No, I do not support a public-private partnership to gain access to nuclear fuels. I object to the "private" part in legislation proffered by a Republican, particularly from Texas. Somebody with "Cash-Register" eyeballs is sitting in the shadows looking forward to taxpayer subsidized profiteering. Further, public sensitivity to nuclear anything requires strict governmental standards and controls. When potentially hazardous nuclear materials are needed, they should be acquired and distributed by the federal government. Nuclear power will be required to get to the reduced carbon footprint necessary to forestall uncontrollable climate change, at least initially. Natural gas combustion, while cleaner than fossil fuels, still emits CO2, and has the potential of leaking Methane as well- which is 25 times more potent that CO2. Natural gas will have to be phased out as a combusted energy source, Locally renewable and locally stored energy resources will need augmentation from distant grid supplied power. Currently, optimally placed solar and wind power farms are subject to becoming useless should there be major shifts in air currents or persistent cloud cover. For example, if a cat 6 Hurricane blew down all the solar panels and wind turbines within a region in a carbon neutral future, how would the storm water surge pumps be powered? Where would the all-electric rescue vehicles go to plug-in? The smaller scale, alternatively fueled. much less complex and much more safe nuclear reactors currently being developed/deployed would be necessary. I prefer that our government be fully in control of the development and distribution of fuel for these reactors; which will be needed until efficient large scale energy storage and efficient grid power transfer methods are developed. After that, these kind of reactors can always augment power supplies as needed. All the climate stuff is too complex a task with potentially large risks. We need to keep all available options on the table until they are clearly no longer needed.