Editorial: Truth takes a beating

Sunday, April 16, 2000 | 10:56 a.m.

Republican congressional leaders on Tuesday pressed President Clinton to sign legislation that would send high-level nuclear waste to Nevada by 2007. To get an indication of how hell-bent they are on sending this poison here, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., showed he will say anything to mislead the public. Take this outrageous gem: "For almost two decades Congress has been working to find an environmentally sound solution to the management of spent fuel -- a solution that would ensure that public health and safety would be the first priority," Hastert said. "With this bill, we have such a solution."

While Hastert indeed may have found a convenient solution, the fact is if nuclear waste is stored at Yucca Mountain, it would be a disaster that would imperil public safety and the environment. Nevada is one of the worst geologic places in the nation to store 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste, considering that the waste would be buried in an ancient volcano, which also happens to be located in one of the nation's most active earthquake zones.

Hastert also had the nerve Tuesday to accuse Clinton, a Democrat, of playing politics. The plain truth is that there is little to gain in national politics by siding with a small state like Nevada. Indeed, the backbone shown by Clinton on nuclear waste storage is remarkable for a politician. After all, the record shows that politics has fouled the selection process every step of the way. Don't forget that originally there were three states under consideration: Nevada, Texas and Washington. Then, because of politics, Congress in 1987 took Texas and Washington off the list, leaving just Nevada. At that time Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright and then-Vice President George Bush were from Texas, and Democratic House Majority Leader Tom Foley was from Washington. There was no scientific study that reduced the field -- this was hardball politics.

For Nevadans, then, who wins the presidency this fall is crucial. Clinton consistently has pledged to veto legislation that would derail the government's suitability study of Yucca Mountain. During Clinton's two terms, Congress has considered legislation that would send nuclear waste to Nevada absent a scientific investigation, but each time this has fallen just a few votes short of what is necessary to override a veto. Vice President Al Gore, who will be the Democratic standard-bearer, shares Clinton's commitment.

In contrast, the presumptive presidential nominee for the Republicans, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, refuses to publicly say whether he would sign or veto the GOP-led Congress' nuclear waste bill. Bush's prominent Nevada supporters say he is still developing a policy, but no one believes this is anything more than spin. Bush, who is strongly supported by the nuclear power industry, has stayed mum because he knows if he were to acknowledge that he would sign the legislation, he would write off any hopes of carrying Nevada in November.

To find out where Bush stands on this bill you have to take a circuitous route and talk instead to his allies in Congress. Both Hastert and Sen. Frank Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who shepherded the nuclear waste bill through the upper house, told Sun reporter Benjamin Grove last week that they were optimistic Bush would sign the legislation. Murkowski said he had indications that Bush was sympathetic to nuclear power plant operators who want to rid themselves of their waste. "I think he (Bush) would want a resolution to this problem," Hastert added. These cryptic comments not only undercut any notion that Bush would view Nevada's position favorably, but they also should send a chill up and down the spine of every Nevadan.