On the recordMay 24, 2016
Now that the technical correction was made to the amendment, my argument stands as to the previous amendment. As I said, the goal of the amendment is to allow R&D to take place using LEU, low-enriched uranium, for naval reactor fuel that would meet military requirements for aircraft carriers and submarines. As I said, this is already done by France in their nuclear navy, which has already converted from using HEU to LEU fuel. This is a much more secure and stable fuel than using HEU. Again, the Navy will exhaust its fuel at some point in the coming decades, and unless we have an alternative fuel that would power our nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, we would have to start producing weapons-grade uranium, once again, for fuel in powering our aircraft carriers and submarines. By switching over to LEU, it would, ultimately, reduce costs, be more secure, and provide a long- term fuel for powering our Navy. This is a commonsense approach, as I said with regard to the previous amendment before the technical correction was made. Last year, the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, authorized and appropriated first-year funding for FY16 for Navy LEU fuel in R&D. Already, this year, the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee have again supported LEU R&D efforts. I believe now the time is critical that the full House provide funding for this critical research that is paramount to our national security interests.…





