it the 2015 c-span student cam video competition is under way open to all middle and high school students to create a five to seven-minute documentary on the theme "the three branches and you," showing how policy, law or action by a legislative, judicial or federal branch government has affected you. there's 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totals $100,000. for the rules and how to get started go to studentcam.org. now discussion on nuclear policy. speakers include nuclear r regulatory commission er to allison mcfarland and the former heads to the international atomic energy agency. topics include nuclear energy and global efforts to disarm nuclear weapons. this is an hour.

good morning. oh, i know you can do better than that. let's start again. good morning! all right. now i know it is a good morning. thank you so much. he said retired? what is that? as my mother said, no, you breathe 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 life? 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 age at fulbright, not committed to do. i came back from south africa with many dares. 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. then i came back to america and i said, y'all come. so for 15 years we took about 500 people with us. dare to change, dare to

transform. and so those 26 trips totally change 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 a lot from you. i bump into you in the hallway or in 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. i'm just delighted to have this opportunity to, first, introduce dr. hans blitz, our awardee for the fuchlbright prize. he is recipient of the 2014 prize and we are absolutely thrilled to have him. and then i'm also going to

introduce tom. let's start first with dr. hans blitz. d dr. blitz is a swedish diplomat and politician for the liberal people's party. he was swedish minister for foreign affairs, 1978 to 1979, and later became the head of the international 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 perkoff, 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 for this year. next, tom knight is a 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. knight was deputy secretary of the -- secretary of state serving as chief operating officer of the department. mr. knight, graduate of the university of minnesota is married with two children.

please join me in inviting our guests to the stage. good morning, everybody. i was going to talk about retirement here and i confess

sometimes i get the question are you going to retire some time? and i'm saying what exactly do you mean? and then i add that i have done that three times and i'm not going to do it again. 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 governments. the vast circle of admirers of senator william fulbright is a force permanently immobilized for better international understanding. for the many who, like me, have benefited from the senator's wisdom and program, there is no lack of issues that need to be taken on with soft power. and we should discuss some of them in this panel. i woke up to political conscience in 1945 when 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 safely to help countering a global warming that scientists predict could threaten humanity with a slow suicide. the other crucial question, one that senator fulbright warned already about in the '60s is how we can ensure that the human civilization does not commit a quick suicide by use of nuclear weapons. in these existential issues two

emniinent women on this panel crucial roles to help make nuclear power so safe that the world would recognize it as a viable way to meet our energy needs without emitting greenhouse gases that use the earth's atmosphere as dump site. the under secretary of state for arms control and 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 spiraling up. she negotiated the 2010 agreement that capped u.s. and russia's develop deployed nuclear warheads and carriers and we look to her for continuing the reduction of the piles of nuclear arms that exist

around the world. to develop meaningful actions against the threats to 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 that he would henceforth have to use his own energy to survive. in the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread. men developed a great talent to use energy outside his body. wind, fire. with oil and gas civilization became possible. today developing countries, industrialization 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 the 1979 arab 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 the environmental. as developing countries accelerate their use of fossil fuels, we in the industrial world shout stop and explain that we have already put so much carbon dioxide in the earth atmosphere that the climate is in jeopardy already. while this political wrestling between the rich high energy

using countries and the poor parts of the world is on, we all seek and look for measures that can result in more effective generation and use of energy to get more miles out of the gallon, to get more mega watts out of the same power plant, and to use energy saving insulation and lamps, et cetera. replacing co2 fossil fuels is more difficult. many tell us that renewables of resolution, even though the price of solar and wind power has come down, they remain costlier when the subsidies of the tax bill is added to the electricity bill. they also have the problems for theinterm intermittance. to explain to passengers you have to wait for the wind to start blowing again. nuclear meets resistance almost

everywhere and i think the principle cause is 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 life and environment. but this is clearly not enough. further improved technology, even better maintenance and operations are needed to ensure that there will be no accidents. i spent 16 years of my life at the iea 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 the innovation with those in american dealing with foreign

fuel and with a similar company in norway dealing with thorium. you may never have heard of it as a fuel but it is the other way of producing nuclear power. this is one type of innovation. but i would like to ask miss mcfarland who takes the floor in a while if she thinks that some types of reactors or the generation three -- that's coming on the stage now -- and new regulatory requirements will be able to ensure against core melts with emissions into the environment, and is there an expectation that generation four, which is on the drawing board and in some experiments, can bring us unquestioned safety, easier operation, better use of energy of uranium and thorium fuel without waste and if so, when do you think we can get it on the market. now i turn to the 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 sovereign equality of states as a general principle but it was based on the practical knowledge that some animals aren't more equal than others. the thought was that the powers that won the second world war would continue as a powerful junta within the new security council to maintain world order. why 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 the threats and the five members

gave themselves permanent seats in the security council and beat the powers added to that. it was radical but as we know the cold war stopped the junta of former allies to act in unison. under u.s. leadership then nato came into being and the successful policy of containment was up against any soviet and communist expansion. and in a relentless race the military arsenals grew with a number of nuclear weapons peaking at some 575,000 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.

well, president kennedy was wise enough to avoid the void that mr. khrushchev lost face and the u.s. withdrew weapons from turkey. that was the face saving part of it. the political crisis was formulated in 1984 by president reagan that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. in today's conflict regarding ukraine, i believe that the major nuclear weapon states will, as in the cuban crisis, seek to avoid getting into direct arm confrontations. mutual economic dependence is an added reason for restraint between europe and russia. and perhaps we should not deplore this saas 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 constructive, soft power and avoids humiliation 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 u.n. charter rules and of helsinki final act and they are not excused by earlier western breaches of these rules. yet, when looking for accommodation on the basis for future peace, i think we would do well to remember that the west once saw 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 conduct's 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 series work on arms control and disarmament is one such common interest. rose will tell us of possibilities and problems. one major point on her current agenda is well known and i hope and trust she will talk about it

with being a and that is seeking further cuts in the excessive nuclear arsenals in russia and the united states by a follow-up on the treaty. i could generously add many more items to rose's agenda because i was a chairman of the commission on weapons of mass destruction and we had long catalog of it issued in 2006. and the book is still very salad because so little has been achieved before. on that agenda, of course on the top of it i would plates comprehensive test ban agreement that needs radification of united states and china and 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 rejected by the u.s. senate -- is now left in limbo has grave risks. some of the countries or one or several of them might come to test weapons. then we may be in for another round or 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 the security council 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 -- and a great number of u.n. actions continue to be taken. there are even what we might term some -- i would term -- many resets. corporation on some highly specific issues. let me mention first the chemical weapons disarmament in syria was a product of american and russian cooperation and of course it was bilateral cooperation but it got its legal form and force in decision by the security council and subsequent decisions in the organizations for chemical

weapons. in the case of the controversy raiding uranium newer clee progr nuclear program hold talks in geneva and vienna this week and understanding that a draft resolution will be brought one day to the security council for legal action.a draft resolution brought one day to the security council for legal action. in north korean, 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. in the under secretary's thoughts about global security i could ask what you think would be the future use of the security council but i would also ask you about the other two concrete issues about your work to continue, get a new start again and on the comprehensive test ban and lastly about the

issue with which i was much engaged, namely, the value and importance of independent verification. we face tlad problem in iraq during the '90s and i faced that in 2002, 2003, and we know the importance of the independence of verification. you had it in bilateral agreements, verification with russia and that's long tradition. that's one thing. but multi-lateral inspections are needed in cases like iran and like iraq. and in that -- for that you need impartial independent civil servants that are not subject to any corruption, that will not go to do the work with any of the intelligence agencies that are crawling all over the place. so i would like to ask you your view about the importance of independent verification as a third of the many issues you have on your agenda. thank you very much.

>> thank you very much, dr. blitz. i've been listening to you, i know realize why you received the award and thank you for your not retire iing multiple times. you define what a public servant is. so thank you for your service. and thank you for your continuing to push the government and think about the issues in a holistic way. so thank you. you did a nice job of introducing the panel. that was my job but you've done that well, much better than i, i assure you. but i am honored to be here with madam under secretary. i should say that rose and her 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. but i think as dr. blitz mentioned, not only has rose been at the forefront of these issues, i worked with her on the new start treaty. if i think about one of our biggest success of the obama administration and working with secretary clinton at the time, that was it. over great odds. i'm just thrilled by the work you did and the energy in work, 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 carnegie endowment before, and served as director of the carnegie moscow center. madam clahairman, thank you ver much for coming as well. allison mcfarland has led the nrc since 2012 as an expert on regulatory issues around safety. our nation's hundred nuclear reactors. she is a doctorate in geology from m.i.t.

focuses on nuclear waste issues throughout her professional and academic career. she was chairman and served as president obama's commission on american nuclear future from 2010 to 2012. what is clear to me is i have the lowest iq of anyone on this panel. sew it is a litt so it is a little intimidating but since i get to ask the questions, we'll see how that works. 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 reelations, our sanctions that we are 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 star 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 to negotiate. help us think about that issue in a holistic way. >> thank you very much, tom. thank you, also, to hans blitz. very highly respected colleague and someone i've just aide mdmi your work so much over the years but it is a great pleasure to be with you today and to be on this panel with tom nye, a very good colleague, and with allison mcfarland who is a good friend but also somebody who is carrying out a very tough job as head of our nuclear regulatory commission 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, 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 stepped beyond the bounds of international law in so many ways. 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 is really a cause for grave concern. and so i think the power of the sanctions regime is an important way to impact 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 security challenges getting our hands around the problem of weapons of mass destruction. how are we going to address this exs existential threat. 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. 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 mass destruction are concerned, we need to keep pushing that rock

uphill no matter what crises are affecting the bilateral or multi-lateral 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 syria and they have not been destroyed. if because of this horrible crisis in ukraine we have cut that cooperation 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 start 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 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 noting whether 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 start treaty. new start when it is implemented, 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. the 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. nonproliferation 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. i would like, as the owning the microphone for a second, as we sit back and look at the press that's been written about the issues around syria, much has been written, but not enough, about the successes of this administration and quite grankly the work that you have done to eliminate chemical weapons in syria. that will historically, five years from now, history will be written that we have done the world a great favor. so dr. blix, 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 of throws chemical weapons, or did they view it as a way for them to enhance their own position on the world stage, some would suggest lean some of their activities in ukraine. how do you feel 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 warranting to go in with a punishing strike bombing in syria. that's what they might have done on various sites, airports, et cetera, and weakened assad. but it would have been a strange thing if they'd done this penalty and thereafter when it was over they say, okay, boys, go back to your fighting now, but fight clean without any chemical weapons. i'm not sure that would really stop them but it would have been very awkward. i think what really stopped them was the concern what would develop. it is easy to go in but you don't know what will develop

there. i'm afraid that it was not really concern or respect for u.n. chaert rulrter rules. i think a punishing expedition would have been illegal. there would be no support for the security council. i don't think it would happen. 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 that they would not participate. and secondly, i think in the u.s. public opinion, the war fatigue and did not want to have more boots on the ground. 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 and they have the veto power on the security council and they would like to have such a fast channel through the security council and the organization of international security so they have a seat. so they managed to switch from a unilateral american policeman function to an organized international function where they participate in the security

council and for my part as a lawyer and as someone who wants to see them develop institutions more orderly that was a part of it. so the world one. it was more important to have the chemical weapons eradicated altogether without the risk of terrorists grabbing them than to grab a few sites and some would weaken assad. >> i'll wrap this series of questions up with one question from me. i was always perplexed when there was a discussion around the destruction of chemical weapons in syria. people talked, how do you destroy them? where are you going to move them? they had to be dug up, transported. rose, dr. blix, how do i think about that? >> take 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 a hydrolysis system that basically diluted with massive amounts of water these chemicals that then slurry or the remains of that were taken to be treated in a normal commercial industrial disposition facility. and 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 -- chemical weapons are very similar to chemical fertilizers. and chemicals that are used in producing chemical weapons are some of the same that go into those industrial processes. so some of the chemicals were not considered so immediately dangerous they were taken out of the country and taken to commercial sites in the uk, in finland, and also in the united states, port arthur, and they were destroyed as part of a

normal industrial process. so that's how they were destroyed. >> thank you. let me talk a little bit about the work the nuclear regulatory commission does. lep t help the audience think about what you do. when you wake up in the morning and come to work, help this group of scholars understand kind of the role you play today both domestically, internationally as the commission. >> great. thanks for the question. 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 it is a real honor to be here with dr. blix and withal tom.

the nuclear regulatory commission ensures the safety of nuclear materials and nuclear facilities in this country so it goes beyond just ensuring that nuclear reactors are safe and operated 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 raidographers used in the shale gas fracking field in the oil exploration, in a variety of fields, in agriculture, as well as academia. maybe some of you have personal experience with this equipment. and these materials. and we ensure 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 there 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 sort of subinternational 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 after the disaster in japan. as you all recall, we refer to this as 311 where the fukushima,

they were hit by two. both an earthquake and a tsunami and had enormous impact on japan and the people and 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. once obviously fukushima happened, the country stopped the nuclear production, should 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 and the things that they may have done right or wrong, and is nuclear power the potential of getting japanese back into an area that they need energy from nuclear -- you think that is

the -- is an effective path or a much slower path. >> thanks for the question. so japan. first of all, i can't speak for the japanese. i'm the 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 renewed license, but a go ln-ah to the sendai plant. 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. 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 ensure that we had back-up power for a number of plants, not just one. and so we -- we in the united

states have been asking our plants through an order initially, and now we are doing a rule making, that they ensure that they have this back-up equipment. by 2016 they will all have this back-up equipment. many of them already have procured much of the back-up equipment. they've built specially seismically safe bunkers to put these back-up 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 with -- that was one of the big problems in japan during the fukushima accident. 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. blix, 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, it is clear to us, scientists will say, nuclear is clean, it's reliable. but do we have a pr problem? >> 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 ekwa nimty. i remember after the chernobyl accident when senator cochran who's still in the senate, i think, we had long talks. he coined the suppression, a nuclear accident anywhere is a nuclear accident everywhere. that's why you need to not only look to fukushima, but also three-mile island, we looked to what we could learn from that, or from the chernobyl accident. now after chernobyl, you have 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. they were not very shaken by this, whereas in germany there was enormous reaction already after chernobyl and then fukushima came. then public opinion was so strong that mrs. merkel decided it was phase out nuclear power very quickly at the beginning of the '20s. the italians never really had any but they decided it won't go on. when i was in the uk, when gas was coming up in the north sea they would go for more nuclear power. they were decided on building a huge plant with french technology. in finland, the swedish neighboring country, is also building upon the power. where we really see the big expansion is the far east. it is china, it is south korea, it's india, and many other asian countries. iran, as you well know, turkey

as well. there are lots of expansion there. i think that one thing the western world should remember about this expansion is that we feel often that the asian competition is very strong. they have a competition advantage in lower wages. but are we going to spend enormous amount of money on solar power around wind power that's coming down in price and that's good but nevertheless remains very expensive. will there not be another competitive disadvantage for the western industry. think that they should be aware of that problem. now the answer to these questions lies in strength and safety, what miss mcfarland speaks about. we have learned that the fukushima accident certainly taught a lot. i think that one of the lessons -- correct me if i'm wrong, but i remember that after the three-mile island safety vents were reduced in many plants. if there was overpressure, one could leave out the over

pressure around at the same time cache the radioactivity. i don't think they had it in fukushima. but there is also the placement of the generators, the electric generators. there were 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. three big accidents we have had but we cannot afford to have more accidents. but for the future i think it is also what i asked you about, namely the innovation -- the new generation that's coming on stage. is the generation three where ap-1000 which is a westinghouse reactor and which i'm told has much greater guarantee against core melt. is that generation much superior to what we are seeing now, the generation two, and can we also hope for generation four, that's already on the drawing boards to be using the energy more

efficiently than uranium now. what can we hope for the future. >> thanks very much for that. and thanks for answering more of the question. in terms of the generation three plants that dr. blix spoke of in the u.s. we have four reactors under construction. the ap-1000 design made by westinghouse. there are two in georgia, two in south carolina. and they'll come online in the next three or four years, 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. china is further ahead actually in building ap-1000s. there are two ap-1000 plants in china that are 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 three is let's wait and see how it operates when it actually comes online. 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 at the nuclear regulatory commission just within a few weeks ago gave a license to a new design certification application we approved for the -- what they call the esbwr. that one -- we'll see if that's constructed anywhere, too. it's sort of a wait-and-see. the koreans are building their model of reactor -- what they call the apr-1400,er in's building four of those in the

united arab emirates, a countries that heretofore did not have a regulator. so in terms of the generation four designs which are even more advanced 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. 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 weeks, 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 plus one, 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 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. in addition, there's the negotiation, the p5 plus one. that includes the p5, so u.s., uk, france, china, russia -- thank you. >> germany. >> and germany is the plus one and the eu 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 enrichment capacity shrunk way down. looking at the heavy water reactor that the iranians had been building. what possible use for a big heavy water reactor than a military program for these 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. so there's a lot of heavy hitters coming to the table to try to get progress. i can see that the technical building blocks are in place for resolution of these problems. but, the big heavy lifting is on the political side, and particularly in my view, in tehran, will they be able to take the political steps, make

the political decisions, to bring this negotiation home? so, we'll see how it goes. we have another month or so, but it is a very, i would say, urgent time in this negotiation. >> so dr. blitz, i'm getting the hook here. but, since you're the one award winner at the table, 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 we have much tensions, and rearmament going on, i think we need a 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 the whole international political scene if we discovered that the p5 plus one 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 chromenny came to power, it was american origin, a trigger reaction. went khomeini came to power we had orders for new fuel for that reactor. but the u.s. government stopped it. they didn't deliver the fuel. they had a great time. eventually managed 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 very much that we wait for the world's suspicion when they go for enrichment on a very large scale and producing much, much more than they could possibly need for the two reactors that are in bushehr and one of russian fuel for a look time. so they didn't really need that.

on the other hand, for the rest of the world to say to the iranians that look, you have contact with russia why don't you trust that? the western world did not tell the germans they should rely on russian gas deliveries. so i think that's a bit of a weak argument. i can see an element in this, that's frequently forgotten is that of pride and humiliation. the iranians feel after 1953, mossadeqe was kicked out. that's a forry they never forget. the u.s. never forgets the seizure, the occupation of the american embassy. so here are emotions that are deeply ingrained in it, and they have to come out of this through practical action. i think they will. the interim agreement that was reached last year and was prolonged in the summer is one under which the iranians stop producing any your any yam above 5% enrichment and they did produce 20% for the research

reactor. so they've 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 severe inspection. not like the one we had in iraq under the security council but still very intrusive 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 broached about independence and credible international education 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 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 they certainly would not have the support of the general assembly, the world public opinion will not support it. the developing countries feel, many of them, that going for nuclear power is a question of pride, and they are right. and they don't want to be held

back by the industrialized world. >> dr. blix, thank you very much for your insight. madam undersecretary, madam chairman, thank you all. and i think the breadth of your focus and commitment to the most important pressing 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've all been involved in, as someone who worked at the state department, and is in charge of 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 all did 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 ] >> okay. i was told i had to end at 9:40 and had to get out of here. okay. two questions. two questions? questions, please. please. >> yes. this question is directed -- okay, thank you. i didn't think i needed a mic since i did drama throughout high school and college, but all is 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, peace, the group 47, the german-speaking countries, and also that matter of fact, impacted luke besong as we know he tends to focus on different types of film, some photog but his one documentary did focus matter of fact on that 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, you want to start, just 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 tan, but if we stay there very long it is dangerous. 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 accidents. and i think we are on the way. my colleague talked about the ap 1000 which is an advancement, a new type of reactor. i think we'll see that it's not an industry that stands still at all. there are some small reactors under construction. in china, for instance, i think would not do very well as a small reactor, modular one that i think cannot have a core melt because of the construction. you may correct me on that. >> so let me ask, do you want to add a little bit to this? >> sure. >> i think dr. blix is absolutely hit the nail on the head. part of the reason of the fear for radiation is that you cannot sense it. we could be being irradiated right now and we wouldn't have any idea. >> i hope not.

>> you're right. unfortunately we don't as far as i know have any radiation monitors in the room, right? that's the problem. 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 ] >> everybody while the panelists are making their way off the stage we have some coffee out there. this is a break time. we have our poster presenters. if the poster presenters could make their way to the posters, you have an opportunity to mingle with some very interesting people. please try to get back in here. and on this veterans day, some tweets from lawmakers. texas democratic congressman henry cuellar tweets thinking back to wreaths i laid at normandy this year in memory of countless heroes. and happy veterans day to all who served our nation owes you a debt of honor for your service. also honoring veterans today, vice president joe biden, he'll be at arlington national cemetery's tomb of the unknowns for the annual wreath laying ceremony there.

while president obama attends meetings in china. we'll have live coverage from arlington at 11:00 eastern time on our companion network c-span. and arizona senator john mccain recounting lives of americans soldiers who've served in conflicts ranging from the revolutionary war to the wars in iraq and afghanistan. in his new book 13 soldiers, a personal history of americans at war. he'll be talking about the book today at the national press club. we'll have live coverage at 6:30 eastern on c-span2. >> the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. and this weekend we partnered with charter communications for a visit to madison, wisconsin. >> for everyone. the field is large. it is a glorious service, this service for the country. the call comes to every citizen. it is an unending struggle to

make and keep government representative. >> he is probably the most important political figure in wisconsin history, and one of the most important in the history of the 20th century of the united states. he was a reforming governor. he defined what progressivism is. he was one of the first to use the term progressive to self-identify. he was a united states senator, who was recognized by his peers in the 1950s, as one of the five greatest senators in american history. he was an opponent of world war i. stood his ground, advocating for free speech. above all, bob la follett was about the people. and in the era after the civil war america changed radically from a nation of small former, and small producers, and small

manufactures and by the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, we had concentrations of wealth. we had growing inequality, and we had concern about the influence of money in government. so he spent the later part of the 1890s giving speeches all over wisconsin. if you wanted a speaker for your club, or your group, bob la follett would give a speech. he went to county fairs. he went to every kind of event that you could imagine, and built a reputation for himself. by 1900, he was ready to run for governor, advocating on behalf of the people. he had two issues. one, the direct primary. no more selecting candidates and convention. two, stop the interests. specifically, the railroads. >> watch all of our events from madison saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday

afternoon at 2:00 an american history tv on c-span3. the u.s. supreme court started its new term last month. among the early cases heien versus north carolina. under the fourth amendment police can stop a vehicle based on a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, even if the stop is based on a reasonable mistake of fact. this case will decide if the fourth amendment allows for a reasonable mistake of law. the oral argument is about an hour. >> our first case this morning is heien versus north carolina. mr. fisher? >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. in a country dedicated to the rule of law, governmental officers should be presumed to know the law at least as well as

the citizens are. that being so, when questions about individualized suspicion arise under the fourth amendment, they should be addressed against the backdrop of the correct interpretation of the law, not simply any plausible reading an officer might have. >> so suppose that this state, north carolina, did have a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule? what would you be arguing today? >> we would still be arguing if that were the case that not only the fourth amendment was violated but that the good faith exception didn't apply. but you wouldn't have to reach that question in this case. and i would concede to you justice kennedy that would be a debatable argument. >> why would it be any more debatable than the argument you're making here? i more or less anticipated your answer. i think that has to be your answer. i think you have to tell us even if the good faith exclusionary rule applies, mistake of law just doesn't count.

>> well, that's not exactly what this court's jurisprudence holds, of course. in davis the court has held that reasonableness of mistakes of law can be taken into account at the remedy stage and i think that would be -- >> but then that question is why isn't that a problem for you when you say there cannot be a reasonable mistake of law? we know there can be. >> well, there's a difference, justice kennedy, between rights and remedies in the court's jurisprudence. when you ask a question about what is reasonable, as to whether or not the fourth amendment was violated, both in its fourth amendment jurisprudence in criminal cases and in qualified immunity cases, you do that assessment against the correct interpretation of the law. now in leon -- >> we're talking about whether as a categorical matter, as a jurisprudential matter we can have this dichotomy known as a reasonable mistake of law. a difficult -- an interesting question. but it seems to me you have to make the same argument here or in the case where they have a good-faith exception as you're making here and that you have a problem with davis and kroell

and if you have a problem that undermines your categorical argument. >> i don't think so, justice kennedy. i think the best exposition is actually in the anderson against creighton case, the qualified immunity case where the court wrestled with this notion that how can something be reasonable in one sense and unreasonable in another? the answer the court gave is that when we ask whether the fourth amendment was violated, we do not take mistakes of law into account. but the reasonableness of a mistake of law can go to the remedy question. this is the premise from which leon, c kroell and davis all devief. >> mr. fisher, i have a preliminary question. even if you're right about mistake of law, isn't it a moot question in this case? because as i understand it. the traffic stop ended with a

warning citation. so the traffic stop is over. at that point the police officer asks if he can inspect the car. and the answer is yes. why isn't the consent to the search the end of this case? >> because it would be the fruit of the poisonous tree, justice ginsburg, if the stop was illegal. there would have never been an opportunity to ask for consent and i think that's why the state and the attorney general haven't made any argument that the consent wipes away the fourth amendment question here. >> suppose the officer had said all right, i'm giving you a warning, you're free to leave but by the way may i search your car? >> i think that's more or less what the officer did say here, justice alito. >> and you would say then even in that situation that that would be the fruit of the poisonous tree? >> yes. because the stop wouldn't have taken place. the court's cases, prous and all

the rest, say a traffic stop is a seizure. so upon pulling mr. heien over the officer needed to have reasonable suspicion to do so. the only argument for reasonable suspicion is the mistake of north carolina law as to the brake light in this case. i understood you to say earlier that you don't take distinguishing the exclusionary rule and qualified immunity, you don't take reasonableness into account when it comes to a mistake of law? >> i'm sorry, mr. chief justice, what i think i said is that you don't take the reasonableness of mistake of law into account when you ask whether the fourth amendment was violated. you do sometimes -- >> sorry, go ahead. >> forgive me. you do sometimes when you ask about the remedy. and that's what he did. >> but the fourth amendment itself protects only against unreasonable searches and seizures by its term. i don't understand -- it would seem to me there's a stronger argument for taking the reasonableness of the officer's actions into account when you're talking about a mistake of law because that's what the fourth amendment says as opposed to the remedies in qualified immunity.

>> mr. chief justice, the court rejected that precise argument in anderson. that textual argument that the word reasonableness means that the fourth amendment incorporates mistakes of law. and because of a deep common law rule which is that when we ask -- >> well, if i could just pause. i thought we said exactly that in herring, though, where we said that even though we're going to look at it in terms of remedy, that was not to say that the reasonableness didn't go to whether there was a substantive violation of the fourth amendment. >> my understanding of herring would be, that would be a mistake of fact case. whether or not there was a warrant outstanding for mr. herring's arrest would have been a factual question, not a legal question. in anderson, kroell, and leon -- and leon, mr. chief justice, the court said the officer in that case acted exactly as a reasonable officer could have and should have acted. and time and again in the court's exclusionary rule cases they've said the officer acted reasonably because at the reasonableness stage you can

take into account whether the officer reasonably misunderstood the law. but -- forgive me. >> i was going to say putting aside our discussion of herring, why does it make sense to say you don't take reasonableness into account when the fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. >> i think for three reasons, mr. chief justice. there's a practical reason, a theoretical reason and a jurisprudential reason. i'll start with the theory because that's where i was just describing. the deep common law heritage in this country that we have always followed and the best exposition of that is in the court's cheat case that the criminal law is presumed to be definite and knowable. so in all kinds of settings, whether it be punishing somebody for violating the law or any other actions citizens or the government engages in, we always assume a correct understanding of the law even if it's later construed by a court in a way that wasn't exactly predictable -- >> isn't it strange that you're

citing cheek for that. didn't the court hold that in the circumstances there ignorance of the law would be a defense? >> because of a special statutory exception congress had written, the beginning of part two of cheek is what i'm relying on, justice alito, where there's a paragraph or two that sets out with numerous citations this principle justice holmes described and many others, that the criminal law is presumed to be definite and knowable. once you take that presumption and put it into the police officer's mind, in this case, or any other governmental actor who acts on a mistake of law, then there is no reasonable suspicion because we presumed them to have known the law when they acted. >> suppose the officer stopped the driver here and said, you know, i've been going to night law school and we don't know about this one light, two light thing. there's an intermediate court of appeals hearing a case. sounds like they're going to say only one light is necessary. but i don't know what the law is, you better get this fixed. >> well, i think there's two questions in there. >> and then he seized the contraband. >> pardon me?

>> and then in the course of this conversation he seized the contraband. >> i think there's two two questions embedded in there, one is whether the officer can look to court decisions or other third-party sources to help him do his job. now, again that is what the court has said in the kroell and davis cases that you take into account things like police manuals, court decisions. the rest. the court has embraced that in its remedy jurisprudence but in rand said that's off limits as to the fourth amendment. i think's an element of your question asking about what if all of the officer was worried about was the safety on the roadway. that would be a very different case. again i'm going to turn the court to rand where the court said if there's a stop done for reasons aside from probable cause, then the purpose of that stop, such as the community caretaking function, might kick in. but of course the state hasn't made any argument in that respect in this case because the record is quite clear the officer was performing a criminal investigation.

>> mr. fisher, we don't review opinions, we review judgments. we review as a results. what you're complaining about here is the admission of what was discovered in the search of the car, right? now, what difference does it make whether that was lawfully admitted because it was a constitutional search or it was lawfully admitted because the remedy of excluding it would not be applied if there was a mistake of law. a reasonable mistake of law. i mean, the constitutional problem is the admission of this evidence. and it seems to me whether it's properly admitted because the fourth amendment wasn't violated or whether it's properly admitted because the remedy for that violation is not exclusion of the evidence, you lose either

way, don't you? >> well, justice scalia, nobody's addressed the question of remedy in this case because nobody needs to address it. >> well, we need to if we find as you urge us to find that it violates the fourth amendment to make the search we would then have to -- in order to decide whether this judgment is lawful we would have to decide whether the remedy of excluding that evidence has to be applied. and you know the answer to that -- >> forgive me. with respect, justice scalia, i'm not sure the court needs to do that. of course, i think the court can vacate and remand the judgment just as it does in newspaper rabble other times where it finds a problem with the lower court decision and therefore sends it back. even if this were purely a federal case, justice scalia, i would be saying the same thing. nobody has briefed or argued the good faith exception in this case. >> well, you have. you have. and you acknowledge that it applies to remedies.

>> no, no, no. here's what i've acknowledged, justice scalia, i guess this is important. we've acknowledged that the question of whether the mistake was reasonable would be relevant if at all at the remedy stage. so what you would do is you'd ask the question if this were a federal case where you had to reach the question, you'd ask whether the officer's mistake of law in this case renders suppression inappropriate. now i would add that holding that it did render suppression inappropriate would be an extension of the court's current good faith jurisprudence which thus has has held that good faith relies when an officer relies on legislature or court. >> so the most you can get from us is a remand? >> that's right. i do think it's just like -- >> just like the north carolina -- just let the north carolina court decide whether the remedy of exclusion should apply. >> that's right. for example, justice scalia, i'm not sure if it's different if i said there's a constitutional violation i may or may not be entitled to a remedy for under

chapman because the err was harmless or not. those are the kinds of situations where the court would always resolve the constitutional question that the lower court addressed and send it back down for the question of remedy. >> i don't know why. following up on what justice scalia is saying, he's saying we don't give you a remedy unless we believe that one is warranted under the fourth amendment. and since we apply, doesn't matter what the north carolina applies, good faith or not. what we apply in terms of determining whether a federal violation, a constitutional violation is subject to any type of remedy for you is the good faith exception. so why do we have to remand? i think that's justice scalia's question and i'm not quite sure you've answered it. >> the reason to remand is because the lower court hasn't addressed any question of remedy and so in the first instance you should send it back to the lower court for full adversarial briefing subject to waiver --

>> but north carolina has a rule, i thought, that if you violate the fourth amendment, that's it. we don't have a good faith exemption. >> that would be our position on remand justice ginsberg. >> isn't that what the north carolina law is now? so it would be futile to send it back for them to answer the good faith exception since they have none. >> it wouldn't be futile, justice ginsberg. i think the analogy that i gave earlier about chapman is more or less on point. the court has held if the constitution is violated that the defendant in a criminal case doesn't get a remedy unless he satisfies that test. now all the time in criminal cases you would decide the constitutional issue and send it back for remedy analysis if the lower court hadn't addressed it. >> that's because they would be applying federal law. they would be answering the question that you want us to leave unanswered. namely, whether the constitution requires that this evidence be

stricken from the case. >> well, let me say -- >> but if indeed they're not going to ask that question when we send it back, it seems to me we have to answer that question here, before we are able to reverse or affirm the north carolina court. it's a federal question. they are not going to get to that but you're asking us to invalidate this conviction on the basis of federal law and it seems to me we can not do that unless there has even -- even if there has been a violation of the fourth amendment the remedy must be exclusion of the evidence. that's a federal question. i think we're going to have to decide it. if we send it back to north carolina, they're not going to decide it. are they? >> no, i don't believe they would or should. but i -- but just if a state had adopted a rule saying we're going to have a more favorable jurisprudence of constitutional err and give automatic new trials, the court wouldn't be

prohibited from deciding a constitutional issue and sending it back down to the state. the retroactivity sphere, danfor the versus minnesota is another case where the court has said that states can choose for themselves to have more favorable remedies and the court simply keels with the federal question. >> there's no question that if north carolina applied a state constitutional analog to the fourth amendment they could have a more extensive remedy than is recognized under our fourth amendment cases. but your argument is they can adopt a state law rule for fourth amendment violations that is more protective of defendants than the federal case law provides. that would be your argument, right? >> i don't need to make that argument. i think that would be an interesting question. and i think the state may be able to do that. but what the harder decision in north carolina says is that violations of the state constitution cannot be

overlooked on good faith doctrine. >> was this decision based on the state constitution? >> no, it was based on the federal constitution so we would send it back down and we've preserved an argument that under state law the violation of the fourth amendment also violates the north carolina constitution. >> what you're asking is to reverse it on the basis of federal law. and you're asking us to send it back to a state court which is not going to inquire any further into federal law. even though federal law arguably, you will concede, says that even if there is a fourth amendment violation, if there's a good faith reasonable belief that the law was violated the remedy of exclusion will not be imposed. that's what the constitution requires and you're asking us to say, oh, no, there's been a violation of the constitution and we're going to reverse this judgment even though we haven't

inquired into whether the remedy that you want is required. it seems to me -- i don't see how we can do that. >> well, i don't want to keep saying the same thing. i'll try and say it one more time. i think it's fully customary for this court to have a case from state courts where a state court issues a ruling on federal law, there may be many other issues in the case, federal, state, whatever, but if the question of federal law, the state court decided is incorrect, this court can reverse that judgment, say you got federal law wrong and we'll send it back down. >> but it chooses to decide based on only half of the federal law or three quarters of the federal law north carolina's more or less set us up this way. >> well i think -- there is a federalism -- forgive me. >> which is a follow-on to justice scalia's question. >> they didn't get federal law wrong. their opinion got federal law wrong. but their judgment did not get

federal law wrong if, indeed, a good faith mistake of law does not require the exclusion of the evidence from the trial. the judgment did not get federal law wrong. if that's the case. >> well, i think that their analysis got federal law wrong for the reasons we've described. >> we don't review analyses, we review judgments. you're urging this conviction has to be set aside. that's what we're reviewing, the conviction, not the opinion. >> well, justice scalia, if you want to decide the good faith question that has not been briefed by any party, i suggest you might want to tread carefully. now we've given you maybe what i need to do at this point before i sit down and reserve my time for rebuttal is explain to you why even if you did feel like you need to get to that question, which i don't think you need to, but if you did need to get to that question, why you should say that the good faith doctrine doesn't apply. >> i don't want to take up your rebuttal time but your argument this morning has confused me on

something i thought i understood. i thought the reason why you've argued this case the way you have, trying to convince us to draw a very sharp distinction between right and remedy, is because you believe that north carolina has the right under state law to devise its own version of the exclusionary rule. if that's not your argument i'm really puzzled by what you're doing. >> functionally that's where things work in north carolina, justice alito. i think the only thing that maybe i need to make more clear is that the reason why it works that way in north carolina is because the state has held that violations of our state constitution cannot be subject to a good faith exception. the state has also held -- >> the state constitution is irrelevant because you're arguing about whether there can be mistake of law in determining whether a search is reasonable under the fourth amendment to the constitution of the united states. whatever we hold on that, north carolina can do whatever it wants on the same question with respect to the state constitution. >> that's the next thing i was going to say. in theory you're right, justice

alito, but what north carolina has said is that we construe article 1, section 20, which is the state counterpart, to be coterminus with the fourth amendment. so that's not the way the court goes about its business. so functionally in the state of north carolina, where you are is that fourth amendment questions run exactly parallel to state substantive constitutional law questions, and if there's a violation, you suppress. >> mr. fisher, suppose this were a federal case and we had available to us had it all been briefed two alternative holdings in order to support the conviction and one holding was, this is not a violation of fourth amendment law in the first instance. and the other holding was, this is a violation of fourth amendment law, but the exclusionary rule operates and so the -- the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule operates, and so the evidence comes in. is there any difference between those two holdings? >> i think the difference between those two holdings if

the court remanded may well play out differently in north carolina. >> no, no, no. if it were a federal case. >> sorry, i missed that. if it were a federal case it would be functionally the same holding as to the outcome of that case. but i think -- >> yes, please. >> but there would be important reasons none theth, even though that would be a functionally identical holding for the parties in the case. there would be very important reasons, nonetheless, to make sure that you rendered that holding as to remedy jurisprudence not as to the fourth amendment itself. one reason is what i opened with and have tried to say a couple times that the government should be presumed to know the laws it would undercut public confidence in law enforcement and the common-law rule upon which the criminal law is built, to say the government doesn't have to be presumed to know the law. >> well, you say that, but some people say that the existence of a rule remedy gap undermines public confidence in the law. so why should we take that argument any more seriously than the rule remedy gap problem? >> because that argument comes from academic literature and my

argument comes from the court's jurisprudence where people have argued that you shouldn't suspend remedy and the court has rejected and said no, as judge wilkinson wrote in the law review piece that i cited in the brief, there's an important reason to announce the right, even if you're not going to give a remedy. now there are practical reasons for this, as well. even in the court's good faith jurisprudence the court has given leeway to officers only to the extent the officer are relying on a clear directive from a third party, like a legislature or a court. this is very different. this is like the johnson case from 1982 where the court held if the officer acts on his own view of a, quote, unsettled rule of law, that we not only find the fourth amendment violation, we suppress. so even if i have to argue this case -- >> it is a reasonable interpretation of state law? >> i would dispute if you were asking in the chevron sense that this statute was sufficiently ambiguous that it could have been read this way. but i don't think it should be viewed as a reasonable mistake

under the good faith doctrine because the good faith doctrine deals with directive from third parties and officers relying on third parties. johnson that i was just citing to you says that -- >> well, i don't need to ask this in the context of any other body of the court's case law, just in the common sense understanding of the term. was it reasonable if a -- even an attorney sat down and read the relevant north carolina statutes, do you think it would be reasonable for that attorney to conclude that you have to have two functioning brake lights and not just one? >> i think in the commonsense way i could concede that that would be reasonable. but there's a legal way of asking what is reasonable and what is not, justice alito. let me say two things to that. one is to remind you that the court has never taken into account ambiguity or the possibility for error in asking whether a governmental officer gets the law right. secondly, you have to define the concept of reasonable. so even if you look at the facts

of this case and think well, this mistake was reasonable, the other side hasn't give an definition of what it would say would be a reasonable mistake of law. there's a reference to qualified immunity jurisprudence in the state's brief and the solicitor general describes -- uses language to say a foothold in the statutory text. i'm not sure what definition would apply here but one thing i do know from the court's qualified immunity 1 you have to benign concept. and the definitions that exist in the law right now are very, very broad. i think that goes to the practical reason that i was going to describe to the court why you shouldn't hold that the fourth amendment is satisfied here. because if you say that anything that's reasonable is defined in other cases susceptible to debate, you vastly expand police officer discretion to conduct traffic stops. as the court has noted already, officers have enormous discretion by the nature of the traffic laws and in the wren decision. >> mr. fisher, let me try my problem just one last time

before you -- your time. you assert that we should not decide the remedy question because it hasn't been argued but wasn't it your responsibility to argue it? you're asking us to set aside a judgment of the north carolina court. that judgment can be set aside only if, number one, the fourth amendment was not violated or number two it was violated but the remedy does not have to be exclusion of the evidence. it seems to me it's your burden to establish not just that the fourth amendment was violated but also that exclusion was necessary under the constitution and it is no answer to say well, that hasn't been argued. you haven't argued it. that's the problem. >> well, if i need to argue it, i would refer you to the part three arguments in our opening brief which explain why even if you move good faith in into the right -- those would be my arguments, justice scalia.

the only other case that comes to mind is the courts aiolta case several years ago where there was a takings question brought to the court and the court divided that federal law question into two pieces and when the lower court had only addressed the first piece of the case the court reversed on that first piece of the case and sent it back down. so i think when i'm asking for isn't terribly different. >> send it back down for that court to decide the other piece. but this court will not decide the other piece. as you acknowledge. >> if the state makes that choice that it's going give a more favorable remedy, then federalism should respect that choice justice scalia. i'd like to reserve the rest of my time. >> thank you, mr. fisher. mr. montgomery? >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures but it does not require that police officers be perfect. because the touchstone of the fourth amendment is

reasonableness, all that is required is that a police officer have a reasonable view of the facts and apply those facts to a reasonable understanding of the law. >> when will we ever get an understanding, the right understanding of the law? meaning as i read the north carolina supreme court decision, it still hasn't told me whether it's one or two brake lights. and the next police officer who wants to stop someone won't know that either. now, he may be bound by the appellate court decision, but that won't help clarify the state of the law. isn't what you're doing going to leave criminal law unclear? it's one thing to say that you want to not subject officers to civil liability.

it's another to say you want to leave the law unclear in a criminal prosecution. >> well, your honor, in north carolina controlling precedent does come from the intermediate court of appeals. that's not to say that our supreme court might not reach a different decision someday, but for now police officers would be bound by what the north carolina court of appeals decided. so the law has been decided and officer who goes out and makes a stop tomorrow because one brake light is out would be acting unreasonably under that decision. so it doesn't leave criminal law uncertain. >> well, it will for the appellate division if it's now taking your view that it can just find out whether the officer's reading of the law is reasonable. it basically means that any open question police officers will rule in favor of their right to search. >> it depends on whether the

question is an open questioning and whether that interpretation by the officer is reasonable. it certainly may be an unreasonable interpretation. >> define what would make it unreasonable. >> well, it would be unreasonable if there was plain language of the statute that no one could reach a different interpretation about at all if it was plain. or if there was a definite decision by an appellate court, it would be unreasonable for the officer to interpret it in his own way. and the whole standard would be a reasonable person standard. would a reasonable person be able to take this view of the statute? >> but that's a very broad definition of reasonable. i understand the idea that when 99 people out of 100 think you have to have two brake lights, like you do everywhere else in the country, that it's reasonable for the police officer to think that. but it sounds to me like you're adopting the same standard that we apply in qualified immunity. which gives the officers quite broad scope. that's troubling.

>> it's not the same as qualified immunity. in that qualified immunity looks also -- it looks -- it protects the plainly incompetent. we're not saying that is the standard here. >> i think it doesn't protect -- >> i'm sorry, it doesn't protect. >> i think what the chief justice is asking you is to describe a case for us where the officer would receive qualified immunity, but it would not count as reasonable for these purposes. >> one of the things that this court has said in wilson v. lane is that this court and courts can look beyond just the officer's interpretation. like this it could look to other matters. there could be an officer who had an unreasonable interpretation of the statute, and yet he may still have qualified immunity. for instance because he was told by a judge, or by the attorney general, or by someone, that

this was correct, and that was a complete misunderstanding of the statute. it may be that that officer would still be protected by qualified immunity but for fourth amendment purposes that would not be a reasonable interpretation of the statute. >> you would not give a pass -- let's say the case is flipped here and the most reasonable reading of the statute is that you only need one brake light so someone's driving around with one brake light. you pull him over, he's going to say, i reasonably thought i only needed one, and the court comes out and says i needed two. is that case his ignorance of the law would not save him, would it? >> no, it would not. but the flip side of that is that an officer's belief that you needed all of your brake lights, and that is not actually law, does not mean that that person is guilty. in other words, in this instance, this -- this driver -- excuse me, the defendant here or driver, actually, could not be

held liable for the brake light violations. so it's not the fact that an officer thinks reasonably that the law is something. that doesn't make it the law. just like if a citizen does not think that's the law, that does not mean that he can escape liability. >> there is a problem, however -- i'm sorry. the police officer wasn't stopping him because of a brake light. the police officer was involved in criminal interdictions and admitted that this was a pretext. a lawful pretext, he thought. so he wasn't there just to tell him, if he had just stopped him and said, you know, fix your brake light, and drove away, there'd never be a lawsuit, correct? >> that's correct. >> so how many citizens have been stopped for one brake light who are asked to have their car searched? and is that something that we as a society should be encouraging?

>> well, wholly innocent people are stopped quite often because of states of fact, for instance. that's part of the whole terry -- how terry works, and those types of brief stops. there turns out times that citizens have not committed any kind of offense yet they are stopped. this is just another example of that in which an officer acted reasonably just as with a reasonable mistake of fact and it turned out that this was not actually a violation. >> i'd like to focus on your definition of reasonableness. let's say you have two court of appeals decisions, one says you need two brake lights, the other says you need one. is it reasonable for the officer to pull somebody over when one of their two brake lights is burned out? >> if you have conflicting rulings from the court of appeals, it would be reasonable then for the officer to decide

which he thought was the better rule. if there are two different decisions from the court of appeals, which is not supposed to happen in our system. but if that did happen, it would be reasonable for the officer to rely on either one of those. >> mr. montgomery, i take that one of mr. fisher's arguments, maybe his primary argument, is that this just looks like a remedies question. it does not look like a rights question. it focuses on the culpability of the officer in the way we do when we think about immunity, or when we think about the exclusionary rule. so why isn't that exactly right that to the extent that this conviction ought to be upheld it ought to be upheld on remedies reasons rather than rights reasons, to fit in with our basic understanding of what remedies and rights do and do differently in our law. >> certainly this court looks at different things when it looks at the right versus the remedy. reasonableness is important in

the right stage and the remedy stage may be considered but also the culpability of the officer, whether he was deliberately disregarding the law, those types of things. this court has addressed mistakes of law both in the rights and the remedies stage so it would be important to address it in the right stage here in this particular case, because then we don't get into the source of things that would be necessary in the remedy stage. if that answers -- >> what about the dissenter in the north carolina court of appeals, who said north carolina has no good faith exception. and so all that this decision does is it allows the police to get around the absence of a good faith exception. wasn't that position of the dissenter that allowing for a reasonable mistake of law to

support a warrantless stop is the functional equivalent of a good-faith exception? >> that was the position of the dissenting justices at the north carolina supreme court. one of the things that they said. but, again, this gets back to reasonableness as the standard for the fourth amendment. and that is what this court has said is important at that stage, is whether an officer is acting reasonably. there are other considerations that take place at the remedy stage. so the state was asking for nothing more than simply whether this violated the fourth amendment and not about remedy. >> counsel, maybe you have to answer to all the questions i was asking of mr. fisher. and i guess the answer is you haven't argued that point, right?

>> the remedy -- >> you did not assert in your brief, or you haven't asserted it in oral argument thus far, anyway, that even if it did constitute a violation of the fourth amendment, the remedy did not have to be exclusion of the evidence, and that that remedy is, indeed, subject to reasonable mistake of law, and therefore the decision has to be affirmed. but you didn't make that decision. you want to put all your eggs in the basket whether it's a violation of the fourth amendment or not. am i right about that? >> that's correct, your honor. >> i'm sorry it wastes so much of our time. >> well, we did not make that argument below the north carolina supreme court and mr. fisher is correct in that it is our state constitution that says that there's no good-faith exception.

if a defendant had only raised a fourth amendment question in our courts, the good faith exception would still be available if that defendant did not make a claim under the state constitution. makes good prudential sense to allow this north carolina supreme court to put to us what is basically an abstract question. to give an answer without reference to the fact that, as justice scalia indicates, part of the fourth amendment is the good faith exception. it bears unreasonableness. >> that's correct. this court has in cases like rodriguez dealt with mistake of law just in the rights stage rather than the remedies stage. and that's all that has been briefed in this instance. that's correct. one of the things that is different about this from kroell

and davis is that we are not talking about -- >> excuse me. that just doesn't wash. in other cases we just decide the right and don't have to decide the remedy but this is a case in which unless the recommend city exclusion there's no basis for us to set aside the judgment of the north carolina supreme court. unless the remedy is exclusion. it seems to me that's part of the case to reverse. if we can't say that, we have no business reversing it. but if it hasn't been argued i guess we can do that. i guess. >> that has not been argued here or below, that's correct. a difference between this case and kroell and davis is that this case does not -- this involves a mistake of law as to a substantive statute rather than a mistake of law as to the fourth amendment itself. the difference in that is that a reasonable violation of the fourth amendment is still a violation of the fourth amendment.

if there's a statute that gives an officer the opportunity to make a seizure on less than what is required by the prosecution, less than probable cause or less than reasonable suspicion even if the officer is reasonable, that is still a fourth amendment violation, which is why this court would have to go to the remedy portion to decide whether the exclusionary rule applied. in this instance, this case it was a mistake as to a substantive statute that was used by the officer to, as part of the facts and circumstances of this case, as part of the totality of the circumstances of this case the officer considered what he thought was the correct law. >> why should you draw the line between -- if he gets the fourth amendment wrong, the fourth amendment is violated. but if he gets the statute wrong then the fourth amendment is not violated.

>> because the officer only needs to act reasonably and the fact that he gets the statute wrong does not mean that he acted necessarily unreasonably. >> the fact he made a mistake about what the fourth amendment requires could also be reasonable. >> it could be and that would be proper to consider as this court has in the remedy stage rather than the rights stage. in the di filippo case this court decided that was situation in which a substantive statute was found unconstitutional and void for vagueness and yet this court found there was probable cause in that case for the officer to make an arrest based upon that statute. so that was one case in which this court looked at it as a mistake of law rather than at the remedy stage. >> but do you think if di

filippo came up again today with all the cases that have been decided since then that we would decide it the same way or do you think we would conceptualize it now as a remedies question? >> i think the court would decide it the same way. and this court in "arizona v. evans" said the cases even decided before the good faith exception are still viable in terms of the fourth amendment. >> what kind of mistake of law did the police officer make in "di filippo?" the law said exactly what he thought it said. >> that's correct. >> why do you classify this as a mistake of law question? we said it was presumptively valid and he acted according to the statute. we don't ask police officers to ignore the law. >> that is correct that it's different in case -- >> no, no, this is a mistake of law. he wasn't following the law,

presumably, according to the appellate court. >> that's right. the di filippo case is important because you had someone who was acting wholly innocently. he was not committing an offense at all as in this case you had someone who was acting wholly innocently and was not committing a violation of the law. so in di filippo this court said even though contact was wholly innocent, there still was probable cause, despite the mistake of law and that's all that we're saying in this case. >> isn't there another difference between di filippo and this case? the court in di filippo talks a lot about how there's a presumption of constitutionality for any statute and we don't want officers to go around questioning the constitutionality of statutes. but here that's not the case. here there's a statute and an

officer is not supposed to read it as broadly as possible, an officer is supposed to read it fairly. there's no presumption that goes into effect and there's no way in which we could say the same thing about di filippo is that we don't want officers to question -- to inquire into this area. >> it is different but we do want officers to enforce the law. we don't want them just sit back and not -- >> we want them to enforce the law fairly and as written and not to push every statute to its -- the furthest, furthest, furthest it could go without being found utterly unreasonable. >> that's correct, your honor. but we want them act reasonably and still enforce the law. not to turn a blind eye to what may be a violation. >> how does this statute read here? what are the exact words of the statute? >> the statute has two parts. it has a subsection "d." >> where do we find it? >> this would be in the appendix to the respondent's brief.

appendix pages 1 through -- actually through 5 has all of the relevant portions of the statute. subsection d involves rear lamps and says that every motor vehicle shall have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order. that's the relevant portion of subsection d subsection g, on page three of the appendix, says no persons shall sell or operate on the highways any motor vehicle manufactured after december 31, 1955 unless it had been equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle. that is the language that the north carolina court of appeals said when it said a stop lamp. that meant only one was required? >> that seems to be what it says. >> the confusion comes in --

[ laughter ] >> the confusion comes in, justice scalia, in the last sentence of subsection g on appendix page three which says the stop lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps. where the confusion comes in is that sentence would seem to imply that the stop lamp is a rear lamp. that can be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps and if you go back to subsection d, that's the section that says that all originally equipped rear lamps must be in good working order. so there's some conflict in -- >> that applies to all rear lamps, a stop lamp and all the other lamps. >> that's correct. all the other lamps we know -- >> so it has to be pleural if it's going apply to the stop lamp and all the other lamps, of course we would say "lamps." >> my time is up. thank you. >> thank you, counsel.

>> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. since the founding, the probable cause standard had allowed police officers to make stops when there are reasonable grounds to believe a person committed a crime even if the officer later turns out to have been mistaken about either the facts or the law. and as justice kennedy observed at the start of this argument, given that this court's cases recognize that there can be a reasonable mistake of law, an officer who makes a reasonable mistake of law may have a reasonable grounds to believe a person committed a crime. if i can go to a question that justice kagan asked about why this question is more appropriately addressed at the rights stage than the remedies stage, we think there are three main reasons. the first has to do with history. since the founding, this court has treated the probable cause

standard as allowing for reasonable mistakes of law. >> are all the cases that you cite, including riddle, all in the context of a customs statute that didn't permit customs officers to suffer damages? >> yes, your honor. >> for purposes of an error of law, correct? >> that is correct. >> none of those cases involved a violation of the fourth amendment. >> that's correct. the reason those cases are relevant here is because those cases are interpretations of the probable cause standard. >> how is that different in terms of its analysis? those cases? from what we've ultimately applied as a qualified immunity standard with respect to civil damages snowed don't they follow exactly same reasoning? >> i don't think so, your honor. those cases, the probable cause reasoning is followed in those cases is what the court has done at the merit stage of the fourth en