Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This is basically the Blue Dog budget in the House. The net impact: Versus our budget, there would be an increase of $1.25 trillion over the next 10 years. The growth package goes to $50 billion. Here is the net effect. We are going to take $27.8 trillion from the American taxpayers over the next 10 years to run this Government. Mr. President, $50 billion represents .18 percent, less than two-tenths of one penny; $323 billion is about one penny on the dollar. Surely to goodness this body can afford to give 1 cent on a dollar, 2 cents on a dollar, maybe .18 of a penny on a dollar back to the American taxpayer. Do we have to keep all the $27.8 trillion?

On top of that, our friends on the other side want to add $990 billion today. People are crying uncle. They need a little bit of help. We are not helping very much. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask that the resolution be adopted and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Calendar: Calendar Nos. 80, 81, 82, 83, and 84. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 25. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 23, the budget resolution, as provided under the previous order.

For the information of all Senators, we will return to the budget resolution tomorrow morning. The chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee have exchanged copies of the final amendments that remain in order to the resolution. We now have a number of amendments to dispose of prior to a final vote on the resolution. The Senate will begin voting on these remaining amendments upon convening tomorrow morning. Members are asked to remain in the Chamber during the second phase of the so-called vote-arama. With the cooperation of all Members, we will be able to move through the remaining amendments in a more efficient and orderly manner. The Senate will proceed to a final vote on the budget resolution no later than 4 p.m. on Wednesday. Therefore, I would advise my colleagues that we have a lot of work before us this week.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this bill that will end the practice of forcing electric utilities to purchase unneeded electricity at above market rates--a practice that ultimately costs consumers more.

This outdated practice began after the 1973-74 oil embargo. In the embargo's aftermath, we understood a far reaching assessment of our energy policies and enacted numerous laws to address the issues facing this country at that time. The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, PURPA, was one of several energy bills that resulted from those efforts.

In 1978, the electric utility industry in this country was based on monopolies and almost totally reliant on antiquated technologies. It was also highly territorial, having only limited ability

to move electricity from one part of the country to another.

PURPA was intended to address these issues. It was designed to alleviate real and potential shortages in electricity and encourage the use of alternative fuels to generate electricity. To do this, it established a new class of electricity generators. The goal was for these new generators to rapidly implement new generating technologies that the utilities had been slow to adopt and to expand the amount of electricity generated with alternative fuels.

To ensure that investors would build these new facilities, PURPA essentially guaranteed them a profit. It required the conventional electric utilities to purchase all of the electricity the new generators wanted to sell. Prices were essentially fixed--requiring traditional utilities to pay for the electricity based on the costs they ``avoided'' by not having to build additional capacity themselves.

And PURPA worked. It led to the development of plants converting waste to energy and to construction of smaller, more efficient generating facilities.

But much has changed since 1978.

Today there are competitive wholesale markets throughout the country, giving generation project developers many opportunities to see their output. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 and a variety of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission directives now ensure that generators have access to transmission lines, so that power can reach those markets. And we now have additional capacity coming from a variety of non-utilities using small-scale facilities and newer, more efficient technologies which allow them to be price competitive.

There have also been changes in the PURPA generators. One of PURPA's goals was to spur the use of alternative or renewable fuels, but 80 percent of the electricity currently generated by PURPA facilities is produced by burning natural gas, oil and coal. And the ``equitable'' prices imposed on electric utilities purchasing PURPA power are substantially higher than market rates, increasing the cost to consumers by roughly $8 billion annually. Exactly the opposite of what was intended.

The bill I offer today would rescind any requirement for electricity utilities to enter into new agreements to purchase electricity from PURPA facilities. It would not prevent utilities from buying PURPA power that is offered at competitive rates. And it would not affect existing PURPA agreements. Those agreements would remain in effect until they expire, allowing those PURPA facilities to continue selling their electricity to the utilities at the prices specified in the agreements. This approach would ensure that the investment in PURPA facilities can be recouped in accordance with the parties' expectations, but will protect consumers from new PURPA contracts-- contracts which force them to pay above market prices for electricity.

This bill would also ensure that the electric utilities that are required to purchase PURPA electricity, possibly for decades to come under existing contracts, have the flexibility to recover those costs.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which is fiscally sound, and is an example of good government because it eliminates outdated and counterproductive legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this bill that will end the practice of forcing electric utilities to purchase unneeded electricity at above market rates--a practice that ultimately costs consumers more.

This outdated practice began after the 1973-74 oil embargo. In the embargo's aftermath, we understood a far reaching assessment of our energy policies and enacted numerous laws to address the issues facing this country at that time. The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, PURPA, was one of several energy bills that resulted from those efforts.

In 1978, the electric utility industry in this country was based on monopolies and almost totally reliant on antiquated technologies. It was also highly territorial, having only limited ability

to move electricity from one part of the country to another.

PURPA was intended to address these issues. It was designed to alleviate real and potential shortages in electricity and encourage the use of alternative fuels to generate electricity. To do this, it established a new class of electricity generators. The goal was for these new generators to rapidly implement new generating technologies that the utilities had been slow to adopt and to expand the amount of electricity generated with alternative fuels.

To ensure that investors would build these new facilities, PURPA essentially guaranteed them a profit. It required the conventional electric utilities to purchase all of the electricity the new generators wanted to sell. Prices were essentially fixed--requiring traditional utilities to pay for the electricity based on the costs they ``avoided'' by not having to build additional capacity themselves.

And PURPA worked. It led to the development of plants converting waste to energy and to construction of smaller, more efficient generating facilities.

But much has changed since 1978.

Today there are competitive wholesale markets throughout the country, giving generation project developers many opportunities to see their output. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 and a variety of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission directives now ensure that generators have access to transmission lines, so that power can reach those markets. And we now have additional capacity coming from a variety of non-utilities using small-scale facilities and newer, more efficient technologies which allow them to be price competitive.

There have also been changes in the PURPA generators. One of PURPA's goals was to spur the use of alternative or renewable fuels, but 80 percent of the electricity currently generated by PURPA facilities is produced by burning natural gas, oil and coal. And the ``equitable'' prices imposed on electric utilities purchasing PURPA power are substantially higher than market rates, increasing the cost to consumers by roughly $8 billion annually. Exactly the opposite of what was intended.

The bill I offer today would rescind any requirement for electricity utilities to enter into new agreements to purchase electricity from PURPA facilities. It would not prevent utilities from buying PURPA power that is offered at competitive rates. And it would not affect existing PURPA agreements. Those agreements would remain in effect until they expire, allowing those PURPA facilities to continue selling their electricity to the utilities at the prices specified in the agreements. This approach would ensure that the investment in PURPA facilities can be recouped in accordance with the parties' expectations, but will protect consumers from new PURPA contracts-- contracts which force them to pay above market prices for electricity.

This bill would also ensure that the electric utilities that are required to purchase PURPA electricity, possibly for decades to come under existing contracts, have the flexibility to recover those costs.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which is fiscally sound, and is an example of good government because it eliminates outdated and counterproductive legislation.