Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is an attempt to secure adequate funding for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Yucca Mountain waste repository program. Unfortunately, as was the case in subcommittee, the bill falls well short of its intended goal.

I have been a champion of the repository program for many years and throughout many battles, including approval of Yucca Mountain as the repository site. And I have worked to see that ratepayer money is put to its intended and proper use.

We are considering this legislation for two reasons: first, the President's FY2005 budget request did not adequately provide for this important year in the project's life; and second, the budget, tax, and appropriations committees have over the years, merrily plundered the Fund to subsidize unrelated programs and tax cuts for the wealthy, and in so doing have committed nothing less than theft of a significant portion of the ratepayers' monies.

This committee has a strong history of acting to correct this problem by passing bills that would have reformed various aspects of the repository program. Each of them, with bipartisan support, would have helped safeguard ratepayers' contributions.

While supporters of H.R. 3981 will claim this legislation meets the standard set by past efforts, a closer examination reveals that it does not.

First, we do not even know if this legislation 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. That question has been met with deafening silence and we are left with no guidance on this important query.

Second, the bill would do nothing to bind the appropriators' hands to ensure that each and every dollar of future ratepayer contributions to the Fund go to the Yucca Mountain program. We had good faith discussions with the majority on this point and offered the concepts of a user fee, which this committee has supported in the past, or a direct spending approach which would decisively solve the FY2005 funding dilemma. Unfortunately, neither offer was accepted by the majority.

Third, this legislation does nothing at all to recover the nearly $15 billion in ratepayer contributions that has been diverted by both the Administration and past Congresses. By not addressing this critical issue the bill essentially sanctions this deplorable practice. I find this particularly disturbing in light of the fact that Michigan ratepayers have invested nearly $500 million in this Fund.

If this bill is enacted - and I note the possibility of that happening is slim, at best - it would relieve the funding pressure imposed under current budget procedures. That is necessary but far from sufficient. By acting without placing a limit on the appropriators' ability to divert future ratepayer contributions, we are complicit to their thievery; by acting without restoring past contributions to the Fund we are condoning the loss of $15 billion and breaking the promise of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. That is not a position that I can support.

Though I understand the Majority's desire to help DOE out of the FY 2005 crisis created by the President's flawed budget request, I cannot recommend this course of action. I regret that we could not reach agreement on a bipartisan solution and urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.