Draft letter opposing Energy bill

[bigtree]

I urge you to petition your Congressperson to work against the Energy Bill H.R.6 that is currently under consideration in conference committee. The conferees must avoid the rush to pass legislation that is not in the best interest of the public. The White House is looking to exploit recent events and push through this legislation that further deregulates our energy markets while repealing key consumer protections and most egregious of all, once again, taxpayers will be asked to bear the burden.

The Bush administration's nuclear program is a shell game with their nuclear ambitions hidden within the Energy and Defense bills, most under the guise of research.


Democratic press updates on energy bill:
http://energy.senate.gov/news/news_dem_bydate.cfm

Copy of Energy bill as reported to the committee
http://returningsoldiers.us/energybillasreported.htm


Here's a sample letter that relates to the nuclear matters in the Energy bill. Send this letter right away to your Senators and Representative or, compose your own in opposition to this destructive bill. Thanks in advance for your consideration!


Dear Congressperson:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to H.R.6, The Energy Policy Act of 2003.

I oppose all of the provisions under the sections, "Nuclear Matters" and Research and Development" which further enhance, refurbish, or expand our nuclear program in regards to weapons applications or energy production.

Specifically, I would oppose any money for new construction which would serve to refurbish or expand our existing supply of nuclear weaponry. Similarly, I would support any provision which intends to dismantle such weaponry and any provision which is intended for the disposal of these weapons and their radioactive waste in a safe and effective manner.

Also I would oppose any money for new construction of any nuclear plants which are designed for energy production, or any money for construction intended to preserve any existing power plants which utilize nuclear material. I would similarily oppose any money for research or development of any new nuclear fuels, or nuclear fuel blends, or the recycling and utilization of any 'degraded' nuclear material for use in new or existing weapons or for use in any new or existing power plant, as is outlined in the document: "A Technology Roadmap for the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems." and in the Generation IV Roadmap. I strongly favor the existing practice of immobilizing the nuclear waste in glass and storing it, as the previous administration advocated.

I would oppose any monies which intend to preserve the Uranium Transfer Program. As laudable as the realized goal of the reduction of the Russian nuclear arsenal may be, in reality, the transfers depend on a faltering contract with USEC and support an electric supply that provides only 20% of our nation's electricity needs. This 20% could be made up by any combination of renewables. The uranium program should be allowed to sunset. The focus should be on the replacment of the uranium industry with a more sustainable supply of energy. There is also the concern that USEC redistributes much of the blended uranium outside of the country, inviting more opportunities for exploitation and abuse.

I would oppose any money expended to support, enhance or expand the construction of any nuclear centrifuge facility for demonstration, research, or production of thermonuclear weaponry. I would similarily oppose any money which would support or encourage any such thermonuclear program abroad.

Finally, I would oppose any expansion, enhancement, or renewal of the Price-Anderson Act which would further encourage public or governmental involvement in nuclear production. And I would encourage the expansion of any law or regulation which would hold those in the nuclear industry accountable for the safety of their workers and the environment.

In respect to all of these issues, I feel the "The Energy Policy Act of 2003" represents a foot in the door for those who would expand our existing nuclear program and would draw our nation into a new nuclear arm's race; exacerbating the problems of proliferation and the saftey and health of workers, community and the environment.

I strongly urge you to oppose this dangerous bill.


Conference bill link:
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/energybill2003.cfm

ENERGY CONFERENCE UPDATE #4
http://energy.senate.gov/news/rep_release.cfm?id=211061

ENERGY CONFERENCE UPDATE #5
http://energy.senate.gov/news/rep_release.cfm?id=211238

Ranking Democratic Committee member, Sen. Jeff Bingaman's Floor Statement on Energy Bill (S. 14)
http://energy.senate.gov/news/dem_release.cfm?id=203615

[bigtree]

1. DU Forum on the Energy Bill

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=375948

[bigtree]

2. I don't understand the silence on this issue.

...especially on this environmental page.

If we blow ourselves up with this new generaton of nukes, then all else is...moot.

:nuke:

[bigtree]

3. IAEA Chief ElBaradei Slams U.S. 'Mini-Nuke' Plans

http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20030924/nuclearusaelbaradeidc.html

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog sharply criticized Washington's planned research into a new type of small nuclear bomb, saying Wednesday it would send the wrong signal to states considering atomic weapons.

"I had strong reservations, to say the least, when I read that there are plans to research small nukes," International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei told U.S. National Public Radio. It really sends absolutely the wrong message, that we are not moving toward disarmament, but that we are reversing course," he said.

The administration of President Bush has said it is interested in studying the so-called mini nukes, but not in deploying them. The mini nukes would be bombs with a yield of less of than five kilotons -- less than half the size of the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945.

ElBaradei said that such research would encourage states with hidden ambitions of developing atomic weapons to go for it. "It sends a message to all the 'wannabes' that if you really want to have security, prestige, status -- go for nuclear weapons, and that's clearly not the way we want to go," he said.

[salin]

4. I want to thank you

for helping me to see the link between the language in the Energy bill and the new push for a new generation of nuclear weapons. Dangerous, dangerous stuff.