On the recordJune 3, 2004
I have great respect for the junior Senator from South Carolina and his work on so many issues. He did a great service for many men and women in this country by leading a battle in getting health care coverage for the National Guard. There is a large percentage in our State serving in the National Guard in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I know my State thanks him on this. On this issue, we certainly disagree. I think it is a change in strategy, or at least a deal that has been cut behind closed doors, because I do view it as a change to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. That is the way my State views it. That is the way 20 newspapers across the country view it. That is the legal opinion of staff, that it is a change to the definition of what is high-level waste. I point out that South Carolina, up until the Senator's amendment, has been pretty consistent. I have an August 12, 2003, letter sent to the Secretary of Energy from the State of South Carolina, signed by the State of South Carolina saying DOE already has the tools it needs to address this issue; that it does not need to use a sledge hammer to get the job done, and goes ahead and says they should use the current definition of the law.
Source
govinfo.gov




