[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 136 (Friday, October 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S11389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TRITIUM PRODUCTION PROVISION IN THE STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on another subject, and the primary 
purpose of my being here this afternoon is to talk about the issue of 
tritium. It was a much debated issue in the Armed Services Committee 
bill.
  I thank the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator 
Strom Thurmond, for his outstanding leadership, his commitment to this 
country and his dedication to America. He, at age 40, volunteered to 
fight--he was a judge--he forced his way into World War II, went off to 
Europe and volunteered on D-Day not just to land, he volunteered to get 
in one of the glider planes that they pulled up and let go and flew 
over the enemy lines and landed who knows where, in Belgium or 
somewhere near, to form commando groups to assist in the invasion 
effort.
  Senator Thurmond recounted, when they asked him how rough the landing 
was, ``Well, I'll just say you didn't have to open the door, you could 
just walk out the side of the plane.'' It is kind of hard to land one 
of those things in hedgerows and who knows what else when they are 
coming down. He served his country.
  I asked him, ``What happened after the surrender of Germany? Were you 
there all the way to the surrender, Strom?''
  He said, ``Yes,'' he was there until the day of the surrender, and 
then he was put on a train and sent to the Pacific, but Japan 
surrendered before he reached the battlefront in the Pacific.
  He is a true patriot and has done an outstanding job on this entire 
defense bill--the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act. I 
do appreciate his willingness to work with us as we endeavored to reach 
a compromise on the question of tritium.
  There was a colloquy on the floor of this body yesterday between 
Senator Warner, Senator Kyl and Senator Robert Smith. Due to Hurricane 
Georges ravaging my hometown of Mobile, AL, I was not able to be 
here. But I appreciate Senator Warner's expressed concern for the 
people of our State during that colloquy. I would like to make a few 
comments, since I was not able to be here at that time.

  First and foremost, tritium is an essential element for maintaining 
the safety, security and reliability of a national nuclear weapons 
stockpile. Without it, as Senator Jon Kyl alluded to yesterday, we 
place our ability to meet our stockpile needs under the START I treaty, 
by 2005, in a precarious situation.
  Therefore, regardless of how passionate we may become in debating the 
merits of the options on this issue, let there be no doubt that the 
core of this discussion lies in the U.S. national interests. And we 
cannot compromise that issue. We cannot compromise the national 
security interests of the United States.
  For the last several years, the Department of Energy has been 
pursuing a dual-track strategy in considering two technologies for 
tritium production: One is a commercial light water reactor and the 
other a proton accelerator. I firmly believe it was premature for the 
House of Representatives to engage in a political effort that would 
have eliminated one of those options; that is, the commercial light 
water reactor option.
  I personally believe that the commercial light water reactor option 
would be the most cost-effective and is the most proven way to produce 
tritium. So, we will have that debate coming up next year. We will go 
into some detail about it.
  But beyond my own personal belief in the commercial light water 
reactor option, I continue to be committed to the support of the role 
that the experts at the Department of Energy and the Department of 
Defense must have to select the best option. We have had a process that 
has been going on for 2 years to have them analyze the options and make 
a selection. I believe they are better suited to deal with these 
technological questions than are Members of the House and the Senate.
  So I worked hard, along with Senator Shelby and Congressman Robert 
Aderholt and Bob Riley and Bud Cramer, and other Senate and House 
colleagues with the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House 
National Security Committee on this issue.
  We did what we could to raise the issue. We let everyone who would 
listen know we were making a mistake to allow the politics of the 
moment rule the day. The amendment to eliminate the commerical light 
water reactor option was never debated in the House, but was attached 
to a large defense bill, and boom, passed. There was no discussion or 
debate on a measure that interrupted and abrogated the almost 2 years 
of study on tritium production by the Department of Energy.
  There has been a lot of discussion about it. We concluded, according 
to recent CBO studies--that the accelerator option would cost between 
$4 billion and $13 billion more than the commercial light water 
reactor. That is a lot of money. We do not have $4, $5, $6, $7 billion 
or more to waste on that process.
  So we have not had the final decision. The Department of Energy is 
analyzing it. They need to be allowed to complete their analysis. And 
that is what I believe was achieved in this bill. The process was 
allowed to continue. It was delayed somewhat, but I do not think it was 
delayed too long. But the Department of Energy will make its decision. 
And next year I suppose we will make our decision in this body, and 
then in the other body, as to how tritium should be produced and in 
what process.
  So I am pleased that we have reached this accord. Senator Lott stated 
yesterday that ``we cannot afford to delay this program.'' I cannot 
agree more. And I hope this message is understood as we go forward to 
reaching a final solution on the production of tritium, an essential 
component for our nuclear arsenal.
  In June, I entered a number of letters in the Congressional Record on 
this issue. We had letters from the Secretary of Defense, Secretary 
Cohen, and from the then Secretary of Energy, Secretary Pena, and the 
White House--all expressing grave concern about a political decision on 
a scientific, technical and defense issue. And Senator Carl Levin, my 
good friend from Michigan, was very strong in resisting this effort 
that had begun in the House of Representatives. So we now find 
ourselves on the right path again.
  Secretary Richardson needs to move forward deliberately and 
aggressively in selecting the proper option. The Department's 
implementation plan must be submitted early next year and should be 
carefully considered by this body, thoroughly debated and swiftly acted 
upon.
  The majority leader, Trent Lott, and others have indicated they will 
be thoroughly engaged in the debate when it comes. This is the next and 
logical step in the tritium story. Its outcome will provide a roadmap 
to a future guarantee for our Nation's security. I plan to be engaged 
in that important debate. I encourage my colleagues to do so as well.
  I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________