Las Vegas Sun: Hillary Clinton Interview

Q+A: Hillary Clinton

If president, no way on Yucca Mountain

By Michael J. Mishak
Las Vegas Sun

Sen. Hillary Clinton visited Las Vegas on Friday. She was one of three Democratic presidential contenders to address thousands of Culinary Union members at a rally billed as the kickoff to the union's negotiations with the big casino companies.

Widely seen as front-runner in her bid for the White House, Clinton talked about Western issues with the Sun while traveling between events. With her was Clark County Commission Chairman Rory Reid, of Clinton's Nevada campaign.

Told as the interview began that she would be quizzed on Western issues, Clinton said, "Well, Rory may have to answer for me."

He didn't. She did.

The rub.

Q. If elected president, what would you do on the Yucca Mountain issue?

I voted against Yucca Mountain as a senator. I was convinced then, and I'm convinced now that it's not a suitable depository for our nuclear waste. I think we need to look for solutions to our waste problem but I am totally against using Yucca Mountain. Period.

But is there any way to kill the project?

You can refuse to put money in the budget, which is what I would do. The president just doesn't fund it as a priority, which then forces the Congress - if they want to keep pursuing it - to try and do so. And I don't think that they would be able to do that, which would then concentrate everybody's attention on trying to find an alternative.

How would you address the larger issue of energy?

We need to do much more to incentivize biofuels of all kinds. We also have to do more on solar and wind energy to make them commercially viable.

In order to move these forms of alternative green energy more quickly to broader commercial use, we need a strategic energy fund. We should take away the tax subsidies from big oil and gas, because frankly they don't need them anymore. We should put the subsidies into research that fast-tracks these alternative green forms of energy that can be American-owned.

It's not something that can happen overnight, but if we combined that with greater efforts on conservation and energy efficiency, we would move considerably toward diminishing our dependence on foreign oil. It's important for our security. It's important for our environment, because I do believe we have a global climate change challenge we need to start dealing with. It's also a job creator.

Is there a role for the federal government in the debate over water, or the lack of it?

Much of what has to occur must take place locally and on the state level, and even between states. But I think the federal government can be sensitive to this problem, can be a convener, can figure out if there are laws or regulations that stand in the way of getting access to the water that is needed for fast-growing places like Las Vegas. It can look at sensible, effective projects that might help and provide funding for them. I think there's a partnership role. The federal government can't dictate it from Washington but it can be a good collaborator with the Clark County Commission, local governments and the state.

Should the government intervene in the Colorado River Compact?

I don't know the answer to that. It involves a lot of complex interests. Certainly, as president, I'm interested in solving problems, and I'm interested in helping states get whatever tools they need as they work out their differences.

What's your impression of the Las Vegas labor landscape?

I think it's a real tribute to Las Vegas that there's this positive relationship between the employers and the union, in part because this is a city that has to make people feel good. People come here because they want to come. It's a fun destination where they get good value for their money. One of the ways you do that is by having productive employees who not only do their work very well but convey that feeling of satisfaction so that people feel good when they're customers and visitors. I think it's a win-win. The employers get a productive, loyal, hardworking workforce. And workers can work their way up if they're willing to work hard and get a good standard of living.

So, you support "card checks" and the Employee Free Choice Act?

If you go back and look at the 20th century, as labor membership went up, middle-class living standards went up. People got into the middle class. For the first time they could send their children to college, they could buy a home. Now, as labor participation is declining, we see people are squeezed in the middle class. With all due respect, it is not rich people that made America great. It is hardworking people who put their time in, did their part and unions were an essential aspect of that bargain.

I think we ought to take a broader view of this, and recognize that if we want to keep the engine of economic growth going for everybody, unions are a part of that balance. We should get rid of the anti-union restrictions that have now been deployed very forcefully in the last six years and let it be free choice.

If people don't want to join a union, this is America. But if people do want to join a union , they should not be coerced, harassed and intimidated.

How would you approach immigration reform?

We've got to do everything simultaneously. You can't do just one. It won't work.

We've got to secure our borders with more personnel and technology. We've got to enforce our immigration laws so that employers are not violating them and exploiting workers. We have to provide more assistance to local communities. They don't set national policy on immigration but they're often left with the expenses of education, health care and law enforcement. We have to do more to stimulate our neighbors to the south to have a better economic future. People there are voting with their feet because they can't have a decent life.

We have to deal with the 12 million or so people who are here. I want to get them out of the shadows because I want to know who's in our country. Some of the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their visas and nobody knew who they were, where they were or what they were up to. You can't track them if you don't know who they are.

You're not going to get them out of the shadows if you're standing there telling them they're going to be deported. Now, we're going to deport all the criminals, make no mistake about it. But if you're a hardworking person and you're doing the best you can and you're raising your kids right, we're going to give you a chance if you pay a fine, pay all your taxes, if you try to learn English, to have an earned path to citizenship. You can't jump the line. It may take years, but you won't be living in fear and you can continue doing the work that is helping to support this economy.

With the president threatening to veto Democratic legislation on Iraq, what are the remaining options?

We're trying to convince the president to change course in Iraq. He has the power to veto. It's very hard to get the votes to override a veto, but we're going to keep doing what we can to send a message that we should begin withdrawing our troops and we should change direction in getting the Iraqis to take more responsibility.

You're in Las Vegas. Are you a gambler?

Well, I'm running for president (laughs). I'm a political gambler. I'm not much of a financial gambler.

Michael J. Mishak can be reached at 259-2347 or at michael.mishak@lasvegassun.com.