[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 90 (Thursday, July 13, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6029-H6031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVATIZATION OF THE URANIUM ENRICHMENT INDUSTRY: HOW IT AFFECTS
AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I have addressed this House several
[[Page H6030]]
times in the last week and a half regarding a matter that is of great
importance to this entire Nation, and that is the uranium enrichment
industry which was privatized, an industry which was privatized 2 years
ago.
Just recently, this privatized company made the announcement that one
of the two enrichment facilities in this country would be closed, thus
displacing nearly 2000 workers from jobs, and, I believe, endangering
the economic and the energy security of this Nation.
I come to the House floor today because I want to share with Members
of this House and with the country a letter which was sent to the CEO
of this privatized company by the chairman of my committee, the
Committee on Commerce. This letter was sent by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Bliley). I would just like to read one paragraph from the
letter, because I think it is relevant to what has happened with this
industry.
Mr. Bliley writes to Mr. Timbers: ``According to a Wall Street
Journal editorial dated Thursday, June 28, you indicated that USEC's,''
the private company, that its ``recent decision to close the Department
of Energy's Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plant was made in response to
congressional intent in privatization language. Specifically, you state
that USEC's decision to close the Portsmouth plant was the reason
Congress privatized the company.''
Then Mr. Bliley says to Mr. Timbers: ``I can assure you that this is
not the case. A single operating gaseous diffusion plant with no
credible plan for a succeeding enrichment technology is not what
Congress intended for the privatized company.''
Mr. Speaker, the reason this is so relevant is the fact that
approximately 23 percent of all of the electric generated in our
country is generated through nuclear power. Mr. Timbers, through his
actions and this private company's decision to close one of our two
plants, I believe, puts in grave danger this Nation's economic and
energy security.
In the letter to Mr. Timbers, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Bliley) asks several questions, and I would like to share one of those
questions and requests for information. He says to Mr. Timbers: ``In
the event of an interruption of the deliveries of material from Russia
over the next 5 years, how does USEC plan to meet its committed demands
for SWU?'' That is, the nuclear fuel. And then he says: ``Please answer
this question separately for each of the following scenarios: What
happens if there is a 3-month delay in Russian deliveries, a 6-month
delay in Russian deliveries, a 1-year delay in Russian deliveries, a 2-
year delay in Russian deliveries, and a delay in Russian deliveries
sustained beyond a 2-year period? For each of these scenarios, please
assume that the delays begin after USEC has deactivated the Portsmouth
plant.''
Mr. Speaker, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be issuing a
report soon, and they must verify that USEC can continue to be depended
upon to provide a reliable supply of domestic fuel to meet the Nation's
energy needs. It is imperative that we define domestic as the material
which is produced within the United States of America, and reliable
must be defined as providing for 100 percent of our Nation's need for
nuclear fuel.
If USEC cannot do this, then they can no longer be licensed to
operate these gaseous diffusion plants, and that is all the more reason
why this Congress should reconsider the privatization of this industry.
Next week I will introduce legislation that will enable us to do what
we need to do, and that is to assume the Government's ownership of this
industry once again and, therefore, protect our country from having to
depend upon foreign sources for nuclear fuel for some 23 percent of our
Nation's electric needs.
{time} 1630
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) to Mr. William Timbers:
The letter referred to is as follows:
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, July 11, 2000.
Mr. William H. Timbers,
President and CEO, USEC, Inc.,
Bethesda, MD.
Dear Mr. Timbers: As you know, the Committee is continuing
its review of USEC privatization and its impact on national
security and the domestic uranium industry. I am writing to
you with respect to recent, troubling statements you have
made on this subject, and to obtain additional documents and
information related to USEC privatization.
According to a Wall Street Journal editorial dated
Thursday, June 28, 2000, you indicated that USEC's recent
decision to close the Department of Energy's (DOE) Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Portsmouth plant) was made in
response to Congressional intent in privatization
legislation. Specifically, you state that USEC's decision to
close the Portsmouth plant was ``the reason Congress
privatized the company.'' I can assure you that this is not
the case. A single operating gaseous diffusion plant with no
credible plan for a succeeding enrichment technology is not
what Congress intended for the privatized company.
In a recent letter to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson
dated June 20, 2000, you also stated that USEC has
``successfully implemented the HEU agreement,'' and that
``recent Congressional hearings have confirmed [the HEU
agreement] has succeeded at the expense of USEC.'' I should
remind you that USEC freely negotiated and bound itself to
the terms of the current 5-year implementing contract, and in
1998 made public disclosures in support of an Initial Public
Offering (IPO) of stock, which included a complete analysis
of what impact the HEU agreement could have on a privatized
company. Given the USEC Board of Directors' fiduciary
responsibilities to its shareholders, I must believe that
USEC's decisions last November to continue as Executive
Agent--after threats of resignation--was supported by a
thorough assessment and conclusions that the HEU agreement is
important for USEC's survival.
I also am perplexed by the extreme about-face you and your
company have demonstrated on several issues in the months
since privatization. For instance, in less than 12 months
after privatization, the AVLIS technology went from USEC's
low-cost solution for future uranium enrichment production,
to a useless technology that will not see commercialization.
Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that ``global business
realities'' that ``no one could have foreseen at the time of
privatization'' are the cause of USEC's precipitous decline
over the past 22 months, as you indicated in your letter to
Secretary Richardson. I am now more convinced that USEC's
flagging business performance and the threat it presents to
domestic energy security is directly related to questionable
representations made by USEC to its Board in support of your
bid for an IPO, as well as questionable business decisions
made by the company since privatization.
Accordingly, in order to obtain a better understanding of
these issues, I am requesting that, pursuant to Rules X and
XI of the U.S. House of Representatives, you provide the
Committee with the following documents and information by
July 25, 2000:
1. Please identify the total amount of SWU USEC expects to
sell over the next five years. Of this amount, please
identify the total amount of SWU USEC expects to sell to
domestic nuclear power companies.
2. Please identify the total amount of SWU USEC will
efficiently produce at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(Paducah plant) per year, for over the next five years.
3. Please identify the total amount of SWU USEC currently
has in inventory.
4. Please indicate when USEC expects to obtain a license
amendment from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to increase
its uranium enrichment capacity at the Paducah plant.
5. Please discuss the earliest date USEC can reasonably
construct and begin to operate a new uranium enrichment
plant, and at what capacity this new plant would produce SWU.
6. In the event of an interruption in HEU deliveries from
Russia over the next five years, how does USEC plan to meet
its committed demand for SWU? Please answer this question
separately for each of the following scenarios: a three-month
delay in Russian deliveries, a six-month delay in Russian
deliveries, a one-year delay in Russian deliveries, a two-
year delay in Russian deliveries, and a delay in Russian
deliveries sustained beyond a two-year period. For each of
these scenarios, please assume that the delays begin after
USEC has deactivated the Portsmouth plant.
7. If the United States Government decides to terminate
USEC as Executive Agent to the HEU agreement, in part or in
full, please describe how this would affect USEC and whether
the company could meet its committed demand for SWU.
8. Please provide all records relating to communications
between USEC or its board (or any of their directors,
officers, employees, agents or contractors) and any outside
individual or entity, whether governmental or private,
regarding the decision whether to proceed with privatization
or the choice among competing privatization options. For
purposes of this request, you may limit your production to
those records created on or after January 1, 1997. Please
refer to the attachment for definitions of the terms
``records'' and ``relating.''
Thank you for your cooperation with this request. If you
have any questions, please contact me directly, or have a
member of
[[Page H6031]]
your staff contact Dwight Cotes of the Committee staff at
(202) 226-2424.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley,
Chairman.
____________________