Page images

tions of the country that are subject to the situation which has been explained by the Senator from Colorado, so that they would have a preference over other sections of the country, then I shall be willing to agree that he has made a reasonable suggestion, because we have already written into the law a preference to the effect that, where everything else is equal, the Commission, in the granting of the licenses, shall give consideration to the areas of the country where the costs of electric power are high.

Do I make myself clear? Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Yes; the Senator from Rhode Island makes himself very clear. But I still have a feeling that there should be somewhere in the bill a preference reservation, by means of which the Commission perhaps should be directed to see to it that communities and organizations such as REA's are not foreclosed, but are given preference. I think the bill might be amended by means of providing a direction to the Commission on that point.

I must admit that I am not certain

how such a provision should be worded; but I feel very strongly that such a direction should be given.

Mr. PASTORE. In reply, Mr. President, let me say that the Senator from Colorado has a valid point, that has been raised before; he is not alone in that point of view, for there are many others who have argued in the way he has. The committee went all over that subject, and finally decided that the question was not so important as the Senator from Colorado regards it.

However, if the Senator from Colorado feels that the law should be amended in that respect, I state again that, although I see no great advantage to be gained by the inclusion of such a provision in this bill, I still see no harm in placing it in the bill.

In conclusion, Mr. President, let me say that if passage of the bill depends on the inclusion of such a provision, I would concede on that point.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield to me?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator Senator from Rhode Island please turn to page 15 of the report which is now before us? I invite his attention to the last sentence before chapter 6, at the top of the page-which, for the sake of the RECORD, I shall now read, beginning in line 4:

This section will permit the Commission to dispose of that utilizable energy it produces in the course of its own operations, but does not permit the Commission to enter the power-producing business without further congressional authorization to construct or operate such commercial facilities.

I presume that sentence refers to uranium and plutonium. As I understand from the report and from the text of the bill, under the present act the Commission has the power to produce uranium and plutonium and then to release them to private users. However, this measure does not give the Commission the power to use uranium and plu

tonium itself, for the direct production of power.

Does the Senator from Rhode Island think that is a wise limitation; or does he believe that in the bill specific authorization should be granted for the Commission to produce uranium and plutonium-recognizing always that Congress, through its power to appropriate, will be able to control the degree to which the Commission actually produces them?

In other words, why should not the bill contain such an authorization, but also provide control, through the appropriative process, over the degree to which the Commission may exercise the power?

I am very frank to say that I do not want to see the Government develop all the power which could be generated from uranium and plutonium. I should like to see the major portion of such power developed by private industry, but I would not want at this time to foreclose the Government from the authority to generate power from uranium and plutonium.

Mr. PASTORE. Let me say to the distinguished Senator, first, that the sentence which he has read has no bearing on our continuation of the TVA.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I recognize that. This is a basic and fundamental question, which has nothing to do with TVA.

Mr. PASTORE. I cannot answer the Senator in two words. If he will allow me an opportunity to answer

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have never said that it did refer to TVA.

Mr. PASTORE. First, all title to such material, because of its special nature, must remain in the Government. Certain private industries which come in under the licensing phase of the act will be permitted to use the materials for a fee, except, perhaps, in the case of medical research, in which possibly the use will be free. Also, in the case of a university, there might be no fee. That would be discretionary with the Commission. This is a limitation not on the United States Government but on the Commission. I think the Senator will agree with me that we do not want anything in the act to be construed as meaning that we are putting the Commission itself into the electric-light business or the power-generating business. had not put this provision into the bill we would not have had the debate on the Dixon-Yates contract which took place yesterday. We are trying to avoid that. We are trying to keep the Federal Government out of the power-producing business.

If we

In certain localities where current is sold under the supervision of State agencies, we want to continue such supervision by those agencies, but we admit that in the manufacture of this special material certain electric power may be generated in Commission establishments. We say that it may sell such power, but we do not desire to create the impression that we want to put the Commission into the business of manufacting power. If we ever come to the time when it may be desirable to allow the United States Government to build a plant to generate current, that question, of course, will have to be decided by Congress.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator from Rhode Island answer this further question: Is it not true that the capital which will be required to utilize these materials in order to develop power will be so great that in practice the leasing authority authority which is granted by the Atomic Energy Commission will amount to a local monopoly? Therefore, what will happen will be that the Atomic Energy Commission will be farming out to local monopolies the development of power from these materials. Let the record be perfectly clear. I am not opposed to the Federal Government leasing this energy to private groups, but why should the Commission be foreclosed from developing this power itself?

It seems to me that when the Senator from Rhode Island says that the bill merely forecloses the Commission, but does not foreclose the Government, he is indulging in some very able word juggling, because when we close the door to the Commission, in most parts of the country we are closing the door to the Government.

Mr. PASTORE. There is a distinction, and I hope I can make it clear to the Senator. In this bill what we are concerned with is the development and research which are involved, so that one day we can reach the point of building a reactor for the production of current. The bill would not preclude the Government from that activity.

The Senator is talking about the sale of electricity. The bill has nothing to do with the sale of electricity. The bill has nothing to do with electricity, or its distribution. The bill deals with the research and development phase, which will lead one day to the establishment of practicability. Once that is established, then we reach the stage of licensing for the purpose of building a reactor. The Government can do all that. The Government can do everything that industry is given authority to do under the bill. The point which has been raised by the Senator-and I wish to emphasize it because I think it is important is this: He has gone a step further. He says, "After reactors have been built, after they become conventional, after their use becomes widespread, then what? How about the electricity which will have to be sold to the consuming public?"

When we reach that stage, we shall have to decide the question. That is not the problem at the moment. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. It is extremely important to understand what we are doing now. What I am afraid the bill does, according to the report of the majority, and as I read the text, is to close the door to the Government. Evidently some doubt arose in the mind of the Senator from Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], judging from the very able speech he delivered yesterday. In the absence of future legislation, the only recourse that will be open to the Atomic Energy Commission will be to lease these materials-I assume

they are plutonium and uranium-to private industry.

I repeat that I am not opposed to the leasing of such materials to private industry, but I do not want to see the door closed against their use by the Federal Government.

Congress, through its power of appropriation to the Atomic Energy Commission, can at any time either approve or disapprove of a particular project for this purpose. Why should the authorization be shut off in the fundamental legislation? We can control the actual application at a later date, either through appropriation or the failure to appropriate.

Mr. PASTORE. That is exactly so; and the bill is clear in that respect. All we are saying to the Commission in the bill is, "When you are ready to build a powerplant for the production of electric current in competition with private and public utilities, you must come to the Congress and state your case. We must pass upon the question, and when we come to pass upon it we shall decide whether or not you should do it."

But we do not want anything in this program to be construed as a license from the Congress to the Commission to go ahead and build all the powerplants it wishes, all over the country, to the exclusion of such action by others. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield.

Mr. DOUGLAS. No one is proposing that. No one is proposing that the Commission be given a "hunting license" without any restrictions. As the Senator from Rhode Island knows, there are two hurdles to take. The first is the authorization. The second is the appropriation. The language of the authorization bill is such that, in the opinion of the majority of the joint committee, it would not permit the Commission to enter the power-producing business.

Mr. PASTORE. Except for the power which is necessary for its own operations. That is important.


Mr. DOUGLAS. It would not permit the development of electrical power for industrial or commercial This energy must be leased to private holders, or perhaps to one or two regions of the country where there are regional public power authorities. In other portions of the country, the bill would not permit any alternative or any experimentation. Take the region from which the Senator from Rhode Islands comes, the New England States. I believe they have the highest regional power rates in the Nation, rates which have held back the industrial development of that area. Under the terms of the pending bill it would not be possible for the Atomic Energy Commission to establish a pilot plant for the distribution of power in that region.

Mr. PASTORE. A pilot plant in order to prove the effectiveness and practicability of a reactor could be built, but the Commission could not build a power plant anywhere in the country to compete with already established public utility companies. We say, "When you get into that, you get into the basic philosophy of whether the Government will be

in the electrical business, or whether private enterprise will conduct it. At that time you will have to come back to Congress."

Mr. DOUGLAS. They must always come back to Congress in conection with appropriation bills. The battle for the TVA was not fought only when the TVA Act was passed. It is being fought every year, when it is a question of whether a dam shall be built or whether a steam plant shall be built. At such times Congress exercises continuing control as to the degree to which TVA shall be permitted to operate. Therefore, there is some advantage in having fundamental language written into the law on that point.

Mr. PASTORE. The Senator from Illinois has a way of twisting words. I have no doubt on the subject. I am merely giving the Senator from Illinois the benefit of the power of the argument he makes. Certainly there is no doubt in my mind. I am saying the Senator is making a good argument, but I am still not convinced by it.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I suggest that the Senator from Illinois is approaching the matter from a collateral road. The Department of Agriculture spends millions of dollars in developing new fertilizers and new kinds of materials for

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the benefit of the farmers of America. the Senator yield?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield.

Mr. ANDERSON. I ask the Senator whether he does not agree with me that the bill does not permit the Atomic Energy Commission to generate electric energy as such for even its own operations, except in a pilot plant. Would the Senator not agree that if at Oak Ridge, for example, the Atomic Energy Commission required additional current for its gaseous diffusion plant, it could for its gaseous diffusion plant, it could not take plutonium or uranium, or anything else, and generate current, except as a byproduct? In other words, it cannot set up a plant to generate current as current; it can only produce it as a byproduct. Is that correct?

Mr. PASTORE. That is correct. Mr. ANDERSON. I do not say that is bad; it does bother me, however.

Mr. PASTORE. We are getting down to the philosophy of the subject. It is natural that people should disagree. I myself am not very steadfast in my views on this point, but I believe that, this field being of such tremendous size, we must somehow encourage the Government to somehow encourage the Government to remain in it, in order to help certain phases of our society that cannot be left to depend solely on public utilities. However, the fact still remains that that is not the question before us now. Mr. DOUGLAS. the Senator yield? Mr. PASTORE. Mr. DOUGLAS. Let us keep the door Let us keep the door open so that the question can be settled in the future without throwing several hurdles in the way.

By the same token, the fact that it does extend these governmental services does not mean that the Department of Agriculture will go into the sale of commercial fertilizers. The Bureau of Standards every year tests hundreds of electrical and scientific devices, and carries on extensive experimentation in scientific fields. There is nothing in the law which permits the Bureau of Standards or the Government, through the Bureau of Standards, to enter the manufacturing field.

What is confusing here is that which is not quite understood. It is that if it were not for the weapons end of atomic energy, and if it were not for the necessity that this country do as much as it can to safeguard against the use of atomic weapons in the world, or to protect the peace of the world through the weapons end of this undertaking, the whole atomic field would be thrown wide. open to the genius and competition of the American people.

It is the weapons end which justifies, at least in my mind, the maintenance of monopolistic control on the part of the Government as to what will be done with the source material and with the generating capacity which comes from atomic energy. There is the point of confusion. The Government did not go into the Mr. President, will field of atomic energy for the purpose of producing power, or anything else. It went into it for the purpose of developing weapons; and in that connection great scientific fields were opened up for exploration.

I yield.

Mr. PASTORE. I am afraid that if we were to write that kind of provision in the act-and I can see the import and power of the argument made by the distinguished Senator from Illinois-we would not meet the situation. would not meet the situation. We did not want to create such a situation that the Commissioners could branch off and start getting into the electrical business. We did not want them to do that. If at We did not want them to do that. If at any time they thought they would like any time they thought they would like to do it, we wanted them to come back to Congress for permission.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not believe the present Commissioners will branch off and get into the power generation field. We can always control them in that regard. The Senator seems to have some doubt in his mind. I wonder whether he would not come a little closer and agree that this language should be changed.

It was the purpose of the original act, as is stated in it, that atomic energy ultimately should be used to foster competition in the private enterprise system. That is what we are trying to do now.

We are only using the licensing device, for licensing the source materials, and collecting a fee for its use, because we have believed consistently that control over the source materials which are usable in the production of weapons of destruction, and the utility and dissipation of those source materials, must, in the interest of world peace and our own security, be held closely within the Government; and we use the Atomic Energy Commission as the device for holding it. We are trying to find a way to open up that field to free competition. We are trying our best to do that. The only way we know of at the present time, while safeguarding the weapons end, is to use the licensing device; and we have

made it clear repeatedly and consistently that the atomic energy program does not contemplate putting the Federal Government, at least at this time, into the production of competitive commercial power.

We want to give the American system a chance to show what it can do in that regard. If, as, and when Congress ever believes it is desirable for the American Government, through the Commission or otherwise, to enter the field of production of commercially competitive power, Congress should have the right to authorize it.

believe, a statement by the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission made in the course of the hearings, which appears on page 596 and goes to the end of the on page 596 and goes to the end of the first paragraph on page 597. In that In that statement Chairman Strauss mentions the very section of the bill which we are discussing, and describes its purpose in terms similar to those expressed by the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD at this point, sent to insert in the RECORD at this point, the statement to which I have referred.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

A significant feature of the bill is its assurance that once the practical value of any type of power reactor or related activity has been demonstrated, any qualified person may apply for and receive a license to engage in that use, subject, of course, to the overrid

The Senator from Illinois referred in his opening remarks to this provision in the bill. All it says is that in connection with experimentation and research and development, which is a part of the job of the Commission, in the interest of national safety, if the reactors produce power as an incident to their major ing considerations of safety, security, and purpose, namely, of safeguarding the national security, and if that power is salable, there is no use letting it run down the drain or letting it go up in the air, or wasting it otherwise, and the Commission is authorized to sell such incidental, byproduct power.

However, we make it clear that we do not, by this section, intend to open up atomic energy as a commercial competitor in the field of electricity through this development.

Mr. PASTORE. In addition to what the distinguished Senator from Iowa has stated, it is a fact that by far the largest portion of the source material which we use must be imported from other countries of the world.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. It is essential. as the Senator from Rhode Island knows because we discused it many times, that the Federal Government, in the interest of national security-not in the interest of the production of commercial powerthrough, its duly authorized agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, shall have control and keep hold of this material at all times, at least for the reasonable foreseeable future, so that it can command it when the national interest dictates. That is the only reason for the licensing device and the only reason for the Government monopoly, namely, national security. Otherwise, I am sure the whole purpose of the act has been to turn this great discovery and development over to American enterprise, to the genius of the competitive system, and to the stimulus afforded by private industry. However, national security is still the overridding and controlling interest.

Mr. ANDERSON and Mr. KEFAUVER addressed the Chair.

Mr. PASTORE. I yield first to the Senator from New Mexico; then I shall yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. ANDERSON. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Rhode Island. I desire to assure him that I am very much interested in what he is saying, and I should like to say that he has spent a great deal more time on this bill and in the hearings than I was able to spend. I congratulate him upon his fidelity to the work of the committee.

I wish he would permit me to insert in the RECORD at this point, because it has some bearing on the discussion, I

the availability of fissionable material.

Now I should like to emphasize the fact that under the bill the Commission will not be in the business of selling atomic power, except by product power resulting from its production and research and development activities. This byproduct power will be interruptible power, at least in the early days of any project; it will be high in cost; and it will be comparatively small in amount.

Further, the Commission will not be impinging on the regulatory authority of other agencies over utility company operations. The bill makes it clear that the regulatory authority, including the rate-making authority, of Federal, State, and local agencies over generation, sale, and distribution of electric energy by utility companies is not intended to be affected by the bill or by the fact that the energy may be derived from nuclear rather than conventional sources.

This means as a practical matter that utilities seeking Commission licenses for the construction or operation of reactors will have to assure themselves that their proposals concerning distribution of the power, their financing, and their rate structure meet the requirements and standards of the regulating agencies.

This is as it should be. The Commission has no special competence in the field of electric energy distribution and seeks no Its functions responsibility in that field.

should be limited, as the bill contemplates, to those areas in which the Commission does have special competence or responsibilidoes have special competence or responsibiliity. These areas include the review of design criteria, the supervision of construction, and decisions on the technical qualifications of applicants to operate nuclear plants, on health and safety standards, and on security safeguards.

Finally, as we understand it, the bill makes no distinction between the rights of

private groups and the rights of public groups to participate in the development of peacetime industrial applications of atomic energy and to own and operate atomic energy facilities.

Mr. ANDERSON. Finally, I may say to the Senator from Rhode Island that, while I agree that that is the purpose of the bill, and while I said on yesterday of the bill, and while I said on yesterday I was afraid it barred the development of electric energy as electric energy, I am not quite sure I want to do that completely at this time. pletely at this time. For example, the reactor to which reference has been made would generate approximately 60,000 kilowatts. It was announced this morning that the North American Aviation Co. would generate a very small amount of electric energy and would expend approximately $10 million. We

shall never have a test as to whether electric energy derived from atomic power is cheap and usable until we spend $200 million in continuing experiments. The private companies cannot do that.

I was very happy to hear the statement made by the able Senator from Iowa yesterday with reference to this point, but I think we ought finally to try to place in the bill a provision that if the Atomic Energy Commission should decide to attempt a large-scale plant which would generate electric energy solely for the purpose of electric energy and not for the purpose of the development of a particular type of weapon, it could do so, because the spending of $200 million, or whatever the sum might be, might then prove the feasibility of certain types of reactors which the Senator from Illinois has said could easily change the whole economic picture in the New England States. The New England section has been faced with severe competition. Electric energy at low rates would be of tremendous importance to the whole eastern seaboard.

Therefore, while I completely agree with what the Senator from Rhode Island has said about what the bill does, it strikes me that it might be well to leave a loophole somewhere in the bill so that at some later date the Atomic Energy Commission could try to build a reactor for the production of current. A reactor which developed as little as 10,000 kilowatts would not be nearly so efficient, because of the very nature of the material used, as would a reactor which could develop from 250,000 to 500,000 kilowatts. I would not want to bar that possibility. The Atomic Energy Commission would probably have to come to the Congress for an appropriation, and that might be a sufficient entering wedge. I hope we will not tie this down in the bill, but that the provision will be so written that, if some day we wanted to make a large scale experiment as to the commercial value of nuclear energy, we could still do it without doing violence to the act.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for permitting me to make that statement.

Mr. PASTORE. I am very glad the Senator has made that statement. Whether what he has suggested should be done at this time I am not prepared to say, because what he has suggested, I think, has to do with a stage of development that really comes after the two procedures spelled out in the bill. I agree with him on the point that we should show our good faith in the future prospects of the whole matter by possibly building a powerplant from A to Z to prove to the rest of the world that it can be done. I think we ought to particularize on that. I do not believe it should be made subject to a loophole in the law; but that we should say in very clear terms that that is our intention. However, it does not seem to me to be a pressing problem at this time. As times goes on it can be done by special legislation. I think it deserves serious consideration.

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield? Mr. PASTORE. I yield.

Mr. MONRONEY. I have been very much interested in the wonderfully informative discussion which the Senator from Rhode Island has given us from the wealth of his experience on the Joint Committee. I wish he would amplify for me the right which he says exists in the Atomic Energy Commission to build reactors of sufficient size to furnish usable power for their own operations at Oak Ridge or Paducah or other plants. Did I correctly understand the Senator to say that if the time comes when they consider it feasible and practicable they can generate power from from the byproducts of atomic energy or from the other processes which their engineers learn, and they can then generate power to be used in the creation of additional atomic energy?

Mr. PASTORE. I am sorry if I created that impression. The Senator has reference to section 44 of the bill relating to byproduct energy, which I now read:

If energy which may be utilized is produced in the production of special nuclear material at production or experimental utilization facilities owned by the United States

In other words, if it is a byproduct such energy may be used by the Commission, or transferred to other Government agencies, or sold to publicly or privately owned utilities or users at reasonable and nondiscriminatory prices. If the energy produced is electric energy, the price shall be subject to regulation by the appropriate agency, State or Federal, having jurisdiction.

Mr. MONRONEY. But I understood the Senator to say that the plants are going to be very small-sized experimental pilot plants where the generation might be insignificant, and that it is more or less dump power from a small operation. operation. What I am talking about is whether the Atomic Energy Commission, whether the Atomic Energy Commission, in its development, can supply itself with power, if it finds in the subsequent engineering processes the way to do it, and may thus relieve the strain on other power resources.

Mr. PASTORE. The answer is "Yes," if the power which is generated is a byproduct in the manufacture of special product in the manufacture of special nuclear material. But there is nothing in this bill that gives the Commission authority tomorrow, let us say, to go to one of its plants and say, "From now on we will do everything here on our own." The bill does not go that far. There is no authorization which allows the Commission to set up its own powerplant tomorrow. But if it generated power in the production of special nuclear material, it could use the byprodclear material, it could use the byproducts of such electricity in its own plant, ucts of such electricity in its own plant, sell it to a Government agency, or, under proper restrictions, sell it to public or private utilities.

which allows the Commission to build a powerplant anywhere.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I am sure there is, because the Commission has built one, and has done so legally. There is no reason why it should not. But under the bill, the Commission would be prohibited from doing that very thing.

All of us are familiar with the fact that, so far, the use of uranium has been probably 99.9 percent for military purposes. That is probably true, but the Commission has recognized and realized that there are great power potentials in uranium. Private power companies have recognized that fact and are anxious to get into that field. The mining and processing of uranium, and everything else connected with uranium, require vast amounts of power. Why should not the Atomic Energy Commission have the authority to build on the Colorado Plateau such a powerplant as I have described? The plateau is isolated; it is arid; it is in the wide-open spaces. The area is a desert, and a powerplant is very urgently needed here. Why should the Commission be prohibited from developing such a plant?

Mr. PASTORE. Because it involves the question of whether the Atomic

Mr. MONRONEY. I thank the Sen- Energy Commission should be allowed to ator.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I assume the Senator from Rhode Island is more or less familiar with the Colorado

enter into the electricity business or the power business. That is a fundamental question which must be decided.

The Senator from Colorado says that under the present law the Commission could build such a plant. I refer the Senator to page 44 of the committee the page, under the title "Byproduct Power."

In other words, the small byproduct plateau, which is an important source of report, in the lower left-hand corner of

energy which might result from the manufacture of this special nuclear material.

Mr. MONRONEY. I am somewhat disappointed at the misunderstanding I had of the Senator's statement, because it would seem to me that with this proc

ess moving as rapidly as it can possibly move, in the direction of the discovery of new techniques for using byproducts, which may be in the plant itself, in refining uranium and plutonium, the energy might be used to supply a substantial part of the power used by the Commission itself in its own plant to manufacture more atomic energy for a more widely diversified use of it throughout the country.

I agree that we certainly do not want to put the Government in business. We do not want the Atomic Energy Commission to establish competitive plants to serve private customers, but we are dealing with an unknown market, and the progress made in discovery may lead

us to the time when it would be foolhardy and almost criminal negligence not to utilize such products as may be found in the plant with which to generate electric energy to be used by the same Commission in the same plant to create additional atomic energy.

Mr. PASTORE. I agree with the Sen

uranium in the United States. It is loIcated in the southwest corner of Colo

rado, the northwest corner of New Mexico, the northeast corner of Arizona, and the southeast part of Utah. It is called the Colorado plateau. In that region

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I am not talking about byproduct power.

Mr. PASTORE. That is the only section which might conceivably apply.


there is a movement by the REA's and Apart from that, I do not see any other
by the producers of uranium to build a
powerplant, using uranium as fuel, be-
cause electricity is needed there, and the
electricity which it is now necessary to
bring into that area costs a large sum
of money, since it has to be transported

long distances. So it is said that what should be done is to build an atomic powerplant in that immediate area,

which would serve the REA's and the mills, and would enable the necessary refinement for the development of uranium. Under the bill, such a powerplant would be prohibited, would it not? Mr. PASTORE. It is not that it would be prohibited; that preference is not


Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. No. The bill would take the place of the present law. Under the present law, the Atomic Energy Commission has the authority to build such a powerplant. But under the bill, they are denied that authority. Mr. PASTORE. Under the present

ator completely, and that is precisely law, the Commission, at the present mo

what section 44 provides. It says that

If energy which may be utilized is produced in the production of special nuclear material at production or experimental utilization facilities owned by the United States, such energy may be used by the


It says so.

ment, can only experiment in the building of a reactor or the manufacture of special nuclear material for military purposes. Under the present law the Commission cannot enter upon peacetime mission cannot enter upon peacetime pursuits in the atomic energy field, except upon an experimental basis. I do not believe there is anything in the law

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I am saying that under the present law the Commission has complete authority to build but under the bill it would not have that such a powerplant as I have described; authority. Somewhere in the bill that

authority is denied.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. GORE. I have greatly profited by the debate between the able Senator

from Rhode Island and his colleagues. At this time I wish to express a reserva

tion as to the foreclosing of authority for the Atomic Energy Commission to enter directly into this field. I point out that the Commission may be able to enter, in an indirect way, if certain precedents are allowed to stand.

The senior Senator from Illinois pointed out that if the Commission should be authorized to enter upon a program of building a power-generating plant Congress always would have control of that program by exercising its control over appropriations.

I wish to point out to the senior Senator from Illinois, and also to the junior Senator from Rhode Island and the junior Senator from New Mexico, that this might be done by contract, over

which, under the bill, Congress would not retain control. There is no provision in the bill requiring the Commission to return to the joint committee or to Congress for surveillance and review of contracts into which it may enter.

A statement was made that the Commission was limited to the building of powerplants in connection with experimentation and development. The vice chairman of the committee thought that was a limitation. Let me turn to page 79 of the bill, and read those same words. I do not wish to provoke the Senator from Rhode Island into a discussion of the proposed Dixon-Yates contract; I only cite this as an instance. Unless Congress is careful, the Commission may do by contract that over which Congress would have no control; whereas if Congress permitted the Commission to build directly, Congress could exercise control through appropriaappropriations. By stretching the words, "In connection with the construction or operation of the Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth installations,” the Commission is now proposing to enter into a contract with a plant wholly unrelated to either of these three specified production facilities. Again, I say I do not wish to provoke the Senator from Rhode Island into a discussion of that question. We had a long discussion yesterday, and shall have another. I merely wish to point out the danger of closing the door on direct operations, over which Congress can exercise control annually, but of leaving the door wide open for contractual obligations, by which we could be bound and committed to subsidy contracts over a long period of years.


I believe that argues persuasively for a provision or an amendment to the bill requiring a report to the joint committee and an exercise of some surveillance by that committee before the Commission enters into subsidy contracts. wish to point out that particular feature and that danger, and also to express a reservation about the foreclosing of authority of the Commission to proceed in this field under the constant annual control of the Congress.

Mr. PASTORE. The distinguished Senator suggested that he was hesitant or reluctant at this time to engage me in a discussion of the Dixon-Yates contract with reference to section 164, which is identical with section 12 (d) of the present law.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. PASTORE. Let me say to the distinguished Senator that I have always felt that the Dixon-Yates arrangements were outside the purview of the law and what the intent of Congress was when it enacted section 12 (d) of the law, a provision similar to section 164 of the pending bill. Congress enacted that law last year to implement several existing contracts and other contracts which were being negotiated at that time for power at the atomic-energy establishments. Hearings were held. The report clearly showed that all that was sought to be accomplished was the implementation of those contracts, so that the Commission would have the authority, and no question would be raised on the part of persons who might invest in the public util

ities concerned. But it was never intended, by the language used at that time, that Congress would allow the Federal Government to set up, by virtue of a 25-year contract, a public utility company which was not then in being, and which would sell to the TVA, through the AEC, current which was not at all necessary or required under the provisions of that section. As a lawyer I say the contract is a violation of the language and the intent of that section, so I have no qualms about that.

Section 164 is identical with section 12 (d) of the McMahon Act. This provision (d) of the McMahon Act. This provision was passed by the Congress on July 17, 1953. It was enacted in order to guarantee adequate electric-power supplies for the AEC plants at Oak Ridge, Padufor the AEC plants at Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth. The committee report on the bill at that time stated that the provision was needed to permit AEC to enter into contracts with TVA, Electric Energy, Inc., and the Ohio Valley Electric Co.

From AEC testimony before the Joint Committee on April 28, 1953, it is clear that the only intention in enacting this provision was to provide authorization for AEC to enter into those specific contracts. The provision has made it possible for the Government to avoid an investment in additional power-generating facilities of $1 billion. Instead, a guaranty against unreasonable loss was given anty against unreasonable loss was given to the private companies and to TVA.

All of our atomic-plant investment is predicated on a long-term need for atomic-weapon production. No one seriously expected last year-and no one has seriously proposed this year-that there is a foreseeable likelihood that these atomic plants will be shut down for many, many years to come.

But the fact is that section 12 (d) of the present law, and section 164 of the proposed bill, was intended by the Congress to enable the AEC to enter into three specific contracts. All of these contracts are now in effect. AEC has firm electric power commitments to meet all of its principal needs. None of the suppliers, including TVA, can under any circumstances default on its contractual obligation.

AEC will not lose a day of production anywhere if the Dixon-Yates contract is thrown away. This entire debate has absolutely nothing to do with the AEC, absolutely nothing to do with the AEC, nothing to do with our defense program, and is not remotely related to the intent of the Congress in enacting the statutory provision under which it is proposed that the contract be executed.

This entire discussion is a discredit to all involved in it, the Congress included. If anyone wishes to support or to oppose TVA expansion in the Memphis area, it should be done honestly, openly, and without recourse to political subterfuge, without recourse to political subterfuge, distortion of existing law, or plunging into the self-contradictory welter of electric utility statistics by which anything can be proven or disproven at the whim and will of the speaker.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield.

Mr. GORE. I confess that had I known that by making an inquiry I could have brought forth such a lucid, logical,

unanswerable statement of fact and law as the able Senator from Rhode Island has given, I would have submitted it long ago. My only reluctance in broaching the subject grew out of the fact that I did not want to interrupt the able and fine address which the Senator from Rhode Island is making. Again I wish to say that I agree with every word of the statement which the Senator has made with respect to the proposed Dixon-Yates contract. I realize that I participated in the passage of the bill and in the debate on the passage of the bill; but I shall go into that matter later. I agree with what the Senator has said, but I come back to the main point for which I brought the question up. By indirection, by an illegal stretching of the meaning of the section of the statute to which the Senator made reference, it is proposed to bind the Government to a 25-year contract, over which Congress would have no control, but, through the appropriation process, would have a large obligation, namely, to appropriate sufficient money to meet the commitments incurred under the contract.

If that precedent is allowed to stand, then I point out to the able senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON] that we may lose control of the development of the atom for power production and that, by indirection, subsidy contracts may be made committing the Government far beyond the expectations or wishes of Congress. I think we need to write into the bill a requirement that contracts shall be referred to the joint committee, on which the Senator serves so ably, for its review and consideration.

Mr. PASTORE. I think possibly the Senator from Tennessee in his enthusiasm is going a little further than he should. After all, we are faced with the necessity of producing special nuclear materials for atomic weapons. In doing so, of course, the Government requires a vast amount of electric power. For that reason, if a plant is not close to the TVA or is in another part of the country, it might be necessary to enter into an arrangement with a public utility, which in all probability, because of the tremendous load, would have to expand.

If we expected the Commission to come to Congress every year to justify such procedure, we could never have the operations, intents, and purposes of the Commission, as spelled out in the law, carried out effectively and in a businesslike way.

For that reason, I disagree with the Senator from Tennessee if he maintains that the Commission should not have authority to engage in such contracts for a period of 25 years. I do say that because of the long term of the contracts, possibly Congress should be apprised of the conditions. I think we have copies of the contracts on file; there has been excellent liaison between the Commission and the Joint Committee and the Congress.

But I agree that there will be distortion of the meaning of section 12-b and section 164, by entering into the DixonYates contract, because although it may be argued that the current thus produced will go to the main grid, and then

« PreviousContinue »