trying to work out the problem areas in this program and contract. negotiations. I think everybody is worthy of commendation.

Mr. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just one final

comment.

I think we all recognize, as Mr. Holifield has said, that the arrangement whereby so many people were involved in working out this project has made it a long and difficult process to work out but I, for one, firmly believe that when this contract is concluded and we are off and running, that the day when the commercial breeder will be available to those of us in the electric power business will probably be shortened by perhaps 2 to 5 years just because we have involved all these people. I think it is going to bring into focus in this demonstration plant the various skills and knowledge and requirements of the utility industry as well as the great experimental research capabilities of the AEC, and I think this is going to give us a commercial breeder much more quickly than we otherwise would have had it.

Mr. RONCALIO. I have no questions but could I make a statement for the record that I hope will be appropriate and quite possibly of some value down the road?

For me to remain silent and have that silence taken as an approval of this contract would be a far——

Chairman PRICE. I don't think anybody at this point gives their approval of the contract. We still have to meet as a committee to decide what action to take.

Mr. RONCALIO. Very true.

I only wanted to comment that I think I know of some very serious and excellent attempts of correcting the objections we raised the last time.

I am still not satisfied that this is the best contract that we could come up with for the American taxpayers, for the energy users, for the Nation in general, but I don't know what improvements we could make at this time to bring it up to meet the standards that would meet the shortcomings.

So, I rely on the excellent proven character of the leadership of all you gentlemen, TVA, the utilities and the AEC. I think it is an old adage of lawyers that if you have good men working on something what you put on paper does not make much difference. If you have a brigand of thieves in the office, and you want a contract to protect you against them you can't draw up a document to protect against them.

The Nation looks to you as individuals for your best efforts. I would have preferred something with a little more indemnity to the Government, with a little more true partnership interest, more responsibility spread across to the utilities. I did not get it, but I tried. I hope you will do your best.

The overriding requirement of the industry is to move ahead with this plant. Perhaps by your actions you can remove my fears that there are some shortcomings in it.

Representative HOLIFIELD. I would like permission to make a very short statement at this time.

This session this afternoon I believe is one of the most important

ones that we have had in a long time because we have come along a very difficult road to get to this point in technology and also in making possible this formula.

Those who saw the presentation of our staff study this morning must be convinced, as are the members of the Joint Committee and the Commission, that we are rapidly approaching a crisis in domestic energy resources. We who have studied this problem of declining domestic fuel resources realize this nation cannot maintain even its present standard of living for its people unless we have an expanding production base, based on additional energy.

We also believe that, without an expanding capability in industrial production, we cannot, one, insure our national security, and, two, we cannot lift the people at the lower economic level to a better level of living and thereby keeping alive the American dream.

This committee foresaw this all-over energy deficit as far back as 1963-10 years ago. We pushed the research and development of the pressurized and boiling water reactors, of which 34 are now on the line producing kilowatts and twice as many are being designed and/ or being built.

We realized long ago that our present type of water reactors could only supplement, not replace, the present fossil fuel sources of

energy.

We realized long ago that our present type of water reactors would use in a few decades our known reserves of domestic uranium. We therefore started research and development of the fast breeder concept. This concept, I believe, when fully developed will extend the usefulness of our uranium by an estimated factor of 100. If we have 50 years of uranium supply now, we will have 5,000 years if this reactor is successful.

This committee has authorized close to a billion dollars on research and development up to date on the breeder concept based on many other millions spent in the pressurized water and boiling water concepts. We must spend as much as necessary to bring this breeder concept to its functional goal and its competitive goal. I believe that the necessity for energy in this Nation will justify this fast breeder development. I don't think we can delay too long. I think it should be a project of national priority and I think we should develop it, I will be very honest, at taxpayers' exepnse because I believe it will return to the taxpayers in electricity availability and in electricity savings many, many hundreds of times the amount that we will use in bringing this to a reality.

Now, this committee has faced opposition from doubters and fearmongers since its inception in 1946. We have faced it all the way in (A) the development of our atomic arsenal which stands today as the balance of power against massive military power of the Soviet Union; (B), the development of the nuclear Navy submarine and surface fleet-against Navy opposition at the beginning, I might add-and this capability stands as our first line of defense today; (C), the development of more than 1,500 peacetime applications of atomic energy based on reactor products, fully recognizing the corresponding hazards of handling radioactive material and securing the waste from detrimental effects on our population.

The Doubting Thomases, the Nervous Nellies, the fearmongers and those who profit in dollars, and, more insiduously in notoriety, have not in the past succeeded in stopping the utilization of this new source of energy which has protected the security of this nation's freedom of living.

I go back a long way to the fight among scientists as to whether we should produce the hydrogen bomb. This committee went ahead against, at that time, eight out of nine of the advisory council and four out of five of the Commission. By a 16 to 2 vote, this committee went ahead with the hydrogen bomb. Eighteen months later we had it, and 9 months thereafter the Soviets exploded a hydrogen weapon. We had the scientific and the legal community split in the Nation as to whether we should go ahead, but we went ahead, anyway.

Those people did not succeed in stopping these developments I speak of. They will not succeed in the present, in my opinion, nor in the future in denying to the people of our country the peacetime benefits which will complement and serve every facet of our lives. They will not succeed in stopping the development of a vitally needed new source of domestically controlled energy fuel which is our only practical supply in the next three decades.

This Joint Committee has been maligned in the past and will be in the future, but it is composed of reputable and dedicated members. Each of us is an elected representative of his State and Congressional District, not self-appointed saviors of mankind, but elected representatives, owing his fealty and his responsibility to the people who elected him.

This committee is also a servant of the Senate and the House. It derives its responsibility and such powers as it may have from statutes enacted by a majority action of all the members of the Senate and the House. We are answerable to our respective legislative bodies in our conduct of committee business.

Also, we are answerable to our constituents in periodic elections. But, more than that, we are answerable to our consciences.

As Edmund Burke once stated, the responsibility of an elected representative of the people, in regard to pressures being brought upon representatives, they ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man or to any set of men living. These rights, the rights to serve the people, which were given to them by the people, and the right of conscience to do the best they can did not derive from the pleasure of people nor from the law and the Constitution alone. They are a trust from providence for the abuse of which each representative would be deeply answerable. So, I say, in the words of Edmund Burke, that we as representatives owe you not only our industry but our judgment and that if we did not follow that industry and that judgment we would betray, instead of serving, the people who elected us.

That is all.

Chairman PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Holifield.

Thank you very much, Dr. Ray, Mr. Ayers, Mr. Wagner.
Dr. RAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman PRICE. The next witness will be Mr. Richard Sandler.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SANDLER, REPRESENTING ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION AND FRIENDS OF THE EARTH; ACCOMPANIED BY G. SPETH, ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Chairman PRICE. Mr. Sandler, would identify yourself for the record?

Mr. SANDLER. My name is Richard Sandler. I am here representing Friends of the Earth and Environmental Action. Accompanying me is Mr. Gus Speth, who is an attorney with Natural Resources Defense Council. He is here today as a private individual who has in part assisted me in some legal matters attendant to this document.

Chairman PRICE. Mr. Sandler, you have quite a lengthy statement here. Could you summarize it for us? I am sure that the committee will want to adjourn no later than 5:15. It is now 20 minutes to 5.

Mr. SANDLER. I understand the lateness of the hour. You are correct in pointing out that my statement is quite lengthy. I have attempted in good faith and best efforts to examine this contract in detail from the narrow perspective of sound fiscal public policy.

Our review would indicate that this contract does not appear to meet certain criteria that would be necessary.

Chairman PRICE. I don't want to interrupt you, but I might say even though it is a summary, the committee has had an opportunity to read your statement. I can assure you that they have gone through it thoroughly.

It will be printed in full in the record. It is not that we are going to ignore your statement. We are not. You had it in under the sched uled time, and we have all had an opportunity to read it.

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman,. I have gone over it and gotten the substance of it. Since we have the printed copies, I do not care to listen to its being read verbatim because there is not time, as you say.

It will be in the record in full. I will say that I have gone over it and gotten the substance of it. I will have two or three short questions to ask undertaking to clarify the reasoning behind this rather critical testimony.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word as well. I have not had a chance to read the document. I am sorry for that. I have been occupied with other things of late. I intend to read it. I must just say as a mark of my good faith that after I have had a chance to study it and after the testimony today, if it is of any benefit or Mr. Sandler would desire, I would be glad to talk to him later on as well so that he does not feel he is being cut off here or that we are unduly abbreviating his opportunity to present his views.

For whatever it is worth, I will be happy to talk after these hearings.

Chairman PRICE. Why don't you proceed in whatever way you want, but leave some time for members who might want to ask some questions.

Senator AIKEN. If I can get short answers, I can ask three questions in two minutes.

Chairman PRICE. Senator Aiken wants to ask some questions.

Senator AIKEN. I might as well start right now. I have gone over your testimony and notice it is quite critical of the pending and proposed contract. I think we ought to know the real basis for your

criticism.

The first question is, are you opposed to the development of usable energy from the atom or do you believe that a nuclear powerplant, which is properly located, properly constructed and properly operated, would be safe and feasible? I know everyone puts his own definition on "properly," but I have mine, too.

Mr. SANDLER. That is an excellent question.

Senator AIKEN. Or, are you opposed to nuclear power in general? Mr. SANDLER. I was hoping today that we could address ourselves to this agreement and not get sidetracked, which we really are at this point.

Senator AIKEN. I want to know the reason for your critical testi

mony.

Mr. SANDLER. The reason for my critical testimony is twofold. Senator AIKEN. Do you represent Friends of the Earth? Do they get contributions from the oil companies directly or indirectly? Mr. SANDLER. Not to my knowledge.

Senator AIKEN. I have my suspicions at times, but I am not going to attempt to prove anything now.

Mr. SANDLER. I am not posing today as an expert on the safety or environmental and economic questions that pertain to the operation of the breeder itself. There do seem to be many experts that have posed questions that to me would appear to warrant a further investigation, given the magnitude of the problems.

Senator AIKEN. Assuming production of usable energy from the atom can be both safe and feasible, do you think it is possible to devise more practicable economic means or should we not try to?

Mr. SANDLER. I think the soundest policy for the Congress is to develop a broad spectrum of options so that we are not stuck with just one. Right now we are spending 75 percent of all our Federal energy research and development money on nuclear fission alone.

That would appear to me to place a great deal of emphasis on one technology, for which proponents will claim great benefits and opponents will recognize potential risks. It is conceivable that the safety questions and the waste storage questions and divergence of materials questions and sabotage questions could be adequately resolved.

I am not posing as an expert, but from my reading and speaking to many individuals, it would appear that those issues are not resolved at this time. Indeed, they appear to be in part insoluble.

Senator AIKEN. Is your objection to this proposed contract based on the belief that private investors and private industry will get the lion's share of the benefits at public cost?

Mr. SANDLER. I think that is an accurate statement.

Senator AIKEN. That is all.

Chairman PRICE. You may proceed in anyway you wish.

Mr. SANDLER. Congressman Holifield raised some excellent questions and covered many of the points that I brought up in the docu

ment.