```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6021-S6025]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              PUBLIC POWER

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the administration's proposal to sell the Western Area, Southwestern, 
and Southeastern Power Marketing Administrations--collectively known as 
the PMA's.
  Public power serves many functions in South Dakota. As a sparsely 
populated State, utilities are faced with the challenge of how to get 
affordable electricity into small cities and communities where there 
are less than two people per mile of transmission line. Public power 
provides the solution.
  In public power utilities, the only investors are the consumers. 
Revenues are reinvested in the community--in the form of taxes and 
services. And, the low cost of power is essential to encourage economic 
development in small cities and towns.
  Public power, purchased through the Western Area Power 
Administration, known as WAPA, costs South Dakotans an average of 2.5 
cents less than the market rate. This allows revenue to be reinvested 
in additional transmission lines, and better service. The availability 
of hydropower from the Missouri River to rural cooperatives and 
municipals have helped to stabilize rates. With 7,758 miles of 
transmission lines in the Pick-Sloan region, WAPA can serve 133,100 
South Dakotans--without charging them an arm and a leg.
  Public power has brought more than electricity to South Dakota. For 
example, Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency, based in Sioux Falls, 
has embarked on a program offering incentives for planting trees. The 
goal is to plant at least one tree for each 112,500 meters in the 
Agency's membership territory. In fact, Missouri Basin was recognized 
by the Department of Energy for outstanding participation in this 
Global Climate Change Program. I congratulate Tom Heller of Missouri 
Basin for this excellent community service program.
  Public power also brings new jobs to the communities it serves. In 
part due to the low cost of power from East River Electric, there are 
now three injection molding plants based in Madison, SD--creating 
snowmobile parts. Arctic Cat, PPD, and Falcon Plastics employ 
approximately 200 people in Madison.
  East River also is involved in other economic development activities. 
It provides classes to help the community attract businesses, and 
offers grants for feasibility studies associated with economic 
development projects. South Dakota clearly has benefited from the work 
of Jeff Nelson, as the general manager of the East River Electric Power 
Cooperative.
  Public power is a South Dakota success story. It is the source of 
innovation, development, and community pride. I am sure the same is 
true in other towns and communities across America. In spite of
 these success stories, the Clinton administration--and several Members 
of Congress--want to put an end to this success.

  Specifically, President Clinton has proposed selling WAPA and two 
other power marketing administrations in order to pay for the modest 
tax cut he has promised the American people.
  In essence, this would force South Dakotans--and public power 
consumers in small cities and rural areas--to cover for the rest of 
America.
  Under the President's plan, South Dakotans would not be able to enjoy 
the promised tax cut. Why? Because the sale of the PMA's could result 
in rate increases totaling more than $47 million.
  In addition, I question the claim made by the administration that the 

[[Page S6022]] sale of the PMA's would generate revenue for the Federal 
Government. Will it? Let us look at the facts.
  PMA's still owe $15 billion in principal. Also, more than $9 billion 
in interest already has been paid to the Federal Government. By selling 
the PMA's, the Government would forfeit future interest payments.
  In fact, a recent report prepared by the Congressional Research 
Service demonstrates just how much money the PMA's are expected to 
contribute to the Federal Government. This year, WAPA is expected to 
pay back $225.1 million borrowed from the Federal Government. But WAPA 
will also return another $153.4 million to the Treasury. Given these 
figures, it is clear that the Clinton plan does not make good economic 
sense.
  As my colleagues know, this is not a new issue. I have been fighting 
the proposed sale of the PMA's ever since I came to Congress. In 1986, 
the Reagan administration made similar attempts to privatize the PMA's. 
We stopped them by passing a law to prevent the Department of Energy 
from pursuing any future plans to sell the PMA's, unless specifically 
authorized by Congress. I suspect the Clinton administration may have 
forgotten that law.
  Mr. President, once again, we are fighting to prove the worth of 
public power. Once again, we must demonstrate how necessary it is to 
the lives of rural Americans. The people of South Dakota have stated 
their message loudly and clearly--through thousands of postcards, 
letters, and phone calls. South Dakotans such as Ron Holstein, Bob 
Martin, and Jeff Nelson have been leaders in their opposition to the 
proposed PMA sale and I appreciate all their hard work.
  Public power is a solid investment for the Nation. Public power is 
one of the great success stories of South Dakota. I urge all my 
colleagues to stand united behind the continued success of public 
power, and the essential service it provides to the Americans who 
reside in small cities and towns. Now is not the time to mess with 
success.
                    power marketing administrations

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
expressing opposition to the privatization of the Federal Power 
Marketing Administrations [PMA's]. This ill-conceived concept, which 
proponents claim would help reduce the deficit, is simply a bookkeeping 
gimmick that would accomplish little except for raising the electric 
rates of millions of consumers served by municipal and cooperative 
utilities.
  A number of years ago customers of municipal and cooperative electric 
utilities entered into a covenant with the Federal Government. In 
exchange for the right to purchase the hydroelectric power generated at 
multipurpose Federal water projects at cost-based rates, these 
customers have provided a significant portion of the funds needed to 
build and operate the water projects. In addition to power production 
these projects serve other significant purposes, including making water 
available for irrigation, flood control, navigation, municipal and 
industrial water supply, wildlife enhancement, recreation, and salinity 
control. In many instances, the beneficiaries of these nonpower 
purposes of the water projects have paid little, if anything, for the 
projects.
  Some are not suggesting that the Government renege on its agreement 
with the power customers by eliminating their right to purchase the 
power produced at Federal water projects. In addition to being patently 
unfair, the breach of this covenant with the power customers raises 
serious questions about the integrity of future agreements entered into 
between the Government and private parties.
  The five power marketing administrations currently sell power to 
municipal and electric cooperative utilities serving millions of 
consumers in 34 States. Privatization of the PMA's could result in 
tremendous rate increases for these customers. In some areas, retail 
residential rates could triple. A recent study prepared by the 
Congressional Research Service estimated that PMA privatization could 
cause electric rates to rise by $1.2 to $1.3 billion per year.
  The Southwestern Power Administration [SWPA] currently sells power 
produced at Federal water projects to customers in my home State of 
Arkansas, as well as in Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 
Texas. The privatization of SWPA could cause serious adverse economic 
consequences in the region. A study prepared when President Reagan 
first proposed privatizing SWPA indicated that consumers in Arkansas 
alone could stand to pay as much as 343 percent more to replace the 
power currently purchased from
 SWPA. Mr. President, I don't want to go back to my constituents and 
tell them that they are going to have to pay three times as much for 
electricity because the Government no longer wants to honor a 
contractual commitment.

  Rather than roll up our sleeves and make the tough choices in order 
to reduce the Federal budget deficit, some Members of Congress instead 
want to resort to budgetary gimmicks. The sale of Government assets to 
increase the Government's cash flow, in the short term, might be the 
most cynical gimmick of them all. Because budget scoring periods run 
for 5 or 10 years, it is tempting to take actions that would reduce the 
deficit during the scoring period, but would actually increase the 
deficit in the out-years. This is exactly what would happen if the 
PMA's are privatized. Selling-off the PMA's could very well produce $2 
billion in revenues immediately. However, because the PMA's would no 
longer be selling power on the Government's behalf, the immediate 
increase in revenues would be offset by the revenues forgone resulting 
from the sale of the assets.
  In 1990 Congress amended the Budget Act to prohibit the use of 
receipts from the sale of Federal assets to be scored as a reduction in 
the deficit. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the use of 
gimmickry to create an illusion that we are balancing the budget. Mr. 
President, I fully expect that efforts will be made this year to repeal 
this prohibition. I intend to fight any such efforts that would make it 
more difficult to honestly balance the budget.
  Mr. President, I recognize that we live in a new era and that 
streamlining Government and making it more efficient are not only 
desirable, but necessary. In this spirit, I am willing to wok with 
critics of the PMA's in order to make them more efficient. But I will 
not support any legislation that would abrogate the covenant between 
the Government and the PMA customers which provides reasonably priced 
power to more than 1,000 consumer owned electric systems in the United 
States.
                     power marketing administration

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to President 
Clinton's budget proposal for fiscal year 1996 to sell the Western 
Area, Southwestern, and especially the Southeastern Power 
Administrations to private investors.
  In Virginia, the electric cooperatives and the municipal power 
systems represent almost a million citizens who receive a significant 
portion of electricity from the Kerr-Philpott hydro facilities located 
in southside Virginia. It is estimated that preferred customers under 
the electric cooperatives can expect annual increases of approximately 
$100 per year should the Southeastern Power Administration be sold.
  I believe that it is fiscally irresponsible to turn the Power 
Marketing Administrations over to private interests, which will in turn 
penalize our consumers by driving up their rates. These members have 
already paid for a significant portion of investment in these 
facilities and nearly twice that amount in interest. SEPA has already 
repaid $433 million, or 30 percent, of the $1.442 invested.
  The Federal Government is currently recovering its investment in SEPA 
facilities through the rates charged for the hydroelectric power 
generated to the customers in southside. This investment should be 
viewed as a contract with the ratepayers of the cooperatives to 
continue service with the Federal Government.
  While the sale of the PMA's would provide the Department of the 
Treasury with the desired instant cash flow, we must consider how these 
Federal power sales will continue to generate revenue long after the 
projects are repaid.
  The Power Marketing Administration should be valued for its assets, 
for the income it produces to pay its own way, and for the service it 
provides to the members of the cooperatives. For 
[[Page S6023]] these reasons, I believe that the sale of the Power 
Marketing Administrations is not an efficient means of contributing to 
deficit reduction and should not be considered as a means of deficit 
reduction.

                    power marketing administrations

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will not take a great deal of time this 
morning, but I wanted to reiterate my strong opposition to the sale of 
the Power Marketing Administrations. I've made similar points with the 
Director of the OMB. And I sat to discuss this matter with the 
President.
  We seem to go through this exercise just about every year, regardless 
of who is in the White House or who controls Congress. Until someone 
can show me some real benefits of privatization, I will continue to 
oppose the sale of the PMA's.
  The Power Marketing Administration's deliver a critically important 
service to a large portion of the Nation. They are an example of what's 
right with Government. It seems ironic and very ill advised that they 
should be put on the auction block and I will not stand for any 
wholesale dismantling of the PMA system.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I concur and agree with Senator 
Exon and I want the Record to state that.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have spoken in the past about my 
commitment to continuing the production and distribution of clean, 
reliable hydropower through Federal Power Marketing Administrations. 
Today, I reaffirm this commitment.
  The Federal power program has served well both the taxpaying public 
and energy consumers. It serves the taxpaying public by paying its own 
way--and paying interest on its debt. It also serves the general public 
by providing navigation, flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife 
conservation, and irrigation. Few Federal programs can claim such far-
reaching benefits at such a low cost.
  Mr. President, if we sell our PMA's, we cannot be assured that the 
general public will continue to reap these many benefits. While the 
sale of PMA's would product short-term revenue, the sale will do little 
to solve the long-term problem of our Nation's debt. In fact, the 
permanent loss of these productive assets will result in foregoing 
future revenues likely to be in the billions of dollars.
  At this time, the Bonneville Power Administration is not immediately 
threatened with sale. Several months ago, however, officials within the 
administration suggested to the President that he sell BPA to finance a 
tax cut. Fortunately, after hearing from Senators and Representatives 
from the Pacific Northwest, President Clinton elected to decline that 
advice. Recognizing the special attributes of BPA, he has said he does 
not intend to offer it for sale. So, my constituents appear to be safe 
for now.
  I speak in opposition to the sale of the other PMA's because I 
believe their sale is not in the best interest of either the taxpaying 
public or the tens of millions of consumers who will certainly be 
saddled with higher electricity bills. Let us reject this short-term 
solution to our deficit and protect our Federal assets for the next 
generations of Americans.
              Sale of the Power Marketing Administrations

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, like may of my colleagues, I rise today to 
briefly address the President's fiscal year 1996 budget proposal to 
privatize some of the Power Marketing Administrations [PMA's], 
including the Southeastern Power Marketing Administration [SEPA], which 
serves many Virginians.
  I am concerned about the devastating effects of the privatization of 
the Southeastern Power Administration and other PMA's on rural electric 
providers and their consumers. Prior to the fiscal year 1996 budget 
submission, I contacted President Clinton and OMB Director Alice Rivlin 
and asked for this proposal to be reconsidered. Like many of my 
Democratic colleagues. I was disappointed to find this one-time asset 
sale in the final budget proposal.
  Nationwide 650 rural electric systems receive allocations of power 
from Federal projects. Eleven of our thirteen Virginia rural electric 
cooperatives get a portion of their power direct from the Southeastern 
Power Administration. Over the years, Federal hydropower has helped 
rural electric cooperatives keep their rates competitive with investor-
owned utilities.
  If we are serious about deficit reduction, we must ensure that all of 
our Federal programs continue to provide significant benefits to our 
taxpayers. In my opinion, this proposal to sell SEPA and other PMA's is 
penny-wise, but pound-foolish. I would favor any proposal for deficit 
reduction, so long as the savings result from sound public policy. Our 
Federal power program benefits consumers, taxpayers, and continues to 
facilitate economic growth and development in rural areas across the 
country. Privatizing the PMA's will not produce benefits that outweigh 
the current program and is, in my judgment, bad public policy.
  We should oppose the sale of the PMA's for several budgetary reasons. 
In the first place, the Government would lose a stream of revenue 
flowing into the Federal Treasury if the PMA's were sold. The estimated 
revenues which go to the Treasury exceed the appropriations for the 
PMA's. In fiscal year 1995, it is estimated that the net positive 
receipts to the Federal Treasury will be $243 million.
  Given this situation, the fiscal advantage to the Federal Government 
of selling the PMA's is time limited. During the year in which sales 
are actually occurring, the Treasury would receive a windfall in 
receipts as monies received from the sales and saved from 
appropriations overwhelm the revenues lost as a result of the sale. 
However, as the foregone
 revenues exceed the saved appropriations in the years after the sales, 
we would be adding to the deficit.

  Because capital asset sales are a one-time event. We have a budget 
rule that assets sales should not be counted in the budget. If we were 
to count the proceeds from selling Government assets as though they 
were receipts of the Federal Government, then these one-time receipts 
could be used to fund new spending programs or tax cuts that outlive 
the stream of receipts. We should follow the budget rule and not allow 
these fleeting savings to be counted as budget savings.
  Another budgetary reason to oppose the sale of the PMA's is that the 
Federal Government could actually lose money if the sale price were 
inadequate to cover the present value of the federally-held debt. One 
study indicates that the revenue from the Alaska Power Administration 
under the current program would be higher than under its proposed sale. 
If this is the case with the APA, it could be equally true of the 
others. Given these budgetary uncertainties, we should not be rushing 
to privatize these entities.
  The PMA's remain an integral part of our commitment to bring 
affordable and efficient hydroelectric power to the many Americans 
dependent on rural cooperatives and municipal power systems. PMA's are 
a wise and profitable investment on behalf of rural America.
  We have made great strides in bringing electric power and other 
utilities to rural areas, largely through the work of rural electric 
cooperatives, and we should carefully consider the consequences of 
eliminating this valuable supply of electricity now.
  I respectfully urge all of my colleagues to join me and support the 
continuation of Federal power.
                    power marketing administrations

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with a number of my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have come to the floor this 
morning to shed some light on proposals to sell off the Federal power 
marketing administrations. I continue to oppose such proposals, not 
only as they relate to the Bonneville Power Administration, but also as 
they relate to the other power marketing administrations.
  Power Marketing Administrations are entities that have been created 
to market the power generated by Federal hydropower projects operated 
by the Army Corps of Engineers. PMA's are part of the Department of 
Energy's Federal power marketing program. One of the central features 
of this program is the preference clause, which allows consumer-owned, 
nonprofit local utility systems to have the preferential access to the 
power produced by Federal dams.
  The five PMA's are as follows: The Southeastern Power Administration 
[[Page S6024]] [SEPA], the Southwestern Power Administration [SWPA], 
the Western Area Power Administration [WAPA], the Bonnville Power 
Administration [BPA], and the Alaska Power Administration [APA].
  The President's budget includes provisions for the sale of each of 
these PMA's except BPA. Proposals are pending in the House to either 
sell all or some of the PMA's or require them to sell their power at 
market rates, the definition of which appears to this Senator to lead 
to highly inflated and unrealistic prices.
  My opposition to the sale of the PMA's is based on my view that it is 
shortsighted public policy to sell one of the few revenue generating 
assets of the Federal Government. It is important to remember that BPA 
is repaying, with interest, the capital investments in the Federal 
hydropower projects in the Columbia Basin. The other PMA's are making 
similar payments. When the repayment is completed, the Federal 
Government will be the owners of these projects. The PMA's pay their 
way and then some. I ask unanimous consent that a table showing project 
investments and repayment by PMA's be printed at this point in the 
Record.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I wish to voice my opposition to any efforts 
to privatize parts of the Federal Power Marketing Administrations 
including the Southwestern, Southeastern, or Western Area Power 
Administration.
  This Nation made a commitment to bring affordable and efficient 
hydroelectric power to rural customers. In conjunction with thousands 
of rural cooperatives and municipal power systems across the country, 
Federal Power Marketing Administrations [PMA's] have met that 
commitment.
  The utilities purchase power through the PMA's and the revenues cover 
PMA operating expenses, construction costs, and interest payments. And 
these sales put money into the Federal Treasury.
  The proposed sale of these PMA's not only jeopardizes that commitment 
to rural Americans, but upsets the sensitive dynamics of the many dam 
projects from which the PMA's market their power.
  These dams perform an array of services, including power generation, 
navigation, flood control, water supply, recreation, and fish and 
wildlife preservation. As a government entity PMA's have effectively 
balanced these sometimes diverse, and often competing functions.
  As several colleagues and I told President Clinton in a letter back 
in January, there is no indication that a private, for-profit entity 
can be expected to become a full-partner in these interests at an 
almost certain loss of profits.
  And what about the consumer? They essentially lose twice. Estimates 
show increases of as much as 30 to 50 percent per month for some 
residential rates. That's a frightening prospect for many families who 
are already living from paycheck to paycheck.
  The consumer gets hit a second time when the Federal Treasury 
experiences a loss of that steady revenue I mentioned earlier. Because 
the Federal Power Program pays for all investments made, once 
construction, and interests costs are repaid, the Federal Government 
will own the power plants. But once sold, no revenue. And that's bad 
news for consumers at a time when reducing the deficit is critical to 
continued economic stability.
  The Federal Power Program is one that assures access for rural 
residents to affordable electricity, returns much-needed revenue to the 
Federal Treasury, and effectively balances the many demands on these 
dams--from flood control to water supply to recreation. Clearly, this 
is not the kind of program Congress should add to the auction block, 
and I urge my colleagues to oppose any such efforts.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                 pma's pay back principal with interest

       Customers of the federal power marketing administrations 
     are required by law to pay back the investment in federal 
     hydropower facilities with interest. They are doing so, as 
     shown in the table below:

                                   STATUS OF REPAYMENT AS OF SEPT. 30, 1993\1\                                  
                                        [Cumulative dollars in millions]                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Operation               Interest   Cumulative            
         Location              Power         Power     & maint.    Purchased   paid thru   repayment    Unpaid  
                           investment\2\   revenues      (O&M)       power       1993      thru 1995  investment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska...................          $205         $144         $52           0         $53         $39        $166
Bonneville...............     \3\12,260       34,723       5,572     $20,825       5,914    \3\2,412    \4\9,848
Southeastern.............         1,442        2,325       1,043          65         781         435       1,007
Southwestern.............           997        2,042         688         520         536         298         699
Western..................         5,631    \5\11,210       4,311       3,013       1,911       2,198    \4\3,433
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  PMA total..............        21,658       47,466      11,166      22,554       8,831       5,133      14,525
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\All data are on accrual basis of accounting, except as noted, and are based on the best information          
  available.                                                                                                    
\2\The power investment to be repaid includes irrigation and other nonpower investment assigned to power for    
  repayment for Bonneville and Western.                                                                         
\3\Cash rather than accrual basis.                                                                              
\4\The unpaid investment does not include construction work in progress or capitalized deficits.                
\5\Net of income transfers of $109 million.                                                                     

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the five PMA's carry out a distinctive 
mission, including both power and nonpower functions. For example, the 
Bonneville Power Administration's primary function is to market power 
generated by the Corps of Engineers dams in the Columbia River Basin. 
They also have significant involvement in implementing regional 
conservation measures, regional fishery recovery and conservation 
measures, and regional renewable energy programs. It is unlikely that 
the private sector would be willing to fulfill these public duties in 
the absence of PMA's.
  This is of particular interest to the Northwest, where BPA is, under 
current plans, expected to shoulder the vast majority of the costs of 
salmon recovery. While many in the Northwest have argued that BPA 
should not be required to bear the entire burden of these recovery 
costs, to remove BPA from the picture leaves a void that would be 
difficult if not impossible to fill.
  A number of economists have questioned the true fiscal benefit of 
selling Federal assets such as the PMA's. Not only would such a sale 
require the budget scoring rules of the Senate and the House to be 
fundamentally altered in order to show any positive deficit impact, it 
would also be of questionable benefit to the deficit problems we face. 
As Harvard Prof. Martin Feldstein has pointed out:

       Although Government accounting methods would make it look 
     as if Federal spending and receipts are in better balance, 
     these asset sales would do nothing to lessen the burden of 
     the deficit. That burden occurs because Government borrowing 
     to finance the deficit preempts savings that would otherwise 
     be available for private investment in plant and equipment 
     and in housing construction. The administration's proposed 
     assets sales would preempt private savings every bit as much 
     as a Federal sales of new debt of the same value.

  Mr. President, over the last decade, I have seen many shortsighted 
proposals by successive administrations to sell off or alter 
substantially the power marketing administrations. I have had to fight 
these proposals each time and will continue to do so. As budget 
deficits grew, a cash-starved Federal Government looked to all sources 
of revenue generation to produce more dollars. The power marketing 
administrations, which produce large sums of annual revenues, became 
easy targets for those who look only at the bottom line. Little or no 
consideration was given to the impacts on local economies or the 
overall impact on Federal revenues.
  [[Page S6025]] While none of these proposals ultimately was 
successful, each created a cost for the economies which depend on PMA 
electric power. Electricity is the cornerstone of much of the Nation's 
economy, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. The high reliability 
and low cost of electric power provides the United States, and 
especially the Pacific Northwest, with a global competitive advantage 
which benefits the entire Nation.
  As each of these proposals were made, uncertainty over the future 
cost of electricity was created. In the Pacific Northwest, where over 
half the electric power consumed is marketed by the Bonneville Power 
Administration, these proposals cast a cloud of uncertainty over future 
electric power prices. Rate increases of the magnitude contemplated by 
the proposals would devastate the economy of the region by discouraging 
investment in infrastructure, including modernization of new plants and 
equipment, and close factories and businesses which operate on the 
margin, many of which were attracted to the availability of low cost 
hydroelectric power in the region. The benefit of these proposals has 
overstated by every administration because the potential for lost tax 
revenue as a result of business failure or lack of investment was never 
taken into account.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, proposals to sell off these revenue 
generating entities that are such fundamental importance to the local 
and regional economies they serve are misguided and will be opposed by 
this Senator. I am pleased to join with my colleagues to reinforce the 
importance of this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to speak for just a moment on 
this PMA matter and then direct my attention to another issue. Who 
controls time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inquire of the Senator from 
North Dakota if he is speaking on the time of his colleague from North 
Dakota?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from 
North Dakota be allowed to speak for 9 minutes in the time reserved for 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized for up to 9 minutes.

                          ____________________
```