Maria Cantwell: “let's go back for a second to what this issue is as it relates to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and what the underlying…”

“let's go back for a second to what this issue is as it relates to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and what the underlying change in this bill does. That is the question at hand. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle hope we can get rid of this issue in one afternoon--again, without public debate, without the scrutiny of changing the definition of highly radioactive waste. They think we should just pass what is in the underlying bill. It has only seen the daylight because of the objections of myself and other colleagues and the scrutiny of the press. That is what has gotten them now to offer the amendment on the floor. The amendment on the floor is not sufficient to strike the language relating to the reclassification of waste. So what is the issue? In 1982, when we passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act--I wasn't here but other Members were--basically we came up with a definition. We said: Highly radioactive material resulting from the processing of spent nuclear fuel, including the liquid waste produced in the reprocessing. . . . That is what this reactor did for us in World War II. It basically processed spent nuclear fuel and that liquid waste was then stored in tanks still at Hanford. That the solid material derived from such waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations. . . . So that is what we said high-level radioactive waste was.…”