[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 47 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3578-S3579]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    THE ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM AND FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT OF 1998

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, earlier this month, I came to the floor to 
announce that I was introducing legislation that would authorize the 
removal of one of two dams on the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula 
in my state. I have always been skeptical about claims that dam removal 
will have significant enough impact on my state's depleted salmon runs 
to justify their social and economic costs. I am willing to go along 
with this limited experiment, however, provided that the removal or 
significant alteration of any dam on the Columbia-Snake River System 
will not take place without Congressional approval.
  As I mentioned in my statement, removing the lower Elwha Dam, a 
relatively small, poorly maintained project, is a small price to pay 
for the protection of the larger, more productive Columbia-Snake dams 
that are the lifeblood of our Northwest economy and that in recent 
years have come under attack by the Clinton-Gore Administration. I 
hoped that allowing the experiment of dam removal to move forward on 
the Elwha River would be enough to satisfy the wishes of environmental 
extremists within this Administration. I should have known that when it 
comes to environmental issues nothing is ever enough for this 
Administration.
  I was astounded by the criticism my bill has received. Big City 
newspapers in Seattle and Portland have attacked the bill. The Sierra 
Club and other radical groups have attacked the bill. The 
Administration has attacked the bill, as has my Democratic colleague 
from Washington state. Needless to say, this criticism is unfounded and 
shortsighted.
  Let me remind my colleagues and anyone else who has an interest in 
this subject what my bill does and does not do. It authorizes many 
millions of dollars to remove the lower Elwha River Dam. It also 
protects the local water supply in Port Angeles, and protects jobs at a 
local paper mill. As I have said repeatedly, I am skeptical that dam 
removal will result in a significant increase in Elwha River salmon 
runs because: (1) many rivers on the Olympic Peninsula that have never 
been dammed are not teeming with salmon; (2) the salmon crisis 
challenge our coastal rivers as well and yet none of those rivers have 
dams on them; and (3) Puget Sound is now home to endangered salmon 
runs, and, of course, there are no major dams on Puget Sound. Yet, 
despite these reservations, I am still willing to go forward with this 
experiment--it's worth the money to see the results on the ground.
  But rural communities of Eastern Washington are so concerned about 
how this legislation impacts their livelihood--many in Eastern 
Washington believe removal of the Elwha River dams is a precursor to 
destroying dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers . So my bill contains 
protections for these communities by requiring congressional approval 
for any destruction, or significant modification, of dams on the 
Columbia and Snake Rivers.
  I should point out that for several years federal agencies have taken 
unprecedented and unauthorized actions to alter significantly and limit 
the effectiveness of these projects without any input from Congress. 
For the most part, my bill allows these agencies to continue 
implementing the present series of unauthorized actions. It simply 
prevents the executive branch from taking additional unilateral actions 
to modify these projects without Congressional approval. Why it should 
be so controversial when Elwha dam removal will have been the subject 
of two bills in Congress, I fail to understand. Columbia and Snake 
River dam removal almost certainly requires Congressional approval now, 
under present law--my bill just provides reassurances for eastern 
Washington.

  I think this is also an appropriate time to remind all of those who 
are interested in this legislation--the Port Angeles community, Eastern 
Washington, environmentalists, the Administration, and Northwest 
congressional officeholders--what I am for, and what I am not for in 
regards to management of our region's environment, and the Columbia/
Snake Rivers system. Here are the things that I am for:
  Salmon: On this one, everyone has the same goal--more salmon. We just 
have different approaches for accomplishing this goal. I want more 
salmon in our rivers, and I want solutions to our Northwest salmon 
crisis that result in more salmon and less conflict among the region's 
various interests.
  Clear, Scientific Conclusions: We need clear, scientific conclusions 
that guide the region toward responsible salmon recovery measures.
  Hydropower Production: Hydro is the cleanest and most cost-effective 
way to produce large amounts of electricity. Our hydropower asset is 
the backbone of our Northwest economy. I don't want to lose that ``leg 
up'' that we have on other regions, nor do I want to resort to less 
environmentally friendly sources of power production to replace power 
lost because of dam removal.
  Irrigation: Eastern Washington is America's pantry and refrigerator. 
Our farmlands produce dozens of different crops that feed the nation 
and the world. Before the dams, Central Washington had few farms, and 
was mostly a dustbowl. Irrigated farmland has turned this part of the 
nation into some of the world's most productive farmland.
  River Traffic: We get a large share of those crops to market by 
barging them down the river. Studies show that it would take 700,000 
more trucks each year to get farm products to market if dam removal 
eliminated barge traffic.
  Recreation: I want people to have access to the river for boating, 
fishing and other recreation activities.
  Protecting our Communities from Severe Floods: Without question, the 
dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers were the single biggest reason 
why Portland and other Columbia River communities did not incur untold 
millions of dollars in additional damages from the record winter rains 
our area has seen over the past three years.
  A Clean Washington State: This is my most important goal--I want our 
State to have clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment for all 
of our citizens. My desire for a clean Washington state is why I have 
backed the following environmental initiatives: Washington Wilderness 
Bill; Double-hulled oil tankers in Puget Sound; Higher emission 
standards for automobiles; and Spending taxpayer dollars on recreation 
such as the Mountains to Sound Greenway, the Cape Horn Trail, Alpine 
Lakes, and other nature projects.
  Given all the confusion and mischaracterizations of my bill, I think 
it is also important to talk about what I cannot support. Here is what 
I am not for:
  Removing Dams on the Columbia-Snake: Why would anyone want to remove 
the jewels of our Northwest economy? I will never support such efforts 
to cripple the world's most productive hydro system.
  The Status Quo: During the past six years, we have spent $3 billion 
on salmon recovery for the Pacific Northwest, most of it directed by 
the Clinton Administration, and the crisis is even greater than it was 
when the Administration's efforts started.
  Wasteful Spending of Taxpayer Dollars: Even now, our government 
spends $500 million on Columbia/Snake River salmon recovery, and most 
of that money is spent in ways that have not

[[Page S3579]]

proven to be successful. Until I passed legislation that ended an 
outrageous conflict of interest by which those who approved the 
spending of salmon recovery funds awarded most of the money to 
themselves, the money was misspent. Now, at least the money goes to 
those whom objective scientists feel will use it most effectively.

  Solutions Dictated to the region from Washington, D.C.: Recently, the 
Administration's top environmental staffer in Washington, D.C., Katie 
McGinty, was in Oregon to discuss the government's salmon recovery 
plans for the Northwest. That is exactly the wrong way to approach this 
problem. Why would our region put decisions about our economy, our 
communities, our future in the hands of someone 3,000 miles away? I 
believe we need to make these decisions, not Administration officials 
in Washington, D.C.
  Rather than continuing the mindless attacks on my efforts to bring 
some balance to this debate, I make the following offer to those who 
criticize the Eastern Washington part of my Elwha package. If you are 
not for dam removal and want to keep the dams intact, offer up better 
legislative language that helps accomplish the goal of protecting our 
region's economic future. My legislation may need improvement. I am 
anxious to listen to how others would reach my goal. If there is a 
better idea of how we can ease the concerns of Eastern Washington with 
regard to dam removal, I challenge the Administration, Senator Murray, 
and the Sierra Club, and other opponents of this legislation, to offer 
a better alternative. I am interested in all proposals from those who 
want to make a statement in favor of protecting the dams on the 
Columbia and Snake Rivers.
  If you favor removing dams, however, and that is what is really 
driving your opposition to my legislation, I think it is time for you 
to be honest with the Northwest and state your position clearly. The 
Clinton Administration, and major environmental groups have sent mixed 
signals on this issue. Many of them advocate extreme, unrealistic and 
unscientific salmon recovery measures; some do not. I think it is time 
for these people to make their positions clear--do they want the dams 
removed or effectively destroyed, or what? And if they continue to 
temporize on this issue, I ask them to address the goals that I 
discussed earlier--salmon, irrigation, river traffic, hydropower 
production, recreation, and flood control--and tell me how they are 
committed to those traditional objectives, or if the possibility of 
attaining some salmon recovery goals is worth destroying most or all of 
these other uses.
  I want my Elwha Dam removal legislation fully discussed in committee 
and have requested hearings. In the past few weeks, the opponents of my 
anti-dam removal legislation have called me divisive, extremist, and a 
salmon-hater. I am none of those things. I hope that my opponents, and 
particularly the Administration and my Democratic colleagues from the 
Northwest, will work together with me to craft legislation that removes 
the lower Elwha River dam and protects Eastern Washington from those 
who want to remove dams, stop irrigation, eliminate barge traffic, 
reduce hydropower, raise electric rates for families, restrict 
recreation and push for dubious salmon solutions.
  I welcome the opportunity for a full and reasoned debate on this 
subject. It's time to put the rhetoric aside, the tired adjectives 
aside, and the political smokescreens aside. It's time for everyone to 
come clean, and make clear where they stand on this important issue. 
This bill provides such an opportunity, and I look forward to receiving 
proposals from people throughout the region on how to improve my bill.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from 
Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________