Urgent - nuclear weapons funding vote

Submitted by zate on

From Council for a Livable World
www.clw.org/

Your Representative's vote will be crucial in determining whether Congress gives Bush money to create new nuclear weapons and continue pursuing an unreliable missile defense system.

Write to your Representative today, and ask them to deny the Bush administration's request for funding new nuclear weapons and missile defense.

Suggested text:

As an arms control advocate, I am concerned over several items in the Defense Authorization bill, HR 5658, on which you may vote as early as today. Please refuse to spend taxpayer money on new nuclear weapons programs and unreliable missile defense.

Please VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT #115 to cut funding from missile defense - the most expensive weapons system in the Pentagon budget - and support non-proliferation programs and our nation's veterans.

Please VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT #39, which aims to fund a new nuclear weapons program, the so-called "Reliable Replacement Warhead." It is hypocritical and counter-productive for the United States to develop new nuclear weapons while we try to convince countries like Iran and North Korea to do exactly the opposite.

Comments

Thanks

Submitted by zate on

for the fix.

Nuclear energy policy leading to nuclear weapons proliferation?

Submitted by zate on

There are now two versions of Bill Number H.R.5658.
1 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Introduced in House)[H.R.5658.IH]

2 . Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Reported in House)[H.R.5658.RH]
The wording that was in this version included agreements with Russia, as well as funding for nuclear weapons. An example:

SEC. 3111. UTILIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RUSSIAN PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION PROGRAM.

(a) In General- The Secretary of Energy may, in consultation with the Secretary of State, enter into one or more agreements with any person (including a foreign government, international organization, or multinational entity) that the Secretary of Energy considers appropriate, under which the person contributes funds for the effective and transparent disposition of excess weapon-grade Russian plutonium in the Russian Federation, known as the Russian Plutonium Disposition Program.

(b) Retention and Use of Amounts- Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of Energy may retain and use amounts contributed under an agreement under subsection (a) for purposes of the Russian Plutonium Disposition Program. Amounts so contributed shall be retained in a separate fund established in the Treasury for such purposes, subject to the availability of appropriations, consistent with an agreement under subsection (a).

(c) Return of Amounts Not Used Within 5 Years- If an amount contributed under an agreement under subsection (a) is not used under this section within 5 years after it was contributed, the Secretary of Energy shall return that amount to the person who contributed it.

There is intent by the Bush administration to put us in a position that would likely return us, and the world, back to nuclear proliferation. Sending spent fuel rods to Russia, etc. is incredibly irresponsible policy.

Whether or not nuclear energy is an answer to energy/global warming is a separate issue.

Introduction and link to a relevant article:
www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_climate_changed.080518.htm

Znet, May 18, 2008

CLIMATE CHANGED

[Rachel's introduction: While powerholders can no longer ignore global warming, they can certainly delay action through obfuscation and false solutions. And surprisingly, nearly all of the distractions and false solutions proposed by government or industry have been embraced by parts of the environmental movement.]

By John Hepburn