This is the subcommittee I once chaired. I can tell you in all sincerity that this subcommittee is in good hands. I'm proud of my good friend, Mike Crapo. I'm proud to call you Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and all the members of this subcommittee for the work you do.
I can affirm that this subcommittee confronts some of the toughest issues in the Senate, and the matters before you greatly impact my home state and the other states that make up the Pacific Northwest region of our country.
By definition, all of those states are an integral partner in resolving many of the tough fish recovery issues presently being grappled with by the federal agencies. The states have their role to play in this process, and as I've visited with the other governors in the Northwest, we are all in agreement that we must all work together on salmon recovery.
As you know, the Endangered Species Act consultation process has been ongoing, and soon, the work of the federal resource agencies will be compiled into what is being referred to as the " 1999 Decision" -- the document which will set forth proposed alternatives in dealing with the fish issues in the Columbia River Basin System.
As could be expected, the states have long been preparing for this process.
The Multi-Species Framework, funded by the Bonneville Power Administration, has been working diligently to develop and analyze alternatives from both a biological and human effects perspective. That process is expected to be completed by this fall.
Recently, under the able leadership of Governor Kitzhaber in Oregon, the Columbia River Basin Forum was formed to provide an appropriate setting for the states, the affected Indian tribes and the federal agencies to fully discuss the key issues facing them under the federal Endangered Species Act. I am pleased that Idaho is participating in the Forum and I look forward to dedicating the necessary resources to help this process succeed.
Notwithstanding the many dollars, human resources and effort dedicated to these existing processes, it has come to my attention that the federal agencies playing a key role in the 1999 Decision have formed what has become known as the "Federal Caucus," an inter-agency working group with a most ambitious agenda.
Headed up by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Caucus is staffed with senior officials from such agencies as the Bureau of Reclamation and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other key federal agencies. To its credit, the Caucus has amassed the right people at the right time to begin working on the 1999 Decision.
I am not concerned that the Federal Caucus is moving ahead and getting its work done on the 1999 Decision. Instead, what troubles me about the Federal Caucus is that its work is being done behind closed doors.
In a recent letter I wrote to Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt and Commerce Secretary William Daley, I made it clear that the states impacted by the 1999 Decision have assumed from the start that they would be treated as partners by the federal government as it attempts to forge a solution to the problem of sustainable salmon and steelhead recovery in the Northwest.
Additionally, I am uncertain that the agencies making up the Federal Caucus are using the most recent research data to make their scientific assumptions. There have been no requests to the state of Idaho by the agencies of the Federal Caucus to submit any of our data or analysis on these issues.
I am not asking that the states intrude upon the deliberations and otherwise impede the progress of the work being performed by the federal agencies responsible for the 1999 Decision.
What I am asking for is the states to be given a seat at the table and the opportunity to be fully involved in the process sooner rather than later.
Let me reference a diagram of all the different agencies that are working on various aspects of salmon recovery. Now, there's a new player, and it's called the Federal Caucus.
And, repeatedly, I hear federal officials say that the states hold the key to the ultimate solution. Curiously, their new approach totally leaves the states out of it.
So, the question is, when do the states get their legitimate role acknowledged, and when do we become an integral part of this process?
If it is not until after a decision is reached by the federal agencies, then what role does that leave for the states?
We have assumed that the states, the tribes and the federal government were all working together on a Multi-Species Framework process which will help the region come to a common resolution on salmon recovery, only to discover in a February, 1999 memo that the Federal Caucus intends to develop its own "4-H" process without any input by the states or the tribes.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the states and tribes have already invested a great deal of time and money into this process. The Bonneville Power Administration funds the regional fish recovery program, including the Multi-Species Framework, to the tune of $215 million per year, paid for by the ratepayers and the taxpayers.
And despite that significant investment, we have no assurance that the Federal Caucus intends to utilize the resources of the Multi-Species Framework as it conducts its work on the 1999 decision.
In fact, we may not know what the intention is of the Federal Caucus until after their work product is completed.
In addition to finding out about the progress of the work of the Caucus, we are interested in knowing about the fundamental assumptions for the decisions being made. The following example illustrates my point.
In Idaho, fish hatcheries are playing an important role in the current recovery effort. Will the Caucus develop alternatives based upon recoverable wild fish, or will they take into consideration the many hatchery stocks?
Such an assumption is critical because the continued viability of Idaho's fish hatcheries will be at stake. This will be an important component of the 1999 Decision, and we should have input on the direction being considered by the Federal Caucus.
Mr. Chairman and members, my concern is not that the federal agencies are working hard on the 1999 Decision.
Rather, I am fearful that given the ambitious goals and objectives of the Caucus, the time and opportunity for meaningful state participation in the process is rapidly waning.
When I left the U.S. Senate to become governor of Idaho, I wanted to continue to be an active participant in forging regional consensus solutions for fish recovery.
I strongly believe that active state participation is critical to ensuring the success of the 1999 Decision.
Instead, the response from the federal government has been just the opposite. I reiterate that I have no desire to invade or impede the progress being made by this interagency working group as they "get their house in order."
But the work of the federal government, especially on a decision that will have broad environmental and economic impact on the Pacific Northwest, must be conducted in the spirit of partnership and cooperation. To date, this has not occurred, but I look forward to joining in this process to ensure its ultimate success.
Let me give you a specific example. While this new federal bureaucracy builds, so does the Caspian tern population on Rice Island - a federally, man-made island in the estuary of the Columbia River that serves as a temporary home for these birds while they feast on millions of endangered salmon smelt.
After meeting with a number of federal agencies last year, they agreed to move forward on an environmental assessment. But almost as soon as the EA was completed, we saw the federal agencies accusing each other of inaction or impeding another agency's ability to get work completed.
And the states are just a pawn in this "hide the ball" scheme which results in no solutions and continual surprises for the federal agencies and the states.
There is, however, no easy solution to the issue of salmon recovery. If it were easy, it would have been done already. But I believe we will only be successful in our efforts to recover fish when we work together to address the causes of mortality.
Mr. Chairman, when the Northwest Power Planning Council recently met in Boise, I discussed a number of broader recovery issues, including predation, harvest, and the elements of river governance. I would ask that my statement to the Council be included as part of the record.
With that, I thank you for the invitation to be with you again and I'd be happy to answer any questions.