Bernie Sanders primary challenger appears to slur transgender people as 'lady boys'

[lunamagica]

166. Oh, really? I stand corrected. Then I can post this

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 77 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6349-S6356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




THE TEXAS-MAINE-VERMONT COMPACT

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to speak out this evening
about an enormously important issue that has seldom, if ever, been
addressed on the floor of the United States Senate. I understand my
colleague needs to leave at 7, and I am going to try to figure out a
way to accommodate him if at all possible. My understanding is, I will
also have a chance to speak more about this in morning business.
This issue I want to address tonight has variously been called
``environmental discrimination,'' ``environmental equity,''
``environmental justice,'' or ``environmental racism.'' These terms are
used interchangeably to describe the well-documented tendency for
pollution and waste dumps to be sited in poor and minority communities
who lack the political power to keep them out.
Environmental justice has been at the center of the debate over H.R.
629, legislation granting congressional consent to the so-called Texas
Compact. If passed unamended by this Congress, the Texas Compact would
result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste from nuclear
reactors in Texas, Maine, and Vermont--and potentially from nuclear
reactors all over the country--in the poor and majority-Latino town of
Sierra Blanca in West Texas.
Environmental justice is an issue that demands the full attention of
the Senate. If we pass this legislation unamended, we can no loner
pretend to be innocent bystanders as one poor, minority community after
another is victimized by political powerlessness--and, in some cases,
by overt racism. We can no longer pretend that a remedy for this basic
violation of civil rights is beyond our reach. That is the ultimate
significance of this legislation--and of this debate.
The moral responsibility of the Senate is unavoidable and undeniable.
If we approve H.R. 629 without conditions, the Compact dump will be
built within a few miles of Sierra Blanca. There's really very little
doubt about that. And if that happens, this poor Hispanic community
could become the premier national repository for so-called ``low-
level'' radioactive waste.
If we reject this Compact, on the other hand, the Sierra Blanca dump
will not be built at all. The Texas Governor has said so publicly--more
than once. It's as simple as that. The fate of Sierra Blanca rests in
our hands.
Compact supporters would prefer that we consider the Compact without
any reference to the actual location of the dump. But that simply
cannot be done. It's true that H.R. 629 says nothing about Sierra
Blanca. But we know very well where this waste will be dumped. In that
respect, the Texas Compact is different from other compacts the Senate
has considered.
The Texas legislature in 1991 already identified the area where the
dump will be located. The Texas Waste Authority designated the site
near Sierra Blanca in 1992. A draft license was issued in 1996. License
proceedings are now in their final stages and should be completed by
summer. Nobody doubts that the Texas authorities will soon issue that
license.
There's only one reason why this dump might not get built--and that's
if Congress rejects the Texas Compact. In an April 1998 interview,
Texas Gov. George Bush said, ``If that does not happen,'' meaning
congressional passage of the Compact, ``then all bets are off.'' In the
El Paso Times of May 28, Gov. Bush said, ``If there's not a Compact in
place, we will not move forward.''
For these reasons, we cannot fairly consider H.R. 629 without also
considering the dump site that Texas has selected. Sierra Blanca is a
small town in one of poorest parts of Texas, an area with one of the
highest percentages of Latino residents. The average income of people
who live there is less than $8,000. Thirty-nine percent live below the
poverty line. Over 66 percent are Latino, and many of them speak only
Spanish.
It is a town that has already been saddled with one of the largest
sewage sludge projects in the world. Every week Sierra Blanca receives
250 tons of partially treated sewage sludge from across the country.
Depending on what action Congress decides to take, this small town with
minimal political clout may also become the national repository for
low-level radioactive waste. And I understand plans for building even
more dump sites are also in the works.
Supporters of the Compact would have us believe that the designation
of Sierra Blanca had nothing to do with the income or ethnic
characteristics of its residents. That it had nothing to do with the
high percentage of Latinos in Sierra Blanca and the surrounding
Hudspeth County--at least 2.6 times higher than the State average. That
the percentage of people living in poverty--at least 2.1 times higher
than the State average--was completely irrelevant.
They would have us believe that Sierra Blanca was simply the
unfortunate finalist in a rigorous and deliberate screening process
that fairly considered potential sites from all over the State. That
the outcome was based on science and objective criteria. I don't
believe any of this is true.
I am not saying science played no role whatsoever in the process. It
did. Indeed, based on the initial criteria coupled with the scientific
findings, Sierra Blanca was disqualified as a potential dump site. It
wasn't until politics entered the picture that Sierra Blanca was even
considered.
I think it is worth taking a moment to review how we got to where we
are today. The selection criteria for the dump were established in
1981, and the Texas Waste Authority hired engineering consultants to
screen the entire state for suitable sites.
In March 1985, consultants Dames & Moore delivered their report to
the Authority. Using ``exclusionary'' criteria established by the
Authority, Dames & Moore ruled out Sierra Blanca and the surrounding
area, due primarily to its complex geology.
Let me quote from that report. Features ``applied as exclusionary as
related to the Authority's Siting Criteria'' included ``the clearly
exclusionary features of: complex geology; tectonic fault zones,'' et
cetera. ``The application of exclusionary geological criteria has had a
substantial impact'' in screening potential sites, the report observed.
In its final composite, the report explained, ``Complex geology and
mountainous areas in West, West-Central, and the Panhandle of Texas
were excluded,'' including the Sierra Blanca dump site.
The report also fund, ``Many tectonic faults occur in West Texas
within massive blocks of mountain ranges. This area includes El Paso
[and] Hudspeth'' counties ``and has undergone several phases or
episodes of tectonic disturbance.''
Finally, it went on to observe that, ``Although not excluded, the
remainder of Hudspeth Country does not appear to offer good siting
potential.''
So much for the science. Repeatedly since the early 1980s, the Waste
Authority has come back again and again to this politically powerless
area. It has designated four potential sites in all, and--with one
revealing exception--all of them were in Hudspeth County. There are
only three communities in the entire County, all of them poor and
heavily Latino, and all of them targeted by the Authority.
A 1984 public opinion survey commissioned by the Texas Waste
Authority provides some useful context for the Authority's site
selection process. The report, called ``An Analysis of Public Opinion
on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal in Selected Areas,'' noted the
benefits of keeping Latinos uninformed.
The report states, ``One population that may benefit from [a public
information] campaign is Hispanics, particularly those with little
formal education and low-incomes. The Authority should be aware,
however, that increasing the level of knowledge of Hispanics may simply
increase opposition to the [radioactive dump] site, inasmuch as we have
discovered a strong relationship in the total sample between increased
perceived knowledge and increased opposition.''
The first site to be targeted was Dell City in Hudspeth County. The
El Paso Herald-Post of March 6, 1984 recounts the controversy over that
site selection. ``The [Texas Waste] Authority has set up certain
criteria as guidelines for choosing a disposal site. It appears

[[Page S6350]]

to be ignoring its own rules.'' ``The Authority, instead of abiding by
its written criteria, has set up an unspoken, alternate rule for
locating the site. That is, `The site shall be located where there are
the fewest possible number of registered voters to protest.''' A
disproportionately high number of Latinos in Hudspeth County are not
registered to vote.
The Herald-Post goes on to describe some of the political maneuvering
behind the initial selection of Hudspeth County. ``The plot thickens.
The University of Texas system owns 500,000 acres of land around Dell
City. Mrs. Dolph Briscoe, wife of the former governor, sits on the
system's Board of Regents. Briscoe has extensive land holdings close to
the other proposed site. So at a public meeting on October 25, 1983, in
Dimmit County, Briscoe said he was encouraging the Authority to locate
the site `on state lands in Hudspeth County.' '' The editorialists at
the Herald-Post conclude, ``We haven't exactly got any heavyweights
defending our interests in this matter.''
The one exception to the Authority's pattern of targeting the poor
Latino communities in Hudspeth County was in 1985, after completion of
the engineering consultants' report. Dames & Moore concluded that the
``best'' sites were in McMullen and Dimmit Counties, and the Waste
Authority settled on a site in McMullen County. But this decision met
with fierce opposition from politically powerful individuals. So the
Authority decided once again to move the dump back to Hudspeth County.

At this point all pretense of objectivity was abandoned. The
selection criteria were changed in 1985 so as to rule out the two
``best'' sites identified by Dames & Moore. The new criteria gave
preference to sites located on state-owned land. This change had the
effect of virtually guaranteeing selection of a site somewhere in
Hudspeth County, large portions of which are owned by the state of
Texas.
So the Waste Authority proceeded to designate, based on an informal
and cursory process, five sites in Hudspeth County. Its clear choice,
however, was Fort Hancock, one of the County's three poor Latino
communities.
Unfortunately for the Authority, the more politically powerful city
of El Paso next door decided to fight back. Together with Hudspeth
County, El Paso filed suit against the site selection. They argued that
the Hancock site was located in an area of complex geology--much like
Sierra Blanca, incidentally--and lay on a 100-year flood plain. The
amazing thing is that they won. In 1991 U.S. District Court Judge Moody
ruled in their favor and ordered no dump could be built in Fort
Hancock, Hudspeth County.
But the county's court victory was short-lived. The Waste Authority
was clearly not about to give up. The Authority went back to the state
legislature to get around Judge Moody's decision by once again changing
the rules. A legislator from Houston, far to the East where the big
utilities are based, proposed a bill that ignored all previous
selection criteria and designated Fort Hancock once and for all.
Interestingly enough, this maneuver aroused a great deal of public
indignation, precisely because of the Authority's perceived
discriminatory practice of dumping on Latino communities.
There was an impressive show of force against discrimination, but the
outcome was not exactly what Hudspeth County had in mind. After Judge
Moody's remarkable decision, lawyers for El Paso and the Waste
Authority worked out a compromise. Fort Hancock would be saved, but a
400 square mile area further north in Hudspeth County would take its
place. This oblong rectangle imposed on the map--an area that included
Sierra Blanca--was subsequently dubbed ``The Box.'' The Texas
legislature passed the so-called ``Box Law'' by voice vote only days
before the end of session in May 1991.
Once again, the previous site selection procedures were stripped
away. The Box Law repealed the requirement that the dump had to be on
public land, the very requirement that has pointed the Authority
towards Hudspeth County in the first place. This was necessary because,
at that time, the Sierra Blanca site was not public land at all.
Most importantly, to prevent another troublesome lawsuit like the
Fort Hancock debacle, the Box Law essentially stripped local citizens
of the right to sue. It denied them all judicial relief other than an
injunction by the Texas Supreme Court itself, and for this unlikely
prospect citizens would be required to drive 500 miles to Austin.
This story is depressingly familiar. A similar scenario unfolds over
and over again in different parts of the country, with different names
and faces in every situation. Sometimes there is no intention by anyone
to discriminate. But pervasive inequalities of race, income, and access
to the levers of political power exercise a controlling influence over
the siting of undesirable waste dumps.
The people who make these decisions sometimes are only following the
path of least resistance, but in far too many instances the result is a
targeting of poor, politically marginalized minority communities who
lack the political muscle to do anything about it.
The remarkable thing about this story is that some people in Hudspeth
County did fight back. Dell City fought back and won in the early
1980s. Fort Hancock fought back and won their court case in 1991. And
make no mistake, the people of Sierra Blanca are fighting back, too.
Many of them have been here on the Hill. Father Ralph Solis, the
parish priest for Sierra Blanca and Hudspeth County, was here in
February, and visited many Senate offices. These people know that the
odds are stacked against them, but they are persevering just the same.
One of the amendments I included in this bill is intended to give
them a fighting chance. It gives them their day in court--the right to
challenge this site selection on grounds of environmental justice. It
says that the Compact cannot be implemented in any way--and that would
include the siting process, the licensing process, or the shipment of
waste to that site--that discriminates against communities because of
their race, national origin, or income level.
If local residents can prove discrimination in court, then they can
stop the Compact Commission from operating the dump. They don't have to
prove intent, by the way, although that certainly would be sufficient.
All they have to show is disparate treatment or disparate impact.
I believe very strongly that the Compact raises important and
troubling issues of ``environmental justice.'' And a diverse array of
civic organizations agree with me about this.
The Leadership Council on Civil Rights, the Texas NAACP, the Sierra
Club, the League of United Latin American Citizens (or ``LULAC''),
Greenpeace, the Bishop and the Catholic Diocese of El Paso, the House
Hispanic Caucus, the United Methodist Church General Board of Church
and Society, Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, the Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic
Justice, and the National Audubon Society, to name just a few, agree
with me. I ask unanimous consent that a letter signed by these and
other organizations be printed in the Record at the end of my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues don't
believe issues of environmental justice are implicated here. Or they
may think this is not a question for the Senate to decide. I believe
this amendment meets those concerns. All my amendment does is give
local residents the right to make their case in court. There is no
guarantee they will win. After all, it is extremely difficult to prove
environmental discrimination. I don't see how anyone would want to deny
these people a chance to make their case.
Short of defeating the bill outright, I believe passing this
amendment is the only way for us to do right by the people of Sierra
Blanca.
Yet, as amazing as it sounds, Compact proponents also claim to have
the best interests of Sierra Blanca at heart. They claim the Compact
will protect local residents because it keeps out waste from states
other than Maine and Vermont. They have used this argument again and
again, in Sierra Blanca, in the Texas legislature,

[[Page S6351]]

in the House of Representatives, and they're using it again in the
United States Senate.
Supporters of the Compact are trying to have it both ways. When
challenged about the environmental justice of targeting Sierra Blanca,
they respond that no site has been selected, and environmental justice
can only be addressed if and when that ever happens.
Then in the same breath they insist that the dump in Sierra Blanca is
definitely going forward and the Compact is therefore necessary to
protect local residents from outside waste. So which is it? Either the
Sierra Blanca dump is a done deal or it's not.
The truth is, the most likely scenario is that the dump will be built
in Sierra Blanca if Congress approves this Compact, subject to any
legal challenges, but the project will not go forward if Congress
rejects the Compact.
The claim that the Compact will protect Sierra Blanca makes no sense
on its face. The dump is unlikely to be built without congressional
consent to this Compact; it does not need to be built; and the Compact
would not protect Sierra Blanca in any event.
The simple fact of the matter is that the dump will most likely not
be if the Compact fails. Governor Bush has made it very clear that the
dump will not be built if Congress rejects the Compact. So the argument
that Sierra Blanca needs the Compact for protection against outside
waste is nonsensical. If Texas does not build a dump in Sierra Blanca,
local citizens do not need to be protected from anything. Far from
protecting Sierra Blanca, the Compact only ensures that a dump will be
built in their community.
An article from the Texas Observer of last March explains why the
Compact is necessary for the dump to go forward. ``Texas generates
nowhere near enough waste on its own to fill a three million cubic feet
dump, and by its own projections [the Texas Waste Authority] could not
survive without Maine and Vermont's waste.''
Moreover, the Texas legislature has indicated it will not appropriate
funding to build the dump if Congress rejects this Compact. Texas
lawmakers refused the Waste Authority's request for $37 million for
construction money in FY 1998 and FY 1999. In fact, the Texas House
initially zeroed out all funding for the Authority, but funding for
licensing was later restored in conference committee. My understanding
is that construction funding was made contingent on passage of the
Compact, whereupon Maine and Vermont will each be required to pay Texas
over $25 million.

In fact, the Sierra Blanca dump does not really need to be built. You
might have seen the headline in the New York Times on December 7 of
last year: ``Warning of Excess Capacity in Nation's Nuclear Dumps--New
Technology and Recycling Sharply Reduce the Volume of Nuclear Waste.''
The article discusses a study by Dr. Gregory Hayden, the Nebraska
Commissioner for the Central Interstate Compact Commission. Dr. Hayden
found that ``there is currently an excess capacity for low-level
radioactive waste disposal in the United States without any change to
current law or practice.''
He went on to explain, ``These disposal sites have had low
utilization due to falling volumes since 1980. Thus, a high capacity
remains for the future, without any change to the current configuration
of which states may ship to which disposal site.'' Let me repeat the
essential point: there is no compelling need for any new low-level
radioactive waste dumps in this country. And if no new dump is built,
nobody can argue that the Compact is needed to protect Sierra Blanca.
The most popular argument for building another dump involves disposal
of medical waste. I'm sure all of you have heard it. It's claimed that
waste from medical facilities and research labs is getting backed up--
that it has to go somewhere.
But let me emphasize one central and indisputable fact: over the last
few years, over 99 percent of the waste from Maine and Vermont has come
from nuclear reactors. Less than one percent has been from hospitals
and universities. And from all three states, 94 percent of the low-
level waste between 1991 and 1994 came from reactors. This dump is
being built--first and foremost--to dispose of radioactive waste from
nuclear reactors, not from hospitals.
So why are the nuclear utilities hiding behind hospitals and
universities? It's not very hard to figure out. In 1984 the Texas Waste
Authority hired a public relations firm to increase the popularity of
nuclear waste. The PR firm recommended, ``A more positive view of safe
disposal technologies should be engendered by the use of medical
doctors and university faculty scientists as public spokesmen for the
[Texas Waste] Authority.'' ``Whenever possible,'' the report said,
``the Authority should speak through these parties.''
Well, that advice has been followed to the letter. We all have
sympathies for hospital work and university research. I know I do. But
that's beside the point. This controversy is really about waste from
nuclear reactors.
If a dump is built nevertheless, the Compact offers little protection
for local residents. The Compact Commission would be able to accept
low-level radioactive waste from any person, state, regional body, or
group of states. All it would take is a majority vote of the
Commissioners, who are appointed by the Compact state governors.
Why should the people of Sierra Blanca expect unelected commissioners
to keep waste out of their community? Is there anything in their recent
experience that would justify such faith?
The fact is, the state will have every economic incentive to bring in
more waste. The November 1997 report by Dr. Hayden concluded that ``the
small volume of waste available for any new site would not allow the
facility to take advantage of economies of scale. Thus, it would not
even be able to operate at the low-cost portion of its own cost
functions.''
The new dump will need high volume to stay profitable. The Texas
Observer reports, ``A 1994 analysis by the Houston Business Journal
suggests that the Authority would open the facility to other states to
keep it viable.''
We have here the potential for establishing a new national repository
for low-level nuclear waste. Not only will Texas have an incentive to
bring in as much waste as possible, but the same will be true of
nuclear utilities. The more waste goes to Sierra Blanca, the less they
will be charged for disposal.
Rick Jacobi, General Manager of the Texas Waste Authority, told the
Houston Business Journal: ``The site is designed for 100,000 cubic feet
per year, which would be about $160 per cubic foot. But if only 60,000
cubic feet per year of waste arrives, the price would be $250 per cubic
foot.'' That's a big difference.
As Molly Ivins says, ``That sure would drive up costs for Houston
Lighting and Power and Texas Utilities.'' And the going rate at one
existing dump is a whopping $450 per cubic foot. In the end, it will be
in the economic interest of everyone--from the nuclear utilities to the
Waste Authority--to ship as much waste to Sierra Blanca as they can.
My second amendment addresses this problem. Throughout the process of
approving the Compact, supporters claimed the waste would be limited to
three states. I want to hold them to that promise. My amendment puts
that promise in writing.
I doubt anyone would disagree that this understanding was shared by
everyone who participated in the Compact debate. If Compact supporters
truly plan to limit waste to three states, which has been everyone's
understanding all along, they can have no objection to my amendment.
It's nothing but a protection clause. A nearly identical amendment--
called the Doggett Amendment--was attached to the bill passed by the
House.
There are other issues I was not able to address with amendments. I
think there is a fundamental concern about whether this kind of
disposal is safe at all. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) warns
that, despite the hazards involved, waste will be buried in
soil trenches destined to leak, as have nuclear dumps in Kentucky,
Illinois; and Nevada. LCV did score the House vote on final passage,
and has announced that it may score Senate votes as well. I ask
unanimous consent to place the LCV letter in the Record.

Much more at link: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-06-15/html/CREC-1998-06-15-pt1-PgS6349.htm