May 3, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6129

It will be an invisible tax on the privately insured.

Some Republicans want to impose

this invisible tax to pay for their visible tax cut for the wealthy.

The budget figures and the rate of

health care inflation show that Medicare can be preserved without massive

cuts of the kind some are considering.

They only reason they need to cut $300

billion from Medicare is because they

plan to give away $354 billion at the

same time through a tax cut for the

wealthy.

Americans will not be fooled by talk

of bipartisan commissions. They will

not buy the ruse, where their retired

parents’ health care is cut way back

and their own health care costs are exacerbated to quietly provide tax breaks

to the wealthiest people in the country.

If Medicare needs reform, it should

be reformed in a way that ensures seniors will get the care they have been

promised, and it should be done in the

context of health care reform. Medicare should not be cut blindly to

achieve false savings—or worse, to fund

a tax cut for those who need it least.

The first step in this process must be

for the majority to do what they already should have done—propose a

budget.

ADMINISTRATIONS IS BAD POLICY

SELLING THE POWER MARKETING

fMr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the administration’s proposal to sell three of

the Nation’s five power marketing administrations includes the Western

Area Power Administration, which

markets power from the main stem

dams on the Missouri River to South

Dakota utilities and cooperatives.

As others have indicated, the sale of

the power marketing administrations

or PMA’s would result in an expected

one-time savings of $3.7 billion. However, basing the decision on that fact

alone is a case of false economy.

PMA’s return far more money to the

Federal Government each year than

they cost to operate. In 1995, for example, the Western Area Power Administration cost $225.1 million to operate,

but returned $378.5 million to the

Treasury. Other power marketing administrations showed even greater returns. And, beyond that, the sale is

likely, ultimately, to increase electricity rates for consumers by up to 300

percent in some areas.

This makes no sense.

Obviously, we need to reduce the

budget deficit, and Democrats are

ready to do that. But we should not do

it indiscriminately. Before we start

cutting Government programs, we have

a responsibility to evaluate their utility and consider the consequences.

I am concerned that, in proposing

this sale, proponents have fallen prey

to the allure of short-term savings and

missed the larger point that power

marketing administrations are good

examples of exactly how Government

should work.

It has been said that the purpose of

Government is to do those things that

are essential but which we cannot do as

individuals. That is exactly what the

power marketing administrations do.

They bring affordable electricity to

communities that otherwise might not

be able to afford it. And they do it

cost-effectively.

I have heard the claims that the

power marketing administrations can

be sold without causing substantial

rate increases. Frankly, I’m skeptical

of these claims.

In South Dakota, the Western Area

Power Administration, or WAPA, markets power from the main stem dams

along the Missouri River and has for

years ensured a consistent and affordable supply of electricity. The program

pays for itself.

If WAPA and the other PMA’s are

sold, rates are likely to increase substantially. That is because those with

the deepest pockets—those in the best

position to purchase the assets—will be

out-of-State financial interests, whose

primary objective will be to maximize

their return on investment.

Like any business, the buyers of

PMA’s will want to maximize their

bottom line—profits. And electric rates

for existing Federal power customers

will rise as a result. Customers in

South Dakota and other States now

served will pay much higher costs for

power, with much of the money going

to out-of-State financial interests who

bankroll these purchases.

Farming, ranching, and small businesses dominate the prairie economy,

providing modest incomes for most

South Dakotans. The economic fate of

our State or any other should not be

placed in the hands of those whose only

interest is in making higher profits.

As you would expect, the proposal to

sell the power marketing administrations is unpopular in South Dakota

and, I believe, in many other States as

well.

I have received more than 10,000 letters from people opposed to the sale—

and only two letters in favor of it. Ten

thousand to two.

I believe that people generally know

what is best for themselves. And when

they speak this clearly, in such overwhelming numbers, Congress ought to

listen.

And let there be no mistake. The sale

of the power marketing administrations will have a negative effect far beyond the economy of South Dakota.

PMA’s sell power in 34 States across

the country. I urge every Member of

this body to take a long look at the potential impacts of this sale on customers in his or her State. Read the

fine print in this proposal, and I believe

you will see the folly in this idea.

In conclusion, Mr. President, PMA’s

work. Instead of selling them off, we

should be holding them up as an example of how the Federal Government can

work for the people and the national

economy.

PMA’s provide affordable power to

States like South Dakota without any

subsidy. The Federal Government gets

a return on its investment. Customers

have access to reliable, affordable electricity.

What more can one ask of a program?

Like other States, South Dakota sacrificed great tracts of prime wildlife

habitat and farmland so that dams

could be constructed. Selling the

PMA’s now would deprive us of equitable compensation for those sacrifices. Given that, and given the almost certain rate increases that would

result from the sale, as well as the

likelihood of out-of-State ownership

and, thus, the export of State resources, the sale of the PMA’s is not a

policy that I can support. I urge my

colleagues to join me in opposing this

ill-conceived sale.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and,

as I understand it, we are now going

into recess.

RECESS UNTIL 9:30 A.M.

fTOMORROW

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, the Senate stands

in recess until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May

4, 1995.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 7:28 p.m.,

recessed until Thursday, May 4, 1995, at

9:30 a.m.

Executive nomination received by

NOMINATION

fthe Senate May 3, 1995:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

TIMOTHY MICHAEL CARNEY, OF WASHINGTON, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE,

CLASS OF COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF SUDAN.

Executive nomination confirmed by

CONFIRMATION

fthe Senate May 3, 1995:

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION

CHARLES T. MANATT, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION UNTIL THE

DATE OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE CORPORATION

IN 1997.

THE ABOVE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED SUBJECT TO

THE NOMINEE’S COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY

CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.