[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Page 7725]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 7725]]

                     DAMS IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Vice President of the United States is


flying to Oregon this evening, or tomorrow morning, for a visit to that 
State. On the last five or six occasions on which he has visited the 
State of Washington, I have inquired of him, as politely as possible, 
as to his intentions with respect to the future of four dams on the 
Snake River. This inquiry is of significant importance to the people of 
the State of Washington, as well as the people of the State of Oregon. 
The answer from the Vice President is peculiarly important because of 
the disarray of the present administration. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service has recommended that the dams come down, be removed, for salmon 
recovery. The Corps of Engineers, almost a year ago, was ready to 
recommend that the dams stay in place and that we deal with salmon 
recovery in another productive fashion. That recommendation was vetoed 
by the White House and removed physically from the Corps of Engineers' 
report.
  More recently, the National Marine Fishery Service has said that we 
don't know enough to decide whether or not we should remove the dams 
and that the decision may be at least 5 or 10 years away. The Governor 
of Oregon has recommended that the dams come down. The Governor of 
Washington, also a Democrat, has opposed that recommendation. As you 
know, Mr. President, so have I, in the most vehement possible terms. Of 
all of the proposals for salmon recovery, dam removal is, first, the 
most ineffective and, second, of the most marginal utility with respect 
to the recovery of the salmon resource in the Pacific Northwest.
  At a capital expenditure of $1 billion to $2 billion, and annual 
losses of at least a third of a billion dollars in perpetuity, the 
promise of salmon recovery from dam removal is extremely marginal, with 
no impact on some of the endangered runs, and only a modest improvement 
in the order of 10 to 20 percent in the prospects for certain other 
runs. Weighed against that are the potential real successes from the 
Salmon Recovery Board of the State of Washington, which has for the 
current year an appropriation from the Congress of $18 million for the 
work of citizen-based salmon recovery teams, which will be the 
beneficiary of an appropriation from this body of about $4 million.
  There is a very real concern with predation at the mouth of the 
Columbia River--a concern now frustrated by a lawsuit against any 
removal of Caspian terns from an artificial island at the mouth of the 
river by at least a temporary injunction. These and dozens of other 
projects in the Pacific Northwest have a far greater promise for the 
salmon recovery than does dam removal, with all of its devastating 
impacts on the loss of benign, renewable energy power, to be 
substituted by the use of fossil fuels, for all of the loss of 
agricultural land that requires irrigation to be anything other than a 
desert, for all the loss of a transportation system which is the most 
efficient and environmentally benign for the transportation of grain to 
ports on the lower Columbia River.
  All of these factors argue against dam removal. But the Vice 
President of the United States, in his candidacy for President of the 
United States, refuses to make any commitment whatsoever on this 
matter. Now, it may be that he didn't want to respond to this Senator 
on these visits to the State of Washington. But he is now going to be 
asked to respond by the Governor of Oregon, who supports his candidacy. 
His response has been demanded by the Portland Oregonian, the largest 
newspaper in the State of Oregon, which, incidentally, holds my 
position and that of my colleague, Senator Smith of Oregon, on the 
subject. One hopes that the Vice President will finally be able to come 
up with an opinion. Now, he has taken positions on other local issues. 
He is certainly quite willing to tell the people of South Carolina what 
flag they can fly. But he seems unwilling to tell the people of 
Washington and Oregon what his views are on an issue of vital 
importance to them and to their regional economy.
  So I am here to express the hope that the Vice President will finally 
come clean with his views on this subject. But I must express the 
expectation that he will, once again, dodge the issue, pretend that he 
has not made up his mind when, in fact, he has, and claim that he can't 
make a substantive comment on this until after the election in November 
is over. I will regret that, Mr. President. His opponent, the Governor 
of Texas, has taken the forthright stand that it is improper and 
uneconomical and unwise to remove those dams. He will protect the 
physical infrastructure of the Pacific Northwest. I am here to invite 
the Vice President of the United States to do likewise, without, I 
regret to say, any expectation that he is willing to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Georgia.

                          ____________________