"Sanders Family: Quid Pro Quo and the GOP Machine"

[BainsBane]

FAST FACTS – TEXAS-VERMONT-MAINE Nuclear Waste Compact

Pro Sierra Blanca: Tycoon Harold Simmons, owner. Gov. George W. Bush R-TX. Gov. Rick Perry R-TX . Rep Joe Barton R-TX. Rep John Fields R-TX. Senator Bernie Sanders I-VT.
Opposed to Sierra Blanca: Citizens of West Texas. Paul Wellstone D-MN. Lloyd Doggett D-TX. NAACP. LULAC. Sierra Club. Government of Mexico.
Influential Texas billionaire Harold Simmons owned the Sierra Blanca waste site, doing business as Waste Control Specialists or WCS.
2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was a leading proponent and co-sponsor of the Texas-Vermont-Maine compact legislation, H.R. 629 (1998) and its predecessor H.R. 558 (1995) . . .

*12 million shares of Titanium Metals Corp., another Simmons company, provided financial assurance for the dump. It was a highly unorthodox arrangement that critics panned as a “polluters’ dream.” Titanium Metals’ stock plummeted not long after the deal was sealed. Eventually, in November, another company purchased Titanium Metals for $2.9 billion. Simmons then used 9.8 million shares of Kronos, another Simmons company (also sold). Texas Observer . . .

+1998-H.R. 629 was a private compact between Texas, Vermont and Maine. Vermont sends its nuclear waste from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant to Texas.
+Sierra Blanca was mentioned 58 times in the committee debate as the designated site, a fact Bernie Sanders rejected.
+Sierra Blanca is located in an earthquake zone 16 miles of the US-Mexico border.
+The Sierra Blanca nuclear waste site did not have to be built.Gov. George Bush said if H.R. 629 did not pass, the Sierra Blanca site would not go forward.
+H.R. 629 opened the door to national waste storage and expansion of sites in Texas, one of Simmons’ goals. . . .

*2012, Jane O’Meara Sanders, wife of Bernie Sanders,was appointed Vermont compact commissioner.

+In 2011 the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission (TLLRWDCC) passed a rule allowing WCS-Andrews, licensed since 1997 for radioactive storage, to accept out-of-compact waste expanding the Texas-Vermont-Maine Compact to a national waste facility near Andrews, 120 miles NE of Sierra Blanca.
+In 2012 Vermont sent its first shipment of nuclear waste to Texas.
+In May 2013, Energy Capital Partners II, LP and its parallel funds acquisition of EnergySolutions, Inc. purchased WCS from Simmons’ Valhi, Inc. ECP is a leading global provider of nuclear services to government and commercial customers holding 27 energy related companies. EnergyCapital Partners
+Starting in 1983 and prior to co-founding ECP, Senior Partner Douglas W. Kimmelman was instrumental in developing the Constellation Power Source concept as the initial entry point for Goldman Sachs as a principal into electricity markets and spent 22 years with Goldman Sachs in the firm’s Pipeline and Utilities Dept within the Investment Banking Division.The Team

https://sandersguideblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/sanders-family-quid-pro-quo-and-the-gop-machine/

[hereforthevoting]

1. Isn't it great that he isn't into nuclear power as part of his platform?

Maybe he, I dunno, evolved.

[Jarqui]

4. I'll let Bernie respond to this BS hit job attempt:

http://www.c-span.org/congress/bills/billAction/?print/1410681
3:21 PM EDT

Bernie Sanders, I-VT 1st
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 629. Mr. Chairman, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 1985 amendments make commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal a State and not a Federal responsibility.

As we have heard, all that Texas and Maine and Vermont are asking for today is to be treated as 9 other compacts were treated affecting 41 States. This is not new business. We have done it 9 times, 41 States, and Texas, Maine, and Vermont ask us to do it today.

Mr. Chairman, let me touch for a moment upon the environmental aspects of this issue. Let me address it from the perspective of someone who is an opponent of nuclear power, who opposes the construction of power plants and, if he had his way, would shut down the existing nuclear power plants as quickly and as safely as we could.

One of the reasons that many of us oppose nuclear power plants is that when this technology was developed, there was not a lot of thought given as to how we dispose of the nuclear waste. Neither the industry nor the Government, in my view, did the right thing by allowing the construction of the plants and not figuring out how we get rid of the waste.

But the issue we are debating here today is not that issue. The reality, as others have already pointed out, is that the waste is here. We cannot wish it away. It exists in power plants in Maine and Vermont, it exists in hospitals, it is here.

The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] a few moments ago said, `Who wants radioactive waste in their district?' I guess he is right. But do Members know what, by going forward with the nuclear power industry, that is what we have. So the real environmental issue here is not to wish it away, but to make the judgment, the important environmental judgment, as to what is the safest way of disposing of the nuclear waste that has been created. That is the environmental challenge that we face.

The strong environmental position should not be and cannot be to do nothing, and to put our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem does not exist. It would be nice if Texas had no low-level radioactive waste, or Vermont or Maine or any other State. That would be great. That is not the reality. The environmental challenge now is, given the reality that low-level radioactive waste exists, what is the safest way of disposing of that waste.

Leaving the radioactive waste at the site where it was produced, despite the fact that that site may be extremely unsafe in terms of long-term isolation of the waste and was never intended to be a long-term depository of low-level waste, is horrendous environmental policy. What sense is it to say that you have to keep the waste where it is now, even though that might be very environmentally damaging? That does not make any sense at all.

No reputable scientist or environmentalist believes that the geology of Vermont or Maine would be a good place for this waste. In the humid climate of Vermont and Maine, it is more likely that groundwater will come in contact with that waste and carry off radioactive elements to the accessible environment.

There is widespread scientific evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that locations in Texas, some of which receive less than 12 inches of rainfall a year, a region where the groundwater table is more than 700 feet below the surface, is a far better location for this waste.

This is not a political assertion, it is a geological and environmental reality. Furthermore, even if this compact is not approved, it is likely that Texas, which has a great deal of low-level radioactive waste, and we should make the point that 80 percent of the waste is coming from Texas, 10 percent from Vermont, 10 percent from Maine, the reality is that Texas will go forward with or without this compact in building a facility to dispose of their low-level radioactive waste.

If they do not have the compact, which gives them the legal right to deny low-level radioactive waste from coming from anyplace else in the country, it seems to me they will be in worse environmental shape than they are right now. Right now, with the compact, they can deal with the constitutional issue of limiting the kinds of waste they get.

From an environmental point of view, I urge strong support for this legislation.

[BainsBane]

17. The people of Sierra Blanca saw it differently

Last edited Tue Mar 29, 2016, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)

But thanks for confirming his support for the same project supported by Bush and Perry, but opposed by Wellstone and the Sierra Club.
The "hit job" turns out to be entirely factual.

[NWCorona]

20. Yes they did but...

Some of the very activists who rallied against Bernie now support him. It's not all doom and gloom as you might want it to be. At least when he went there and talked to the people he didn't pander and give lip service. He kept it real.

This isn't Hanford. It's a low level waste facility that was already in the works.

[glowing]

2. The problem with nuclear energy in the first place..

It's a NIMBY sort of subject. And anyone touting need for use of it in the future is ridiculous. The Yankee plant was finally shuttered from use, even though it was extended past its expiration date... And it leaked. Who knows what will happen to these plants 20 - 30 yrs from now or 100 yrs from now? Thinking that science would be able to to something with the waste (other than make weapons), was just absolute fallacy. Then again, we are still burning coal for goodness sake and we don't need to do that.

[glowing]

3. BTW, he still represents VT. The first Bush was in office in the late 80's...

I'm not sure how much local pressure there was for this deal. At that time YAnkee would have had some powerful pull, along with being a decent paying job for residents in a small state with lots of farms as a main economic resource. Yankee shutting cost people in that area economically. My aunt lives in that town now. And wouldn't u know it, has been battling breast cancer twice now. This time she won't make it because it moved from her breast, but hopefully with the drug hormones she will have a couple of more decent years left.

[cosmicone]

5. As corrupt as it gets ... and they call Hillary corrupt!

[Armstead]

10. Do you like the late Gov. Anne Richards?

She helped put this deal into motion. She supported it.


When Ann Richards was governor, she championed Sierra Blanca as the ideal place to safely store nuclear waste for 10,000 years, and George W. Bush has endorsed the project as well. -
See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/dumped-on/#sthash.NgJXFahN.dpuf

[RiverLover]

6. Hillary was all for nuclear energy....until she wasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton

At a February 18, 2007 campaign rally in Columbia, South Carolina, Clinton stated, "I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution... We get about 20% of our energy from nuclear power in our country... other countries like France get much much more, so we do have to look at it because it doesn't put greenhouse gas emissions into the air."[16]

[NCTraveler]

7. This one is as blatant as they come. I find it to be amusing that a certain crowd dismisses it.

I don't see the surprise. Sanders is the career politician in the field. There is a long history of him playing small ball.

[Armstead]

11. Small ball meaning not storing nuclear waste in....

One of the most densely populated corner of the nation, in a sensitive, highly interconnected environment in which the water tables and environment of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island -- and all of the poor minorities who live there, along with many millions of others -- would be affected by any leakage?

You mean that kind of small ball?

[NCTraveler]

12. No. Small ball as in gaining personal political favor on a small scale.

Thought my comment was obvious enough it didn't need much elaboration. Guess I was wrong. lol.

[Armstead]

13. Still needs more elaboration....Doing what a Senator is supposed to by representing his state....

is not playing small ball.

But in that case it was not simply a Vermont issue. And the whole deal originated with Anne Richards, whom many Democrats admire, who said it was an ideal spot for that because of the physical characteristics. So it's not like this was some renegade project.

[tonedevil]

32. Your comment was...

and is a small minded hit piece with no actual meaning, but lots of vitriol.

[cyberswede]

8. Weird source.

Whose blog is this?

"Democrats Reject Marxist Socialist Sanders"

"The source for these reports wishes to remain anonymous at this time."

[BainsBane]

18. The statements are factual

as a poster above confirmed by posting Sanders argument for the project in the congressional record.

Had it been some tirade against socialism, I wouldn't have posted it. Instead, it was a run down of legislation and those who supported it and opposed it.

[CalvinballPro]

9. Billionaires! Wall Street! Momentum! "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" nt

[Cha]

14. Thank you, BB..

[mcar]

15. K&R

[beedle]

16. 14 years after the vote

Jane gets a job in Texas protecting Vermont's interests.

Yes, I will concede this is an obvious case of political influence and Quid Pro Quo ... we can never ever be to careful with things like this ... so where are Hillary's Wall St. speech transcripts? And are those $250K speeches not a much more obvious case of Quid Pro Quo?

[riversedge]

19. You can always start another thead for your different topic. Try to focus on the OP

[beedle]

24. I am, it's about "quid pro quo"

[Lucinda]

21. TY!

[Nanjeanne]

22. The Sanders Guide Blog? Never heard of it but I did have fun reading the most recent posts. THANKS

Here's a sampling:

Recent Posts

Democrats Reject Marxist Socialist Sanders

Pt2-Former East German Exposes Bernie Sanders

Pt3-Former East German Exposes Bernie Sanders

Pt1-Former East German Exposes Socialist Bernie Sanders

OH - THIS IS RICH - UNDER THESE 3 POSTS - IT SAYS "The source for these reports wishes to remain anonymous at this time."

How Local Officials Siphon $…Bernie?

And these from the same person who wrote this bog . . . I mean blog:

The Man Behind Sierra Blanca’s Woes
Sanders & Sierra Blanca Legislation
Bernie’s Sweet Tooth and Simmons
Bernie Sanders – Trader of “The People”
Bernie Sanders’ Dissonance and Dissidents
Activism FAIL – Politics of Sierra Blanca
Sanders Family: Sex and the Brain
Sanders Finances – Bring a Shovel

This is a blog every Sanders fan should read. Best laughs you can have all day! Investigative journalism at it's finest!!!!

[Persondem]

23. So we can add this to the tarnish on St. Bernard's halo ...as if killing immigration reform

in 2007 and pandering to the MIC for F-35 $$$ wasn't enough. Thank you for posting this. K & R

[lunamagica]

30. Don't forget the stand-alone YES vote on the Minutemen amendment

[R B Garr]

25. K&R

Thanks for this thread. Bernie gets a pass on this, too. Shameful.

[hrmjustin]

26. Kicking.

[rogerashton]

27. NIMBY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

[enid602]

28. sparrow

That little bird should have shat on his head.

[lunamagica]

31. ....

[lunamagica]

29. The wonderful Paul Wellstone was this poor community's champion against Sanders

He fought for their right to refuse having toxic waste dumper on their backyard

Transcript of floor speech:

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to speak out this evening
about an enormously important issue that has seldom, if ever, been
addressed on the floor of the United States Senate. I understand my
colleague needs to leave at 7, and I am going to try to figure out a
way to accommodate him if at all possible. My understanding is, I will
also have a chance to speak more about this in morning business.
This issue I want to address tonight has variously been called
``environmental discrimination,'' ``environmental equity,''

``environmental justice,'' or ``environmental racism.'' These terms are
used interchangeably to describe the well-documented tendency for
pollution and waste dumps to be sited in poor and minority communities
who lack the political power to keep them out.
Environmental justice has been at the center of the debate over H.R.
629, legislation granting congressional consent to the so-called Texas
Compact. If passed unamended by this Congress, the Texas Compact would
result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste from nuclear
reactors in Texas, Maine, and Vermont--and potentially from nuclear
reactors all over the country--in the poor and majority-Latino town of
Sierra Blanca in West Texas.

Environmental justice is an issue that demands the full attention of
the Senate. If we pass this legislation unamended, we can no loner
pretend to be innocent bystanders as one poor, minority community after
another is victimized by political powerlessness--and, in some cases,
by overt racism. We can no longer pretend that a remedy for this basic
violation of civil rights is beyond our reach. That is the ultimate
significance of this legislation--and of this debate.
The moral responsibility of the Senate is unavoidable and undeniable.
If we approve H.R. 629 without conditions, the Compact dump will be
built within a few miles of Sierra Blanca. There's really very little
doubt about that. And if that happens, this poor Hispanic community
could become the premier national repository for so-called ``low-
level'' radioactive waste.
If we reject this Compact, on the other hand, the Sierra Blanca dump
will not be built at all. The Texas Governor has said so publicly--more
than once. It's as simple as that. The fate of Sierra Blanca rests in
our hands.


Compact supporters would prefer that we consider the Compact without
any reference to the actual location of the dump. But that simply
cannot be done. It's true that H.R. 629 says nothing about Sierra
Blanca. But we know very well where this waste will be dumped. In that
respect, the Texas Compact is different from other compacts the Senate
has considered.
The Texas legislature in 1991 already identified the area where the
dump will be located. The Texas Waste Authority designated the site
near Sierra Blanca in 1992. A draft license was issued in 1996. License
proceedings are now in their final stages and should be completed by
summer. Nobody doubts that the Texas authorities will soon issue that
license.

There's only one reason why this dump might not get built--and that's
if Congress rejects the Texas Compact. In an April 1998 interview,
Texas Gov. George Bush said, ``If that does not happen,'' meaning
congressional passage of the Compact, ``then all bets are off.'' In the
El Paso Times of May 28, Gov. Bush said, ``If there's not a Compact in
place, we will not move forward.''

For these reasons, we cannot fairly consider H.R. 629 without also
considering the dump site that Texas has selected. Sierra Blanca is a
small town in one of poorest parts of Texas, an area with one of the
highest percentages of Latino residents. The average income of people
who live there is less than $8,000. Thirty-nine percent live below the
poverty line. Over 66 percent are Latino, and many of them speak only
Spanish.

It is a town that has already been saddled with one of the largest
sewage sludge projects in the world. Every week Sierra Blanca receives
250 tons of partially treated sewage sludge from across the country.
Depending on what action Congress decides to take, this small town with
minimal political clout may also become the national repository for
low-level radioactive waste. And I understand plans for building even
more dump sites are also in the works.
Supporters of the Compact would have us believe that the designation
of Sierra Blanca had nothing to do with the income or ethnic
characteristics of its residents. That it had nothing to do with the
high percentage of Latinos in Sierra Blanca and the surrounding
Hudspeth County--at least 2.6 times higher than the State average. That
the percentage of people living in poverty--at least 2.1 times higher
than the State average--was completely irrelevant.

They would have us believe that Sierra Blanca was simply the
unfortunate finalist in a rigorous and deliberate screening process
that fairly considered potential sites from all over the State. That
the outcome was based on science and objective criteria. I don't
believe any of this is true.

I am not saying science played no role whatsoever in the process. It
did. Indeed, based on the initial criteria coupled with the scientific
findings, Sierra Blanca was disqualified as a potential dump site. It
wasn't until politics entered the picture that Sierra Blanca was even
considered.

More https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-06-15/html/CREC-1998-06-15-pt1-PgS6349.htm