Talk for about implementing the buffet rule, and, you know, specifically that involves, and i noticed a lot of new York Congress members on the list, but a number are not. Talk about the people not on the list, have you reached out to them . Do you expect all new york members of congress to sign on to them . We started with app effort through the National Congressional caucus and a number of members, and some do not sign pledges. Theres a lot of folks in the congress who make a policy not to sign pledges, but who i reached out to the response was positive. Saw a number of them here today. I think what ewe saw, literally in a few weeks the first meeting was april 2, and were here less than six weeks later and theres been a tremendous response, and i think it indicates that a lot of people who work in this building are looking to join a coalition to make a change at the fundamental level of the politics. Here the problem, they heard from a lot of them they cant change the policies in the current political environment. We have to change the basic political debate. We got to put income inequality at the front of the line of the issues we discuss. This agenda helps to do that. Mayor, when are you going to meet with them . One of the plans here is raising the minimum wage to 15 an hour. Thats something youre looking to do in new york, but have not got the reception you wanted from albany running out of time on the clock there, and how do you intend to make this happen nationally if its having such a sticking point, i suppose, in new york. Point to the four red states that in 2014 the general election voted for increases, and extraordinary efforts for the fight demonstrations, 200 cities simultaneously, a lot happens on the ground. Im hopeful for change on the issue in albany. The people in new york state demand a higher wage. A lot of the gains over the past 50 years that labor is so proud of, came to the cost of stripes, work stoppages, hitting the bricks, but didnt hear talk of that today. In other words, there was no talk of okay, youre not going to give us this, were going to shut it down. Were going to really assert our power and close it up. And really hit you in the pocketbook pocketbook. There was no talk of that. I just wondering why. I appreciate that, henry. I think that the henry, its quite clear its a fact over the last hundred years. Right. What were talking about here is a coalition that changes national debate, and i think its very important to look at how intense the grassroots organizing efforts have been around these issues, again, the fight for 15 is not your garden variety organizing efforts. Its been extraordinary and vibrant and made an impact. Look what happened major corporations are proactively increasing wages. That did not happen by accident. Theres pressure on legislations to act even here in congress. Youre seeing Something Different than what you described, but an energy level is rising, Organization Level rising for progressive change. Obviously, you need more than democrats to get your agenda pass. Don von sworpn in today, have you talked to him . Congratulated him yesterday had a good talk, and look forward to working to the. Hes someone in the past experience, so i certainly can work with and hes looking out for the interest of stanten island, brooklyn, and new york city. We talked about the fact were going to need the help of Congress Members from both sides of the aisle to achieve the changes we need for the city, and he understands that. Attack on Elizabeth Warren is he wrong, they wrong, who is the progressive here . Bottom line on trade is i couldnt agree more with warren and progressives saying they are deeply concerned about this trade deal. We all live in the shadow of nafta. Simple as that. We saw a deal previously that was supposed to strengthen the economic hand of American Workers and undermine workers profoundly and those in the economic sector. Theres honest concern that this trade deal could do the same. We put aside real concerns about information and processing. The concerns of the deal, theres tremendous concern as this plank makes clear that the real empowerment is for not American Workers. I agree with Elizabeth Warren on that issue. I think we have a respectful disagreement on the issue. I think thats not unheard of in the democratic party. I think right now, what you see is more and more energy among progressives to not accept the status quo and to fundamentally change the political debate and the trade issues a good example of that. Why the criminal justice reforms you talked so much for years in new york city are not included as a part of the Progressive Agenda . Weve implemented changes on stop and frisk, marijuana arrests, and, obviously, what we do to reduce the jail population on reickers, bail reform, and a number of other measures, we are going back to the coalition tomorrow and add a couple of the pieces obviously, with the agreement of the coalition members, of those who thought they were important to include. Mass incarceration has a huge negative impact on the economic potential of young men of color in particular. It is exceedingly pertinent to the question of income ine equality and how to address it. Theres several more planks, including that one. Three people today were hit on the head with hammers in union square. What do you say to critics focusing more at home and leave this to experts who do this every day . Mayors of new york city for generations have had to speak up for our city here in washington, around the country and i remind people the greatest of the predecessors was one of the cofounders of the u. S. Kompbsz of the mayors did not exist, in the context and he realized mayors had to have a stronger voice in washington. He was one of the people who gave us the u. S. Conference of mayors. I dont know a mayor in new york city who has not spoke out nationally on issues core to cities all over the country. What i know is that a lot of the things my city needs happen right here and right now, the political environment here will not allow us to get the support we need and changes we need. We got to change the debate, change the political environment, the way you do that is by building a coalition of leaders and literally push the debate in the right direction. We have to i said earlier, we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. I have to achieve these kinds of changes while making sure my city is safe, ensuring we i want prove the schools and host of things we do every day. Commissioner bratton is doing a great job. The overall crime index shows crime going down thank god, but we have to achieve both. We cant have new york city and cities around the country abandon by the federal government. Last one. Yes, sir . Youre the one, yes. Okay. Are you concerned at all about the experience that the Great Britain went through with the labour party shifting to the left . Totally wiped out. This is a different dynamic. Obviously, i was entertained by mr. Foreman gingrichs analysis, and its a different reality for a host of reasons. First of all one of the major factors in that election was the growing desire in scotland to be independent. That shifted the context. Second of all, we have income inequality reality here thats grown literally from the day reagan took office in a very, very sharp manner. In an analysis this morning, i commend it to everyone here pointing out its not a new problem. This is 35 years of declining possibilities for american working people. This is now structural, unaddressed here in the capital. For years, so i think our situation is different and i think right now people all this country are shocked theres not a set of solutions on the table in washington to address income inequality, and these are ideas to win the day in the country. Yes, sir . You have two leaders of messages and policy in the senate and house on the democratic side. Chuck schumer, have you talked about the messages you said you failed to address income inequality . They are valued colleagues and we talk about a host of interesting things and we are see before our eyes, a change in our national politics. The fight for 15 movement is not like anything seen in 15 years. This pattern for minimum wage, decision by localities, to increase paid sick leave, something is happening different from a few years ago. I remind people politics are different than since the great depression, so this is a plan to address the america of today and thats why such a Cross Section of progressives are with it. Thank you, everyone. Several live events on cspan3 to tell you about. More than a handful of bills dealing with Data Security breaches are pending before congress. And the House Financial Services committee will hold a hearing on the issue live at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. Then in the afternoon at 2 30, a House Foreign Affairs hearing on the recent operations to rescue child sex slaves. And at 5 00 p. M. Eastern, well have live coverage of president obama after a camp david meeting with gulf cooperation counsel countries including bahrain, kuwait and qatar, saudi arabia, and the united arab emerates. Capital hill lawmakers held a meeting to assess potential risks and rewards of renewing a cooperation deal with china. The agreement would permit china to buy more u. S. Designed nuclear we actors and other technology to reprocess plutonium from spent fuel. The current 30year china deal expires at the of this yearmentyear ment ment. Heres the Senate Foreign relations committee. Its an hour and 40 minutes. Well come to order. We have a vote at 2 45. Well try to get through opening comments, your comments, and then come back and begin the questioning. Today, we began the exercise of statutory responsibility responsibility congress requested to review agreements between the United States and foreign nations related to cooperation on civil, nuclear programs. We must examine the Political Economic and security aspects of this agreement weighing the risk and benefits, and in doing so we have to dig beneath the surface of the agreement to expose and thoroughly examine issues that cause concern and engaging such an agreement. We also should consider how this agreement could potentially impact u. S. Strategic interest in asia pacific. The agreement before us represents a continuation of a relationship that originally began in 19 85 with a congressional approval of the agreement when the United States and the peoples republic of china concerning peaceful uses of Nuclear Energy, and that expires on december 30th 2015 with a new agreement, Civil Nuclear cooperation. Without it, a this Civil Nuclear cooperation we have will cease. At the time of the submission of the 19 85 agreement, china was engaged in activities that caused significant concerns related to proliferation lack of safe gafrds, lack of export controlsing and congress and the agreement lacked key ainsurances to alleviate those concerns. In pass inging a joint revolution expressing approval of the agreement, congress require the several certifications to address its concerns prior to the issue of any export licenses pursuant to the agreement. The challenges in the relationship with china and actions relevant to the required certifications were such that certifications could not and were not made by the administration until 1998, 13 years after the agreement originally entered force. Some of those concerns still exist. Maybe to a lesser degree, but they still exist. The agreement before us now continues Civil Nuclear cooperation for another 30 years. Im glad that the administration chose to hear concerns raised by this Committee Last year about Civil Nuclear agreements that extended in perpetuity including this agreement after 30 years, thank you for that. It is right that agreements of this consequence should be periodically reviewed by congress to ensure they continue to be in the national interest. Notably and not present in the current agreement, the u. S. Vooits advanced concept to supply uranium up to 20 and to reprogress u. S. Obligated material. Im sure im not alone in questioning this change of relationship. I hope that the administration can adequately explain why its in the u. S. Interest activity using u. S. Supplied or obligated material. This transmission letter to Congress States this agreement is based on mutual commitment to Nuclear Nonproliferation. I have some misgivings. The commitment may not be so mutual. It will be incumbent upon the administration to expeendly relay concerns raised by the members. This assessment statement also nope as impasse requires to be submitted to congress with the agreement identifies several issues of concern. According to impasse, chinas strategy for strength p its military involves the acquisition of Foreign Technology as well as greater civil integration, and both elements have potential to decrease developmental costs to accelerate military modernization. This strategy requires close scrutiny of all end users of u. S. Technology under the proposed agreement. Further, impasse says chinas provision to pakistan of reactors beyond one and two is inconsistent with commitments when they joined the Suppliers Group in 2004. Finally, according to impasse, china updated its regulations and improved actions in some areas, but proliferation involved chinese entities remains of concern. State owned enterprises and individuals have been sanctioned by the u. S. On several occasions for transferring proliferation sensitive dual use materials and technologies. Congress should also consider chinas record as it relates to missile proliferation. The 20 1 director of National Intelligence worldwide threat assessment said nuclear excuse me, north korea and entities in russia and china continue to sell technologies and components in the middle east and south asia that are dual use and could support weapons of mass destruction and missile programs. The 2014 state Department Compliance report staid in 2013 chinese entities continue to supply missile programs to countries of concern. The United States notes that china made a public commitment in november 2000 not to assist in any way, any country in the development of Ballistic Missiles that can be used to deliver Nuclear Weapons. Concerns persist about chinese willingness and ability to protect illicit transfers. Id like the administration to specifically address why congress should feel congressy allows illicit transfers to go forward. The realized benefits from the current agreement, economic agreements include an 8 billion sale to reactors to westinghouse in 2007, still under construction today. We also gaining valuable insight from Lessons Learned in the construction of the ap 1,000 reactors that will cause domestic construction to be more efficient, timely, and cost less. Chinas developed and articulated stronger nonproliferation policies and export control regulations. Its up to congress to determine if the concerns about the agreement are outweighed by the benefits. If so we should approve the agreement without delay. If not, for the concerns are mitigated, we have to work diligently to find grounds on which we can support the agreement. If the concerns cannot be alleviated, we have to disapprove the agreement. All of this is to say we have a difficult task ahead of us but one i know we can approach seriously and were the best political and Economic Security interest of the United States in mine. I thank our witnesses for joining us today to begin the examination and look forward to working with them and their colleagues in the weeks ahead. Again, thank you for being here. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for conducting this hearing. Its a very important hearing on the relationship between the United States and china as one of our most difficult Foreign Policy challenges. This week, were holding two hearings, one on the territorial disputes in the east china seas looking forward to that hearing a very important hearing, and today focuses on the relation with the recently signed u. S. China civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement. Current agreement, as you pointed out is set to expire on december 30th of this year, and it was sign pd 30 years ago by president reagan. Interesting to point out that the implementation of that agreement had to wait for 13 years because of the senate conditions on chinas proliferation activities, and then because of the aftermath of the massacre. Up front, i am supportive of the development of Nuclear Power, a smart and e. Ive way of the United States to achieve independence and reduce Carbon Emissions. U. S. Nuclear cooperation agreements with other countries provide the United States a number of important benefits. First and foremost, one, two, three agreement can help achieve nonproliferation objectivings waus because we stand to uphold the agreements and Nuclear Material is never misused for military purposes. Thats an issue i expect our committee would want to explore. Second agreements are critical for maintaining a robust nuclear industry. The Enormous Growth for Power Generation represents a major opportunity for u. S. Business and one they have already taken advantage of. Reactors building in china already create high quality jobs in the United States including in my home state of maryland. Timely agreements are important opportunity for the United States to assist nations in reducing their Carbon Emissions. China is the Worlds Largest carbon emitter and will continue to grow in the next decade. As a joint announcement on climate, china committed to get 20 of the energy from clean sources by 2030. Nuclear power is a way china can lower its Carbon Emissions and in turn, Foster Global action to address climate change. So these are Important Reasons to move ahead with 1 agreement, and i understand that. Theres a number of concerns that i hope witnesses address during this hearing. While progress has been made in chinas nonproliferation policies remain problematic. Multiple state Department Reports document Chinese Companies and individuals who continue export dual use goods relevant to nuclear and chemical weapons and missile ballistic programs around north korea. Year after year, these have been sanctioned related to efforts to create weapons of mass destruction. What is preventing chinese from taking action against the companies and individuals who we have identified to them . I would like to hear whether chie china chinas record was addressed during the negotiations. To me, this presents us with an opportunity to place pressure on china to halt dangerous activities. Second, we have a plant provided with technology by westinghouse. Under a deal in 2007, they agreed to transfer Reactor Technology to china allowing chinese firms to increase their share of the nuclear work with the ultimate goal of exporting reactors themselves. We know china as an aggressive move into the many markets that the United States used to have the leading share. The transfer of the most advanced u. S. Technologies may provide china the keys for world Power Nuclear industry. That could cost us jobs vm im interested in the witnesses analysis what the future hold in regards to the u. S. Companies ability to dominate the International Market on reactors. Related to the issues, chinas decision to continue building reactors in pakistan. Pakistan does not have safeguard inspections by the Energy Agency and has not been approved as recipient state by the nuclear Suppliers Group. China argue contacts were in place before they agreed to abide by the rules of the Nuclear Supplier group. However, as they make plans to export reactors, reactors based upon u. S. Technology to other countries, one has to wonder about commitment to nonproliferation standards its signed up to. Theres concerns about safety. Safety in the Chinese Nuclear plants. I know we worked extensively with china on regulatory and safety regimes, but im concerned nothing in the agreement squarely addresses the issue of the next fooukukushima or chernobyl. China is an authoritarian country with a problem of regulatory structure. Although we cannot make Nuclear Power 100 safe we have to strive to make them resilient as possible to National Vulnerabilities and threats. These are issues that need to be addressed so that we can weigh the pluses and minuses pluses of an agreement, but the risk factors of entering into such an agreement with china, and i look forward to hearing from the witnesses. Senator cardin, thank you for the leadership here. What well do, last night, we had an extensive classified briefing, but i know we still want to hear Public Comments to be made. Lets adjourn, sprint to vote, come barksck, and start. We have to finish for a 4 00 briefing on another issue. Thats the best. If we dont object we start late, but i think thats best for you, okay . Thank you. Thank you, guys, for your patience. I know we had a very good and extensive briefing last evening and i know numbers of members were here but ill introduce you and let you begin your public statement, and again i apologize for the late start and interruption. Our first witness is honorable thomas m. Countryman, serves as assistant secretary of state for International Security and nonproliferation. S in this capacity, mr. Countryman leads the bureau at the head of the u. S. Effort to prevent the spread of Nuclear Chemical and bilogical weapons and their remitted edrelated materials and delivery systems. We appreciate your appearances with us here and also on the phone and other places. The second witness is Lieutenant General frank klots. Secretary and administrateor, and in this capacity, hes responsible for the management and operation of mnsa as well as matters across the department of energy and enterprise in support of president obamas Nuclear Security agenda. Prior to service at the department of energy the general served nearly 38 years in uniform in a variety of military and National Security positions relevant to todays discussion. We want to thank you both for being here and sharing your thoughts, remind you your full statements are entered into the record without objection. Be as brief as you wish, and we look forward to you answering questions, and, again, we appreciate you being here. Chairman corker, Ranking Member cardin, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to continue today in open session the briefings and consultations we have had with members and staff since these negotiations began continuing through the initially up to the signature and submission of the agreement to this senate. This agreement advances the primary goal we have in every agreement. Which is strengthenening long standing nonproliferation policy of successive administrations and has important commercial and diplomatic benefits that ill talk to only briefly since you have my prepared statement. The u. S. Relationship with china is one of the most important and complex relationships in the world. This administrations approach to china combines building high quality cooperation on a range of bilateral regional and global issues and constructively managing our differences. Peaceful cooperation is a key example of that type of cooperation, and this agreement is in the best interest of the United States. This agreement is not a favor we give to china or that china gives to us. It is in the mutual interests of both countries. Like all agreements its a frame work in which decisions on export technology and materials are made. The agreement contains all the u. S. Nonproliferation guarantees required by the awe tommic energy act, safeguards, peaceful use assurances peaceful assurances storage retransfer enrichment, and reprocessing of the u. S. Obligated material. It contains enhanced features beyond those contained in the current u. S. China agreement. Chinas nonproliferation record improved marketedly since the 1985 agreements. It can do still better and we expect it to do better in the nonproliferation field. Implementing this agreement better positions the United States to continue to influence the Chinese Government in a positive direction on nonproliferation objectives. The current agreement allowed and this agreement will continue to facilitate deepened cooperation on Threat Reduction export control Border Security and Nuclear Safety and Nuclear Security norms. This agreement has economic benefits. China has the Fastest GrowingNuclear Energy program in the world. It constitutes onethird of the Global Market in civilian Nuclear Energy. American Nuclear Suppliers are there now, and they are keen to play an even larger role in the chinese market. These opportunities could support tens of thousands of high paying american jobs and the u. S. Nuclear industry strongly supports this agreement. As senator cardin noted the agreement helps both of us to deploy nonfossil based energy sourgs sources to address Global Climate change. Last year, president obama and president xi addressed our 2020 targets. China believes Large Scale Development of civilian Nuclear Power is key to meeting these targets, and their commitments reenforce opportunities for u. S. Suppliers in the chinese market. On the other hand, if cooperation with china lapses our influence on chinese practices in our feels are placed in serious jeopardy. Well lose insight into chinas civil program, and the vacuum of cooperation with china would be filled by other Nuclear Suppliers who do not have the same approach as the United States to nonproliferation and Technology Transfer concerns. China would view such a lapse as evidence that the u. S. Is less willing to engage china at a higher level of commercial and security related issues. Some, we believe the strategic nonproliferation economic and environmental benefits of the agreement prove that continuing Nuclear Cooperation with china is in our best interests. We have no allusions about the challenges of working with china in Nuclear Energy or in any other field, but we must remain engage engaged. We have to constructively manage our difference and work collaboratively to advance the numerous objectives we have in common. The passage of this agreement is the best way to continue to influence and benefit from the Worlds Largest nuclear market. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General. Distinguished members on behalf of the department of energy on the propose u. S. China agreement for peaceful cooperation. Im pleased to join the colleague from the state department, and i, too, provided a written statement so im brief in summarizing what is in that. Let me note secretary of energy and i fully share thoughts expressed by tom countryman this morning, and we share the view that the proposed agreement provides a comprehensive frame work for Nuclear Cooperation with china while fully protecting and advancing u. S. Interests and policy objectives with respect to Nuclear Nonproliferation and the peaceful uses of Nuclear Energy. Thus the department of energy supports entry into force of this agreement following the re review period. This agreement is fully consistent with the law and incorporates all the terms required by section of the energy act. Manufactureover, reflects a current agreement several discussed in classified briefings to both members and staff of this committee. Specifically, the successor agreement enhances provisions under which we allow china to enrich and reprocess Nuclear Material by requiring such enrichment and reprocessing take place only in facilities in china that fall under the safeguard agreements. This provides safeguard controls on technology to china and commits both sides both the United States and china to deliver export control training to all u. S. And chinese entities under the agreement. Taken together, these elements, not included in the 1985 agreement, provide an unprecedented level of insight into commercial transactions. Since the proceeding 123 agreement was signed 30 years ago, we witnessed china make significant strides in its Civil Nuclear program. As secretary countryman pointed out, china now has every 20 Nuclear Power plants and operations, over 20 under construction, and dozens more planned. In fact, over onethird of Nuclear Power plants currently under construction in the world are in china. China increasingly seeks services, technology and equipment from u. S. And other foreign commercial companies for its Civil Nuclear program. We believe its in the best interest the United States to support u. S. Industrys ability to compete in this fast growing and expanding market. Several companies have numerous joint companies with kwhiechina and assets on the ground there and theres a broad range of services with construction and training. The successor 123 agreement facilitates continued cooperation with china summit of course, to u. S. Government review of specific requests to transfer Nuclear Technology, information, material, equipment, and components. On the other hand, if the agreement lapses or is not renewed, u. S. Industry would essentially be cut off from the market constituting a potentially serious commercial threat to the Overall Health and well being of the Civil Nuclear industry. U. S. Industry would also be precluded from taking advantage of future opportunities in the worlds Fastest GrowingCivil Nuclear energy market. In addition to the economic benefits, the successor 123 agreement serves an an umbrella for continuing other forms of u. S. China bilateral cooperation in promoting the important u. S. Policy objectives with respect to enhappensnceing Nuclear Safety and security around the world an objective that directly supports u. S. National interest as well as those of our allies and partners. U. S. China cooperation in the Civil Nuclear realm such as under the 1998 u. S. Peaceful uses of Nuclear Technology agreement has been absolutely invaluable in the regard. In fact, just last week, senior u. S. Officials met with their chinese counterparts under the joint coordinating committee and discussed many issues that the Ranking Member express concern about, including not just Nuclear Technology, but security safeguards, environmental concerns, Waste ManagementEmergency Management and the security of radio logical sources. They reported to me they had unique and unprecedented access to a number of construction and science and academic sites. This level of access is only possible because of the value china places on having a 123 agreement with the United States and desire to cooperate with the most advanced country in the world. Without entry or force into the agreement, we lose a mechanism to influence chinas behavior lose potential economic advantages, and well lose insight that we have into Chinas Nuclear programs including its Nuclear Research and development. Again, mr. Chairman thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to answering any questions you or the other members of the committee may have. I want to thank you both and i appreciate what you do for our country, and i know yesterday evening yall mentioned yall were going to make the Public Comments as so why this was good for our nation, and, certainly, you did not disappoint. I have to ask you a question. I, according to impasse, talking about this in other settings, and i quote, chinas strategy for strengthening its military, Foreign Technology as well as a civil greater integration and both elements have potential to increase Development Costs and accelerate military modernization modernization. I made that in my opening comments, and theres no question we understand going in that what were doing here, the chinese regardless of what they say, are utilizing this to accelerate their military development. Is that correct . What i say, sir, theres no doubt based on historical record that china will make every attempt to benefit from Technology Transfer whether in the economic or commercial or military field. Our job which only begins with this 123 agreement but is actually carried out through the licensing procedure is to frustrate that effort. We have every intention to do so and we believe we have the means to do so. Now that weve established that, that in fact, this is going to happen, i just wanted to mention our involvement with them would help cause proliferation not to occur. I just would like to ask a question, i mean, just are they ogranicly interested as a nation . Forget the fact in doing business with us, we champion nonproliferation and other kinds of issues, but ogranically, do you believe china carries about nonproliferation and Nuclear Safety . The short answer is yes. I believe china takes far more seriously than it did 30 or 10 years ago, obligations under the nonproliferation treaty of the Suppliers Group and in other feels as well. They take it seriously. I cant say that they yet have the level of political commitment that will enable them to spend the resources you need to effectively control the export from the second biggest economy in the world, a very hightech economy and one that they do not have a long track record in controlling exports as effectively as the u. S. And other nations. I do believe they are trying. I do believe they need a higher level of political commitment to meet standards to which they aspire. And in the past when we had these types of agreements, weve, you know, of course, we have the Gold Standard agreement that we like to stick to but we typically dont give it mass consent for foreign enrichment and reprocessing and the current agreement we had with them in 85 and implemented in 1998 did not do that. Can you explain to us and to the American People why in this particular case we decided to give advanced consent . Chinas a Nuclear Weapons state under the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty already possessing and developing on its own numerous enrichment and reprocessing facilities. Theres not a logical reason nor a practical effect to prevent china from enrichment and reprocessing. And them under the Nuclear Supplier group guidelines, is china upholding those . Issues relative to the Nuclear Plants in pakistan. Could you talk with us a little bit about that and whether they are actually honoring the msg guidelines . When china became a member of the nuclear Suppliers Group there was a consensus from the other members to grandfather construction of plants in pakistan which china had initiate initiated. Captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac