[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10919-S10920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           TEXAS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation that the 
Senate may soon consider. The number of this bill is S. 270; it is the 
Texas low-level radioactive waste disposal compact bill.
  As my colleagues know, the Congress is supposed to consent to all 
interstate compacts, which are contractual arrangements between States. 
In this case, we are asked to give our consent to the shipment of low-
level nuclear waste from Maine and Vermont, and potentially other 
States, to Texas for disposal. I am opposed to this legislation as it 
is currently written. I want to make clear today what my intentions 
are.
  Mr. President, we will have further opportunity to debate this 
legislation in full, and I do not intend to engage the bill's 
supporters today. I certainly never intend for this to become an 
acrimonious or bitter debate. But I want to publicly explain my 
opposition to this legislation and also what I intend to do.
  I do not believe that it is the intention of the bill's sponsors, my 
good friends from Maine and Vermont, to do anything to harm the 
citizens of Sierra Blanca, TX, through this compact. My friends from 
New England are attempting to meet the concerns of their constituents. 
They just want to get rid of this nuclear waste and they want to figure 
out how to dispose of it. They want to get it out of their own States. 
I also understand that no one wants to have a nuclear waste dump in 
their neighborhood.
  Now, this compact legislation says little about where the waste 
should go in Texas, other than that the State of Texas has an 
obligation to find a site. The State legislature in Texas has decided 
that there indeed will be a site and it will be in a small town in 
Hudspeth County, TX. My friends from Maine and Vermont, with whom I 
agree on many issues, and whom I enjoy working with, have not said that 
their State's nuclear waste should go to Sierra Blanca. But the effect 
of this legislation is to create a low-level nuclear waste dump site in 
a dusty little town in Texas called Sierra Blanca near the border with 
Mexico, about 60 miles east of El Paso.
  Mr. President, I believe that there are many concerns that have been 
raised about the siting of this dump and the enactment of this 
legislation, including environmental issues, seismic problems, economic 
viability, current legal actions, and our relations with Mexico.
  But I want to talk about one issue and one issue only, and hold what 
may be the first debate we have ever had on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate that deals with environmental justice, which is a shorthand way 
of talking about the disproportionate exposure of ethnic minorities and 
poor people to environmental pollutants. That is to say, all too often, 
when it comes to where we site these nuclear waste dump sites or where 
we put an incinerator, we tend to locate them in communities where 
there is a disproportionate number of people of color or poor people 
because they don't have the political clout.
  Why do I raise the issue of environmental justice on a bill that 
professes to do no more than grant the Congress' consent to a compact 
between Maine, Vermont, and Texas for the disposal of nuclear waste? 
Because it is this bill which will enable Maine and Vermont to indeed 
ship nuclear waste to Texas--and I understand why they are trying to do 
it--but also because Texas has made it very clear where it intends to 
locate the dump site. That dump site, not surprisingly, is located in 
an area of west Texas that is populated disproportionately by poor 
Hispanics. This happens over and over and over again in our country. 
When we want to figure out where we are going to put the nuclear waste, 
we look to where the poor people live, to where communities of color 
without the economic clout live, and that is where we put it.

  Is the proposed location of the dump in a poor community simply a 
coincidence, I ask my colleagues? Was it chance that the dry, sparsely 
populated county in Texas tentatively chosen for the dump site is 66 
percent Hispanic with 39 percent of the people living below the poverty 
level? There certainly were other scientifically acceptable sites for 
the dump, so why did the Texas Legislature choose this spot, the sixth 
poorest county in Texas, with a high minority population, a low median 
household income and a sludge dump?
  The answer to these questions is simple. We in this body understand 
the answer to this question all too well. It was politics. The 
community living near the site singled out by the Texas Legislature did 
not have the political clout to keep it out. While all the other 
candidate sites were able to deflect the dump, Sierra Blanca, in far 
western Texas, a poor community, a Hispanic community, did not pack the 
political punch of the communities near the other possible sites.
  Another question that has arisen is, why am I, as a Senator from 
Minnesota, involving myself in the decision of the Texas Legislature to 
select a particular Texas site for a nuclear waste dump? For this 
reason, colleagues: It doesn't just happen in Texas, it happens all 
over this country. Poor and minority communities, unable to protect 
themselves in the political arena, find the old plumber's maxim is as 
true as ever: ``Waste flows downhill,'' both figuratively and 
literally, and if you are at the bottom of the socioeconomic slope, the 
pollution lands on you.
  That is what this is all about. That is what this cry for 
environmental justice is all about. I predict that eventually 
environmental justice will become a huge issue in the Congress. To 
repeat, it is the old plumber's maxim that ``waste flows downhill, both 
figuratively and literally, and if you are at the bottom of the 
socioeconomic slope, the pollution lands on you.''
  I am standing on the floor of the U.S. Senate today to say that 
enough is enough. Until more of us say enough and we face up to the 
environmental injustices that we may contribute to in the granting of 
our consent in legislation such as this, poor and minority communities 
will continue to suffer disproportionately from environmental 
degradation in our country. We are in desperate need in the United 
States of America of a meaningful dialog on environmental justice. I 
believe Americans understand the need for fairness, and I want 
Americans to understand that we have to address environmental justice 
whenever we think about how to deal with problems like waste disposal. 
All our actions have moral implications, and what we decide on 
legislation like this can ultimately harm our most vulnerable citizens.
  I intend, Mr. President, to have a full debate on environmental 
justice. I want Members to explain why we should overlook the 
environmental justice implications of our actions in this instance. I 
want to talk about how this situation is symptomatic of many situations 
that we face in our country today. I want the U.S. Senate, as a body, 
to reflect on the consequences of pollution on poor and minority 
citizens all across the United States of America. I also intend to 
offer an amendment which adds one additional condition to Congress' 
consent to the compact. That condition is essentially that Congress 
grants its consent as long as the compact is not implemented in a way 
that it discriminates on the basis of race, color, national origin, or 
income level. Specifically, it will be designed to allow people who 
don't have the chance to fight fairly in the political process to make 
their case in the courts. I want to give poor and minority people, 
communities of color, a chance to fight this out in the courts.
  That is the very point of environmental justice. When the political 
process fails, environmental justice means trying to level the playing 
field, sometimes forcing conflict into a more evenhanded forum in this 
country. In this particular case, that would be the courts. I am sure, 
Mr. President, that none of our colleagues would argue that it is 
acceptable to discriminate against people by locating a nuclear waste 
dump site in their community. That being the case, it is a simple 
matter to say that if the location of the compact dump discriminates 
against people on the basis of their race or economic status, Congress 
will not consent to this compact. That will be the

[[Page S10920]]

amendment I will bring to the floor if this compact is brought to the 
floor. I think this will happen and we will have this debate, and I 
think it will not be an acrimonious debate, but it will be one of the 
first debates we have ever had in the Senate on environmental justice 
or environmental injustice.
  I would like to make one point crystal clear. I am not rising in 
opposition to compacts. My amendment does not pass judgment on the 
compact this bill attempts to create. Rather, it is designed to give 
the citizens of Sierra Blanca, a poor Hispanic community, another tool 
to have their voices heard above a political process that would just as 
soon ignore them. I hope my colleagues will recognize our obligation to 
the people of Sierra Blanca and to all our citizens in taking a stand 
for environmental justice.
  Mr. President, I look forward to this debate. I will bring to the 
floor documents and other information for discussion. I will raise 
important questions as a Senator. It will be a civil debate, but I feel 
very strongly about this. What has happened to the people of Sierra 
Blanca, or what might happen to them, is all too indicative of what 
happens all too often to those communities that are the poorest 
communities, communities of color that over and over and over again are 
asked to carry the disproportionate burden of environmental 
degradation. It is not fair to these citizens. It is not fair to their 
children. It is not fair to their families. It is not fair to their 
communities. I believe this is a fundamentally important question that 
we have to address as an institution, as the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. For the moment, I note the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks 
be considered a part of morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________