On the recordMay 20, 2004
The issue is that we have been trying to work with the author of this legislation on a compromise that would promote a dialog and a hearing. My staff has been working diligently since the language came out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This morning we learned without warning, without notice, that perhaps now they did not want to continue discussion on that, they did not want to continue discussion on how we brought this issue to light. I really did not want to spend the afternoon on the Senate floor. We had hoped we would actually propose a better process and procedure, but others want to move forward on changing the underlying bill, which in this amendment is still flawed. The proposed amendment by Senator Graham of South Carolina makes a bad situation slightly better but does not correct the underlying problem. And this Senator whose home state has one million gallons of nuclear waste flowing to the Columbia River--is going to be heard on the details of this proposal. The fact that we have not had a full public hearing on a significant change in 30 years of policy and 50 years of science is something that, if it takes me 5 hours to explain, I will take it.
Source
govinfo.gov




