[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 112 (Friday, July 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8977-S8978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S8977]]



         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 5093

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5093.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 36, line 4, strike all of section 504, and insert 
     the following:
       Sec. 504. Following section 4(g)(3) of the Northwest Power 
     Planning and Conservation Act, insert the following new 
     section:
       (4)(g)(4) Independent scientific review panel.--(i) The 
     Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) shall appoint an 
     Independent Scientific Review Panel (Panel), which shall be 
     comprised of eleven members, to review projects proposed to 
     be funded through that portion of the Bonneville Power 
     Administration's (BPA) annual fish and wildlife budget that 
     implements the Council's annual fish and wildlife program. 
     Members shall be appointed from a list submitted by the 
     National Academy of Sciences, provided that Pacific Northwest 
     scientists with expertise in Columbia River anadromous and 
     non-anadromous fish and wildlife and ocean experts shall be 
     among those represented on the Panel.
       (ii) Scientific peer review groups.--The Council shall 
     establish Scientific Peer Review Groups (Peer Review Groups), 
     which shall be comprised of the appropriate number of 
     scientists, from a list submitted by the National Academy of 
     Sciences to assist the Panel in making its recommendations to 
     the Council for projects to be funded through BPA's annual 
     fish and wildlife budget, provided that Pacific Northwest 
     scientists with expertise in Columbia River anadromous and 
     non-anadromous fish and wildlife and ocean experts shall be 
     among those represented on the Peer Review Groups.
       (iii) Conflict of interest and compensation.--Panel and 
     Peer Review Group members may be compensated and shall be 
     considered as special government employees subject to 45 CFR 
     684.10 through 684.22.
       (iv) Project criteria and review.--The Peer Review Groups, 
     in conjunction with the Panel, shall review projects proposed 
     to be funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget 
     and make recommendations on matters related to such projects, 
     to the Council. Project recommendations shall be based on a 
     determination that projects: are based on sound science 
     principles; benefit fish and wildlife; and have a clearly 
     defined objective and outcome with provisions for monitoring 
     and evaluation of results. The Panel, with assistance from 
     the Peer Review Groups, shall review, on an annual basis, the 
     results of prior year expenditures based upon these criteria 
     and submit ifs finding to the Council for its review.
       (v) Public review.--Upon completion of the review of 
     projects to be funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife 
     budget, the Peer Review Groups shall submit their findings to 
     the Panel. The Panel shall analyze the information submitted 
     by the Peer Review Groups and submit recommendations on 
     project priorities to the Council. The Council shall make the 
     Panel's findings available to the public and subject to 
     public comment.
       (vi) Responsibilities of the council.--The Council shall 
     fully consider the recommendations of the Panel when making 
     its final recommendations of projects to be funded through 
     BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget, and if the Council 
     does not incorporate a recommendation of the Panel, the 
     Council shall explain in writing its reasons for not 
     accepting Panel recommendations. In making its 
     recommendations to BPA, the Council shall: consider the 
     impact of ocean conditions on fish and wildlife populations; 
     and shall determine whether the projects employ cost 
     effective measures to achieve project objectives. The 
     Council, after consideration of the recommendations of the 
     Panel and other appropriate entities shall be responsible for 
     making the final recommendations of projects to be funded 
     through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget.
       (vii) Cost limitation.--The cost of this provision shall 
     not exceed $2 million in 1997 dollars.
       (viii) Expiration.--This paragraph shall expire on 
     September 30, 2000.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank both the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for their understanding in 
accepting this modification to a provision already included at my 
request in this fiscal year 1997 energy and water bill.
  Section 504 of that bill, and this modification, amend the Northwest 
Power Act to address a conflict-of-interest issue that was recently 
brought to my attention by people in Washington and Oregon concerned 
and knowledgeable about salmon conservation.
  The Bonneville Power Administration's annual fish and wildlife 
budget, in real dollars spent on projects, totals well over $100 
million. This $100 million comes out of the pockets of Northwest 
ratepayers each year to protect and enhance fish and wildlife in the 
Columbia and Snake River basins. The Northwest Power Planning Council 
prepares and adopts a regional plan to protect fish and wildlife and 
each year allocates this $100 million to support that plan.
  At the present time, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 
is responsible for making recommendations to the council on projects 
being funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget.
  The membership of the authority includes representatives of affected 
Indian tribes from the region, the Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 
Montana State fish and wildlife directors, and representatives of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service in the National Marine Fisheries Service.
  I am convinced that the authority plays an important and necessary 
role in providing recommendations to the council on what fish and 
wildlife projects should be funded each year. I was disturbed to 
discover recently, however, that authority members were recommending to 
the council that about $75 million of the $100 million spent in project 
money go to projects to be performed by the members of the authority 
itself. Mr. President, it is like the Department of Defense asking one 
of my other constituents, the Boeing Co., to decide what brand of 
aircraft the military will use.

  My amendment and this modification to the Northwest Power Act would 
ensure that the authority and its members retain a voice in the 
process, but that sound objective and disinterested science also is 
heard. Each year, about 400 proposals are submitted for review by the 
authority all applying to receive funding from the Bonneville funding 
administration's annual budget. I am sure independent scientific review 
would remove any suggestion of conflict of interest in connection with 
these grants and add an important element of review to the council's 
decisionmaking process. I am convinced it would also assure that the 
moneys spent will result in the greatest possible salmon enhancement.
  My amendment directs the council to establish an 11-member 
independent scientific review panel from a list of names provided by 
the National Academy of Sciences. The panel would be responsible for 
reviewing projects to be funded under BPA's annual fish and wildlife 
program. I understand the council, together with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, has already established an independent scientific 
advisory board in order to provide scientific advice to the council and 
the National Marine Fisheries Service.
  I want to note in the Record at this time that nothing in this 
amendment precludes the National Academy of Sciences from recommending 
that some or all of the scientists who serve on the ISAB serve on the 
newly created independent scientific review panel, provided that those 
members meet the conflict-of-interest standards spelled out in the 
amendment. If ISAB scientists are selected to serve on the newly 
created panel of ours, they should not be compensated twice for the 
same services.
  After careful consultation with the National Academy of Sciences, I 
have included a provision in my amendment that requires the council to 
establish, from a list submitted by the National Academy, scientific 
peer review groups to assist the panel in making its recommendations to 
the council. It is these peer review groups that will be doing the 
actual review of the 400-plus project applications submitted to the 
council each year for consideration.
  The panel will coordinate the work of the peer review groups and 
ensure that each project is reviewed based upon the following 
commonsense criteria: Does the project benefit fish and wildlife in the 
region? Does the project have a clearly defined objective and outcome? 
And is the project based on sound scientific principles?
  The amendment directs the panel to prioritize recommendations for the 
council from the analysis provided by

[[Page S8978]]

the peer review groups and that the council make panel recommendations 
available for public review. The amendment places a cost limitation on 
the scientific review process of $2 million.
  My amendment directs the council to review recommendations of the 
panel, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority and others, in 
making its final recommendations to BPA for projects to be funded 
through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget. If the council does not 
follow the advice of the panel, it is to explain in writing the basis 
for the decision. The council is directed to consider ocean conditions, 
among others, in its decisionmaking process, and to determine whether 
project recommendations employ cost-effective measures to achieve 
project objectives.

  Lastly, my amendment expressly states that the council, after review 
of panel and other recommendations, has the authority to make final 
recommendations to BPA on projects to be funded through BPA's annual 
fish and wildlife budget.
  This amendment is intended to be effective on the date of enactment 
and to be first implemented during the planning process for the 
expenditure of BPA's fiscal year 1998 fish and wildlife budget. The 
amendment will expire on September 30, in the year 2000, in order that 
its success can be measured by the people of the Pacific Northwest and 
this Congress.
  Mr. President, my amendment seeks to do just one thing: to make sure 
that Northwest ratepayer dollars are being spent in a cost-effective 
and objective manner. I have consulted extensively with interested 
groups in the region on this amendment and have listened to the 
constructive suggestions of my colleague, Senator Murray, and that is 
why I am proposing that these changes to the amendment be included in 
the committee bill.
  My amendment will ensure that sound science principles are considered 
by the council before spending ratepayer dollars to protect and enhance 
fish and wildlife on the Columbia and Snake River System.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the senior Senator from Washington 
yield for a question?
  Mr. GORTON. I yield to the junior Senator from Washington for a 
question.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator. As you know, the Northwest Power 
Act requires the Power Planning Council and Bonneville Power 
Administration to mitigate the effects of the hydro-electric system on 
fish and wildlife generally, and anadromous fisheries specifically. The 
amendment proposed by the senior Senator would require the council to 
consider ocean conditions prior to making its science-based 
recommendations for mitigation priorities to Bonneville. Does the 
Senator agree that his amendment does not expand the scope of Northwest 
Power Act with respect to hydro system mitigation, nor does it make 
hydro system mitigation efforts contingent on known ocean conditions?
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the junior Senator for raising this important 
question, and agree with her characterization of the amendment. My 
amendment does not expand the scope of either the council's or 
Bonneville's mitigation requirements under the Northwest Power Act. It 
simply suggests that it is valid for the council to consider known 
ocean conditions when making its recommendations for hydro system 
mitigation to Bonneville.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
session of the Senate on Friday and Monday, July 29, the Senate 
consider Calendar No. 496, S. 1959, the energy and water appropriations 
bill, and the following amendments be the only first-degree amendments 
in order, and must be offered during the session on Friday or Monday.
  The amendments are as follows: Domenici, relevant; Lott, relevant; 
Jeffords-Roth, renewable energy; Kyl, central Arizona project; Grams, 
Appalachian Regional Commission; managers' package; McCain, regarding 
the light-water reactor; McCain, relevant; McCain, relevant; Specter, 
Sawmill Run; Pressler, relevant; Pressler, relevant; McConnell, USEC; 
Lott, regarding environmental management; D'Amato, FUSRAP; Burns, one 
on environmental management; Kempthorne-Craig, environmental 
management; Gorton, independent scientific review; and Hutchison, DOE.
  From the Democratic side: Senator Biden, relevant; Senator Boxer, 
three relevant; Senator Bumpers, DOE weapons, a water project, and a 
separate water project; Senator Byrd, relevant in two instances; 
Senator Conrad, water quality and bank stabilization; Senator Daschle, 
two relevant amendments; Senator Dorgan, two relevant amendments; 
Senator Feingold, one relevant; Ford, one relevant; Mikulski, one 
relevant, along with Senator Sarbanes; Senator Johnston, relevant; 
Senator Kerry, electrometallugical treatment research; Senator Reid, 
two relevant; Senator Simon, two relevant; Senator Wellstone, regarding 
alfalfa; and Senator Rockefeller, regarding Japan semiconductors.
  Now, it will be my intent to have these votes stacked at 10 o'clock 
on Tuesday on a case-by-case basis.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I shall not object, this 
has been cleared with the minority side?
  Mr. LOTT. It has been cleared on the minority side.
  I must say I am totally unimpressed with either side. A list of 
amendments like this is totally ridiculous. I know a number of these 
will be worked out, and the managers and the chairman will solve a 
number of these problems in the managers' amendment, but we ought to 
have maybe two amendments total on this bill.

  Maybe next week will be like this week--a miraculous cooperation will 
evolve and we will get it done quickly. I do not know why we have to go 
through this exercise of listing this stuff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request of the majority leader?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask that with respect to any amendment on the 
Colorado water project there be up to 10 minutes under the control of 
Senator Campbell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask that all amendments be subject to second-
degree relevant amendments and may be offered on or after Monday, and 
following the votes with respect to the amendments, the bill be read 
for a third time and there be 10 minutes under the control of Senator 
McCain, and the Senate then proceed to the House companion bill, H.R. 
3816, all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of 1959 be 
inserted, the bill be advanced to third reading, and final passage all 
occur without further action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________