Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 87, the Yucca Mountain Resolution, to approve the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Since the advent of nuclear power nearly 50 years ago, we have been concerned about the problem of waste generated by the production of electricity. Today we are considering a decisive step towards a solution to the dilemma of high-level nuclear waste as mandated by the Act. But the path forward is not risk free.

There are problems associated with the siting. The General Accounting Office has raised serious questions regarding the seismology, stability of the repository, and long-term effects of heat, water and chemical processes in and around the waste containers.

I am concerned about dangers posed by transporting thousands of tons, and thousands of shipments, of high-level nuclear waste through 43 states. Each truck could potentially carry more long-lived radioactivity than released at Hiroshima. I am sympathetic to those States that face the risk of transportation-related accidents or terrorist attacks. Because of our experience in the Pacific with nuclear testing and resulting exposure to radioactivity, I urge caution when dealing with long-lived radioactive material.

We have similar transport problems on the world's sea lanes. Last week, Japan returned a shipment of mixed plutonium-uranium oxide fuel (MOX) to the United Kingdom because it was sent to Japan with falsified safety data and without proper safety checks. The safety and security of nuclear waste, whether transported on the highways or the high seas, should be of great concern to Americans. During my tenure in the Senate, I have closely monitored the safety and security of shipments of MOX from Europe to Japan for nuclear power purposes. On numerous occasions I have voiced concerns with transportation plans and associated security measures for the shipments of nuclear material in the Pacific. Recent warnings and alarm over the threat of procurement and use of nuclear materials for crude explosive devices known as "dirty bombs" heightens the need to be vigilant and careful in the transport of nuclear material.

I am not convinced that the plan proposed by the Administration has addressed all of these risks. Clearly, we can't walk away from the nuclear waste dilemma, and the nation must address this intractable problem. We need a scientific rather than a political solution. In a new approach, Congress should not pre-select a site but provide a process that leads to a scientifically sound solution. Mr. President, I will oppose the motion to proceed, as I am not convinced that this is the best path forward.