#VettingBernie: How Sanders Cleared Way To Dump Toxic Nuclear Waste On Poor Hispanics (And How They Fought Back)

Back in 1994, the state of Vermont had a problem: it had a nuclear power plant operating, but nowhere to dispose of the toxic waste. The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, located in Vernon, VT, provided 71.8% of all electricity generated within Vermont, amounting to 35% of Vermont's electricity consumption, according to figures in 2008. However, Vernon was deemed to be geologically unsuitable for nuclear waste disposal, so a search by the state began for a new low-level radioactive waste dump site. The result of the search: enter a tri-state compact with Texas and Maine to build a disposal facility in Texas and ship the waste there. Vermont's Legislature passed the General Assembly Act 137, which outlined the compact but still needed US Congressional approval to enact.

Enter our hero, then-Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who ardently supported and  co-sponsored the bill H.R. 629, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act. Once passed and signed, the bill would validate the currently existing individual state bills, and thus start the construction of the waste disposal site. But where in Texas would the dump site be? Tasked with finding a suitable location, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority (TLLRWDA) recommended to build the waste facility five miles away from a small town in West Texas called Sierra Blanca:

Sierra Blanca is a small town in Hudspeth County about 90 miles southeast of El Paso, TX and only 16 miles north of the Mexico border. There are about 900 residents, 60% of whom are mostly Hispanic. 30% of the roughly 430 housing units are vacant. Sierra Blanca is an extremely poor town where almost a third of the households live below the poverty level of $15,000. The town’s per capita income is about $10,500 but the entire county’s is only $8,000

And how did they come to a decision to pick that town? Fighting the passage of bill H.R. 629 in the senate, Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) spoke on the matter in great length and detail. In short, it was a case of environmental injustice. Despite the findings of the consultants that Sierra Blanca was not a good site due to its “complex geology” and also a history of earthquakes in the past due to tectonic faults in El Paso and Hudspeth counties, the Waste Authority still went ahead and picked the site because the people living there would be least likely to resist or make a fuss about it, since the majority of the residents are Spanish-speaking and poor. They had tried to pick other locations for the site, but was met with either lawsuit or fierce opposition. So, finally, the Waste Authority just gave up and chose the path of least resistance, procedures and recommendations be damned. Texas legislature also gave a helping hand by passing the Box Law and stripped the rights of the residents in Sierra Blanca from suing. The only recourse they could take was to obtain an injunction from the state Supreme Court, which means they would have to make the 500-mile trip to Austin just to be heard.

A factoid one should note here was that at this time, the governor for whom the TLLRWDA was working was none other than George W. Bush. Oh, and Jane Sanders, Bernie's wife, sits on the Board of this wonderful Texas authority.

So, despite all that has happened to select the nuclear waste site, what was the course of action taken by Bernie Sanders? He feigned ignorance. Instead of acknowledging the environmental injustice that was going on, he washed his hands clean of any responsibility for that. While introducing the bill to the House, he insisted that it was not Congress’s job to designate a specific disposal site but that the task should be left up to Texas, a thinly veiled attempt to renege on responsibility and instead pass the buck to someone else. As far as he’s concerned, it’s only his job to ensure that somehow Vermont can send their toxic waste to Texas. The town name Sierra Blanca was mentioned over 58 times during the course of the debates on the bill. It’s highly doubtful that Bernie Sanders didn’t know exactly where they were going to dump the toxic waste from Vermont.

Fortunately, the local residents were not just going to take it lying down. In 1994, Bill Addington, a resident of Sierra Blanca, with the help of the Nuclear Responsibility Network, formed the Sierra Blanca Legal Defense Fund (SBLDF) to try to fight the building of the toxic site. Eventually, in 1998, a group of West Texas residents made their way all the way to Vermont, in hopes of elucidating the people there how the nuclear waste from out of state was affecting their lives. For weeks, they spoke in front of committees, with Vermont residents unaware of what was going on, and gained compassion and even apologies from them. Finally, they met with Bernie Sanders on the issue. What was his response? Drop dead:

Before the rally Sanders invited the three West Texans to meet with him privately, and the Texans eagerly agreed. The meeting was no longer than Sanders' attention span - when it comes to Sierra Blanca. "He didn't listen," Curry said. "He had his mind made up." Afterward, Bernie was giving his pro forma campaign speech, never mentioning nuclear power or nuclear waste. Sierra Blanca activist Bill Addington, who'd arrived just that morning to join the march, along with his neighbor María Méndez, had had enough, and he yelled from the crowd, "What about my home, Bernie? What about Sierra Blanca?" Several others joined in. "What about Sierra Blanca, Bernie?" Sanders left the stage, which surprised no one in the small Texas delegation. Earlier, he had told them, "My position is unchanged, and you're not gonna like it." When they asked if he would visit the site in Sierra Blanca, he said, "Absolutely not. I'm gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont."

By now, it's clear that Bernie Sanders knew of Sierra Blanca, and despite the same pleas made by the West Texas residents as they had done with the Vermont residents, he was unmoved. Worse, there was no sense of compassion or remorse from him for what the bill was going to do to the residents of Sierra Blanca. His mind was already made up, and nothing can convince him to change his position. As the bill HR 629 had already passed both chambers of Congress with veto-proof margins and was just waiting to be signed into law, it was already a done deal. By this point, it seemed that his re-election campaign was more important than the plight of these West Texas residents. It is interesting to note the pattern we see here that is also currently in his campaign, where his focus is always in making stump speeches and ignore or evade direct questions not answerable by his well-rehearsed talking points.

Fortunately, that was not the end of the road for the residents of Sierra Blanca. Efforts continued from the SBLDF and even from the Mexican Government, who cited that the building of nuclear waste site so near the border violates the La Paz Agreement of 1983, which states that both the US and Mexico must work toward reducing or even eliminating “contaminating sources” 64 miles north and south of the border. Many Mexican officials from nearby towns across the border also protested due to the seemingly blatant environmental injustice occurring in Sierra Blanca. Due to these pressures, in the end, despite congressional and state approvals, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission voted 3-0 on October 20, 1998 to deny the TLLRWDA a license to build a disposal facility outside Sierra Blanca, citing concerns regarding the socioeconomic impact and safety. Thus, victory was achieved for these residents of Sierra Blanca, no thanks to Bernie Sanders.

So, what did we learn about our glorious revolution leader Bernie Sanders from all this? First, all his claim of having always cared about the poor and fighting for minorities is a lie. He was willing to let a powerless group of underprivileged Hispanics suffer for the benefit of his mostly Caucasian Vermont constituents. He was willing to let environmental injustice play out at the expense of the Sierra Blanca residents. It is disgustingly hypocritical of him that on his official campaign website right now, he touts that he will fight racial injustice, with one of the sub-issues being environmental violence. Where was his sense of racial injustice then, when he tried to dump toxic waste on the poor people of Sierra Blanca? It was not even in his realm of concern, because he did not need the vote of the people of Sierra Blanca to keep himself in office in Vermont. But now that he needs the Latino votes, he hopes that everyone will forget this little incident here in West Texas.

Second, he is just another deceptive politician who refuses to be culpable for his actions. He pretended to not know where the exact dump site was going to be and emphatically noted in his speech upon introducing the bill that it’s not their job to debate about the actual site because that is the responsibility of Texas legislature and its "people". He smartly protected himself in case something bad came out of this, since he could easily blame it on Texas. According to him, he's not responsible for picking Sierra Blanca as the waste disposal site. Rather than saying the buck stops here and be held accountable for it, he chose to pass the buck instead. Is this a quality we want in our potential next President, someone who avoids taking responsibility when things could possibly go negative? 

Third, just like the Texas Waste Authority, he took the path of least resistance, choosing the easy way out. If he had really cared about the environmental injustice suffered by underprivileged Hispanics, he could have recommended that Vermont pull out of the compact until a more suitable site is found, one that does not reek so badly of socioeconomic and environmental racism. He could also have supported the proposed amendments to the bill by Senator Wellstone to give rights to sue back to the residents of Sierra Blanca. But seeing as to how those amendments might jeopardize the tri-state Compact, he vehemently opposed it. In the end, all he cared about was to find the easiest way to rid Vermont of its nuclear toxic waste, instead of choosing to stand up for what is right and just.

Fourth, when Bernie Sanders has made up his mind, one cannot convince him otherwise. The confrontation between him and the residents of Sierra Blanca in Vermont was very telling. He had already made up his mind, and nothing the residents said, even detailing how their lives will be adversely affected by the bill, will change his mind. Some of his supporters might say this uncompromising quality is something they like in him, since it seems like he's "standing his ground" or not bending to the outside influences. As he makes grandiose plans to pass single-payer healthcare and free college for all, by being unyielding and not listening to others and compromise even when faced with new evidence, Bernie Sanders only guarantees that we will never see the light of day for any of his lofty goals.

So, let's face it. Bernie Sanders is no revolutionary. In the end, he's just another opportunistic career politician who will do and say things just to advance himself in the office--just like how he is opportunistic now all of a sudden wanting to proclaim to be the leader of the Democratic Party, despite having remained an independent and never having really done anything to help the party in the past twenty years. The MSM rhetoric has been highly pro-Sanders because they want to prolong this primary race for ratings. But the sooner the people realize who he really is and start to scrutinize and question his choices in the past, such as this abhorrent bill to dump toxic waste on the poor people of Sierra Blanca, the better off we will be. 

Surprise! Romney refuses to answer question on immigration repeal

Mr. Plastic strikes again! Today, Mitt Romney went on Face the Nation, his first non-Faux News interview since the GOP primary.  In this segment, Bob Schieffer asks him whether he would repeal President Obama's executive order on immigration announced last Friday that will stop deporting some kids who are illegal immigrants:

Exposing more GOP chicanery

The Dems seem to be on a roll this past week.  First, there was Rep. Charles Schumer (D-MD) calling out Gov. Scott Walker on his shenanigans regarding the public employees' bargaining rights being essential to balancing the WI state budget. Then, there was the "speechless" statement by Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) which bluntly asked the GOP Reps where their "top priority" jobs bills are after 100 days in session. On Friday, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) tore the Paul Ryan budget a new one:

(Video courtesy of ThinkProgress)

The guy mumbling and failing to directly answer the question posed is none other than the freshman GOP Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN), who got into hot water when he answered the question why blacks voted for Democrats while he was Indiana's Secretary of State back in 2007.  In the video, Ellison pointed out that the budget plan recommended by the CPC, a.k.a. the "People's Budget", will turn from budget deficit to surplus in 2021. So, why was it so hard for Rokita to answer such a simple question? Because, according to the CBO's analysis of the alternative fiscal scenario, a.k.a. Paul Ryan's "Path to Poverty" plan, the budget will not turn to surplus until at least 2040! It was funny to see Ellison give Rokita only 5 seconds to answer the question, which would have been abundantly long for an answer of a year number, and when Rokita proceeded to ramble on about nothing, he took the floor back.  I mean, either the guy didn't read the CBO analysis report or he's just playing dumb.  It could be both, but I am assuming the latter because he would really have hated for Ryan to come TP his house.

The highlight of the day, however, has to come from a deftly crafted maneuver by the House Dems in voting for the 2012 budget.  Of course, we all know that the GOP will want the Ryan budget to pass.  In a typical attempt by the right wing to make the Ryan budget look more tame, many of the GOP Reps were going to vote "yes" for the more radical plan put forth by the Republican Study Committee. If this amendment had passed, it would replace Paul Ryan's budget plan for 2012.  For their ruse to work, however, they needed and were expecting all of the Democrats and some of the more "liberal" GOP Reps to vote no, thereby failing it.  The Paul Ryan budget would still be passed later on as they had planned, and the Reps who voted for the RSC budget can say that they tried to pass a more fiscally conservative bill but that they had no bipartisan support.

Unbeknownst to the House GOPs, five minutes before the amendment vote, the press office of House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) sent e-mails onto blackberries telling the Dems to vote "present" instead of "no".  What this does is it makes their votes simply not count in the final tally.  In effect, the Dems were removing themselves from the equation, leaving the House Republicans to fight amongst themselves to see whether they would want to pass the Tea Party-favored RSC budget or Ryan's budget.  This was simply brilliant, and it caught the House GOPs completely off-guard.  I am sure when they started hearing all the "present" votes, they picked up on what was happening, but the problem was, many of them had already voted "yes".  Thus, some of the GOP Reps had to be goaded into changing their votes to "no" to make sure that the RSC budget plan does not get passed.  With a handful of House Dems still voting "no" while the rest voted "present", the bill failed by a margin of 119-136, with 119 Republicans voting "yes" and 120 Republicans voting "no".

This is truly a win-win situation for the Democrats.  If the amendment had passed, then it would look really bad to the general public for the GOP to pass such a radical plan.  Since it failed, however, it shows the GOP was just creating this puppet show just for the Teabaggers and never really had any real intention of passing the extreme bill.  Upon further inspection, we find out that only 119 of the 176 RSC Members voted to pass their own budget. I am curious to see how the members who voted "no" will answer to their Tea Party constituents about this vote.  In addition, it further highlights how divided the GOP House is, and truly, a divided house cannot stand.  We knew all along that the GOP never really cared about balancing the budget.  For crying out loud, in 2000 they had a budget surplus.  If they really cared about the budget then, wouldn't they have preserved that surplus as opposed to starting two unfunded wars and also the medicare prescriptions?  As we have been seeing more and more of these gaffes in recent days, I can only hope that this is the beginning of the end for a party that lies to get their corporatist, for-the-wealthy agenda passed with actual low regard to represent their middle-class constituents.

On a side note, here's a list of the Dem. Reps who still voted "no" (as opposed to "present") on the amendment:

1) Jason Altmire (D-PA)
2) John Barrow (D-GA)
3) Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
4) Bruce Braley (D-IA)
5) Joe Courtney (D-CT)
6) Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
7) Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
8) Dale Kildee (D-MI)
9) Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
10) Jim Matheson (D-UT)
11) Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
12) Chris Murphy (D-CT)
13) Kurt Schrader (D-OR)
14) Heath Shuler (D-NC)
15) Adam Smith (D-WA)
16) Mel Walt (D-NC)

If you'd like to read more about the game plan by Hoyer, head here.  For a video of the pandemonium that ensued while the votes were being tallied, scroll down to the end of this HP post.

Walker, Wisconsin Liar

On Thursday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker took a trip to the Capitol Hill to answer a few basic questions before the US House Committee on Oversight and Reform regarding his decision to strip the collective bargaining powers of public state employees, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) doing the grilling.  Here's a short transcript of the juicy part courtesy of ThinkProgress:

KUCINICH: Let me ask you about some of the specific provisions in your proposals to strip collective bargaining rights. First, your proposal would require unions to hold annual votes to continue representing their own members. Can you please explain to me and members of this committee how much money this provision saves for your state budget?
WALKER: That and a number of other provisions we put in because if you’re going to ask, if you’re going to put in place a change like that, we wanted to make sure we protected the workers of our state, so they got value out of that. [...]
KUCINICH: Would you answer the question? How much money does it save, Governor?
WALKER: It doesn’t save any. [...]
KUCINICH: I want to ask about another one of your proposals. Under your plan you would prohibit paying union member dues from their paychecks. How much money would this provision save your state budget?
WALKER: It would save employees a thousand dollars a year they could use to pay for their pensions and health care contributions.
KUCINICH: Governor, it wouldn’t save anything. [Goes on to present letter from LRF and is denied unanimous request for it to be placed in the public record by Issa]

After a lot of rambling trying to find the right words to avoid answering Kucinich's first question, Walker finally admitted that it actually does not save the state any money.  Moving on, Kucinich then asks another question about union dues. Clearly grasping at straws, Walker pulls a number out of thin air ($1000) and touts that amount as yearly savings for an employee.  Enough is enough, and that's when Kucinich had to call bull and reveal the card in his hand.  Well, actually it wasn't a card but a letter from the fiscal bureau of WI (the equivalent of the CBO at the state level in WI).  In the letter, it states that the items listed are of a non-fiscal nature.  At the end of the document, there are these items:

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS PROVISIONS
• Public Employee Collective Bargaining Modifications (Page 36, #1)
• Repeal Collective Bargaining Rights for University of Wisconsin System Faculty and Academic Staff (Page 44, #2)

What this is saying, to put it plainly, is that the public employees' collective bargaining modifications in the legislation passed has nothing to do with balancing the state budget.  Truly, this is a moment to remember.  After so many months of viciously touting that the public employees' collective bargaining power was such a key element to helping the state balance the budget, this report clearly blows that theory out of the water.

What, then, is the reason for Walker's adamant push to end collective bargaining for public employees?  Of course, many of us progressives already know the answer: it's just to simply weaken the voice and power of the middle class so that he can more easily push through the right-wing corporatist agenda.  By using the budget as a ploy to hold hostage the public employees' right to bargain, Walker pulled a fast one on the people of Wisconsin.  I am glad that Kucinich called him out today and was able to eventually put the letter from the fiscal bureau on the record for the hearing. 

It is always great to see untruths debunked, especially with hard evidence such as this.  The GOP has been giving the public a big show of smoke and mirrors, using insidious lies to confuse and spread FUD so that they can use that as a tool to implement their own agenda.  I hope this is a coming trend of calling out the GOP, just as President Barack Obama called out Paul Ryan's "Highway to Hell" budget plan on Wednesday during his smackdown speech.  In addition to this one, there was also another calling out moment today on Capitol Hill when Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) called out the GOP House members for not having done anything about jobs after 100 days, even though they promised that that was going to be their priority.  These untruths must be revealed and its debunking widely circulated so that the public will see what a mistake it was for them to hand back the keys to the ones who helped put us into this mess in the first place.

Below is the full video of the exchange between Rep. Kucinich and Gov. Walker: