|
Press
Releases
Downing
Street Minutes
Demands Full Investigation
June 13, 2005
The Utah Democratic Progressive
Caucus (UDPC) urges members of Utah’s congressional delegation
to join the more than 80 members of Congress calling for an investigation
into the Downing Street Minutes. This document clearly shows there
is strong evidence the Bush Administration and others were “fixing”
intelligence in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. A complete
copy of the minutes along with links to other sites containing information
on them and the growing campaign calling for a complete and thorough
investigation can be found at the UDPC’s website, www.udpc.org
.
The Downing Street Minutes
originated from a meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blaire and others
members of his government held on July 23, 2002, eight months prior
to the eventual invasion of Iraq. It clearly outlines the perceived
need to “fix” intelligence around “the policy”
of invasion. It also explicitly refers to lack of patience on the
part of the National Security Council with going through the United
Nations and the lack of planning for the probable aftermath of war.
It refers to the Bush Administration’s case for war as “thin”
and states explicitly Iraq had less WMD capability than Libya, Iran
or North Korea.
“While all members
of Utah’s delegation supported the war originally, this does
not preclude them from supporting a full investigation into the question
of whether they and the American people were misled in order to make
the case for war” states Craig Axford, Co-Chair of the UDPC.
“Significant evidence exists we were lied to in order to lead
us into war, and we spent the better part of the last decade investigating
a president on far less serious grounds.”
Laura Bonham, Co-Chair
of the UDPC is troubled by the lack of coverage this important document
and other related documents have received in the American press. “We
rely on the media to fully explore the implications of various policy
choices our country makes and the arguments for and against these
choices” states Bonham. “American men and women as well
as thousands of Iraqi citizens have paid for this decision with their
lives, and the media dishonors their deaths by remaining focused on
issues of far less consequence.”
For additional
information regarding the UDPC’s position on this subject, please
contact Craig Axford at (801)634-7319 or Laura Bonham at (435)640-2252.
Thank you.
Top
Progressives
Speak Out
Against Senators Hatch & Bennett
Support for Drilling in ANWR
March 16, 2005
The Utah Democratic Progressive
Caucus (UDPC) is disappointed by Senators Hatch and Bennett’s
vote today in favor of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) to oil exploration. The Senate approved a measure that would
open the door to potential oil exploration on a 51-49 vote.
The United States currently
consumes nearly 21 million barrels of oil a day, 58% of that coming
from overseas. Assuming ANWR’s oil reserves end up meeting the
most optimistic projections, this would amount to no more than roughly
1.4 million additional barrels of oil per day for the United States.
The reality could well fall far short of that amount.
“If the current
administration and Republicans in Congress were serious about reducing
our reliance on foreign oil, they would aggressively pursue improvements
to automobile fuel efficiency” states Craig Axford, co-chair
of the UDPC and candidate for Utah Democratic Party Chair. “Only
someone with little to no faith in American know how and creativity
would argue our nation cannot improve fuel efficiency in our automobile
fleet by 10% or more over the next decade.”
Laura Bonham, co-chair
of the UDPC and candidate for vice-chair of the Utah Democratic Party
agrees. “Our nation put a man on the moon in less than 10 years.
Why does this administration and Utah’s Senators ignore
threats to national security and the environment, block research and
development that would truly reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern
oil, and continue to insist we can drill our way out of our growing
oil crisis?”
The UDPC
believes America can lead the world in the development of energy efficient
technology and alternative energy development. However, we need leadership
willing to stand up to big oil and other special interests that put
the dollar ahead of national security or stewardship of the environment.
For more information regarding the UDPC’s position on this issue,
please call (801)634-7319 or (435)640-2252.
Top
of Cannon’s Position on Nuclear Testing
March 9, 2005
Chris Cannon’s recent statements about resumed nuclear testing
(March 9 Salt Lake tribune & March 2 interview on KCPW) make it
4 to 1 among Utah’s Congressmen in support of development of
new and unnecessary nuclear arms and their testing. Craig Axford,
Co-Chair of the Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus (UDPC) and candidate
for Chair of the Utah Democratic Party commented, “Only Jim
Matheson has represented the majority of Utahn’s in their opposition
to these tests. Only Jim Matheson has submitted legislation to Congress
that would place numerous roadblocks to testing in the path of the
Department of Energy. However, Jim Matheson’s family is not
the only Utah family that has been harmed by past atmospheric and
underground nuclear tests.” Axford and the UDPC have campaigned
vigorously against resumed testing.
The record shows that all underground
tests have a high probability of going atmospheric and at least half
of them did. Some serious questions need answers before we allow history
to repeat itself. Shall we as a nation begin down this horrible road
again under the premise of national defense when it has such potential
to destroy American lives within our own borders? There is no data
to suggest that Nuclear Robust Earth Penetrators will do a better
job than the existing non-nuclear bunker busters currently in our
arsenals. Do we want to start another nuclear arms race like the one
following the Manhattan Project? What is to stop other countries that
signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty from dropping out or ignoring
its terms to start developing their own nuclear arsenals?
Laura Bonham, Co-Chair of the UDPC
and Vice Chair candidate said “All Utahns, whether Democrat
or Republican, need to stand up behind Jim Matheson and his Safety
for Americans from Nuclear Weapons Testing Act. All Utahns should
stand with the family’s who have suffered from nuclear fallout
in the past. Resumed nuclear testing will not build a bridge to peaceful
co-existence among countries in the 21st century. It is far more likely
to tear it down and carry us back in history to a very dark time when
Utahns were considered no more than collateral damage.”
For additional information regarding
the UDPC’s position on this issue, please contact Craig Axford
at (801)634-7319 or Laura Bonham at (435)640-2252.
Top
Utah
Democratic Party
Progressive Caucus War with Iraq
March 19, 2003
The Utah Democratic Party’s
Progressive Caucus today announced its disappointment regarding the
Bush Administration’s decision to commence war with Iraq. The
unilateral decision to attack another nation without first being attacked,
or even directly threatened with attack, represents a major turning
point in U.S. foreign policy the Progressive Caucus cannot support.
After World War II, the
United States led the way in condemning the unilateral and hostile
actions of Nazi Germany and Japan which resulted in the advent of
that war. To now adopt a policy of pre-emptive strikes against a sovereign
nation that has not attacked us undermines our credibility and invites
similar actions by other nations in the future which will not be in
the United State’s interest.
The Progressive Caucus
also believes the use of force without prior UN approval is a serious
violation of international law. In addition, the caucus believes the
United States Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility
to declare war prior to initiation of hostilities through passage
of a resolution that did not even require the signature of the President.
The Democratic Progressive
Caucus supports more constructive means of achieving peace in the
Middle East. These include an aggressive “Marshall Plan”
for the Middle East which involves investment in aid for hunger, poverty,
medical, educational and infrastructure initiatives. The Progressive
Caucus also supports the establishment of a Palestinian State, and
making aid to Israel conditional upon a cessation of settlement construction
in the occupied territories. We further support an end to Israeli
use of flachette bombs and other weapons which inflict injury and
death upon innocent civilians, and similarly call upon all other parties
to end the use of terrorism to target innocent civilians.
The Progressive Caucus
also supports aggressive efforts at home to reduce America’s
reliance on foreign oil, including improvements in corporate average
fuel economy (CAFE) standards and investment in wind and solar energy.
America cannot hope to achieve long-term peace while still relying
heavily on the resources of foreign nations to support its standard
of living.
For more information regarding
the position of the Democratic Progressive Caucus on this or other
issues, please contact Craig Axford at (801)918-6017 or Laura Bonham
at (435)336-2123.
Top
Utah
Democratic Progressive Caucus
Criticizes Hatch and Bennett
Vote on Nuclear Weapon Development
And Testing
May 22, 2003
Given Utah’s history
as a downwind state exposed to considerable contamination from above
and below ground nuclear testing, Senator Hatch and Bennett’s
vote on May 21 to authorize research and development into new “bunker
buster” nuclear weapons is not only troubling, but irresponsible.
The Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus (UDPC) calls upon Utah’s
representatives in the House to vote against this affront to the citizens
of Utah, which during the era of nuclear testing were labeled “a
low use segment of the population” by our government.
The UDPC also reminds
Utah’s delegation as a nation, we have committed ourselves to
end the development of new nuclear weapons under the Non-proliferation
Treaty, and to ultimately eliminate our own nuclear arsenal. This
treaty also commits the United States to not using any form of nuclear
weapon against a non-nuclear power. So called “bunker buster”
nuclear weapons are intended for use against non-nuclear nations with
significant consequences for any civilians living nearby.
“Given our recent
indignation over North Korea’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty, and Iraq’s alleged violations of it, why would this
administration or our Senators support this step?” asks UDPC
Co-Chair Laura Bonham. “We should be setting an example for
other nations regarding ending the nuclear threat we all live under,
not developing a whole new class of weapons of mass destruction.”
UDPC Co-Chair, Craig Axford
agrees. “These weapons will inevitably require testing. That
means Utahn’s will once again be asked to sacrifice their health
and their environment in the name of national security. The irony
is the development of new nuclear weapons in violation of international
law will make the world less secure in the long-run, while a whole
new generation of downwinders grows up under the shadow of nuclear
testing.”
The Utah Democratic Progressive
Caucus asks all citizens to contact Senators Hatch and Bennett to
express their outrage at this violation of our trust. We also request
every Utahn to contact their representative in the House of Representatives
to urge them to stand against any effort to develop a new generation
of weapons that will inevitably expose all of us to additional risk.
For more information regarding
this statement, please contact Craig Axford at (801)918-6017 or Laura
Bonham at (435)640-2252.
The opinions expressed are those of the UDPC and do not necessarily
represent those of the Utah Democratic Party.
Top
For
Immediate Release
January 24, 2004
Utah Democratic Progressive
Caucus
Endorses Congressman Dennis Kucinich
This morning the Utah
Democratic Progressive Caucus (UDPC) voted to endorse Congressman
Dennis Kucinich at its first presidential endorsement meeting since
the UDPC was formed in March of last year. Congressman Kucinich received
65% of the vote on the first ballot.
The UDPC has chosen as
its primary issues the potential for renewed nuclear testing under
the Bush administration, nuclear waste disposal in Utah and throughout
the Great Basin, and health care reform in the form of a single payer
health care system. “In reviewing Kucinich’s position
on these issues, and in listening to his representative, Susan Clarke,
today at our meeting, it was clear to our members Congressman Kucinich
stands with us on all of these issues” states Craig Axford,
co-chair of the UDPC.
UDPC co-chair Laura Bonham
agrees. “Dennis’ commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons from the globe
is clear in both his positions as a presidential candidate and through
his voting record in Congress.” Bonham continues, “Dennis
has also introduced legislation to achieve true affordable universal
health care coverage for all Americans, and this is extremely important
to the members of the UDPC.”
Joe Inman, coordinator
of the Utah Kucinich Campaign expressed delight at receiving the UDPC
endorsement. “The UDPC is the first official Utah Democratic
Party caucus to endorse Dennis. We hope labor, the women’s caucus,
the gay and lesbian caucus and others will look seriously at Dennis’
record and join in supporting Kucinich next month and in November.”
Congressman Kucinich is also the only presidential candidate so far
committed to visiting Utah between now and Utah’s February 24
primary according to Mr. Inman. Congressman Kucinich is scheduled
to visit Utah on February 19.
While the UDPC is committed
to working to defeat Bush in 2004 regardless of the eventual nominee,
it is proud to endorse Congressman Kucinich. Congressman Kucinich
is co-chair of the Progressive Caucus within the House of Representatives,
and his views have always closely reflected those of the UDPC. The
UDPC will commit itself to working hard to put Utah in the Dennis
Kucinich column come the February 24 Utah Democratic Primary.
For more information regarding
the UDPC vote to endorse Congressman Kucinich, please call (801)485-4076
or (435)640-2252.
Top
For
Immediate Release
February 24, 2004
Utah Democratic Progressive
Caucus
Opposes Marriage Amendment
The Utah Democratic Progressive
Caucus (UDPC) opposes the marriage amendment to the United States
Constitution endorsed by President Bush today. The Constitution has,
since the end of the Civil War, guaranteed equal protection under
the law. The UDPC believes that clause truly applies to all Americans.
“It is an outrage
we are even considering amending our most important legal document
to deny rights to people that love one another” says Laura Bonham,
Co-Chair of the UDPC. “When two consenting adults join together
in a permanent, loving relationship, our families and communities
are stronger, not weaker for their commitment.”
Craig Axford, Co-Chair
of the UDPC agrees. “It’s amazing to me that we allow
convicted felons, even convicted child molesters to marry and re-marry,
even have children, but we are talking about denying access to marriage
to consenting, taxpaying, responsible adults.”
The UDPC calls upon all
members of Utah’s congressional delegation and legislature to
reconsider their position on this issue. The Constitution is too important
to tamper with in response to unfounded fears or religious beliefs
that should not be the basis for law in the United States.
For more information regarding
the UDPC’s position on this issue please call (801)485-4076
or (435)640-2252.
Top
Letters
to the Editor
May 11, 2003
Editor, Salt Lake Tribune
Dear Editor,
Thomas Sowell’s
column “Consider Universal Health Care in Terms of Facts,
Not Just Words” (May 9, Salt Lake Tribune) was very short
on facts. The Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus believes universal
healthcare should be judged on its record, not right wing rhetoric.
Single payer systems generate the best return on the dollar while
providing both universal coverage and better healthcare. Mr. Sowell
claims Canadians are flocking to the United States to receive basic
healthcare, but the truth is the vast majority of Canadians receive
their healthcare at home and are satisfied with the system.
Statistics commonly used to judge the success of a nation’s
healthcare system tell the story. Maternal mortality in Canada per
100,000 live births was 6 as of 1995. In the United States the figure
was 12.
In 2000, mortality of children under age 5 per 1,000 live births
was 6 in Canada and 8 in the United States. Canadian life expectancy
is 76.7 for men and 81.9 for women. In the United States those figures
are 74.3 and 79.9 respectively.
It is important to remember our system spends 10 cents of every
healthcare dollar on administration. Canada spends under 2 cents.
Canadians spend approximately 4% less of their GDP on healthcare
than we do. Canadian doctors also report less time spent on paperwork
and more time spent with patients. Finally, every Canadian enjoys
access to basic quality healthcare while more than 40 million Americans
have no insurance whatsoever.
Those are the facts. Unfortunately, Sowell’s column overlooked
virtually all of them.
Sincerely,
Craig Axford and Laura
Bonham
Co-Chairs, Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus
P.O. Box 520578
Salt Lake City, UT 84152-0578
(801)918-6017 or (435)640-2252
Top
January
4, 2004
Editorial Page Editor
Salt Lake Tribune
Dear Editor,
The publication in the
Salt Lake Tribune of a series of articles regarding WalMart demonstrates
a serious and growing problem that threatens the very survival of
the United States and global economy. WalMart is perhaps the most
visible example of the race to the bottom companies are engaged
in seeking workers not protected by labor laws that limit hours
or protect their safety. Ideally, there is also an absence of any
obligation to provide benefits.
By the WalMart CEO’s own admission, the wages paid by WalMart
here at home are insufficient to support an employee and his/her
family. In addition, benefits are too expensive for those same employees
to afford. Labor unions cannot organize due to intimidation. Can
anyone honestly claim these practices ensure an economically secure
and prosperous America?
The third world workers making $35 a week or less for 60 plus hours
of work without benefits are being paid too much by WalMart standards
given the continuing insistence on lower prices and increased production
for our collective benefit. The low wages and poor conditions American
companies like WalMart impose upon foreign workers offers one explanation
of why America is increasingly despised by so many people around
the world.
Perhaps companies like WalMart won’t be happy until we return
to the heady days prior to 1861 when America had a pool of the cheapest
labor possible at its disposal. We cannot pretend to support democracy
and prosperity abroad when we are exploiting labor at pennies an
hour in third world countries. WalMart and companies like them that
care only for the bottom line and nothing for people should be ashamed
of themselves.
Sincerely,
Craig Axford and Laura
Bonham
Co-Chairs, Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus
521 East Hollywood Avenue
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
(801)485-4076 or (435)336-2123
Top
January
6, 2004
Dear Editor:
In his January 6 letter and in a previous letter Mr. Jim Jackson
argues underground nuclear testing is safe. He argues underground
tests conducted following the ban on atmospheric tests by international
treaty have “clearly demonstrated the ability to perform underground
tests without producing fallout.”
In truth, the results of underground testing demonstrated the inability
of even deeply buried nuclear bombs to be tested safely. One example
from December of 1970, fully nine years after the end of atmospheric
testing, demonstrates the dangers of underground testing very clearly.
On December 18, 1970 the Department of Energy conducted the Baneberry
underground nuclear test. Baneberry, was buried approximately 900
feet below the floor of the Nevada desert, but still spewed tons
of earth between 8,000 and 10,000 feet into the atmosphere. If Mr.
Jackson or anyone else questions this fact, they can visit the Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection nuclear test photos web page
for a view of Baneberry and other underground tests gone awry.
However, the safety of underground tests is only part of the question.
Even assuming underground testing could be conducted safely, which
it can’t, why would a government giving so much lip service
to ending the proliferation of nuclear weapons want to conduct such
tests in the first place? As signers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty we have committed ourselves to eventually eliminating our
own nuclear arsenal. Conducting nuclear tests, underground or otherwise,
in an effort to develop new first strike bunker busters violates
the very treaty we have chastised North Korea and others for violating.
Nuclear testing under any circumstances is morally reprehensible.
Craig Axford and Laura Bonham
C0-Chairs, Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus
521 E. Hollywood Avenue
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
(801)485-4076 or (435)336-2123
Top
Utah
Democratic Party
Progressive Caucus War and renewed nuclear testing
In his editorial
of April 18, 2004 Bill Evenson makes a number of good points regarding
the absence of any real need to resume nuclear testing. We agree that
annual check ups of America’s nuclear arsenal through the Stockpile
Stewardship Program have demonstrated no problems with our more than
8,000 warheads, and this alone is sufficient reason not to resume nuclear
testing.
We also agree with Mr. Evenson and others that contend the management
of America’s nuclear weapons and any possible future resumption
of nuclear testing should not be shrouded in secrecy, as is currently
the case. However, we disagree with Mr. Evenson’s contention that
Congressman Jim Matheson’s recently introduced legislation, the
Safety for Americans from Nuclear Weapons Testing Act (H.R. 3921 or
SANTA), is merely a “nice step” and would not provide greater
access to information by the public prior to any resumption of nuclear
testing.
Late in the summer of 2003 the Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus (UDPC)
and a number of local downwinders visited with Congressman Matheson
and requested he introduce legislation that would, among other things,
provide the public with greater access to information and opportunity
to comment before nuclear testing could resume. Congressman Matheson
not only responded to our request, but introduced legislation that was
stronger than we had initially requested.
Under Matheson’s bill, any resumption of nuclear testing would
require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) subject
to full public review and comment before nuclear testing could begin.
In addition, under H.R. 3921 congressional approval would also be necessary
to resume nuclear testing. This adds an additional opportunity for public
involvement through their representatives in the House and Senate before
nuclear testing could resume. Matheson’s legislation is more than
just a “nice step” in the right direction. It places road
blocks in the way of those that would resume testing and provides opportunity
for public involvement in any decision to renew nuclear testing.
Ironically, Mr. Evenson would have us turn to Senator Bob Bennett to
clear the way for greater public participation in the management of
America’s nuclear stockpile. We sincerely hope Senator Bennett
accepts Mr. Evenson’s invitation. However, if history is to be
our guide, we fear this request will not be heeded by Senator Bennett
or the other Republican members of Utah’s congressional delegation.
The UDPC agrees with Congressman Matheson and others that have argued
potential resumption of nuclear testing should not be seen as a partisan
issue. The fact remains, Utah’s sole Democrat in Congress has
been the only one to stand firm in opposition to appropriations to accelerate
preparations at the Nevada Test Site or to research development of new
earth penetrating nuclear devices also known as “bunker busters”
or “mini-nukes”.
In addition, both Senators Hatch and Bennett voted against the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1999. At the time, leading opponents in the
Senate like former Senator Jesse Helms and other opponents of the CTBT
such as Reagan’s Ambassador to the UN Jean Kirkpatrick argued
the CTBT was bad for the United States as it would effectively prohibit
the development of new first strike weapons such as the ones Hatch,
Bennett, Bishop and Cannon recently voted to research.
Mr. Evenson’s argument Matheson’s legislation is merely
a “nice step” echoes arguments some Republicans in Utah
have recently made that Matheson’s legislation does not go far
enough. Many downwinders in particular have argued a complete test ban
would be a better solution. Those of us that visited with Matheson last
summer agree, and seriously debated requesting legislation that would
implement just such a ban. However, the 1999 vote on the CTBT and more
recent votes to accelerate preparations for testing in Nevada and in
favor of research into new nukes convinced us such legislation would
be impossible to pass in this Congress or under the current administration.
We urge all Utahns, Democrats and Republicans alike, to offer their
full support to Congressman Matheson’s legislation. Senator Bennett
and other members of Utah’s delegation and their challengers in
this year’s election all need to hear no Utahn wants to be subjected
to the consequences of nuclear testing again.
In addition, Senators Bennett and Hatch need to hear from all of us
it is time they reversed their position on the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty and asked President Bush to bring it back for a vote in the Senate.
In the meantime, Matheson’s bill should be seen as more than a
“nice step” in the right direction, it is the greatest step
we can take given our Senators’ past failure to support a complete
ban on nuclear testing, recent vote in favor of a Nevada Test Site ready
to resume testing within 18 months and research into new nuclear weapons.
Top
Printed
in The Southern Utah News, May 12, 2004
Response to Habbeshaw
May 5, 2004
We are writing in response
to Mark Habbeshaw’s comments in the May 5 issue of the Southern
Utah News chastising Congressman Matheson for not doing enough to protect
Utahns and all Americans from the potential resumption of nuclear testing
in Nevada. While we agree wholeheartedly with Commissioner Habbeshaw
that a permanent ban on nuclear testing is preferable to any other legislative
solution, it is important to understand the history leading up to Matheson’s
legislation on this issue.
Commissioner Habbeshaw and
others have apparently drawn some hope from recent statements by Senators
Hatch, Bennett and others that they would consider “cementing”
an all out ban on nuclear testing into law. If true, the Utah Democratic
Progressive Caucus and people of all political stripes would truly welcome
such legislation. However, history shows such a commitment on the part
of Hatch and Bennett would represent a complete change of heart on their
part.
In 1999 both Hatch and Bennett
had the opportunity to make a ban on all nuclear testing not only the
law of the United States, but a part of international law as well. That
was the year the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) came up for a
vote in the U.S. Senate. Led by former Senator Jesse Helms, Senators
Hatch and Bennett both voted against the treaty. Among the reasons offered
in opposition to the CTBT was the fact this agreement would have effectively
eliminated our nation’s ability to build and test new nuclear
weapons such as the “robust earth penetrators” or “bunker
busters” currently being researched.
More recently, Senators Hatch
and Bennett joined Congressmen Cannon and Bishop to support appropriations
for accelerated preparations at the Nevada Test Site. They also opposed
an amendment that would have required congressional approval prior to
any resumption of testing in Nevada.
In light of these recent
votes, we commend Congressman Matheson for taking steps to mandate public
comment through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and congressional
approval prior to any resumption of nuclear testing. Unless Hatch and
Bennett have seen the light, they and others would not support the outright
ban on testing Matheson and Habbeshaw both agree would be best for all
concerned.
Soon, the voters of Utah
will have an opportunity to learn whether Senator Bennett is committed
to preventing resumed nuclear testing. In June the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water, of which Bennett is a member, will
decide whether to appropriate tens of millions of dollars for nuclear
weapons development in the United States. Among the issues being considered
is a new nuclear bomb factory (plutonium pit facility) and further research
into bunker buster nukes. All Utahns, Republicans and Democrats alike,
have a stake in how Bennett decides to cast his vote on this committee
come June.
Last year, Senator Bennett
voted along party lines to provide tens of millions of dollars to study
new nuclear weapons, and to increase the Nevada Test Site’s readiness
for resumed testing. That vote passed 7 to 6. Bennett’s vote enabled
that legislation to pass.
This year Senator Bennett
will be voting on these same issues again, ultimately determining whether
over $70 million is allocated for nuclear weapons research, development,
and upgrading the Nevada Test Site. Bennett has the power to single-handedly
decide whether our nation will invest these funds in more nuclear weapons.
Rather than chastising Matheson
for not going far enough, we hope Commissioner Habbeshaw and others
will join with us in urging Bennett not to take us further down the
road of research into new weapons, which inevitably will have to be
tested. Call Bennett’s office today and ask him to vote against
appropriating any additional money for further nuclear weapons development
or research into new classes of nuclear weapons. Tell Senator Bennett
his actions on this question will speak louder than his words.
Sincerely,
Craig Axford and Laura Bonham
Co-Chairs, Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus
PO Box 520578
Salt Lake City, UT 84115
(801)485-4076 or (435)640-2252
Top
Making the case for a more progressive Democratic
Party
Submitted November 9, 2004
to the Salt Lake Tribune
Since Bush declared victory and Kerry conceded on November 3, the calls
for “unity” and “healing” have been numerous.
In addition, the arguments for a more “moderate” Democratic
Party have been renewed by both pundits and members of the Democratic
Leadership Council (DLC).
It is not entirely clear what is meant by “healing” and
“unity”. For Republicans “unity” has increasingly
been seen as refraining from criticism of the president and his policies.
This has been especially true since September 11, 2001. In this context
healing means a more subdued Democratic Party that will better enable
the implementation of partial privatization of Social Security, tax
“reform” and less resistance to the president’s aggressive
foreign policy.
From the perspective of those of us within the opposition party, particularly
progressives, Democratic calls for “healing” and “unity”
seem intended to reinforce the argument only a moderate or centrist
party willing to cooperate with Republicans on various issues can bring
victory in the future. We have heard various versions of this theme
at least since the “Gingrich revolution” of 1994. The repeated
failure of Democrats to take back either the Senate or the House, and
now the White House does not deter those promoting this argument.
Ever since Clinton’s 1992 campaign, Democratic candidates at all
levels have increasingly run more or less centrist campaigns. The failure
of this strategy to bring victory has not diminished enthusiasm for
this approach. One definition of insanity comes to mind. A person, or
in this case institution, can be deemed insane if it repeatedly tries
the same thing but expects different results each time.
No one disputes Utah is a conservative state. Conventional wisdom holds
that only moderate to conservative candidates need apply here if they
hope to hold office. To this end Democrats have run moderate to conservative
candidates at a variety of levels. We have run pro-life, pro capital
punishment and pro-war candidates, usually to no avail. The same is
true across the Bible belt and in other solidly red states.
Ironically the result of this strategy appears to be two parties more
polarized than ever. Among Democrats holding office the percentage of
left leaning elected officials appears to have steadily increased. At
the same time the number of extreme right wing candidates winning on
the Republican side has also increased. Our representatives have become
a reflection of a more polarized electorate and moderates from both
parties are increasingly in the minority.
Republicans have figured out the public appreciates candidates offering
a clear choice. The Democrats, on the other hand, continue to believe
their only hope lies somewhere in the mushy middle. Even liberals are
expected to “run toward the center” during their campaign,
even though this inconsistency enables the right to successfully label
these liberals “flip-floppers.” It simply has not occurred
to Democratic Party leadership the people of this country are hungry
for a clear debate between altering visions of the future.
Of course there are exceptions. Our own Jim Matheson, a self described
moderate to conservative Democrat, has successfully used his “independence”
from party leadership to convince Republicans to cross the aisle to
vote for him. However, Matheson also has John Swallow to thank for two
consecutive victories. Swallow is so conservative Matheson does offer
a clear choice by comparison.
More to the point is Jim’s brother, Scott Matheson Jr. Scott ran
a very moderate campaign focusing primarily on vouchers and Huntsman’s
proposal to move the state prison toward the end of his campaign. While
both issues are important, neither could be viewed as something clearly
distinguishing Scott Matheson from Jon Huntsman. In a conservative state
if differences between the two candidates are hard to find, the voters
will likely choose the Republican every time.
The time has come to advance progressive candidates that can demonstrate
a commitment to health care reform, a living wage, public education
as well as fiscal responsibility. The Republicans are working overtime
running up the national debt, the number of uninsured is on the rise
and wages are declining. All of these issues favor Democrats, particularly
progressive Democrats with a strong commitment to reducing or eliminating
corporate welfare, raising the minimum wage, and offering universal
health care coverage.
A slate of strong progressive candidates will not necessarily lead to
a sudden reversal of fortunes in the form of a Democratic majority in
2006. But articulating a clear alternative agenda instead of one that
can best be described as “Republican light” is the first
step to restoring balance in Utah and retaking the House, Senate and
White House in Washington, DC.
Top
Public Comments
May
14, 2004
Mr. William C. Suiter
NEPA Document Manager
National Nuclear Security Administration
Nevada Operations Office P.O. Box 98518
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518
Dear Mr. Suiter:
The Utah Democratic Progressive
Caucus (UDPC) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Pre-decisional
Draft Environmental Assessment for Activities Using Biological Simulants
and Releases of Chemicals at the Nevada Test Site, hereafter referred
to simply as the Environmental Assessment or EA. We request you add
the UDPC to the mailing list to receive additional NEPA materials released
from your office regarding this proposed action. In addition, we request
you add the UDPC to your NEPA mailing list to receive future scoping
letters or other requests for public comment released by your office
in the future.
The UDPC has a number of
concerns with the potential impacts to the environment associated with
the proposed action and action alternatives outlined within the EA.
The EA fails to meet the mandate of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and other laws and regulations governing the protection of
the environment. In light of these failings, the UDPC requests you adopt
the no action alternative. If the government is intent on moving ahead
with the proposed action, the UDPC believes and will show in these comments
an environmental impact statement (EIS) is necessary.
The Draft Pre-Approval EA
fails to meet the mandate of NEPA:
“Cumulative impact”
is defined within the NEPA regulations as “the impact on
the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future
action regardless of what agency (Federal or non-F 40 C.F.R. §
1508.7
Draft EA, page 3-16. Emphasis added ederal) or person undertakes such
other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor
but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.”
The EA itself recognizes and reinforces the definition of cumulative
effects. “Cumulative effects are the consequences of multiple
impacts, each of which could be insignificant, but when taken together,
become potentially significant.”
While the EA dismisses the
potential for significant impacts to plants, wildlife, soils and water
quality resulting from any of the action alternatives, the analysis
limits itself entirely to possible consequences to these resources resulting
from the release of chemical or biological agents. There is absolutely
no discussion within the EA of the cumulative impact to these resources
resulting from the history of extreme activity on the Nevada Test Site
(NTS), namely nuclear testing.
Assuming for the sake of
argument the conclusions within the EA regarding the insignificance
of impacts associated specifically with this action are correct, the
EA still completely ignores possible cumulative effects associated with
biological/chemical testing activities and the NTS’ long history
of significant atomic testing. The most attention this issue receives
is found on page 3-17 of the EA where avoidance of past nuclear testing
areas in order to reduce/eliminate potential for radioactive dust disturbance
is mentioned.
The Department of Energy
(DOE) is well aware of the impacts past nuclear testing has had on human
health across the United States. Many of the residents of counties immediately
downwind of the NTS are included in the national compensation program
for victims of cancers linked to nuclear testing. Therefore, it can
hardly be argued nuclear testing did not have an impact on the plants,
wildlife and other resources of the NTS. As the above cited NEPA regulations
make clear, the cumulative impact of this past activity when combined
with the proposed action cannot be ignored, even if we assume the impact(s)
of the proposed action are insignificant by themselves.
The EA also ignores a specific
request by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to include a detailed analysis
of impacts to the desert tortoise and migratory bird species. In their
response during the initial scoping period for this project, the US
Fish and Wildlife stated “Direct and indirect effects from the
proposed activities to the desert tortoise, migratory birds, and sensitive
species in Nevada fully considered and evaluated in the EA.” Nowhere
does the EA provide a list of migratory birds suspected or known to
exist within the NTS or immediately downwind from the Hazmat Spill Center
(HCS) or sites where releases could take place. Nowhere does the EA
discuss in detail the results of past monitoring completed following
similar activities conducted in the past, though we are assured such
monitoring has taken place.
With regard to the Desert
Tortoise, a threatened species protected under the ESA, the EA states
any tortoises discovered prior to initiation of a chemical or biological
release will be relocated. However, the potential impacts of relocation
on these animals receive absolutely no discussion. This is a significant
potential impact of the proposed action which NEPA requires and should
get at least some attention within the cumulative effects analysis.
In addition to failing to
specifically discuss direct/indirect cumulative effects to specific
species, the EA fails to disclose which chemicals it plans to employ
during the proposed tests. In fact, the National Nuclear Safety Administration/Nevada
Site Office (NNSA/NSO) claim they don’t yet know which chemicals
they plan to utilize. “NNSA/NSO does not know which specific chemicals
could be required for testing or training. Therefore, rather than compile
an exhaustive list of possible chemicals that could be released, NNSA
has developed detailed criteria for chemical release events that would
be protective of the environment, workers and the public.”
In its comments regarding
this project, the US Fish and Wildlife Service made abundantly clear
the biological agents actually or potentially planned for use during
testing would be essential to fully considering impacts to natural resources
under their jurisdiction. The Fish and Wildlife Agency states “…it
would be important to know specific details on the various biological
materials, including their persistence in the exposed environment, to
assist in determining potential effects to [threatened, endangered and
sensitive] species.” The logic of needing detailed information
about biological agents in order to fully evaluate impact also extends
to chemical agents in which wildlife and humans could be exposed.
In failing to provide any
information regarding chemical agents, presumably because the government
itself does not yet know which chemicals it will employ, the public
is denied a critical opportunity to comment upon potential impacts.
Among the purposes of NEPA is the collection of data which could be
critical to the decision maker in reaching his/her decision. “The
NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that
are based on understanding of environmental consequences and take actions
that protect, restore, and enhance the environment.” Furthermore,
“NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is
available to public officials and citizens before actions are taken.
The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis,
expert agency comments, and public scrutiny is essential to implementing
NEPA.”
In order for the NNSA/NSO
to be in compliance with NEPA, the chemicals actually or potentially
planned for use under any action alternative must be disclosed. The
EA must disclose the potential direct and indirect impacts of these
chemicals. In addition, the public must have an opportunity to consider
the effects of these agents for themselves and provide additional information
for consideration should it be available.
The Draft Pre-Approval EA
fails to meet the mandate of the MBTA and ESA
Over the course of the 20th
century the United States entered into several conventions “for
the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction,
and their environment…” The first of these was the Migratory
Bird Treaty of 1918. In January of 2001 President Clinton signed Executive
Order (EO) 13186 stating in part, “These migratory bird conventions
[1916, 1936, 1972 & 1978] impose substantive obligations on the
United States for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats,
and through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the United States
has implemented these migratory bird conventions with respect to the
United States.”
EO 13186 specifically requires
federal agencies to “ensure that environmental analyses of Federal
actions required by the NEPA or other established environmental review
processes evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory
birds, with emphasis on species of concern.” Furthermore, the
Executive Order imposes the following requirement on agencies:
Identify where unintentional
take reasonably attributable to agency actions is having, or is likely
to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations,
focusing first on species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk
factors. With respect to those actions so identified, the agency shall
develop and use principles, standards, and practices that will lessen
the amount of unintentional take, developing any such conservation efforts
in cooperation with the Service (USFWS). These principles, standards,
and practices shall be regularly evaluated and revised to ensure that
they are effective in lessening the detrimental effect of agency actions
on migratory bird populations. The agency also shall inventory and monitor
bird habitat and populations within the agency’s capabilities
and authorities to the extent feasible to facilitate decisions about
the need for, and effectiveness of, conservation efforts.
As mentioned earlier in
these comments, the EA fails completely to include any discussion of
impacts to migratory birds short of mentioning they exist in the area
and concluding, without providing any supporting evidence, they will
not be adversely impacted. The above statement makes clear it is the
policy of the United States government to disclose even “unintentional
take” caused by government actions. Mitigation of both intentional
and unintentional impacts to migratory bird species is crucial to compliance
with the MBTA. In this case, the NNSA/NSO has completely failed to meet
this mandate.
With regard to the threatened
desert tortoise protected by the Endangered Species Act, the current
EA also does not meet the mandates of current law and regulation as
expressed under the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act
(ESA) declares as its purpose “to provide a means whereby the
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend
may be conserved [and] to provide a program for the conservation of
such species” 16 USC Sec. 1531(b). Congress has provided further
direction to federal agencies to use “all methods and procedures
which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species
to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are
no longer necessary.” The ESA not only prohibits Federal agencies
from taking actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existences
of endangered and threatened species, but also affirmatively requires
that they “shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened
species”.
While the EA states any
desert tortoise located in an area where biological or chemical agent
testing is being planned will be relocated, the stress of relocation
or past success relocation efforts receive no discussion. Furthermore,
the impacts of past nuclear testing and chemical/biological agent activities
are likewise completely ignored. The NNSA/NSO cannot reasonably argue
it is complying with the mandate of the ESA expressed above given the
failure to deal at all with these important issues.
Conclusion:
The importance of the ESA,
MBTA and other environmental laws and regulations goes far beyond the
important goal of protecting wildlife. The species covered by these
laws are important indicators of the health of the environment upon
which we all depend. In failing to even outline the results of past
monitoring of these resources or impacts past significant activities
have had on them, the government is repeating a history of irresponsibility
that dates back to the beginning of the nuclear testing era. The important
role of monitoring and disclosure in preventing the death and illness
experienced by those living downwind from the NTS from revisiting the
current and future generations cannot be understated. In failing to
take these laws seriously, the government is demonstrating once again
a disregard for the well being of those it represents.
In failing to provide information
regarding chemicals which may be used, the locations where tests are
being planned, or the results of resource monitoring the EA fails to
provide both the public and the decision maker with sufficient information
to adequately address threats to public and environmental health which
may or actually exist. In light of Utah’s past history with the
federal government on issues such as the one under consideration here,
the UDPC’s members and other Utahns cannot reasonably be expected
to simply take the government’s word for it when it comes to open
air chemical/biological agent testing. Until the NNSA/NSO can provide
more details than it has in this document, the no action alternative
is the only legal and responsible option available to the government.
Sincerely,
Craig Axford Laura Bonham
Co-Chairs, Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus
Top
EPA
New Source Review (NSR)
Hearing Comments
Democratic Progressive Caucus
March 31, 2003
Good morning. My name
is Laura Bonham and I am here to speak on behalf of the Democratic
Progressive Caucus. The views I am about to express are those of
the Progressive Caucus, not the Utah Democratic Party as a whole.
I want to begin by thanking the EPA for this opportunity to comment
on the new NSR permitting regulations governing routine maintenance,
repair and replacement (RMRR) for equipment contributing to or producing
air pollution within existing facilities. Air pollution along Utah’s
Wasatch Front has been of considerable concern for years, and Utah’s
growing population and industrial development is making air pollution
along both the Wasatch Front and Back, as well as within more remote
rural areas away from the Wasatch Front, an issue of increasing
regional importance.
Among changes being considered under the proposed new regulations
is a change in the method of calculating significant increases in
emissions. While existing regulations require a determination of
“significant” increases in emissions using average levels
of emissions over the past two years, the new regulations would
calculate significance using a facility’s highest level of
emissions within the past ten years. This relaxation of existing
regulations would significantly jeopardize air quality along the
Wasatch Front and Back even more so than is currently the case.
Changes such as the one just described will have significant impacts
on the health of the elderly, children and the ill, groups already
experiencing significant problems due to pollution.
The presence of several oil refineries north of Salt Lake, a smelter
and several incinerators west of Salt Lake, and until recently an
operable steel plant in Utah County south of Salt Lake along with
numerous other industrial polluters, makes such a significant change
to existing regulation a major concern. Salt Lake City frequently
achieves air quality conditions that rival or exceed the worst days
in Los Angeles due to atmospheric conditions such as inversions
which are of particular concern in the winter. Areas off the Wasatch
Front which are experiencing increased problems with air quality
include Cache Valley, located north and east of Salt Lake City near
the Idaho border. This traditionally more rural valley is experiencing
considerable development. Like the Wasatch Front, the valley is
subject to winter inversions that trap pollution as well as smog
and haze during the summer months.
A year ago Cache Valley experienced one of the highest PM 2.5 readings
in the country reaching twice the federal standards on February
7, 2002 (137 ug/m-3). Mild conditions have spared Cache Valley this
winter, but that will not be the case every year.
Like Cache Valley, national parks and other areas that have traditionally
been considered attainment areas are experiencing increasing problems
with haze, smog and particulates. While existing standards have
successfully reduced some forms of pollution in the more urban non-attainment
areas, a growing population and the industry that supports it have
continued to contribute greenhouse gases, smog producing pollutants
and particulates to the atmosphere at an increasing rate on a national
scale.
The health effects associated with this growing pollution problem
includes childhood asthma, chronic bronchitis and other illnesses
with health costs and costs in lost productivity dwarfing the investment
required to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. Unfortunately,
the EPA with the blessing of the Bush Administration is focused
almost exclusively on the costs to industry associated with upgrading
equipment and is showing little or no regard for the social costs
associated with America’s growing air quality problems.
We believe toughening the regulations to push industry toward even
greater efficiency and reduced emissions is in order. The benefits
to society of tough air quality standards that are regularly and
consistently enforced by government include reduced risks to public
health, improvements in efficiency which not
only reduce emissions but reduce energy use as well, and increased
employment as companies invest in both R & D and equipment to
meet improving standards.
It is our hope the EPA will reject the proposed rule as written,
and will look for ways to better enforce existing regulations. If
changes to the rule are to be made, they must enhance both enforcement
and air quality without sacrificing public health and welfare. The
EPA has failed to demonstrate the proposed rule will do either.
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment.
Laura Bonham
Co-Chair, Democratic Progressive Caucus
(insert contact information here)
Top
August
5, 2003
James J. Rose
NA-53/Forrestal Building
NNSA
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Mr. Rose,
The Utah Democratic
Progressive Caucus (UDPC) appreciates this opportunity to comment
on the Draft Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
on Stockpile Stewardship and Management for a Modern Pit Facility
hereafter referred to as the Draft Supplemental EIS or DSEIS. We
request our caucus be added to any NEPA mailing list your agency
maintains to receive additional information regarding this proposal
as it becomes available to the public.
The UDPC has committed
itself to supporting nuclear nonproliferation and to opposing the
resumption of nuclear testing. While the DSEIS does not deal directly
with either issue, any resumption of plutonium pit production must
be considered in light of both the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
and the current moratorium on nuclear testing. Given the Bush administration’s
apparent commitment to the development of new “mini-nukes”
or bunker busting nuclear weapons, which will require the use of
plutonium pits as well as a resumption of at least some nuclear
testing, we are very troubled by the proposal outlined within the
DSEIS.
The stated Purpose and
Need for the proposed action is the aging of America’s current
nuclear stockpile and the alleged decay associated with aging nuclear
weapons. The current average age of our nuclear devices is said
to be “about 19 years”. The summary of the DSEIS states,
“Age-related changes that can affect a nuclear weapon’s
pit include changes in plutonium properties as impurities build
up inside the material due to radioactive decay, and corrosion along
interfaces, joints, and welds.” (Page S-11)
However, your agency
also readily admits to the “fundamental uncertainty”
surrounding pit lifetimes and the failure to detect measurable change
in the existing pits contained within our nuclear stockpile. While
the average age of our weapons is about 19 years, the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) weapons laboratories “have
determined that pits will perform adequately for 45-60 years.”
(S-12) Furthermore, “NNSA is encouraged that measurements
to date have not shown any significant degradation of pits over
approximately 40 years.” (S-13)
The United States is
committed to reducing its operationally deployed nuclear arsenal
to between 1,700 and 2,200 nuclear devices by 2012. The interim
facility already authorized to produce up to 20 pits per year (ppy)
and in development at Los Alamos will be operational by 2007, and
assuming full production will have produced approximately 260 pits
by 2020, the year the first weapons in our arsenal approach the
end of their useful lives, assuming the 45-60 year useful life estimate
proves accurate.
In other words, our nation
is already poised to replace more than 10% of the pits within the
1,700-2,200 weapons the U.S. projects will be operationally deployed
by 2012, enabling us to maintain a functional nuclear deterrent
for decades to come. Even assuming some pits began to show measurable
levels of decay between 2020 and 2035, the earliest the NNSA projects
such an eventuality, the 20 ppy produced at Los Alamos would enable
the U.S. the maintain a functional arsenal of approximately 1,000
weapons over any given 45-60 year period. More than sufficient to
deal with any possible threat we might face from another nuclear
power.
All this brings us to
the question of why additional pit production facilities capable
of producing between 125 ppy and 450 ppy are considered necessary,
or even worthy of consideration. Such production levels would facilitate
replacement of all existing pits in the 1,700-2,200 weapons that
we plan to have deployed in 2012 in between 5 and 18 years depending
on the rate pits are produced. Given none of our current operational
weapons are in need of pit replacement currently, the production
levels provided appear to far exceed necessary annual replacement
even assuming the useful lifetime of a plutonium pit turns out to
be only 45 years, an outcome the NNSA has already determined to
be very unlikely.
We can only conclude
the pit production proposed is really intended to facilitate the
development and ultimate testing of a new breed of nuclear weapons.
Bunker buster nukes are the most likely candidate for upcoming development
and testing, though experimentation with additional weapons cannot
be ruled out. Only a shift in national policy which calls for the
deployment of nuclear weapons for use in conventional warfare justifies
the level of production being contemplated here. Bunker busters
are by all admissions intended for use as a first strike preemptive
weapon or as a weapon intended for use in “conventional warfare”
to remove underground hardened targets that may pose a threat to
advancing troops. We fear this is where the real “Purpose
and Need” for this proposal lies.
Because the levels of
production being contemplated here far exceed necessary pit production
levels to maintain the safety of America’s operationally deployed
nuclear stockpile (assuming 2012 levels projected in the DSEIS),
the proposed action is a clear and flagrant violation of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty to which the U.S. is a party. The DSEIS
Summary clearly states, “Article VI of the NPT obligates the
parties ‘to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessationof the nuclear arms race at an early
date and to nuclear disarmament…” (S-17, emphasis added)
The DSEIS attempts to
get around the above quoted obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty stating the following: “It must be noted that the NPT
does not provide any time period for achieving the ultimate goal
of nuclear disarmament nor does it preclude the maintenance of nuclear
weapons until their disposition.” (Ibid) While perhaps technically
accurate, as we have already pointed out the production levels proposed
far exceed that which is needed to “maintain” our nuclear
arsenal. Furthermore, any action which leads away from the “ultimate
goal” of total disarmament cannot be considered to be in compliance
with either the spirit or the letter of the NPT.
Our membership consists
of citizens living in a state directly downwind from the Nevada
Test Site. Utah’s history of exposure to both fallout and
government deception is well documented. It is clear given the admissions
and numbers provided within the DSEIS the purpose of this action
goes beyond mere maintenance of existing nuclear weapons. Especially
over the long-term, the production levels proposed can only mean
the United States is committing itself not to disarmament as promised,
but the development and deployment of more nuclear weapons.
Testing will inevitably
be the consequence of such a strategy. Bunker buster nukes or any
underground test for any reason poses a serious threat to the public
health of those living downwind. Numerous examples exist of underground
tests that went atmospheric, as your agency is undoubtedly aware.
If even one plutonium pit to be manufactured within facilities proposed
here is to be used in such a test, this is an indirect consequence
of the proposed action the National Environmental Policy Act requires
you to consider. So far, your agency as not only failed to consider
this issue, but denied the issue is even a matter of serious concern.
For the reasons stated
above, the Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus cannot support any
of the action alternatives outlined within the DSEIS. We view this
proposed action as a clear violation of international treaty and
law and urge your agency and the Bush administration to withdraw
any proposal to expand plutonium pit production. Thank you again
for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Craig Axford Laura Bonham
Co-Chairs, Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus
P.O. Box 520578
Salt Lake City, UT 84152
(801)918-6017
Top
December
15, 2003
Re: Comments National Academy of Sciences hearing, St. George, UT
Dear NAS Committee:
The Utah Democratic
Progressive Caucus (UDPC) appreciates this opportunity to provide
comments regarding the geographic scope and effects of nuclear testing.
Utah and the intermountain west have been severely impacted by testing
over the past half century, and we thank the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) for its willingness to consider this issue.
While southern Utah
and Nevada have received more than their fair share of environmental
and public health effects associated with past open air and below
ground nuclear testing, virtually every county east of the Nevada
Test Site has experienced fallout from past tests. In many cases,
communities as far away as Des Moines, Iowa or Rochester, New York
saw significant levels of fallout. To date the public health and
environmental consequences of fallout within these and other communities
have not been sufficiently considered scientifically. As a result,
public policy as it relates to the impacts of fallout on downwinders
has been limited to a few counties in southern Nevada, Utah and
northern Arizona.
The UDPC considers it ironic the NAS would choose to hold its only
hearing regarding the potential broadening of the geographic eligibility
requirements to receive compensation for illnesses linked with nuclear
testing in the heart of the area where eligibility has already been
established. While it is certainly appropriate for St. George to
be a part of discussions regarding nuclear testing and related compensation
questions, the NAS owes it to the American people to hold hearings
in other affected communities as well. So far as Utah is concerned,
the metropolitan areas along the Wasatch Front should be considered
for future hearings on the subject being considered by the committee
today. We urge the committee to schedule at least one hearing in
Salt Lake City or the surrounding area before issuing its final
report.
In addition, the UDPC
feels strongly the committee should evaluate areas of significant
fallout across the United States and schedule hearings accordingly.
We draw the committee’s attention to the map attached to these
comments and request you hold hearings in southern Idaho, Denver
or the surrounding metropolitan area, Des Moines, Iowa and other
areas that have received significant fallout due to our nation’s
shameful history of nuclear testing. In all affected communities
the medical community, NGOs and other groups known to have an interest
in this issue should be invited to participate.
The UDPC is also troubled
by the apparent lack of research done to date on the environmental
and public health consequences of detonating more than 1,000 nuclear
devices upwind of most of the American population over the course
of approximately 45 years. While various forms of cancer have received
some attention, most would agree the research has been considerably
lacking in both its scope and depth. Chronic diseases such as juvenile
diabetes, lupus and multiple sclerosis have not been considered
at all in the context of past nuclear testing to our knowledge.
The frequency and possible association of testing with congenital
conditions, still births, and premature deliveries have also been
largely ignored.
The government will
predictably respond to requests for research into the above listed
issues by stating there is little to no evidence to support claims
chronic disease or congenital conditions are linked to nuclear testing.
This argument demonstrates just how self serving the lack of research
is. The lack of evidence is due to the lack of research. The absence
of research is largely due to the unwillingness of the government
to support it. The UDPC and others can do little more than speculate
regarding links between nuclear testing and diseases such as juvenile
diabetes given the failure to conduct the research needed to prove
or disprove whether a link exists.
Returning to the issue
of geographic scope, there is no question as to where fallout occurred
during the years of above ground nuclear testing. Due to the tireless
efforts of men like Richard Miller who produced the map attached
to these comments, we know virtually every state east of Nevada
experienced a significant fallout event or events at some time or
another before open-air testing ended in 1962. There can be no question
in our mind that cancers acknowledged to occur in Washington County,
Utah due to testing must necessarily have occurred elsewhere for
the same reason. The question before this committee and the government
is not whether various cancers were the result of testing in every
community across America east of the test site, but to what degree.
It is foolish to base a compensation program on the assumption radiation
magically ceased to rain down upon citizens or to have an effect
upon their health after the fallout cloud crossed an arbitrary county
or state line.
While the UDPC readily
acknowledges the financial burden the government must necessarily
bear if the geographic scope is widened to reflect all the areas
hit by fallout, even when compensation is limited to the cancers
and conditions established within existing legislation, reality
and scientific truth do not change in response to fiscal burdens.
The government has lied to the people of Utah and to the citizens
of the United States as a whole when it comes to the risks associated
with fallout. The time has long since passed for it to take responsibility
for those lies.
The committee must also
consider the question before it in the context of policies currently
being considered. This administration is actively preparing to renew
production of plutonium pits, has secured funding to accelerate
preparations at the Nevada Test Site that would enable a more rapid
return to nuclear testing, and is advocating research and development
of a new generation of “bunker buster” nuclear weapons.
The mandate of this committee is meaningless if its decision does
not reflect an awareness of the lessons of the past in light of
the very real possibility history may repeat itself in the very
near future. Recognition of the true scope of the consequences of
past testing would send a clear message to those that would renew
nuclear testing in any form. With or without your acknowledgement
of the actual geographic scope of these consequences, however, the
people of Utah will never again sit idly by while their health and
that of their children is sacrificed on the altar of national security.
Sincerely,
Craig Axford Laura Bonham
Co-Chairs, Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus
PO Box 520578
Salt Lake City, UT 84152
Top
Recent
Articles written about the UDPC
Salt
Lake City Weekly - City Beat - June 3, 2004
Deseret
News - Senate OKs plan to allow oil wells in Alaska refuge - Thursday,
March 17, 2005
Salt
Lake Tribune - Health care crisis is the paramount moral failure
of our time Sunday May 5, 2005
UDPC's Freedom
Fair in the news!
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595090546,00.html
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595090777,00.html
http://sltrib.com/ci_2411777
|