[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 23592-23593]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            ENRICHED URANIUM

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, last year after many years of effort, 
the Congress finally passed a bipartisan energy bill, the Energy Policy 
Act, which I was very pleased to work on and support. I believe, as I 
know many of my colleagues believe, that abundant, stable and 
affordable energy is one of the most fundamental challenges the United 
States faces in terms of job creation and our ability to compete in the 
global marketplace.
  In order to best meet these challenges, I believe we need to develop 
and nurture all forms of energy--including coal, oil, natural gas, 
renewables and clean, safe nuclear energy. In doing so, we need to 
promote energy diversity and conservation.
  I commend the Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman of the 
Senate Energy Committee for their outstanding work on the bill. In 
particular, I applaud their work in promoting new nuclear generation, 
and in fact helping to launch a nuclear renaissance in the United 
States.
  According to the Energy Committee, the bill will have a dramatic 
effect:

       Because of the provisions in the energy bill, including the 
     loan guarantee authority, the production tax credits, and the 
     insurance protection against licensing delays and litigation, 
     electricity generating companies and consortiums across the 
     United States are preparing applications for permission to 
     build up to 25 new nuclear power plants.

  The committee further states that if all 25 plants are built: they 
would generate between 20,000-25,000 megawatts of new electricity, 
enough to power 15 million households; they would create between 40,000 
and 45,000 construction jobs; and they would create approximately 
10,000 high paying, high-tech plant operation jobs.
  As my colleagues also know, one of our often stated but not yet 
achieved priorities is to foster energy independence. I must point out 
to my colleagues

[[Page 23593]]

that at present our country is threatened not only by our current 
dependence on foreign oil, but also by a possible future dependence on 
Russian uranium needed to fuel U.S. nuclear reactors.
  Earlier this year, when President Bush traveled to Russia for the G8 
summit, I was pleased to join in a letter led by Senators Domenici, 
Bingaman and DeWine that expressed our concern about further expansion 
of Russian uranium into the domestic marketplace. We wrote of our 
concern that any changes proposed in either the Highly Enriched 
Uranium, HEU, Agreement or the Suspension Agreement would have the 
potential of making the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of 
nuclear fuel at a time when domestic sources are being developed. 
Further, the letter stated that additional Russian access to the U.S. 
market at this time is likely to result in market destabilization 
potentially jeopardizing resurgence of the nuclear-related industry.
  Frankly, I am concerned not only based on our goal being secure in 
our energy needs, but because of concerns regarding our national 
security. Russia is the largest single supplier of uranium enrichment 
services to U.S. utilities, providing 45 percent of the domestic 
market.
  Unfortunately, a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit has created a possible loophole in U.S. antidumping law 
that could further expose the U.S. to a greater reliance on Russian 
uranium. This decision is important because the United States 
government is currently engaged in negotiations with Russia over 
possible changes to the U.S.-Russian Suspension Agreement, with 
critical meetings to take place this month and in January.
  Unfortunately, this possible loophole may compromise the 
administration's negotiating position because Russia now believes it 
can simply terminate, rather than renegotiate, this agreement, and 
subsequently exploit this possible loophole to avoid any dumping 
liability on its low enrichment uranium exports. Under this decision, 
the Russians can designate their uranium fuel as a ``service'' and 
bypass the U.S. trade restrictions that are in place to regulate the 
import of ``goods''.
  I had planned to offer a narrow amendment expressing concern over 
possible Russian plans to export more uranium and to support 
maintaining the existing Suspension Agreement and HEU Agreement between 
the United States and Russia. In fact, I have a communication from the 
National Security Council that states the administration's support for 
language similar to the amendment I had drafted.
  The basis for my concerns for our national security is this: should 
the Russians back out of the Suspension Agreement in an effort to 
obtain direct access to the U.S. nuclear fuel market, this could 
undermine and disrupt the HEU Agreement. The bottom line is the 
Suspension Agreement and the HEU Agreement have a direct relationship. 
It is clear to this Senator that changes to the Suspension Agreement 
would have significant consequences to the HEU Agreement, and there is 
no doubt that ensuring uninterrupted execution of the HEU Agreement is 
absolutely in the U.S. national security and energy security interests.
  That being said, I understand there is concern with addressing the 
issue at this time, and I have decided to withhold further action. 
While I am disappointed that there is not enough time in this Congress 
to deal with this important issue, it is my hope that this situation 
can be quickly addressed in the 110th Congress.

                          ____________________