Bush Fights New Curbs on Nuclear Technology Exports : Weapons: ‘Micromanagement’ of foreign affairs by Congress is seen in bill nearing a House committee vote.

Despite concerns about the nuclear arms programs launched by Iraq and other countries, the Bush Administration is quietly seeking to head off efforts in Congress to clamp down on U.S. exports of products or technology that can be used in manufacturing such weapons.

In a letter to Congress last week, the Administration declared that it opposes legislation that would strengthen the existing system of U.S. export controls for nuclear-related technology. The measure is now nearing a vote in the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Such legislation would amount to congressional “micromanagement” of foreign affairs and trade and might even go so far as to hamper U.S. cooperation with nuclear-safety programs in the Soviet Union, the Administration said in its letter.

It was the latest in a series of efforts by the Administration over the last two years to prevent Congress from enacting measures that would tighten the legal controls governing U.S. exports.

Last year, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have required him to impose trade sanctions on countries that use chemical and biological weapons and on companies that sell them.

This year, the Administration has said that it supports the general concept of new congressional legislation on export controls. But in its letter to Congress last week, the Administration went on record in opposition to a series of specific provisions contained in the proposed legislation.

For example, the Administration rejected congressional efforts to bring about public disclosure of the results of International Atomic Energy Agency inspections--such as the names recently uncovered by the IAEA of foreign companies that contributed to Iraq’s development of nuclear weapons.

Making such information public would be “a radical departure from current practice,” the Administration asserted.

Also, the Administration sought in its letter to preserve the right to expand U.S. trade with Syria and Iran.

A congressional provision imposing an embargo on U.S. exports to Syria and Iran would “send a very negative signal to countries actively entering the (Mideast) peace process and to those using their influence to help free Western hostages,” the Administration told Congress.

According to congressional sources, Administration officials already have suggested that Bush will veto the new export control bill, if the provisions to which it objects are not changed. “They (Administration officials) have threatened to veto and they’ve already vetoed this bill once,” said an aide to one House member who supports the President’s position.

The letter on behalf of the Administration was signed by Undersecretary of Commerce Joan M. McEntee. Other Administration officials from the State and Commerce Departments appeared before a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee earlier this month to oppose various provisions in the export-control bill.

The congressional attempts to tighten export controls stem from the series of revelations that Iraq came remarkably close to developing a nuclear bomb by buying individual components and technology for the weapon on the international market.

Rep. Howard Wolpe (D-Mich.), sponsor of a measure to restrict exports of goods that can be used in making nuclear weapons, said his purpose is to “help prevent another Iraq.”

“We should have acted long ago,” Wolpe told members of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on international economic policy and trade. “The real issue is how high a priority are we going to give to nuclear nonproliferation.”

Wolpe’s proposal would require the President to negotiate with other countries stricter controls on the export of “dual-use” goods that are important in developing nuclear weapons programs, but also have other, non-nuclear applications. It would also ban all nuclear trade by the United States with countries that do not have international safeguards on their nuclear power plants.

The Administration said that these provisions “would hinder highly valuable, small-scale cooperation in critical areas, including nuclear safety cooperation in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.”

U.S. officials argue that instead of passing new legislation, Congress should leave it to the Administration to seek new multilateral agreements restricting nuclear exports.

A separate provision sponsored by Rep. Sam Gejdensen (D-Conn.) would impose a three-year embargo on exports of dual-use items to all countries that have been found to support terrorism, including Syria and Iran.

A State Department official told Congress that this provision would mean that foreign companies could export goods to Syria and Iran, while American companies could not. Iran, in particular, is said to be importing as much as $60 million to $100 million a year in oil-drilling equipment.

In opposing these efforts by Congress to restrict exports, the Administration has generally taken a position similar to that of American companies and export industry trade groups.

However, in one particular area, the export of telecommunications equipment, the politics are reversed: the Administration is seeking to prevent Congress from going along with requests by American companies to loosen the current system of export controls.

Private U.S. companies are seeking the legal right to export fiber-optic telephone equipment to the Soviet Union, and Congress seems to be moving toward lifting the controls over this technology.

But the National Security Agency, the U.S. intelligence agency responsible for intercepting phone calls in the Soviet Union, strongly opposes the export of equipment that would upgrade the Soviet phone system and make its work more difficult.