Nevada delegation small but resourceful

Wednesday, June 3, 1998 | 9:54 a.m.

Nevada's four-member congressional delegation is one of the nation's smallest, but it successfully has used a variety of procedural maneuvers to keep high-level nuclear waste from the state.

The four lawmakers have used the filibuster, forcing business in Congress to a standstill. They've halted congressional committee meetings that were conducted illegally to discuss proposed legislation targeting Nevada to store nuclear waste. They've even used rare tactics to declare a bill on nuclear waste unlawful.

So far, the delays have worked. But the state's delegates fear that approving even a temporary dump as proposed at the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, would make a permanent repository at nearby Yucca Mountain a certainty.

In the all-important category of counting votes, the Nevada delegation's anti-dump position, led by Democratic Sens. Harry Reid and Richard Bryan, is tenuous at best.

The House voted 307-120 last October in favor of an above-ground facility for temporary storage of spent reactor fuel to open at the Test Site as early as 2002. Since only 290 votes are needed to override a veto, anti-dump forces must convince at least 18 House members to change their positions.

Six months before the House acted, the Senate voted 65-34 in favor of its own bill for a temporary dump, falling just shy of the 67 needed to override a veto. But Reps. John Ensign and Jim Gibbons, both Nevada Republicans, received assurances from House leaders that they would reject the Senate version because it contained tax and revenue measures. Only the House can initiate such measures.

"When I first came to Congress (in 1995) they said Yucca Mountain was inevitable, but three years later we still don't have a bill," Ensign said. "They said it's a train you can't stop, but we've been able to stop it. All of us in the Nevada delegation, I think, have done an admirable job fighting this thing."

On Monday, Ensign said he received assurances from House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., that the lower chamber wouldn't vote again on a temporary-storage bill this year even if one passed the Senate. Then on Tuesday, the Senate fell four votes shy of the 60 needed to end a planned filibuster by Reid and Bryan that will prevent the bill from moving forward in the near future.

Even before those developments, A.C. Robison, a Las Vegas consultant for the nuclear industry, conceded that Congress may not have enough time to pass the legislation this year if there are significant delays.

Congress still must handle numerous appropriations bills, along with a massive transportation package and potential Internal Revenue Service reforms. And Congress must do it on a compressed schedule that includes the August recess and proposed adjournment by Oct. 9.

"I still see Yucca Mountain as inevitable," Robison said. "It doesn't matter if it comes as an interim storage facility in five years or as a permanent repository 10 years from now."

The nuclear power industry, which spends millions of dollars annually on campaign contributions and lobbying, has urged Congress to take immediate action on nuclear waste. The industry doesn't want to wait for a permanent repository to be built.

Instead, it wants the federal government to make good on the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act that required the Department of Energy to begin accepting the nation's high-level nuclear waste by last Jan. 31.

Nevada's congressional delegation doesn't want the nuclear waste in this state because of transportation and safety concerns. Nevada also doesn't produce any of the waste. Bryan and Reid have even taken to the road, urging cities such as Denver and St. Louis to oppose shipments of nuclear waste through their transportation corridors.

The Nevadans are in a real-life David-vs.-Goliath battle, assisted by a mere $72,000 that Clark County and Las Vegas will combine to spend this year on lobbying on the issue. There are also several environmental groups lending a hand, but they have little money and minimal access to congressional leaders.

The state's delegates view President Clinton as their ace in the hole. They believe that even if at least 67 senators initially approve a bill for a temporary dump, enough lawmakers would vote against a veto override if urged to do so by the president.

Bryan and Reid wouldn't disclose which senators fit into that category. But the potential pool may include Democrats who supported legislation creating a temporary dump site last year but who may need Clinton's help during re-election bids this fall.

"We have enough votes to sustain the president's veto," Bryan said. "They will hang in there with us. Obviously we're going to throw every roadblock in the way that we can."

Gibbons said he plans to lure at least 18 additional House members into the anti-dump camp by concentrating on representatives from states that don't generate nuclear power.

But pro-dump advocates aren't willing to concede that Clinton is inflexible in his position. Last November, pro-dump Democratic Sens. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, Patty Murray of Washington, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Max Cleland of Georgia wrote a letter urging the president to change his position.

"The (Senate) bill attracted Democratic support largely because of environmental changes made by the bill's sponsors -- changes which were made in response to your criticisms as well as our own concerns," they wrote.

"Among the improvements were realistic construction and operation schedules for a temporary storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev. (if a facility is constructed there), and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act."

Southern Nevadans familiar with the nuclear waste issue identified Democratic Sens. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin as the senators most likely to switch sides and vote for a temporary dump. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear lobby in Washington, has been running advertisements or contacting journalists in those and other states to sway public opinion.

Bingaman, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, proposed an unsuccessful amendment last year that would have prevented nuclear waste from being stored temporarily in Nevada if Yucca Mountain wasn't deemed safe for a permanent repository. But he has supported other aspects of proposed waste legislation that have targeted Nevada.

If Bingaman switches sides, he'll bring other Democrats with him, said Robison, who was a top aide to former Nevada Sen. Paul Laxalt.

"He's very open-minded on things having to do with nuclear waste," Robison said. "He's a lot like Paul Laxalt. He will get answers to his concerns but he is a statesman who will do what's best for the nation."

But Bingaman's spokeswoman, Kristen Ludecke, said the senator will vote for a waste bill only if it includes his amendment, which was backed by Reid and Bryan. Bingaman and the other 38 senators who supported his amendment don't want the waste to go to Nevada if it then must be moved elsewhere.

"The senator wants the temporary site to be located near the permanent site," she said. "Sen. Bingaman doesn't consider himself to be a swing vote. He wants to cast a responsible vote. He's more focused on the substance of the bill than who is with him."

Durbin is mentioned as a possible swing vote because Illinois has the most commercial nuclear reactors in the nation. That state's other senator, fellow Democrat Carol Moseley-Braun, has favored the temporary dump.

The Nuclear Energy Institute has spent about $200,000 on media advertisements in Illinois to try to get Durbin's vote. But earlier this year he demanded that a news wire service retract a statement in which pro-dump Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, was quoted as saying that the Illinois senator would back the waste bill.

Durbin told the Sun he remains opposed to legislation for a temporary dump unless he can be assured that the waste can be transported harmlessly and to a safe location. He also continues to object to attempts by pro-dump advocates to lower the acceptable radiation standards for air quality around Yucca Mountain and for the aquifers below.

Like Durbin, Feingold comes from a nuclear power state. And like Durbin, Feingold has a Democratic colleague in Wisconsin, Sen. Herbert Kohl, who has voted for the temporary dump.

Feingold is concerned about the transport of nuclear waste around the country. He also opposes establishing a temporary dump in Nevada if Yucca Mountain is deemed inappropriate as a permanent repository.

"I want to be sure that once waste leaves Wisconsin, it does so permanently," Feingold said. "Northern Wisconsin was among the final sites examined before Yucca Mountain was selected for a full evaluation. I want to be sure that establishment of an interim storage site does not delay or prejudice establishment of a permanent, geologic disposal site at Yucca Mountain.

"Otherwise, I am concerned that we may risk reopening the national debate over where our high-level nuclear material should be permanently stored, and Wisconsin may again look like an appealing location."

There are 18 other senators who have voted against temporary-dump legislation but come from states that have generated nuclear power. They are potential targets for pressure from the nuclear industry.

Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Scott Peterson expressed confidence that Congress will pass a veto-proof bill this year. One reason, he said, is that 41 states are trying to get rid of nuclear waste, either from commercial reactors or federal weapons facilities.

Many states have joined nuclear utilities in a lawsuit against the Energy Department, demanding that the federal government abide by the 1982 law covering nuclear waste. The legal battle is being waged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Another aspect of the waste issue that troubles anti-dump forces is the solid Republican support for the legislation in the Senate. In Nevada, most Democrats and Republicans are united against nuclear waste disposal. But last year, 53 of the Senate's 55 Republicans voted for the temporary dump.

That figure isn't lost on Reid, who noted the irony of GOP leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and Sens. Don Nickles of Oklahoma and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky hosting campaign fund-raisers in Southern Nevada.

"The people of Nevada should be alarmed at Republicans who scoop up all the money they can in Las Vegas and then go back and vote for the nuclear waste bill," Reid said.

In a year when Congress has been accused by critics of doing little because of infighting within the GOP majority, Republicans are most apt to push bills on which they share common ground.

Former Rep. James Bilbray, a Las Vegas Democrat, has run up against the Republican leadership as an anti-dump lobbyist for Clark County and Las Vegas. He said he attempted last year to get Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., to vote against the proposal for a temporary dump because, although Oklahoma doesn't generate nuclear power, it would be a major corridor for waste shipments to Nevada. Bilbray said, however, that Inhofe was pressured by GOP leaders to join the pro-dump camp.

Ensign said Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., one of only two Senate Republicans in the anti-dump camp, will not switch sides.

The other Republican in that camp, Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, also has said he won't switch his vote because of transportation concerns. Denver has been proposed as a major corridor for transport of nuclear waste. Like many Democrats, Campbell has opposed interim storage in Nevada unless Yucca Mountain is deemed suitable for a permanent repository.

Senate Democrats are more divided on the issue. Thirty-two Democrats voted against the bill last year and 12 sided with the GOP majority. Of the latter, all but one represent states that have generated nuclear power.

Gibbons argued that congressional support for waste legislation has always been bipartisan. After all, it was a Democrat, former Sen. J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, who authored the so-called "Screw Nevada" bill in 1987 that selected Yucca Mountain as the only site for a repository study. And it was a Democratic-controlled Congress that passed the bill.

Ensign, who is vying for Reid's seat this fall, took the senator to task earlier this year for accepting a campaign contribution from Johnston, who is now a lobbyist for the nuclear industry. But Reid has said he enjoyed a close friendship with Johnston in the Senate despite their differences on nuclear waste. Johnston has helped Nevada on other issues such as mining, Reid has said.

Even if Congress fails to pass a veto-proof bill for a temporary dump this year, the November general elections could spell disaster for anti-dump forces worried about 1999 and beyond.

Of the five Senate seats that will be vacated by retiring senators, four are held by lawmakers who voted against the temporary dump. The Republicans believe they will pick up at least one new seat now held by retiring Democrats in Kentucky and Arkansas.

Given recent history, it is more likely that Republicans who win Democratic seats would vote for the temporary dump than it would be for Democrats who displace Republicans to join the anti-dump side.

In addition, advocates for a temporary dump are gaining ground in the Senate because the 65 votes they recorded last year were two more than they received for a similar bill in 1996. Wyden and fellow Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., accounted for the difference, joining the majority last year after siding with the anti-nuclear camp in 1996.

If anti-dump forces can fend off the nuclear industry through the end of the Clinton presidency, the next major hurdle will be the presidential election in 2000. Vice President Al Gore is the only major candidate so far who has vowed to fight temporary-dump legislation.

"If Gore wins the presidency, we've got hope," Bilbray said.

Fellow Democratic presidential contender Richard Gephardt, the House minority leader from Missouri, voted against the temporary dump but has accepted large campaign contributions from the nuclear industry. He is not thought to be as solidly opposed to a temporary dump in Nevada as is Gore, Bilbray said.

Neither are potential GOP presidential contenders such as former Vice President Dan Quayle and Sen. John Ashcroft of Missouri. Ashcroft has voted for temporary-dump legislation, and Quayle worked in the Bush administration, which favored shipment of nuclear waste to Nevada.

If Congress approves a temporary dump in Nevada by a veto-proof margin, Bilbray predicted a two-pronged fight, with Nevada taking its states' rights battle to the U.S. Supreme Court and environmental groups suing the government over transportation and safety concerns.

Harry Swainston, a senior deputy under Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa, said the state could argue that its "police powers" as stipulated in the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution have been violated. He said those powers are more important than its ability to levy taxes and take land through eminent domain because, without such authority, "you have total disorder."

He said the state had a constitutional right to pass a law in 1989 that prohibits storage of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada.

"What it amounts to is whether the state is being deprived of an important facet of police powers by being forced to host this nuclear waste without its consent," Swainston said.

archive