60 



It was done. It was through the committee. It would have been 

 fixed, Q.E.D. We chose not to do that. And the proposal you have 

 now is no proposal at all. It simply will not work, and everybody 

 is just acting as though it will, and it will not. A word to the wise. 



Ms. RiVLlN. Thank you. 



Senator HATFIELD. Thank you, Senator Johnston. 



Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, could I just respond, in case 

 Senator Johnston is leaving I will respond on the nuclear waste 

 issue at another time. But I did want to respond to one comment 

 that he made that this is a result of only ESA. 



I just want to remind you and all the members of the committee 

 that the laws we live under in the Pacific Northwest in regard to 

 salmon include the ESA, but also the Northwest Power Act, the 

 Magnuson Act, tribal treaties. Clean Water Act. It is a number of 

 pieces of legislation that impact us. 



Senator HATFIELD. Thank you. 



Senator Kempthorne, we have accommodated Ms. Rivlin by hold- 

 ing our opening statements until she leaves, and using this oppor- 

 tunity to propound questions to her, if you have questions. 



Senator Kempthorne. That was not Senator Johnston's opening 

 statement? 



Senator JOHNSTON. Opening and closing. [Laughter.] 



Senator Hatfield. We make certain accommodations. 



Senator KEMPTHORNE. Mr. Chairman, I will hold then on the 

 opening comments. 



Senator Hatfield. All right. 



Senator KEMPTHORNE. I have no questions of Ms. Rivlin. 



Senator Hatfield. Ms. Rivlin, I have perhaps three questions. I 

 expressed in my opening statement that it was a good signal from 

 the administration when it announced yesterday its desire to help 

 offset some of these increasing costs. 



Ms. Rivlin, in the President's budget request for 1996, he has 

 urged that the Mitchell Act funds be transferred from the National 

 Marine Fisheries Services budget and that the Bonneville Power 

 Administration be required to provide the money previously sup- 

 plied by the Mitchell Act funds. 



Now, correct me if I am wrong. This suggests that you support 

 providing additional funds in 1995-96 and 1996-97, on the one 

 hand. And on the other hand, you propose to take away a major 

 portion of that funding. You also suggest that $40 million of the 

 $60 million in funding offsets proposed by the administration's 

 budget is to come from future reductions in Bonneville's oper- 

 ational costs. 



Sometimes in our budget process we call that funny money, since 

 these cost savings from operations are only a projected — not a 

 guaranteed — source of funding. 



Second, the last administration that proposed Mitchell Act fund- 

 ing was the Bush administration during its final budget year. I be- 

 lieve that funding, was set at $10 million that year. President Clin- 

 ton, in his 1st year, followed suit and proposed $10 million. 



So correct me if I am wrong. If you breakdown that $60 million, 

 one-half of that money is to come from continued cost reductions 

 by Bonneville. You are adding another $10 million, if you use the 

 same figure as the Mitchell Act. Then there is a range of $10 to 



