Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, now I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Schumer amendment No. 853, to be followed immediately by a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment No. 856, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment No. 854; provided further that following those votes the Senate proceed immediately to a vote on the adoption of amendment No. 850, without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. DOMENICI. In any event, I am pursuing them so that there will be a vote. Sooner or later we would like to dispose of it. If they insist, they can have a vote on the first part of theirs. If they win or lose, that leaves you in a position of whether you have the amendment on this bill or not, depending upon the disposition of the first, the amendment that precedes it, both of which have been set aside by consent and are pending action by the Senate. I see my friend Senator Wyden on the floor. I know we had been talking about a proposed agreement with reference to a matter on nuclear power. Let me suggest to the Senator, we are in accord as to that. We will enter into it but not at this point. We are examining the language carefully. But you have our assurance that at an appropriate time today that agreement will be entered into and then we will be ready to have a very important vote sometime on the day of Tuesday with reference to nuclear power, with you being a proponent of a motion to strike.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we will have a great deal of time to discuss what I believe is the most important issue for America's future; that is, are we going to have an alternate source of energy for electricity, aside and apart from coal and natural gas? I believe the time has come. We ought to set in motion the authorization--not the approval, not the appropriations, but the authorization--to start down the path that says the United States may be ready to build a nuclear powerplant. The arguments that have just been made in anticipation of the agreement are not exactly as such. This bill says America should have an opportunity to have a variety of energy sources. We have provided subsidies for coal so that coal can be made clean and delivered to our people as clean as possible. That is subsidized. We have an enormous tax subsidy for wind and energy. In fact, it is so big and so current that there will be windmills built all over this country, and the amount is a direct tax credit. It is not something that may happen. Every time one of those windmills is built, the tax credit will apply and money will be used in large quantities. In addition, we are talking about whether nuclear powerplants are being built today. For instance, General Electric nuclear powerplants are being designed and built in Taiwan right now at a cost--believe it or not, and which we will show here to the Senate--that belies all of the information that is submitted by the Congressional Budget Office, which we believe is speculative. It will be shown that they are constructing these nuclear powerplants at $1,250 a kilowatt. That means they are perilously close today to producing nuclear powerplants that will be competitive with natural gas in the United States. We are not asking the Senate for any of this to happen. We are saying that, as a matter of policy, we should put in the Energy bill the opportunity for this to happen. We will go into great detail as to the conditions, how it will happen, how it won't happen, and who has to approve and who has to disapprove. We think before we are finished, we will have convinced a majority of Senators that the time has come to give a rebirth to this alternative source so that if, as a matter of fact, in the next decade or so the need arises, we will be ready, willing, and able to move ahead. Having said that, I have just indicated nothing else is going to happen in the Senate until sometime around 3 o'clock or 3:30. We will try to get our unanimous consent agreement sometime this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am quite sure that before we are finished--if we finish, and I hope we will--the Senate and those who are interested in energy policy will hear a lot about the various kinds of energy that are provided, as a matter of policy, in this Energy bill. I am having a lot of difficulty understanding the Senate these days. I regret to say that almost every amendment we talk about some Senator is unable to be present. It is either they had to leave early or they had a previous engagement or there is something else they had to do. So it seems as if we cannot get the amendments done. But the Democrats are going to help us try to convince Senators that they ought to start to list their amendments soon so we will have some idea, sooner rather than later, the extent of amendments we are going to have on this bill. On the issue of nuclear power, before we are finished with this debate, we will lay before the Senate what the Energy Committee, in its markup of this bill, did so as to make sure the United States had an array of energy sources during the next 10, 20, and 30 years. We have tax credits for solar energy. We have tax credits for wind energy. The Senator argues that is different. Well, maybe we ought to change and have just plain tax credits for nuclear power. Maybe there would be no objection to it. Perhaps we could convert what we thought was a better way to do this to some kind of a tax credit, which would mean that if they produced, and only if they produced, would they get any credit. What we did in the instance of nuclear power was to say if the Secretary of Energy, at some time, finds that the United States needs a nuclear powerplant because it needs a diversity of energy or it needs it because there is some clean air problem, then to a creditworthy applicant, a creditworthy builder, of a nuclear powerplant, they may subsidize half the cost with a guaranteed loan. Now, one can talk about that in terms of how much that is going to cost. The Senator from New Mexico assumes we look at all of these from the standpoint of the benefits, what are the benefits to America? Twelve years ago, this Senator started looking at nuclear power. With the passage of each year, as I studied it and wrote about it and thought about it, I became more embarrassed and more ashamed of what the United States of America had done with this superb technology that we had invented, that was being used in the world and that we had set on the shelf because a few people frightened us to death. Do people know that today two nuclear powerplants are being built in Taiwan? They are building a modern, General Electric design. Guess what they tell us the cost is going to be. In fact, I believe we will introduce a letter next week during the argument. The costs will be very close to the equivalent costs of what we are now paying to build natural gas burned, natural gas fed, powerplants. Who would have thought it? What has happened is, since natural gas is the singular source of energy, the cost is skyrocketing because there is no competition. We intend there to be competition, not only from nuclear but we have ample money in this bill for great research in coal, too. We have over $2 billion in research for clean coal. It does not produce any coal. It just says do the research to try to make technology work. What we have done overall for the first time in the last 20 years is to say, let us develop a nuclear policy for the greatest nation on Earth and let us show the world that we have not abandoned the safest way to produce energy, electricity for people in the world. Let us show that we are not abandoning that. Let us show that we are going to lead again. And so there is a three-pronged policy. The Price-Anderson Act, which makes it possible for the private sector to be involved, is made permanent. This bill says, let's build a demonstration project in the State of Idaho, a brandnew concept, so we will build a nuclear powerplant that will be passive. By passive, we mean we will prove it cannot burn. There are people who speculate a nuclear powerplant can burn. They have spoken of its burning its way through the earth. This new powerplant will be physically made so it is passive. It will produce high enough temperatures so you can produce hydrogen for the new hydrogen economy we are looking at. America is close to being able to build a nuclear powerplant again, like they are being built in Taiwan, like they have been built year after year in France. France produces 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. They do not run around frightened to death of technology like the United States. If anyone wants to see France's nuclear waste, they will take you to a gymnasium. You can walk into the gymnasium, like walking into a school, and walk on a glass floor. One might ask, where is the waste? You are walking on it. It is encapsulated for 50 years at least, and nothing can happen to it while they figure out what to do with it. What does the greatest nation on Earth do? We sit paralyzed, waiting around for something to happen in Nevada. I am sure we will hear that argument before we finish the debate next Tuesday. We know that is an engineering issue that will be solved. What we do not know: Will the United States continue to remain dependent upon natural gas almost exclusively or will we say it may be time for American companies to build one or two nuclear powerplants? We understand they are very close. They have experienced litigation and other impediments. It is hard to get over the hurdle, over the hump. We have asked, what would it take to start a couple of them? What a day, when America starts a couple new nuclear powerplants. We would be entering an era of cheap electricity, available to everyone, poor countries and rich countries. Guess what. There will be no pollution problem. The ambient air will be affected zero. We knew it was worth the effort to get America going again regarding its strength and power as the inventor of the safest energy ever produced by mankind to this point. We could have put in tax credits: If you produce something, we will give you a tax credit. Then our friends would not be making the argument; you are giving them something before they produce. We chose what we thought was most simple and least expensive to the Federal Government, saying, if necessary, you can give them half the costs in a loan guarantee, to get us going again. That is the whole issue. Should we do that or should we not do that? Before we are finished, the Senate will understand, in spite of it having difficulty with this Energy bill--we cannot seem to get people to focus on the Energy bill--but they will understand the significance of this issue. They will understand that the fear regarding nuclear power and nuclear fuel rods is about nothing but a red herring. They are nothing that engineering competence cannot handle. I close this opening argument on nuclear power and whether or not it is safe by saying to everyone listening or worrying about nuclear power versus the other power in America, there are over 100 American Navy vessels on the high seas of the world with engines that are nuclear powerplants. Nuclear powerplants run battleships, run aircraft carriers. They have fuel rods in them. They carry them everywhere on the seas. They are at every port in the free world, save one in New Zealand because New Zealand has an agreement against it. They are so safe, there are boats and ships all around the world that have nuclear powerplants on board, with nuclear waste sitting right there in the hulls of the ships. When you add all that, it is the safest way to produce energy for the world in the future. Our package includes the research facility we will build in the State of my good friend who is sitting on my right. We say to our executive branch, in the event you think it is necessary, you can issue a loan agreement for half the cost of a nuclear powerplant to get it going. I understand there are those who will just add up costs under the worst of circumstances. I would rather add up all the pluses and take a risk that is worthwhile. If ever there was a risk that was worthwhile, it is a plain and simple risk to revive nuclear power in America for America and for the world. That is what is at issue in this bill. Those who argue not to gamble any money on this will not raise a pinky on spending $1.6 billion to research hydrogen, for a new hydrogen economy. It may not work. It may be thrown away. But it is in this bill to start the idea of engines that are going to use the new fuel. We are spending that money. We are not guaranteeing it. We are spending it. We are not guaranteeing General Motors. We are saying, enter into a partnership. We will spend some money. We hope it works. This is an issue of risk. When you look at the other kinds of fuels, all of which we promote, none of which we shortchange, will we say America is a coal country, spend money to make the coal clean so that the ambient air of America is, indeed, clean? And spend plenty of it. We say, build windmills and give huge credits for them to such an extent that there may be too many of them built in the next decade; we have to pass an national ordinance so they will not build them too close to some of our cities because there will be so many of them when this bill is passed with the subsidy included, the tax subsidy that will be attached. Geothermal-- there are plenty of subsidies. Every kind of energy you can imagine, we have said: Help it move along. At the same time, we have put into a package that rare opportunity for the United States to face up to the fact that, although we invented nuclear power, we hid from it. Others didn't. It is time we come back and revisit it. It is time that, as a package, coupled with all the other policies, we take a little risk in terms of its future, for the future of the world. Mr. President, I have a series of remarks that I delivered on the nuclear subject on October 31, 1977, at Harvard University, which summarizes my views to that point. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. There is no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 856

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how long did that last vote take?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 854

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the second-degree amendment be adopted and the underlying first-degree amendment No. 840, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. Five minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Campbell has been waiting for a long time. He has an amendment on the underlying bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from California who has just offered an amendment which expands the substances that can be used for ethanol conversion. I am willing to accept the amendment. I favor the amendment. I understand the distinguished minority manager would like to speak on the subject at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I say to the Senator, I will do my very best. I indicated that to you and I will do my very best. I make that commitment to you.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 10:30 a.m. for a nomination hearing to consider the nominations of C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning, Border and Transportation Security Directorate, Department of Homeland Security; Michael J. Garcia to be Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; and Joe D. Whitly to be General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226. i. nominations R. Hewitt Pate to be Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice; David B. Rivkin to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission; Richard C. Wesley to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit; J. Ronnie Greer to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee; Thomas M. Hardiman to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Mark R. Kravitz to be United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut; John A. Woodcock to be United States District Judge for the District of Maine. ii. bills S. Res. 116, A resolution commemorating the life, achievements and contributions of Al Lerner.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., to conduct a hearing on Senate Rule XXII and proposals to amend this rule.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 5 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing regarding S. 485, the Clear Skies bill, to examine emissions- control technologies and utility-sector investment issues. The hearing will take place in SD 406.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 5, 2003, on Intercity Passenger Rail Finance at 10 a.m. in Room SR-253.