clear safeguards and trying to assure that nuclear programs are kept on a peaceful basis for power production and not for military purposes. Will this bill be seen in the IAEA as undercutting its program? Mr. KESSLER. It will be seen as imposing political considerations into what are supposed to be technical decisions with respect to projects, for example, with respect to nuclear safety training for those individuals who are going to become regulators of a reactor. The IAEA is not teaching how to build a reactor. Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for letting me have a little additional time. Let me just close with this observation. I think the purpose that, as I understand it, Mr. Menendez and others have put forward this bill, and I understand it has broad support, is an altogether worthy one. We all share exactly the same goals with regard to Iran. We want to stop the terrorism. We want to stop the weapons of mass destruction. We want to stop their opposition to the Middle East peace process. They are doing a lot of things we don't like. It is not at all clear to me, however, that this bill does anything more than kind of make us feel good that we are doing something. I don't see clearly the benefit of the bill. I do see some considerable risks. Having said that, it is not my intention to oppose the bill. I hope we can continue to work with its author to try to improve it, because its purpose is worthy. I will let it go at that. Thank you very much. Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I would like to ask a couple of questions of our Administration representatives here myself. You say that the Administration strongly supports the objective of this legislation? Is that what I heard you say? Mr. KLOSSON. We want to block completion of the Bushehr reactor. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me ask this. Is the Administration aware of the relationship between the Communist Chinese regime and the Iranians in terms of the training of Iranians and the supplying of Iranians with nuclear materials and training for nuclear plants like this? Mr. KESSLER. Yes, sir. As I believe Deputy Assistant Secretary Einhorn has testified, that has been a matter of discussion with Iran. Iran has agreed to terminate its nuclear cooperation, or excuse me, China has agreed to terminate its nuclear cooperation with Iran. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Was this something that was agreed upon and the President talked to the Chinese leadership on the recent visit to China about this? Mr. KESSLER. The President has discussed non-proliferation issues with the Chinese. I can not answer as to whether he discussed specifically. Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK. So we don't know whether or not the President brought up this sort of unseemly issue about the Chinese helping a terrorist nation develop its nuclear capacity on its trip to China. Mr. KESSLER. Sir, what was discussed between the United States and China at pretty senior levels was China's nuclear cooperation with Iran. China agreed some months ago to terminate all nuclear cooperation with Iran, save for two specific projects that they were going to complete. We looked at those two projects and determined that they were not of significant non-proliferation concern. At the conclusion of those two projects, they concluded all nuclear cooperation with Iran. Mr. ROHRABACHER. I guess the $64,000 question is not whether they have agreed to it, but whether in the last few months do you have any evidence that they are reneging on that agreement? Mr. KESSLER. We do not believe they are doing anything that indicates they are reneging. Mr. ROHRABACHER. You don't have any intelligence reports that the Chinese are continuing their relationship with Iran in these areas? Mr. KESSLER. I am not in the position to answer that question. here. Mr. ROHRABACHER. I didn't think you were. Well the fact that you state very clearly that the Administration feels that this bill will be counter-productive, and considering the track record of the Administration, I will have to support this bill 100 percent. Thank you very much. Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to thank Congressman Bob Menendez for his leadership on this very important issue. I want to also acknowledge the presence of Jane and Bobby Menendez, and tell Bobby that his father makes us all very proud in New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, helping Iran develop nuclear technology is like training a known assassin how to use an AK-47 assault rifle and then expect him only to use it for defensive purposes. In my view, the only reason that Iran, one of the most oil-rich countries in the world, is developing nuclear power technology is to advance its of fensive missile program. To think that Iran is developing nuclear technology for civilian power is naive and dangerous to America. Iran has shown progress in the development of their Shahad missile technology that we can not ignore. The Shahad 3 will reportedly have a range of between 1,300 and 1,500 kilometers and be capable of carrying a 750 to 1,000 kilogram warhead. According to published reports by the Federation of American Scientists, on December 15, 1997, satellite reconnaissance detected signs that Iran has already tested the Shahad 3 engine. The CIA predicts that the first test flight of the Shahad 3 will occur sometime in the year 1998. What is more is that according to Israeli intelligence reports, Russia is helping Iran develop technology that will put the Shahad missiles in downtown Jerusalem within a very short period of time. If Iran combines their nuclear technology with the latest Shahad missile technology, the threat to the region and to the citizens of the United States would be unthinkable. The irony is that we are having American taxpayer dollars fund an Iranian missile program that would jeopardize our own people in the Middle East and our allies there, as well as potentially threaten the people on our own shores. If we can not use our financial leverage to support our own citizens, our own troops, and our own allies around the world, then I don't believe we should be involved in groups like the International Atomic Energy Agency. We should act today and not worry about sending the wrong message. I think in fact we are sending the right message, that the American Congress has its eye on the ball. That the American Congress is not fooled by some moderate rhetoric by some leaders in Iran when they continue the development of these weapons of mass destruction. For these reasons, I urge adoption of H.R. 3743. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rothman. Any other Member seeking recognition? If not, on the amendment Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman. Chairman GILMAN. I'm sorry. Mr. Wexler. Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I would just like to state that I support this bill, would like to associate myself with the remarks by Mr. Rothman of New Jersey. I would urge others to do the same. I would simply like to state in the context of the last several weeks where our Nation has undergone an examination and a debate with respect to whether or not private American companies have transferred technology to China, our ally, our ally that even with all its problems I don't think anybody suggests is directly involved in state-sponsored terrorism, while we are engaging in a debate with respect to whether or not American private companies have transferred technology to China which may have advanced their ability with respect to nuclear or missile technology, here we are not even debating whether or not private companies, but American tax dollars, should or should not be a part of a group of money that would be available to a nation that is identified without any controversy as a nation that supports international terrorism. The purpose of the bill is self-evident. That is, to remove our monies from being available to advance Iran's nuclear program. It seems to me even more self-evident is the converse. Without this bill, American money will in fact be available to Iran. When compared to the Chinese situation, if my understanding is correct, with respect to the transfer of civilian technology to China, there were extraordinary safeguards. Our own Department of Defense was in charge of the custody of the technology. Our own Department of Defense apparently was involved in each step of the way. Here, in this instance apparently, there would be little or no ability for the American Department of Defense or any other legitimate monitoring agency to make certain that once the capability was in fact obtained by Iran that it not be transferred for other uses. So it seems to me in the context of our current debate with China, where maybe honest genuine people can have differing opinions, with respect to Iran, it would almost be a fallacy of a debate not to have what little precaution we can have in terms of our money not being available for Iran to advance their nuclear pro gram. That's why, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time and I support the bill. Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wexler. Mr. Menendez. Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask unanimous consent to just follow up on a few brief questions to the Administration. Chairman GILMAN. Without objection. Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Ranking Member's concern. As he knows, I have a great deal of respect for his considered judgment on issues. As a trial lawyer, I also very much appreciate the line of questioning and the preparation of the wit ness. Let me just very briefly, however, ask the Administration a question. You responded "yes" to Mr. Hamilton's question about whether or not this bill would increase the risks. So, I assume that your response means that from 1994, prior to 1994, up to that period of time, and then subsequently when the Administration on its own, after the law expired, still continued to withhold funds, that it was unsafe in those decisions. Is that a fair statement? Mr. KESSLER. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. My answer was that if the IAEA were not to provide safety training to Iran and Iran has a nuclear power reactor, there is the possibility that they would not be able to operate it as safely. Mr. MENENDEZ. With all due respect, you didn't say that. You said simply "yes" to the question. The question was, "Would we be less safe?" Isn't it a fact that safety issues are taken through our normal contributions, and not our voluntary contributions to the IAEA program? Mr. KESSLER. All safety assistance from the IAEA to member states is funded through the voluntary contribution. Mr. MENENDEZ. Through our contributions to the IAEA program. Mr. KESSLER. Ours and other countries. Mr. MENENDEZ. Ours and other countries. So under our normal contributions to the IAEA, we would provide for safeguard programs. Would we not? Mr. KESSLER. Yes, sir. We provide for safeguard programs and we provide funding for the whole staff of the IAEA. Mr. MENENDEZ. Prior to 1996, we in fact held proportional contributions that did not make it less safe for all countries. Is that true? Mr. KESSLER. Sir Mr. MENENDEZ. Is it true, or are you saying the Administration was wrong prior to 1996? Mr. KESSLER. We withheld funds at that time. The IAEA continued to provide that training. If the IAEA were not to provide that training, there is the potential that the reactor would be operated less safely. Mr. MENENDEZ. You say that a message would be sent undermining the IAEA and inhibiting the convincing of other countries. We provide 32 percent of all of the technical cooperation funds, over $16 million a year, or about a third of that whole budget. You are saying that a minor deduction from the proportional assistance to send a clear message, that the United States is going to prevent Iran from "moving up the nuclear learning curve" would undermine the IAEA? When you provide technical cooperation, are you not assisting in the nuclear learning curve? Mr. KESSLER. Sir, the training is in nuclear safety and in quality assurance. The issue with respect to the learning curve that is of great concern to us is in the basic possession of operation of a power reactor. We have strongly opposed that. We have recently been able to get both China and Ukraine to end their cooperation. Mr. MENENDEZ. Last question. Aren't you providing operational training assistance as well in terms of this technical assistance? Yes or no? Just tell me yes or no. Mr. KESSLER. The training is with respect to safety regulation. Mr. MENENDEZ. Are you providing any operational training assistance, yes or no? Is that program providing any operational training assistance? Mr. KESSLER. To the extent that knowing how to operate a reactor safely has an operational component, then the answer would be yes. Mr. MENENDEZ. Then the answer is yes. We are providing operational assistance. That is not within the context of what Assistant Secretary Einhorn said he wanted us to do. I urge my colleagues to adopt the legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. Is any other Member seeking recognition on the amendment? If not, the question is now on the amendment. As many as are in favor signify in the usual manner by saying aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. I am pleased to support this measure amending current law to ensure that our Nation does not provide funding for the completion of nuclear power reactors in Iran. The Iranians have dedicated significant resources to completing at least three nuclear power plants by the year 2015 and are now working with Russian assistance to complete the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Our Nation is opposed to completion of the reactors at the Bushehr facility because the transfer of civilian nuclear technology and training could help to advance Iran's nuclear weapons program. Between 1995 and 1999, it is anticipated the International Atomic Energy Agency will have provided over $1.5 million for the Iranian nuclear power program through its Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund. Our Nation provides annual voluntary contributions to this fund totaling $16 million in 1996. This bill does not halt our voluntary contribution to IAEA, but it does require that none of our monies may be used to fund IAEA programs in projects in Iran. This is exactly, I think, the right policy. Our Nation should not voluntarily provide funding which would help Iran complete nuclear power reactors that could assist them in developing their nuclear weapons program, which could pose a threat to our Nation and to our allies. The bill also establishes two reporting requirements. One will provide the Congress with a comprehensive report on the IAEA as |