[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16515-S16516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, yesterday evening, the Senate passed the 
conference report on H.R. 1905, the Fiscal Year 1996 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act. I would like to comment on one aspect 
of this bill that has tremendous meaning to people in my State of 
Washington.
  During the debate, the senior Senator from Washington made a 
statement regarding a recent agreement between the various Members of 
the Senate from the Pacific Northwest and the Clinton administration 
regarding the recovery of salmon runs in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. 
He correctly pointed out the two things it represents: First, an 
acknowledgment by the administration of the need to stabilize recovery 
costs; and, second, an interim solution that provides some breathing 
space for the region to develop ideas for longer-term solutions.
  My colleague also went the extra step of pointing out all the 
problems with the status quo, problems on which there is almost no 
disagreement. He spoke of the escalating costs of recovery measures. He 
spoke of the increasing financial pressures on Bonneville Power 
Administration. He spoke of conflicting Federal laws. He spoke of the 
inability of the Federal Government to develop solutions that work for 
a very unique region of the country. These are things on which we can 
both agree. These are problems on which I want to work with him to 
solve.
  He also spoke of his goals in this debate. And again, his goals are 
substantially similar to mine. He spoke of the need to rebuild the once 
vibrant salmon runs which so much define the people of the Northwest 
and their culture. He wants to accomplish that soon, and so do I. He 
wants the Pacific Northwest--and the United States--to continue to 
benefit from the magnificent Federal Columbia River Power System, and I 
think he's right on target.
  During his remarks, however, he drew an interesting parallel between 
this issue and the spotted owl controversy that has vexed our region 
for so many years. He said, in effect, that while owls are important, 
they should not be more important than people. I do not think any 
right-thinking person ever argued that owls should be more important 
than people; I know I have not. But most people know the real issue has 
been the gradual degradation of the public forests for which the owl 
became a symbol. The public has soundly rejected overcutting and 
overexploitation of the national forests, in favor of ecosystem 
management approach currently embodied by the Northwest forest plans.
  The senior Senator suggests that--like his approach to the spotted 
owl--we should restore fish, but not at the expense of anyone else. I 
think that he fundamentally misjudges the differences between the 
salmon issue and the spotted owl issue. This is not as simple as jobs 
versus owls. Unlike the owl, salmon are firmly identified with people. 
They are part of people's basic vision of the Northwest, and they are 
part of the economic foundation on which our great State has been 
built. Salmon mean jobs. They put a roof over the heads of fishers and 
their families. They are at the spiritual center of native American 
cultures. They are at the core of many family relationships; how many 
parents have taken their child out for his or her very first fishing 
trip?
  And the decline of salmon has sent a horrendous ripple effect through 
our economy, through our State, our politics, and even our 
international relations. The decline of salmon has driven fishers from 
Washington and Oregon up to Alaska. It has driven parents out of homes. 
It has created tension between politicians from neighboring States. 
Lawsuits have been filed. Indian peoples have threatened to enforce 
their treaty rights. Canada has taken a punitive line against our 
fishing boats, and our treaty with them has fallen into serious 
dispute. Why? Because the Federal Government has not taken care of our 
salmon runs. It is as simple as that, and it's a problem we can fix.
  My colleague from Washington correctly points out that the 
administrative agreement reached last week to 

[[Page S 16516]]

establish a budget for salmon recovery is just that--a promise by the 
administration to bring costs under control. He also expressed concern 
that nothing has been committed to paper describing this agreement. 
That is why I insert language into the conference report on H.R. 1905--
with his support--that directs the agencies involved to enter into a 
memorandum of agreement detailing the manner in which the annual salmon 
budget will be implemented.
  Make no mistake: a huge amount of money will be devoted to salmon 
recovery, and the public deserves detailed accounting of how it is 
spent. We will have accountability, or we will pull the plug. I expect 
the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bonneville Power 
Administration, and the four Northwest States--either through their 
Governors, or the Northwest Power Planning Council--to reach agreement 
on the best approach to recovery, and to provide a full written 
accounting of their efforts.

  How will we recover these salmon runs, when we have had so little 
success to date? The answer is by following good science. The senior 
Senator and I also agree on this, though he made one comment that 
disturbs me. He said we should not spend all this money solely to 
recover one, two, or three weak runs of fish. Well, I agree, and I do 
not think anyone is suggesting we should just focus on three runs. 
There are over 80 salmon and steelhead runs in this basin, and we 
should focus on managing the whole population to maximum advantage. 
Like the national forests that are home to the spotted owl, the health 
of the river system is in trouble. Nearly every single salmon and 
steelhead run is trending downward in population.
  If we examine the science as it is currently understood, we will find 
that what is good for 1 weak run is also good for 79 others. 
Furthermore, the Northwest Power Planning Council has developed its own 
plan, and it's almost identical to that of the Federal Government. The 
only difference is that it targets the whole basin. That is right; the 
regional, homespun salmon plan aims to rebuild all salmon runs in the 
basin, and yet it calls for recovery measures almost identical to those 
required by the ESA: better passage around dams, faster travel time to 
the ocean, habitat conservation, and decreased predation. So it is 
reasonable to conclude that scientific theories are headed in the same 
direction for all salmon in the basin, be they listed under the 
Endangered Species Act, or not.
  My colleague also pointed out that the region's current problems are 
the fault of Federal laws and overzealous bureaucrats. While that is 
surely true in part, it is not the whole story. The Endangered Species 
Act gives NMFS the responsibility to act to save salmon. It has kicked 
in as a measure of last resort, because other actions have failed. 
There are other laws that also apply. The Northwest Power Act--written 
by our Senators Warren Magnuson, Scoop Jackson, and Mark Hatfield 
specifically for the region--requires BPA to manage the river system to 
ensure the propagation of salmon. That law set up the Northwest Power 
Planning Council to oversee BPA.
  It was a regional solution; but it maybe outdated, because it's no 
longer working.
  But that's not all. The Federal Power Act requires non-Federal dams 
to take serious measures to protect salmon before they can get an 
operating license. There are treaties with native Americans--upheld by 
the Supreme Court of the United States as the highest law of the land--
that require the Government to ensure healthy salmon runs exist. And 
finally, we have a treaty with Canada that requires each country to 
replaced the amount of fish it takes from the other's waters.
  What solutions have been proposed by my senior colleague? He 
consistently has proposed shortcutting the law and tilting the balance 
of decisionmaking by limiting public involvement. His approach has been 
to find the quick fix: suspend the laws as they apply to our region, 
and impose an outcome from the Federal level. Well, more often than 
not, that approach shortchanges the science and leads to massive 
lawsuits. He has also proposed sweeping revision to the ESA, some of 
which might be needed. But the fact remains, we could repeal the ESA 
tomorrow, and it would not do a thing to help restore salmon to the 
Columbia Basin.
  It is not as simple as turning the whole mess over to the States. 
That might get the Feds out of the picture, but it does not begin to 
solve the problem. In the end, we need to stop addressing all Columbia 
River issues in isolation. Salmon costs are not BPA's only problem; 
some might argue it is the least of its problems. BPA's biggest problem 
is how to continue delivering benefits to the people, given competitive 
changes to energy markets. It has inefficient management, a huge debt 
load, numerous public policy mandates, very little accountability, and 
virtually no regulatory oversight.
  Politicians should commit to working for a series of shared values, 
and then start looking for ways to achieve them for the people. I think 
those values remain very clear: we should have clean, affordable 
hydropower; we should have bountiful fish and wildlife; and we should 
pay off the debts incurred to construct the system.
  For fish, we need to find a way to make the requirements of all these 
laws and treaties consistent. And then we need one plan to meet these 
requirements. One set of standards, and one plan to meet them. We must 
utilize a scientifically sound, adaptive management approach. We must 
test, monitor, and adapt as we learn more about salmon science. The 
fact is, salmon science is inexact. There are many different theories 
on what is best for them; only by experimenting will we find the 
solutions that work best. Our challenge is to conduct these tests in 
the most sensible, cost effective way.
  For the hydro system, we need to carefully reevaluate the role of 
BPA--and all its assets--as we enter the 21st century, and try to 
identify the role that makes the most sense for consumers in the new 
marketplace. The four Northwest Governors and the Department of Energy 
are currently planning a regional forum to review these issues. I hope 
this forum can be used to review proposals for change coming from the 
bottom up. I have been talking with many constituents over the past 
year, and I know much work has been done on the ground to scope out 
changes to the law that make sense for the region. I want to see that 
work carry over into the public arena. In my view, the Governors are 
best positioned to bring people together, review ideas, and forward 
useful guidance to the congressional delegation here in Washington, DC.
  Mr. President, I have listened very closely to the people of the 
Northwest. They want salmon runs. They want clean hydropower in favor 
of nuclear power, or coal, or even gas. But above all else, they want 
to avoid the controversies of the past like the spotted owl: they want 
a solution. I am passionately committed to finding a solution that 
works for the Northwest. People do not want to see their politicians 
bicker. They do not want to see winners and losers in public debate. 
They want to see their politicians work together, and they want 
problems solved.
  The agreement reached with the Clinton administration last week was a 
solid beginning. It was not landmark, and it certainly was not a long-
term solution. But it buys time for the region to think this through 
very carefully, and it does not harm any aspect of the river system, or 
the fish. We now have an opportunity. We can move forward, and find 
solutions, or we can draw lines in the sand and let things devolve into 
politics. I know the people of the Pacific Northwest want the former.

                          ____________________