Last year, in a subcommittee hearing on the Endangered Species 

 Act, Dr. Nancy Foster, who is the Deputy Assistant Administrator 

 for Fisheries at NMFS, said, if we weren't experimenting with spill- 

 ing water over the dams causing damage to the species we were 

 trying to protect as well as other species, and that, "If it were a 

 perfect world. . . ," NMFS would have studied effects of spill 

 ahead of time. I think it is a reasonable question how, in the ab- 

 sence of science, this type of experimentation with endangered spe- 

 cies could take place. 



There are many, very complex issues involved in restoring the 

 Columbia and Snake River salmon to healthy populations. Let me 

 state here for the record that I am committed to tne full restoration 

 of salmon in Idaho and the Columbia River Basin, but it seems to 

 me that we have to get on with practical solutions to enhance and 

 restore these salmon runs. Without practical solutions, the only 

 thing we will end up enhancing is the salmon recovery industry. 



The effort to recover the salmon in the Columbia Basin can act 

 as a guide as we move forward to reform the Endangered Species 

 Act. This subcommittee today is interested many aspects of this 

 hearing: 



1. How can we get the best scientific information; 



2. How can we be sure that scientific information is put 

 through meaningful peer review; 



3. Will good science be communicated to the policymakers in 

 the proper agencies; 



4. As new information is made available, can we be sure that 

 those policies can be modified; and 



5. How can we judge the results of recovery plans based on 

 that scientific information? 



In the interest of finding out how the policy is influenced by the 

 science, I'm going to reverse the usual process today. I'm going to 

 ask the panel of scientists to describe the current state of knowl- 

 edge on the issue of spills and its effects. Then I'll turn to the Fed- 

 eral and State agency panel to hear how they have formulated and/ 

 or revised public policy. I'll ask each of our members of the panel 

 to keep your comments to 5 minutes in your opening comments. 

 Your entire statement will be entered into the record. After each 

 panel has finished its opening comments, I will allow time for ques- 

 tions and answers before moving to the next panel. 



With that, if our scientific panel would please come forward. Let 

 me identify the members of that first panel: Larry Fidler with the 

 Aspen Sciences Limited, Cranbuck, British Columbia; Wesley Ebel, 

 biologist, Seattle, WA; Gerald Bouck, biologist, Portland, OR; Mar- 

 garet Filardo, with the Fish Passage Center, Portland, OR; Phillip 

 Mundy, with the Fisheries and Aquatic Services, Lake Oswego, OR; 

 and James Jay Anderson, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 



With that, if we are ready, Mr. Fidler, if you would like to begin. 

 I might mention, we will use these lights just as an indicator to 

 help us stay on course. The green light is proceed and you'll see 

 the yellow light come on saying you are down to about 30 or 45 sec- 

 onds and then the red light. At that point, I would ask that you 

 conclude, but again, we're going to have an opportunity for the 

 questions and answers to really go into greater detail than what 



