S6020 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 3, 1995

should be considered and should be

changed.

All of us have had a 2-week recess. I

was in Wyoming for that entire 2 weeks

and, I must tell you, I come back reinforced and rededicated to the idea that

we need change. I heard from nearly

everyone there: ‘‘We are pleased with

what has begun in Washington. We are

pleased with the ideas.’’ Certainly not

everybody agrees with every detail.

But the fact is that at least in my experience, people want us to move forward.

To do that we are going to have to

continue to make clear, I think, the

perception of what we are seeking to

do. And the opposition, those who are

opposed to change, and obviously the

direction and the agenda of the administration is to say to people who are

asking for change, all they want to do

is do away with programs. Their notion

is going to be to create fear—fear of

change—and we are going to have to do

something about that.

I think there are great debates, there

are differences in view, clearly, of how

people see the world, and there is a

great deal of difference right here in

this body among the Members. Some

believe, genuinely and legitimately,

that more Government is better, that

we ought to have more money to spend,

that the Government does a better job

of spending money than do the taxpayers. On the other hand, most of us

do not agree with that notion and want

to make it smaller.

There is a legitimate debate and

there is a great debate. So we have an

agenda, and in order to do that, Mr.

President, we are going to have to

move through that agenda. I respect

the purpose of the Senate in terms of

its ability to go into depth and it is a

deliberative body, and that should be

the case. But it should not be an obstructionist body. It should not be a

body that simply ties up this great debate, but rather it ought to be out

there and we ought to have an agenda

and we ought to move forward.

There are a number of things, certainly, that we clearly ought to talk

about. We are talking about one of

them now, and that is tort reform,

something that needs to be done. We

need also to talk about welfare reform.

That is a legitimate thing we ought to

do. We ought to take another look at

crime. Clearly, health care needs some

revision. We need to have regulatory

reform. We need to balance the budget.

These are the agenda items that we

have a responsibility, Mr. President, to

undertake. I think if those of us who

were elected this year have any message, the message is let us move forward with these issues, let us talk

about these issues. We are willing to

accept the results, of course. But we

are not willing to accept the idea that

we do not have an agenda, that we are

not going to deal with the questions

that the American people have asked,

that we are simply going to take up all

our time in obstructionist kinds of activities, that the rapid response team

is always going to be opposed to

change. So that is where we are, Mr.

President. I think we have the greatest

opportunity, and I thought that last

month. And I have to tell you, having

spent 2 weeks in Wyoming, that notion,

in my view, is simply reinforced that

people do want us to go forward.

Mr. President, I am not sure of the

agenda. But the freshmen had a certain

amount of time.

I yield to my associate from Pennsylvania.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator

THE MEDICARE PROGRAM

ffor yielding. I would like to address a

specific issue in the next 100 days in

the Senate that I think is going to attract a lot of attention. It has already

attracted a lot of attention. It is an

issue of great importance to this country and people rely on this program—

that is the Medicare Program. There is

a lot of discussion going on in this

town—and I hope across America—

about Medicare and where it fits in

with the scheme of things here in

Washington.

Is Medicare going to be used to balance the budget? Is Medicare a program that is in trouble? What is the

truth? What is the real story and who

do you believe? Unfortunately, in

Washington, that is a problem we have

a lot, which is that every issue, irrespective of the importance of the issue,

turns into a partisan battle, and one

side says one thing and the other side

says another. You would think with an

issue such as Medicare, with the information we have before us, that we

could act as adults and face the problem squarely, maturely, discuss it, debate it, and come up with a solution to

the problem.

But as is the case around here all too

often, political gain comes before responsible action. We have folks who

think we can make political gains from

Medicare, so let us delay responsible

action for a while and see how much

hey we can make in the process.

Here are the facts. The facts are that

the Medicare trustees issued a report

that says that Medicare will be insolvent by the year 2002. In other words, it

will not have any money left in the

trust fund to pay out benefits to anyone. That is not 25 years or 30 years

from now, which is the problem of Social Security. Americans seem to be

tuned into that Social Security is in

trouble in the long term and that we

cannot sustain it. The insolvency of

Social Security is a little over 30 years

away. It is a problem and we have to

deal with that. We have a little bit

more time.

Medicare is an immediate problem.

Medicare runs out of money in 7 years.

You would think, as I said, as mature

adults elected here to govern the country, we could sit down and accept that,

accept the findings of the trustees.

Four out of the six Medicare trustees

are Clinton administration officials.

They have issued this report that says,

‘‘The Medicare trust fund will be able

to pay benefits for only 7 years and is

severely out of financial balance in the

long-range.’’

That is what this chart shows. Here

is where the Medicare trust fund is exhausted, 2002. Here is the gap. It grows

and grows. This is the revenue shortfall. It only gets worse, particularly in

the outyears when the baby boomers

start to retire.

There are less people working to support the Medicare trust fund. It is obvious that we have to do something; it is

obvious that the time to act is now

while we have a meager surplus that is

going to be exhausted, as I said before,

in 7 years. You would think that we

could come to the table, accept the

Clinton administration’s own findings

that this is a problem that must be

solved, accept their own recommendation—again, the recommendation of

the trustees—that says we need urgent

action. But, no, you are going to see

the big dance that goes on around here,

the big dance on how we are going to

scare seniors, lie to them; and anybody

who wants to touch Medicare is not

going to try to save Medicare. Oh, no,

they just want to take the program

away from them. They want to ruin

Medicare. They want to break their

promises to the American public.

Why? Why would people say things

that are blatantly false? Why would

they say that? Well, it is certainly not

to preserve the trust fund, certainly

not to make sure Medicare is there for

future generations—I should not even

say future—this generation of seniors.

That certainly is not the reason they

are saying it. Why are they saying it?

Very simple: Political gain.

Political gain. It is a tried and true

American maxim in American politics,

and that is if you can square seniors

enough so that they will vote against

the other side who wants to take their

programs away, you can win elections

and then after the election, you will

discover the problem. After the election is over, after you have reaped the

benefits by scaring seniors that these

bad guys out here who want to touch

Medicare are out really to kill the program, after you have accomplished the

scare tactics and succeeded in victory,

then come to the floor, come to the

American people after the election,

after you have won and lied, and after

you have accomplished what you wanted, and then say, look, the Medicare

trust fund is going to be out of money,

we have to do something. That is what

is going to happen. That is what happened on Social Security in 1982. It is

going to try to happen in 1996.

I just hope—I really hope—that the

American public is smart enough to see

through these scare tactics, not only

by the Clinton administration, by the

Democrats here in Congress, by these
May 3, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6021

shameless, shameless seniors organizations who pray on the fear of seniors to

swell their membership and get contributions and be able to fund their

lobbyists and TV commercials and continue to go out there and feed on this

frenzy. I hope the American public and

seniors can see through this. It is a

scare tactic that should not succeed.

See through this. See that there is a

problem, and see that those who want

to tackle the problem now are doing it

because we care, not because we want

to destroy a program.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a

previous order, the Senator from Montana is recognized to speak for up to 10

minutes.

(The remarks of Mr. BURNS pertaining to the introduction of S. 745 are located in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint

Resolutions.’’)

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President,

there will be several people this morning who have reserved time to speak on

the potential sale of the Power Marketing Administrations.

I ask unanimous consent to also

speak on this issue during morning

business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I

OPPOSE SALE OF PMA’S

fwould like to add my very strong voice

to that of my colleague from South Dakota, who will be speaking on this; the

Senator from Montana, Senator BAUCUS; as well as Senator DASCHLE, on

the potential sale of the Power Marketing Administrations that the administration has proposed.

There are a lot of things wrong with

the Federal Government, very frankly,

and I know we should always be looking for the functions we can privatize,

that are done better in the private sector than by the Federal Government.

The American system of the Power

Marketing Administrations is, in my

experience and that of many of my constituents, an example of something

that the Government does well in direct partnership with those folks living

in rural regions of America.

The electrification of rural America

is a success story because it involved a

true partnership between the Federal

Government and the people of rural

America who rely on the electrification of the REA’s to provide their

power.

The partnership with the Federal

Government has been a mutually beneficial one. America’s rural electric cooperatives and small municipal power

systems agreed to purchase the initially more expensive Federal hydropower because they understood the

long-term security of a publicly owned

power system.

Without the commitment to purchase the power, the system could not

have been built. The REA members and

other customers pay for electricity

based on the cost of providing service,

retirement of the construction debt,

and interest.

The system is working well, Mr.

President. Those who rely on electrical

power from the system are repaying

the Federal Government for capital investment costs of building a system, as

well as the annual operation and maintenance costs of the system.

Down the road, when the projects are

paid for, these dams and facilities will

be federally owned and will continue to

provide significant sources of revenue

to the Federal Government.

The proposal of selling off the PMA’s

has a great deal of uncertainty. It is

clearly our goal to cut the deficit, but

on the other hand, if we are simply

doing things to privatize another Government function without understanding the effects of doing so, I think it is

rather risky.

Is it change just for the sake of

change? I hope not. If it is to maximize

deficit reduction, that means we sell to

the highest bidder. If we do that, clearly the highest bidder will have to raise

the electric rates for rural America,

and that will not do any good for those

who represent the States.

The rural regions that are having the

toughest economic times of anywhere

must have low rural electric rates. As

Congress considers a new farm bill and

the probability that many vulnerable

programs may be cut or eliminated, I

think it would be cruel to also turn out

the lights.

If, on the other hand, those who represent rural regions insist, and we will,

that there be a safe prohibition placed

on the rate increases if they are sold,

then it seems to me we are truly in a

pointless exercise, privatizing a function that most agree serves its customers well at no annual cost to the

Treasury.

I want to thank my colleagues, Senator PRESSLER, Senator DASCHLE, and

Senator BAUCUS, for arranging a section on which they will also speak.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise

I yield the floor.

PUBLIC POWER

ftoday 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