[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H14872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             OPPOSING THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1995

  (Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about House Resolution 
1020, the nuclear waste issue for a deep repository and interim storage 
that will be located in Nevada. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1020 
busts the Federal budget. I have a letter here from the gentleman from 
Ohio, John Kasich, chairman of the Committee on the Budget, which says 
he will not give a budget waiver to this bill. The importance of that 
is because this bill does bust the Federal budget by over $4 billion in 
the next 7 years.
  This bill has many other things that are wrong with it, but right now 
we are waging the biggest budget debate in anybody's recent memory on 
the budget in the United States. This would be a totally inappropriate 
time to go busting the budget by an additional $4 billion when we are 
trying to balance the Federal budget in the next 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I must oppose severely, for the people of the State of 
Nevada, this bill which will target Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste in 
Nevada.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget.

                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                                 December 8, 1995.
     Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 1020, 
     the ``Integrated Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Act of 1995''. 
     In its present form the bill violates the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 and could trigger automatic cuts in key 
     entitlement programs under pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) 
     requirements.
       As you are probably aware, H.R. 1020 is designed to 
     establish an interim nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca 
     Mountain, Nevada as well as set up procedures for the 
     eventual development of a permanent high-level radoactive 
     waste storage site. I am concerned with Section 401(a)(2) of 
     the bill that replaces the current mandatory fee paid by 
     electric utilities for nuclear waste disposal with a 
     discretionary fee that could vary subject to the level of 
     appropriations provided for the program.
       As currently written, the bill violates Section 311(a) of 
     the Budget Act by providing new budget authority rules in 
     excess of the levels set forth in the conference report 
     accompanying H. Con. Res. 67. This bill, in the absence of 
     further legislative action, would increase budget authority 
     by $585 million in fiscal year 1996 and approximately $3.0 
     billion over the five year period from fiscal year 1996 
     through 2000.
       By changing the nuclear waste disposal fee from mandatory 
     to discretionary, a PAYGO (Section 252 of the Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985) issue arises. The nuclear waste disposal fee 
     change results in approximately $600 million per year in 
     foregone offsetting receipts, a loss of $4.2 billion over the 
     period from fiscal year 1996 through 2002. Absent other 
     legislation, this could trigger a sequester of critical 
     mandatory spending programs.
       Furthermore, unless the discretionary spending caps are 
     reduced, this legislation could increase the amount that can 
     be spent under the discretionary spending caps. Increased 
     discretionary spending would lead to higher budget deficits. 
     This would occur because the measure authorizes offsetting 
     collections, and the income generated by these offsetting 
     collections creates room under the discretionary spending 
     caps as set forth in current law for increased spending.
       During our negotiations with the Administration, we have 
     emphasized the need to reduce spending in order to achieve a 
     balanced budget. I am concerned that passage of this bill in 
     its current form would send the wrong signal to the 
     Administration.
       Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to 
     working with you to solve the problems in this bill.
           Sincerely,


                                               John R. Kasich,

     Chairman.

                          ____________________