[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 158 (Thursday, November 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11869-S11871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Mr. REID. Senator Ensign and I rise to address the Senate on
something we believe is extremely important.
For 20 years now, there have been attempts made to place high-level
nuclear waste in the deserts outside Las Vegas. We have always believed
that the process has not been fair. Originally, there was supposed to
be three sites selected under the 1982 act. Washington, Texas, and
Nevada were the three sites chosen.
In 1987, for various reasons, the two other sites were eliminated,
and so there is only one site now being focused. That is Yucca Mountain
in Nevada.
Let's assume that a person is charged with a crime and they learn
later that the prosecutor and the person representing the accused were
the same lawyer. People would be outraged. If you were in an automobile
accident and you had a trial and you suddenly
[[Page S11870]]
learned that the person representing you, the person injured, also
represented the insurance company, that would be unfair. That is what
we have just learned has been going on at Yucca Mountain.
We found that the attorney who was giving advice to Yucca Mountain
and being paid up to $16 million, this law firm also was representing
the nuclear power industry.
Senator Ensign will outline for anyone within the sound of our voices
how this came about that we learned that there was one law firm
representing both sides in effect.
Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the senior Senator from Nevada. Back in July of
this year, one of the local Las Vegas Sun reporters, Ben Grove, brought
out in a news report that there was a potential conflict of interest
involving a law firm based in Chicago, Winston & Strawn, which was
representing not only the nuclear power industry but also the
Department of Energy at the same time. We sent a letter together, dated
August 1, to the Inspector General for the Department of Energy, asking
that the inspector general look into this conflict of interest. Late
yesterday afternoon, the inspector general met with the senior Senator
from Nevada and myself and laid out the full report on their findings.
As it turns out, the inspector general said that there has been
virtually no clear evidence of a conflict of interest in his time
period that he has been doing these types of investigations. From
September 1999 until July 2001--and by the way, only because of the
reporters bringing this thing to the public did Winston & Strawn
terminate the relationship with the Energy Institute. But during that
period of time, this law firm represented both the Department of Energy
and the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Now, to paint what was going on there, the DOE had hired this law
firm to give them advice on the licensing process and the legal process
for building a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. During the time
that they were supposed to be getting unbiased information, they were
being retained by the lobbying group that is pushing Yucca Mountain to
be built. This is a clear conflict of interest.
There were over 14 employees, from what we read in the report. This
report was released this morning publicly at 8 o'clock. It is on the
Internet. But there were 14 employees that had done work both for the
Department of Energy and for the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Potentially, up to $16 million is the total amount of lawyer's fees
that the DOE could be paying out to Winston & Strawn for supposedly
getting unbiased information. So I tell the senior Senator from Nevada,
with this information that we have received--and I know that my friend
agrees--there should be a full investigation by the Department of
Energy and by the Nuclear Regulatory Institute, and anybody else
involved in the licensing of Yucca Mountain, of how severely tainted
was the information they received on building Yucca Mountain. This is
supposed to be unbiased science and legal information. Was the science
biased now? Did the Department of Energy buy biased science? They have
obviously bought biased legal work.
So there needs to be a full investigation of this whole process. We
have some very serious questions to come before the U.S. Senate next
year. The Department of Energy is ready to make their recommendation in
a favorable fashion on the suitability for Yucca Mountain. We think we
need to put the brakes on all of this and take a whole fresh new look.
So, Mr. President, I say to the senior Senator from Nevada that I
think we have some serious, serious matters before us that need the
attention of quite a few people as we are going forward.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Nevada has the
floor.
Mr. REID. As the Senator, my friend, from Nevada has indicated, 14
employees working for this law firm were, in effect, giving advice to
both sides. This isn't like representing somebody who may have had a
stop sign violation. This is a law firm that has represented the
Department of Energy in an attempt to go forward on a licensing
procedure that affects the life and safety of tens of millions of
Americans. This not only involves the State of Nevada but the rest of
this country. The nuclear waste is going to have to travel across this
country on highways and railways.
The advice the Department of Energy has been getting from this law
firm is tainted. This is a clear case of bias. It is an ethical
meltdown. What the people of Nevada need now is a full accounting of
how far this misconduct has spread. What my friend, the junior Senator
from Nevada, has said is, has this gone over into the scientific
calculations and considerations made.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ensign and I both
have 20 minutes, and if the Chair will advise us when we have 2 minutes
left.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. The people of Nevada need a full accounting of how far this
misconduct has spread. The junior Senator from Nevada is a scientist.
He is a doctor of veterinary medicine. He knows how easy it is to
misinterpret, miscalculate scientific calculations.
I am a lawyer. I know what it means to have misconduct, to commit
malpractice. Certainly, that is what you have here. This is an ethical
meltdown. I think what this law firm of Winston & Strawn should be
doing today is searching for lawyers to represent them because what
they have done is, if not illegal, certainly unethical.
Mr. President, we have done this legislatively with the support of
various administrations. Each Cabinet agency we have has an inspector
general who is independent. The inspector general doesn't have to
account to the Secretary of Energy. He is independent. Their terms go
through different administrations. He was appointed during the Clinton
administration, now in the Bush administration. He is giving the best
advice that he can give. What he has determined is that this is one of
the most serious ethical violations they have ever found in that
department, and I think rightfully so.
The American people have spent millions of dollars on a biased
report, biased advice given to the Department of Energy.
We can't blame this on the Department of Energy. We blame them for a
lot of things, but we can't blame them for this conflict of interest.
When they were filing an application to get this account, they asked
questions such as: Do you have a conflict of interest? Do you represent
parties adverse to giving good advice to the DOE? They said, without
any qualifications, no.
I want to ask my friend from Nevada a question. The Senator is a
scientist. He has a degree in veterinary medicine. He is a doctor. It
is easy to spin science the wrong way, if you choose to do so, and not
be fair; is that correct?
Mr. ENSIGN. If the Senator will yield, I will go even further and say
that, in science, one of the reasons you even do what are called double
blind studies is so that you don't prejudice yourself in going forward
with a potential conclusion. What I mean by that--and I will try to
give an example on this particular project--you would not want to have
people who are saying upfront that Yucca Mountain is safe for a nuclear
repository and, therefore, we are going to investigate it and prove
that it is safe. You want people to look at it who are going to say: We
don't know whether Yucca Mountain is safe or suitable for a nuclear
repository or not, but we are going to do the investigation to find out
whether it is suitable.
That would be an unbiased view. And then on top of that, if you have
people who have a financial interest giving you information, you can
imagine how that can taint the whole process.
I say to the senior Senator from Nevada that the potential for bias
here in a scientific realm is very great and causes me great concern.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, DOE hired a biased lobbyist and an unethical
law firm. What stops them from having already purchased biased or
unethical science? Nothing.
I believe we need an independent scientific review of the science, an
independent review by scientists who have never received funding from
DOE for Yucca Mountain work.
With this review, we would have a program that could stand the light
of day. Until we do this, we have a tainted program, one that should be
stopped. This involves 43 of our United
[[Page S11871]]
States, with train and truck traffic going through every one of those
States. This is very serious.
Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Seven minutes remain.
Mr. REID. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I want to point out a couple other items
in this report. First, when the inspector general was giving us the
briefing, one of the things that was pointed out to us was that Winston
& Strawn had actually recognized in some of their internal documents a
potential conflict of interest.
Some of their senior people said that we need to put up some
firewalls within our firm to make sure if we have lawyers over here
working one way, that they are in no way in concert with some of the
lawyers working with DOE, say, versus the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Those firewalls were never put in place. Let me repeat, those
firewalls which could have potentially stopped the conflict of interest
were never put in place. Instead, 14 lawyers worked on both sides. If
this is not a conflict of interest, if this does not spark people's
outrage, not only at this law firm--by the way, upfront this law firm
was asked: Do you have any clients who would present a conflict of
interest?
When we let Government contracts, especially for law firms such as
this, they are always asked that same question. From what I
understand--and if the senior Senator, being a lawyer, will address
this--there are people within law firms, there are ethical panels that
review whether there are going to be problems representing one side or
the other side to make sure that ethical violations do not occur simply
because it is such a serious matter within the legal profession.
Will the senior Senator from Nevada address how that is set up within
law firms, the whole ethics committee, to make sure they do not have
these conflicts of interest?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to respond to the question of the junior
Senator from Nevada.
One of the things we discussed yesterday evening with the Office of
the Inspector General when they were going over the report they
released this morning is that law firms have built-in mechanisms to
prevent conflicts of interest. These large law firms can develop
conflicts of interest, so every case they take is submitted to a
committee. Even the relatively small law firms in Nevada that have 40,
50, 60 lawyers have an apparatus within them where every new file they
take is looked over for conflicts.
I am astounded that Winston & Strawn did not have such a program. If
they did not have such a program, that is malpractice. If they did have
a program and avoided it, that is an ethical violation. That is why I
have said several times today, I think they need to find themselves a
lawyer because what they have done is either criminal or unethical.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I want to point out one other item that is
in this document to show what a conflict of interest we have. Winston &
Strawn not only represented the Nuclear Energy Institute, but they also
were representing a company that manufactured the nuclear waste
containers. There is no company that would benefit more from having
Yucca Mountain built than the company that builds these nuclear waste
containers.
If they are representing people who are going to benefit financially
from this project going forward--obviously, the Nuclear Energy
Institute does as well--clearly the people who make the casks to store
the waste are going to benefit hugely financially.
Those same lawyers representing this firm over here and also trying
to give the Department of Energy unbiased information is so outrageous
it is hard to even conceive.
I hope all our colleagues will take a fresh look at this issue
because the Senate is going to be dealing with some very serious issues
when it comes to Yucca Mountain over the next 12 months.
I hope, regardless of how people have voted in the past, that my
colleagues will take a fresh look and say: Maybe we need a timeout on
this issue.
About $7 billion has already been spent on Yucca Mountain. We
appropriated another couple hundred million dollars this year. We are
talking a lot of money that is potentially being wasted, being put down
a rat hole. All of your colleagues need to take a fresh look at this
because the GAO has said it is going to cost over $50 billion more to
finish this project. That is serious money, and we need to take a fresh
look.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor to the senior Senator.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my final statement is, if this law firm,
Winston & Strawn, had firewalls set up to see if there was a conflict
of interest, these firewalls burned down. They burned to the ground.
This law firm, in my opinion, has burned to the ground. They should
refund the money to the Department of Energy, and I think the State Bar
Association of Illinois should look at proceedings against this law
firm.
What they have done gives not only lawyers a bad name but gives the
entire process dealing with Yucca Mountain a bad name. With Winston &
Strawn's malfeasance, malpractice, and unethical actions, I think they
should refund the money, I repeat, and find themselves a good lawyer
for the other activities in which they have been engaged.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________