[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               MULTISTATE UTILITY CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, on July 22 the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee adopted an amended version of S. 544, the 
Multistate Utility Consumer Protection Act of 1994. This bill would 
provide essential regulatory protections to the 49 million households 
in 30 States served by electric utility subsidiaries of utility holding 
companies registered pursuant to the Public Utility Holding Company Act 
of 1935 [PUHCA]. The legislation would overturn a recent appellate 
court decision, Ohio Power versus FERC, in order to restore the 
authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] and State 
utility regulatory agencies to protect consumers against unreasonable 
charges for goods and services provided to electric utilities by 
affiliate companies.
    
    
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, as everyone knows by now the 103d 
Congress will adjourn without enacting legislation to reform the 1872 
mining law. What this means is that, for at least another year (and 
possibly longer), hardrock mining companies operating on our Nation's 
public lands can continue to extract billions of dollars worth of gold, 
silver, platinum, palladium and other hardrock minerals without 
compensating the taxpayers for even one red cent, while at the same 
time leaving the taxpayers with the costs of cleaning up the 
environmental disasters these mining companies leave behind. If this 
were not enough, the mining industry, and some members representing 
mining interests, now have the audacity to claim that they have always 
supported reasonable mining law reform and that the blame for Congress' 
failure to act lies with those very Members of Congress, such as 
myself, that have fought long and hard for reform. Mr. President, the 
fact is that nothing could be further from the truth.
  I first introduced legislation in the Senate to comprehensively 
reform the 1872 mining law nearly 6 years ago. From day one, the mining 
industry has done nothing but throttle reform and proponents of reform 
every step along the way. Rather than sit down in an effort to work out 
a compromise, all I ever heard from industry was ``no, we can't do 
this, and no, we can't do that''. In fact, before Bill Clinton was 
elected President, the industry steadfastly opposed the payment of any 
royalty for mining on public lands even though the industry pays 
sizable royalties to private landowners and State governments for 
mineral production on their properties.
  While mining law reform came closer to becoming a reality in the 103d 
Congress than ever before, what happened this year in conference 
illustrates how difficult a task it is when a wealthy and powerful 
industry wants to engage in the politics of gridlock. Although the 
House enacted a comprehensive and meaningful reform bill, the Senate 
was forced to pass a so-called ``ticket to conference'' in order, for 
the first time, to move mining law reform out of the Energy Committee 
and into a House-Senate conference.
  Mr. President, after S. 544 was reported out of the Energy Committee, 
it was incorporated into S. 1822, the Communications Act of 1994, which 
was reported by the Commerce Committee. Unfortunately, S. 1822 will not 
be considered by the Senate prior to adjournment. However, I want to 
assure my colleagues and all those interested in the legislation that 
Multistate Utility Consumer Protection Act is far from dead.
  I intend to introduce legislation early next year to ensure that 
customers of registered utility holding companies are adequately 
protected. This legislation will include the provisions of S. 544 
designed to overturn the Ohio Power decision. As was the case this 
year, I look forward to working with both consumer groups and the 
utility holding companies in an attempt to develop a consensus 
approach.

                          ____________________