Demetri Sevastopulo had a detailed story in yesterday’s FT .
Apparently Rice recently had a sit-down with some members of Congress.

They seemed a little concerned:

Mr Lugar, one of the leading non-proliferation advocates in Congress, was expected to back the administration, but according to three people familiar with the discussions, he expressed strong reservations to Ms Rice. He was most concerned that the White House wants Congress to give it authority to implement the deal before lawmakers receive details of the final agreement.

Under the arrangement, Congress could not amend the deal. While it could cancel it, that would require an extremely unlikely two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto. Mr Lugar was irritated when Ms Rice professed ignorance of this.

One congressional aide said lawmakers were “astonished” that Mr Lugar appeared willing to stand up to the administration.

Lawmakers are concerned that they are being asked to approve the deal without knowing details such as what safeguards India will negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency. They also want to see whether the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a 45-nation body set up after India held a nuclear test in 1974, will support the deal.

The article also discusses the timing of the vote:

Andy Fisher, Mr Lugar’s spokesman, said Mr Lugar had not reached an opinion on the deal. He added that there were both compelling reasons to accept the deal, and some concerns, but he said he expected the Senate to move ahead with legislation this year.

The White House, which desperately wants a foreign policy success in election year, received more bad news when Dennis Hastert, the Republican House speaker, was quoted by India’s media last month during a visit to New Delhi as saying Congress would not vote on the deal before the November midterm elections. Two people said Mr Hastert received a reprimand from the White House over the comment.

Wade also has a good piece the issue in this month’s ACT.

One of the most interesting parts is his discussion about the possible implication of an Indian nuclear test:

There has been some speculation, including at least one news report, that Washington has assured India that it will have the nuclear fuel it needs even if the United States halted nuclear commerce with India after a nuclear test. The State Department official interviewed April 18 denied such a possibility, saying that Washington has not committed to “go around U.S. law.”

Still, as part of the March separation plan, the United States pledged to assist India in developing “a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India’s reactors.” If this reserve was sufficiently built up, it would, in effect, assure India of nuclear fuel even if it conducted a nuclear test triggering the termination of the U.S.-Indian bilateral cooperation agreement.

The State Department official reported that the draft U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation agreement contains a provision ending the whole arrangement in the event of an Indian nuclear test. This is standard practice for all U.S. nuclear cooperation agreements with countries not officially recognized as nuclear-weapon states, which India is not. Only countries that conducted nuclear tests before January 1, 1967 are deemed nuclear-weapon states by the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). New Delhi has not joined this treaty.

India has objected to the nuclear test clause in the draft agreement. A Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson told reporters in New Delhi April 17 that “such a provision has no place in the proposed bilateral agreement.”

This stance may reflect the Singh government’s sensitivity to domestic Indian public opinion in light of charges from opposition parties that India has struck a bad deal. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) asserted April 6 that “ India has ended up giving more and more concessions.” In particular, he condemned as “not acceptable” that the agreement would “convert a voluntary moratorium on further tests by India into a legally binding commitment for all times to come.” BJP President Rajnath Singh recommended five days later that India should consider walking away from the deal.

I don’t know exactly which report Wade’s talking about, but Dave Ruppe reported that Nicholas Burns said that the US would get nuclear fuel to India even if New Delhi were to test.

He wrote:

WASHINGTON — The U.S.-Indian nuclear trade agreement proposed by the Bush administration would assure New Delhi of a continued supply of nuclear reactor fuel even if it resumes nuclear weapons testing, a senior U.S. official said yesterday (see GSN, April 6).

India has insisted upon the “fuel assurances” arrangement in negotiations, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns told Global Security Newswire following an event promoting the deal on Capitol Hill.

“It was a major issue of the negotiations,” said Burns, who led U.S. negotiations on the deal. “I think that was reassuring to them as we stepped up to the final negotiations.”

This CRS report is a handy guide to Congress and the India nuclear deal.

Update:

Dave had a more recent piece that I overlooked. Read the whole thing, but the beginning says:

WASHINGTON — The United States and India have not yet resolved a difference over whether an Indian vow to refrain from future nuclear testing should be included in the text of an agreement to open civil nuclear trade, a senior U.S. official said yesterday (see GSN, April 7).

India unilaterally vowed to maintain its roughly eight-year moratorium on nuclear testing when President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh first publicly announced the potential deal in July 2005.

Indian officials last week, however, publicly objected to U.S. language in a draft text for the agreement proposed this year reportedly saying India would continue to refrain from testing. U.S. Ambassador to India David Mulford, visiting Washington yesterday, said the matter remained under negotiation but could be managed.

“It’s a matter to be discussed,” Mulford said, responding to a question following a speech at the American Enterprise Institute.

He denied that the difference could be a potential showstopper for the deal.

“It’s just a question of time and dedicated effort by the skilled people who are involved on both sides. And as Congress comes to judge this situation, I think they will see that this is really not an issue,” he said.