Mr. Chairman, today we will be reporting a number of very good bills and, unfortunately, one that I must oppose. To save my colleagues' time, let me first explain the reasons I will be opposing the Nuclear Waste Fund bill, and then make some brief remarks about the other bills before us.

For several congresses, I have been pleased to join with the Committee Chairman on a number of bipartisan efforts on the Nuclear Waste Fund. I have been guided by three central principles: First, nuclear ratepayer funds should not be subject to raids by appropriators and budgeteers. Second, the $15 billion that has already been paid by ratepayers, but not spent on the program, should be recovered and made available to nuclear waste activities. Third, the waste program should receive the funds it needs to accomplish its mission.

Unfortunately, the bill before us, and the substitute to be offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], fails each of these tests. When stripped to its essentials, the bill is an attempt to provide the Appropriations Committee with about $750 million in additional budget authority in each of the next five years, in hopes that some of it will be spent on the nuclear waste program. Questions have been raised whether this budget gimmickry will even work. The amendment by the gentleman from Texas would not solve any of these problems. In fact, it seems to be an invitation to the appropriators to spend just $576 million of the $749 million expected to be collected from ratepayers next year, and $170 million less than the Administration says is needed this year.

It is clear to me that recent actions, including irresponsible budget resolutions and tax cuts that have turned surpluses into deficits, have further threatened the Nuclear Waste Fund. Out of the unexpended $15 billion in the Fund, Michigan ratepayers have paid over $500 million, and ratepayers in most of my colleagues' districts also have a large stake. I have written to the Office of Management and Budget to see how they intend to protect this investment, but I have received no response. Unfortunately, this bill provides no solution. Quite simply, it is bad for ratepayers, bad for taxpayers, and bad for the nuclear waste program.

The spyware bill has a number of excellent provisions that are worthy of support. Chief among them is the requirement that consumers opt in before technological intrusions are permitted. I intend to vote for this package, but I also note the unnecessary haste in bringing it before the Committee, and I regret that this process prevented a more deliberate consideration of consumer, regulator, and industry concerns.

I support the three health bills on our agenda: H.R. 2023, the Asthmatic Schoolchildren's Treatment and Health Management Act, addresses the problem faced by asthmatic children who are prohibited by state law from bringing their medicines to school. S. 741, the Minor Use Minor Species Animal Drug Act reflects a delicate balance of the need to develop animal drugs with the need to protect humans and the environment from any adverse consequences, such as antibiotic resistance.

H.R. 4555, the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2004, which I am pleased to sponsor, reauthorizes a program that has saved lives through improved quality of screening and diagnostic mammographies.

Finally, I also support the Manager's amendment to H.R. 4600, the Junk Fax Prevention Act. This bipartisan bill strikes the proper balance between protecting consumers from unwanted faxes and permitting legitimate business communications.