67 



I remember several years ago when you convened the original 

 salmon summit, and I applauded you at that time, but it was obvi- 

 ous, following that effort, that this was an issue that politics, and 

 not science, would allow to lie down. 



Since that time, we have seen the rest of the story. And the rest 

 of the story is that we are now at a point where the cash cow of 

 salmon recovery in the Pacific Northwest is about to be drained 

 dry. And that cash cow is the Bonneville Power Administration. 



You and I and everyone else here understand the Regional Power 

 Act and what it caused to happen, and what it allowed, or insisted, 

 or required Bonneville to do. 



While I think all of us were respective and supportive of that po- 

 sition, we watched as rates went up and as costs went up in rela- 

 tion to salmon recovery, and all of us said, gee, I do not know if 

 we can afford another one of those. 



And yet with the announcement of the biological opinion by the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service several weeks ago, all of a sud- 

 den added to that $350 million a year annualized cost driven by 

 the Power Act is now a potential $160 million more a year, maybe 

 $280 million additional by the year 2000. That's better than one- 

 half a billion dollars a year, and frankly, it is too darn much. 



We now put in jeopardy the Bonneville Power Administration's 

 ability to be a producer and a competitor in the Pacific Northwest, 

 and it is a tragedy if we allow that to happen, and I know you 

 won't, nor either will I. 



But I would hope that we use this time and place, Mr. Chairman, 

 to focus in a micro way, and something that we can never get our 

 hands around in another way, and that is the issue of the Endan- 

 gered Species Act and its impacts. 



Because we can measure very clearly its impact on Bonneville, 

 we can say, "Oh, look at the dramatic impact it is having here and 

 the potential crippling of this major power producer in the North- 

 west." 



We are measuring that today, and we will measure that in the 

 future. That is part of the intent of your hearing to scope that and 

 ultimately to try to drive potentially a solution. 



But let me suggest that it is only one measurement. We are not 

 going to measure the impact on the investor of utilities, but we 

 should. Now, this hearing is not for that. 



We are not going to measure the impact on irrigation, agri- 

 culture, transportation, but it is phenomenal and it is going to get 

 greater unless you and I and the rest of these Senators sitting 

 around this dias from the Pacific Northwest drive a solution to this 

 problem. 



I think we are now attempting to, at least, understand it in a 

 way that may cause us to come together for a solution, because I 

 do believe we are at a time in which it can be legitimately asked 

 how much are we willing to pay for the salmon. That has been her- 

 esy, political heresy, up until this time. 



We have all wanted to save the salmon, and that has been a sin- 

 cere statement on the part of all of us who serve in the formation 

 of public policy. 



But we have finally come to a time where we have to look our- 

 selves squarely in the eye, Mr. Chairman, and say and at what 



