want to thank our witnesses for being here as the world meets in new york to discuss the future of the n p t concerns about climate change and the unreliability price of fossil fuel have created perhaps a renaissance in nuclear power in fact there was a noticeable uptick in interest in nuclear power unfortunately some of this has been in the middle east where some of the announcements seem to emulate iran that is to announce that the country was basically going to develop nuclear weapons under the transparent pretense of developing nuclear power  indeed there is a right in the n p t to the peaceful use of nuclear power under article four unfortunately under the interpretation of many this right extends to the full fuel cycle to enrichment and reprocessing providing of course the country is in compliance with its n p t obligations this would allow many dozens of countries to come right up to the threshold of nuclear weapons in the hope and expectation that they will not cross that threshold it raises some questions are the current safeguard techniques and technolog the up to the task is enrichment and reprocessing capacity does that take you so close to nuclear weapons that the final steps could take place more quickly  than we could possibly detect are certain activities essentially an safeguard of the current multinational situation now approaching an attempted consensus of the nuclear represent a marked improvement over the current guidelines of the nuclear suppliers group but it does not address indigenous development in black and grey market acquisition of this repressing technology i would hope that the united states would begin to take the position that the full fuel cycle is not the entitlement of non nuclear states where they have no legitimate economic reason  for pursuing such capacity and for example iran's desire or stated desire to enrich for the amount of power they are planning to generate and what they could generate from their domestic uranium deposits is like building a slaughterhouse and saying the reason is you wanted a sandwich full fuel cycle for no logical economic reason is the development of a nuclear weapon under cover of article four and certainly the full fuel cycle should not be available to those who have already violated the n p t under current u s law civil nuclear cooperation agreements known as one two three agreements provide a framework for nuclear cooperation and commerce between united states and foreign states normally these are negotiated by the president submitted to congress become active operative ninety days after such submission there is this process of a congressional right of disapproval which is what we do in congress when we want to give ourselves the illusion that we have some influence beyond merely advisory influence on foreign affairs the fact is a resolution of disapproval first i as i understand section one two three doesn't even have to reach the floor but even if it does and even were passed overwhelmingly by both houses of congress it's subject to a veto and then one third of either house constituting less than one sixth of congressional opinion could block the resolution of disapproval now india was a special case where we needed affirmative approval and in that situation i think congress acted responsibly not withstanding comprehensive legislation adopted there in two thousand and seven the regulatory framework remains pretty much nonexistent the administration was forced by congress to renegotiate that agreement a very good change and should be a model for future agreements another condition in the us the agreement was a binding commitment from the u s to implement the additional protocol to provide for a greater inspection the this and this among other things grants the i a e a access to undergird facilities given that any nuclear weapons development carried out by non weapons states would have to be technology countries to which we sell our new nuclear technology should restrict access to their nuclear facilities and to nuclear technology by preventing nationals of such countries or ran north korea and syria from having access those who are active who have recently by a lated or are in violation of the n p t should not be able to learn nuclear  technology at the hands of those who have been supplied by the united states and we have to acknowledge that u s concerns over proliferation put us suppliers at a disadvantage our own industry base might suffer as we unilaterally impose restrictions on civil cooperation restrictions that i believe are necessary for global security and other countries with similar capacities may not impose such restrictions we must convince  non nuclear capable countries to adopt similar controls for nuclear technology we have to explore what leverage we have to get them to join us in this  nonproliferation concerns are not the only disadvantage suffered by u s companies major competitors for u s firms in this industry or at least partially state owned and so they  enjoy not only government backing but sovereign immunity protections against liability for accidents u s firms cannot claim sovereign immunity under the auspices of the i  a convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage known as the or i'll refer to it as a sump supplementary convention was negotiated to create the global legal framework for liability nuclear accidents ratification and implementation of this convention helps to level the playing field for american businesses and it must be a necessary condition for nuclear cooperation when the state department goes before the american people and says we are entering into a one two three agreement to provide jobs jobs jobs and then signs an agreement in which america gets zero point zero jobs because the signing country has not  implemented the supplementary compensation for nuclear damage then the american people have been deliberately misled by their own government and what we see with india is that we crashed down the door to get india what it wanted and as of now we are eligible for zero point zero jobs i'm sure the administration will tell us that in due time the indian parliament will pass the necessary legislation and i can understand in the wake bhopal the reluctance of in the indian parliamentarians to do so but for us to open the door only so the jobs can go to france and russia is a disservice to the american people  embassy chrysler automobiles to entice people as part of a show to entice people to buy american cars only to tell us that of those cars was the crossfire a car whose that was ninety nine percent european built and ninety nine percent european value added and attention at the state department to the economic needs of the american people is needs to be increased now i would like to see us adopt legislation so that we don't have this charade of congressional disapproval as the only way that congress can pretend to have a role in one to three agreements instead we should describe a model agreement which should include the conventional supplementary compensation the additional protocol and admit a commitment by the other country not to  enrich and reprocess and a commitment by the other country to limit third party access to plants and information those four elements ought to be part of any model and if the treaty matches that model then the current system of congressional review seems adequate but where it falls outside that model then it should require affirmative votes in the house in the senate only then will congress play the role set forth in article one of the american constitution i look forward to hearing from our witness but even with greater intensity i look forward to hearing from my colleagues and their opening statements starting with the ever eloquent mr royce chairman i'd like to make a note before i start my statement that we received the administration's prepared testimony less than an hour before this hearing and when i think back about how long this chairman mr chairman nucular technology is spreading running very rapidly by one estimate over five hundred nuclear plants are under construction or are planned worldwide nuclear energy certainly has its advantages its risks are substantial though especially as developing countries utilize that technology the threat of terrorist attack again many in the middle east that they won't enrich uranium this is what the bush administration did with the centerpiece being the nuclear cooperation agreement with the united arab emirates in which the u s commits not to enrich while the goal is good other countries are balking and these bilateral agreements are piecemeal some exporters of nuclear technology are sure to work around the administration must do a better job driving the nuclear suppliers group to restrict the export of sensitive technology meanwhile the volatile middle east is racing toward nuclear or most every country in the region is developing or has expressed interest in developing nuclear facilities the motives are mixed but surely the prospect of a nuclear armed iran looms large addressing iran is a  force in a very forceful way and you and i serve on that conference committee chairman would certainly take him out of this rush the process for approving nuclear cooperation agreements puts congress in the cheap in agreement as okayed unless both congressional bodies act to disapprove and get a veto proof margin and that the ranking member of the full committee introduced legislation earlier this con gress to reverse that process requiring congressional approval which i've co sponsored i am alarmed that the administration is pushing to approve a nuclear cooperation agreement with russia that agreement was polled nearly two years ago with russia resisting meaningful sanctions on iran nevermind its role in iran's nuclear and missile programs the timing couldn't be worse the provision is now being conference in the iran sanctions bill and i think that from my standpoint i'd conclude mr chairman by saying what i said that conference committee last week to pass an iran sanctions bill that this administration maladministrat as it and others have done with iran sanctions would be worse than doing nothing to merely pretend that we did something would be harmful sure the conference must produce dramatic severe sanctions the time for calibration is long gone so it's very unfortunate that the administration is pressing for waivers  cooperation agreement is of the most important that the united states and our allies continue to assess and respond to the ever changing geopolitical it is also a particular interest to me as a member of the nato parliamentary assembly and as the general repertoire of science and technology nuclear security and weapons of mass destruction we live in a nation that is in the eyes of billions of people to be the quintessential example of what it means to be in the first world to be or not but the remaining superpower we live in a world where an increasing global population as well as the exponentially increasing energy demand required to achieve and maintain an industrialized standard of living has placed a strain on our fossil fuel supply namely coal and petroleum based products the sources are indeed finite no question at some point they're going to run out as a matter of fact many believe that we have already reached the peak of our supply and so we must lead the way in providing guidance and assistance to the developing world in their quest to raise their standard of living of their people and greater access to technology and the energy resources required to do so to deny them such would be hypocritical and quite honestly a human rights travesty to provide such a leadership is to all of our best interest but it must be it's critical that it be the right leadership we must lead as all great leaders must and responsibly beyond the simple recognition that these resources are indeed finite that they are going to rather quickly runout like other concerns that we must address we need only look to the terrible incident the gulf of mexico to become aware of the environmental devastation that can occur and in the process for us to run out of these buyable resources we must also be aware of the global security impact that access or lack thereof to all of the revenue from  nations that support terrorism and keeping nuclear possible material from being in the hands of terrorists a nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists if indeed ed up young radicals and in most cases now citizens of the united states we've got to act much more quickly and as i said the day will come when fossil fuels reliance will follow the way of the dinosaurs with extension the choice that we face however is whether such an extension with the dinosaur is abrupt and globally devastating or whether through the right kind of leadership we can evolve to a cleaner better or alternative that will bring all of us a brighter tomorrow nuclear energy has had many ups and downs in both this perception and there are of course legitimate concerns that the nineteen seventies no nuclear power plant has been constructed in the united states think about that since the one nine hundred seventy s and this is largely due to the construction of such plastically costing far more than initially estimated at least historically speaking as well as public perceptions regarding transportation of waste and its disposal and the fear of an adequately secure material and falling into the hands of terrorists and those who wish to develop and use nuclear weapons or a dirty bomb with our hearing today we must address all these points in order to better assess whether they are still relevant today and if nuclear energy is a responsible viable option to decrease not only our reliance on fossil fuels but also the developing world growing  them if the transition to a viable alternative does not occur so we as america as well as mankind as a whole will experience devastating growing pains rather than the smart growth that we are capable of achieving nor can we leave this discussion without having on the table the situation facing us with iran you know i was in new york on monday sitting in the audience when the president of iran i'm an energy came forward and spoke it was amazing as i down i am more convention after being there in person at the un the witnesses speech that ladies and gentleman i ran present and horrific challenge and it is my hope that we understand what is before us as this committee and our conference committee extrapolate  significance of our role in history and putting forward the toughest most most significant iran sanctions bill possible because not only to the podium but in what he said and then afterwards how our secretary of state hillary clinton came forward and answered that job with the toughness and the resolve that is needed and we in this foreign affairs committee cannot do any more different than support the toughness that our secretary of state laid on the table in response to a minute jobs remarks at the u n and so in conclusion m chairman our committee must approach topic with a recognition of this delicate balance necessary to promote america's interests and entered interests of our allies at home and abroad and we must promot energy policy that recognizes basic rights of nations to develop and we must also balance such a policy with a responsible on the environmental impact and most importantly global security hearing today the future of international nuclear cooperation a sort of a a timely topic i am a strong believer in the use of nuclear energy nuclear power and we need a whole lot more of it especially in the united states however my concern at this moment is about iran one of the world's most belligerent regimes has defied warnings against again and again not to build nuclear weapons has announced on april ninth that iran had built a centrifuge machine capable of enriching uranium at six times the speed of its first generation machines and then he said quote iran's nuclear path is irreversible  the administration's own nuclear posture review admits that iran has quote violated nonproliferation obligations defied directives of the united nations security council pursued missile delivery capabilities and resisted international efforts to resolve through diplomatic means the crisis that they have created this to me sounds very serious that they are a rogue nation and could care less what anybody thinks the united nations the united states or any other group of countries this very week the united states trying to build international cooperation at the u n to stop iran from building those nuclear weapons that international sanctions could soon be imposed on iran but stressed that this wouldn't a terror his government from pushing forward with its own nuclear program in spite of world opinion and threats of sanctions historically sanctions of any can against countries don't work people cheat they cheat in the name of money profit motive and they sell their agreements to other people  historically ever i hope the world united nations united states does not get in the neville chamberlain philosophy of appeasement and claimed peace in our  time that didn't work in the past and the world suffered for it and is still suffering for i would hope that sanctions would work and strong sanctions must be imposed upon iran they must understand that we mean business with those companies that trade with iran and violate those sanctions and there must be consequences iran cannot obtain nuclear weapons  i look forward to hearing about what the united states is doing to make sure that this doesn't happen i have a question that i've been asking for some time at the worst if iran nuclear weapons what is plan b what are we going to do we don't want to get to that point but i have yet to hear an answer from really anyone what we're going to do the answer is always the same we're not going to let missile i believe when they say that they are building missiles of course are using missiles that are creating missiles that will even have long range capability that will go to western europe or even the united iran coupled with potential threats from unsecured nuclear material highlight the need for the united states to reply or ties arms control and note the actions that past presidents from both parties undertook with regard to nuclear weapons weapons and they agreed to reduce nuclear arms by an additional thirty percent moreover new start places no limits on the u s missile defense systems and plans the treaty establishes a newbie agreement between the two parties and allows us russia other nations to address threats posed by emerging nuclear ambitions from rogue states like north korea and iran earlier this month the u s house of the nuclear security summit in which forty seven nations participate summit concluded with a joint communique in which attendees stated their commitment to strengthen nuclear security and reduce the threat of nuclear actions the nuclear security summit acknowledge the importance of concepts that are complementary to u s national security objectives for example the attendees recognize that a highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium require special precautions agreed to promote measures to secure account for and consolidate those dangerous materials perhaps most notably the communi also recognize the need for cooperation among states to actively prevent and respond to incidents of illicit nuclear trafficking given the growing threat to our borders from non state actors over the past decade this last declaration lays the for future cooperation with regard to trafficking and material united states to cooperate with its allies to prevent nuclear proliferation to maximize the positive outcome it may arguably be the biggest single threat and ballistic missile defenses during a second term in one thousand nine hundred seventy president reagan signed the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty eliminating all nuclear armed ground launched ballistic and cruise missiles with between three hundred thirty four hundred miles credibility and authority an international nuclear issues it continued engagement cooperation the us convening on hosting of the summit two weeks ago couple with its recent renegotiation of a new start with russia places the us in a unique negotiating position ahead of the upcoming review conference of the n p t at the may conference the us will have reserves of credibility and goodwill essential to gaining allies in addressing the looming threats from north korea and iran systems with the soviet union nucular energy can make a major contribution to the well the well being of the people the world should in fact but we know there is this down side on the down side is the byproduct of the peaceful use of nuclear energy the nuclear weapons material that can and generate hundreds of thousands of millions of people the iranian challenge that we face today underscores that dichotomy the regime continues to claim that has a right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and they do have a right of peaceful purposes but the rest of us have every read to believe that that is not their motive and moving forward with their nuclear program and have every reason to fear a country like that governed by such  a western moola dictatorship having the possession of weapons of mass destruction especially nuclear weapons let us note today however there is a new technology and one of the things that  to permit countries in the third world and other countries that are claiming the right to use nuclear energy for their purposes but do not provide a byproduct leave a byproduct that can be used for weapons  general atomics company in california much respected company has a new nuclear power system that is promoting that we have every reason to believe we'll provide energy as a high temperature yes cool reactor that will not have the byproduct that can be used for nuclear weapons and in fact the waste from other reactors when are we going to make sure that that becomes part of the national debate that our that our people who are representing us are utilizing the new opportunity to overcome the challenges we face we will never be able to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether but we can reduce the threat of weapons to mankind and i think that number one the new technology i just mentioned but number two in achieving that goal is we must work with russia our former enemy former communist which is credibly costly for both of our countries and the level of nuclear weapons which we will never use that takes away money that we can use for other things that would be important to our national defense as well as our economic well being of our people that's number one to work with the russians on top and missile defense and number two utilizing the new technological opportunities that we have a nuclear energy around the world for peaceful purposes that does not have the downside of producing material for nuclear weapons i thank you very much mr chairman for holding this hearing i look forward to discussing this issue with the witnesses today thank all members for their opening other importance of the state department on the testimony of the second panel we look forward to hearing your testimony and i look forward of course to you giving me the copy that was sent to the white house and the capability agreements that's a positive example of the responsible development of a nuclear power program additional one twenty three agreements with australia russia and jordan development i'm pleased to report that the united states and australia signed a of any initiative or negotiations relating to a new or amended agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation my question is how does the obama administration interpret this possesses and has tested nuclear weapons the nuclear proliferation treaty does not recognize india as a nuclear weapon state because it acquired these weapons after  seven so the nuclear suppliers group is a multi lateral multilateral control regime for nuclear technology and does not meet any of these criteria and in the lead up to the u s in the agreement with the bush exemption indicate about the strength of the nuclear suppliers group selling nucular technology to iran and which that country fails to take any effective action to stop that or to penalize the individual or the company that was involved in it it's change its behavior lose its control on power turning to our one to three agreements you identified quite a number of countries that we are in the goetia with and i'd like you to identify whether the agreements that you're working on will achieve the four model standard positions i said forth in my opening statement for example  which of those agreements can you assure us will have a requirement that the other countries enter into the convention on some potentially compensation are you able to say any of these will have rephrase enter into that supplementary convention or an act similar liability law i'll i don't want to debate with you whether it's zero jobs or miniscule jobs the fact is you're about to submit a bunch of agreements to us where most of the jobs are going to be at the state department negotiating the agreement and very few of them are going to be involved in our nuclear industry what about the additional protocol can you assure us that any of these agreements will require the other non would certainly would be helpful for them to commit to us that they're not going to somehow or withdraw from the additional protocol which of the agreements will cause the other country to renounce  now you cannot assure us that any of these agreements will have either of the liability laws or the enrichment and reprocessing provisions that i think are necessary what about provisions that the country will ban from its facilities and from obtaining nuclear technology nationals of countries of concern especially iran and north korea  nationalities are allowed to tour their nuclear facilities or otherwise point themselves with nuclear technology there are models believe the united states would be one of them and  would think that these other countries would not be taking a radian scientists on tours of facilities that we helped build or other facilities that we didn't different cooperation with them  not well hopefully you're here not to inform us but also to learn and i hope you'll go back and try to get these so let's return to the whole issue of whether american companies will be able to compete india has set aside roughly ten reactor sites for us but it's very clear that the first construction construction sites will not be american and that in fact until and unless  they don't need it we need it we battered the door down for them got them everything they want and put ourselves in a position where we're talking about zero participation of american companies  or these other factors that i've outlined are not high enough for you on on your list of priorities for you to be aware about or being treated the individual agreements but you will furnish material as to the status of each of these doesn't work in any other line of business i doubt it's going to work here asking is one thing requiring it as a condition of entering into an agreement the other party wants something else  i've always been concerned about manufacturing and the loss of our defense industrial base even though the pentagon talks a lot about that when you take a look at their award contracts but we won't be hearing from any of our questions until after the thank you mr ben as you're stepping forward i'd like to introduce our first speaker of the panel mr leonard spector mr specter is the deputy director of the james martin center for nonproliferation studies of the monterey institute of the international of international studies and the center's washington d c office the criteria that are now used for agreements for cooperation as embodied in section one twenty three of the atomic energy act might not be the best course largely because on the one hand the been central to the international debate on nuclear energy a lot of countries in the developing world have back not just iran but many others to complain that the united states is intruding on their rights to  could be taken to reinforce the congressional role without necessarily having the same effect and what i suggest in my testimony is a trade off that the congress require an affirmative agreements for cooperation don't have time to go into them in detail but i would only say that this hearing itself has served a purpose it is certainly put on the agenda the need for this careful about access of foreign nationals our technology from some countries i don't think has been under discussion significantly until now and i think the way the liability issue has come up in this hearing is another step forward to appreciate how serious that can be on a liability matter i had studied us a number of years ago and  i felt that it was not a particularly good choice from the standpoint of the population that might be affected by a nuclear power plant accident because the limits are too low so that while the u s vendor would have the protection  therefore they don't have to have a liability legislation that we've been discussing it seems to me that the matter may be taken up not only in the respect that you've been speaking of pressuring countries but also some of the other  right now in the senate they're saying that we shouldn't expose the american taxpayer to fifty billion dollars worth of risk with regard to blowouts on wall street and you're asking for trillions of dollars of or at least many billions of dollars i was a risk to the u s taxpayer i was next to explain my point i wasn't proposing that we adopt the same strategy as to pass south korea i was adopted i was proposing that our trade negotiators president  to adopt the same strategy as we are which is to say that well ok rick laming the time that i have stolen from my colleagues basically said congress should move over and get the way because the administration's going to seek our objectives the previous witness made it clear that he doesn't know of any of these agreements that are going to contain the liability provisions necessary for us to get jobs that he is in clear on the concept of getting restrictions on third party nationals access to facilities and certainly as a trying to achieve that objective and with regard to enrichment and reprocessing the u s the negotiated the agreement with the united states without such a restriction and only with congressional demands such a construct restriction added so to say that we should go to sleep confident that several other members of the subcommittee will be joining us soon but i have been a notified by telepathy that they would like us to continue and like to welcome mr james glasgow he is a partner in the pillsbury law firm energy practice and he serves as counsel on a number of nuclear energy related issues mr glasgow is here as a representative of the nuclear energy institute the three hundred fifty member policy organizations for the nuclear technologies industry and i would hope i realize you already have your opening statement but if part of it could comment on how through these agreements we can not just generate profits which of course occurs with licensing agreements but also in the actual construction and manufacturing  brief summary at the time my testimony as you mentioned is presented on behalf of the nuclear energy institute responsible for establishing u s nuclear industry policy regulatory financial technical legislative and members include all companies licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the united states nuclear plant designers major architect engineering firms fabrication facilities  e matters and during my tenure in the late seventy's and the office of general counsel of the department of energy i helped negotiate a number of u s agreements for cooperation concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy so called years has served as a principal international agreement that provides a glow barrier to the spread of nuclear weapons although there are challenges to it as has been discussed today i should mention that the over its history has made a number of strong  support such as in the mid ninety's when the strongly supported renewal of the us nuclear industry does however have an important role with respect to the companies are major supplier of nuclear reactor components services on the nuclear materials needed to run reactors recognition by u s trading partners that the united states is a reliable supplier gives the united states the ability to influence nuclear power programs implemented in countries that have announced such programs and planned to build reactors now i should at the same time take up the point that you raised that has been the case already american companies supplying power to china have generated substantial number of jobs approximately five thousand i've heard even though the reactors are built in china and one can cite many other make it part of the record but i want people to actually go out and buy the book themselves of course titled reviewing nuclear reviewing the nuclear nonproliferation treaty  states including the ones the u s is currently negotiating deals with are not buying the condition that with china's recent sale of power reactors to pakistan the nuclear suppliers group could soon become impotent constraining civilian nuclear  fuel making activities finally it appears the administration wants to resubmit the us russian nuclear deal even though russian and i are still assisting iran's nuclear missile and enhanced conventional program military conventional program none of this i know will make future nuclear cooperate agreements you will be receiving any less controversial moreover all of them will continue to be fast tracked with some nominal congressional requirements but nothing more than brings me to my key recommendation which is congress needs to require that both houses approve all nuclear cooperation agreement that the executive branch negotiated having studied constitutional law myself and referring to others who have i believe the power that you gave the executive to run the agreements for you is delegated from article one so you have a genuine constitutional issue here but you are not new and alternative might be to lay out detailed conditions which if met would make it possible for any agreement that met these the deals to conduct near real time surveillance inspections which is not covered by the additional protocol but is critical that they agree that if they recycle u s nuclear material receive intangible technical support or any other forms of cooperation they would lose those rights if they tested well going further as to when and how you would resume such cooperation they would have to do a number of by any international institution dealing with financial assistance this would be the world bank or regional bank to use subsidized loans from of civilian nuclear power programs and closing significant loopholes demanding that any legislative effort such as in the senate to reverse this policy be referred to your committee for the four markup finalization some of course will argue that all of this is unrealistic united states can't be it however is building nearly a three billion dollar mixed oxide fabrication plant here in the u s and it hopes to build power reactors where many tens of billions of dollars and i read an enrichment plant all of these will require thank you for your testimony mr you've put forward the idea that having congress actually follow the role set forth in article one of the constitution and down on these agreements would create unwarranted and so i'm really concerned about whether that's the kind of a phony argument or whether you're really worried about the mr specter put forward the idea that opportunity would you support an expedited faster system that would allow that would require congress to have an up or down vote or would you oppose a faster system using the that an additional thirty day period when it's pretty obvious you prefer sixty to ninety the question is do you go from ninety to sixty with affirmative vote or do you and if not how do you then say that you're concerned about unwarranted the way i would be troubled by system the requirement of an affirmative congressional vote before an agreement for cooperation could go into force i know there's a lot of history here and i'll be very brief but it nine first of all there are rather than looking at the history of these agreements i look at the history of the us constitution i think that the framers would be aghast to think that statutes are created  by the president signing an agreement with a foreign potentate and then becoming the law and the unless congress was able to overcome it with two thirds votes in both houses the the the the history of our constitution is at least as important as the history of companies a particular industry trying to make a profit  now you've told us we have five thousand jobs in one particular region with with china to me that's not the lion's share  run the kind of country america has become with the international responsibilities what percentage of worldwide building and constructing nuclear power plants does the that as a microphone if an american company provides a part to a government run corporation say one in russia or china and then there's an accident the sovereign immunity protect that company or does anything else protect that company assuming there is a liability law or supplementary supplementary compensation convention and for law a problem when you talk about those five thousand jobs in a few jobs here in a few jobs there that come from manufacturing components that will be used in the silicon that will be enriched weapons material already i'd like your take on what how should that be disposed of what should we do with that  they continue to help iran with their nuclear energy program and their nuclear weapons program i'd like your take on that specifically each of your conclusions that whether or not and fact you believe without question despite what a man and a job said and spoke to at the un on monday at the  nonproliferation conference at the un whether or not you feel each of you personally that they are and in fact after curing and developing nuclear weapons i think that would be very important supposedly for civilian use of nuclear energy however there is a tremendous amount of spent fuel there and should not russia have some responsibility for helping to clean that up dispose of that determine where it is going so i think that this would be a good departure just to get some response from on russia on these questions of i've asked because absolutely between the two of us rushing nine it states we hold almost all the trump cards on this whole issue of nuclear energy and especially in view of the fact that over ninety ninety five percent of all of the nuclear weapons are in either of our possessions or responsibilities i'd like each of your take on this  independently a lot of leakage from western europe so they may not be getting that kind of insider information about how to design the bomb from the russians or things of that kind but i'd say that as you consider the agreement that would be crucial  down wouldn't be usable for weapons anymore made into nuclear power plants that actually sold to the united states and around the country now it would be good to do that a second time were to find some kind of mechanism to encourage russia take another five hundred t they didn't look at that and the general accountability i mean the government accountability office good and highlighting how much information was not in that report that was that you need to look at that's point one i think issue moreover the iranians have not agreed after repeated requests to allow near real time surveillance so that we can see what's going on at these facilities every five minutes a secure link between the no question in my mind that they are on the brink they want to be on the brink and they want you to be on the edge of your stool every minute watching you but your conclusion is  don't have anything new to present about whether they're developing nuclear weapons i can say though that the industry has some tools at its disposal that could contribute in a way that i think would be constructive if not for iran at least  industry can contribute so while the industry doesn't have the answer to iran that has some of the tools and commercial arrangements that will help to address these problems