[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S16832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SALE OF POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, recently during the debate on the 
fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriations conference report, 
attention was called to some of the fine print within that report 
regarding the sale of power marketing administrations.
  It was agreed in the conference report to retain the prohibitions 
against the six Federal public power authorities from conducting 
studies related to pricing hydroelectric power and against the 
executive branch to study or take other actions to transfer federal 
power marketing authorities out of Federal ownership.
  I am very pleased that the Senate prevailed in its position and 
overturned efforts within the House of Representatives to forward a bad 
idea that would have had consequences at a bad time for rural America.
  There simply is no reason for Congress to have to repeatedly say 
``No'' to the sale of our Nation's power marketing administrations. 
Such sales would be both poor public policy and shortsighted fiscal 
policy.
  Yet I am not convinced that the perpetrators of this bad idea have 
gotten the message.
  Within the report is the following statement:

       The conferees agree that the statutory limitations do not 
     prohibit the Legislative Branch from initiating or conducting 
     studies or collecting information regarding the sale or 
     transfer of the power marketing administrations to non-
     Federal ownership.

  This statement is factually correct. The prohibitions in law that 
were retained by the conference report were that neither the power 
marketing administrations nor the executive branch could use Federal 
funds to study this bad idea.
  This language however does not mean that such studies by the 
legislative branch would be a good idea. This language should not be 
interpreted as an invitation for the legislative branch to once again 
spend money pursuing a bad idea.
  Those who would pervert this language as some form of authorization 
for a study by the legislative branch simply haven't understood the 
message.
  The message is simple--if we prohibit one branch of Government from 
foolishly spending money pursuing a bad idea, it would be just as 
foolish for another branch to use tax dollars for similar studies.
  We do not need any more studies to confirm that this is bad idea, 
with bad consequences, at a bad time for rural Americans. It is time to 
understand the will of Congress and move on and leave this bad idea in 
the trash can where it belongs.

                          ____________________