of small bromides of political equations that in the long run do not 

 make sense but in the short run they get you reelected. 



This committee affords us an opportunity to really confront those 

 trend lines and those political realities, and I hope we are going to 

 begin to do it with a larger dose of reality than we currently have. 

 Senator Packwood. 



OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PACKWOOD 



Senator Packwood. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 



Dr. Baker, let me thank NOAA for holding the small town meet- 

 ings on the Pacific coast over the past several weeks so the admin- 

 istration could find out directly from those involved as to the prob- 

 lems they face because of the salmon closure. John Bullard of your 

 Office of Sustainable Development has done a very good job and I 

 have had good reports. Are we happy about the closure? No. Have 

 the meetings been worthwhile and helpful? Yes. 



Now, let me address a couple of concerns I do have. I am miffed 

 about a statement that appeared in the Oregonian paper. You have 

 eliminated the Mitchell Act fish hatcheries, $13.8 million, and the 

 fish screens which is $4.7 million, in your budget. The budget infor- 

 mation that I received when I met with your people in February 

 was that the Bonneville Power Administration was going to pay 

 NOAA to run the hatcheries programs and, therefore, they were 

 not in your budget. 



Now, unfortunately, nobody told the Bonneville Power Adminis- 

 tration about this, and it will take an act of Congress to shift that 

 money. I understood what your people said when they came to see 

 me, but then a story appears in the Oregonian that I agreed with 

 their statement. And that is sort of like saying to the condemned 

 man you are going to be hung tomorrow morning. He understands 

 the statement. He does not necessarily agree with it, but he under- 

 stands it. 



If Bonneville is going to have to pay for this and you are saying 

 we have to raise the rate for the ratepayers to pay for it, that is 

 something we will fight and have fought in the past. But I think 

 for NOAA to say "Well, do not worry, the problem has been taken 

 care of, we have shifted it to somebody else's budget," is not quite 

 an answer to our problem. 



The salmon are disappearing and the hatcheries are vital. We 

 have had them since 1938. The Federal Government has been put- 

 ting up the money under the Mitchell Act from that time to now 

 to make up for the fish that we knew we would kill with the dams. 



So, I do not regard as adequate for NOAA to say to the Bonne- 

 ville Power Administration that Bonneville is going to pay for it 

 and that Bonneville will have to get an act of Congress to do it. 

 Bonneville cannot shift the money around by themselves. NOAA 

 just can't say it is no longer its problem or no longer the Depart- 

 ment of Commerce's problem. 



I want to know specifically where the funding is going to come 

 from next year for the operation of the hatcheries, and to a lesser 

 degree the fish screens which keep the salmon from getting swept 

 into the irrigation pumps. Where is that money coming from? Is 

 the administration going to push Bonneville today? Is the adminis- 



