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.
“ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S16515-S16516 on Nov. 1, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
____________________
