Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I recall it very well. The other side was negotiating with the Senator from North Dakota and myself. On the floor, they were saying, ``Oh, no, we have no intention of using Social Security surpluses. We have no intention of doing that.'' But right in that room, right in that Cloakroom, they were telling us, ``Well, yes, we are going to use them, but we will stop doing it in the year 2008.'' First they said, ``We will stop doing it in the year 2012,'' and we checked and we found out they were going to be using trillions of dollars of Social Security surpluses by that time. We said absolutely not. They went back out and came back in and said, ``Well, we will stop using the Social Security surpluses in 2008.'' Again, they would have taken over $1 trillion of Social Security surpluses, spent every dime, every penny, and then said they would balance the budget. What a fraud that would be. You know, as I was thinking about it, in considering my vote on that question, I thought if I was the only vote in this Chamber against that proposition, and if every one of my constituents was on the other side, I would vote no. Because I would never want it said of me that I had helped to put in the Constitution of the United States, the organic law of this country, the document that has made this the greatest country in human history, something that says you balance the budget when you have looted trust funds in order to call it balanced. I just want to conclude by saying, there is gridlock here. There is gridlock. And there is gridlock because the majority has tried to stifle the rights of the minority. They have tried to dictate legislative results. That is not the American way. That is not democracy. That is not the constitutional role of the U.S. Senate. The way to get things done here is to respect the legitimate rights of everyone, to respect everyone and to work together. When we do that, we get things done. We got the minimum wage passed that way. We got the telecommunications bill passed that way. We got a substantial package of tax relief for small business and reform of pension laws of this country that way. If anybody is serious about trying to get things done, the way to achieve results is to work together. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague from North Dakota for this time. Mr. President, I was in my office this morning listening to activity in the Chamber of the Senate, and I must say I was amazed to hear the charges leveled at the minority side by those in the majority. I was listening in my office, and I heard a litany of complaints against the minority for bringing gridlock to this Chamber. Mr. President, it was as if the majority has forgotten that they were once in the minority and it is though they have forgotten that they are now in the majority and they are controlling the flow of business in this Chamber. I especially found it fascinating that our friends across the aisle accuse us of stopping Government when it was their side who shut down the entire Government just a year ago--shut down the entire Government in order to try to dictate the results of the legislative process. It was their side that shut down the entire Government of the United States to try to dictate the results in this Chamber. That is not the way this Chamber is supposed to function. It is not the way democracy is supposed to function. If we go back and try to recall what they were trying to do, I think we can understand why they had to try to be so heavy-handed. What was it they were trying to do a year ago? They were trying to cut Medicare $270 billion in order to provide a $245 billion tax cut that would have been directed mainly at the wealthiest among us. That is what they were up to. And there was a reaction against that because it was too heavy-handed. The other side themselves described what they were trying to do as ``a revolution.'' That is what they were seeking to impose on the American people, a revolution, and they did not want anybody standing in their way. They wanted to trample minority rights. They wanted to proceed. They had the arrogance of power, and they abused their power. And as a result there was a strong reaction against them not only in this Chamber but in the country as well because the American people did not want a revolution. They wanted change; they wanted us to get our fiscal house in order; they wanted to reform the welfare system; they wanted this country to work better; they wanted more opportunity; but they did not want a revolution, and they did not want folks taking from those who are middle class to give to those who are the wealthiest among us. That was not what the American people wanted. The other side has engaged in a whole series of tactics to try to choke off the rights of the minority. We use a lot of words around here that are foreign to most people--cloture, cloture motion. What do those things mean? For most people it is not in their vocabulary. Most people I talk to back home in North Dakota have no idea what cloture is. I am not sure my colleagues understand all of what cloture means. Very simply, the tactic that has been engaged by the other side is to prevent the minority here from being able to offer amendments. Now, that is basic to the legislative process. The majority leader said yesterday, ``I just learned this tactic from your leader.'' No, they did not. Not once when we were in the majority did we lay down cloture motions on bills that could be amended unless there was an agreement by the two sides that were in dispute, and that only happened once. That only happened once, that a cloture motion was laid down which choked off amendments on the day the bill was introduced. And the only time we did was when there was agreement between the two sides in dispute. The other side has engaged in that practice repeatedly, laying down a cloture motion to choke off, to prevent the minority from offering amendments, to act as though the minority is not even here, to act as though the Democratic Party does not exist in the U.S. Senate, to act as though we have one-party rule. Mr. President, we do not have one-party rule, and we are not going to have one-party rule in this country or in this Chamber, and the majority, I hope, will recognize that that kind of dictatorial stance has led us to the gridlock we have today. They want to know why there is gridlock? It is because they have tried to choke off legitimate minority rights. That is not democratic, that is not American, and it is not going to be accepted. There is another way. There is another way. We see what works. We see, when we work together and we respect each other, that things can actually get done here. This week we got the minimum wage bill through this Chamber by an overwhelming vote. This week we got through this Chamber a significant package of tax cuts for small businesses and reforms in the pension system and a whole series of other measures to assist small business. How did it happen? It happened by working together, not by one side, in a heavyhanded, arrogant way, trying to dictate to the other side. That way creates gridlock. But, instead, if we work together, if we respect each other, things can actually get done here. It happened in the telecommunications bill this year--a major piece of legislation--when both sides were allowed to participate in the legislative process. I hope the majority will remember, this is an institution with two sides. This is an institution that was formed by our forefathers so that minority rights would not be trampled. This is a body that was formed by our forefathers to prevent a monopoly of power. This is a body that was formed by our forefathers to prevent the arrogance of power from trampling the legitimate rights of the minority. I heard other things said on the floor this morning that require a response. I heard the attack on the President for vetoing some of the bills that were passed by the Republican majority. You bet the President vetoed some of those bills. He should have vetoed them. They were opposed by a majority of the American people. The American people did not want to have a $270 billion cut in Medicare in order to finance tax cuts that disproportionately went to the wealthiest in our country. That is not what the American people wanted. Of course the President vetoed that legislation. I applaud him for it. He did exactly the right thing, and the American people agreed with him. I also heard on the floor of the Senate this morning that we defeated the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I am very proud to have been one who rose in opposition to that phony balanced budget amendment. Boy, if there was ever a hoax tried to be perpetrated on the American people it was that so-called balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I tell you, as more people found out how they were proposing to balance the budget by looting every penny of Social Security trust fund surplus over the next 7 years and call that a balanced budget, the American people would be in overwhelming opposition to it. That is not any kind of honest balancing of the budget. If a private company tried to take the retirement funds of their employees and throw those into the company's pot and call that a balanced budget, they would be in violation of Federal law. They would be headed to a Federal institution, and it would not be the Congress of the United States. They would be headed to a Federal prison, because that is a violation of Federal law. But that is exactly what our friends on the other side were proposing, that we have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that would have enshrined in the Constitution of the United States the definition of a balanced budget that included looting every penny of Social Security trust fund surplus over the next 7 years to call it a balanced budget. They were going to take $525 billion of Social Security surpluses, throw those into the pot, and call it a balanced budget. What a charade. What a hoax, to call that a balanced budget.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. That would be a dry cask storage?

Mr. CONRAD. It would cost $1.3 billion for the interim site itself?

Mr. CONRAD. Well, do we have any estimate of once you have established this site--which would cost $1.3 billion initially, and have on top of that the transportation cost--what the annual operating cost of that facility would be?

Mr. CONRAD. About $30 million a year. We are talking about, obviously, a very substantial expenditure. Is this an expenditure by the Federal Government, out of the Federal coffers, the $1.3 billion?

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. So we do not have anything from the National Academy of Sciences, for example, or anything from the National Institutes of Health? We do not have anything from any of the relevant agencies or departments that would say to us that this 100-millirem standard is one that meets some scientific test; is that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. Then the question is, what is the alternative? If we go to a temporary storage in the State of Nevada, what would the cost of that approach be? Do you have an estimate of that?

Mr. CONRAD. So that would be the sites that would be at some 100 locations where we have nuclear power facilities around the country; is that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. Again, I would like to go back to the question of cost, if I could, because I think that is an important consideration in anything we do around here to anybody who appreciates, as the Senator from Nevada does, the intense budget pressure that we are under. The first question I always ask my staff on any legislation that is brought to me is, ``What does it cost?'' Could the Senator from Nevada tell me what the estimated cost is of this temporary storage facility?

Mr. CONRAD. They have made a specific recommendation with respect to the potential risk, and they have asserted that a 10- to 30-millirem standard is appropriate. But this legislation has a 100-millirem standard; is that right?

Mr. CONRAD. If I might further inquire, do either of the Senators from Nevada--the Senator who currently has the floor--know what would the cost be of this interim storage facility?

Mr. CONRAD. That is with an ``M,'' not a ``B''?

Mr. CONRAD. Let me ask this question. We do not have any nuclear facility in North Dakota. We have some customers in North Dakota who are part of the NSP. NSP has a nuclear plant in Minnesota. So some of our customers in North Dakota have been paying into a fund for some period of time to handle their spent fuel. But as I am hearing the Senator, we could have here a transfer of costs to other taxpayers in North Dakota to take on what would be a Federal facility. In other words, the taxpayers of North Dakota, most of whom have not been benefited by nuclear power, would be asked to pay as Federal taxpayers the Federal share of this facility that would be located in Nevada. So would I be correct in assuming that North Dakota taxpayers would be asked to take on this burden which has been created by an industry that has been benefiting folks largely not in the State of North Dakota?

Mr. CONRAD. So it is loaded by a factor of 35.

Mr. CONRAD. The question that I have is this. The Federal Government is going to take on this expenditure, the $1.3 billion; is that financed by the ratepayers, or does this come out of the Federal Treasury, the $1.3 billion?

Mr. CONRAD. Their judgment is that it ought to be left in the locations where it is today, and to the extent that the ponds that are the current repository are filling that they move those quantities to dry cask storage. Is that the essence of their recommendation?

Mr. CONRAD. Then that would be their recommendation. In those places where the ponds have reached their capacity, or about to reach their capacity, those quantities be moved to dry cask storage on the spot, not be transported to an interim facility, but wait for the long-term repository.

Mr. CONRAD. If I could just finish by asking my colleague, what is the schedule for the creation and development of a permanent repository? Is that something that is anticipated to be done in 10 years or 20 years?

Mr. CONRAD. That would be a decision made.

Mr. CONRAD. At that point would it be operational?

Mr. CONRAD. Thirteen or fourteen years from now.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?