[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22660-22662]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 22661]]

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 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?

[[Page 22662]]

  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.

                          ____________________