[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 27581-27582]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for a lot of reasons, I believe the 
nuclear power industry cannot be a dinosaur, as was suggested earlier.
  The world today has 6 billion people on it; 2 billion of those people 
have no electricity. They are without power. In the next 25 years, we 
expect another 2 billion people to be added to the world population. 
Many of the people who do have power today, have it only in very 
limited quantities.
  We know there is an extraordinary expansion of life expectancy and 
improvement in lifestyle where electricity is present. People can have 
water pumps. They don't have to go to the well with a bucket or a jug 
to get water for their families. There is no doubt the quality of 
people's lives, the length of their lives, some estimate it increases 
as much as 50 percent, is greatly improved if they have access to 
electricity. Think about it.
  As a matter of humanity, a human imperative, nothing could be better 
than expanding the availability of electricity throughout the world. We 
now know that there will be at least a 50-percent increase in 
electricity generation by the year 2020, doubling by the year 2050. 
That is a big increase.
  Now at the same time, a number of people--Vice President Gore being 
one of them--have expressed great concern over global warming and the 
emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. They tried to commit 
this country to a massive reduction in the emission of greenhouse 
gases. In fact, the Kyoto treaty the President signed and supports 
calls on this Nation, between the years 2008 to 2012, to actually 
reduce our emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels. When you consider 
at the same time our economy, population and demand for energy has 
continued to increase since 1990, greenhouse gas cuts envisioned by the 
Kyoto treaty would amount to a cut of nearly one-third of today's 
energy use in America to achieve that goal, a one-third cut. That is a 
big-time number. We are heading for a train wreck. We want to reduce 
emissions and increase power generation at the same time, yet we refuse 
to develop new nuclear power infrastructure. Some greenies think you 
should live out in the woods and just let the rain and sunshine take 
care of you and maybe have a windmill to generate power. But that is 
not proven to be efficient or effective. There will be opportunities to 
expand the use of renewable energy, but it does not have the potential, 
using even the most generous forecasts, to reach a level that would 
satisfy the demands of the Kyoto treaty.
  So how are we going to do it? Twenty percent of the power generated 
in the United States is generated by nuclear power. France has 80 
percent. They continue to build nuclear power plants on a regular 
basis. Look at it this way. Ask yourself, how can we meet the demand of 
both increased energy and reduced emissions? Nuclear power has no 
greenhouse gases that are emitted from the production of electricity. 
It emits no waste into the atmosphere. It is the only large-scale 
clean-burning electricity production method. Yet, the very same people 
who fight for even more stringent clean air regulations are often also 
opposed to nuclear power.
  Twenty percent of our power, at this very moment, comes from nuclear 
power. Utility companies have not ordered a new plant since the late 
1970s, so it has been over 20 years since we have built a new nuclear 
plant. Other industrial nations are continuing to build them, such as 
France, Germany, and Japan and China. Do we want China to build coal 
plants to meet its massive need for electricity? Is that what we are 
asking them to do? Are we saying China can have it, but not us?
  Fundamentally, we need to confront this question for humanity's sake. 
Should we increase the production of nuclear power? Through over 50 
years

[[Page 27582]]

of experience with nuclear energy, there has not been a single American 
injured from a nuclear plant, not a single person in the world injured 
by the production of American-generated equipment for nuclear power? 
Not one. None. How many have died in coal mines, or on oil rigs, or 
from truck wrecks in transporting oil and coal, and train wrecks? Which 
is safer, I submit to you?
  This is an irrational thing to me. I can't understand such objection 
from those who long for a cleaner environment. I believe, first of all, 
we need to understand that America needs more power to support our 
growing economy and population. The world needs more power. It will be 
a good thing for the world. To meet these demands, we are going to have 
to use nuclear power. I don't just say this as a Member of the Senate. 
I am not an expert. However, last year I happened to be in attendance 
at the North Atlantic Assembly, in Edinburgh, Scotland, with members of 
Parliaments from all over the world gathered there. Ambassador John B. 
Ritch, III, addressed us. He is President Clinton's appointed 
Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Administration. He shared 
some important thoughts with us about the future of nuclear power. He 
mentioned some of the things I have already shared with you. From his 
remarks, he said:

       Nuclear energy, the one technology able to meet large base-
     load energy needs with negligible greenhouse emissions, 
     remains subject to what amounts to an intense, widespread 
     political taboo.

  Then he goes on to point out that we cannot possibly meet our world 
energy demands without increasing nuclear power. How is it we are not 
able to do that? How is it we have not been able to build a single 
nuclear plant in the United States, even though we have not had a 
single person injured from the operation of one since the conception of 
the program over 50 years ago? How is that true?
  Well, one of the tactics that has been used is to spread this fear 
that nuclear waste is going to pollute the environment forever, and 
that it can't be stored anywhere. It is just going to destroy the whole 
Earth if we do that. Well, that notion is so far from reality. I 
understand the Senators' political commitment to their State and maybe 
they believe it is going to be somehow negative to their State. They 
talked about how much exposure to radiation you are going to have. This 
stuff is not going to be thrown all over the sides of the highways. The 
waste will be stored in a solid rock tunnel in the ground, inside 
thick, technologically advanced, containers within the tunnel. It is 
not a lot of product. It doesn't take up a lot of space. It can be 
safely stored.
  Who is going to be subjected to any radiation from it? Are they going 
to bring schoolchildren down there to look at it? It is going to be 
sealed off from the public. The Yucca mountain site is in the remote 
desert, in area that was previously used to test over 1000 atomic 
bombs.
  Somebody said the Lord created that desert so we could put that waste 
there. I don't know, but I say this to you. I don't see how the storage 
of very well-contained nuclear waste, placed hundreds of feet 
underground in the Yucca Mountain chamber--inside a mountain--is going 
to damage the life, health, and safety of anybody. It is beyond my 
comprehension that we would argue that. I know that maybe people don't 
like it to come through their States. People don't like interstate 
highways coming through their farms, and they don't want to move their 
homes, so they object. But if the Government decides that is where the 
interstate highway has to go for the good of all the people, they build 
a highway. I used to be a Federal attorney and we would condemn 
people's property and take it for public use.
  Our country has 20 percent of its power generated by nuclear power 
plants, and we are incapable of finding a place in this whole vast 
country to put it? That is beyond my comprehension. We have to act 
responsibly and take decisive action. Nuclear energy simply must remain 
a part of our mix in the future.
  I thought it was interesting that the Senator from Nevada indicated 
that Vice President Gore would not sign this bill. Well, maybe he would 
not sign this bill. Vice President Gore has also indicated that he 
flatly opposes offshore drilling for natural gas. Natural gas is the 
only non-nuclear fuel which has a chance of filling the demand for new 
power while reducing overall air emissions in the near future. Gas is 
produced predominantly from offshore wells. We have a significant 
deposit off the gulf coast of the United States. Yet the Vice President 
opposes the development of these significant deposits of clean burning 
fuel.
  But the Vice President not only opposes nuclear power, he opposes the 
storing of nuclear waste in a sane way, in a single, guarded location--
and not scattered in all 50 States, in hundreds of different locations. 
He also opposes, as he said recently, offshore gas production.
  How are we going to meet our demands for the future, I ask? I think 
the Vice President's position is a very unsustainable position. It will 
not hold up to scrutiny and he will have to answer to that. If we are 
not going to use nuclear power and we are not going to use gas, what 
are we going to use? How can we do it without a huge cost and increase 
in expense for energy in America. The world is heading into a new 
century. Nuclear power is going to play a key role, without any doubt 
in my mind, in making the lives and the health of people all over this 
world better tomorrow than it is today. It is going to make people 
healthier. Their lifestyles are going to be better. They are going to 
have pumps to bring water to their homes. They are going to have 
electric heating units to cook their food so they do not have to go out 
and gather wood or waste to burn. And it is going to clean up our 
global environment in ways we have never known before. We have 
prospects, if we don't run from science and if we don't retreat from 
the future. If we go forward and take advantage of the opportunities 
given to us, we can really have a terrific century. I think it is going 
to be better and better.
  But it does make you wonder sometimes how people who seem to be 
caring deeply for the environment and our future could block the things 
that would be most helpful to us. That is a concern I have.
  I hope we can reach the extra two votes. We have 65 votes. We need 67 
to override a Presidential veto. There is bipartisan support--
Republicans and Democrats--for this bill. It is the right thing to do.
  I urge the President not to veto it. If he does, I urge the Members 
of this body in both political parties to vote for clean air, vote for 
the future, vote for improving the quality of our lives, both in the 
United States and the world. For over 50 years the United States has 
been a leader in the peaceful use of nuclear power. The United States 
needs to continue to be a leader in this industry. We don't need to be 
sitting on the sidelines while the rest of the world is developing the 
technology to produce even safer electric power through nuclear energy 
and even greater productivity through nuclear energy.
  I have had the opportunity to talk to some of the country's finest 
scientists. They are absolutely convinced that if we improve 
regulations, have a little more research and a little more commitment, 
we can create a nuclear power plant that may even eliminate nuclear 
waste entirely. But that is a step for the future, but the not too 
distant future. It is an exciting time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________