Natural Resources committee  No, I should clarify. It's not GE operating a reactor; it's if we designed or made a piece of equipment. Let's say we designed and built a piece of equipment in the U.S. and it was installed in a reactor in Canada. If it could be proved that the equipment was part of the causal c

Natural Resources committee  We do have a risk analysis process within the company. For example, the company would not accept being exposed to a nuclear risk in a jurisdiction that did not have an appropriate nuclear regime in place. The only reason we are able to serve Canada from our Canadian operations

Natural Resources committee  Yes.

Natural Resources committee  I think there are two answers to that. First of all, we carry conventional insurance for things that we're involved in, for example, a wind turbine. In nuclear it's very different. I think if there were not a cap and if there were not suitable legislation insurance in place, then

Natural Resources committee  You're right. In fact, if you look at the majority of nuclear companies today around the world--and we can name some of them--you'll see they're backstopped by government.

Natural Resources committee  I'm not qualified to answer that.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, it would For example, before we sell nuclear equipment into a country, our lawyers review the nuclear liability regime of that country. If they're satisfied, then we move forward. Some of the countries we do business with are Korea, Japan, Argentina, and Romania--those coun

Natural Resources committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my pleasure to be here today to tell you why this bill is important to GE. We have put forward a written presentation to the committee, but in the interests of time I'll just hit the high points, and then you can ask questions. As many of you are