we have provided widely two health-care workers throughout the country to determine if there is an outbreak of ebola and if they do, to call for help, and we will be there. mr. madison is next for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a number of questions. i will try to move through them quickly. dr. friedman, it strikes me that controlling the outbreak in west africa is really one of the real of to keeping americans safe. the reports indicate we may be losing ground in liberia. what would enhance the international community's ability to gain some ground in africa in terms of actions and resources? that itwe're finding is is moving quickly and there is a real risk it will spread to

other parts of africa. therefore, the key ingredient to progress there is speed. the quicker we surge in a response, the quicker we blunt the number of cases and the risk ,o other parts of the world including the u.s., decreases. angress has provided agreement to use money from the department of defense. received $30e million for the first 11 weeks of this fiscal year, which we appreciate. has an unprecedented number of people in the field right now in west africa and texas. how many people do you have doing airport screenings? >> i would have to get back to you with the exact numbers. we are overseeing screenings to

make sure they are done correctly and to screen individuals here -- >> make sure you get that ifber, and also find out those resources are best used there or elsewhere with your limited number of people. is there progress in developing test to determine if somebody has ebola? >> a more rapid test would be helpful. we are currently testing one in africa that is simpler and quicker and would be more aspful even if it is not thorough. to me that when it comes to infection control and prevention and hospital standards, i think he very wisely from hospital to hospital in this country. what regulatory or legislative

actions could strengthen these systems? how can we reduce this variability among hospitals in ?ur country >> infection control in our country generally is a challenge cdc worksing that hard to improve. hospitals are regulated by the states in which they operate and the issue of what could be done isimprove infection control complex. cdc has a large program of ofpital prevention infection. we share new efforts in new ways to do things better. that center of excellence model is an important one. suggesting that while you can provide guidance, implementation is more of a state function than a federal function. do you think we should be looking at that issue? we have a federalist system.

the cdc provides information and input that roughly 5000 hospitals in the country were not regulatory. >> one other line of question. there is no good news about ebola, but at least it is not , it does not transmit as an airborne identity. it is clearly that we do not want to underestimate the trent -- the ability to transmit it. the focus is on ebola and rightly so, but there are other airborne transmittal pathogens that ought to be of great concern. birds being one of them. is this experience we have had with ebola, how do we learn from it to make sure we are prepared for other, human to human

that mayible pandemics have a higher rate of transmission van ebola? >> two major lessons. prevented at the source. either go to find it, stop it, and prevented, it would be over already. country, tor continue preparedness and public to find and stop public health threats. >> recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. today, we have referred to , referred to nurse one and nurse two. these are two young women who dedicated their lives to helping other people, sick people. nurse oneo them as and nurse to does not sit well with me. it is reminiscent of dr. seuss,

thing one and thing two. these are not things. i would like to think -- first nurse and the second nurse -- these are young women with families. one particular has a fiancé. i think it would serve us well are humanr these beings, young women, who have dedicated their lives to help people. i would like to open with that. dr., he said in your testimony earlier, only by direct contact can you contract ebola. you contest that statement? and it is not airborne? you agree? >> it spread person-to-person not by the airborne.

>> if you need personal contact fluids, why is it scrubbed four times? aren't they wasting money? contact,n have bodily why -- >> it is a scary disease. >> so it is just for public perception. they do not need to be doing that. >> we have detailed guidelines. you need to be sick and generally, the first symptom of illness is a fever. >> do you need a fever to be contagious? >> later in the disease when people are deathly ill, they may not have a fever but they would be able to walk at that point. >> you need to show symptoms within 21 days of exposure. are contagiousu

at that point? time, anywhereon from 0-21 days. question early within the first 21 days or so. >> you said there were 121 people from west africa to the united states. you are opposed to -- constituents are in favor of you orng -- i predict the president will put on traveling restrictions. and ik they are coming think sooner rather than later. 150 a day and you rationalize, we do not need to worry about that because they can get cross orders and go by land. number might be reduced to five or 10 a day? >> i cannot comment on what

numbers. >> if someone had to make an effort rather than going on airport and jumping out a plan, if they really had to, don't you think the number would dramatically dropped? >> i know people come back. right now, we are able to screen them and collect information. >> what if they do not come back question mark a lot of people miss country, they do not come back. what happens then? if you have five coming in today, i were my constituents rather have five a day coming in. this thing was checking for temp -- temperatures, like it will help, is like scrubbing what does not need to be scrubbed. i would like to commend reading this copy, ebola is coming to america. the u.s. had a chance to stop the virus in its tracks but it missed. before mr.ame out duncan came to this country and diagnosed with

ebola. there is good reading there. i also recommend, if you want to google a hospital from hell, hospital fromla, hell, if you get a chance to read that, i think everyone would be in favor of the travel restrictions and today, the health administration just today said customs and border control immigration and nations are at risk of coming into contact with ebola. are we prepared for that? protected?ents this came out today. >> we china my how to wear the protective gear and what circumstances. travel with a whole host of potential diseases, we are aware and we trained to recognize signs of over illness. we have protocols without

professionals to get those care and into that protect our employees. >> they phone the same category as nurses. save us ande to protective of the country. god bless you. i yield back. >> the german is retired. >> thank you so much. i have a number of questions. i would like to start in regard exposed, myurses understanding is the first nurse, was exposed in the emergency room. is that correct? repeat theu question? in thefirst nurse was emergency room? is that correct? >> it is not correct. she came in contact with mr.

duncan when mr. duncan was up.sferred >> that was some time up from september 28 through the 30th. is that correct? >> that is correct. sent, wasond nurse she also an icu nurse? so they were exposed after the --nt that is not correct. the nurses from the time may have first contact with mr. duncan were in personal protective equipment according to cdc guidelines. nina cared for mr. duncan. stop you right there. they are already using universal but were using more

isolation. just answer yes or no. >> yes. i is ok. this, and i will just back up, on october 2 -- excuse me, october 6, i sent a letter calling for travel restrictions. there is no question i believe they need to be put in place. after having this subcommittee hearing now, i believe even more strongly that we need them. i want to back up to a couple of questions. are there multiple strains of ebola? >> five different subspecies. this outbreak is one particular subspecies. all of these have been closely related third >> we know it has to one particular

strain. the quote was, unless it mutates, there will not be an outbreak here in the united states, is that correct? be a largell not outbreak here buying a mutation. >> lemon nurses were using how has thisar, happened? it tells me something is changing herein are we currently looking into the situation now? what we have seen is very little change in the virus. we do not think it is spreading by any different way. you have artie said a couple of times it is not airborne. you are protecting yourself and your protecting your patient and you are protecting your family. based on precautions, i am sure. we are now having this conversation and i am concerned about that. is notre confident this

an airborne transmission. nurses working very hard and working with a patient who is very ill and was having a lot of vomiting and diarrhea. a lot of infectious material. the investigation is ongoing, but we immediately implemented a series of measures. >> i will move on. faste discussion of for ebola, where are they at with that? >> a diagnostic test? there are three authorized for use. taken some proactive steps by contacting commercial manufacturers who we know have potential technology to bear here. we reached out to a handful who might be interested in working with us. >> you're in the process of working toward a fast-track process. >> yes. we expedite every such path.

>> leslie, i am speaking on behalf of my constituents in every in my cut -- in the country. i just do not believe it is acceptable, the quote you have given us, as the reason for why she -- we should not implement travel. i believe we can. dofar as our border patrol, you believe there is a way we can implement tracking of individuals, if we do not allow it >> yes. we have a way to determine that through review of passport. it is easier when they come to direct places. >> rue, thank you. thank you for indulging. i am over time here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your holding this hearing.

i've talked to a number of health care professionals and listening to the panel as well. i want to join with chairman upton in urging the president to immediately issue a travel ban until such time as they can firmly and scientifically prove that americans are safe from having more ebola patients coming into the united states. i know, dr., you expressed disagreement with that. have you all had any conversations within the white about a travel ban and whether or not the president has the authority? many of us have said the president does have the authority to do it today. >> from the point of view of cdc, we are willing to consider anything -- >> have you considered an have you ruled it out, or have you not considered it at all? have you had conversations with the white house about a travel ban? it is a yes or no question.

conversations with the white house about a travel than? >> we have had discussions on the issue of travel >> have you ruled it out? if you are in those conversations, maybe they had their own conversation about you, but if you were involved in conversations with the white house about a travel ban, did they rule it out and are they still considering it? --we will consider anything >> are you going to answer the question about your conversation with the white house? is the white house considering a travel ban? >> i can't speak for the white house. >> have you had conversations with them about it? -- >> wecussed discussed the issue of travel. >> i would urge you, if you do not think it travel ban is the right way to go, a lot of people disagree with you, at a minimum, you ought to look at -- you can

travel in the united states from liberia. have you all considered that were discussed it or ruled it out? authority is our to acquire the isolation of individuals. >> but you said you do not think there should be a travel ban. att about at least looking extending visas to non-us citizens? >> the cdc does not issue visas. can make a recommendation to the white house that you think would be in the best interest of the american people to have that kind of suspension issued. are you not aware of that? >> we would certainly consider anything that will reduce risk to americans. >> do you have a high level of confidence that our u.s. troops over there right now, through activity are already in those

countries. up to 3000 of those trips will be sent over from president obama. do you have a high level of confidence those trips are protected so they will not contract ebola? >> we work very closely with dod on the protocols. say there is zero risk there in those countries, but they are not participating in high risk activities. protocols inishes that case? >> they are following cdc protocols, but they follow their own. theet me ask you about protocols. i have heard reports that some people of some of the other organizations that have been there for a while, you have got a group, a showman by the name of shawn kaufman, who is involved with some of the doctors over there that got infected. they have been working for decades in some cases. he said he warned your agency that the guidelines you had on the below were relaxed and his

response was "they kind of blew me off. oh off." blew me >> do not know that occurred. >> i hope you go find out. is a real concern. i've talked to a number of medical professionals in my district. not are concerned they have had consistent protocols. there have been at least four in the last few weeks were the protocols keep changing. first nurse that was infected, you personally said the protocols have been breached. have you back away from that? you said the protocols were breached. were they breached? yes or no?

>> our review of the records suggest -- if you did not know for a fact -- do you still stand by the statement that protocols were breached? definite exposure -- >> i yield back. >> the ranking member and the chairman have a final two-minute wrapup. >> he started to say looks like was exposed in the first couple of days before the diagnosis came in. >> that is our leading hypothesis. >> thank you. have you now see in my chart from the new york times about protective gear? ofyou know which types protective gear health-care workers were wearing in the last few days?

guard, folks would have been wearing the first fiction or. >> thank you. it is your testimony, you do not really know how either one of these nurses were. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> i want to say one last thing. discussionsa lot of today about a lot of issues. i will make a statement and i will ask you to comment. it seems to me, beside from trying to stop the ebola from africa, the things we can do here, number one, better ourning to people in emergency rooms, better responders, not just send them out e-mails and bulletins. we can have more robust protective gear at the early stages someone looks like he might have a risk for ebola.

number three, it might be useful to have cdc on the ground earlier. down to the come dallas hospital until after the diagnosis. two days, people were moving in and out of mr. duncan's room and we do not know exactly what happened. can you comment on that? >> i do not agree completely on the framing. we are looking carefully at the equipment issue. we consult immediately every time. 300 --ave been more than only mr. duncan was confirmed to have ebola. we will do everything we can to support the front lines. >> i would ask for both this chart, and the flights to be included in the effort. i would also ask all of our witnesses if they would continue updatedthis committee

as changes in developments are made. i ask unanimous consent to put these statementsrevisly asked fr unanimous consent but i do not think we ever agreed to it. >> it is so ordered. i now recognize for another two minutes. yourg listened to all of testimony, couple things stand out for me. i appreciate the statement of honesty. that we made mkes. i did not hear that for many of you and that troubles me. what has happened here is your protocol depends on everyone being honest 100% of the time. i am not a medical expert. i study behavior as a psychologist. people are not honest 100% of the time. it relies on tools that take

temperatures. a 121 chance they may register something. and a person -- that is not helpful. recognize human behavior, the protocols may not be salt -- may not be followed. itt you put -- watch you put on and watch it taken off and do things. the example of how this failed was there was an assumption, you travel. granted the assumption that you use all the right protective gear, but we looked at this and you are not aware of what she wore. to this extent, these are my recommendations. i believe we need an immediate ban on commercial and nonessential travel until we have an accurate screening process to treat the disease. a mandatory court order for any american who has traveled to or return from the ebola hot zone

countries. because of an assumption and without this assumption of what they were was dawned and remove properly. number three, through training for health care hospital workers for personal equipment used in the treatment of ebola patients, and --ber four, identify those trained. inber five, identify gaps the statutory language to take more aggressive and immediate -- four but -- public health in ebola. or any other action congress needs to do to facilitate your needs. number six, accelerate on development and clinical trials investigations on drugs and diagnostic tests.

number seven, acquisition of vehicles capable of examining military personnel who may have contracted ebola in africa to return to the united states beyond the current capacity. number eight, additional contact and testing for public health agencies. number nine, to provide for congress and the resources needed to assist health interventions in africa so we can stop people of their. the members coming back today for the hearing and i especially appreciate the testimony of the panel. i ask i ask unanimous consent the numbers written opening sentence be introduced into the record. without objection. >> i have a document to enter into the record, the office of inspector general department of homeland security and the photographs i demonstrated earlier today. >> so ordered they will be included. again thank all the members who participated in figuring. >> mr. chairman, i just want to acknowledge the things i wanted

to include in the record -- >> those are included as well. we will also have a hearing in november, follow-up and notify members of the participants of when that will be. i ask all members to submit questions for the record and asked the witnesses please agree to respond probably to the questions. and with that this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> live now to the fulbright u.sused student programs annual conference and opening session on u.s. nuclear policy. allison macfarlane who chairs the nuclear regulatory tuition and the former head of the international atomic energy agency will be speaking. right now, the audience is hearing from steve riley, executive director of the fulbright association. this is live coverage. >> traveled to over meetings and all of our events and provide financial support for the organizations i think it's

important you note that. i certainly did and i appreciate that. i want to extend a special welcome to our members, special our lifetime members, many of whom have been coming to this event for 20 years, 25 years, 37 years. this is our 37th annual and as far as the registrations go, this is our largest conference that we will ever have in terms of attendance your. ..

>> we're so happy and fortunate toe them supporting this great event and our organization. my team worked really hard on this, and you'll see why over the next 48 hours. from the embassy event last night to our prize gala tonight and all of the amazing content and speakers that we have for you today and tomorrow, you'll appreciate how a staff of four is working really hard to make that happen. that said, one of the reasons that it's getting better and we have so many people is we put together a prize working group this year and a conference working group of our board members. so not only are our board members reaching into their pocket, but they really rolled up their sleeves this year, and the connection between the staff and the board was something special. so when you have an opportunity to thank them, please, make sure you do that. and i really thank all of you for reaching into your own

pockets and coming here and supporting the organization, and we're going to do our best to put on a really good show for you. so just some highlights of the day, we have, certainly, our opening plenary is going to be great. these three leaders in international security and the nuclear industry have never been on stage together. we have the chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission, we have the undersecretary of state for arms control international security, of course, we have dr. blakes, tom nides is the vice chairman of morgan stanley, it's a pretty impressive group. sometimes it's a little surreal to stand up here in the presence of people like that and people like all of you. we have a dare to impact session which is kind of a ted-like style. i think you're really going to enjoy that. our theme this year is dare to act which is carrying forward

from our social innovation scheme from spring which was dare to think, and it's an opportunity to showcase the power of fulbright and what it really does in the world. i don't think fulbright gets enough credit for what it does, and i think that programs like this give us a chance to really put it, literally, on stage and to showcase it. and, thankfully, c-span has agreed with us. they think it's worthy of showing. so i think that's a testament to the program itself. we have a diversity luncheon looking at corporate service, social responsibility. the president of howard university will be here along with top representatives from morgan stanley and deloitte and lowe's talking about how diversity and inclusion is important to their organizations. a pollster is here who's going to give a little hunt to the elections and what it might mean for fulbright funding, and then we have a great panel this afternoon looking at the future

of fulbright. we have the former president of peru who's also a fulbrighter, and tom healey, the chair of the fsb. we have two executive -- two directors of fulbright commissions abroad who are going to explore what the next few years of fulbright might look like and to certainly highlight the importance of fulbright in the world today in addition to the opening panel. and, of course, we have patrick who is our cohen dance winner. we have a really packed schedule. i will not be apologetic because the program is just so good, but it is definitely a tight schedule, so i encourage you to be as contract -- consider rate as possible. we want time for social using, but there'll be a lot of time this evening at our great prize event, so i just hope that you can come back and try to be as respectful to our speakers as possible in that timeline. we have poster fare through the two rooms off to the side which

is kind of where our break rooms will be as well. engage with those individuals, learn about their projects, swap business cards. that's part of what this opportunity is about, it's really to kind of mingle and find unique opportunities for all of us. so with that, i just want to introduce herma williams who is one of our national board members, full of energy and enthusiasm. she's become a very good friend of mine, a bit of a mentor. i appreciate the career path that she's walked. she's a journeywoman in academic administration. she's an agent of change. she comes to institutions and facilitates big change and helps them enhance their mission and transition to excellence and raise their academic standards. she went from bryn mawr to ithaca and retired in 2011 from fresno state university as the provost and vice president of academic affairs. of course, like many of you, she

doesn't know how to retire -- [laughter] so she spends most of her time working with youth, particularly children in need working through a number of nonprofits in addition to her service here the our national -- to our national board. so is herma williams. [applause] >> good morning. oh, i know you can do better than that. let's start again. good morning. >> good morning. >> all right. now i know it is a good morning. and, steve, thank you very much. he said retired? what is that? [laughter] as my mother said, no, you've breathed your last breath, then you retire. our theme for the program is dare to act. the theme for today is dare to lead. but we have all of these dares, and i just want to take a second to speak about them because i want you to own them, at least own one. so it's dare to act for the

conference, dare to lead for this morning, dare to impact, dare to include, dare to engage, dare to innovate. now here's one i love, dare to transform. got it? dare to transform. dare to improve. dare to empower. and then, my work, dare to educate and dare to create. so how many of these dares have you had as a part of your high? think about it. i can run through the list and think about the hundred years that i've been alive, and i've been daring all my life. what about you? i certainly hope that you will help us as we go into a new, i new age of fulbright being not afraid to do, but being committed to dare can. yes? wonderful. so i spent my fulbright in south

africa. now, you know i came back with many dares. and it was the year of 1996 and '97. as that entire country was changing, not only did i change, but my husband changed, my kids changed, my community changed, my extended family members. and then i came back to america and said, y'all come. and so for 15 years we took about 500 people with us. dare to change, dare to transform. and so those 26 trips totally changed me. but as i said, my entire community. and we have senator fulbright to say thank you. isn't that powerful? dare to transform. and so as we transform, we change our world, yes? so i'm expecting lots from you. as i bump into you in the hallway or the ladies' room or coffee hour or whatever, you need to look me in the eye and say i'm ready to dare too, and you have to speak the next word, all right? i'm going to look at you, and you've got to talk back to me. my task today is to introduce

two very important individuals, and i'm just delighted to have this opportunity. first, i'll introduce dr. hans blitz, our awardee for the fulbright prize. he is the recipient of the 2014 prize, and we are absolutely thrilled to have him. and then i'm also going to introduce tom nides. and so let's start, first, with dr. hans blitz. dr. blitz is a swedish diplomat and a politician for the liberal people's party. he was swedish minister for foreign affairs 1978-1979 and later became the head of the international atom you can energy -- atomic energy agency. blitz was the first western representative to inspect the consequences of chernobyl disaster in the soviet union on site and led the agency's

response to them. blitz was also the head of the united nations' monitoring verification and inspection commission from march 2000 to june 2003. he was succeeded by demetrius perkov, and in 2002 the commission began searching iraq for weapons of mass destruction, and we know the end of that story, right? so we welcome him, and we're so proud to have him as our recipient this year. next, tom nides is managing director and vice chair of morgan stanley, a leading global service firm. he focuses on the firm's global clients and other key constituencies around the world and serves as a member of the firm's management committee and operating committee. and reports to morgan stanley

chief executive officer james gorman. prior to rejoining the firm in march 2013, his current role, mr. nides was deputy secretary of the state -- secretary of state serving as chief operating officer of the department. mr. nides, a graduate of the university of minnesota, is married with two children. please join me in inviting our guests to stage. [applause] our guests to the stage. [applause] [background sounds]

>> good morning, everybody. i was going to talk about retirement here, and i confess i sometimes get the question are you going to retire sometime, and i'm saying what exactly do you mean? then i add that i have done that three times, and i'm not going to do it again. [laughter] it's a great honor to give the first speech at this conference. the fulbright association here in the united states and in many sister organizations all over the world represent unique soft power that deserves to be supported by government cans. governments. the vast circle of admirers of senator william fulbright is a

force permanently immobilized -- mobilized for better international understanding. for the many who, like me, have benefited from the senator's wisdom and program, there is no lack offish hues that need to be taken -- of issues that need to be taken on with soft power, and we should discuss some of them. i woke up to political consciousness in 1945 when the nuclear bombs were dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki and when the united nations came into being. two issues were immediately then placed on the new world organization's agenda; atomic energy and atomic weapons. and they are still there. one crucial question is how we can harness the enormous potential of co2-free atomic energy safety to help countering a global warming that scientists predict could threaten humanity with a slow suicide.

the articles in question, one that the fulbright warned about already in the 1960s, is how we can insure that the human civilization does not quit a quick suicide by use of nuclear weapons. in these existential issues, two eminent women on this panel play central roles. allison macfarlane is chair of the nuclear regulatory commission, a key person to help make nuclear power so safe that the world will recognize it as a viable, major way to meet our energy needs. gases that use the earth's atmosphere as dump sites. rose -- [inaudible] miller, undersecretary of state for international security is a key person focusing on the threat of nuclear weapons. she needs to convince the world, especially the u.s., russia and

china, that there will be greater security in spiraling down the arms ladder than in a renewed spirals up. spiraling up. she negotiated the 2010 new started agreement that deployed nuclear warheads and carriers, and we look to her for continuing reducing the pile of nuclear arms that exist around the world. to develop meaningful actions to the threats around the world, we need to understand how they came about. from where did the threat of global warming come? well, i go back to the bible that tells us that when man was driven out of paradise for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the lord told him he would henceforth have to use his own energy to survive. in the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread, the lord said. well, paradise was lost, as we know, but man developed a great

talent to use energy outside his body. fire, wind, hydro forces. and exploitation much later of oil and gas. this became possible. today developing countries, industrialized nations and an expanding global population result in a steep expansion in the world's energy demand, but some grave problems result. and one is geopolitical. during 1979 oil embargo, access to oil was used as political leverage. one way to reduce dependence on oil and gas was then to expand nuclear power, as france did. today ukraine is lucky that about half of its electricity is nuclear. it is less jeopardy than otherwise. and this in ukraine despite the chernobyl accident. the second grave problem is environmental.

as developing countries accelerate their use of fossil fuels, we in the industrial world shall stop and explain that we have already put so much carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere that the climate is in jeopardy already. while this political wrestling between the rich, high-using energy countries and the poor parts of the world is on, we all seek measures that can result in more effective generation and use of energy to get more miles out of the gallon, to get more megawatts out of power plants, energy-saving insulation and lamps, etc. replacing co2 fossil fuels is more difficult. many tell us that renewables offer a solution. however, even though the price of solar and wind power has come down, they remain costly when the subsidies of tax bill is

added to the electricity bill. they also have the problems with the intermittency. a failing ship could perhaps stop when there's no wind, but it's harder for a train to stop and announce to the passengers that we have to wait for a while until it starts blowing again. nuclear needs some assistance almost everywhere, and i think the principal cause is the fear of radiation reaching us through accidents or through leaking spent fuel. it is necessary to explain to the public that compared to fossil fuels, nuclear radiation has caused little damage to layoff and the environment -- to life and the environment. but this is clearly not enough. further improved technology, even better maintenance and operations are needed to insure that there will be no severe accidents. i spent 16 year of my life at the iaea in vienna to help build and strengthen an international regulatory and service infrastructure for the safe use of nuclear energy.

it was a productive and constructive work, but the heaviest lifting in this area lies with technology innovation and the national regulatory authorities. for a time i was happy to be associated with those who deal with innovation with those in an american company dealing with foreign fuel and a similar company in norway dealing with -- [inaudible] you may not have heard of it, but it is the other way of producing nuclear power. this is one type of innovation. but i would like to ask ms. macfarlane who takes the floor in a while if she thinks that some types of reactors of the generation iii that's coming on the stage now and new regulatory requirements will be able to insure against core helds we missions into the environment -- core melts with emissions into the environment and is there some hint it can

bring us unquestioned safety, better use of uranium fuel and less long-lived waste. if so, when do we think -- do you think we can get it on the market. i turn to need for security against war in a world with nuclear weapons. i start not with the bible this time, but with the united nations charter in 1945. it created a seemingly muscular system for collective security, and senator fulbright was very much behind it and encouraged the creation of the organization. it proclaimed the southern equality of states as a general principle, but it was based on the practical knowledge that some animals are more equal than others. central idea was the five great powers that had won the second world war would continue as a

powerful junta within the new security council to maintain world order. while members were allowed to use force only in individual or collective self-defense against armed attacks, the council was given authority to take action -- even armed action -- to meet threats of breaches of the peace, and the five members gave themself permanent seats in the security council and veto powers added to that. it was a radical and -- [inaudible] but as we know, the cold war stopped the junta of former allies to work in unison. under the u.s. leadership, nato came into being, and the successful policy of containment was developed against anti-soviet and communist expansion. and in their relentless race, the military arsenals grew with the number of nuclear weapons peaking at some 75,000 weapons in the world.

nuclear war was never closer and anguish never greater than during the 1962 cuban crisis. i remember in the cold war there was a danish poet who i liked very much, and he wrote a little poem saying the noble art of losing face may one day save the human race. [laughter] well, president kennedy was wise enough to avoid that face, and he reached ap accommodation together with kennedy -- with kruschev that consisted of the russians withdrawing missiles and nuclear weapons and the u.s. withdrawing nuclear weapons from turkey. that was the face-saving part of it. the other political lesson of the crisis was formulated in 1984 by president reagan, that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought n. today's conflicts regarding ukraine, i

believe that the major nuclear weapons states will, as in the cuban crisis, seek to avoid getting into direct armed confrontations. mutually, economic dependence is an added reason for restraint between europe and russia, and perhaps we should not deplore this as some do, but rather, recognize that globalization -- including accelerating economic interdependence -- is an important factor standing against war. in crisis like the ukraine and cuba, the military body language commands most public attention, yet diplomacy that is constructoff, soft power and -- constructive, soft power must provide accommodation and return to peace. in the case of the ukraine, it is of key importance to understand that ukraine must not become a member of nato, bringing its integrated military system up to the borders of russia. russia's annexation of crimea

and incursions into eastern ukraine constitute clear breaches of the helsinki final act and they are not, of course, excused by earlier western breaches of these rules. yet, when looking for accommodation and a basis for future peace, i think we would do well to remember that the west wants containment as necessary in the face of a soviet union bent on expansion. in today's russia many feel a need for containment of the north atlantic alliance that has crept ever closer to russia and that conducts daily naval operations in the black sea. not only north atlantic, but in the black sea. if russia, as i think and many think it is naive of me, is seeking containment and respect rather than imperial expansion, there will be many common interests that can and need be pursued even though a continued authoritarian order in russia

will naturally set some limits on the proximity that we'll have. a resumption of serious work on arms control and disarmament is one such common interest, and rose will tell us our possibilities and problems. one major point on her current agenda is well known, and that is seeking further cuts in the excessive nuclear arsenals in russia and the united states by a follow-up on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i could generously add many more items to rose's agenda because i was the chairman of a commission on weapons of mass destruction, and we had long cat log of -- catalog of it in 2006. and the book is still very valid because so little has been achieved before. on that agenda, of course, on the top of it i would place the comprehensive test ban agreement that needs the ratification of the united states and of china and a few other countries to

enter into force. and it should be realized that leaving this treaty in limbo as is now done, it was once reject by the u.s. senate, is now left in limbo, has great risks. some of the countries or one or several of them might come to test weapons, and then we may be in for another round of race. so renewed testing by anyone could start a new nuclear arms race. let me conclude with some points about the united nations. despite the iraq war in 2003 and the bypassing of security council 59 that time -- at that time, the council has never returned to the paralysis that prevailed during the cold war. many matters are, in fact, agreed between the five, the junta of five, and a great number of u.n. actions continue to be taken. there are even what we might term some, i would term mini resets. though the popular words may not

be so popular, but minmy resets. -- mini resets. let me mention first the chemical weapons disarmament in syria was the product of american and russian cooperation, and it got -- it was bilateral cooperation, but it got its legal form and force in a decision by the security council and subsequent decisions in the organization for chemical weapons. in the case of the controversy regarding iranian nuclear program, the five permanent members plus germany hold talks with iran in geneva a and vienna even this week and with the understanding that a draft resolution will be brought one day to the security council for legal action. and dprk, north korea, similarly. you'll see some of the p5 working together and trying to find a solution. it should be recognized that despite much disagreement and tension between permanent members of the security council, the council is gradually emerging as the authority where action to global legality can

often be decided. undersecretary, in your thoughts about global security i could ask you what you think could be the future use of the security council, but i also ask you the other two issues about your work to continue get a new s.t.a.r.t. again and on the comprehensive test ban and, lastly, about an issue with which i was much engaged; namely, the value and importance of independentererification. we -- independent verification. we faced that problem in iraq during the '90s and i faced it in 2002-2003, and we know the importance of the independence of verification. you had it in bilateral agreements with russia and as long tradition, that's one thing. but multilateral verification are needed in places like iran and like iraq. and for that you need impartial, independent civil servants that

are not subject to any corruption, that will not go do the work, any of the intelligence agencies that are crawling all over the place. so i'd like to ask you your view about the importance of independent verification of the many issues that you have on your agenda can. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, dr. blitz. having listened to you, i now realize why you received the award, and thank you for your not retiring multiple times. your honor to -- please. [applause] and you define what a public servant is, so thank you for your service, and thank you for your continuing pushing the government and the people to think about these issues in a holistic way, so thank you very much.

i'm thrilled to be here with this great panel. you did a nice job introducing -- that was my job, by the way, but you've done that well. much better than i, i assure you. i'm honored to be here with madam undersecretary. i should say that rose and i are colleagues at the state department, so i'm biased a little bit. if i'm too nice to her, you'll be able to define that to me later. e think as dr -- i think as dr. blitz mentioned, not only has she been at the forefront of these issues, i should say i worked with her on the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, and if i think about one of our biggest successes of the obama administration and working with secretary clinton at the time, that was it. over great odds. and i'm just thrilled by the work you did and the energy and working the hill and trying to get us to move forward. so thank you very much for your service. and as you know, she was a senior associate at the carnegie endowment coming before -- at

international peace and served as director of the cash dwi moss -- carnegie moscow center. and, madam chairman, thank you for coming as well. allison macfarlane has led the nrc since 2012. she has a doctorate in biology from mit. prior to taking on this august position, she was chairman and served as president obama's blue ribbon commission of american nuclear future from 2010-2012. what is clear to me is i have the lowest iq of anyone on this panel -- [laughter] so it's a little, it's a little intimidating. but since i get to ask the questions, we'll see how that all works. [laughter] rose, help me think about russia. obviously, all of us can pick up

the newspapers and understand that president putin, ukraine, the complications with our bilateral relations, our sanctions that we're imposing on the government, there seems to be an international outcry for much of the activities. but at the same time, as dr. blitz mentioned, we have work to do on their nuclear capabilities not only to fulfill the obligation of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, but we need to move forward. can we walk and chew gum at the same time? can we divide this idea of our sanctions as well as you going in and negotiating? help us think about that issue in a holistic way. >> well, thank you very much, tom, and thank you also to dr. blitz, a very highly respected colleague and someone i've just admired your work so much over the years. but it's a great pleasure to be here today and to be on panel with tom nides, a very food

colleague and -- a very good colleague and my boss when he was deputy secretary of state and allison macfarlane who is a good friend, but also somebody who is carrying out a very tough job. and nobody, i think, with the technical chops to do so like allison does now, so i'm really honored to be here today. to get at tom's question, you know, hans already talked about the very difficult period we are in now with the terrible crisis between russia and ukraine, and the international community's profound concern about the way russia has really tenned beyond the bounds -- stepped beyond the bounds of international law in so many ways. and i agree very much with what hans says, it simply cannot be excused because international law, territorial integrity, sovereignty, these are the basic principles on which the order of our planet is maintained.

and so when a country steps beyond them in the way that russia has done, it's really a cause for grave concern. and so i think the power of the sanctions regime is an important way to impart to the kremlin leadership the dire consequences of what they have undertaken in pursuing their seizure of crimea and since the destabilization of eastern ukraine. at the same time, however, and i like to stress that historically we have always found at the very top of our national be security challenges getting our hands around the rob of weapon -- around problem of weapons of mass destruction. how are we going to address this existential threat to the united states, to our allies and partners and to the international community as a whole. and so for that reason traditionally, even in the darkest days of the cold war when we faced grave crisis with the soviet union, we always tried to pursue continuing

limitations and reductions in nuclear weapons. and this was following the cuban missile crisis which did bring us to the brink of nuclear conflagration. and so i think that was a real wake-up call. and leaders since on both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats, have recognized that where weapons of has destruction are concerned, we need to keep pushing that rock uphill no matter what crises are affecting the bilateral or multilateral relationships otherwise. so in that context, we have worked very well with russia over the past year to get those chemical weapons out of syria. we have, working in cooperation with them and the u.n., removed 1,300 tons of chemical weapons and nerve agent precursors from sur ya, and they have now been -- syria and they have now been destroyed. if because of this terrible crisis in ukraine we had cut

that operation off, we would not be where we are today in terms of international security and preventing chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists in that region of the world. so i think that's a great illustration of what i'm talking about. new s.t.a.r.t. is another area where we are continuing to work very hard to implement the treaty in the interests of our national security first and foremost. getting the number of nuclear weapons down to the lowest number since deployed since the dawn of the nuclear age in the late 950s, and we'll -- 1950s, and we'll continue that process. now, as to whether we can go farther, we need a dance partner. and at the present time, the russian federation is not willing to pick up the very good offer that president obama put on the table last july when he proposed to the russians that we pursue an up to one-third further reduction in warheads below the numbers in the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. new s.t.a.r.t., when it's implemented, the numbers will be 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads.

that is still plenty of nuclear warheads, and we have more work to do to get those numbers lower. so the president's proposal would bring our deployed numbers down somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 nuclear warheads on both sides. so it's a very good proposal, a very good step forward, i believe, but up to this point we don't have a willing dance partner. russians haven't been willing -- even before the crisis in ukraine began, they have not been willing to pick that offer up off the table. so we are continuing to try to make the case with them and also on the international stage. we have the non-proliferation treaty review conference coming up. but we will continue to try to work with them and get some further reductions going. thank you. >> well, that was brilliant. you know, i would like as owning the microphone for a second, i should tell you as we sit back and look at the press that's been written around the issues

about syria, much has been written -- but not enough -- about the successes of this administration and, quite frankly, the work that you have done to eliminate the chemical weapons in syria. and that will historically, five years from now, history will be written that we have done the world a great favor. so let me just ask you, dr. blitz, one second on that -- the role russia played in that has been widely publicized. do you concur with their role? do you concur with how they worked with the syrians to get the reduction in those chemical weapons, or did they view it as way for them to enhance their own position on the world stage? some would suggest leading to some of activities in ukraine. how do you think about the combination of those two? >> i think there were great benefits for both sides and for the world in this affair. i do not see the u.s. really wanting to go in and with a punishing strikes bombing in syria. that's what they might have done, bombed various sites, helicopter sites and airports,

etc. and it would have weakened assad a bit, but it would have been a strange thing if they had done this penalty and after it was over say, okay, boys, go back to your fighting now without any chemical weapons. i'm not sure that would really stop them, but it would have been very awkward. i think what stopped them was the concern what would develop. it's easy to go in, but you don't know what will develop. i'm afraid it was not really concern or respect for the u.n. charter rules. i think a punishing expedition would have been illegal. will would have been no support for that in the security council, so i don't think it would have happened. now, what were the benefits? i think president obama and the u.s. were taken out of the dilemma, first, by the british parliament that voted they would not participate. and secondly, i think, in u.s. public opinion the war fatigue and did not want to risk having more boots on the ground. and that was a benefit to get out of this. for the russian side, there was

another benefit. russia has two great powers. they have nuclear weapons x they have the veto power in the security council. and they would like to have such affairs channeled through the security council and the organized international security because there they have a seat and influence. so they managed to switch from a unilateral american policeman function to an organized international function where they participate in the security council and in the opcw. and for me part as -- or my part as a lawyer, i think that was a good part of it. so the world won. it was far better, i think, to have the chemical -- [inaudible] eradicated altogether and without the risk of terror us grabbing them than to bomb a few sites and somewhat weakening assad. >> and i'll wrap this series of questions up with one question from me. i was perplexed with the destruction around the chemical weapons in syria. people talked about how are they going to destroy them?

where are they going to move them? is they had to be dug up, transported. rose, dr. blitz, how do i think about that? >> well, very quickly, there were so-called priority one chemicals which were more or less direct use, mustard agent, for example, and nerve agent, precursors. they were removed from syria and taken to a ship that the u.s. defense department equipped with an high control sis system that, basically -- high control sis system that diluted with massive amounts of waters these chem chemicals, the remains of that were taken to be treated in a normal commercial industrial disposition facility. so everything was dealt with in an environmentally safe way. no leakage or problems whatsoever. it was a very solid effort. then there were a number of chemicals that, you know, chemical weapons are very similar to chemical fertilizers.

and the them -- the chemicals that are used in producing chemical weapons are some of same that go into that industrial process. so some of the chemicals were not considered so immediately dangerous. they were taken out of country and taken to commercial sites in the u.k., in finland and also in united states at port arthur, and they were destroyed as part of a normal industrial process. pleasure so that's how they were -- so that's how they were destroyed. >> thank you. sorry. [laughter] let me just talk a little bit about the work the nuclear regulatory commission does. help the audience, help the audience think about what you do can. i mean, when you wake up in the morning beyond, you know, coming to work, help this group of scholars understand kind of the role that you play today both domestically, internationally as the commissioner. >> great. thanks for the question. i think this is on. yep? and i really appreciate being

here and being able to speak with you all this morning and to interact with you all again. as rose said, we're good friends and a real honor to be here with dr. blitz and with tom. >> thank you. >> what the nrc does, the nuclear regulatory commission aligns other regulatory commissions around the world, insures the safety and security of nuclear material and nuclear felts in this -- facilities in this country. so it goes beyond just insuring that nuclear reactors are safe and operate safely. that they are constructed safely. but there are over 20,000 nuclear materials licensees in the country. they might have experience, some of them, during hospital visits there are a lot of radiographers used in the shale gas fracking field, in oil exploration, in a

variety of fields, in agriculture. so as well as academia. maybe some of you have personal experience with this equipment. and these materials. and we insure that they are safe and secure. we do have an international role as well, that's very important to us. we have both cooperation programs and assistance programs that we do internationally. in cooperation we work a lot with the iaea, the international atomic energy agency. i was just over will for a week in september for the general conference. and working with my international counterparts, i meet bilaterally with them frequently. we have cooperative programs where we work together, we share personnel, we exchange personnel, we exchange knowledge. there are a number of different international programs where we work together and exchange knowledge, but we also provide assistance to a variety of

countries as well, countries that are developing their nuclear regulators, countries that are thinking about developing nuclear power, we work with them in a variety of ways as well. >> so one of the real experiences i had was at the disasters in japan that you all recall, refer to it as 3/11 where talk fukushima had an enos impact on japan and the people. the country prior to that, as you know, was determined on a path to provide 50% of their energy, electricity would be provided by nuclear power. so they were on a pathway -- because we all know nuclear power is a much cleaner power generation than many options right now. and once, obviously, fukushima happened, the country stopped the nuclear -- shut down all the

plants. so help us think about the lessons that we in the united states can learn from how the japanese reacted to the disaster, the things that they may have done right or wrong, and is nuclear power, the potential of getting the japanese back into an area that they need energy from nuclear, do you think that is, is that a fast track or a much slower path? >> thanks. thanks for those questions. is this one working? that's better? okay. yeah, you guys were all straining to hear me. so japan. first of all, i can't speak for the japanese. i'm a u.s. nuclear regulator, but we do work very closely with our japanese counterpart. after the accident they redid, basically from scratch, their nuclear regulator, and we have a very close relationship with the new japanese nuclear regulator. they've, basically, been in

existence a little over two years, and they've been working incredibly hard to try to develop new standards and get work through the existing facilities, all of which are closed, all the power reactors are closed, and they are in the process of recertifying them. and they have recently issued a renewed license or not a true renewed license, but a go ahead to the sendai plant, and now it's up to the prefecture to approve that. that's sort of how it works in japan. there were a lot of lessons learned from the fukushima accident and, of course, we in the united states weren't the only ones who learned them. we have learned them with our international counterparts as well. and what's very interesting is that many of the countries with large nuclear power programs have basically come to the same conclusions and learned the same lessons from fukushima. first of all, one of the main lessons was that we had never

expected at a nuclear power plant, which often has more than one reactor, that more than one reactor would fail at the same time. so we didn't have the right preparations in place to insure that we had backup power for a number of plants, not just one. and so we in the united states have been asking our plants lu a order initially and now we're doing a rulemaking that they insure that they have this backup equipment. and by 2016 they will all have this backup equipment. many of them already have procured much of the backup equipment. they've built specially seismically-safe bunkers to put these backup diesel generators and pumps and wiring and piping in, and so they will be prepared for something like that. we've also been asking them about emergency preparedness.

we did a lot of learning about being able to communicate properly. that was one of the big problems in japan during the fukushima accident. and we've also asked them to go and reanalyze the seismic hazard and the flooding hazard, both of which were significant issues at fukushima. >> dr. blitz, thank you very much. do we have an international pr problem with the use of nuclear energy? i mean, do we -- when you travel around the world, scientists will say nuclear is clean, reliable, but do we have pr problems? >> yes, i think we do, certainly. but it's very varied. it's very curious why in some countries the resistance is extremely strong and in other countries they take it much more, with great kerr equanimity. i remember that after the chernobyl accident senator cochran, who is still in the senate, i think, he coined the expression that nuclear accident

anywhere is an accident everywhere. now, that's why you need to look not only at talk fukushima, butr three mile eye land, we looked at also -- island, we looked at also what could one learn from that or from the chernobyl accident. now, after chernobyl, we had to recognize that the ukrainians have not reduced their wish to use nuclear power. as i mentioned, about 50% of their electricity is nuclear. so they continue. and they were not very shaken by this. whereas in germany, there was enormous reaction already after chernobyl, and then fukushima came, then the public opinion was so strong that mrs. merkel decided to phase out nuclear power rather quickly. in italy and in switzerland as well, they are also phasing out. the italians really never had any, but they decided they wouldn't go on. whereas in the u.k. they are deciding that when gas is coming out in the north sea, they will

go to more nuclear power. in finland, the swedish neighboring country, they are also building one new power, and they have taken the decision on yet another one. where we really see the big expansion is the far east; china, south korea, it's india and many other asian countries. iran is well known, turkey as well. lots of expansion there. and i think that one thing the western world should remember about this expansion that we feel often that the asian competition is very strong. they have a competition advantage in low wages. but are we going to spend an enormous amount of money on solar power and wind power that's coming down in price, and that's good, but nevertheless remains so expensive in -- expensive? i think they should be aware of that problem. now, the answer to these questions is lies in strength in

safety. my colleague speaks about. we have learned that talk about be she ma -- fukushima accident has taught a lot. correct me if i'm wrong, but i remember that after the three mile island safety vents were introduced in many plants so if there was overpressure, and at the same time catch the radioactivity. i don't think they have that in fukushima if they could have had it, but there are also questions about the placement of the generators, the electric generators. so there was lots of things that could be learned. and that will have to be learned by the industry that is now in operation to make it even safer than it is. three big accidents we have had in the period, but we cannot afford to have more accidents. but for the future, i think it's also what i asked you about, namely, the innovation, the new generation that is coming on stage. is the generation iii with the

ap 1000 which is a westinghouse reactor which i'm told has a much greater guarantee against a core melt, is that generation much superior to what we are seeing now, the generation ii, and we hope for the generation iv to be on the drawing board to use energy more efficiently and uranium than now? what can we hope for the future? >> please. >> thanks very much for that. and thanks for answering a bit more of the question. in terms of the generation iii plants that dr. blitz spoke of, in the u.s. we have four reactors under construction, the ap 1000 design made by westinghouse, two in georgia, two in south carolina. and they'll come online in the next three or four year, i would imagine. we are overseeing their construction quite heavily. we have a lot of inspectors every day out there inspecting

the construction. of these plants. and china is further ahead, actually, in building ap 1000s. there are two ap 1000 plants in china under construction right now, so they'll be starting up sooner. you mentioned the french design, the epr design which is under construction in finland and in france. there's two under construction there. the plants there, unfortunately, have experienced incredible delays. so generation iii is let's wait and see how it operates when it actually comes online, you know? our job is to make sure that these things operate safely. not to promote them, but to make sure that they operate safely. so we'll see. we actually have been at the nuclear regulatory commission just within a few weeks ago gave a license to a new design, new design certification application. we approved for the, what they

call the esbwr. and that one, we'll see if that's constructed anywhere too. so, you know, it's a sort of a wait and see. the koreans are building their model of reactor, what they call the apr 1400, they're building four of those right now in the united arab emirates, a country that heretofore did not have nuclear power. and we work closely with their regulator as well. so in terms of the generation iv designs which are even more advanced reactors, frankly, they are all paper reactors. they exist only on paper. and we have not seen any design certification applications for those reactors, nor do we expect anytime in the next probably five to ten years. so that's really further off in the future. i think in the in between something you didn't mention is

something called a small modular reactor which is a light water reactor design. all the reactors in the u.s. are light water reactors. it's a much smaller reactor because right now in the world there are only large and extra large reactors. you cannot buy small and medium. and so the small modular reactors, we have been having discussions with some of the u.s. domestic potential small modular reactor designers. they intend to submit design certification applications in 2016, a few of them, so we'll see what happens. we'll see if we get those design certification applications, because they have already been delayed, and we'll see how we go forward. so i don't want to go too far out to the future. the nuclear industry is a changing animal, and it's

embedded within the larger energy industry and, of course, there are multiple influences all around. five years ago, ten years ago we were facing a very different future. the expectation was there would be a nuclear renaissance, that we would be constructing a lot of power reactors. we at the nuclear regulatory commission staffed up for that renaissance, it has not appeared. and so we are now just making sure that we are going to be flexible, adjustable and i'm not going to get too far out in front of my headlights, as one of my staff members says. >> thank you, that's a very good answer. thank you very much. can we switch gears to some much more, much easier topic, iran. [laughter] so, obviously, with the focus having been on russia and ukraine and now isis and ebola, many people have now recognized

that in less than a couple week on november 24th we're hitting another deadline with the iranians. as most of you know and certainly the people on this panel know, the p5+1, which is the group who are negotiating with the iranians, have given an extension. the extension expires on the 24th. rose, help the group understand the key negotiating issues. because i think people are a little bit confused. the iranians are, obviously, focused on their civilian program. obviously, our allies are also concerned about them creating weapons that could be used against our allies and, ultimately, against understanding of their programs and their end goals. so help us think about this issue holistically and what we're doing about it. >> thank you. tom, i like to think about this problem as having a couple of

different parts to it. the first part is the long, now long-range concern about the international -- that the international community has that iran is stepping away from its obligations to be a non-nuclear weapon state under the non-proliferation treaty. it says the program that it has pursued to put in place nuclear power reactors, to develop its own indigenous enrichment capability, all of that is to produce nuclear fuel for its own nuclear power plants. it's a peaceful nuclear power program. and yet over the years, we've seen many, many hints that, in fact, there could be a military aspect to this program. the fact that iran has built so much end richment capacity -- enrichment capacity is of great concern because it looks like it's way beyond the bounds of what would be needed for a

reasonable nuclear power program to support the iranian economy. so there are long-running concerns. the story has been, you know, unraveling over the past several decades. so there's some really serious concerns there. i'd say there are a couple of different tracks here, and hans knows this quite well. one track is that the iaea for a long time now has been trying to work with the iranians to assuage international iaea concerns about possible military uses of various technologies that the iranians have been developing. and the iaea has been sending inspection teams in to check up on all aspects of the program, but they have not yet been satisfied. so there's that iaea aspect x. in addition, there's the negotiation, the p5+1. that includes the p5, so u.s., u.k., france --

>> china. >> china, russia, thank you -- >> germany. >> and germany is the +1, and then the e.u. is at the negotiating table as well, so it's a big group of negotiators on our side. but their issues have to do with really trying to get a handle on these big, visible signs that iran may be heading toward a military program. i talked about enrichment capacity, trying to get the capacity shrunk way down looking at the heavy water reactor that the iranians had been building at iraq. what possible use for a big heavy water reactor than a big military program to produce nuclear weapons. so lots of questions of those times. frankly, it's not a negotiation i'm in charge of. it's been run by my counterpart, undersecretary of state for policy wendy sherman. she's now working with the deputy secretary, bill burns, and the secretary himself,

secretary kerry was in vienna this week to wrestle with this negotiation. .. >> i'd like you to have the last word on the iranian negotiations. the question is can we get a deal? >> well, i certainly hope that we will have a deal because i think at the current time when we have the ukrainian crisis

still on and much tension, i think we need one little victory. i think syria was one victory where they managed to get together and come to conclusion. i think that it would be a tremendous help to be the whole political international scene if we discover the p5+1 succeeds. rose, naturally, spoke with the u.s. background, and she is right in what she has said. but to supplement that though by saying that the iranians had one such reactor, and when the khomeini came to power, it was a trigger reaction. went khomeini came to power we had orders for new fuel for that we have to. but the u.s. government and stopped. they didn't deliver the fuel. they had a great time. eventually want to buy it from argentina. they said we've got to be

self-sufficient. that's one reason why it started enrichment, but it's right, i agree with rose pretty much that we wait for the royal suspicion when they go for enrichment on a large scale and produce much, much more than they could possibly need for the two reactors that are in bushehr and one of russian fuel and for a long time. they don't really, didn't really need the. on the other hand, for the rest of the world to say to the iranians, that you contract with russia, why don't you trust that? the western world did not tell the germans they should rely on russian gas. i think that's a little week argument. i can see an element in this, that of pride and humiliation. iranian's feel -- [inaudible] was kicked out by the foreign ilk. that's the story they never forget the eu is never forgets the seizure, the occupation of the american embassy.

so here are emotions that are deeply ingrained in it, and i have to come out of this to practical action. i think it will put the entrance agreement that was reached last just prolonged to the summer, is one in which the iranians stopped producing any uranium above 5% enrichment. they did produce 20% for the reactor so they have gone down to the level which is needed for power reactors. and staying at that i think is a very good thing. the other is the international inspection, that they will be very, very said inspection. not like the one we had in iraq under the security council but still very interested inspection. i think they will be able to take that on additional protocols which i saw being created in the iaea in the 1990s. so here again the issue i approached about independence and credible international edification will be important.

if they kick out inspectors, they can do that at the end of the day, then that will be a warning signal. i think that will be enough. some people will never be satisfied with whatever. they would like to close the whole industry altogether. i don't think that's very likely to happen and it will not have the support of the general assembly, world public opinion will not support. the developing companies -- countries deal it's a question of pride and they are right and they don't want to be held back by the industrialized world. >> doctor blix, thank you very much for your insight. madame undersecretary, thank you all. and i think your focus and commitment to the most important, tough issues is an honor to those of us who have served and for those of us who have not served, but thank you. >> let me just end on one quick note.

this program that you'll all been involved in, so and worked at the state department and in charge for the funding of this program is the best return on investment i think the state department has. it is a phenomenal program. it's something i think countries benefit, the world benefit so thank you for what you wanted to be part of that. so thank you all for coming, and thank the panelists once again. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> i was told i had to end at 9:40, okay. two questions. two questions? questions, please.

>> yes. this question is directed -- okay, thank you. i didn't think i needed a mic since i did from throughout high school and college but all this good. this question is directed towards all of you and specifically dr. blix. i agree with you indeed that there's a fear factor since the chernobyl incident in 1986. do you not think that perhaps much of the propaganda that circulated at that time and continued instilling fear in the west as well as the neighboring countries on the border of the wall or the division between east and west, a lot has to do with also literature. for example, christopher wolf, the group 47, the german-speaking countries and also that matter of fact impact -- as we know he tends to focus on different types of film, but

is one documentary did focus, as the medevac on the fear factor of nuclear weapons and possible nuclear warfare. and the second part is how can we deter this fear that we have towards nuclear energy? which i certainly am a proponent and a supporter of. thank you. >> thank you very much. dr. blix, very quickly. >> thank you very much. well, i think you are right, what is sort of root cause of the opposition and fear. i think it relates with the fear of radiation. our senses, our body are geared to warn us against lots of different dangers. our eyes, our nose, our hands, et cetera, they do but not for radiation. therefore we are particularly concerned about radiation everywhere. and we are worried about but we should be aware there are instruments that pick it up very, very easily.

and we have also to be aware that we are part of radiation, our bodies also are, contain radioactivity. and we know that we rely on the sunshine and it is, we take a little sunshine, we may be 10 but if we stay there very long it is dangers. the same thing with other radiation. it's very high concentrated, then it may be dangerous. we have to indeed explain. as i said in my introduction it will not be enough to contain an intellectual explanation. we need to have an industry that functions extremely well but you don't have any big actors. i think we're on the way. my colleague talked about it which is an investment company type of reactor at a think we will see that. it's not stand still at the. there are some small reactors under construction at handle better reaction in china i think that would not very well have. small reactor, modular one that cannot have a core melt that

generates, that is under construction. you may correct me on that. >> do you want to add a little bit to this? >> sure. i think dr. blix is absolutely hit the nail on head. part of the reason of the fear for radiation is that you cannot sense it. we could be being radiated right now and we wouldn't have any idea. >> i hope not. [laughter] >> you write. -- you are right. unfortunately we don't as far as i know have any radiation monitors in the room, right? that's the problem. [inaudible] >> so i think actually, you know, one needs to acknowledge the fear. we have seen what happens when you drop nuclear bombs on countries, right? we've seen now a large area of japan made uninhabitable. that's not something that you can ignore.

but i think what's very important to do, especially from a regulatory perspective, is to engage the public, listen to the concerns, respond to them and develop trust. that, that's what's important if you don't have that trust, if you just, please listen to me, i know more than you, and just trust me, trusted because of that, you will never get anywhere. so i think you need that engagement i think that's the kind of thing that will help a lot. >> again, let's thank the panel. thank you very much. [applause] >> while the panelists are making do with the stage we have some coffee out there. we have our poster presenters. if they could make their way to the posters. in the meantime, get back into about 10 after 10. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> a reminder if you missed any of the early morning discussion you can see it at c-span.org. more like programming coming up in about, just under 20 minutes or so. a discussion on the international impact of legalizing marijuana in the u.s. a discussion at brookings set to start at 10 a.m. each and. we will have a 40 when it starts. that's an institute will hosting a look at the obama administration's isis strategy but it will be moderated by "the weekly standard"'s lee smith, coming up at noon eastern also on c-span2. the issue of the bold and the is response continues to be a discussion, topic of discussion throughout the world really with the obama administration today focusing again on discussion at the white house. the president meeting later today with the national security council. reports this morning the administration is saying a dallas health care worker who handled a lab specimen from a liberian man who died from ebola

itself quarantined this morning on a caribbean cruise ship and is being monitored for infection. we will likely more about that from the white house briefing later today over on c-span at about 1:00. also secretary of state john kerry is going to be briefing reporters, that at 10 a.m. eastern also on c-span. we mentioned the president meeting with his advisers yesterday. he also met late yesterday with his cabinet, spoke to reporters at the meeting for about 15 minutes. >> i want to give the american people an update on what's happened today. and the -- of an immense deeply concerned about the ebola situation. i've been working with my team to address a number of issues that have been raised both publicly as well as at the state and local level. number one, obviously our heartfelt concern goes out to

the two nurses who have been affected. they courageously treated mr. duncan when he was in dallas. it is typical of what nurses do. each and every day. carrying for us, and one has now been transferred to nih, national institutes of health, facility together has now been transferred to emory university. they are getting the best possible care. our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families. we're continuing to monitor their conditions. number two, the second nurse to be diagnosed as all of you are aware traveled from dallas to cleveland and back. as a consequence it's very important for us to make sure that we are monitoring and tracking anyone who was in close proximity to the second nurse, to make sure that their

temperatures are being taken and we know that they are receiving the kind of attention that they need to ensure there is not additional spread of the disease. i spoke to governor kasich in ohio today, who is on top of it. we have deployed cdc personnel there to make sure that they are getting all the support that they need. and we will continue to work both with them as well as the airlines getting the manifests and assuring that we're keeping track of anybody who is in close proximity to the second nurse. number three, we remain focused on the situation at texas presbyterian in dallas. as i've said before, when we have tight protocols with respect to the treatment of patients, then our health care

workers are safe. but because of these two incidents we know now that there may have been problems in terms of how protective gear is worn or removed or some of the additional treatment procedures may have impacted potential exposure. but we don't know yet exactly what happened. but in the meantime we have a number of health care workers at texas presbyterian who did provide care to mr. duncan. and we are instituting a constant monitoring process with them, giving them the information that they need in order to keep themselves and their families as safe as possible as the period in which they potentially could get the disease, you know, remains in place. and i also spoke to governor perry today about making sure that dallas and the state of

texas had the resources that it needed in order to respond effectively if additional workers at this presbyterian are determined in fact to have been exposed and have contracted ebola. and governor perry as well as mayor rawlings in dallas obviously did -- is extraordinarily cooperative working with cdc, working with health and human services. they have legitimate concerns making sure that the federal government is surging the kind of resources they need in order to handle any eventuality there, to make sure that their folks not just in texas presbyterian but potentially at other health care facilities have the training and the equipment that they need. and so we will be working very closely with them over the course of the next several days and weeks in order to assure that they have exactly what they need to get the job done.

throughout this process i've been focused on making sure that we are dealing with this problem at the source. the most important thing in addition to treating and monitoring anybody who even has a hint of potential exposure here in this country, the most important thing i can do for keeping american people safe is for us to go to deal with ebola at the source, where you have a huge outbreak in west africa. and the united states is obviously leading the way in terms of providing resources, equipment and mobilizing the world community. so over the last several days i continue to call other world leaders to get them to up their pledges of equipment, personnel, logistical, you know, capabilities to make sure we're getting all workers on the ground. we have seen some progress in library, sierra leone and

guinea, but we haven't seen in a. we've got more work to do. the good news is that increasingly when i talk to these world leaders what you were saying is a recognition that the sooner we control this outbreak at the source in west africa, the less our people are going to be at risk. and i think more and more of them are stepping up, although it's i think taking a longer than it should and that's something that all of us should recognize. what a show want to address because i know this has been a topic consistent is that sure in the news is the issue of a travel ban. i know you've heard from some public health experts about this but i want to make sure that everybody is clear about the issue. i don't have a philosophical objection necessarily to a travel ban if that is the thing that's going to keep the american people safe. the problem is that in all the discussions i've had thus far

with her experts in the field, experts in infectious disease is that a travel ban is less effective than the measures that we are currently instituting. that involve screening passengers are coming from west africa in the first of all streaming them before they get on the plane their to see whether they're showing signs of the disease, been screening them again when they get here, taking the temperature, and now what the cdc is doing is gathering all the information, assuming that they're not showing any signs of illness, because if they are, obviously we want to make sure that they are directed to a well-equipped and well prepared facility. but if they're not showing any signs, we still want to have their information, where they live, where they're staying, multiple contact information that battled the federal government keeps but they'll also be forwarded to the state where they reside.

if we institute a travel ban instead of the protocols that we put in place now, history shows that there is a likelihood of increased avoidance, people do not readily disclose their information. they may engage in something called broken travel, essentially raking up the trip so that they can hide the fact that they have been to one of these countries where there is a disease in place. and as a result we may end up getting less information about who has the disease. they are less likely to get treated properly, screened properly, quarantined probably. and as a consequence we could end up having more cases rather than less. now, i continue to push and ask our experts whether, in fact, we are doing what's adequate in order to protect the american people if they come back to me and they say that there's some additional things that we need to do, i assure you we will do

it. but it is important in these circumstances for us to look at the history of how these infectious diseases are best dealt with, and it is currently the judgment of all those who have been involved that i flat out travel ban is not the best way to go. but we will continue to monitor this. i'm asking these questions, and if, in fact, it turns out that in getting different answers, then i will share that with the american people and we will not hesitate to do what's necessary in order to maximize the chances that we avoid an outbreak here in the united states. which brings me to my last point. i understand that people are worried. this is a disease that is new to our shores, although it is something that has cropped up periodically in other countries. because of the virulence of the disease and the way it's transmitted and the symptoms

that occur, i understand that people are scared. but what i want to emphasize once again is that right now we've got one individual who came in with the disease. we have two nurses who have been diagnosed with the disease as a consequence of in some fashion being exposed during treatment. and what remains true is that this is not an airborne disease. it is not easy to catch. you can only catch it through being in contact with the bodily fluids of an individual who not only has the disease but also is showing symptoms of the disease. and so it's important thing for all of us to keep perspective in terms of how we handle this. we are taking this very seriously at the highest levels, starting with me. and my entire team has been

essentially deputized to work with health and human services and cdc. and that includes, by the way, the department of defense and our national security team. we understand why it's important for us to provide assurances to the public that folks are taking this very seriously, and they are. and, obviously, because of the two nurses getting sick, that has made people that much more concerned. so all that's understood. but i do want everybody to understand it remains a very difficult disease to catch, and if we continue to take the steps that we need to, then this will be contained. and the main thing that everybody needs to focus on is that the risks involved remain

relatively low, extremely low, for ordinary folks at the biggest thing we did is make sure that health workers have more confidence. because they are on the frontlines and we are in ring in the floozies which is the are a lot of people who may be coming in with symptoms and there may be false alarms and concerns into we'll spend a lot of time working with our public health workers to make sure that they feel safe and adequately protected. but i want to assure the american people come we're taking this seriously but this is something that's really hard to catch. and if we do what we need to do, and we stay focused, then this is going to be something that is contained here are the work that we have to do overseas is going to be a lot tougher because, frankly, they don't have the public health infrastructure. they are not well organized. they are poor countries, and the

epidemic is already raging there. so that's going to take several months for us to be able to start seeing the kind of progress that we need to see. but in the meantime, i want everybody to know that everybody here is on the case. all right? thank you very much, everybody. [inaudible] >> i will answer this one question about an ebola czar. the truth is that up until this point, the individuals here have been running point and doing an outstanding job in dealing with what is a very complicated and fluid situation. those of you don't know lisa monaco who does a lot of my counterterrorism work as well as national security work has been working with our secretary health and human services, and tom frieden, at the cdc. they it may be appropriate for me to a point an additional person, not because the three these folks have not been doing

an outstanding job and i should mention susan rice am a national security advisor. it's not that they have not been doing an outstanding job really working hard on this issue, but they also are responsible for a whole bunch of other stuff. so lisa is also dealing and susan is with isil and we're going into the floozies which means by the way people should be looking to get their flu shots. -- flu season. we know every tens of thousands of people potentially die of the flu, and 100,000 or more may be actually went into the emergency room or hospital because of the flu. so that's something that tom is also responsible for. it may make sense for us to have one person in part just so that after this initial surge of activity we can have a more regular process just to make sure that we are crossing all the t.'s and dotting all the eyes going forward.

okay? [inaudible] >> if i appoint somebody i will let you know, all right? take you so much, everybody. thank you, guys. appreciate it. >> good evening. >> thank you. thank you, everybody. >> president obama yesterday after a lengthy meeting at the white house, one of the members attending with samantha power, sylvia burwell rather, his health and human services secretary. the administration saying this morning at a dallas health care worker who handled a lab specimen from the liberia in man who died from ebola is self quarantine on a cruise ship being monitored for infection is 40. state department spokeswoman said in a statement today the woman has shown no signs of the disease and had been asymptomatic for 19 days. an update on the story international. a u.n. health agency's officially declaring an end to the ebola outbreak in senegal, and the world health organization same that they

admit they botched attempt to stop the ebola outbreak in west africa. a couple updates on our coverage of the story today on the c-span networks. this secretary of state john kerry will be sticking to the diplomatic corps this morning. live coverage of that for you just moments over on c-span, 10 a.m. eastern. eastern. president obama was speaking to the consumer protection financial bureau, financial protection bureau this morning. it's not certain he's going to say something about ebola but if he does we will be there live to have before you, and the white house briefing as well. that's coming up at 1:00 eastern. all of that coverage today over on our companion network c-span. he on c-span2 will take you live now to the brookings institution where they're just about to get underway with a discussion on the international impact of legalizing marijuana in the u.s. it will start momentarily live here on c-span2.