[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5929-5930]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         THE NUCLEAR WASTE BILL

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand at this time the President 
is considering vetoing the nuclear waste bill that passed here by a 
substantial majority. That is very troubling to me. It is time for us 
to dispose of nuclear waste. We have the capability. The citizens of 
America, through their electric bills, have paid billions of dollars to 
build this waste disposal area out in the Nevada desert to place this 
nuclear waste--which is not explosive. It is simply radioactive and it 
is placed in the right kind of containers and will be placed in the 
ground of the desert of Nevada where we exploded 1,000 bombs on top of 
the ground in developing our nuclear bombing capability. But every 
nuclear electric-generating plant in America produces some waste. That 
waste is being stored on site. We agreed some years ago to create this 
fund and to store this waste. Now, every time we come to this Senate, 
every time this debate comes up for a vote, a majority votes for it and 
the President ends up vetoing it and we fall just short of the number 
of votes to override that veto.
  Through an unusual number of circumstances, I have become somewhat 
familiar with the concerns involving energy and nuclear power in 
America. I formed a very clear opinion of what we have to do if we are 
going to meet the demands for power and the demand to clean up the 
atmosphere. The Kyoto treaty, which the President signed and the Vice 
President supported, the executive branch made an amazing agreement 
that we would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent from 
1990 levels by 2012 or 2010--the exact year escapes me.
  Since that time, our demand for energy has increased. Since 1990, our 
emissions of greenhouse gases have increased by 8 percent. By the year 
2012, if we were to comply with the agreement the President tried to 
commit us to, we would have to reduce, from this day, 15 percent of our 
greenhouse gas emissions when we know our demands for energy are going 
to increase between now and 2010. This is a box we cannot get out of; 
not under present plans.
  There was a marvelous 2-hour show on Sunday night on public 
television's ``Frontline'' on greenhouse gases and the potential of 
global warming. They went over all the issues at that time. I think it 
was tilted slightly more than the science indicates that we are in a 
period of global warming, but it does appear we may be. We need to be 
thinking about that. But the scientists and experts I have talked with 
say we cannot meet those goals without nuclear power.
  Mr. President, 20 percent of the electricity in this country is 
produced by nuclear power, but we have not approved a new plant since 
the 1970s. France has over 60 percent--soon to be 80 percent--of its 
power generated by nuclear power. Japan also has a large percentage 
generated by it. In the United States, we have never lost a life as a 
result of nuclear power. Nuclear power produces, as you know, no 
pollution for the atmosphere--zero. Huge amounts--20 percent--of our 
electric power is produced by nuclear power with no emissions out 
there.
  We have a crisis in our energy policy with regard to fuel oil and our 
domestic production since 1992, when this administration took office. 
The reason I am talking about that is I believe there is a no-growth, 
antienergy policy that is made a part of our American policy under the 
Clinton-Gore administration. They do not believe in production of 
greater amounts of energy. We have reduced our domestic production of 
oil by 17 percent since 1992. Yet our demand for oil and gasoline has 
increased 14 percent. That is a shocking figure. That is why we are so 
much more dependent on the Middle East, OPEC, for oil and gas. That is 
why they are able to demand higher prices. Maybe the gas companies 
added a few cents on a gallon, but almost all of that was a direct 
result of their demand for oil from the Middle East and Venezuela and 
the OPEC nations, and we virtually pay double for it.
  What that means is if your gasoline has gone up from $1 to $1.45 at 
the gas pump, that extra 45 cents is going outside of America to one of 
these OPEC nations. It is a drain on the wealth of this country, and I 
submit it does suggest it could threaten the economic prosperity we are 
enjoying today.
  How can we meet our environmental goals? How can we do that without 
thinking broadly about what is occurring? We heard recently the Vice 
President saying, with regard to nuclear power, that he does not 
support an increased reliance on nuclear power for electricity 
generation. He does not support an increased reliance on nuclear power 
for electricity generation, but he would keep open the option of 
relicensing existing nuclear plants. I think that is a stunning 
statement. That is a no-growth policy. We are going to limit greenhouse 
emissions but we are not

[[Page 5930]]

going to allow any increase in nuclear power.
  Another one of his stunning proposals is to not drill any further for 
natural gas in the deep Gulf of Mexico. There are great reserves of 
natural gas there. Natural gas, even if it breaks out of our pipeline, 
does not pollute as does oil. It is not sticky. It evaporates. It is 
not a real dangerous pollutant. And when it burns, it is the most 
efficient burning of all fossil fuels and produces the least amount of 
pollution. If we move to a cleaner energy source, natural gas is it. 
But the Vice President, who opposes nuclear power, now is opposing 
drilling for natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico. That he explicitly 
stated during his campaign in New Hampshire. In fact, he said he would 
consider rolling back the leases that have already been issued. So this 
is a dangerous time for us.
  I hope we are not moving to make unwise decisions that would, in 
effect, result in the drying up of our supply of energy and raising the 
price of energy for every American and having that money go overseas to 
foreign nations. We need to produce more nuclear power. I will be 
talking more about that in the future.
  My plea is to the President: Do not veto this bill. Let's keep 
America as a strong nuclear-powered country.

                          ____________________