Amendment No. 875

AMENDMENT NO. 875

(Purpose: To strike the provision relating to deployment of new nuclear power plants)

    Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

    The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

    The Senator from Oregon [Mr. WYDEN], for himself, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Reid, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Jeffords, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 875.

    Strike subtitle B of title IV.

    Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, this amendment is sponsored by three Democrats, three Republicans, and one Independent. I hope this afternoon that it will have the support of Senators with varying degrees of views about the advisability of nuclear power. I am particularly pleased that the lead cosponsor, Senator Sununu, is with us today.

    I will make a few brief remarks to begin the debate and then I am anxious to have plenty of time for colleagues.

    The reason three Democrats and three Republicans and one Independent are sponsoring this amendment is that I think many of us in the Senate are neither pronuclear nor antinuclear but we are definitely protaxpayer. That is why we are on the floor this afternoon, because the loan guarantees that are in this legislation to construct nuclear power facilities are unprecedented and represent, in my view, particularly onerous and troublesome risks to the taxpayers of this country.

    Frankly, people in my part of the country know a bit about this. It is not an abstraction for the people of the Pacific Northwest where we had the WPPSS debacle and 4 out of 5 facilities were never built. It was the biggest municipal bond failure in history, and it has certainly colored my thinking with respect to why we are on the floor today.

    The loan guarantees—we did some research into this—are unprecedented with respect even to nuclear power. As far as I can tell, in the early days of nuclear power, there were subsidies for nuclear power but never before were the taxpayers on the hook from the get-go. That is what the Senate is confronted with now.

    When it comes to the question of risk, I hope the Senate will focus on what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said on this topic. I will quote. It is at page 9 of the Congressional Budget Office analysis that we have made available to Senators. The Congressional Budget Office considered:

    The risks of default on such loan guarantees to be very high, well above 50 percent.

    Colleagues, first, when we are talking about risk—because nothing in life is foolproof and there are no guarantees of anything—I hope in looking at these guarantees you will first focus on the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has specifically said in their analysis that the risk of default on the guarantees is very high. If those plants default, the exposure to taxpayers is enormous.

    I will quote from the Congressional Research Service report they did with respect to these subsidies. They said:

    .    .    . the potential cost to the federal government of the nuclear power plant subsidies that would be provided by [this title] would be in the range of $14-$16 billion in 2002 dollars.

    I think it is worth noting that the Senate spent a great deal of time on the child tax credit last week. There we were focusing on something involving $3 billion. If one or two of these plants go down, taxpayers are on the hook for a sum greater than that child tax credit.

    Now, in the course of today's discussion, we will hear a number of arguments against the Wyden-Sununu amendment. One of the first will be: There are tax credits for a variety of energy sources in this legislation, for wind and solar and a variety of energy alternatives. That is correct. But those tax incentives are fundamentally different than the loan guarantees because in those instances the producer faces substantial risk.

    With respect to, say, a wind facility, if the producer takes the initial risk and later on produces some wind power, they would get a credit in order to defray some of their costs. With respect to the loan guarantees for nuclear power, the producer faces no such risk. The producer has the Government, in effect, guaranteeing, right at the outset, much of the risk.

    So with respect to these nuclear loan guarantees, unlike the incentives for wind or solar, what we are talking about is that the Government will socialize the losses but will let private investors pick up the gains. The losses will be socialized; the gains will be privatized. And that is unique in this legislation.

    I also say to my colleagues in the Senate, the White House has never asked for these loan guarantees. These loan guarantees are not in the House bill. Senators' phones are not ringing off the hook from the Secretary of Energy or others clamoring that this must be done. This is something that, in my view, is far out of the mainstream in terms of energy policy, not because I am antinuclear—and I don't intend to talk about safety issues—but because it is such a large exposure to taxpayers.

    For example, a number of reports have come out already with respect to how nuclear power stands up with respect to other costs such as natural gas or coal. One of the reasons, in my view, the Congressional Budget Office believes there is such a high risk of default is that the objective analyses show that nuclear has not been competitive with other sources such as coal.

    I hope Senators will look at those two reports: a report done by the Congressional Budget Office documenting a high likelihood of default, and a report done by the Congressional Research Service talking about exposure to taxpayers.

    I would finally say to the Senate, it did not have to be this way. I know the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee feels very strongly about this subject. He is a longtime family friend. I was very willing, and I think other Senators were as well, to have had a modest program. We had been talking, for example, about one experimental initiative to look at advanced technologies of one sort or another. I think that would have been acceptable. But here we are talking about guarantees for up to seven plants.

    I will make reference to the legislation. The bill authorizes DOE to provide loan guarantees for up to 50 percent of the construction costs of new nuclear plants and, on top of that, would authorize the Department of Energy to enter into long-term contracts for the purchase of power from those plants. The Secretary could provide loan guarantees for up to seven plants.

    That is not a modest experiment that would have been acceptable to this Member of the Senate, but it is a very significant exposure to the taxpayers of this country at a time when every Senator is concerned about deficits.

    Mr. President, I intend to allow time for my colleagues. I see Senator Sununu is on the floor. Senator Reid has strong views on this.

    I also express my appreciation to the distinguished ranking minority member of the Energy Committee. He has worked very closely with me. He embodies the philosophy of a lot of our colleagues in that he has been supportive of nuclear power in the past but believes these subsidies are too rich.

    I am hopeful that today Senators with varying degrees of views on the nuclear power issue will agree with the Congressional Budget Office, will agree with the Congressional Research Service on these issues with respect to the taxpayers, and support the Wyden-Sununu amendment.

    Mr. President, I yield at this time so other colleagues who have time constraints may speak. I will have the opportunity to speak later in the debate.

....

    The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRAPO). The Senator from New Mexico.

    Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if I might speak with the distinguished Senator from Oregon about the final vote. We are wondering, from our side, for no reasons other than time—the more time we have left, the more we might get done—whether we might be able to vote at 3:45 instead of 4:15, saving half an hour. We would be delighted to not ask the Senator to give up very much of that time but I wonder if he would consider a consent agreement for 3:45, which will give us, instead of our hour, 40 minutes, and what is left would belong to the Senator, or 35 minutes. Would that be fair enough for the Senator?

    Mr. WYDEN. I want to be accommodating to the distinguished chairman of the committee. Let me spend a couple of minutes looking into it.

    Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.

    Mr. WYDEN. I will try to ascertain how many Senators on our side of the proposition would like to speak, but the Senator has always been fair.

    Mr. DOMENICI. Let's not agree. Let's put that before them as a possibility. Right now we are exploring the notion of voting at 3:45 instead of 4:15. If we did that, we would allocate the time away from each hour in order to get there. In the meantime, we will both ask our cloakrooms if there is any problems with any Senators. The Senator from Oregon will do it on his side and I will do it on mine.

    Mr. President, I assume I can speak at this point; I have the floor?

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

    Mr. WYDEN. Would the distinguished Senator yield?

    Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to yield.

    Mr. WYDEN. I think we may need to go to 4 rather than 3:45, but I will try to accommodate the distinguished chairman. We will spend some time checking his desire to move the legislation, which has transcended any particular amendment, and we are anxious to accommodate.

....

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

    Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time remains for each side?

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the amendment have 14 minutes 18 seconds; the opponents of the amendment have 2 minutes 35 seconds.

    Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if I could engage the distinguished chairman of the committee, I would like to close the debate. At this point, I believe the Presiding Officer said I have in the vicinity of 14 minutes. I say to the Senator, you have in the vicinity of 2 minutes. Would you like to speak now?

    Mr. DOMENICI. No, I would not.

    Mr. WYDEN. Then I will take 5 minutes of our time at this point.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

    Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, at that point we have 9 minutes remaining?

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 8½.

    Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.

    Mr. President, a couple of arguments need to be addressed at this point. The Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, just recently said the Wyden-Sununu provision would, in some way, jeopardize the reliability of power and cost jobs today. That is simply not correct. No plant that is operating today—not one—would be affected by this amendment, and not a single job in America would be lost. Now, with respect to jobs of the future—and I think this is important to note—if you look at the official figures of the Federal Government—these are supplied by the Energy Information Agency—the fact is, you can build four or five gas-fired plants for the cost of one nuclear facility. That is, again, not something just made up. Those are the official figures of the Federal Government with respect to the comparative costs of this amendment.

    I think we ought to note, for example, just how unprecedented this is. When people began to debate nuclear power decades ago—50 years ago—when the commercial nuclear industry was first getting started, there were not any loan guarantees. In fact, even during the early days, there was no subsidy along these lines. People would say, let's support research, let's support various opportunities to assist with the nuclear reactors but not even in the early days was there a construction subsidy. In fact, in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 there was an explicit prohibition on subsidizing any of these facilities.

    So what we are talking about is something where a nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office has made it clear it is risky. They said there is upwards of a 50-percent likelihood of default. The Congressional Research Service has said it is going to be costly. Mr. President, $14 to $16 billion is the appraisal of the Congressional Research Service.

    I have made it clear it is unprecedented both with respect to this bill and the history. Finally, it is simply unfair when you compare it to other sources of power.

    I wrap up this part of the discussion by making sure Senators are clear on the distinction between nuclear power and various other sources of power under this proposal.

    Under the way the Domenici legislation is written, if you do not produce any wind, you get no direct subsidy. But under the legislation as it stands today, if you do not produce any nuclear power, you get a subsidy. That is as clear a distinction as we could possibly make. For all the other sources of power, if you produce nothing, no subsidy; for nuclear, if you produce nothing, you get a big subsidy. The difference—what it all comes down to—is whether Senators believe that one particular source of power deserves cash up front and, in effect, putting taxpayers on the hook at the outset before anything is produced.

    On a bipartisan basis—three Democratic Senators, three Republican Senators, and an Independent—we think that is unwise.

    Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

    Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have been asked because of other people—not me—that we commence this vote at 3:45. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

    Several Senators addressed the Chair.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request has been made. Is there objection?

    Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

    Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if we could just take a second to make sure we are fair, I note that the Senator from Nevada would like to have several minutes, and we would like the opportunity to close. So if we can work out the opportunity——

    Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, they want a vote at 3:45, so we don't need any time. He can have 3 minutes and you can close.

    Mr. WYDEN. I withdraw my reservation.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

    The Senator from Nevada is recognized for 3 minutes.

    Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I just want to make a couple points and keep it fairly brief.

    The nuclear power industry has been around for a long time. We hear about other new sources of energy that this country is trying to develop, and it seems to make sense we would subsidize some of that new research. It is basic research that the Government is involved in. Whether it is health care, whether it is energy, that seems to be an appropriate role for the Federal Government.

    But nuclear energy has been around for a long time, and it is commercially viable in many other countries in the world. To this Senator, it does not seem to be the right thing to do to be subsidizing nuclear power because it should have already proven its merit in the marketplace and been able to stand on its own.

    Unfortunately, we have a situation where we had a vote last year on the Yucca Mountain project, which is the Nation's nuclear waste repository, and this Senate decided to continue to build Yucca Mountain. What that indicates is that the Senate is already subsidizing nuclear power. People say, no, Yucca Mountain is being built by the ratepayers, the people who receive the benefits of nuclear energy. They pay a tax on that or a rate on that and, therefore, they pay into the nuclear fund that will build on Yucca Mountain.

    According to the General Accounting Office, that is not going to be enough. So we are going to be subsidizing nuclear power as it is. To add another subsidy would be wrong at this time. Whether you look at Japan or Germany, these other countries, they are building them commercially; they are operating them viably.

    If nuclear power is so good commercially, then it should stand on its own. We have several other provisions in the bill that Senators SUNUNU and WYDEN have not touched on nuclear power. But to actually have Federal loan guarantees that will leave the taxpayer holding the bill would be wrong at this time. If nuclear power is going to stand, let it stand on its own.

    I yield the floor.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

    Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator could do me one favor. Let Senator Graham have 1 minute. Then you wind up with the time you have, the same time you have.

    Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to accommodate the Senator from South Carolina. How much additional time do I have?

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the vote was to occur at a quarter to 4. You have the time between now and then.

    Mr. DOMENICI. We don't need to have the Senator speak. Go ahead.

    Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina have 2 additional minutes and if I could have 3 additional minutes after he is done speaking.

    Mr. DOMENICI. We cannot do that.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

    Mr. DOMENICI. It is not me. I have just been told, after instructions from the leadership.

    Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, then I would like to accommodate the Senator from South Carolina. I have a couple of minutes to go.

    Mr. DOMENICI. You don't have a couple minutes.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 2 minutes at this point. The Senator from Oregon.

    Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as we move to the vote, basically all the arguments made against the W y d e n-S u n u n u-S n o w e-E n s i g n-B i n g a- man amendment, all of the arguments made against us were made for the WPPSS facilities which resulted in the biggest municipal bond failure in history. Back then they said it wouldn't be unduly risky. They said there wouldn't be any questions with respect to exposure to those who were financing it. Look at what happened. Four out of those five facilities did not get built.

    I say to my colleagues, those who are pronuclear, those who are antinuclear, this is not about your position with respect to nuclear power pro or con. It is about whether or not you are going to be protaxpayer. The Congressional Research Service says the taxpayers are on the hook for $14 to $16 billion. The Congressional Budget Office says there is upwards of a 50-percent likelihood of default. Under this provision, the loan guarantees provide opportunities to construct nuclear facilities that no one else is getting. Other people don't get the break unless they produce something. Here you get the break even if you produce no nuclear power whatsoever and you get it directly out of the taxpayer's pocket.

    It is unwise. I hope my colleagues will vote with three Democratic Senators, three Republican Senators, and an Independent for this amendment.

    I yield the floor.