Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act

I yield back to Senator Barrasso.

Absolutely.

Madam President, I also rise to join my friend from Wyoming Senator Barrasso and my friend from Ohio. And I know that my friend from Texas has some concerns, but it is something different.

The only thing I would say about this is, as troubled as our House colleagues are--435--they passed this unanimously, unanimous consent. They can't agree on anything. They passed this because of the need for what we are trying to do here.

What we are trying to do is build initiatives I worked to include in the Energy Act of 1020. What we are doing is operating nuclear powerplants that are dependent on Russian enrichment. We are operating our nuclear fleet based on Russian enrichment and conversion capacity, which represents half of the global capacity. We let them capture the market.

Russia is currently the world's only--I will repeat. They are the only commercial source of high-assay low-enriched uranium--or, as we refer to it, HALEU--which is the fuel needed for advanced reactors, such as the SMRs and the micros that were coming in, the new technology.

It is shameful and dangerous to our country, which led the world in developing nuclear energy--we led the world--and once was capable of producing all the fuel that we could ever need, and it has become reliant on one of the most notorious adversaries we have ever had, Russia.

Uranium production in the United States peaked in 1980. And since 1992, the majority of uranium purchased by the U.S. nuclear powerplant operators was imported mostly from Russia.

Russia has used its state-owned nuclear monopoly to help fund Putin's unlawful war against Ukraine that has completely upended energy supply chains and harmed European and American energy security.

For years--for years now--Russia has unfairly flooded the market. We have seen that happen so many times with China in different products and Russia also with cheap uranium to undercut U.S. and other Western producers. Being the capitalist country that we are, we just basically allowed our entrepreneurial businesspersons to go buy wherever they needed. We cannot continue to reward Putin for bad behavior.

The United States cut off imports of Russian oil and gas and coal in March of 2022. We cut off all of our needed, basically, supplies that we were using and supplementing with imports of Russian oil, gas, and coal. And it is long past time to finally cut Russian uranium out of the U.S. market as well.

Senator Barrasso, myself, Senator Risch, all the Senators who come from the areas that are involved in this but have been producing it-- Senator Brown from Ohio, basically, has a plant that I have visited that has produced all of the uranium that we ever needed during the war efforts and has been forced out of the market. They are coming back, but they are going to need our help to get back into the market also.

We have supported a two-part strategy to fix this, pairing an increase in domestic production with a ban on Russian fuel. To accomplish the first part, we included our Nuclear Fuel Security Act in the Defense bill that we passed last night.

That law will create the programs that we need to reshore our domestic nuclear supply chains and establish a new revolving fund at the Department of Energy to be used for uranium procurement. I am proud that lawmakers in both Chambers recognized that this issue is so important to our security, and it has been included in the NDAA. And when we get back in January, Senator Barrasso and I are going to work together to ensure that the new DOE program is appropriately funded and paid for.

So today, again, I am asking my dear friend: We have got to take the second step--banning Russian uranium imports--to provide a clear signal to our domestic market so they will basically get back into the game and start increasing the fuel they walked away from because of unfair trade practices.

This uranium ban has had strong bipartisan support, as you know, in the House and over here. Then, today, we have the opportunity to send this commonsense legislation to the President's desk and move closer to realizing our energy independence from Russia by passing this ban.

I, again, ask all of you to consider this. I ask my good friend from Texas, Senator Cruz, if he would consider maybe other ways that we might be able to help. I am committing to you that I will help you, and I think I know what your concerns are. I am certain it

doesn't have anything to do with this, but I know what it can be, and I know where I can help you. I am offering that assistance.

Madam President, just briefly, I want to correct one thing that was said.

Because of the 117th Congress, when we all worked together, today we are producing more energy than ever in the history of the United States. We are producing 4.6 billion barrels of oil this year, 37 trillion cubic feet of gas, 13.5 billion cubic feet a day of LNG. In 2016, we didn't do anything.

So what we have done with all of the bills--the bipartisan infrastructure bill; the IRA bill, or the Inflation Reduction Act--is forced this administration to start taking seriously U.S. energy independence and security. They cannot just move them in one direction. It is a balanced approach, and it is working.

This is the part, now, that we need to shut down. We should not be relying on foreign supply chains, unreliable foreign countries of concern. You have China, you have Russia, you have North Korea, and you have Iran--four of the most notorious. To depend on anything that comes from those four countries that we need for our building blocks is a sin.

That is the only thing I am saying on the hold you have here. There are going to be other things that we can work together on to make sure that we all--I think you have them on this. I don't know if that is a No. 1 priority. They just didn't have any objection because they knew it was something that should be done. We are all for it.

You are using it because you need something else, and we are committing to help you on something else. This is desperately needed for our country. It really is. We have to center the market because, if not, they won't get invested. They just won't move. If they think Russians can dump enriched uranium, HALEU, on us, they will continue to do it, and it basically stymies the market for anyone that is investing the amount of money that needs to be invested to get our enrichment program up and running. That is really what the concerns are.

And we already have an NDAA. We would like for it--as far as the money, we are prepared to make sure that we have the necessary resources. But we can't do it unless we ban that because, if we don't ban it, people will, in this marketplace, buy wherever they can, the cheapest they possibly can. And, I guarantee, Russia needs the money for their war machine, and they will keep dumping and dumping on us.

So I would hope you would reconsider, sir. That is all I can ask. But I am committed to helping you. But this is the wrong one, I believe, to use.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1042) to prohibit the importation into the United States of unirradiated low-enriched uranium that is produced in the Russian Federation, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 1042, the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, which I introduced with Mr. Latta.

American leadership in nuclear energy and nuclear technology is critical to our economic and national security. One of the most urgent security threats America faces right now is our dangerous reliance on Russia's supply of nuclear fuels for our nuclear fleet. This threat has intensified as a result of the war in Ukraine.

American nuclear fuel infrastructure has been stunted by policies that Russia has exploited by flooding the U.S. market with this cheaper fuel. Today that accounts for more than 20 percent of our nuclear fuels for American reactors.

Last year alone, our industry paid over $800 million to Russia's state-owned nuclear energy corporation, Rosatom and its fuel subsidiaries. That number could be even higher this year, and these resources are no doubt going towards funding Putin's war efforts in Ukraine.

Further, we have seen how Putin has weaponized Europe's reliance on Russian natural gas. There is no reason to believe that Russia wouldn't do the same with our nuclear fuel supply if Putin saw an opportunity.

Rosatom has also supported China's nuclear energy ambitions. The risks of continuing this dependence on Russia for our nuclear fuel are simply too great. It is weakening America's nuclear fuel infrastructure, which has significantly declined because of the reliance on these cheap fuels.

That is why I am leading H.R. 1042.

Our bill bans fuel imports from Russia and sends a strong signal to the market that will help ensure America's nuclear leadership and fuel infrastructure. Our legislation also provides waivers to cover any supply gaps leading up to 2028, at which point no more Russian fuel will be allowed to be imported into the U.S.

This bill both protects any short-term needs of the industry and provides the long-term certainty necessary to build out American capacity, as well as European capacity that serves our markets.

H.R. 1042 has bipartisan support from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It also has support from the nuclear industry, the nuclear fuels industry, and policy advocates.

Additionally, the Biden administration has also said that a ban on Russian fuels is necessary to advance our domestic fuel build-out, including the fuels for advanced reactors.

Across Europe, utility providers are starting to transition away from Russian fuels, announce new capacity, and invest in plant projects. We are seeing important fuel processes returning online in the United States.

For example, the uranium conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois, has restarted operations for the first time in years. That facility alone could meet the domestic uranium conversion needs within 2 years, but only if they have assurances that cheap Russian fuel won't undercut their business.

The reality is, no facility owner is going to be able to invest to expand production capacity without the certainty of long-term contracts for their products. Those long-term contracts from fuel customers, the utility companies, will not be written if there remains uncertainty about Russian fuel continuing to flow into the United States, and the risk that Russia will once again be able to flood the market with cheaper products.

H.R. 1042 provides those assurances to industry.

American leadership in nuclear energy and nuclear technology is critical to our economic, energy, and national security, and a strong domestic nuclear fuel system, from mining to enrichment, is vital to our leadership.

In the U.S. alone, nuclear energy provides nearly 20 percent of our electricity generation, all of which is emissions free.

Nuclear plants operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, making them one of the most reliable, zero-carbon, baseload energy resources.

H.R. 1042 will protect the short-term needs of the nuclear industry and provide the long-term certainty necessary to encourage investment and secure a durable domestic supply of fuel.

I urge my colleagues to support the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act to restore our industry and take down Russia's nuclear fuel empire.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, urge support for this bill. I am pleased we have been able to come together to move this legislation forward, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I appreciate everything that my friend from Wyoming, my friend from Idaho, and my friend from West Virginia said, and I agree with what they said. I agree with the policy goals of this bill, and I am strongly committed to curtailing Russia's ability to use nuclear energy as a geopolitical tool.

Indeed, I have repeatedly introduced sanctions targeting Rosatom activities, and I am currently working on legislation that would go even further. We should absolutely end our dependence on Russian uranium, and the United States should not be dependent on any nation for our energy--nuclear or otherwise.

I know that my friend from Wyoming shares my conviction on American energy independence, and as the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he understands better than most anyone how the zealots in this administration have shackled our domestic energy producers.

And let me just say, I understand and appreciate how important this bill is to you, and I commit to work with you on this bill to get it passed into law.

But this bill is also important to the House. That was made clear by just how quickly they took it up and passed it on suspension with only a voice vote last week--even as, at the same time, the House stripped out and disregarded a number of the priorities of this Chamber which had been included in the Senate NDAA. One provision, which I worked very hard on with Senator Kelly, was to streamline permitting requirements for new semiconductor plants, and which 120 Senators and House Members--a little over a sixth of the entire Congress--had signed a letter supporting. That was one of the casualties of their casual disregard.

The House even stripped out of the bill my bill with Senator Cantwell--the Senate version of the Informing Consumers About Smart Devices Act--despite the House having already passed their version of the bill earlier this year by a vote of 406 to 12.

Neither of these were partisan measures, and they are not wild policy changes. Instead, they are broadly bipartisan, widely supported priorities of Members of the Senate, and they have enormous impact. Unfortunately, our House colleagues--in particular, the leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee--decided that they did not matter, and they insisted they be stripped from the bill.

Now we have come up with an important priority that they care about-- and, to be clear, a policy with which I agree--asking for the blessing of the Senate.

The consequences of their stripping that legislation from the NDAA is they hurt thousands of jobs across this country. They have benefited communist China at our expense, and they have hurt our national security by making us more vulnerable to China, and they undermined the privacy of Americans across this country.

I hope and believe the House and Senate should work together cooperatively. I am eager to do so. I have extended an olive branch to the House for us to work cooperatively, but it is a two-way street. Until the House begins to take seriously the priorities of the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and until they change course on the Senate priorities they disregarded arbitrarily, this bill and potentially others from the chairman of this House committee will not be moving in the Senate by unanimous consent.

I object.

Madam President, we heard a lot about Russia here. We heard a lot about enabling and empowering Vladimir Putin, empowering him financially.

I am here today to offer and support legislation that will defund Vladimir Putin; that will take a billion dollars of U.S. money out of his pocket. I am here today and rise in support of H.R. 1042. It prohibits Russian uranium imports.

For years, Russia's state-owned nuclear monopoly has dumped artificially cheap uranium into our American market. And as a result of all of this, Russia and Putin have gained a commanding share of the whole world's nuclear fuel supply chain.

Russia has driven America's nuclear fuel suppliers out of business-- completely out of business--and Russia has put Americans out of work. That is what I am bringing here today because we are sending, roughly, a billion dollars a year to Russia for uranium. We need to stop that. We need to block it.

We are now at a point where the United States cannot even fuel our own next generation of advanced nuclear reactors. If Congress doesn't step in, these advanced reactors will have no other choice than to be dependent on Russian uranium.

To make matters worse, we now know that Vladimir Putin is using Russia's nuclear monopoly--to use that money to fund this brutal invasion of Ukraine that we have just been discussing here on the Senate floor. Russia's nuclear monopoly has also helped Putin evade sanctions and provide equipment and materiels to Russia's military in Ukraine.

None of this should surprise us. That is who Vladimir Putin is. He has created--created--Russia's nuclear monopoly. We shouldn't be shocked that he has turned it into his piggy bank and his toolkit for his regime.

It is time the American people in this country stop funding Russia's nuclear monopoly. We can do this, and we could do it right here today, by ending Russian imports of uranium into the United States.

Ending Russian imports would provide certainty to America's nuclear fuel suppliers--those suppliers that Russia cannot undermine again. We cannot allow that to happen. It would also ensure that we are not financing and continuing to finance Putin's war in Ukraine.

On Monday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1042 with unanimous support. This bill would end imports of Russian uranium within 90 days and, therefore, end this billion dollars a year of American money going to fuel Russia's war machine.

H.R. 1042 is a companion to a bipartisan bill that I have introduced along with my bipartisan cosponsor, Senator Manchin, as well as Senator Risch--both of whom are on the floor right now.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee unanimously passed out our bill in May. It is a bill that we developed in collaboration with America's nuclear industry and the Department of Energy and other Agencies.

As I get ready to offer a unanimous consent request, I would yield to Senator Risch for a brief statement.

Thank you, Senators.

Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1042, which was received from the House; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

You do.

Mr. President, I submit to the Senate a budget scorekeeping report. The report, which covers fiscal year 2024, was prepared and submitted as a letter by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This information assists the Senate Budget Committee in determining if budgetary points of order lie against pending legislation.

CBO's report shows the effect on spending and revenues of congressional action through April 15, 2024. Between CBO's last report on December 13, 2023, and April 15, 2024, Congress passed eight pieces of legislation with effects on direct spending or revenue. These include two appropriations bills passed in March, P.L. 118-42 and P.L. 118-47, that completed the fiscal year 2024 appropriations cycle in line with the bipartisan agreement enacted last summer.

CBO's report included three tables, tables 1, 2, and 3. Tables 1 and 2 show that current budgetary levels are within allowable amounts for budget authority and outlays. The allowable levels include an adjustment for the Senate-passed national security supplemental, P.L. 118-50, which had not yet

been enacted into law when the table was prepared. These tables also show that revenue is below the allowable amount, due to the rescissions of IRS mandatory funding in the last appropriation bill, P.L. 118-47, which reduces revenue and increases the deficit.

Table 3 shows the Senate's Pay-As-You-Go scorecard, which reflects $36.4 billion of net deficit increase, entirely due to IRS funding rescissions.

The Democratic staff of the Budget Committee prepared three addendum tables to supplement CBO's report, tables A, B, and C.

Table A compares the mandatory spending of each authorizing committee against the enforceable allocations under section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act. It shows that 11 of the 16 authorizing committees are compliant with their allocations, either because no legislation with significant budgetary costs was enacted, the legislation was deficit-neutral and qualified for an allocation adjustment that was subsequently filed, or the legislation reduced spending.

Table B updates CBO's table 1, the Senate current level report for spending and revenues, to reflect the enactment of P.L. 118-50, the national security supplemental, which was passed by the House and Senate and was signed into law by the President after CBO prepared its report.

Table C updates CBO's table 3, updating the Senate Pay-As-You-Go scorecard to reflect six bills that have passed by the House and Senate since the release of CBO's report, five of which have been signed into law by the President.

I ask unanimous consent that CBO's letter, accompanying tables, and the addendum be printed in the Record.