Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. So the additional minutes added to the side in favor of this would be the same as the amount of time added to the opposition. Is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me read a portion of the letter. This letter is to express my concern about the Texas/Maine/ Vermont Compact and its environmental justice implications. The issue is plain and simple. To allow the compact to go forward would be an act of environmental injustice that follows a national pattern of siting waste facilities and other LULUs [locally unwanted land uses] in people of color and low-income communities. Having . . . researched environmental problems in communities of color for more than two decades, it is very clear to me that the Sierra Blanca case is a classic case of environmental racism. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I certainly will not object. My understanding is that the Senator from Texas needed additional time. If additional time is added on your side and then added to my side as well, that will be fine with me.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise again this morning to speak against the conference report to H.R. 629. This is the Texas-Maine- Vermont Compact which will result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste from Texas, Maine, and Vermont, and potentially other States, at a dump located in Texas. The dump is expected to be built in the town of Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County where 66 percent of the residents are Latino, and 39 percent live below the poverty line. Mr. President, the construction of this dump site in this community raises important questions of environmental justice. This is not just about the people in Hudspeth County or about the people in Sierra Blanca, or about west Texas for that matter. This is a fight for communities all across the country who do not have the political clout to keep this pollution out. This is a fight for minority communities who are burdened with a disproportionate share of these sites. It seems to be a pattern in our country, whenever we decide where we are going to build a power line or where we are going to build a nuclear waste dump site or where we are going to put an incinerator, it never is located in communities where people who live in those communities have political clout. It is not located where the heavy hitters and the well-connected and the people who give the big contributions live. It is almost always located in communities of color. Mr. President, there is an article today that I recommend for my colleagues in the New York Times entitled, ``For Some, Texas Town Is Too Popular as Waste Disposal Site.'' This is all about what we are debating today. I just read the conclusion. Maria Mendez, a retired school aide from Allamore, who lives in the community, is quoted as saying: I think Sierra Blanca was chosen for all this dumping because we don't have any political clout. I think it's a racism thing; I really do. Here we are, the hugest dump in the whole world. First sludge, now nuclear waste. Our home has been taken over as the nation's dumping ground. Mr. President and colleagues, environmental justice is a difficult issue. Too often we hide behind excuses. We say, ``These are private sector decisions. This is a matter of State and local responsibility. It is too hard to prove.'' But this is pretty easy. The dump will not be built if we reject this compact. We have direct responsibility, we have a Federal role, a direct Federal role. We cannot wash our hands of this. We cannot walk away and pretend we are not to blame. We are all responsible. And it is important to take a stand. This compact raises troubling issues of environmental justice. In this case, the Texas Legislature selected Hudspeth County. They already selected Hudspeth County. And the Texas Waste Authority selected the Sierra Blanca site after the Authority's scoping study had already ruled out Sierra Blanca as scientifically unsuitable. The Waste Authority selected the site after the Authority's own scoping study had ruled Sierra Blanca out as scientifically unsuitable; that is to say a geologically active area; that is to say an earthquake area. Communities near the preferred site have had enough political clout to keep the dump out, but Sierra Blanca--already the site of the largest sewage sludge project in our country--was not so fortunate. The Waste Authority does a scoping study. The scoping study says this is not scientifically suitable, but the Waste Authority goes ahead and chooses this community. Why not? Disproportionately poor, disproportionately Latino. This is an issue of environmental justice. The residents of Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County and west Texas do not want this dump. Last night, some of my colleagues talked about the election of one official, and they said the people want this dump. This candidate was elected, and he was for it. But twenty surrounding counties and 13 nearby cities have passed resolutions against it. And no city or county in west Texas supports it. Nor would any Senator in this Chamber want this waste dump site built in their backyard. I doubt whether any Senator in this Chamber has ever been faced with this. These waste dump sites are not put where Senators live. They are put in the communities disproportionately of color, disproportionately low-income. This is a debate about environmental justice in our country. Over 800 adult residents of Sierra Blanca have signed petitions opposing the dump. A 1992 poll, commissioned by the Texas Waste Authority, showed 64 percent opposition in Hudspeth and Culberson Counties. Republican Congressman Bonilla, who represents Hudspeth County, and Democratic Congressmen Reyes and Rodriguez, who represent neighboring El Paso and San Antonio, have all actively opposed the dump site. In an October 1994 statewide poll, 82 percent of Texans said they were against it. Local residents have had no say over whether the waste dump site will be constructed in Sierra Blanca. They were never consulted at any stage in the decision-making process. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, a 1984 public opinion survey commissioned by the Texas Waste Authority provides some useful context for what is going on. Let me just quote from what their consultant said. This is the report: One population that may benefit from [a public information] campaign is Hispanics, particularly those with little formal education and low incomes. This group is the least informed of all segments of the population. . . . 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 concern is that if this poor Hispanic community finds out more about this, they will be opposed to it. Indeed, people in the community are opposed. And they should be. Mr. President, my colleague, with all due respect, last night said we need to have the compact to protect the people in Hudspeth County from becoming a national repository of nuclear waste. That is not the way it works. The conference report on H.R. 629 would allow appointed compact commissioners to import radioactive waste from any State or territory. And both the State of Texas and nuclear utilities across the country will have an economic incentive to bring as much waste as possible to make this site economically viable and to reduce their disposal costs. Section 3.05, paragraph 6 of the compact provides that the Compact Commission may enter into an agreement with any person, State, regional body, or group of States for importation of low-level radioactive waste. All it requires is a majority vote of the eight unelected compact commissioners. Mr. President, the Texas Observer, March 28, 1997, had it right: More than two or three national dumps will drive fees so low that profit margins anticipated by states (and now private investors) will be threatened. This economic reality--and growing public resistance to the dumps--has raised the very real possibility that the next dump permitted will be the nuclear waste depository for the whole nation, for decades to come. Of these nine compacts, I want to point out to my colleagues that not one compact has built a nuclear waste dump site. Mr. President, here is what is so egregious about what has happened here. To avoid turning this low-income, Mexican-American community into a national repository for radioactive waste, I offered two amendments. Colleagues, this is really what the vote is about. Twice you have been on record. The Senate has unanimously said, A, ``We support an amendment which makes it clear that the waste can only come from Maine, Vermont, and Texas. We support an amendment that puts in the language what we say this is about.'' That was passed twice by the unanimous vote of the U.S. Senate. The second amendment said that the people in Hudspeth County would have a chance to prove local discrimination in court, that if they could show they have been unfairly targeted then they could go to court to challenge this. My colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, we have gone on record twice supporting these amendments. In the dark of night--no wonder people get so disillusioned about this process--the conference committee stripped out both amendments, took both amendments out. Would it be such a crime if we passed this compact with an amendment that made it clear that the waste could only come from Texas, Maine, and Vermont? That is what they say the compact is about. Would it be such a crime if this Hispanic community had some way of seeking redress of grievance and could challenge discrimination in court? That amendment was taken out. That is why this compact is flawed. That is why we should vote against it. Environmental justice is a national responsibility. We have a national responsibility to remedy this injustice because if we do not, the Congress will be complicit in the construction of this dump. This is not purely a State or local issue. We have to vote on it. We have to vote up or down. That is what our constitutional system is all about. This compact requires congressional consent. The Texas Compact cannot take effect without Federal legislation, since all 50 States-- not just the compact States--will be asked to give their consent. Construction of the Sierra Blanca dump depends upon enactment of this conference report. If we reject it today, Texas will not build a dump in Sierra Blanca. But within 60 days of enactment, if you vote for this, Maine and Vermont will pay Texas $25 million to begin construction. Let me point out this is different from all the other compacts because it is crystal clear where the site is going to be. The Texas Legislature already selected Hudspeth County, and the Texas Waste Authority already identified a dump site near Sierra Blanca. That is what is at issue here. Our consent ought to be conditional. We ought to make it clear that the compact can take effect only if the waste comes from these three States only. But the conference committee knocked that amendment out-- the utility companies didn't want that. We ought to make it clear the people of Hudspeth County at least have a right to appeal this site selection. I think people in Maine and Vermont agree with that idea, but we took that amendment out. This is not a debate about State or local rights. The conference committee followed the wishes of the nuclear utilities, not the local residents-- the utilities who were going to benefit from cheap disposal of nuclear waste. They supported this legislation with no amendments. That is why this legislation is so flawed. On July 7, 1998, two administrative hearing officers recommended that the license for the Sierra Blanca dump be denied. They made a good decision. What they said was that this is a tectonically active area. We have a very real danger of earthquakes. This does not make sense from the point of view of science. And they were right. But the problem is that the Texas Environmental Agency, the TNRCC, made up of officials appointed by the Governor, are not bound by what these hearing officers have recommended. The executive director has gone on record saying that he doesn't agree. And the Governor has gone on record saying that Hudspeth County and Sierra Blanca is the right place for this dump to be. I say to my colleagues that we really have two choices here. We can say, look, if we don't know where the site is going to be, then let's put off the vote. But, no, that is not what we are doing. The idea here is to just ram this through. As soon as we do, believe me, it will go in Hudspeth County, Sierra Blanca. That will be a travesty. I want to just cite for colleagues the broad coalition of religious, environmental, social justice and public interest groups that oppose this: The League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC; Greenpeace; the Texas NAACP; the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives; the Sierra Club; the House Hispanic Caucus; the Bishop and the Catholic Diocese of El Paso; the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society; Friends of the Earth; Physicians for Social Responsibility; the League of Conservation Voters; and 100 other local and national civic organizations. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Robert Bullard, a professor at Clark Atlanta University, a leading expert on environmental justice.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the agreement?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I then will yield the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Chair notify me when I have 1 minute left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Colleagues, you have never voted for a compact with a specific site for building a compact dump, not with a site in Sierra Blanca, not with a site disproportionately Hispanic and poor. This is an environmental vote. This is a geologically active area. The science says no, but it is the path of least political resistance. This community is targeted. We will now vote. If you vote for this compact, you vote for an injustice. Do the right thing and vote against this compact. Twice you have gone on record, colleagues, by unanimous vote: yes, for the compact as long as people have a right to challenge this and have a chance to prove discrimination. Yes, we vote for the compact if we make it clear that this won't become a national repository site and the waste can only come from Maine and Vermont and Texas. And both of those amendments, in the dark of night, were stripped by the conference committee. That is why so many religious and civil rights organizations have said vote against this. LULAC, the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Catholic diocese, the Methodist Church, so on and so forth. This is a justice vote. We have to vote on this, and once and for all it is important for us to be on the side of justice and vote no on this compact. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Does my colleague have any time remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, A, this is the only compact the Senate has considered where we have a site identified for construction of a compact dump. In this particular case, 90 percent or more of that waste is going to come from nuclear power plants. B, with all due respect to my colleague, the argument that the people in Sierra Blanca and Hudspeth County want this is an argument that just cannot be accepted on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Eight hundred adult residents of this town of Sierra Blanca signed petitions in opposition. A 1992 poll commissioned by the Texas Waste Authority showed 64 percent in opposition. In a poll in 1994, 82 percent of Texans were against it. It just doesn't wash. Third, as colleagues follow this debate, again, the Texas legislature selected Hudspeth County. The Texas Waste Authority selected the Sierra Blanca site after the Authority's own scoping study said it is not scientifically suitable. But this was the path of least political resistance. This is an issue of environmental justice. This is being put on the back of a community that is disproportionately Hispanic and poor. That is what today's article in the New York Times is all about. Finally, let me name some of the members of a coalition of religious, environmental, social justice and public interest groups who oppose the compact. I cite the League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC. The Latino community should make us accountable on this vote. This is an issue of environmental justice. Then there is GreenPeace, the Texas NAACP, the Texas House of Representatives Mexican-American Legislative Caucus, the Sierra Club, the House Hispanic Caucus, and the League of Conservation Voters. I reserve my final 2 minutes, the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the minority leader yield for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before coming back, I was at the Minnesota State Fair, which is quite a focus group--almost half the State's population comes there in 13 days. Without going through my conversations with people in Minnesota, I want to ask you whether or not back home in South Dakota or as you travel around the country, what kind of discussions do citizens have with you about the mix of money and politics and reform? Does the minority leader think that this is, in fact, a burning issue to people? We have been told for so long that people don't really care about campaign finance reform. What is the minority leader hearing from people in South Dakota? What is he hearing from citizens in our country? Why does he, as the leader of our party, put this at the very top of his priorities?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Let me also congratulate Senator Thurmond for this remarkable record. I just have two things to say. One is, I think one of the ways that we should evaluate Senators is just how they treat people. I say to the pages, I don't know over the years how many times I have seen Senator Thurmond have ice cream with the pages. I don't know how many times I have seen him constantly being so gracious and having a good time and talking with and treating people really well--support staff, whether they be elevator operators or you name it. I just would like to thank Senator Thurmond, not always for the position he takes on issues, but for the way he treats people, which I think might matter more than anything else. Then finally, Strom, since I am being so nice here on the floor and saying exactly what I believe, I would like to ask you a favor. Since I came out here to congratulate you, next time when you shake my hand or grab my shoulder, could you do it just a little more gently? I yield the floor. (Laughter.)

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague that this waste disposal compact is not functional. We have no nuclear waste dump sites that have been chosen. I am not sure how many of these compacts have ever chosen a dump site. I don't know whether my colleague knows the answer to that question. I don't, but I am guessing it's very few, if any. Let me be clear about that. I am not aware that any of these compacts have led to nuclear waste dump sites. If so, I bet it is precious few. I'm confused. On the one hand, we hear some discussion on the floor of the Senate about how we look at the selection by this person. Do the people in the community really want this? Then we hear that it may not even be in Hudspeth County. I spent 45 minutes going through the background of this, all the way from when the legislature made the decision in 1991. Of course it is going to be there. I went through all the quotes. Yes, you have some administrative judges. I ask my colleague, if you are convinced that we don't know what the site is yet--and, of course, one difference between this and any other compact is that we didn't have sites before--then why don't we wait for a vote on this until we know where the site is? That would be the best thing to do. That would be a fair thing to do. Commissioner John Hall, by the way, in talking about the issue of environmental justice--my colleague says, of course, the people are concerned about this--made it very clear that this issue isn't going to be addressed in the State licensing process. It has not been addressed and will not be before the final license is issued. My colleague may want to think otherwise because it is more comforting, but it is just not the case. The commissioners of the Texas administrative agency, TNRCC, which will make the final decision on the Sierra Blanca license, have stated that environmental justice must be addressed at the Federal level because Texas has no clear standards or requirements for evaluating them. Commissioner John Hall explained at a 1995 meeting of the TNRCC, ``This whole issue probably needs to be addressed. But it is not this commission's job to articulate a new major policy of that sort. That has to be left to the United States Congress. That is not our job. Our job is to apply the standards as they exist, and while that may be a very legitimate issue, that is not our job.'' You just can't have it both ways. People in Texas say, and the Commissioner says, ``We are not going to be dealing with this issue of environmental justice.'' I went through the process. They came across Hudspeth County and moved it away from other sites where people had clout. They have chosen a geologically unstable area. I have all sorts of religious and civil rights organizations who say this discriminates against people in the community who are disproportionately poor or who are Hispanic as well. The executive director of the TNRCC explained in his motion to strike that ``environmental justice is not one of the criteria to be considered under the Texas Radiation Control Act or the rules of the TNRCC in the commission's decision whether to license the facility.'' They are not looking at that at all. They are saying they can't. They are saying it is up to us. I had two amendments that my colleague from Maine supported--it was unanimous consent, and any Senator who wanted to disagree could have come to the floor and disagreed--which said people ought to at least have a right to prove discrimination if there is discrimination, and let's make sure this only comes from Maine, Vermont and Texas. Both of those amendments, at the wishes of the utility industry, were taken out in committee. I am saying to colleagues one more time--vote for this and you just watch. I will bet you every dollar I have, which isn't a lot, if we vote for this compact, that dump site will be located in this Hispanic, low-income community. I will bet you there is not one Senator in here who would want to make a bet with me on that. That is what this is all about. Don't be fooled. The amendments were stripped out. This compact now is a major injustice. It could have been a much better agreement, but somebody--and I don't even know who--decided they wanted to take out these amendments. Now it is up to colleagues in the Senate to vote against this. Otherwise, you will be voting for a major injustice. You will be voting for what I consider to be a violation of the civil rights of the people that live in Hudspeth County. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I have concluded my remarks for tonight.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me start out by saying to my colleague from Vermont that this debate is not about suggesting that a dump has to be built in the Northeast. That is not what this debate is about. I say that to my colleague from Maine. No one has ever suggested that. Let me also say that I have to smile as I hear my colleagues say that we need this compact to provide people in Texas with the guarantee that their dump won't become a depository, a national depository for waste. If there is no dump, they don't need the protection. This is an interesting argument--we have to have a compact--which, by the way, I don't think holds up under scrutiny. I will talk about that in a moment. We have to have a compact in order to give people in Texas--it is really in their self-interest. This compact will provide them with some protection that they won't have nuclear waste coming into their State from all over the country. By definition, if the dump isn't built, if the compact doesn't go through, then there won't be any nuclear waste dump, and, therefore, people in Texas won't have to worry about that protection. It is just a curious argument that caught my attention. Mr. President, I want to say at the beginning that I rise to speak with as much passion and as much evidence that I can marshal as possible against this conference report, H.R. 629, the Texas, Maine, and Vermont compact, which will result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste from Texas, Maine, and Vermont, and potentially other States and territories, at a dump located in Texas. The dump is expected to be built near the town of Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County where 66 percent of the residents are Latino and 39 percent live below the poverty line. Let's not be fooling anybody. Here is what happened. This is what we have to vote on one way or another. In Texas, the decision has to be made. Where are you going to put a nuclear waste dump site? Not surprisingly, when you have a former Governor here, or someone else living in another community who is politically connected there, none of those sites is considered. Instead, what we come up with--I will go through the whole history of this--is Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth County. This happens to be a community that is disproportionately Hispanic and disproportionately poor. And that is why this is a civil rights issue. That is why, colleagues, a lot of organizations--Latino and Latina--and a lot of environmental organizations are on record against this compact. This is going the path of least political resistance. That is what this is about. This is an issue of environmental justice. It is the business of all of us in the U.S. Senate, because we have to vote for or against this compact. All of a sudden--I will get to this a little later on as well--some administrative law judges take a look at this, and they say, ``You know what? This might not be a good idea because this is a geologically active area.'' That is a euphemism for an earthquake area. That is true. They have said that. But the problem is that the members of the commission in Texas that has made the decision are the Governor's appointees, and they don't have to listen to what these administrative law judges have said. And the executive director of this commission has made it clear that he won't. The Governor has made it clear that he is going forward with this. But what we have here is an interesting game. No wonder people get angry about politics. What the State of Texas is saying is: Let's just put it off and not make the final decision though we know what the final decision is. We are going to locate this in a community where you have poor people and Hispanic people living. But we will not do that right away. Instead, we say we really haven't decided, and therefore we can get people in the Senate and the House of Representatives, we can give them cover, and they can say, ``Oh, no, this isn't about environmental justice because they haven't selected the site.'' I will go through this in a moment. That is an absolute sham. That is just a sham. Mr. President, let me be real clear about this. The area that is chosen in Texas, not surprisingly, because this is apparent all around the country--poor people always take it on the chin. The communities of color always take it on the chin. Where are you going to put an incinerator? Where are you going to put a waste dump site? It is never in our backyard. I would like to know whether any Senator has ever had a nuclear waste dump site proposed in his or her backyard or his or her community. And while I have not taken the survey, I bet the answer is not one. This has to stop. This is an issue of environmental justice. That is why we are not just going to talk about this tonight. We are going to talk about this tomorrow, regardless of what the vote is. Mr. President, here is what is really troubling about this process. We have been through this over a period of a year. It has been kind of one-sided, I say to my colleague in the Chair. It has been sort of like you have people--we have some people here tonight from Hudspeth County. We have people from other communities. We have some State legislators. We have people from the community. But you know what, they get to come up like once a year maybe. It is a long trip, costs a lot of money. But at the same time the utility industry--this isn't about States rights. This is about the utility industry, what the nuclear power industry wants, what the energy industry wants, what the big contributors want as opposed to the people who live in this community who have precious little by way of campaign contributions they can make. This is tied to reform and precious little clout, except this little community has been fighting hard for a year. So what happened here? I came to the floor of the Senate twice and my colleagues agreed. I didn't hear anybody dissent. There was unanimous consent. Twice I came to the floor of the Senate with amendments. One amendment said let's make it clear that this nuclear waste can only come from Maine, Vermont and Texas. That is what we say it is about. So let's codify that. That amendment was passed in the House of Representatives as well. The other amendment said if the people of Hudspeth County, as they seek redress of grievance, can show that they have been disproportionately targeted because they are Latina, Latino or poor, they should at least have the right to challenge this in court. And my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, supported these amendments. That is exactly what happens when an amendment passes on the floor of the Senate with unanimous consent. But then what do they do? They rely on the conference committee. I am starting to believe in a unicameral legislature, I really am, because I think the conference committee is the third house of the Congress and there is no accountability. This conference committee meets sometime, I don't know, 2 a.m., 1 a.m., sometime in the dark of night. Who knows when. And they just bulldoze right through and they knock out both amendments. The Senate is on record twice, first of all, voting for the amendments and then instructions to the conferees to honor the Senate's position. Colleagues, they took those amendments out. And when you vote tomorrow, please, remember the Latina and Latino community, please remember the organizations, remember the environmental organizations, and other organizations I am going to refer to because they are going to be watching our vote. Now, it would have been one thing if those amendments had stayed in. I think you would have had more support for this compact, or at least people could have said, well, you know what, at least now we know we are not going to get the shaft at least in one sense. People wouldn't have wanted it in their community, nor would the Presiding Officer, nor would my colleague from Maine, nor would any Senator here. No Senator here would want this waste dump site in their backyard, not one Senator, but it at least would have made this political process look a little bit more open and maybe a little fairer to people, if we had kept the amendments in. But, oh, no, the conference committee meets somewhere, sometime and takes them out. So I will tell you, this compact should be defeated. Now, the construction of this nuclear dump in this community raises important questions of environmental justice. This might be the first time in the history of the Senate we have had a debate about environmental justice in the Chamber. It is not just the fight for the people of Sierra Blanca or Hudspeth County or west Texas, for that matter. This is a fight for communities all across the country that don't have the political clout, that aren't the well heeled, that aren't the well connected, that aren't the investors, that aren't the big contributors, and all too often over and over again they are the ones we dump these sites on. This is a fight for poor people and poor communities that are rarely consulted. This is a fight for people who are seen not as people who should have some say about their environment and their lives but as victims to be preyed upon because they are least able to defend themselves. Except the communities of Hudspeth County, Sierra Blanca, they have made it clear they are not victims. They have made it clear they are women and men of worth and dignity and substance, and they have been fighting hard. Environmental justice, colleagues, is a difficult issue. Too often legislators and Government officials hide behind the excuse that there is nothing we can do about it, that discrimination results from decisions that are made in the private sector, that it is a matter of State or local responsibility, that it is too hard to prove. Well, this case is pretty easy. The dump won't be built if we reject this compact. We have a direct responsibility. There is a direct Federal role. We cannot wash our hands of this. We cannot go away and pretend that we are not to blame. We are all responsible, and it is up to each and every one of us to take a stand. Let me go over some of the arguments. Argument No. 1: The Texas Compact raises troubling issues of environmental justice. There is a well-documented tendency for pollution and waste dump sites to be sited in poor minority communities that lack the political power to keep them out. In this case, the Texas Legislature selected Hudspeth County and the Texas Waste Authority selected the Sierra Blanca site after the Authority, after the Authority's scoping study had already ruled out Sierra Blanca as scientifically unsuitable. Did you get that? Did you get that, colleagues, or staff, that are following this debate? The Texas Waste Authority selected the Sierra Blanca site after the Authority's own scoping study had already ruled out Sierra Blanca as scientifically unsuitable. Communities near the study's preferred sites had enough political clout to keep the dump out but Sierra Blanca, already the site of the largest sewage sludge project in the country, was not so fortunate. There you go. There is the calculus. You have this poor Hispanic community. They have the largest sewage sludge project in the country. Why not just build a nuclear waste dump site there as well? Sierra Blanca is a low-income, Mexican-American community. Over 66 percent of the citizens of Sierra Blanca are Mexican-American and many do not speak English. About 39 percent live below the poverty line. Hudspeth County is one of the poorest and most heavily Latino areas of Texas. Under the Texas government code, Sierra Blanca is legally classified as a ``colonia,'' which is an economically distressed area within 150 miles of the Mexican border that possesses inadequate water and sewer services, and this is the community that has been targeted for this nuclear waste dump site. Sierra Blanca is already the site of the largest sewage sludge project in the country, and the Environmental Protection Improvement Corporation is now asking the Texas environmental agency for a license for yet another sewage sludge project east of Sierra Blanca. Now, I ask my colleagues, I ask the Presiding Officer, if you had the largest sewage sludge project in your community, you are now targeted for another one, and on top of that you would have a nuclear waste dump site also in your community, even though it is a geologically unstable community, earthquake area, would you not have some questions about this? I heard my colleagues say somewhere that a judge had won an election and, therefore, oh, no, the people there really want it. Look, why don't we just think about this for a moment? Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that? Do you really believe the people in any of the communities that we represent would really want a nuclear waste dump site where they live, on top of the largest sewage sludge project in the country? Do you believe that? Mr. President, 20 surrounding counties and 13 nearby cities have passed resolutions against it and no city or county in west Texas supports it. I hear one person is elect and that is used as the basis for arguing that the people in the community want it? Give me a break. Give me a break. Mr. President, 20 surrounding counties and 13 nearby cities have passed resolutions against it and no city or county in west Texas supports it. Over 800 adult residents of Sierra Blanca have signed petitions opposing the dump, and a 1992 poll commissioned by the Texas Waste Authority showed that 66 percent of the people in Hudspeth and Culberson Counties were in opposition. Republican Congressman Bonilla, who represents Hudspeth County, and Democratic Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, who represent neighboring El Paso and San Antonio, have all actively opposed the Sierra Blanca dump. And we are being told the people support it? In an October 1994 statewide poll, 82 percent of Texans were against it--82 percent. Earlier this month, 1,500 U.S. and Mexican citizens, including Texas State Representatives and Senators and Representatives from Mexico, marched from the Mexican border to Sierra Blanca, through scorching desert heat--and it has been hot in Texas--to protest the dump. Local residents have had no say over whether the waste dump should be constructed in Sierra Blanca; no say. They never were consulted at any stage in the process, but rather they were informed after the fact. Each time the waste authority or the legislature selected Hudspeth County for a dump site, and especially after local residents had already won a court case to reverse the selection of Fort Hancock, the news took local residents by complete surprise. At no stage in the site selection process were the residents of Sierra Blanca involved in the decisionmaking. Now, I said this is an environmental justice question. Listen to this, and I will come back with this tomorrow morning again. A 1984 public opinion survey commissioned by the Texas Waste Authority provides some real useful context for how this has all taken place. The report is called, ``An Analysis of Public Opinion on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal in Selected Areas.'' This report goes on to talk about the benefits of keeping the Latinos uninformed: One population that may benefit from [a public information] campaign is Hispanics, particularly those with little formal education and low incomes. This group is the least informed of all segments of the population. . .. 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. I'll tell you what, I would be ashamed to be a decisionmaker in any kind of process, any kind of consulting report, saying: Better not have these Latinos informed because there is a strong correlation between the amount of their perceived knowledge and their increased opposition. Well, I guess so. I guess, if every Senator had knowledge of a nuclear waste dump site that was going to be dumped in his or her backyard, the more he or she knew, the more likely they would be in opposition. And we are being told the people in the community just can't wait to have this. There is a danger. I am in profound disagreement with my colleagues that this poor Hispanic community could become a national repository for low-level radioactive waste. We are being told that this will be their savior, this compact will protect them from becoming a national repository. The conference report--and if my colleagues have any information or facts that contradict what I am about to say, I would certainly appreciate hearing it--the conference report on H.R. 629 would allow appointed compact commissioners to import radioactive waste from any State or territory. They have it within their authority to do so. There is no language that prohibits them from doing so. And both the State of Texas and nuclear utilities across the country will have an economic incentive to bring in as much waste as possible to make the dump economically viable and to reduce the disposal costs. Let me be clear about it again. This conference report does not have one word that would prohibit the appointed compact commissioners from importing radioactive waste from any State or territory in the country. If you had not stripped out our amendment, which the Senate unanimously supported twice, which said that the waste can only come from Texas and Vermont and Maine, then there would be some protection of this kind. Not any longer. Don't be making the argument that this Compact, stripped of the protection for people, now provides people with the protection. Section 3.05, Paragraph 6 of the Compact provides that the Compact Commission may enter into an agreement with any person, State, regional body or group of States for importation of low-level radioactive waste. Shall I repeat that, because I have heard it said on the floor of the Senate that this Compact is great because it protects people from becoming a national repository site? Section 3.05, Paragraph 6 of the Compact provides that the Compact Commission may enter into an agreement with any person, State, regional body or group of States for importation of low-level radioactive waste. All it requires is a majority vote of the eight unelected compact commissioners. And the conference committee--and I know the Senators from the States out here were part of this--stripped away the amendment that said it could only come from Texas, Maine or Vermont. Mr. President, according to the Texas Observer, March 28, 1997: More than two or three national dumps will drive fees so low that profit margins anticipated by States (and now private investors) will be threatened. This economic reality--and growing public resistance to new dumps--has raised the very real possibility that the next dump permitted will be the nuclear waste depository for the whole nation, for decades to come. They could very well be right, and you know what? They could not have made that argument about what is about to happen to the people of Sierra Blanca if the conference committee had kept in our amendment. But, no, no. The utility industry, they know what the potential of this is. They didn't want that. The conference committee stripped the House and Senate environmental justice amendments. To avoid turning this low-income Mexican-American community into a national depository for radioactive waste, I offered two amendments. The first would have given local residents the chance to prove environmental discrimination in court, and the second, as I have said three times or more, would have limited incoming waste to the States of Texas, Maine and Vermont. My colleagues, in the dark of night in conference committee, decided that it would be a crime to give local residents a chance to prove environmental discrimination in court. And my colleagues, in the dark of night in conference committee, decided that it would be a crime to make sure that we codified in language our claim that the waste would only come from Maine and Vermont and Texas. The Senate instructed conferees to insist on these amendments, but the conference ignored the Senate's instructions and stripped them both and that is why Senators should vote against this compact. The conference committee even stripped the amendment limiting the waste to three States, despite the fact that this provision was passed by both the Senate and the House. Mr. President, we have a national responsibility to remedy this injustice, especially since Congress would be complicit in construction of this dump. This is not a purely State and local issue. I have heard this argument made: This is a State or local issue; we have no business being involved. Of course we do. We are being asked to vote on it. Then this argument that is being made, which I will get to in a moment, is, ``Well, wait a moment, there is no waste dump site for sure that has been selected.'' Do you know what? If you want to make this argument, why are we pressing for a vote on this compact? It is one of two ways: Either colleagues can come out here and they can say, ``You know what? Now these administrative judges have issued a report, and they should have, and what they said is correct saying this is a geologically unstable area. And so maybe, Senator Wellstone, all that you are talking about, about the injustice of this waste dump site being put right on top of a poor Hispanic community, may not happen, because we haven't really decided.'' So say some people right now in this debate. I heard it from my colleagues tonight. If that is the case, we shouldn't vote on this yet. Let's wait and see, and then we will know what is in the compact and we will know exactly where this has been sited. Or, we have to vote no, because if you vote yes, you are complicit in the construction of this dump. And I want to tell you, the siting process is outrageous. This siting process that took place in Texas is outrageous. It is an affront to anybody's sense of justice. This is not a purely State or local issue, because we have to vote on it. For constitutional reasons, the Texas compact cannot take effect without Federal legislation. Senators from all 50 States, not just the compact States, will be asked to give their consent. Mr. President, in the El Paso Times of May 28, 1998, Governor Bush said: If there's not a Compact in place, we will not move forward. In an interview published April 5-11, El Paso, Inc., Governor Bush said: The legislation would approve the Compact between Texas, Maine and Vermont. If that does not happen, then all bets are off. Moreover, the Texas Legislature has indicated it will not fund construction without the upfront money from the compact. The Texas Waste Authority requested over $37 million for fiscal year 1998-1999 for construction of the dump, but the legislature allocated no construction money. They did not appropriate funding for the licensing process and for payments for the host county after the House zeroed out funding for the authority altogether. Congress is responsible for this dump. If you will, this dump site has been dumped on the Congress, it has been dumped on the Senate. Construction of the Sierra Blanca dump depends upon the enactment of the conference report to H.R. 629. If the Senate rejects it, Texas will not build a dump in Sierra Blanca. But within 60 days of its enactment, Maine and Vermont will pay Texas $25 million to begin construction. We wouldn't even be having this battle if these amendments had been kept in. I wouldn't have liked it. I would have still had questions about this, but I would have thought at least there was some sense of fairness and justice. I want every one of my colleagues to know, you voted, we voted unanimously, to make sure that we made it clear that, indeed, this waste could only come from Maine, Vermont, and Texas, and we voted unanimously that the people should have a right to prove discrimination in court. But now, that has been taken out in conference committee. So you have the compact without any of the protections for people. You have the compact, with all of its injustice, and it is simple: If you vote against it, then you are voting against Texas building a dump site, a nuclear waste dump site in Sierra Blanca, which is an environmental injustice. If you vote for it, then within 60 days of enactment, Maine and Vermont will pay Texas $25 million to begin construction. If my colleagues want to say, ``Paul, we agree this isn't right, what is being done to these people, but you don't know for sure it is going to be this site,'' then I say, ``Why don't we postpone this vote? Why are you so anxious to ram it through?'' I heard about other compacts. There are two points. First of all, other compacts, other compacts, fine, but the issue at hand is this compact, this site selection. Mr. President, this whole argument about, ``Well, we don't really know the specific site,'' again, the administrative judge's decision is not binding. That is point No. 1. The Texas environmental agency's Governor appointees are not bound by this at all. They are all appointed by the Governor. They can do whatever they want. The views of this agency, as I said before, which will make the decision, are known. The executive director argued against the hearing officer's recommendation. He said: Additional information on ``special impact'' [i.e., environmental justice] is not needed to make a decision on the license application. The executive director recommends issuance of a license because the applicant has met all the requirements under the law. We know what they are going to do. Come on, let's just be direct about this. The Governor's views are known. I have quoted him. And then there is the box law. I say to my colleagues, you need to know the specifics of what you are voting on here. The Texas Legislature selected Hudspeth County to host the dump in 1991, and the Texas Waste Authority identified a dump site near Sierra Blanca in 1992. The 1991 box law is still on the books, and regardless of what the TNRCC does, the box law requires that the dump be built in Hudspeth County, which is predominantly Hispanic and poor. I want to make that clear--I want to make that clear--that is where it is going to be built, and it is an environmental injustice. It is time we stand up against this kind of injustice. This is not the decision of the people of Maine or the decision of Vermont, but this is what is going to happen. Mr. President, this conference report is about nuclear utility rights, not State or local rights. The conference committee followed the wishes of the nuclear utilities, not the local residents. Nuclear utilities who stand to benefit from cheap disposal of nuclear waste strongly supported this legislation without amendments. Local residents, including the local Republican Congressmen, overwhelmingly opposed the dump. Of course, the utility industry got their way in conference committee. We know their clout here. They never wanted people anywhere--it is not, in all due respect to the people who are here tonight from Hudspeth County, it is not just you. This industry doesn't want regular citizens anywhere in the country to have a right to prove discrimination. And this industry has big plans for Hudspeth County as a national repository for waste, so they didn't want any amendment making it clear it could only come from Maine or Vermont or Texas. Mr. President, I think that I might have said enough for tonight, or maybe not. We will see how the debate goes. I will have tomorrow morning to speak about this as well. I have not, in all due respect, heard one argument on the floor of the Senate that is very persuasive. It is just simply not true this compact is all about giving people the protection from being a national repository site. It is simply not true that this is just sort of medical waste from hospitals, it is gloves. It is simply not true this is simply low level so we don't have to worry about it. It is simply not true that this is none of our business. This is a civil rights issue. Let me conclude by including some quotes, if I can find them. Mr. President, I will do the quotes tomorrow. It is a civil rights issue. That is what this is all about. This is the issue that we have been talking about. As a matter of fact, this is an issue of, every time we are faced with a situation about where a nuclear waste site goes, a dump site goes, or incinerator--and the list goes on and on-- then what happens is communities of color, low-income communities, are the ones that are targeted. That is exactly what has happened in Texas. We had amendments that would have provided some protection. The Senate went on record. Every Senator supported those amendments, and then they were stripped out of conference committee. That is why Senators should vote against this. Mr. President, I just want to make it clear that the League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, is adamantly opposed to this. I believe they are going to use this for scoring. That is important. By golly, people in the Latino community ought to hold every Senator accountable for their vote on this. It is a civil rights issue. There is a strong letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in favor of both our amendments which were stripped out of the conference committee in the dark of night. The House Hispanic caucus favored the amendments opposed to this compact, the Texas NAACP, League of Conservation Voters. This is a major issue of justice, and it is a major environmental issue as well. I conclude by urging my colleagues to vote against this compact. And on the floor of the Senate tonight and tomorrow morning I will also make an appeal to the administration: Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, we need you to speak out on this. You have talked about environmental justice. You have said it is a major priority. What is happening with this compact, what is now being proposed--just think of what this is going to mean for the people who live in Sierra Blanca. If there is ever one example that brings into sharp focus the issue of environmental justice, this is it. We need the President to make it clear that if this should pass, he will veto it. This compact should not pass in its present form. I yield the floor. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that after my colleague uses his time, I be able to follow.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think my colleague from Vermont has been on the floor a long time today. He said he needed a brief period of time. If I could take a minute--and only a minute, I say to my colleague from Vermont, whom I appreciate as a real friend here, I will talk about the actual sites, Hudspeth and Sierra Blanca, and how this is all taking place. This is an issue of environmental justice. But this nuclear waste is not just gloves and medical waste. My colleague talked about that. Ninety-nine percent of this low-level radioactive waste in Maine and Vermont will come from nuclear reactors. Let's just be clear about that. Second of all, the distinction between low-level and high-level--I will read from a GAO report of this year. Any radioactive waste that are not high-level are low- level, and as a result, low-level radioactive waste constitute a very broad category containing many different types and concentrations of radio nuclei, including the same radio nuclei that may be found in high-level radioactive waste. This is an artificial distinction. It is not just medical waste. It sounds better when we talk about booties and gloves. Low-level waste constitutes all of the same public health concerns to the people who live in Sierra Blanca. I want to be clear about that. I ask my colleague from Vermont, how much time does he think he will need?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand. I gather my colleague doesn't need a lot of time. I ask unanimous consent that I may follow the Senator from Vermont. There is much that my colleague said that I want to respond to, but I will wait.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Do my colleagues want to proceed first? I say to the Senator from Maine, would you like to proceed first?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I am going to stick to this because this is, I think, an important issue. It takes time to lay out the context and the background. I know the way it works here. This now has been put off close to 7 o'clock. I understand that. I just think that 15 minutes is not a lot of time to go into the complexity of this. I know at least what was my understanding, and I say to my colleague from Maine, this was not a direct conversation with her. In no way, shape, or form am I trying to say she had implied otherwise. I am going to be firm about this. Perhaps we could--and I wouldn't be totally satisfied with it--but perhaps we could save colleagues some trouble and do 40 minutes equally divided. I ask unanimous consent that there be 40 minutes, 20 minutes on each side, so colleagues don't have to come back tonight and vote at midnight.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, it is unfortunate that maybe there were a number of different parties involved in this, but I was very clear that I wanted to make sure there was time for this debate also tomorrow morning, not late tonight. I say to colleagues--it is not personal to my colleague from Maine--I am going to object to adjournment tonight, and Senators are going to have to come back here tonight at midnight and vote if I don't get a half an hour tomorrow. I know what was said. I know what was the understanding, and this is an important enough issue that tomorrow morning--and the other side can take a half hour, too--that we should have a debate. It shouldn't go from 7 o'clock now until 10 o'clock, time is burned off, no time to discuss this tomorrow morning, and then there is a vote. I think that is unacceptable. I guess we are starting the debate off in the wrong way. In all due respect, a lot of the decisions made on this matter have been made kind of in the dark of night in the conference committee. I want part of this debate to be open. I want Senators to be aware of this. I want the public to be aware of it. I renew my request one more time just so I know where I am at tonight. I ask unanimous consent that we have an hour equally divided tomorrow morning before final vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it may be, I say to my colleagues, because I have friends out here on the floor and we may have some real disagreement on this, but I want to make sure we proceed on this together. I think on the order of this, the proponents might want to go first. That is fine with me. I want to make sure we can have one understanding. Before the recess, it was my understanding, albeit not a written contract, that we would not burn up all the time; that we would reserve 1 hour equally divided for tomorrow before the final vote. I ask unanimous consent that we at least have that final hour to be equally divided before the vote tomorrow.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Bradshaw, who is a fellow in my office, be allowed the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on this bill.