H.R. 3981, To reclassify fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund as offsetting collections

The Committee's consideration of H.R. 3981 was precipitated by several unfortunate events including an inadequate budget request submitted by the Administration; an inadequate level of funding from the House Appropriations Committee, which set funding at $131 million, rather than the $880 million the Department of Energy (DOE) says it needs; and many years of diversion of ratepayers funds from the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund.

On several occasions this Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has attempted to reform the Nuclear Waste Fund. In the 104th Congress, the Committee passed H.R. 1020 by a vote of 30-4; in the 105th, H.R. 1270 was passed by a vote of 43-3; and in the 106th, H.R. 45 was passed by a 40-6 vote. While none of these efforts was ever enacted, they garnered wide support in the Committee because they represented thoughtful, bipartisan efforts to safeguard ratepayers' contributions. Unfortunately, H.R. 3981 does not meet the high standard set by these past efforts.

First, unlike past efforts, H.R. 3981 would do nothing to bind the appropriators' hands to ensure that each and every dollar of future ratepayer contributions to the Fund goes to the Yucca Mountain program. Diversion of ratepayer funds by the Appropriations Committee has been a chief obstacle to the program's success and must be dealt with in any legislative attempt to reform the Fund. Second, and most importantly, H.R. 3981 does nothing to recover any part of the nearly $15 billion in ratepayer contributions that have accumulated in the Fund since its inception. For example, the ratepayers of Michigan have contributed nearly $500 million; ratepayers in Texas over $700 million; and ratepayers in Illinois, a staggering $2.7 billion. Again, this is an issue of utmost importance that must be addressed in any reform effort. Finally, it must be noted that the need for this bill, initially proposed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is unclear. On May 4, 2004, Ranking Member John D. Dingell wrote to OMB to request whether the agency could take administrative action to correct the funding shortfall for FY 2005. As we write these views we have yet to receive a response.

The Majority chose not to consider other funding proposals that would have protected ratepayer investments. For example, a user fee, like the provision included in H.R. 1270 as passed by the House during the 105th Congress, would have ensured that every dollar collected from ratepayers goes to the Yucca Mountain program. An alternative, which would achieve the same effect, is a one-year direct spending option to ensure that the Secretary spends the full $749 million received from ratepayers in FY 2005 on the Yucca Mountain project.

John D. Dingell
Karen McCarthy
Ted Strickland
Rick Boucher
Bart Gordon
Gene Green
Tom Allen