I applaud Chairman Barton's willingness to tackle the pressing question of how to secure adequate funding for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Yucca Mountain waste repository program. It is a shame that the President's FY 2005 budget request did not adequately provide for this important year in the project's life. Much depends on DOE's ability to submit a well-conceived license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by year's end, but it is not realistic to expect this without sufficient funding.

As members of this Subcommittee know, I have been a champion of the repository program for many years - through the site characterization process, the Congressional approval of the President's designation of Yucca Mountain, and various efforts to ensure that ratepayers' contributions to the Nuclear Waste Fund are put to proper use. I want to again express my enduring disappointment in, and disapproval of, the actions of the budget, tax, and appropriations committees in this last regard. They have merrily plundered the Fund to subsidize unrelated programs and tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, and in so doing have committed nothing less than theft of a significant portion of the ratepayers' monies.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has reported several bills in prior Congresses that attempt to reform various aspects of the repository program. Each of them - H.R. 1020, H.R. 1270, and most recently H.R. 45 - were fully bipartisan products. Each would have helped safeguard ratepayers' contributions.

The bill before us raises a number of difficult questions. First, we do not know whether it is necessary. On May 14, 2004, I wrote the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) asking whether it could accomplish the goals of this bill through administrative action. OMB has not responded, so we have no guidance on this important query.

Second, would the bill do anything to bind the appropriators' hands, so as to ensure that each and every dollar of future ratepayer contributions to the Fund goes to the Yucca Mountain program? The answer is NO! I note that it is technically possible to write legislation to accomplish this goal, as H.R. 1270, a bill passed by the House in the 105th Congress, did by converting the Fund to a user fee. Another alternative would be "direct spending," an approach that has particular appeal in terms of addressing the FY

2005 funding dilemma. The only problem with these approaches is that the folks who have diverted ratepayers' monies in the past - the appropriators, the budgeteers and tax committees - oppose these ideas because these approaches would work by putting an end to the committees' games.

Third, the nearly $15 billion balance in the Waste Fund created by past ratepayer contributions has been diverted by the Administration and previous Congresses. Does the bill do anything to recover that money? No, it does not. Unlike H.R. 45, a bill reported by the Committee in the 106th Congress and the energy bill during the 107th, this bill does not seek to take the entire Waste Fund "off budget" or otherwise protect it from dissipation. Instead, it essentially sanctifies and codifies the diversion. I find this particularly difficult to accept, as Michigan ratepayers have invested nearly $500 million in this Fund. The current bill, while well intended, does nothing to wrest this money back and apply it to the intended purpose. As a result, ratepayers in Michigan and other states would continue to pay double for waste disposal - once to the Waste Fund, and once again for prolonged on-site storage. And so long as the diversion of funds persists, nuclear waste will continue to pile up.

If enacted, the bill before us would accomplish one significant reform. It would relieve the pressure imposed under current budget procedures, which pit DOE's requests for Yucca Mountain funding against other Department priorities. This is a necessary - but let me stress not sufficient - solution. Unless legislation limits the appropriators' latitude to divert future payments into the Fund, we haven't protected ratepayers. And until we restore the existing balance of the Fund to the Yucca Mountain program, we really have no right to continue asking ratepayers to contribute additional money to this project.

I wish I could be more supportive of Chairman Barton's proposal, but it does not compare favorably to past bills reported by this Committee. Though I understand his desire to help DOE out of the FY 2005 crisis created by the President's flawed budget request, I do not want to sacrifice important principles to the goal of helping the appropriators resolve their current dilemma in this way. I respect their role, but it is different and in the case of Yucca Mountain often at odds with that of this Committee. Our job is to ensure that the objectives of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and the bargain struck with ratepayers, are respected. This bill, however well intended, does not do that. So, I respectfully must disagree with the Chairman today. I appreciate his good will and pledge my support in looking for a better solution as the bill proceeds.

I thank my colleagues for their attention.