[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 228-236]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 228]]

          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 2015. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
research with respect to human embryonic stem cells; to the Committee 
on


Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                     STEM CELL RESEARCH ACT OF 2000

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to send to the 
desk, on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, a bill captioned the 
``Stem Cell Research Act of 2000.'' It is being introduced after a 
series of four hearings, which have been conducted in the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services, and 
Education, which I chair and on which Senator Harkin is the ranking 
Democrat.
  The subject has been a very important one because approximately 15 
months ago, there were disclosures about stem cell research which 
provided an opportunity for a veritable fountain of youth. The 
scientific discoveries have found that from the stem cells, new cells 
may be created which have the potential to cure a great many severe 
maladies. For example, on Parkinson's disease, stem cells are 
enormously helpful. There is potential for cures on Alzheimer's, on 
heart ailments, and really on the whole range of human ailments, 
illnesses, and diseases.
  There has been a limiting factor on the use of stem cells because of 
a provision, which was inserted many years ago into the appropriations 
bill for our subcommittee, which limits Federal funding on research 
relating to stem cells.
  The Department of Health and Human Services has handed down a ruling 
which would permit federal scientists to conduct research on stem cells 
that have been derived by private sources.
  The concern has been that the human embryo, subjected to scientific 
research, would potentially destroy life. The fact is that the only 
human embryos which are used as a basis for stem cell research are 
human embryos from discarded in vitro fertilization clinics. It is not 
a matter of using a human embryo which has the potentiality for life to 
extract the stem cells because these are embryos which have been 
discarded.
  Notwithstanding the legal opinion handed down by the general counsel 
of the Department of Health and Human Services, it is our view that 
there are still undue restrictions on scientific research from existing 
law. That is why this legislation has been introduced. It will 
eliminate the ban on the use of Federal funding for the research on 
stem cells.
  There are a number of very important restrictions.
  First, the research would not apply to the creation of human embryos 
for research purposes.
  Second, the research would not result in the cloning of a human 
being.
  Third, it would be unlawful for any person receiving Federal funds to 
knowingly acquire, receive, or transfer any human embryos for valuable 
consideration, even if the transfer affected interstate commerce.
  These limitations have been engrafted into the legislation to be sure 
this kind of inappropriate conduct is being prohibited.
  The legal opinion issued by the Department of Health and Human 
Services covers the statutory prohibition on the use of funds, stating 
that human embryo research would not apply to research utilizing human 
pluripotent stem cells because such stem cells do not constitute a 
human embryo. However, applying the Federal funding solely to 
pluripotent stem cells is not sufficient because there ought to be an 
opportunity for broader research, as I have suggested.
  The controversy on stem cell research is very similar to the 
controversy which had existed on prohibiting research on fetal tissue 
when many people advanced the argument that it would induce abortions 
to secure fetal tissue. It soon became readily apparent that the 
research on fetal tissue was from discarded fetal tissue and that, in 
fact, there would not be an inducement of abortions to produce fetal 
tissue for research purposes. That is very similar, almost identical, 
except for what is involved with the issue of human embryos. Human 
embryos which will not be used for research for stem cells where there 
is any possibility that they might produce life and may be used only 
from discarded embryos, similarly to the discarded fetal tissue.
  When the appropriations bill was considered last fall, a provision 
was inserted into the committee report which would eliminate the 
prohibition of use of funds for research on stem cells. When it became 
apparent that this provision would likely stall the progress of the 
appropriations bill, an agreement was reached to remove that provision 
in committee before the bill got to the floor under an arrangement with 
our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, who agreed to bring up 
the legislation as a freestanding bill. That is the legislation Senator 
Harkin and I are introducing today.
  We intend to have an additional hearing within the next several weeks 
so that the stage will be set by late February or early March to 
proceed with the schedule of this bill as a freestanding measure and so 
that the Senate may vote up or down and the House of Representatives 
may ultimately have an opportunity to vote as well.
  Over the past 14 months, the Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education Subcommittee which I chair, held four hearings, the latest on 
November 4, 1999, to discuss the advances in stem cell research made by 
two research teams. One team, led by Dr. James Thompson at the 
University of Wisconsin, and the other headed by Dr. John Gearhart at 
Johns Hopkins University. Stem cell research is one area that holds 
particular promise for the development of future medical treatment and 
cures. Stem cells originating in an embryo have the unique ability, for 
a very limited period of time, to become any cell type of the body. 
This power, if harnessed by science, could lead to replacement 
therapies for failing cells, for example, or lead to organ tissues that 
could be implanted into a patient. Scientists are just beginning 
preliminary research into the potential practical applications of this 
line of work. At a Senate hearing convened by my subcommittee on 
December 2, 1998, Dr. Gearhart testified that he has been able to 
induce some stem cells to grow into nerve cells. Other scientists also 
stated that cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, 
diabetes, and other diseases and illnesses that plague mankind could be 
greatly accelerated by stem cell research. Some scientists, for 
example, believe that stem cell research could lead to tangible 
benefits to Parkinson's Disease patients in as soon as 7 to 10 years.
  What has been delaying the advancement of this new line of research 
is a provision in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that prohibits 
research on human embryos. On January 15, 1999, the Department of 
Health and Human Services issued a legal opinion finding that the 
statutory prohibition of the use of funds appropriated to HHS for human 
embryo research would not apply to research utilizing human pluripotent 
stem cells because such cells do not constitute a human embryo. But 
even this limited use of stem cells may be blocked by those who 
misunderstand its purpose. According to Dr. Harold Varmus, the former 
head of the National Institutes of Health, research on stem cells is 
not the same as research on human embryos. Stem cells do not have the 
capacity to develop into a human being.
  While I applaud the HHS ruling, I do not believe that it goes far 
enough. To achieve the greatest and swiftest benefits, Federal 
researchers need their own supply of stem cells. Therefore, I am 
proposing this legislation to enable Federally-funded researchers to 
derive their own stem cells from spare embryos obtained from in vitro 
fertilization clinics. Allowing scientists to conduct human stem cell 
research would greatly accelerate advances in many avenues of study 
and, in collaboration with private industry, expedite the production 
and availability of new drugs and treatments. Enacting such legislation 
would clarify the boundaries governing Federally-funded researchers and 
make clear the commitment of this Congress to biomedical research.
  Let me review the key provisions of this bill:
  It would amend the Public Health Service Act and give permanent 
authority to the Secretary of Health and

[[Page 229]]

Human Services to conduct, support, or fund research on human embryos 
only for the purpose of generating stem cells. Human embryonic stem 
cells may be derived and used in research only from embryos that would 
otherwise be discarded and donated by in vitro fertilization clinics 
and only with the written informed consent of the donors.
  The Secretary shall issue guidelines governing human stem cell 
research, including definitions and terms used in such research.
  All Federal research protocols and consent forms involving human 
pluripotent stem cell research shall be reviewed and approved by an 
institutional review board.
  The Secretary shall annually submit to the Congress a report 
describing the activities carried out under this section during the 
preceding fiscal year, including whether and to what extent research 
has been conducted in accordance with this purpose.
  The following restrictions would apply:
  (A) The research shall not result in the creation of human embryos 
for research purposes.
  (B) The research shall not result in the cloning of a human being.
  (C) It shall be unlawful for any person receiving Federal funds to 
knowingly acquire, receive, or transfer any human embryos for valuable 
consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
  We have heard very compelling testimony from many individuals who are 
hoping for treatments and cures from stem cell research. One 
individual, Mr. Richard Pikunis of Malvern, New Jersey, a 27 year-old 
stricken with Parkinson's Disease, told the Subcommittee how the 
disease has affected every facet of his young life--from law school 
graduation to the birth of his son. Dr. Douglas Melton, a prominent 
professor at Harvard, told of the struggles of his son afflicted with 
juvenile diabetes. We also heard from Michael J. Fox, who implored us 
to do more for people with Parkinson's disease. Mr. Fox told of his 
daily medication routine and progressing physical and mental 
exhaustion. He asked for the Subcommittee's help to eradicate the 
disease so that he could dance at his children's weddings. Mr. Fox has 
just recently announced that he is leaving his popular television 
series to devote more time to his family and to advocate for more 
research on finding a cure for Parkinson's disease.
  Mr. President, these are just a few of the voices pleading with us to 
allow this research to move ahead. While stem cell research does not 
guarantee that a cure will be found, without it the opportunity to halt 
their suffering may be denied then. The enactment of this legislation 
as soon as possible could give thousands of individuals a chance to see 
a cure within their lifetime.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2015

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stem Cell Research Act of 
     2000''.

     SEC. 2. RESEARCH ON HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS.

       Part G of the Title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 288 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     498B the following:

     ``SEC. 498C. RESEARCH ON HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may only conduct, support, or fund 
     research on, or utilizing, human embryos for the purpose of 
     generating embryonic stem cells in accordance with this 
     section.
       ``(b) Sources of Embryonic Cells.--For purposes of carrying 
     out research under paragraph (1), the human embryonic stem 
     cells involved shall be derived only from embryos that 
     otherwise would be discarded that have been donated from in-
     vitro fertilization clinics with the written informed consent 
     of the progenitors.
       ``(c) Restrictions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The following restriction shall apply 
     with respect to human embryonic stem cell research conducted 
     or supported under subsection (a):
       ``(A) The research involved shall not result in the 
     creation of human embryos.
       ``(B) The research involved shall not result in the 
     reproductive cloning of a human being.
       ``(2) Prohibition.--
       ``(A) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person 
     receiving Federal funds to knowingly acquire, receive, or 
     otherwise transfer any human gametes or human embryos for 
     valuable consideration if the acquisition, receipt, or 
     transfer affects interstate commerce.
       ``(B) Definition.--In subparagraph (A), the term `valuable 
     consideration' does not include reasonable payments 
     associated with transportation, transplantation, processing, 
     preservation, quality control, or storage.
       ``(d) Guidelines.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the 
     Director of the National Institutes of Health, shall issue 
     guidelines governing human embryonic stem cell research under 
     this section, including the definitions and terms used for 
     purposes of such research.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The guidelines issued under paragraph 
     (1) shall ensure that--
       ``(A) all Federal research protocols and consent forms 
     involving human embryonic stem cell research must be reviewed 
     and approved by an institutional review board; and
       ``(B) the institutional review board is empowered to make a 
     determination as to whether or not the proposed research is 
     in accordance with National Institutes of Health Guidelines 
     for Research Involving Human Pluripotent Stem Cells.
       ``(e) Reporting Requirements..--Not later than January 1 
     2001, and each January 1 thereafter, the Secretary shall 
     prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     a report describing the activities carried out under this 
     section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a 
     description of whether and to what extent research under 
     subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this 
     section.''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Specter, in the introduction of the ``Stem Cell 
Research Act of 2000.'' I want to commend Senator Specter for having 
the leadership and foresight to introduce legislation which will 
broaden federally-funded scientists to pursue stem cell research, under 
certain, limited conditions.
  From enabling the development of cell and tissue transplantation, to 
improving and accelerating pharmaceutical research and development, to 
increasing our understanding of human development and cancer biology, 
the potential benefits of stem cell research are truly awe-inspiring.
  Stem cells hold hope for countless patients through potentially 
lifesaving therapies for Parkinson's, Alzheimers, stroke, heart disease 
and diabetes. Also exciting is the possibility that researchers may be 
able to alter stem cells genetically so they would avoid attack by the 
patient's immune system.
  But all of these potential benefits could be delayed or even denied 
to patients without a healthy partnership between the private sector 
and the federal government.
  While market interest in stem cell technology is strong, and private 
companies will continue to fund this research, the government has an 
important role to play in supporting the basic and applied science that 
underpins these technologies. The problem is that early, basic science 
is always going to be underfunded by the private sector because this 
type of research does not get products onto the market quickly enough. 
The only way to ensure that this research is conducted is to allow the 
NIH to support it.
  The Department of Health and Human Services ruled last year that 
under the current ban on human embryo research, federally-funded 
scientists can conduct stem cell research if they use cell lines 
derived from private sources. This is a positive step forward, but it 
continues to handicap our researchers in the pursuit of cures and 
therapies that will help our citizens,
  Last fall, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) released 
its final report, ``Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research.'' The 
Commission concluded that stem cell research should be allowed to go 
forward with federal support, as long as researchers were limited to 
only two sources of stem cells: fetal tissue and embryos resulting from 
infertility treatments. And they recommended that federal support be 
contingent on an open system of oversight and review.

[[Page 230]]

  NBAC also arrived at the important conclusion that it is ethically 
acceptable for the federal government to finance research that both 
derives cell lines from embryos and that uses those cell lines. Their 
report states, ``Relying on cell lines that might be derived 
exclusively by a subset of privately funded researchers who are 
interested in this area could severely limit scientific and clinical 
progress.''
  The Commission goes on to say that ``scientists who conduct basic 
research and are interested in fundamental cellular processes are 
likely to make elemental discoveries about the nature of ES [embryonic 
stem] cells as they derive them in the laboratory.''
  NBAC's report presents reasonable guidelines for federal policy. Our 
bill bans human embryo research, but allows federally-funded scientists 
to derive human pluripotent stem cells from human embryos if those 
embryos are obtained from IVF clinics, if the donor has provided 
informed consent and the embryo was no longer needed for fertility 
treatments. The American Society of Cell Biology estimates that 100,000 
human embryos are currently frozen in IVF clinics, in excess of their 
clinical need.
  In addition, our language requires HHS and NIH to develop procedural 
and ethical guidelines to make sure that stem cell research is 
conducted in an ethical, sound manner. As it stands today, stem cell 
research in the private sector is not subject to federal monitoring or 
ethical requirements.
  Stem cell research holds such hope, such potential for millions of 
Americans who are sick and in pain, it is morally wrong for us to 
prevent or delay our world-class scientists from building on the 
progress that has been made.
  As long as this research is conducted in an ethically validated 
manner, it should be allowed to go forward, and it should receive 
federal support. That is why Senator Specter and I have joined together 
on legislation that will allow our nation's top scientists to pursue 
critical cures and therapies for the diseases and chronic conditions 
which strike too many Americans. I urge my Senate colleagues to join us 
in supporting this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 2016. A bill to authorize appropriations for, and to improve the 
operation of, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


the nuclear regulatory commission authorization and improvements act of 
                                  2000

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
important to the energy security of our country. This legislation 
entitled the ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization and 
Improvements Act of 2000'' not only includes provisions authorizing the 
annual funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), but makes 
essential amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today will assist the 
NRC in its efforts to achieve greater efficiencies and eliminate 
outdated restrictions within our nuclear energy sector. As mentioned, 
this legislation includes several amendments to the Atomic Energy Act, 
including the following:
  Eliminating provisions in current law that preclude any foreign 
ownership of power and research reactors located in the United States. 
These outdated provisions are a significant obstacle to foreign 
investment or participation in the U.S. nuclear power industry and its 
restructuring. No valid reasons exist to prohibit investors from 
countries such as the United Kingdom from participating in the 
ownership of nuclear plants in this country. The provisions in current 
law that protect U.S. security interests are unchanged by my 
legislation.
  Eliminationg the current statutory requirement that the NRC conduct 
an antitrust review in connection with licensing actions. Other federal 
agencies already have comprehensive responsibility to enforce antitrust 
laws affecting electric utilities. Requiring the NRC to do independent 
antitrust evaluations for licensing actions is redundant, time-
consuming and unnecessary.
  Simplifying the hearing requirements in a proceeding involving an 
amendment to an existing operating license, or the transfer of an 
existing operating license. The amendment provides that the Commission 
should not use formal adjudicatory procedures in such cases, but rather 
should comply with the informal rulemaking requirements contained in 
the Administrative Procedure Act.
  Giving the NRC the authority to establish such requirements it deems 
necessary to ensure that non-licenses fully comply with their 
obligations to provide funding for nuclear plant decommissioning. This 
includes jurisdiction over non-licensees, i.e., those who have 
transferred their license but retain responsibility for 
decommissioning.
  The proposed package also includes legislative provisions sought by 
the NRC. The foreign ownership and anti-trust review changes just 
mentioned were included in the NRC's legislative proposals last year. 
Other provisions requested by the NRC should serve to enhance nuclear 
safety and physical security, increase efficiency, and enhance the 
economic use of Commission resources.
  These changes are necessary to ensure that nuclear energy remains 
part of our nation's energy portfolio. Nuclear energy is a vital 
ingredient for providing U.S. base load capacity based on economic, 
environmental and electricity needs.
  Mr. President, I am sure everyone is aware of my strong commitment to 
nuclear energy. This conviction is well-founded. One need only consider 
a few simple facts to find justification for my position.
  Ensuring diversity and reliability in our nation's future energy 
portfolio is a critical national security concern. As just one example, 
our increasing dependence on imported fossil fuel is a cause for 
concern. Last year oil imports accounted for 54% of U.S. oil 
consumption. This dependence could create a national security crisis. 
This dependence may also contribute to an environmental crisis.
  Similarly, although we continue to invest in renewable energy 
resources, the hard facts demonstrate that renewables alone cannot 
obtain sufficient energy generation to meet future needs.
  An article by Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller in the most recent 
edition of Foreign Affairs argues the case for nuclear energy in 
detail. Mr. President, allow me briefly to review some facts found in 
this article that address some very important questions. These repeat 
the same points I made in a speech at Harvard in October of 1997 and 
have made many times since.
  First, what estimated energy demands will the world face?
  A 1999 report by the British Royal Society and Royal Academy of 
Engineering estimates that the consumption of energy will at least 
double in the next 50 years and grow by a factor of up to five in the 
next century.
  The OECD projects 65% growth in world energy demand by 2020.
  How can nuclear energy play a role in meeting future energy needs?
  The anti-nuclear groups are dead wrong. Nuclear power is neither dead 
nor dying. France generates 79 percent of its electricity with nuclear 
power; Belgium, 60 percent; Sweden, 42 percent; Japan 34 percent; and 
the United States, 20 percent. The United States remains the largest 
producer of nuclear energy in the world, and the U.S. nuclear industry 
generated nine percent more nuclear electricity in 1999 than 1998. In 
order to sustain economic growth, China has plans for as many as 100 
nuclear power plants, and South Korea will more than double its 
capacity by building 16 new plants.
  Nuclear power's advantage is the ability to generate a vast amount of 
energy from a minute quantity of fuel. For example, whereas one 
kilogram of firewood can produce one kilowatt-hour of electricity and 
the ratio for oil is one-to-four, one kilogram of uranium fuel in a 
modern light-water reactor generates 400,000 kilowatts of electricity, 
even without recycling.

[[Page 231]]

  Nuclear safety and efficiency have improved dramatically in the last 
decade. For example, the average U.S. capacity factor in 1998 was 80 
percent, compared to 58 percent in 1980 and 66 percent in 1990. The 
average production costs for nuclear energy are now at just under two 
cents per kilowatt-hour, while electricity produced from gas costs 
almost three and a half cents per kilowatt-hour. Most importantly, 
radiation exposure to workers and waste produced per unit of energy 
have hit new lows.
  What about the risks from radioactivity?
  Good evidence exists that exposure to low doses of radioactivity 
actually improves health and lengthens life through stimulation of the 
immune system. Unfortunately, U.S. standards, in particular those 
established by the Environmental Protection Agency, rely on a theory--
the ``linear no-threshold'' theory (LNT)--that predicts exposure to 
trivial levels of radiation increases the risk of cancer. One should 
keep in mind that the levels argued to increase risk of cancer by this 
model are considerably less than preexisting natural levels of 
background radiation. Furthermore, this theory is by no means accepted 
by the entire scientific community.
  According to recent studies by the Harvard School of Public Health, a 
1,000 megawatt coal-fired power plant releases about 100 times as much 
radioactivity into the environment as a comparable nuclear plant. 
However, the same standards for radioactive releases do not apply to 
coal and nuclear plants. And, experts on coal geology and engineering 
have concluded that ``radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should 
not be sources of alarm.''
  Can we not place more reliance on renewables?
  Even if robustly subsidized, renewables will only move from their 
present 0.5 percent share to claim no more than five to eight percent 
by 2020.
  The U.S. leads in renewable energy generation, but such production 
declined by 9.4 percent from 1997 to 1998: hydro by 9.2%, geothermal by 
5.4%, wind by 50.5%, and solar by 27.7%.
  Are we making smart investments for U.S. energy security?
  Federal R&D investment per thousand kilowatt was only five cents for 
nuclear and coal, 58 cents for oil, and 41 cents for gas; however, it 
was $4,769 for wind and $17,006 for photovoltaics.
  In brief, we need nuclear. Our economic growth and security depend on 
it. The benefits of nuclear outweigh the risks. Renewables cannot fill 
the gap--either between today's demands and future needs or today with 
nuclear and today without. Not only are coal, gas and oil finite 
resources, but their use is harmful to human health and the 
environment.
  Mr. President, we must not fail to ensure that nuclear is part of our 
energy mix. Our nation's energy future must include nuclear in order to 
be sufficiently diverse, reliable and adequate to meet future energy 
needs.
  The legislation I am offering today will help ensure that nuclear 
remains part of our energy mix.
  Deregulation of the electric utility industry increases the need to 
keep operating costs low enough to be competitive. For this reason, 
nuclear energy's future rides on decreasing costs of regulation, 
especially that of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  With gentle prodding and some more overt tactics from the Congress, 
positive changes at the NRC have been forthcoming.
  While holding fast to its primary health and safety mission, the NRC 
needed to move from a traditional deterministic approach to a more 
risk-informed and performance-based approach to regulation. In brief, 
the NRC needed to achieve a rapid transition to an entirely different 
regulatory framework, streamline its processes, and offer clear 
definitions, standards, and requirements.
  Let me briefly highlight two of the milestones of the past year:
  Reactor Oversight.--The NRC commenced with a pilot program for the 
new reactor licensee oversight process. This process will replace the 
current inspections, assessment and enforcement processes.
  Plants will be evaluated in three key areas: reactor safety, 
radiation safety and security safeguards. Twenty ``performance 
indicators'' will assess overall performance in each area. Most 
stakeholders view this as a big step toward more consistent and 
objective assessments.
  The NRC plans full implementation of this inspection regime for all 
nuclear plants this year.
  Licensing Actions.--The NRC continued completion of licensing actions 
at a rate greater than NRC Performance Plan output measures and 
continued to reduce the licensing action inventory.
  For instance, one indicator of greater efficiency in licensing 
actions is the age of the inventory. 1999 showed consistent 
improvements in turnaround time. For fiscal year 1998, the NRC 
licensing action inventory included 65.6% of licensing actions that 
were less than 1 year old; 86% that were less than 2 years old; and 
95.4% that were less than 3 years old. By October 1999, 95% of the 
licensing action inventory was less than 1 year old; and 100% was less 
than two years old.
  These are just two examples. With Congress and industry demanding 
regulatory change, the agency is responding. All elements of change, 
especially the overall shift from a deterministic to a risk-informed 
paradigm, remain work-in-progress. I believe, however, the general 
consensus is that the last couple years have been very positive.
  At the same time, the NRC needs our assistance in removing outdated 
and unnecessary statutory provisions. This legislation will achieve 
that.
  Mr. President, I close with the same thoughts as Richard Rhodes and 
Denis Beller: ``Nuclear power is environmentally safe, practical, and 
affordable. It is not the problem--it is one of the best solutions.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation 
and the Foreign Affairs article entitled ``The Need for Nuclear Power'' 
by Dr. Rhodes and Dr. Beller be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2016

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission Authorization and Improvements Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2014) is amended--
       (1) in subsection f., by striking ``Atomic Energy 
     Commission'' and inserting ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(kk) Nuclear decommissioning obligation.--The term 
     `nuclear decommissioning obligation' means an expense 
     incurred to ensure the continued protection of the public 
     from the dangers of any residual radioactivity or other 
     hazards present at a facility at the time the facility is 
     decommissioned, including all costs of actions required under 
     rules, regulations and orders of the Commission for--
       ``(1) entombing, dismantling and decommissioning a 
     facility; and
       ``(2) administrative, preparatory, security and radiation 
     monitoring expenses associated with entombing, dismantling, 
     and decommissioning a facility.''.

     SEC. 3. OFFICE LOCATION.

       Section 23 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2033) is amended by striking ``; however, the Commission 
     shall maintain an office for the service of process and 
     papers within the District of Columbia''.

     SEC. 4. LICENSE PERIOD.

       Section 103c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2133(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``c. Each such'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``c. License Period.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each such''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Combined licenses.--In the case of a combined 
     construction and operating license issued under section 
     185(b), the initial duration of the license may not exceed 40 
     years from the date on which the Commission finds, before 
     operation of the facility, that the acceptance criteria 
     required by section 185(b) are met.''.

     SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP PROHIBITIONS.

       (a) Commercial Licenses.--Section 103d. of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133(d)) is amended in the 
     second sentence--
       (1) by inserting ``for a production facility'' after 
     ``license''; and
       (2) by striking ``any any'' and inserting ``any''.

[[Page 232]]

       (b) Medical Therapy and Research and Development 
     Licenses.--Section 104d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
     U.S.C. 2134(d)) is amended in the second sentence by 
     inserting ``for a production facility'' after ``license''.

     SEC. 6. ELIMINATION OF NRC ANTITRUST REVIEWS.

       Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2135) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Applicability.--Subsection (c) shall not apply to an 
     application for a license to construct or operate a 
     utilization facility under section 103 or 104(b) that is 
     pending on or that is filed on or after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 7. GIFT ACCEPTANCE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 161g. of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201(g)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``g.'' and inserting ``(g)(1)'';
       (2) by striking ``this Act;'' and inserting ``this Act; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) accept, hold, utilize, sell, and administer gifts of 
     real and personal property for the purpose of aiding or 
     facilitating the work of the Commission.''.
       (b) Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 170C. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FUND.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States a fund to be known as the ``Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission Fund'' (referred to in this section as 
     the `Fund').
       ``(b) Deposits in Fund.--Any gift accepted under section 
     161g.(2), or net proceeds of the sale of such a gift, shall 
     be deposited in the Fund.
       ``(c) Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--Amounts in the Fund shall, without 
     further Act of appropriation, be available to the Chairman of 
     the Commission.
       ``(2) Consistency with gift.--Gifts accepted under this 
     section 161g.(2) shall be used as nearly as possible in 
     accordance with the terms of the gift, if those terms are not 
     inconsistent with this section or any other applicable law.
       ``(d) Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall establish written 
     criteria for determining whether to accept gifts under 
     section 161g.(2).
       ``(2) Considerations.--The criteria under paragraph (1) 
     shall take into consideration whether the acceptance of the 
     gift would compromise the integrity of, or the appearance of 
     the integrity of, the Commission or any officer or employee 
     of the Commission.''.
       (2) Conforming and technical amendments.--The table of 
     contents of chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. prec. 2011) (as amended by section 2(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 170B. Uranium supply.
``Sec. 170C. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fund.''.

     SEC. 8. CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY LICENSEE EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) (as amended by section 
     7(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in section 161, by striking subsection k. and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(k) authorize to carry a firearm in the performance of 
     official duties such of its members, officers, and employees, 
     such of the employees of its contractors and subcontractors 
     (at any tier) engaged in the protection of property under the 
     jurisdiction of the United States located at facilities owned 
     by or contracted to the United States or being transported to 
     or from such facilities, and such of the employees of persons 
     licensed or certified by the Commission (including employees 
     of contractors of licensees or certificate holders) engaged 
     in the protection of facilities owned or operated by a 
     Commission licensee or certificate holder that are designated 
     by the Commission or in the protection of property of 
     significance to the common defense and security located at 
     facilities owned or operated by a Commission licensee or 
     certificate holder or being transported to or from such 
     facilities, as the Commission considers necessary in the 
     interest of the common defense and security;'' and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 170D. CARRYING OF FIREARMS.

       ``(a) Authority To Make Arrest.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person authorized under section 161k. 
     to carry a firearm may, while in the performance of, and in 
     connection with, official duties, arrest an individual 
     without a warrant for any offense against the United States 
     committed in the presence of the person or for any felony 
     under the laws of the United States if the person has a 
     reasonable ground to believe that the individual has 
     committed or is committing such a felony.
       ``(2) Limitation.--An employee of a contractor or 
     subcontractor or of a Commission licensee or certificate 
     holder (or a contractor of a licensee or certificate holder) 
     authorized to make an arrest under paragraph (1) may make an 
     arrest only--
       ``(A) when the individual is within, or is in flight 
     directly from, the area in which the offense was committed; 
     and
       ``(B) in the enforcement of--
       ``(i) a law regarding the property of the United States in 
     the custody of the Department of Energy, the Commission, or a 
     contractor of the Department of Energy or the Commission or a 
     licensee or certificate holder of the Commission;
       ``(ii) a law applicable to facilities owned or operated by 
     a Commission licensee or certificate holder that are 
     designated by the Commission under section 161k.;
       ``(iii) a law applicable to property of significance to the 
     common defense and security that is in the custody of a 
     licensee or certificate holder or a contractor of a licensee 
     or certificate holder of the Commission; or
       ``(iv) any provision of this Act that subjects an offender 
     to a fine, imprisonment, or both.
       ``(3) Other authority.--The arrest authority conferred by 
     this section is in addition to any arrest authority under 
     other law.
       ``(4) Guidelines.--The Secretary and the Commission, with 
     the approval of the Attorney General, shall issue guidelines 
     to implement section 161k. and this subsection.''.
       (b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--The table of 
     contents of chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. prec. 2011) (as amended by section 7(b)(2)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 170D. Carrying of firearms.''.

     SEC. 9. COST RECOVERY FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.

       Section 161w. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2201(w)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or which operates any facility regulated 
     or certified under section 1701 or 1702,'';
       (2) by striking ``section 483a of title 31 of the United 
     States Code'' and inserting ``section 9701 of title 31, 
     United States Code,''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``; and commencing on October 1, 2000, prescribe 
     and collect from any other Government agency, any fee, 
     charge, or price that the Commission may require in 
     accordance with section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, 
     or any other law''.

     SEC. 10. HEARING PROCEDURES.

       Section 189 a.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
     U.S.C. 2239(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) Hearings.--A hearing under this section shall be 
     conducted using informal adjudicatory procedures established 
     under sections 553 and 555 of title 5, United States Code, 
     unless the Commission determines that formal adjudicatory 
     procedures are necessary--
       ``(i) to develop a sufficient record; or
       ``(ii) to achieve fairness.''.

     SEC. 11. HEARINGS ON LICENSING OF URANIUM ENRICHMENT 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 193(b)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
     U.S.C. 2243(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``on the record''.

     SEC. 12. UNAUTHORIZED INTRODUCTION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS.

       Section 229a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2278a(a)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``or 
     subject to the licensing authority of the Commission or to 
     certification by the Commission under this Act or any other 
     Act'' before the period at the end.

     SEC. 13. SABOTAGE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR FUEL.

       Section 236a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2284(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``storage facility'' and 
     inserting ``storage, treatment, or disposal facility'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``such a utilization facility'' and 
     inserting ``a utilization facility licensed under this Act''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``facility licensed'' and inserting ``or 
     nuclear fuel fabrication facility licensed or certified''; 
     and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) any production, utilization, waste storage, waste 
     treatment, waste disposal, uranium enrichment, or nuclear 
     fuel fabrication facility subject to licensing or 
     certification under this Act during construction of the 
     facility, if the person knows or reasonably should know that 
     there is a significant possibility that the destruction or 
     damage caused or attempted to be caused could adversely 
     affect public health and safety during the operation of the 
     facility;''.

     SEC. 14. NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING OBLIGATIONS OF NONLICENSEES.

       The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by inserting after 
     section 241 (42 U.S.C. 2015) the following:

     ``SEC. 242. NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING OBLIGATIONS OF 
                   NONLICENSEES.

       ``(a) Definition of Facility.--In this section, the term 
     `facility' means a commercial nuclear electric generating 
     facility for which a nuclear decommissioning obligation is 
     incurred.
       ``(b) Decommissioning Obligations.--After public notice and 
     in accordance with section

[[Page 233]]

     181, the Commission shall establish by rule, regulation, or 
     order any requirement that the Commission considers necessary 
     to ensure that a person that is not a licensee (including a 
     former licensee) complies fully with any nuclear 
     decommissioning obligation.''.

     SEC. 15. CONTINUATION OF COMMISSIONER SERVICE.

       Section 201(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5841(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(c) Each member'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Term.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each member''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Continuation of service.--A member of the Commission 
     whose term of office has expired may, subject to the removal 
     power of the President, continue to serve as a member until 
     the member's successor has taken office, except that the 
     member shall not continue to serve beyond the expiration of 
     the next session of Congress after expiration of the fixed 
     term of office.''.

     SEC. 16. LIMITATIONS ON ACTIONS RELATING TO SOURCE, 
                   BYPRODUCT, AND SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL.

       (a) Definition of Federally Permitted Release.--Section 101 
     of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
     and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) is amended by 
     striking the period at the end and inserting ``, or any 
     release of such material in accordance with regulations of 
     the Nuclear Regulatory Commission following termination of a 
     license issued by the Commission under the Atomic Energy Act 
     of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) or by a State acting under 
     an agreement entered into under section 274b. of that Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2021b.).''.
       (b) Limitation on Actions.--Section 121(b) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9621(b)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Limitation on actions relating to source, byproduct, 
     and special nuclear material.--No authority under this Act 
     may be used to commence an administrative or judicial action 
     with respect to source, special nuclear, or byproduct 
     material that is subject to decontamination regulations 
     issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for license 
     termination under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2011 et seq.) or by a State that has entered into an 
     agreement under section 274b. of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b.) 
     unless the action is requested by the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission or, in the case of material under the jurisdiction 
     of a State that has entered into such an agreement, the 
     Governor of the State.''.

     SEC. 17. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                   2001.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Salaries and expenses.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 
     accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     (42 U.S.C. 2017) and section 305 of the Energy Reorganization 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5875) $465,400,000 for fiscal year 
     2001, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $19,150,000 is authorized to be appropriated from the Nuclear 
     Waste Fund established by section 302 of the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222).
       (2) Office of inspector general.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Office of Inspector General of the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission $6,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2001, to remain available until expended.
       (b) Allocation of Amounts Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under subsection (a)(1) shall be allocated as follows:
       (A) Nuclear reactor safety.--$210,043,000 shall be used for 
     the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program.
       (B) Nuclear materials safety.--$63,881,000 shall be used 
     for the Nuclear Materials Safety Program.
       (C) Nuclear waste safety.--$42,143,000 shall be used for 
     the Nuclear Waste Safety Program.
       (D) International nuclear safety support program.--
     $4,840,000 shall be used for the International Nuclear Safety 
     Support Program.
       (E) Management and support program.--$144,493,000 shall be 
     used for the Management and Support Program.
       (2) Limitation.--The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may use 
     not more than 1 percent of the amounts allocated under 
     paragraph (1) to exercise authority under section 31a. of the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2051(a)) to make grants 
     and enter into cooperative agreements with organizations such 
     as universities, State and local governments, and not-for-
     profit institutions.
       (3) Reallocation.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), any amount allocated for a fiscal year under any 
     subparagraph of paragraph (1) for the program referred to in 
     that subparagraph may be reallocated by the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission for use in a program referred to in any 
     other such subparagraph.
       (B) Limitation.--
       (i) Advance notification.--The amount made available from 
     appropriations for use for any program referred to in any 
     subparagraph of paragraph (1) may not, as a result of a 
     reallocation under subparagraph (A), be increased or 
     decreased by more than $1,000,000 for a quarter unless the 
     Commission provides advance notification of the reallocation 
     to the Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate.
       (ii) Contents.--A notification under clause (i) shall 
     contain a complete statement of the reallocation to be made 
     and the facts and circumstances relied on in support of the 
     reallocation.
       (C) Use of certain funds.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund--
       (i) may be used only for the high-level nuclear waste 
     activities of the Commission; and
       (ii) may not be reallocated for other Commission 
     activities.
       (c) Limitation.--No authority to make payments under this 
     section shall be effective except to such extent or in such 
     amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acts.

     SEC. 18. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this 
     Act and the amendments made by this Act shall be effective on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Decommissioning and License Removal.--The amendments 
     made by sections 14 and 16 take effect on the date that is 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

             [From Foreign Affairs, January-February, 2000]

                       The Need for Nuclear Power

                  (By Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller)


                             a clean break

       The world needs more energy. Energy multiplies human labor, 
     increasing productivity. It builds and lights schools, 
     purifies water, powers farm machinery, drives sewing machines 
     and robot assemblers, stores and moves information. World 
     population is steadily increasing, having passed six billion 
     in 1999. Yet one-third of that number--two billion people--
     lack access to electricity. Development depends on energy, 
     and the alternative to development is suffering: poverty, 
     disease, and death. Such conditions create instability and 
     the potential for widespread violence. National security 
     therefore requires developed nations to help increase energy 
     production in their more populous developing counterparts. 
     For the sake of safety as well as security, that increased 
     energy supply should come from diverse sources.
       ``At a global level,'' the British Royal Society and Royal 
     Academy of Engineering estimate in a 1999 report on nuclear 
     energy an climate change, ``we can expect our consumption of 
     energy at least to double in the next 50 years and to grow by 
     a factor of up to five in the next 100 years as the world 
     population increases and as people seek to improve their 
     standards of living.'' Even with vigorous conservation, would 
     energy production would have to triple by 2050 to support 
     consumption at a mere one-third of today's U.S. per capita 
     rate. The International Energy Agency (IEA) of the 
     Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
     projects 65 percent growth in world energy demand by 2020, 
     two-thirds of that coming from developing countries. ``Given 
     the levels of consumption likely in the future,'' the Royal 
     Society and Royal Academy caution, ``it will be an immense 
     challenge to meet the global demand for energy without 
     unsustainable long-term damage to the environment.'' That 
     damage includes surface and air pollution and global warming.
       Most of the world's energy today comes from petroleum (39.5 
     percent), coal (24.2 percent), natural gas (22.1 percent), 
     hydroelectric power (6.9 percent), and nuclear power (6.3 
     percent). Although oil and coal still dominate, their market 
     fraction began declining decades ago. Meanwhile, natural gas 
     and nuclear power have steadily increased their share and 
     should continue to do so. Contrary to the assertions of 
     antinuclear organizations, nuclear power is neither dead nor 
     dying. France generates 79 percent of its electricity with 
     nuclear power; Belgium, 60 percent; Sweden, 42 percent; 
     Switzerland, 39 percent; Spain, 37 percent; Japan, 34 
     percent; the United Kingdom, 21 percent; and the United 
     States (the largest producer of nuclear energy in the world), 
     20 percent. South Korea and China have announced ambitious 
     plans to expand their nuclear-power capabilities--in the case 
     of South Korea, by building 16 new plants, increasing 
     capacity by more than 100 percent. With 434 operating 
     reactors worldwide, nuclear power is meeting the annual 
     electrical needs of more than a billion people.
       In America and around the globe, nuclear safety and 
     efficiency have improved significantly since 1990. In 1998, 
     unit capacity factor (the fraction of a power plant's 
     capacity that it actually generates) for operating reactors 
     reached record levels. The average U.S. capacity factor in 
     1998 was 80 percent for about 100 reactors, compared to 58 
     percent in 1980 and 66 percent in 1990. Despite a reduction 
     in the number of power plants, the U.S. nuclear industry 
     generated nine percent more nuclear electricity in 1999 than 
     in 1998. Average production costs for nuclear energy are now 
     just 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), while electricity 
     produced from gas costs 3.4 cents per kWh. Meanwhile, 
     radiation exposure to workers and waste produced per unit of 
     energy have hit new lows.

[[Page 234]]

       Because major, complex technologies take more than half a 
     century to spread around the world, natural gas will share 
     the lead in power generation with nuclear power over the next 
     hundred years. Which of the two will command the greater 
     share remains to be determined. But both are cleaner and more 
     secure than the fuels they have begun to replace, and their 
     ascendance should be endorsed. Even environmentalists should 
     welcome the transition and reconsider their infatuation with 
     renewable energy sources.


                             carbon nations

       Among sources of electric-power generation, coal is the 
     worst environmental offender. (Petroleum, today's dominant 
     source of energy, sustains transportation, putting it in a 
     separate category.) Recent studies by the Harvard School of 
     Public Health indicate that pollutants from coal-burning 
     cause about 15,000 premature deaths annually in the United 
     States alone. Used to generate about a quarter of the world's 
     primary energy, coal-burning releases amounts of toxic waste 
     too immense to contain safely. Such waste is either dispersed 
     directly into the air or is solidified and dumped. Some is 
     even mixed into construction materials. Besides emitting 
     noxious chemicals in the form of gases or toxic particles--
     sulfur and nitrogen oxides (components of acid rain and 
     smog), arsenic, mercury, cadmium, selenium, lead, boron, 
     chromium, copper, fluorine, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, 
     zinc, carbon monoxide and dioxide, and other greenhouse 
     gases--coal-fired power plants are also the world's major 
     source of radioactive releases into the environment. Uranium 
     and thorium, mildly radioactive elements ubiquitous in the 
     earth's crust, are both released when coal is burned. 
     Radioactive radon gas, produced when uranium in the Earth's 
     crust decays and normally confined underground, is released 
     when coal is mined. A 1,000-megawatt-electric (MWe) coal-
     fired power plant releases about 100 times as much 
     radioactivity into the environment as a comparable nuclear 
     plant. Worldwide releases of uranium and thorium from coal-
     burning total about 37,300 tonnes (metric tons) annually, 
     with about 7,300 tonnes coming from the United States. Since 
     uranium and thorium are potent nuclear fuels, burning coal 
     also wastes more potential energy than it produces.
       Nuclear proliferation is another overlooked potential 
     consequence of coal-burning. The uranium released by a single 
     1,000-MWe coal plant in a year includes about 74 pounds of 
     uranium-235--enough for at least two atomic bombs. This 
     uranium would have to be enriched before it could be used, 
     which would be complicated and expensive. But plutonium could 
     also be bred from coal-derived uranium. Moreover, ``because 
     electric utilities are not high-profile facilities,'' writes 
     physicist Alex Gabbard of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
     ``collection and processing of coal ash for recovery of 
     minerals . . . can proceed without attracting outside 
     attention, concern or intervention. Any country with coal-
     fired plants could collect combustion by products and amass 
     sufficient nuclear weapons materials to build up a very 
     powerful arsenal.'' In the early 1950s, when richer ores were 
     believed to be in short supply, the U.S. Atomic Energy 
     Commission actually investigated using coal as a source of 
     uranium production for nuclear weapons; burning the coal, the 
     AEC concluded, would concentrate the mineral, which could 
     then be extracted from the ash.
       Such a scenario may seem far-fetched. But it emphasizes the 
     political disadvantages under which nuclear power labors. 
     Current laws force nuclear utilities, unlike coal plants, to 
     invest in expensive systems that limit the release of 
     radioactivity. Nuclear fuel is not efficiently recycled in 
     the United States because of proliferation fears. These 
     factors have warped the economics of nuclear power 
     development and created a politically difficult waste-
     disposal problem. If coal utilities were forced to assume 
     similar costs, coal electricity would no longer be cheaper 
     than nuclear.


                   decline and fall of the renewables

       Renewable sources of energy--hydroelectric, solar, wind, 
     geothermal, and biomass--have high capital-investment costs 
     and significant, if usually unacknowledged, environmental 
     consequences. Hydropower is not even a true renewable, since 
     dams eventually silt in. Most renewables collect extremely 
     diluted energy, requiring large areas of land and masses of 
     collectors to concentrate. Manufacturing solar collectors, 
     pouring concrete for fields of windmills, and downing many 
     square miles of land behind dams cause damage and pollution.
       Photovoltaic cells used for solar collection are large 
     semiconductors; their manufacture produces highly toxic waste 
     metals and solvents that require special technology for 
     disposal. A 1,000-MWe solar electric plant would generate 
     6,850 tonnes of hazardous waste from metals-processing alone 
     over a 30-year lifetime. A comparable solar thermal plant 
     (using mirrors focused on a central tower) would require 
     metals for construction that would generate 435,000 tonnes of 
     manufacturing waste, of which 16,300 tonnes would be 
     contaminated with lead and chromium and be considered 
     hazardous.
       A global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 
     percent of the world's known iron resources. It would require 
     a century to build and a substantial fraction of annual world 
     iron production to maintain. The energy necessary to 
     manufacture sufficient solar collectors to cover a half-
     million square miles of the Earth's surface and to deliver 
     the electricity through long-distance transmission systems 
     would itself add grievously to the global burden of pollution 
     and greenhouse gas. A global solar-energy system without 
     fossil or nuclear backup would also be dangerously vulnerable 
     to drops in solar radiation from volcanic events such as the 
     1883 eruption of Krakatoa, which caused widespread crop 
     failure during the ``year without a summer'' that followed.
       Wind farms, besides requiring millions of pounds of 
     concrete and steel to build (and thus creating huge amounts 
     of waste materials), are inefficient, with low (because 
     intermittent) capacity. They also cause visual and noise 
     pollution and are mighty slayers of birds. Several hundred 
     birds of prey, including dozens of golden eagles, are killed 
     every year by a single California wind farm; more eagles have 
     been killed by wind turbines than were lost in the disastrous 
     Exxon Valdez oil spill. The National Audubon Society has 
     launched a campaign to save the California condor from a 
     proposed wind farm to be built north of Los Angeles. A wind 
     farm equivalent in output and capacity to a 1,000-MWe fossil-
     fuel or nuclear plant would occupy 2,000 square miles of land 
     and, even with substantial subsidies and ignoring hidden 
     pollution costs, would produce electricity at double or 
     triple the cost of fossil fuels.
       Although at least one-quarter of the world's potential for 
     hydropower has already been developed, hydroelectric power--
     produced by dams that submerge large areas of land, displace 
     rural populations, change river ecology, kill fish, and risk 
     catastrophic collapse--has understandably lost the backing of 
     environmentalists in recent years. The U.S. Export-Import 
     Bank was responding in part to environmental lobbying when it 
     denied funding to China's 18,000-MWe Three Gorges project.
       Meanwhile, geothermal sources--which exploit the internal 
     heat of the earth emerging in geyser areas or under 
     volcanoes--are inherently limited and often coincide with 
     scenic sites (such as Yellowstone National Park) that 
     conservationists understandably want to preserve.
       Because of these and other disadvantages, organizations 
     such as World Energy Council and the IEA predict that 
     hydroelectric generation will continue to account for no more 
     than its present 6.9 percent share of the world's primary 
     energy supply, while all other renewables, even though 
     robustly subsidized, will move from their present 0.5 percent 
     share to claim no more than 5 to 8 percent by 2020. In the 
     United States, which leads the world in renewable energy 
     generation, such production actually declined by 9.4 percent 
     from 1997 to 1998: hydro by 9.2 percent, geothermal by 5.4 
     percent, wind by 50.5 percent, and solar by 27.7 percent.
       Like the dream of controlled thermonuclear fusion, then, 
     the realty of a world run on pristine energy generated from 
     renewables continues to recede, despite expensive, highly 
     subsidized research and development. the 1997 U.S. federal 
     R&D investment per thousand kWh was only 5 cents for nuclear 
     and coal, 58 cents for oil, and 41 cents for gas, but was 
     $4,769 for wind and $17,006 for photovoltaics. This massive 
     public investment in renewables would have been better spent 
     making coal plants and automobiles cleaner. According to 
     Robert Bradley of Houston's Institute for Energy Research, 
     U.S. conservation efforts and nonhydroelectric renewables 
     have benefited from a cumulative 20-year taxpayer investment 
     of some $30-$40 billion--``the largest governmental peacetime 
     energy expenditure in U.S. history.'' And Bradley estimates 
     that ``the $5.8 billion spent by the Department of Energy on 
     wind and solar subsidies'' alone could have paid for 
     ``replacing between 5,000 and 10,000 MWe of the nation's 
     dirtiest coal capacity with gas-fired combined-cycle units, 
     which would have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by between 
     one-third and two-thirds.'' Replacing coal with nuclear 
     generation would have reduced overall emissions even more.
       Despite the massive investment, conservation and nonhydro 
     renewables remain stubbornly uncompetitive and contribute 
     only marginally to U.S. energy supplies. If the most 
     prosperous nation in the world cannot afford them, who can? 
     Not China, evidently, which expects to generate less than one 
     percent of its commercial energy from nonhydro renewables in 
     2025. Coal and oil will still account for the bulk of China's 
     energy supply in that year unless developed countries offer 
     incentives to convince the world's most populous nation to 
     change its plan.


                          TURN DOWN THE VOLUME

       Natural gas has many virtues as a fuel compared to coal or 
     oil, and its share of the world's energy will assuredly grow 
     in the first half of the 21st century. But its supply is 
     limited and unevenly distributed, it is expensive as a power 
     source compared to coal or uranium, and it pollutes the air. 
     A 1,000-MWe natural gas plant releases 5.5 tonnes of sulfur 
     oxides per day, 21 tonnes of nitrogen oxides, 1.6 tonnes of 
     carbon monoxide, and

[[Page 235]]

     0.9 tonnes of partculates. In the United States, energy 
     production from natural gas released about 5.5 billion tonnes 
     of waste in 1994. Natural gas fires and explosions are also 
     significant risks. A single mile of gas pipeline three feet 
     in diameter at a pressure of 1,000 pounds per square inch 
     (psi) contains the equivalent of two-thirds of a kiloton of 
     explosive energy; a million miles of such large pipelines 
     lace the earth.
       The great advantage of nuclear power is its ability to 
     wrest enormous energy from a small volume of fuel. Nuclear 
     fission, transforming matter directly into energy, is several 
     million times as energetic as chemical burning, which merely 
     breaks chemical bonds. One tonne of nuclear fuel produces 
     energy equivalent to 2 to 3 million tonnes of fossil fuel. 
     Burning 1 kilogram of firewood can generate 1 kilowatt-hour 
     of electricity; 1 kg of coal, 3 kWh; 1 kg of oil, 4 kWh. But 
     1 kg of uranium fuel in a modern light-water reactor 
     generates 400,000 kWh of electricity, and if that uranium is 
     recycled, 1 kg can generate more than 7,000,000 kWh. These 
     spectacular differences in volume help explain the vast 
     difference in the environmental impacts of nuclear versus 
     fossil fuels. Running a 1,000-MWe power plant for a year 
     requires, 2,000 train cars of coal or 10 supertankers of oil 
     but only 12 cubic meters of natural uranium. Out the other 
     end of fossil-fuel plants, even those with pollution-control 
     systems, come thousands of tonnes of noxious gases, 
     particulates, and heavy-metal-bearing (and radioactive) ash, 
     plus solid hazardous waste--up to 500,000 tonnes of sulfur 
     from coal, more than 300,000 tonnes from oil, and 200,000 
     tonnes from natural gas. In contrast, a 1,000-MWe nuclear 
     plant releases no noxious gases or other pollutants n1 and 
     much less radioactivity per capita than is encountered from 
     airline travel, a home smoke detector, or a television set. 
     It produces about 30 tonnes of high-level waste (spent fuel) 
     and 800 tonnes of low- and intermediate-level waste--about 20 
     cubic meters in all when compacted (roughly, the volume of 
     two automobiles). All the operating nuclear plants in the 
     world produce some 3,000 cubic meters of waste annually. By 
     comparison, U.S. industry generates annually about 50,000,000 
     cubic meters of solid toxic waste.
       n1 Uranium is refined and processed into fuel assemblies 
     today using coal energy, which does of course release 
     pollutants. If nuclear power were made available for process 
     heat or if fuel assemblies were recycled, this source of 
     manufacturing pollution would be eliminated or greatly 
     reduced.
       The high-level waste is intensely radioactive, of course 
     (the low-level waste can be less radioactive than coal ash, 
     which is used to make concrete and gypsum--both of which are 
     incorporated into building materials). But thanks to its 
     small volume and the fact that it is not released into the 
     environment, this high-level waste can be meticulously 
     sequestered behind multiple barriers. Waste from coal, 
     dispersed across the landscape in smoke or buried near the 
     surface, remains toxic forever. Radioactive nuclear waste 
     decays steadily, losing 99 percent of its toxicity after 600 
     years--well within the range of human experience with custody 
     and maintenance, as evidence by structures such as the Roman 
     Pantheon and Notre Dame Cathedral. Nuclear waste disposal is 
     a political problem in the United States because of wide-
     spread fear disproportionate to the reality of risk. But it 
     is not an engineering problem, as advanced projects in 
     France, Sweden, and Japan demonstrate. The World Health 
     Organization has estimated that indoor and outdoor air 
     pollution cause some three million deaths per year. 
     Substituting small, properly contained volumes of nuclear 
     waste for vast, dispersed amounts of toxic wastes from fossil 
     fuels would produce so obvious an improvement in public 
     health that it is astonishing that physicians have not 
     already demanded such a conversion.
       The production cost of nuclear electricity generated from 
     existing U.S. plants is already fully competitive with 
     electricity from fossil fuels, although new nuclear power is 
     somewhat more expensive. But this higher price tag is 
     deceptive. Large nuclear power plants require larger capital 
     investments than comparable coal or gas plants only because 
     nuclear utilities are required to build and maintain costly 
     systems to keep their radioactivity from the environment. If 
     fossil-fuel plants were similarly required to sequester the 
     pollutants they generate, they would cost significantly more 
     than nuclear power plants do. The European Union and the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have determined 
     that ``for equivalent amounts of energy generation, coal and 
     oil plants, . . . owing to their large emissions and huge 
     fuel and transport requirements, have the highest externality 
     costs as well as equivalent lives lost. The external costs 
     are some ten times higher than for a nuclear power plant and 
     can be a significant fraction of generation costs.'' In 
     equivalent lives lost per gigawatt generated (that is, loss 
     of life expectancy from exposure to pollutants), coal kills 
     37 people annually; oil, 32; gas, 2; nuclear, 1. Compared to 
     nuclear power, in other words, fossil fuels (and renewables) 
     have enjoyed a free ride with respect to protection of the 
     environment and public health and safety.
       Even the estimate of one life lost to nuclear power is 
     questionable. Such an estimate depends on whether or not, as 
     the long-standing ``linear no-threshold'' theory (LNT) 
     maintains, exposure to amounts of radiation considerably less 
     than preexisting natural levels increases the risk of cancer. 
     Although LNT dictates elaborate and expensive confinement 
     regimes for nuclear power operations and waste disposal, 
     there is no evidence that low-level radiation exposure 
     increases cancer risk. In fact, there is good evidence that 
     it does not. There is even good evidence that exposure to low 
     doses of radioactivity improves health and lengthens life, 
     probably by stimulating the immune system much as vaccines do 
     (the best study, of background radon levels in hundreds of 
     thousands of homes in more than 90 percent of U.S. counties, 
     found lung cancer rates decreasing significantly with 
     increasing radon levels among both smokers and nonsmokers). 
     So low-level radioactivity from nuclear power generation 
     presents at worst a negligible risk. Authorities on coal 
     geology and engineering make the same argument about low-
     level radioactivity from coal-burning; a U.S. Geological 
     Survey fact sheet, for example, concludes that ``radioactive 
     elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of 
     alarm.'' Yet nuclear power development has been hobbled, and 
     nuclear waste disposal unnecessarily delayed, by limits not 
     visited upon the coal industry.
       No technology system is immune to accident. Recent dam 
     overflows and failures in Italy and India each resulted in 
     several thousand fatalities. Coal-mine accidents, oil- and 
     gas-plant fires, and pipeline explosions typically kill 
     hundreds per incident. The 1984 Bhopal chemical plant 
     disaster caused some 3,000 immediate deaths and poisoned 
     several hundred thousand people. According to the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency, between 1987 and 1997 more 
     than 600,000 accidental releases of toxic chemicals in the 
     United States killed a total of 2,565 people and injured 
     22,949.
       By comparison, nuclear accidents have been few and minimal. 
     The recent, much-reported accident in Japan occurred not at a 
     power plant but at a facility processing fuel for a research 
     reactor. It caused no deaths or injuries to the public. As 
     for the Chernobyl explosion, it resulted from human error in 
     operating a fundamentally faulty reactor design that could 
     not have been licensed in the West. It caused severe human 
     and environmental damage locally, including 31 deaths, most 
     from radiation exposure. Thyroid cancer, which could have 
     been prevented with prompt iodine prophylaxis, has increased 
     in Ukrainian children exposed to fallout. More than 800 cases 
     have been diagnosed and several thousand more are projected; 
     although the disease is treatable, three children have died. 
     LNT-based calculations project 3,420 cancer deaths in 
     Chernobyl-area residents and cleanup crews. The Chernobyl 
     reactor lacked a containment structure, a fundamental safety 
     system that is required on Western reactors. Postaccident 
     calculations indicate that such a structure would have 
     confined the explosion and thus the radioactivity, in which 
     case no injuries or deaths would have occurred.
       These numbers, for the worst ever nuclear power accident, 
     are remarkably low compared to major accidents in other 
     industries. More than 40 years of commercial nuclear power 
     operations demonstrate that nuclear power is much safer than 
     fossil-fuel systems in terms of industrial accidents, 
     environmental damage, health effects, and long-term risk.


                         ghosts in the machine

       Most of the uranium used in nuclear reactors is inert, a 
     nonfissile product unavailable for use in weapons. Operating 
     reactors, however, breed fissile plutonium that could be used 
     in bombs, and therefore the commercialization of nuclear 
     power has raised concerns about the spread of weapons. In 
     1977, President Carter deferred indefinitely the recycling of 
     ``spent'' nuclear fuel, citing proliferation risks. This 
     decision effectively ended nuclear recycling in the United 
     States, even though such recycling reduces the volume and 
     radiotoxicity of nuclear waste and could extend nuclear fuel 
     supplies for thousands of years. Other nations assessed the 
     risks differently and the majority did not follow the U.S. 
     example. France and the United Kingdom currently reprocess 
     spent fuel; Russia is stockpiling fuel and separated 
     plutonium for jump-starting future fast-reactor fuel cycles; 
     Japan has begun using recycled uranium and plutonium mixed-
     oxide (MOX) fuel in its reactors and recently approved the 
     construction of a new nuclear power plant to use 100-percent 
     MOX fuel by 2007.
       Although power-reactor plutonium theoretically can be used 
     to make nuclear explosives, spent fuel is refractory, highly 
     radioactive, and beyond the capacity of terrorists to 
     process. Weapons made from reactor-grade plutonium would be 
     hot, unstable, and of uncertain yield. India has extracted 
     weapons plutonium from a Canadian heavy-water reactor and 
     bars inspection of some dual-purpose reactors it has built. 
     But no plutonium has ever been diverted from British or 
     French reprocessing facilities or fuel shipments for weapons 
     production; IAEA inspections are effective in preventing such 
     diversions. The risk of proliferation, the IAEA has

[[Page 236]]

     concluded, ``is not zero and would not become zero even if 
     nuclear power ceased to exist. It is a continually 
     strengthened nonproliferation regime that will remain the 
     cornerstone of efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear 
     weapons.''
       Ironically, burying spend fuel without extracting its 
     plutonium through reprocessing would actually increase the 
     long-term risk of nuclear proliferation, since the decay of 
     less-fissile and more-radioactive isotopes in spend fuel 
     after one to three centuries improves the explosive qualities 
     of the plutonium it contains, making it more attractive for 
     weapons use. Besides extending the world's uranium resources 
     almost indefinitely, recycling would make it possible to 
     convert plutonium to useful energy while breaking it down 
     into shorter-lived, nonfissionable, nonthreatening nuclear 
     waste.
       Hundreds of tons of weapons-grade plutonium, which cost the 
     nuclear superpowers billions of dollars to produce, have 
     become military surplus in the past decade. Rather than 
     burying some of this strategically worrisome but 
     energetically valuable material--as Washington has proposed--
     it should be recycled into nuclear fuel. An international 
     system to recycle and manage such fuel would prevent covert 
     proliferation. As envisioned by Edward Arthur, Paul 
     Cunningham, and Richard Wagner of the Los Alamos National 
     Laboratory, such a system would combine internationally 
     monitored retrievable storage, the processing of all 
     separated plutonium into MOX fuel for power reactors, and, in 
     the longer term, advanced integrated materials-processing 
     reactors that would receive, control, and process all fuel 
     discharged from reactors throughout the world, generating 
     electricity and reducing spend fuel to short-lived nuclear 
     waste ready for permanent geological storage.


                           the new new thing

       The new generation of small, modular power plants--
     competitive with natural gas and designed for safety, 
     proliferation resistance, and ease of operation--will be 
     necessary to extend the benefits of nuclear power to smaller 
     developing countries that lack a nuclear infrastructure. The 
     Department of Energy has awarded funding to three designs for 
     such ``fourth-generation'' plants. A South African utility, 
     Eskom, has announced plans to market a modular gas-cooled 
     pebble-bed reactor that does not require emergency core-
     cooling systems and physically cannot ``melt down.'' Eskom 
     estimates that the reactor will produce electricity at around 
     1.5 cents per kWh, which is cheaper than electricity from a 
     combined-cycle gas plant. The Massachusetts Institute of 
     Technology and the Idaho National Engineering and 
     Environmental Laboratory are developing a similar design to 
     supply high-temperature heat for industrial processes such as 
     hydrogen generation and desalinization.
       Petroleum is used today primarily for transportation, but 
     the internal combustion engine has been refined to its limit. 
     Further reductions in transportation pollution can come only 
     from abandoning petroleum and developing nonpolluting power 
     systems for cars and trucks. Recharging batteries for 
     electric cars will simply transfer pollution from mobile to 
     centralized sources unless the centralized source of 
     electricity is nuclear. Fuel cells, which are now approaching 
     commercialization, may be a better solution. Because fuel 
     cells generate electricity directly from gaseous or liquid 
     fuels, they can be refueled along the way, much as present 
     internal combustion engines are. When operated on pure 
     hydrogen, fuel cells produce only water as a waste product. 
     Since hydrogen can be generated from water using heat or 
     electricity, one can envisage a minimally polluting energy 
     infrastructure, using hydrogen generated by nuclear power for 
     transportation, nuclear electricity and process heat for most 
     other applications, and natural gas and renewable systems as 
     backups. Such a major commitment to nuclear power could not 
     only halt but eventually even reverse the continuing buildup 
     of carbon in the atmosphere. In the meantime, fuel cells 
     using natural gas could significantly reduce air pollution.


                          powering the future

       To meet the world's growing need for energy, the Royal 
     Society and Royal Academy report proposes ``the formation of 
     an international body for energy research and development, 
     funded by contributions from individual nations on the basis 
     of GDP or total national energy consumption.'' The body would 
     be ``a funding agency supporting research, development and 
     demonstrators elsewhere, not a research center itself.'' Its 
     budget might build to an annual level of some $25 billion, 
     ``roughly one percent of the total global energy budget.'' If 
     it truly wants to develop efficient and responsible energy 
     supplies, such a body should focus on the nuclear option, on 
     establishing a secure international nuclear-fuel storage and 
     reprocessing system, and on providing expertise for siting, 
     financing, and licensing modular nuclear power systems to 
     developing nations.
       According to Arnulf Grubler, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, and David 
     Victor, who study the synamics of energy technologies, ``the 
     share of energy supplied by electricity is growing rapidly in 
     most countries and worldwide.'' Throughout history, humankind 
     has gradually decarbonized its dominant fuels, moving 
     steadily away from the more polluting, carbon-rich sources. 
     Thus the world has gone from coal (which has one hydrogen 
     atom per carbon atom and was dominant from 1880 to 1950) to 
     oil (with two hydrogens per carbon, dominant from 1950 to 
     today). Natural gas (four hydrogens per carbon) is steadily 
     increasing its market share. But nuclear fission produces no 
     carbon at all.
       Physical reality--not arguments about corporate greed, 
     hypothetical risks, radiation exposure, or waste disposal--
     ought to inform decisions vital to the future of the world. 
     Because diversity and redundancy are important for safety and 
     security, renewable energy source ought to retain a place in 
     the energy economy of the century to come. But nuclear power 
     should be central. Despite its outstanding record, it has 
     instead been relegated by its opponents to the same twilight 
     zone of contentions ideological conflict as abortion and 
     evolution. It deserves better. Nuclear power is 
     environmentally safe, practical, and affordable. It is not 
     the problem--it is one of the best solutions.

                          ____________________