[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 28708-28712]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 28708]]

                          NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will be responding to some statements 
that were made during a debate that was held on this floor late last 
week concerning the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1999, which 
the leadership attempted to bring before this body. It was objected to 
by the other side.
  I will take this opportunity to go back and forth between truth and 
fiction regarding this issue, because I think it is important we all 
have an opportunity to review the facts as opposed to the rhetoric that 
suggested that some things are risky when, in reality, we have 
addressed that risk through technology or other means. Last week, there 
was an allegation made that the radiation release standards for the 
permanent repository at Yucca Mountain contained in S. 1287 are 
inconsistent with the range of 2 to 20 millirem suggested by the 
National Academy of Sciences.
  In the real world, somebody has to make these judgment calls 
regarding what level of radiation the public will recognize as being 
valid and protective of their interests. This level should be 
determined not by emotion but by sound science. The question is, Who 
has the sound science?
  We believe the National Academy of Sciences certainly has that 
scientific expertise to make these judgments. As a consequence, we 
believe they should play a role in setting the radiation standard, as 
required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
  What we are going to do here is respond to the myth by reminding my 
colleagues that the National Academy of Sciences, in fact, did not make 
a recommendation for a specific radiation standard nor a range of 
exposure levels. Going back to page 49 of the NAS report, it states:

       We do not directly recommend a level of acceptable risk.

  In fact, the NAS said the appropriate risk level was a decision for 
policymakers. Congress is the ultimate decisionmaker on policy. S. 1287 
establishes the basis for regulations that protect the public health 
and safety and the environment from radiation releases at repositories.
  My good friends and colleagues from Nevada will have you believe I 
have something against the people of Nevada. I do not have a 
constituency with regard to this issue because in Alaska we do not have 
an operating nuclear plant, therefore we do not have nuclear waste. 
However, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I 
have an obligation and an oversight responsibility to address and 
resolve this issue.
  The reality is, I am very sensitive to the feelings of the people in 
Nevada regarding the waste. But we have to store it somewhere. The 
logic has always been that the best place to store this waste is in an 
area where we have had 50 years of nuclear testing, out in the desert. 
That is what we have done in the study of the feasibility of placing a 
permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, where we have expended over $6 
billion already.
  S. 1287 is consistent with existing law, which required the National 
Academy of Sciences to recommend a standard that protects people in 
Nevada. This chart shows the annual radiation doses allowed by various 
regulations. I think it is important to recognize the standard in S. 
1287 is more stringent than required by Nevada law. Nevada has an 
administrative code, section 459.35, which states that ``the total 
effective minimum dose to any member of the public from any licensed 
and registered operation does not exceed 100 millirems per year.'' S. 
1287 would result in a standard that is only one-quarter of that set by 
Nevada itself.
  To me, this is a responsible approach. I will repeat one more time: 
This bill will result in a standard that is one-quarter of the standard 
set by Nevada itself. We are certainly sensitive to the demands of 
Nevada that health and safety be protected. S. 1287 will ensure that 
releases of radioactivity from the repository will not result in an 
annual dose to an average member of the population in the vicinity of 
the site in excess of one-tenth the radioactivity received from natural 
background sources by the average U.S. resident.
  This standard is lower than guidelines recommended by the preeminent 
international and national advisory organizations. These organizations 
include the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the 
congressionally chartered National Council of Radiation Protection and 
Measurement to provide guidance on radiation protection to countries 
worldwide.
  I have another chart showing sources of radiation exposure. The term 
``millirem'' may not mean much to most people, but let me put this in 
perspective.
  The standard we have set in S. 1287 will limit a possible exposure of 
25 to 30 millirems per year to the people who might receive the most 
exposure over the next 10,000 years.
  As this chart shows, we all get 80 millirems a year of extra 
radiation working where? Right in this Capitol Building. Each one of 
us--all the pages, everybody--get 80 millirems a year of extra 
radiation, and it is from the stone in the Capitol which contains 
naturally reoccurring radiation. Maybe we ought to tear the Capitol 
down. That is one way to get rid of all extra radiation.
  After all, we all get more than three times as much radiation above-
background levels in a year as this bill, S. 1287, will allow the 
closest individual to Yucca Mountain, which is the proposed site of the 
permanent repository. The next chart shows the location of the 
permanent repository. This is the Nevada Test Site. This is the area we 
have used previously for more than 800 nuclear weapons tests. That is 
where we want to store our Nation's nuclear waste.
  I have another chart that shows other examples, and this is in 
comparison to the EPA's draft rule which would limit Yucca Mountain to 
exposures, assuming that people in Nevada drink untreated ground water, 
to levels as low as one-tenth of a millirem.
  This is in violation of existing law. One of my five principles 
reflected in this legislation is that Yucca Mountain rules for 
radiation should be set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not by 
the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Some have asked why. This is the reason why: The 1992 Energy Policy 
Act required the Environmental Protection Agency to issue regulations 
governing the maximum annual effective dose equivalent to individual 
members of the public consistent with the study of the National Academy 
of Sciences. Instead, what EPA did is issue draft regulations that are 
counter to the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences.
  One has to wonder why. Is it to kill this effort? Some within the 
Environmental Protection Agency would like to see the nuclear industry 
in this country go away, die, buried, gone forever. Regardless, we have 
an obligation to recognize that about 20 percent of our power is 
generated from nuclear power. We have created significant waste and 
have an obligation to address it.
  S. 1287 is consistent with the NRC's proposed regulations for Yucca 
Mountain which are consistent with the National Academy of Sciences 
report. The Environmental Protection Agency continues to push for 
unrealistic, unnecessary, counterproductive standards that have nothing 
to do with protecting the health of Nevadans. Proof of that is they 
want these standards to equal drinking water standards, as low as one-
tenth of a millirem for a separate ground water protection standard. 
The NRC measures radiation exposures to all individuals from all 
sources as required by law, including exposures from drinking water.
  I question whether the Safe Drinking Water Act should be applied to 
ground

[[Page 28709]]

water from this area where we have had 50 years of nuclear testing and 
over 800 tests. If the water becomes tap water, then perhaps the act 
should apply, but not while the water is still in the ground.
  EPA wants to take extreme, strict standards that were designed to 
apply to drinking water out of a tap and apply it to water in the 
ground whether people drink it or not. What they are saying is you 
cannot achieve the process of getting this site licensed if you set a 
standard that is unattainable.
  I am not hung up on standards and who dictates standards, but I am 
committed to getting this legislation through, protecting the public, 
and ensuring we have a standard that is achievable based on the best 
science available. I will not support a standard that the EPA dictates 
that will simply make the project unachievable at the expense of the 
taxpayers, who probably have over $15 million already in this process, 
let alone the expenditure of another $50 million to $80 million for not 
having taken the waste.
  Let me clear up a very important point. The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission standard fully protects the people in Nevada. Whether the 
drinking water standard is applied to ground water has nothing to do 
with how much additional exposure there is from this facility.
  EPA applied similar regulations to the WIPP in Carlsbad, NM, to the 
transuranic nuclear waste disposal facility. This is Government waste 
from weapons production facilities. WIPP is a Government facility in 
the salt caverns of Carlsbad, NM.
  The drinking water standard was not an issue when WIPP was licensed 
by EPA because WIPP is a salt mine and has no potable water around it. 
One wonders whether EPA thinks all nuclear waste should be disposed of 
in a salt cavern. I am not sure everyone in this body will agree.
  The National Academy of Sciences did not recommend that the Safe 
Drinking Water Act be applied to ground water. Instead, it addressed 
requirements necessary to limit the overall risk to individuals as 
required by law.
  Finally, the NAS concluded the decision regarding the acceptable 
levels of protection at Yucca Mountain is a policy decision. I believe 
it is appropriate that Congress make the decision regarding the level 
of protection and that the NRC set the standard. In short, the 
statement of the administration position bases its objections on a 
disregard of both existing law and the reality of the Federal 
Government's obligation to take nuclear waste beginning in 1998.
  There is a question of whether the EPA standard will harm health and 
safety nationwide. Do not believe the draft EPA regulations are a 
victimless crime. By ignoring this requirement and insisting on a 
standard that no repository probably can meet, a standard that provides 
no additional protection for health and safety to the people in Nevada, 
EPA and the opponents of Yucca Mountain will harm health and safety 
across the country. Why? Because the current storage was not designed 
for this hazardous waste. It was designed to be removed, because there 
was a commitment made by the Federal Government pursuant to a contract 
beginning in 1998.
  The Federal Government has failed to perform under that contract. As 
a consequence, the waste stays where it is. Some of the Governors have 
said: Well, we are concerned about this waste staying in our State. And 
if indeed, as this legislation proposes, the Government takes title of 
the waste site, we are fearful it will stay in our State. I would say 
to our Governors: If this legislation does not pass, it is just where 
it is going to stay. It is going to stay in those States.
  This chart shows where it is. It is in over 80 sites around the 
United States, all over the east coast. The chart shows in brown where 
our commercial reactors are. We have shut down reactors with spent fuel 
shown in the green. That isn't going to move until we get the 
repository for it. We have military reactors, Navy reactors, and we 
have the Department of Energy reactors and waste around the country.
  My point is, this legislation is a mandate to address a problem. It 
might not be perfect, but if you have a better answer, come on aboard 
and let's try to address our responsibility.
  In the remaining minutes, let me conclude by reminding you that the 
Department of Energy's draft environmental impact statement on Yucca 
Mountain concludes that the public would be at a far greater risk of 
latent cancer if high-level radioactive waste in used fuel were left at 
the 80 sites around the country.
  If you are comparing apples to apples, the draft EIS assumes that in 
either case, people completely walk away from the repository and the 
on-site storage facilities after 100 years. This is the standard 
assumption of the EISs. For people living near the repository--with 
spent fuel shielded by natural and engineered barriers hundreds of feet 
below the ground and hundreds of feet above the water table--the long-
term effects are very negligible.
  The Department of Energy concludes that there would be virtually no 
latent cancer fatalities--much less than 1--over 10,000 years. On the 
other hand, the consequences of leaving the material at a score of 
sites around the Nation are certainly far greater. And that is where we 
are now.
  In the absence of institutional controls, on-site storage would lead 
to ``about 3,300 latent cancer fatalities over 10,000 years as storage 
facilities across the United States degraded and radionuclides from 
spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste reached and contaminated 
the environment.''
  The Department of Energy calls the outcome of this ``no action'' 
scenario a ``considerable human health risk.'' High-level nuclear waste 
is in the backyard of our constituents, young and old, across the land. 
In further presentations, we are going to spell out specifically where 
it is, the street it is on, across from the school, across from the 
church.
  As DOE points out in the environmental impact statement, each year 
that goes by, our ability to continue storage of nuclear waste at each 
of these sites in a safe and responsible way diminishes. It is 
irresponsible to let this situation continue--literally, a crime 
against the future. We cannot let that happen.
  A myth is: The release standards for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
program were set at 3 millirems.
  Reality: The 3-millirem standard did not apply at WIPP. This is the 
Safe Drinking Water Act level which EPA has chosen to apply to ground 
water. However, WIPP is in a salt dome and contains no potable ground 
water, so the drinking water standard did not apply.
  Myth: If you do not pass this bill, the Yucca Mountain will open on 
schedule.
  The reality is, the antinuclear activists and the Nevada delegation 
are doing everything they possibly can to stop Yucca Mountain from 
opening, including encouraging the EPA to issue a counterproductive and 
impossible-to-meet standard for radiation.
  Further myth: Nuclear waste storage casks are safe for storage but 
not for transport. The reality of that is, properly licensed nuclear 
storage waste casks are safe for both storage and transport. We in the 
United States have transported over our highways 2,400 shipments of 
spent nuclear fuel by the nuclear energy industry and others, over the 
past 25 years. This chart shows the network of where it has traveled. 
It has moved all over the country, up and down the east coast, through 
the Rocky Mountains, through the Midwest, and up and down the east 
coast.
  There have been 2,400 shipments of spent nuclear fuel by the nuclear 
energy industry and others over 25 years. No fatality, injury, or 
environmental damage has ever occurred because of a radioactive cargo. 
It isn't that we could not have an accident, but we take steps to 
ensure that the risk is at a minimum. I suggest we have had an occasion 
where we have had a truck break down but the casks have performed as 
designed; they have not broken up. The nuclear disasters the Nevada 
Senators have promised would happen simply have not happened. 
Technology is the answer. Technology

[[Page 28710]]

is available for safe transportation, and it is already paid for.
  We look at Europe. They are moving high-level radioactivity from 
their nuclear plants by ship, by railroad, as well as highways.
  Senate bill 1287 provides the authorization to coordinate a 
systematic, safe transportation network to move spent fuel to a storage 
facility.
  A further myth: Leaving the spent fuel where it is only costs $5 
million per site.
  Reality: At a hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, the NRC Chairman testified that the startup costs of 
building a dry cask storage facility at a reactor would be $6 million, 
plus $1.5 million per year for new casks and operation, plus $5 million 
per year for maintenance after the reactor is shut down.
  But the real question is, What will it cost the taxpayer? The DOE has 
collected, as I have previously indicated, over $15 billion from the 
ratepayers, the people who pay their electric bills, under a binding 
contract to move the spent nuclear fuel. The Federal Government did not 
meet that binding contractual term to take it beginning in 1998. 
Damages, I have indicated, for nonperformance of that contract have 
been estimated between $40 and $80 billion. The Government is ignoring 
the sanctity of its contract. That amounts to $1,300 per American 
family.
  Here is how the damages break down: The cost of storage of spent 
nuclear fuel, $19 billion; return of nuclear waste fees, $8.5 billion; 
interest on nuclear waste fees, $15 to $27 billion; consequential 
damages for shutdown of 25 percent of the nuclear plants due to 
insufficient storage--power replacement cost--$24 billion.
  Well, this is billions upon billions.
  If regulators prohibit additional on-site storage, utilities may be 
forced to close plants and buy replacement power at an average cost of 
$250,000 to $300,000 per day for a typical reactor.
  Finally, let me conclude by exposing the ultimate myth. That myth is: 
80 nuclear storage waste sites are safer than 1 centralized storage 
site at the Nevada Test Site, a site so remote that it has been used to 
explode nuclear devices for 50 years.
  Let's put the picture of the Nevada Test Site up one more time. The 
reality of this is simple, really. Why should we leave spent nuclear 
fuel at nuclear powerplants in 34 States when there is a less costly 
storage method with an increased magnitude of safety?
  The picture shows, the proposed site of where we will put it, the one 
site. The point is, let's put it in one site where we can monitor it. 
If we want, we can have an appropriate repository so that if at some 
time we want to have a retrievable capability, we can do so, as 
technology advances.
  DOE's own environmental impact statement calls the outcome of the 
``no action'' scenario a ``considerable human health risk.'' 
Transporting used nuclear fuel to a central storage facility in the 
Nevada desert is the only sensible approach.
  I do not have to remind my colleagues that the Federal Government 
made a promise and signed contracts with utilities--including those in 
many of individual Members' States--that it would start disposing of 
spent nuclear fuel in 1998.
  The evidence is squarely on the side of reaffirming this vital 
commitment. It makes good sense to consider the Nevada Test Site, an 
isolated, unpopulated, desert location where we used to test nuclear 
bombs. You have seen that on the picture behind me.
  When you test a nuclear bomb, even underground, radioactivity can and 
does escape. It does get into the ground water and sometimes even the 
atmosphere. My colleagues from Nevada have supported continued bombing 
tests on the test site but don't support storage of spent nuclear fuel 
in an NRC-licensed and monitored facility. I just don't understand why. 
Why was the Nevada Test Site good enough to test leaky bombs but 
suddenly is not good enough for safe and secure spent fuel storage? I 
know there is a little politics in it. I understand politics. Leaving 
used nuclear fuel at a nuclear plant site defies common sense, makes a 
mockery of Government accountability, reneges on a promise made by the 
Government, and is extremely costly to the taxpayer.
  Spent fuel pools at reactor sites were never intended to be used for 
long-term storage. As you remember, a few years ago, radioactive 
tritium gas leaked into Suffolk County, Long Island, ground water from 
the spent nuclear fuel storage at Brookhaven National Laboratory. In 
response, the Department of Energy removed the spent fuel and shipped 
it for storage to another DOE site. All we are asking is that DOE 
perform the same task which it is legally obligated to perform for 
civilian nuclear reactors.
  Without a Federal spent fuel storage facility or an additional on-
site temporary storage, which many opponents of this bill also actively 
oppose, some utilities will be forced to close plants down prematurely. 
In fact, 26 reactors will exhaust existing storage capacity in the next 
couple of years. To understand the calamity this would bring about, 
consider what would happen if you started chipping away at 20 percent 
of this Nation's electric supply or what the skies would look like if 
this base load capacity were replaced by fossil-fuel-burning plants of 
the older technology. As some of you are aware, the temporary shutdown 
of nuclear plants in the Northeast and Midwest had authorities planning 
for rolling blackouts during the hottest days this last summer.
  The Senate must pass Senate bill 1287 and start developing the 
integrated spent fuel management programs that Congress has mandated 
and engineers and scientists have thoroughly designed safe technology 
for storage and for transportation of spent fuel, and for which 
electricity consumers in this country have paid. The Federal Government 
has promised it would dispose of this waste. It is now time for the 
Federal Government to stand up and be counted and do its job. S. 1287 
is the solution.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The distinguished Senator from Alaska indicated that we 
have already spent $6 billion on this facility in Yucca Mountain?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator is correct. We've actually spent a little 
bit more than that. We have the tunnel basically done. The facility is 
designed to be a permanent repository for this high-level waste.
  Mr. SESSIONS. They are not just going to lay it out on the ground. 
There is a tunnel into the ground in the desert out there?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. It is the intention to put the waste 
in casks, and the scientific community is going to have to certify that 
this waste will withstand whatever conditions that there might be for 
10,000 years.
  Mr. SESSIONS. It will be inside casks and then inside a concrete 
tunnel?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator is correct; concrete and rock.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Do any people live right around there? Are people going 
to be living next to this facility?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, there won't be anybody living next to the 
facility. Forty-some-odd miles away is the nearest living soul to that 
particular area. Las Vegas is, of course, over the mountains.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Forty miles is a long way. I notice your chart showed 
that if you stood 6 feet from a trainload of this waste that was being 
sent out there, you would get about one-tenth as much exposure as we 
get here in the Senate?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That appears to be the case, because of the stone with 
which the building was built.
  Mr. SESSIONS. It strikes me, if you were 40 miles away, you wouldn't 
get the little 5-millirem exposure. It would be infinitesimal, what 
anybody in Nevada would be exposed to as a result of storing this waste 
in one facility.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate you pointing that out again.
  As you know from the chart, it does say 80 millirems is the exposure 
we get here in the Capitol. If you live in a brick house, you get 70 
millirems. You get 53 millirems of additional exposure

[[Page 28711]]

from cosmic radiation in Denver, as a result of the higher altitude. 
The average radiation from the ground is 26 millirems. An x ray is 20. 
A dental x ray is 14, and you have to write a check for it. A round-
trip flight from New York to Los Angeles is 6. Exposure for a half hour 
from a transport container to a truck 6 feet away is 5 millirems.
  It is important that we put these in perspective.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished Senator for his leadership on 
this issue.
  Since I have been in the Senate, I don't think I have ever seen a 
public policy issue more bizarre than the inability of this Nation to 
remove nuclear waste from five sites in my home State of Alabama and 
all over the United States to one safe and secure location. Why that 
can't be accomplished and why those continue to frustrate our efforts 
to carry out the law is beyond me.
  I know the Senator said $6 billion had been spent on fixing this site 
so far. I understand everybody who pays their electric bill pays a 
certain percentage of that bill for storing of nuclear waste. Does the 
Senator know how much has been paid in by the citizens of America to 
make this a safe site for this disposal?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In responding to the Senator from Alabama, a little 
over $15 billion has been paid to the Federal Government. The Federal 
Government agreed to take the waste beginning in 1998. Clearly, that 
date has come and gone.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I can see why the Senator began his remarks raising the 
concern that the Federal Government should honor its commitments.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I might add also, there is a significant legal 
obligation for noncompliance with that contractual agreement, somewhere 
between $50 and $80 billion. I happen to be a banker and know something 
about money, but I am not as familiar as perhaps a lawyer would be with 
the significance of a settlement for damages, but it is going to cost 
the taxpayer a bundle.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is important. Money cost is important, $15 
billion already spent.
  For the Senator's edification and those in the body, in Alabama, 
outside of the education budget, the State general fund budget is less 
than $1 billion a year. This is 15 annual general fund budgets for the 
State of Alabama we have invested, and to date there has been no 
movement.
  I thank the Senator for leading the effort on this. I believe his 
remarks are a comprehensive demolishment of any objection by a rational 
human being to carrying out the legislative mandate of this Congress. 
We need the President to be helping rather than frustrating. We need to 
pass this law. I was a Federal attorney for a long time. The Federal 
Government has the power and does, on a daily basis, condemn properties 
all over America for public use. This is 40 miles away from people. It 
is the appropriate location where we have done nuclear testing.
  I stand in amazement that we are unable to bring it to a conclusion 
and thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The only explanation I can give my friend from Alabama 
is, for reasons I can only assume are associated with the objections 
from antinuclear groups, this administration has simply chosen to 
ignore its obligation on the issue of nuclear waste. We have an 
industry that is strangling on its own waste. Our technology has 
created that waste. On the other hand, we are dependent for about 20 
percent of our power on nuclear power generation. Obviously, it has 
made a substantial contribution to the air quality because there are no 
air emissions from nuclear power. As we look at the French, they are 
almost 90-percent dependent on nuclear energy.
  They have chosen not to be held hostage by the Mideast as they were 
in the 1973-74 timeframe. So they have developed almost entirely their 
power generation on a nuclear power generating industry and their 
sophistication of disposing of the waste is through technology. They 
take the waste and reprocess it, recover the plutonium, put it back in 
the reactors, and burn it, and hence reduce the proliferation. The 
residue is vitrified like a glass and that is buried, but it has a 
relatively short life.
  So while we are committed to permanently disposing of our high-level 
waste at Yucca, there is another alternative that we have precluded 
ourselves from pursuing, which, in my opinion, is probably the right 
way to go, and it is the way the Japanese are going as well.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, the Senator mentioned that 20 percent of our 
power is nuclear. I have had some occasion to study this issue. I 
served on the Clean Air Committee of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. The President has committed us to his view of reducing 
emissions into the atmosphere by 7 percent, during a period of time 
when our demand for electricity is going to nearly double; but 20 
percent of our electricity comes from nuclear power in the United 
States, is that right?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is right.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We haven't had a new nuclear plant built in almost 20 
years.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. How are we going to increase production of power and at 
the same time shut down the nuclear energy that other nations are using 
regularly?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is a very interesting point the Senator has 
brought up, because if we look at the clean air proposal of this 
administration and the proposal that 7\1/2\ percent could come from 
renewables, we have to question whether we have that technology.
  Somebody said if you took every square foot of New Mexico and Arizona 
and put solar panels across, you would only get half of 1 percent, 
because it gets dark once in a while and the wind doesn't blow all the 
time. So we have real problems with facing reality in the 
administration's proposal. There is no mention of the role of nuclear 
power in that proposal. Nor do they consider hydroelectric generation 
as a renewable, which is beyond me, because it rains, the lakes fill 
up, and the hydro works. But it is a mentality currently within this 
administration.
  I appreciate the Senator bringing up these points, but in the clean 
air proposal by this administration, there is no role for nuclear. 
Clearly, there has to be.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I had the privilege of representing this Congress, with 
a number of other Senators, at a European conference of the North 
Atlantic Assembly. The President's own appointee as Chairman of the 
International Atomic Energy Administration, or association, Mr. John 
Rich, made a marvelous talk. I can sum it up fairly by saying that he 
concluded there is no way this Nation, or the world, can ever meet our 
clean air global warming goals without the enhancement of nuclear 
power. He demolished the idea that renewables, or others, could come 
close to filling the gap. This is the President's own appointee.
  I don't know. Maybe he ought to go sit down in the White House, or 
with the Vice President, and discuss these issues because we are facing 
a crisis. We need to maintain our atmospheric purity as much as we can. 
We certainly don't need to be increasing. I thank the Senator for his 
time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend. I see my friend from New Mexico 
will be seeking recognition.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I wish to say I wasn't present in 
the discussion about clean air and the ambient air standards, as they 
might pertain to nuclear power in America and what might happen to the 
nuclear power we have, the powerplants, and what might happen in the 
future. But I know, even without being here, that it was a very 
enlightened discussion about the fact that if you are looking for a 
cleaner world and for the ambient air of the world and in America in 
the future, to sustain economic growth, for it to be clean and livable, 
anybody who leaves nuclear power off the map and doesn't even talk 
about it is absolutely missing the greatest opportunity we

[[Page 28712]]

have to accomplish what all of those who want clean air set out to do. 
In fact, I think the Senator shares this observation with me. The Kyoto 
agreement, with all of its preamble work--the whereases--was totally 
void of a reference to nuclear power.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I discussed that report with one of the most eminent 
physicists in the world. What he said to me was: I looked from cover to 
cover, and since I could not find one word on nuclear power, I put the 
report down and said it cannot be one that is really objective and 
realistic.
  Now, that is better than I can say it. I think that is what the 
Senator has been saying and what my friend from Alabama, who has 
regularly talked with me about nuclear power and clean air, has said. 
It is amazing, if we can just come to the floor and talk about the 
other sources of energy and what they have done to human life in terms 
of deaths in mining, the deaths on the trains that have carried coal, 
and all of the other things related to producing energy that we use 
willfully and without great concern about the danger and the risks, and 
then put that up alongside nuclear power from its origin, it will look 
like a big giant heap of coal versus a little tiny package of salt over 
here that will represent the harm we have caused to people and the 
environment with nuclear power. They are not even in the same league in 
terms of damage to people, deaths to people, and the like. It has been 
a very safe industry, and in the United States, it has been truly 
miraculous that with this kind of engineering we have had two accidents 
and neither were fatal.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. No fatalities. I thank my friend from New Mexico.

                          ____________________