The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“Nuclear Energy (Executive Calendar)” mentioning John Kennedy was published in the Senate section on pages S4563-S4564 on June 16.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
Nuclear Energy
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about nuclear energy. President Biden, of course, as we both are aware, has called climate change the ``existential threat.'' He says it is the
``number one issue facing humanity today.'' Secretary Kerry, who, as we know, is President Biden's climate envoy, has said that climate change is a ``life and death'' issue. President Biden's National Climate Advisor, the Honorable Gina McCarthy, believes that saving the environment is the ``fight of our lifetimes.''
If you ask many Members of Congress, not all of them--I don't want to paint with too broad a brush--but if you ask many Members of Congress what they think the solution to our environmental issues is, they will probably respond: renewable energy. But if we are really worried about the climate--and I know we all are; we all want clean air, and we all want bright water--I suggest that we also embrace nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is not only safe, but it is clean and, frankly, it can produce more power than renewables.
Nuclear energy, as you know, creates little or no carbon emissions. Let me say that again. A lot of people don't realize it. Nuclear energy creates little or no carbon emissions. It also creates very little waste--an extraordinarily small amount of waste. All the nuclear waste that America's commercial nuclear industry has ever produced--ever, in the history of ever--can fit into a single football field to a depth of fewer than 10 yards Now, you compare that with solar panels, for example--solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear plants in order to yield the same exact amount of energy--or compare the waste from nuclear power production with wind turbine blades. Wind turbine blades are very hard to recycle, and they usually end up in landfills.
These facts are underreported, but the fact is that solar and wind power do have their own harmful impacts on our environment. There is no free lunch, as you know, and you don't get one now. There are pros and cons of everything.
Solar and wind can't hold a candle to nuclear power when it comes to efficiency. That is just a fact. It takes more than 3 million solar panels or more than 430 wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy as the average nuclear plant. Let me say that again--3 million solar panels, 430 wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy as the average nuclear powerplant. And these numbers do not take into account that solar panels, as we know, are useless when the Sun doesn't shine, and wind turbines are nothing more than expensive paper waste when the wind doesn't blow.
Also underreported, in my judgment, is how safe nuclear energy is. Despite what some people may think, Homer Simpson does not run America's nuclear powerplants. The industry is constantly evolving to make nuclear powerplants safer, to make them more efficient. In fact, we have all read a lot about small modular reactors. I will just use that as an example. These small modular reactors are part of a very promising new generation of advanced reactors that can automatically--
automatically--prevent overheating. And, frankly, they produce even less nuclear waste.
Now, I want to be clear. I still believe in fossil fuels. I am an
``all of the above'' energy advocate, but leading that pack is fossil fuels.
America's economy is the largest in all of human history, and it can't run without oil and gas. Louisianans know this, and most Americans know this. The people of Louisiana serve our country pretty well by contributing to our energy independence, and I am very proud of that.
Last year, Louisiana supplied 9 percent--9 percent--of America's marketed gas. And Louisianans understand, as do, I think, most Americans, that giving up on fossil fuels would not only destroy jobs; it would ruin the economy.
But I want America to use every advantage that it has. I want America to use every energy tool at its disposal. Now, that is why nuclear energy--I see nuclear energy as supporting oil and gas, not replacing it. I want to be clear about that, as supporting oil and gas, not replacing it.
Since nuclear energy holds such promise--and it does--I am hoping that my Democratic friends in Congress and my Republican friends in Congress--because I see this as a bipartisan issue--will lend their full-throated support to nuclear energy.
I am not saying that renewables don't have their proper place in America's energy policy--they certainly do--and I am not saying we should get rid of them--I am certainly not--but we need to acknowledge that renewables have limitations. They have limitations, and nuclear energy does not. There are disadvantages to renewables. As I said, there is no free lunch, and you don't get one now.
Now, for some people, that is a lesson that needs to be repeated. I take note. I say this gently, but the Democratic Party platform, for example, calls for installing 500 million solar panels--500 million solar panels--and 60,000 wind turbines over the next 5 years. This will occupy a lot more land and actually create less energy than building new nuclear reactors. And that is a fact.
Some small modular nuclear reactors are roughly twice the length of the average schoolbus--twice the length of an average schoolbus. Wind farms, on the other hand, can eat up more than 19 square miles. That is about half the size of Disney World--half the size of Disney World, compared to twice the length of the average schoolbus. If we succeed in blanketing our land with solar panels and wind farms, it is going to create more waste, occupy more green space, and ultimately weaken our economy.
Again, I am not saying no to solar and wind. I am not at all. I am saying yes to explore the possibilities of nuclear energy.
President Biden, as we know, has a $2 trillion infrastructure plan. And I think, if nothing else, his infrastructure plan establishes the Biden administration's priorities. His plan does call for $61 billion in initiatives that include investments in advanced nuclear technology. I am not sure I agree on the amount, but I like the concept, and I find that to be prudent. But it also asks for three times that amount--$174 billion--to support electric vehicles, electric cars. I suggest that nuclear energy has more place in energy's future, and it is something that we ought to talk about.
Other spending bonanzas in President Biden's plan include a $213 billion investment to give 2 million buildings a Green New Deal makeover and $100 billion to make our schools greener. These are not going to have a more meaningful impact on our environment than exploring nuclear energy. They are just not.
I know that nuclear energy sounds too good to be true, and I don't want to oversimplify the circumstances. Nuclear energy has its drawbacks, but nuclear energy is powerful. Nuclear energy is safe. Nuclear energy is clean. And by building up our nuclear power capabilities, the United States can create more jobs; the United States can strengthen its economy; and the United States can ensure its place as a world leader on energy. And we can do all that while reducing carbon emissions.
I hope my colleagues will come to embrace nuclear energy as the efficient green energy source that it is and that the U.S. Congress can work with the White House to improve America's standing as an energy juggernaut.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey
Alerts Sign-up