The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGULATION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S668-S670 on Feb. 22, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGULATION
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to read portions of a proposed regulation found on page 173 of the January 3, 2000, issue of the Federal Register:
``[I]t is important that individuals alter their daily behaviors,'' ``and for governmental entities to seek programmatic incentives, public education, regulatory changes, or other approaches.''
``Daily behaviors'' are further defined as ``Individual decisions about energy consumption for heating, travel, and other purposes;'' and ``individual maintenance of residences or gardens.''
Those passages come directly from a ``4(d)'' Endangered Species Act regulation for the Pacific Northwest proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The rule states flatly these are examples of activities that could kill salmon or steelhead through water, air, and ocean pollution, and that NMFS ``might or might not'' seek to regulate them as such under the rule.
Taken literally, if these rules are enacted as written, National Marine Fisheries Service could regulate how often individuals drive their cars, where and how property owners could plant or fertilize their lawns, gardens, or farm crops. They could dictate the content of county zoning, public works, building, and road ordinances, and possibly even suggest limits on the setting of thermostats in homes or public school classrooms, or the operation of public transit buses--all to protect salmon.
Washington citizens, and those in other Northwest States, would be asked to make a host of changes in their daily lives, but unfortunately, could be assured of nothing except for the certainty that a greater portion of their tax dollars would fund the salaries of even more Federal bureaucrats to draft more rules and regulations of this nature. This year, the National Marine Fisheries Service is asking Congress to fund 41 new employees just to implement its West Coast salmon recovery plan.
Those proposals would represent a striking power grab by unelected bureaucrats if they were absolutely necessary to save whole species of salmon. But they are not. As I said in a letter to President Clinton 2 weeks ago, the Federal Government should be seeking to encourage and promote incentives for States, tribes, and local entities and private groups to come up with creative solutions to save salmon, not make it more difficult for them.
And that is exactly what these rules do. The rules go far beyond telling hundreds of farmers in the Methow Valley that they cannot exercise their water rights to irrigate their crops until they have National Marine Fisheries Service-approved fish screens installed at their own expense, as the agency told my constituents in north central Washington last year.
They would go beyond holding up the construction of bridges in Columbia County or cities' efforts to install stop lights, as the National Marine Fisheries Service's salmon regulatory process has already done.
In short, these rules, if enacted as proposed, would be likely to slow down local salmon recovery efforts, rather than ``increasing people's flexibility in complying with the Endangered Species Act,'' as the National Marine Fisheries Service publicly claimed in mid-December. More Federal bureaucracy simply will not help local communities and private groups protect salmon and steelhead.
I also notice that the National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed a narrow set of exemptions within the rules, which could make the enforcement of the rule arbitrary and unfair against those who don't meet their stated criteria. The Oregon Department of Transportation, for example, would be in compliance with the rule in carrying out its road maintenance activities on roads abutting streams, because that agency agreed to implement special National Marine Fisheries Service-
approved training for its road maintenance crews. No such exemption exists in the rule for private land owners anywhere or the Washington Department of Transportation to carry on the same activities.
The people of Washington State realized the importance of not allowing endangered salmon and steelhead runs to go extinct long before any Federal agency told them they should modify their own ``daily behavior'' as part of the effort. The only ``daily behavior'' that local salmon enhancement groups are concerned with in Washington right now is to restore salmon and steelhead runs right in the streams and rivers near where they live and work. And they are doing it.
Look, for example, at the successful efforts of the variety of agricultural, business, and tribal groups who formed the Skagit Watershed Council to produce an on-the-ground science-based strategy for prioritizing local habitat recovery projects. They came together, often disagreeing on other issues, but to work together on the most productive salmon recovery efforts--without the Federal Government telling them to do so.
Then there are the successful efforts of Long Live the Kings on the Wishkah River on Grays Harbor County, where low-tech, inexpensive habitat restoration methods helped double the returns of natural spawning salmon there in 1 year.
A captive brook stock facility was built with $1 million in private funds on Lilliwaup Creek on Hood Canal, and already the State of Washington has looked to that success in restoring the very most threatened local wild salmon runs. I can cite several more examples, but suffice it to say that local efforts are underway, and we should congratulate their efforts to proactively and successfully preserve salmon.
Proposing regulations of this sort, at the very least, would be putting the ``cart before the horse.'' The National Marine Fisheries Service must come forward with concrete goals of how many fish they intend to recover throughout the Northwest in areas they call
``evolutionary significant units.'' This is something that Congress asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to do in an appropriations conference report last year. The National Marine Fisheries Service was directed to determine and set numerical goals for Puget Sound areas by July 1 of this year, and, by then, to set a schedule for establishing numerical goals for all other areas in Washington State.
Why is this important? Well, very simply put: How can you mandate means, mandate lifestyle changes, before you know what you are trying to accomplish? In my view, having these numerical goals is critical to guiding the agency in any effort it makes to enforce 4(d) rules to protect threatened species.
Unfortunately, not only has the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to provide the required numerical goals for salmon species, it has yet to deliver the actual funding to the State. Last year, Congress approved $18 million to be provided directly by the National Marine Fisheries Service to the Washington State Salmon Recovery Board, so that the board could distribute funds for State and local salmon recovery projects, as well as fund implementation of the Washington Forest and Fish Agreement, which was authorized by the State legislature. I am disturbed to learn that the National Marine Fisheries Service has not yet secured arrangements to distribute these much-
needed funds to the State of Washington. As a result, the National Marine Fisheries Service is holding up State and local efforts to comply with the Endangered Species Act.
Even without funding, several counties and salmon enhancement groups throughout Washington have been working on their own plans to comply with ESA requirements. Many smaller counties, however, simply do not have the resources to meet the National Marine Fisheries Service process under the rules. They are nevertheless expected to scramble to come up with their own ordinances that will be ultimately reviewed and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure that they are ``adequate to help conserve anadromous salmonids.''
Aside from my concerns with the way these rules are written, I am not at all pleased that the National Marine Fisheries Service has decided to refuse even a modest extension of the public comment period, and has stated publicly that it wants to enact this rule by July.
Keep in mind, these lengthy, 20 plus page rules were only printed for the first time in the Federal Register about 5 weeks ago. After tonight, the public hearings process will already have been slammed shut.
That is why when I learned that the regional director of the National Marine Fisheries Service had scheduled all five of Washington's public hearings on these lengthy and complex rules within just a 7-day period, I asked for more opportunities for citizens to be heard. Most of the five hearings were so full of interested citizens that not everyone could find a chair or be given adequate time to have a face to face question and answer period with the very bureaucrats who want to have the authority proposed in these rules.
While the National Marine Fisheries Service recently agreed to two additional hearings scheduled on the same day and time, they flatly refused to extend the comment process, stating that ``a longer extension to the public comment period would not be likely to provide any new information, and would delay implementation of the rules, which the National Marine Fisheries Service feels are necessary for salmon conservation.'' It is disturbing that while they are often criticized for being too slow to process permit requests, when it comes to listening to people on highly controversial proposals, they can't move fast enough to enact them into law.
The National Marine Fisheries Service owes the citizens of Washington and the Pacific Northwest a more responsible handling of their duties to enforce the Endangered Species Act. Section 2(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires the National Marine Fisheries Service to cooperate with State and local agencies to protect endangered species. I believe the National Marine Fisheries Service cannot fairly force rules and local and State agencies without first establishing the goals and objectives requested by Congress last year. I renew the request made by the appropriations conference for the National Marine Fisheries Service to provide the numerical goals and objectives for Puget Sound salmon, to provide a framework for similar numerical goals and objectives for the rest of Washington and the Pacific Northwest, and to establish performance standards for salmon recovery projects. And they should do so before they enact these rules.
I conclude my comments by noting that any proposal which would regulate ``daily behavior'' certainly requires closer scrutiny than 30 days of public hearings and 30 more days of written comments. I commend those Washington citizens who are now working hard on local-based solutions to protect salmon, and offer them my full and continued support for the successful course they are taking to rebuild and restore salmon. I am concerned that the Federal Government, with rules drafted in this manner, would not help these on-the-ground local efforts. I will continue to call on Federal agencies not to dictate how best to accomplish ESA compliance. I request that the National Marine Fisheries Service address the valid concerns I and others raise regarding these proposals and to do so before they begin implementing these sweeping regulations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may state his inquiry.
Mr. BURNS. Are we in morning business or are we on a specific subject?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering H.R. 1883.
Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for the next 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
