Thank you for holding today's hearing. For many years I have been concerned about the misuse of monies contributed to the Nuclear Waste Fund by utility ratepayers.

As many Members will recall, our Committee reported a bill in 1999 that would have taken the Fund "off budget." That bill had two purposes - to restore the Fund to its intended purpose, and to ensure that the Department of Energy's (DOE) repository program would be adequately funded. It is a shame that bill was not enacted while the nation enjoyed a budgetary surplus, because it bothers our colleagues on the Budget Committee when we try to restore the Fund to its proper purpose - and the task only becomes harder when deficits loom large, as they do today.

It is encouraging, however, that the Administration at last has begun to grapple with the need to put funding for the repository program on sound footing. The Administration has proposed a change in law that will automatically direct all future ratepayer contributions into the nuclear waste program, with costs in excess of the revenues requiring further appropriations. Rep. Shimkus has introduced a similar proposal.

Congress approved the Yucca Mountain site for a repository in 2002; DOE hopes to file an application for a license by the end of this year; and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission appears ready to commence consideration once the application is filed. Meanwhile, waste continues to pile up at utility and at DOE sites in dozens of states.

All of the agencies' preparations to date, which entailed the expenditure of $6 billion from the Waste Fund already, will come to naught if funding reform legislation is not enacted.

I would note, however, that one shortcoming of these proposals is their failure to deal with the unexpended balance in the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is about $14 billion. The bill reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce in 1999 addressed the need to safeguard both the balance in the Fund and future contributions. It ensured that neither would be siphoned off to other purposes. By contrast, the bills before us appear to address only the question of future contributions - and do nothing to restore the existing Fund to its proper use.

My understanding is that over $500 million of the current Fund has been contributed by Michigan ratepayers over the years. I have reservations about legislation that does not dedicate both existing and future ratepayer contributions to their proper use. Failure to restore amounts in the existing Waste Fund to their intended purpose would be tantamount to approving the subsidization by ratepayers of other wholly unrelated programs. That would be a breach of faith, and I am not convinced at this point that we should be settling for half a loaf in terms of budget reform.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this issue and the current status of the program.