SENATOR XXXXXXXX. I understand your point, and what you said about India’s intent and India’s pledge that any U.S. assistance to its civil nuclear energy program will not benefit its nuclear weap- ons program, and it’s committed itself, as you noted in your testi- mony, to follow the same practices as responsible nations, to follow those practices. But how can we be fully assured of any commit- ment? I mean, India had previously claimed it was using nuclear technology for civilian purposes, right up until the time it tested in 1974. What kind of assurance do we have? Secretary XXXXX. Well, sir, there’s no perfect guarantee, as you know, but our conviction is that by moving in this direction, we’re deepening the incentive for India to focus on civilian nuclear en- ergy, and deepening its incentive to continue to move into the mainstream of the nonproliferation regime. But, to be honest, and to answer your question, there’s not per- fect guarantee. Senator XXXXXXXX. Well, I appreciate your candor. Secretary Xxxx, you testified that India has submitted a docu- ment with the IAEA that satisfies the requirement of the Hyde Act that India submit a declaration of its facilities in order to ensure that international—international assistance—does not benefit In- dia’s weapons programs. Isn’t it true, however, that India has negotiated an agreement with the IAEA which provides that the final declaration will not be submitted until the safeguards agreement has entered into force, and this has not yet occurred? Xx. XXXX. The Indian Government, in 2006, published a separa- tion plan, that is, a plan to separate its civilian facilities from those related to its strategic program. Since that time, the Indian Gov- ernment has negotiated an IAEA safeguards agreement, and they have transmitted their separation plan to the IAEA Director Gen- eral, which has then been transmitted to the IAEA membership. The Indian Government stands behind their separation plan, and that plan for the phased application of safeguards is—constitutes India’s indication of how it plans to declare facilities as civilian.
SENATOR XXXXXXXX. But the final declaration has not been sub- mitted, is that right? Xx. XXXX. The separation plan, because it was concluded in 2006, will need some updating, but the list of facilities, as Xx. Xxxxxxxxx mentioned earlier, that will be subjected to safeguards, and the phasing remain operative. Senator XXXXXXXX. Is it your intent to authorize licenses pursu- ant to the United States-India Cooperation Agreement before India files the legally required declaration? Xx. XXXX. IAEA safeguards would need to be in place at a facil- ity before we would allow for the export of material from the United States to that facility. Therefore, for IAEA safeguards to be enforced, the agreement that you reference would need to take ef- fect. Senator XXXXXXXX. So you would not authorize licenses prior to that? Xx. XXXX. Because there would need to be IAEA safeguards in effect. Senator XXXXXXXX. Secretary Xxxx, does India have a legally binding commitment to include all of the facilities it announced as civilian in 2006 in the declaration? Xx. XXXX. Your question was, does India require—— Senator XXXXXXXX. Does India have a legally binding commit- ment to include all of the facilities it announced as civilian in March 2006 in the declaration we just discussed? Xx. XXXX. Do you want to take that? Xx. XXXXXXXXX. Senator, the answer to that would be no. The declaration will be made after the safeguards agreement comes into force, our understanding is, is that the declaration will be the same facilities, in the same timeframe, as was included in the separation plan. But, that’s not a legally binding commitment, and when the safeguards agreement enters into force, ultimately, it will be up to India, what it submits to safeguards, and when. Senator XXXXXXXX. And is there a document that you can provide to the committee with—in this regard, at this time?
SENATOR XXXXXXXX. All right. The provision of enrichment or reprocessing technologies by any member of the Nuclear Supplier Group could also directly benefit India’s nuclear program, as safeguards do not prevent the transfer of people and knowledge.
SENATOR XXXXXXXX. They don't work full days, that's one ofthe reasons I'm against saying let them retire at 60 because they're burned out. They don't do enough to be burned out. This i3 one of those deals which is feathering certain nests, and I am opposed to it. I'll have to put my light on again. SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Xxxxxxxx. Senator Xxxxxxx. SENATOR ‘XXXXXXX: Senior Kristensen, members of the Legislature, I hope you'll follow me for a minute, because I want to demonstrate to you what total disrespect some ofthe district court judges have for this body, total disrespectfor
SENATOR XXXXXXXX the funds for the Municipal Equalization Fund, once again, is coming from where? SENATOR XXXXXXXXXX: It comes from two sources. One is that administrative fee that the city...or that the state is giving now to the cities that they have been using for city sales tax collection. The other is the insurance premium tax fund.
SENATOR XXXXXXXX. Okay. So, the administration fee is now being reimbursed from the state to local government? SENATOR XXXXXXXXXX: No. We bring that in. That gets put into the fund.
SENATOR XXXXXXXX. W h a t do you mean...now, wait a m i n u te . It does o r doesn' t ? SENATOR X . X XXXXXX: Xxx s no t . SENATOR X X XXXXXX : Do es n ot, okay. B u t you are saying it does have to go through at some OECD site? S ENATOR X. XXXXXXX : R i g h t . SENATOR XXXXXXXX: W h e t her it is in Nebraska or some place else?
SENATOR XXXXXXXX. Mr . President and members of the body, that was a fine speech you made, Senator XxXxxx, but I would like to ask you a question, how are you going to enforce it? SENATOR XXXXXX: Senator Xxxxxxxx, the same way the personal property tax laws are now enforced in the State of Nebraska. Number one, the integrity and honesty of the individual, but, number two, the risk in lying and potential audit if they do lie. I assume there is going to be some fudging just l i k e th e re is so me fudging now.
SENATOR XXXXXXXX. Thank you. In other words, what you and Senator Xxxxxx are saying is that there are some people out there that are dishonest and the crooks do not follow the law. That is what is being said here or we wouldn't need this amendment. So, therefore, I say let's do not adopt the amendment. PRESIDENT: Senator Xxxxxx, do you wish to close? SENATOR XXXXXX: T h ank you. M r . President and members, I want to thank Senator XxXxxx, Senator Xxxxxxx, Senator Xxxxxx and several others of you fo r s upporting this amendment. I th i nk that there i s a n answer for every question and it is clear that there are still some questions but the policy of trying to tie the actual exemptions to the actual use of the earthmoving equipment is a very reasonable thing to do. And I tried to bring this amendment up on General File. It was over the noon hour. If you remember, I said, look, I know everybody's tired, they want to go eat, so I will bring it up on Select File. So I tried to bring
SENATOR XXXXXXXX. Thank you. Madam President Members of the Legislature, I have one question to ask of Senator Xxxxxxxx, then I'll proceed with my comments. Senator Xxxxxxxx, is it your intent to say that there is not discrimination of the most egregious kind against Catholics in Northern Ireland? Is that the point that you're making on behalf of the mighty British Empi re? SENATOR XXXXXXXX: I was answering your question...your philosophy and statement that they do not hire Catholics. You said that. Senator Xxxxxxxx. I didn't. SENATOR XXXXXXXX: No, I didn't. SENATOR XXXXXXXX: I was merely showing that somefirms hire a bigger percent of Catholics than they do Protestants. SENATOR XXXXXXXX: Thank you. SENATOR XXXXXXXX: Other firms hire more Protestants than Catholics.
