[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 83 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6157-S6160]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NUCLEAR ENERGY

  Mr. VOINOVICH. As my colleagues know, supporting the development and 
expansion of the nuclear industry is something that has been one of my 
top priorities since I came to the Senate. I have been working to shape 
nuclear policy in this country for the past 8 years as chairman or 
ranking member of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. I wish 
to recognize my colleague, Senator Inhofe, for the leadership he 
provided before I became chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
committee.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I compliment the Senator from Ohio.

[[Page S6158]]

When he was Governor of Ohio, he had the reputation of being the most 
knowledgeable person on air issues. Of course, the primary concern we 
had at that time was that we had a crisis in energy, and the one thing 
that had to be in the mix to resolve that crisis was to do something 
with nuclear power. There is nobody who has carried that banner more 
forcefully than the Senator from Ohio. I appreciate our joint efforts 
to make that happen. I believe we will be successful with the number of 
applications that are there right now and the progress that has been 
made.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I take pride in the fact that our committee has helped 
transform NRC into one of the best and most respected regulatory 
agencies in the world. We have worked very hard on placing the right 
people on the Commission and providing the Commission with the 
resources and tools necessary to do its job and holding them 
accountable to the results. In fact, we have held more than 20 hearings 
involving the NRC in the past 8 years. So it is no accident that we 
have seen a dramatic improvement in both the safety record and the 
reliability of the 104 operating nuclear reactors today over the past 8 
years. Without the public confidence that these plants are safe and 
secure, there won't be any nuclear renaissance.
  We have spent time and effort to make sure the NRC has the 
resources--particularly the human capital--it needs to make sure that 
our 104 nuclear plants are operating safely but also to ensure it can 
process multiple license renewal applications and combined license 
applications for the new plants coming on board. We wanted to make sure 
the NRC doesn't become the bottleneck.
  In 2005, we introduced three pieces of legislation as part of the 
2005 Energy Policy Act to provide flexibility in hiring and employee 
retention. As a result, the NRC was able to hire over 1,000 highly 
qualified engineers and scientists over the last 3 years to replace 
retiring workers and also bring on those new people who are going to be 
necessary to process the new applications coming in. I am also pleased 
to note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been rated as the 
best place to work among Federal agencies for 2 years in a row. They 
have a great workforce, and they are a top-notch organization.
  The good news is that the NRC now has 17 applications for 26 new 
power reactors under review. All indications are that NRC's review of 
the applications is progressing on schedule. I haven't heard a 
complaint from anybody who filed applications. We are expecting that 
these applications will be approved in late 2010 or in early 2011. 
Obviously, it is not a done deal, but we have every reason to believe 
we are on the right track. As a matter of fact, five utility companies 
today--Southern in Georgia, SCANA in South Carolina, NRG in Texas, 
Constellation in Maryland, and Progress in Florida--have signed 
engineering-procurement-construction contracts and are gearing up for 
construction pending NRC approval and loan guarantees from the DOE. In 
other words, we are starting to take off in terms of getting some air 
under our wings.
  Mr. President, I have an opinion piece I wrote in the Nuclear News 
magazine last year, entitled ``Making the Nuclear Renaissance a 
Reality.'' This paper outlines the need to expand the use of nuclear 
energy in the carbon-constrained economy and provides a roadmap to 
overcome challenges faced by the nuclear industry.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read this. Anybody interested 
can get it on my Web site, voinovich.senate.gov.
  As I watch the climate change debate unfold in this Congress, I rise 
to raise the same concern I raised last year during the debate on the 
Lieberman-Warner climate change bill: We cannot get there from here 
without nuclear.
  The Waxman-Markey bill that was reported out of the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee 2 weeks ago sets the greenhouse gas emission 
reduction cap at 80 percent by 2050, as did the Lieberman-Warner bill 
last year, but it continues to ignore the need for much wider use of 
emission-free nuclear energy in order to make this extremely aggressive 
goal.
  I pointed out then that one of the glaring holes in the Lieberman-
Warner bill was its deafening silence on nuclear, while studies 
conducted by EPA, EIA, and others pointed to an inconvenient truth for 
some people: More than doubling the number of nuclear plants would be 
required; that is, bringing online more than 100 new nuclear plants in 
the next 40 years, in order to meet the emission goals set in that 
legislation. Around the world, governments are reaching the same 
conclusion and are turning to nuclear energy as a safe, homegrown, 
cost-effective, and emission-free solution to increasing energy demand.
  This is true in Europe especially, where the nuclear renaissance is 
in full swing. In France, for example, almost 80 percent of its 
electricity comes from nuclear power. In fact, France exports a good 
deal of its nuclear power-generated electricity to its neighboring 
countries, including Germany. President Sarkozy has announced plans to 
build five additional plants within the next 5 years, in addition to 
one currently under construction.
  Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently signaled his intent to rebuild 
nuclear energy in the United Kingdom, saying:

       Whether we like it or not, we will not meet the challenges 
     of climate change without the far wider use of nuclear power.

  He went on to note that the International Energy Agency estimates 
that we are going to have to build 32 nuclear powerplants each year if 
we are going to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That is more 
than 1,300 new reactors.
  Italy, Finland, and Switzerland have all announced plans to build new 
reactors after spending the past 25 years trying to phase out nuclear 
power. These European countries have come full circle in reembracing 
nuclear after two decades of trying to solve their energy and 
environmental challenges with conservation and renewables alone. That 
is significant.
  Unfortunately, many proponents of a cap-and-trade scheme, such as 
Lieberman-Warner or Waxman-Markey, seem to be stuck on fantasies that 
we can achieve the emission reduction goals with just conservation, 
efficiency, and renewables. Even those who believe nuclear has a role 
to play espouse policies that overwhelmingly favor renewables over 
nuclear.
  A case in point: Nuclear energy was conspicuously missing from the 
$787 billion stimulus package, while approximately $40 billion in 
various tax credits went to energy efficiency, renewables, and 
transmission. I am not opposed to that, but why did they ignore 
nuclear?

  So it was particularly discouraging when the Senate version of the 
legislative language providing an additional $50 billion in loan 
guarantee authority in the stimulus bill was stripped from the final 
package during conference. Who did it? Why? The same thing happened 
when the Senate version of the budget resolution was passed a few weeks 
ago. We had it in there. We know we have to increase the Loan Guarantee 
Program to at least $50 billion, and it got stripped out again. 
Instead, the majority added the taxpayer-paid $60 billion Loan 
Guarantee Program allocated solely for renewables--wind, solar, and 
geothermal--and electric transmission systems to support renewable 
generation.
  If you can do a priority in spending big money, let's do the grid. 
The grid is not what it should be. It has to be improved so that we can 
use wind and solar and get energy out across this country.
  Unfortunately, many of the supporters of green energy never mention 
that it is unrealistic to rely solely on wind and solar power. This is 
something that I think needs to be made clear to every person in the 
United States, particularly our children, who are being taught in 
school that windmills and solar power are the way to the future in 
terms of the energy needs of America, and there is something wrong, and 
coal is bad, nuclear is bad. I hear it constantly from people when I go 
back to Ohio. Right now, 50 percent of our electricity is generated by 
coal; 20 percent by nuclear; 19 percent by natural gas; 6 percent by 
hydro; 3 percent by wind, solar, and geothermal; and 2 percent by oil. 
Given this current makeup of U.S. energy use, I don't think these folks 
are leveling with the

[[Page S6159]]

American people about the reality of what is possible.
  They continually tout the need to increase the renewable energies to 
solve our dependence on foreign sources of energy. They say we need to 
double our use of renewables. I tell you this: A doubling of the 
utilization of renewables will bring us to 6 percent, and it would 
likely take at least 10 years or more to accomplish. Further, it is 
unlikely that a doubling in renewables would lead to any significant 
decrease in the use of oil because oil only produces 2 percent of the 
electricity in the country today.
  Particularly, I think it is incredible that some policymakers, such 
as the newly appointed Chairman of FERC, suggest we can get our energy 
needs strictly from renewable sources of energy. Give me a break. At 
only 3 percent of total U.S. electric generation, it is simply 
intellectually dishonest to suggest that these renewable sources can 
replace the 70 percent of the base-load electricity currently generated 
by coal and nuclear in this country.
  Don't get me wrong, I do support expanding the use of renewables such 
as solar and wind, and we see that industry growing in my State. But to 
just say that is it and not to look at reality is intellectually 
dishonest. My point is that, realistically, we are not yet in a 
position to be able to rely upon them for base-load power generation. 
This is despite receiving government subsidies.
  Here is another little statistic people are not aware of. Most 
Americans are not aware of the fact that, in 2007, nuclear energy 
only--this is according to the Energy Information Agency--received a 
$1.59-per-megawatt-hour subsidy while wind received $23.37 and solar 
received $24.34 per megawatt hour.
  Today, there is a huge energy gap between renewable electricity and 
the reliable, low-cost electricity we must have. We need to look at the 
way to get the job done. If we want to generate carbon-free 
electricity, nuclear needs to be a big part of it--I am not saying the 
only part, but it has to be a big part.
  The 104 nuclear powerplants we have operating today, which is 20 
percent of the electricity generated, represent over 70 percent of the 
Nation's emission-free portfolio. In other words, the 20 percent coming 
from nuclear represents 70 percent of the emission-free electricity in 
this country.
  That means we are avoiding 700 million tons of carbon dioxide each 
year because of nuclear--700 million tons.
  What does that mean to the ordinary citizen? That means 13 million 
tons is avoided by wind and solar today. That is compared with 700 
million in terms of nuclear power. To put this in perspective, 700 
million tons of annual carbon emission that is being avoided by our 
nuclear plants is more than what Canada collectively emits each year. 
In other words, nuclear nonemitting into the air is the equivalent of 
all of Canada. In terms of something we may better understand, it is 
the equivalent of 130 million cars each year. That is what nuclear 
power is doing for us. In effect, it is the equivalent of reducing 
emissions of 130 million automobiles each year in this country.
  Nuclear power is the best source we have available to meet our energy 
needs while also curbing emissions of greenhouse gases. People are 
recognizing the importance of nuclear energy because they understand 
the facts.
  Public opinion widely supports utilizing nuclear energy. According to 
a recent Gallup poll, 59 percent of Americans support it. We are not 
going to be able to turn around our economy, meet our energy needs, and 
enact some of the environmental policies being discussed today without 
expanding the use of nuclear energy.
  I look at nuclear as a three-fer. Without it, we will not reach our 
goal of reducing carbon emissions. Without it, we are not going to be 
able to provide the baseload electricity we are going to need for our 
country. And without it, we are not going to be able to rebuild our 
manufacturing base in this country.
  At a time when we are struggling to regain our economic footing, 
nuclear energy offers thousands of well-paying jobs in all stages of 
development and production. Each new nuclear plant will require an 
average of 2,000 workers during construction, with peak employment at 
2,500 workers. If the industry were to construct 30 reactors that are 
currently planned, well over 60,000 workers would be required during 
construction. And once constructed, each plant will create 600 to 700 
jobs to operate and maintain it.
  That is not to mention the ripple effect this undertaking would make 
in other areas of the economy. Aris Candris, CEO of Westinghouse 
Electric, and Mike Rencheck, president of AREVA, recently told me that 
about 12,000 jobs will be created for each new nuclear plant if you 
include the manufacturing jobs.
  This means that more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs will be created 
to supply the needed parts and components for the 30 nuclear reactors 
that are currently planned.
  And that is not counting the jobs associated with export 
opportunities to Europe, China, and India.
  Organized labor understands expanding nuclear power will create a lot 
of well-paying jobs. In fact, here is what John Sweeney said at a 
roundtable discussion on nuclear workforce issues I chaired last year:

       This isn't a Republican issue. This isn't a Democratic 
     issue. It's an American issue.

  I couldn't agree with him more.
  I have met with Mark Ayers, Building and Construction Trades national 
president, a big union. He and his union members are actively 
supporting construction of new nuclear plants. They have also partnered 
with local community colleges and the nuclear industry in training 
workers. They are already training workers for the renaissance.
  I have been working hard to get this message out in the past several 
years. Ohio and the surrounding Midwestern States have been the 
backbone of this Nation's nuclear manufacturing base. Ohio's small to 
medium-size enterprises are poised to lead the Nation's transition back 
into this market. In fact, hundreds of manufacturing jobs are already 
in existence in Ohio to support the nuclear industry, and more are to 
come in light of two announcements that are going to be coming up in 
the next couple of weeks that Ohioans will be very happy about that 
again will increase the number of people working in this industry.
  I recently gave a speech at the Nuclear Manufacturing Infrastructure 
Council and had an opportunity to meet with several small manufacturing 
company executives. Their message was loud and clear: A clear policy 
statement from the administration and Congress is absolutely critical 
in acknowledging that nuclear power generation will be a growing part 
of our Nation's energy mix and investments in programs that will 
support the nuclear industry's near-term implementation needs are 
absolutely vital. The No. 1 thing is getting that $50 billion loan 
guarantee so we can get more of these people off the ground.
  They all see the long-term potential growth in nuclear and they would 
like to invest in nuclear manufacturing, but they need a clear 
commitment from the government before they make those investments.
  I think what these people are saying is we need Presidential 
leadership to acknowledge what most of us and the rest of the world 
already know: We cannot get there from here without nuclear.
  I am convinced that nuclear power is the only real alternative we 
have today to produce enough low-cost, reliable, clean energy to remove 
harmful pollutants from the air, prevent the harmful effects of global 
climate change, and keep jobs from going overseas.
  The biggest challenge remains the financing, particularly in 
nonregulated States. The deepening global economic crisis is putting 
additional pressure on the nuclear industry and on utilities.
  As I mentioned, we have applications coming in, but right now DOE 
currently has 14 nuclear projects, representing a total project cost of 
$188 billion and loan guarantee requests of $122 billion. Basically 
what I am saying is that unless we can get this $50 billion loan 
guarantee taken care of, it is going to bring the progress we have been 
making to a halt.
  A very important point that often gets lost in this discussion is the 
fact that the loan guarantee program authorized under the Energy Policy 
Act requires the borrowers to pay all the

[[Page S6160]]

required fees, including what is called a subsidy cost and, thus, there 
is no cost to the government. In other words, if they borrow $5 
billion, they are going to have to come up with close to $1 billion to 
secure that loan so if things do not go well on the loan, we have 
something to turn to.
  The subsidy cost is levied on each loan guarantee, similar to a 
downpayment on a mortgage, in case of a default. Any potential defaults 
are covered by fees paid by the applicants.
  In my hand, I have a copy of a recent MIT study on the future of 
nuclear power. The authors of this study include former Clinton 
administration officials John Deutch and Ernest Moniz. The central 
premise of the MIT study on the future of nuclear power is that in 
order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate global warming, 
we must reevaluate the role nuclear power has as part of this country's 
energy future.
  I wish to share the conclusions of this report because I believe it 
fits rather nicely with this speech:

       The current assistance program put into place by the 2005 
     Energy Policy Act has not been effective and needs to be 
     improved. The sober warning is that if more is not done, 
     nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option 
     for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material 
     contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

  I commend to my colleagues this MIT report on the future of nuclear 
power.
  Another issue that has plagued the nuclear industry for decades is 
the U.S. Government's failure to meet its commitment to assume 
responsibility for spent nuclear fuel. First, let's set the record 
straight. I have talked with many experts and policy people, including 
Secretary Chu and NRC Chairman Klein. They all assured me--it is 
important that everyone understands this--that the current spent 
nuclear that is being stored today in dry casks and pools are safe--are 
safe--and are secure for at least 100 years. That is very important 
because folks are saying you cannot go forward with this because we 
don't know what to do with the waste; we would like to do something 
more permanent than what we are doing.

  But the fact is that with the dry casks we have, we are in good shape 
for at least 100 years. The lack of a repository at Yucca should not be 
something that inhibits us from licensing new reactors.
  That being said, we must pursue a long-term solution now. If Yucca is 
not going to materialize, then we owe the American people a viable 
alternative. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a nuclear 
waste fund, a fee paid by utilities to create a fund to deal with 
nuclear waste. Since its beginning, it has collected $29 billion. So 
everyone understands this, since that act went into effect, we have 
collected $29 billion from ratepayers in this country. Unfortunately, 
the fund is on budget and only about $9 billion was used to deal with 
waste. The rest of the $20 billion amounts to little more than an IOU 
to U.S. ratepayers. Even if the administration decided to proceed with 
Yucca, we don't have the money to build a repository. We spent the 
money on other things. We will have to borrow over $20 billion to 
replenish the fund.
  The Federal courts have ruled in favor of utilities. This is 
something else of which most people are not aware. And thus far we have 
paid utilities $550 million in damages because we have not come up with 
a permanent repository for nuclear waste. I am sure if we keep going 
the way we are, it is going to be in the billions.
  I recently met with Secretary Chu, and he told me he would convene a 
blue ribbon panel to study Yucca. Unfortunately, I believe this is just 
kicking the can down the road for a couple of years. We have been 
studying this for more than four decades. We need to provide clear 
direction and certainty on this issue. The time for studying options is 
over, and the Federal Government must meet its legal obligations and 
start taking care of the spent fuel problem sooner rather than later.
  If the administration is pulling the plug on Yucca without having a 
viable alternative long-term solution, then I think we owe it to the 
American people to refund their fees and stop levying fees.
  I introduced the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Management Corporation 
Establishment Act of 2008 in the last Congress, together with Senators 
Domenici, Murkowski, Alexander, and Dole, to create an independent 
government corporation to manage the back end of the nuclear fuel 
cycle. The bill will also take the nuclear waste fund off budget and 
give it directly to this corporation without the budget/appropriations 
process. I am planning to reintroduce that bill with Senators 
Murkowski, Alexander, and Burr, and I hope we can get additional 
cosponsors on the bill. It is about time we get serious about mapping 
out a future course for our Nation.
  I firmly believe that utilizing nuclear energy as a key part of a 
mixed bag of energy sources offers us the best opportunity to truly 
harmonize our energy, the environment, and economic needs.
  As I said before, nuclear energy offers thousands of well-paying jobs 
in all stages of development at a time when we are struggling to regain 
our economic footing. It is worth repeating--12,000 well-paying jobs 
will be created with each new nuclear powerplant. That is 360,000 jobs 
for the 30 nuclear reactors that are currently planned.
  The American people get it, manufacturing gets it, the labor unions 
get it, and the international community--I have been to London, I have 
been to Paris, I have been to Austria. I have been around. All of them 
understand. In fact, I was on a climate change panel about a month ago 
that was sponsored by the German Marshall Fund when we met in Brussels. 
I was amazed at the number of people who said: Mr. Senator, we are 
never going to meet the Kyoto or Copenhagen goals for reducing our 
emissions without the use of nuclear power.
  It is time President Obama and this Congress get it. We have to 
launch a nuclear renaissance in this country. We just cannot get there 
from here without nuclear.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________