on several nonproliferation conditions, including Saudi Arabia agreeing to enrichment and reprocessing restrictions and signing an Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which would allow IAEA to obtain additional information about and access to Saudi nuclear activities. U.S. agency management of the negotiations with Saudi Arabia remains unclear in two areas regarding AEA requirements—(1) that the Department of State (State) conduct negotiations, with the technical assistance and concurrence of the Department of Energy (DOE), and (2) that certain congressional committees be informed. First, it is unclear which U.S. agencies were present at or aware of various interactions where nuclear cooperation was or may have been discussed, except for the formal negotiations in 2012 and 2018 and a commercial mission coordinated with State. GAO was able to identify eight interactions where nuclear cooperation was discussed and five more interactions where nuclear cooperation may have been discussed (see figure). Note: Interactions depicted in this figure include meetings, phone calls, and a letter, among other things. Second, GAO was unable to determine whether the agencies kept the committees fully and currently informed. GAO identified two briefings on the negotiations—in December 2017 and January 2018—to the relevant committees, but it does not appear that these committees were briefed until more than a year after the March 2018 formal negotiations. According to congressional staff, Congress on occasion learned of developments through non-agency sources and had to apply forceful measures, including holds on nominations, to get information from the executive branch. By committing to regular briefings to Congress on nuclear cooperation negotiations and initiatives, State could better support congressional oversight on nuclear nonproliferation matters. In addition, congressional staff have said the AEA allows for broad interpretation of the “fully and currently informed” requirement. By specifying, through an amendment to the AEA, its expectations for timeliness and information provided by the agencies on nuclear cooperation negotiations and initiatives, Congress could have better assurance that it receives the information it needs for oversight of nuclear nonproliferation matters. GAO believes that Congress should consider amending the Atomic Energy Act to require regularly scheduled briefings. GAO is also making a recommendation that the Secretary of State commit to regularly scheduled, substantive briefings to the relevant congressional committees. State concurred with our recommendation.