Statement of Senator Harry Reid
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
Subcommittee on Wildlife
Snake River Salmon Recovery Hearing
June 23, 1999

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this important hearing on one of the most complicated and controversial wildlife issues in the Northwest, if not in the entire country.

It is due to the very complexity of the issues involved that I think this hearing is so important. Rather than focusing on the issues themselves (there will be plenty of time for that later), we are going to take a look at the processes being employed by the federal government, in particular, in setting out a plan for recovering the many species of salmon in the Northwest.

In reading through the testimony for today's hearing, it seems that most of the stakeholders in the Northwest agree on two things (and maybe not a lot else) when it comes to the salmon.

First, everyone agress that what we are doing now to protect and recover the salmon is not working. That cannot continue. By examining all of the possibilities and leaving no stone unturned, it is our obligation to future generations to make sure that salmon not only survive, but thrive in the Northwest.

Secondly, everyone seems concerned that the federal caucus of nine agencies and departments is going off to work out a federal solution behind closed doors.

I read all of the testimony last night from what I believe to be a relatively well-balanced panel and was surprised at the level of consistency I found across interested parties.

From the Tribal witness: "Since the federal government is developing its 4-H paper behind closed doors, it is somewhat difficult for us to comment on the substance of it."

From the agri-business witness: "[The Corps] send[s] conflicting messages and has failed to coordinate with regional initiatives."

American Rivers: (speaking about similar efforts on the Missouri and Mississippi): ". . .Corp conducted studies and developed management alternatives in isolation and, after spending years and tens of millions of dollars, mechanically sought our input through public hearings which provide wonderful theatre but little more."

While I do not endorse some of the more overblown rhetoric that is sprinkled throughout some of the testimony, I am concerned that the nine federal agencies that are participating in this process as members of the "Federal Caucus" are making a key blunder if they are not planning to take advantage of every opportunity to involve the public in both the process and substance of this undertaking.

I encourage each of the agencies individually and as a group to make their findings available for substantive public comment and peer review, and to make their final decisions in the open.

Whatever findings result from this process, and I am in no way prejudging any options or series of options, will be controversial.