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




                          OPPOSE SALE OF PMA'S

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would 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.
  I yield the floor.
  

                          ____________________