Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I understand.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. That is correct. It is not paid for.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the pending amendment, and I send it to the desk.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. With that in mind, I will be very brief. Mr. President, I do appreciate the opportunity to be recognized very briefly. The reason I want to speak is to recognize the Finance chairman's great job, taking a pretty bad situation and making the best of it. It got off to a rocky start in the Senate about how to craft a tax package to help stimulate the economy. But I am very impressed by what has happened. Almost everyone has some view of how to cut taxes. That is good for the American public. I am not here to criticize my colleagues on the other side who have put forward tax packages. I think we all see the economy soggy--whatever adjective you want to use--but both parties have a view of getting money back into the economy. That is good. I congratulate those who have stepped up to the plate to put money back into the economy. I may disagree with your approach. But also I would like to congratulate those Senators who took the road less traveled; that is, saying: We do not need a tax cut. We cannot afford a tax cut. We are in deficits. Now is not the time to take money out of the revenue stream. We should be retiring the debt. To those Senators, I say, you are absolutely right in terms of having a philosophy that makes sense. The problem is, if we do not cut taxes, we have shown a propensity, particularly our friends on the other side, to spend the money. That is an overarching thing that I think is well-documented. It is not a debate as to whether we will take the $350 billion, the $152 billion, the $550 billion, or the $726 billion, and put it on the debt. That is not going to happen. That should happen, but it is not going to happen. So now the debate becomes, how do we take whatever money we are going to set aside for taxes to create jobs? Because if it does not create jobs, I am not going to vote for it. Twelve Democratic Senators joined with the President and members of the majority party to cut taxes in 2001 in a very comprehensive manner. A lot has happened since that tax cut: America has been attacked, the defense spending needs have gone up, the Iraq war has come, and a lot of money has been spent. But I would argue that everything we have done to make America stronger, to free the people of Iraq, making us stronger, is money well spent. Let's keep that same theme of spending our money wisely. The one thing that disappoints me about my friends on the other side is that every amendment they have to offer or every approach to taxes goes after the dividend tax cut. That is the centerpiece of the President's view of how to stimulate the economy. Every amendment being offered takes money from the dividend tax cut to pay for that amendment. The best example of what is going on here is Senator Dorgan's amendment about repealing the Social Security tax. A month ago we had a chance to do that, and our friends on the other side en masse voted no. We had a chance to expand the budget resolution by doing away with the tax on senior citizens at the 85-percent rate on their Social Security. This tax was put in in 1993 by our friends on the other side. I would argue that offering this amendment now is the best evidence one could point to as to what is going on here. Everything this President is asking for in terms of job stimulus and economic activity beyond helping people put money in their pockets goes to the dividends, double taxation exclusion. The Senate Finance Committee has produced a bill that addresses that problem. There will be an amendment on this floor that will basically mirror what the President has asked for. It will take taxation dividends to zero for a 3-year period. I honestly believe that is the best way to create jobs simply because if you could buy stock and receive a dividend without paying taxes, more people would be likely to buy stock. People say the stock market would go up 10 or 20 percent. I don't know if that is right or not, but that makes sense to me. The $350 billion tax proposal by Senator Landrieu I disagree with. But you have to understand that the difference between Senator Daschle's plan of $152 billion, the Finance Committee's of $350 billion, and Senator Landrieu's amendment of $350 billion is negligible in terms of the money it takes out of the economy to help people receive tax benefits. So this argument that our President's plan doubles the national debt has to give way to facts. Everybody is wanting to cut taxes. The point I am trying to make is the American people have to choose between these competing plans. We will have to choose. Here is what I am going to do. I am going to make a choice to take the tax package that was passed in 2001 and accelerate the benefits. Because the reason we haven't received the full benefit of the 2001 tax package is we put everything off in terms of rate reductions. Let's take the money we are putting on the table now and accelerate the rates. Let's accelerate the child tax credit so people will have more money to spend. But let's do something we didn't do in 2001. Let's create a system so that jobs can be created by economic activity. You will never convince me that if you make an investment in the stock market more attractive, people will not have better jobs, and there will be more jobs for people. That is why I will follow the lead of the President. I am pleased that I am a Member of the Senate at a time when both parties want to cut taxes. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I rise today to tell you about an urgent issue in my State that could benefit from the same relief this bill provides for Arkansas schools. The relief is known as ``advance refunding.'' Just like homeowners, municipally owned utilities are able to refinance or ``refund'' their bonds. But the Tax Code permits them to do this only once. Imagine if you had refinanced your home at 7.5 percent a few years ago. Having taken that one opportunity, now that rates are at 5.15 percent, you would not be permitted to do another refinancing. You would miss out on this opportunity to refinance. There is a utility in my State that finds itself just in this position and all of the utility's consumers suffer the consequences. Without an additional advance refunding, it customers face significant rate increases as the utility struggles to remain competitive in the restructured marketplace while paying off debt it incurred to bring electricity to many customers in my State. I want my constituents to enjoy stable rates just as I know yours do, Mr. Chairman. I ask if you would work with me in this conference to provide additional advance refunding relief to meet this urgent need in my State.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. 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. GRAHAM of South Carolina

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. 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. GRAHAM of South Carolina

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

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. 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. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. 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.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. 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.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. 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.