[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1062-H1067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         OROVILLE-TONASKET CLAIM SETTLEMENT AND CONVEYANCE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 94 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 412.


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 412) to approve a settlement agreement between the Bureau of 
Reclamation and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District, with Mr. 
Everett in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, all 
time for debate again had expired. The Committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by 
sections as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment, and 
pursuant to the rule each section is considered read.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Oroville-Tonasket Claim 
     Settlement and Conveyance Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  The Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to authorize the Secretary of 
     the Interior to implement the provisions of the negotiated 
     Settlement Agreement including conveyance of the Project 
     Irrigation Works, identified as not having national 
     importance, to the District, and for other purposes.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (2) The term ``Reclamation'' means the United States Bureau 
     of Reclamation.
       (3) The term ``District'' or ``Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation 
     District'' means the project beneficiary organized and 
     operating under the laws of the State of Washington, which is 
     the operating and repayment entity for the Project.

[[Page H1063]]

       (4) The term ``Project'' means the Oroville-Tonasket unit 
     extension, Okanogan-Similkameen division, Chief Joseph Dam 
     Project, Washington, constructed and rehabilitated by the 
     United States under the Act of September 28, 1976 (Public Law 
     94-423, 90 Stat. 1324), previously authorized and constructed 
     under the Act of October 9, 1962 (Public Law 87-762, 76 Stat. 
     761), under the Federal reclamation laws (including the Act 
     of June 17, 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), and Acts 
     supplementary thereto or amendatory thereof).
       (5) The term ``Project Irrigation Works'' means--
       (A) those works actually in existence and described in 
     subarticle 3(a) of the Repayment Contract, excluding Wildlife 
     Mitigation Facilities, and depicted on the maps held by the 
     District and Reclamation, consisting of the really with 
     improvements and real estate interests;
       (B) all equipment, parts, inventories, and tools associated 
     with the Project Irrigation Works realty and improvements and 
     currently in the District's possession; and
       (C) all third party agreements.
       (6)(A) The term ``Basic Contract'' means Repayment Contract 
     No. 14-06-100-4442, dated December 26, 1964, as amended and 
     supplemented, between the United States and the District;
       (B) the term ``Repayment Contract'' means Repayment 
     Contract No. 00-7-10-W0242, dated November 28, 1979, as 
     amended and supplemented, between the United States and the 
     District; and
       (C) the term ``third party agreements'' means existing 
     contractual duties, obligations, and responsibilities that 
     exist because of all leases, licenses, and easements with 
     third-parties related to the Project Irrigation Works, or the 
     lands or rights-of-way for the Project Irrigation Works, but 
     excepting power arrangements with the Bonneville Power 
     Administration.
       (7) The term ``Wildlife Mitigation Facilities'' means--
       (A) land, improvements, or easements, or any combination 
     thereof, secured for access to such lands, acquired by the 
     United States under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); and
       (B) all third party agreements associated with the land, 
     improvements, or easements referred to in subparagraph (A).
       (8) The term ``Indian Trust Lands'' means approximately 61 
     acres of lands identified on land classification maps on file 
     with the District and Reclamation beneficially owned by the 
     Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville 
     Tribes) or by individual Indians, and held in trust by the 
     United States for the benefit of the Colville Tribes in 
     accordance with the Executive Order of April 9, 1872.
       (9) The term ``Settlement Agreement'' means the Agreement 
     made and entered on April 15, 1996, between the United States 
     of America acting through the Regional Director, Pacific 
     Northwest Region, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Oroville-
     Tonasket Irrigation District.
       (10) The term ``operations and maintenance'' means normal 
     and reasonable care, control, operation, repair, replacement, 
     and maintenance.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?
  The Clerk will designate section 4.
  The text of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4. AGREEMENT AUTHORIZATION

       The Settlement Agreement is approved and the Secretary of 
     the Interior is authorized to conduct all necessary and 
     appropriate investigations, studies, and required Federal 
     actions to implement the Settlement Agreement.


             amendment offered by mr. miller of california

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California:
       Page 5, line 14, strike ``The Settlement Agreement is 
     approved'' and insert ``Upon payment to the United States of 
     fair market value for the property and facilities 
     transferred, and upon consideration and satisfaction of 
     outstanding obligations as provided in section 5, the 
     Settlement Agreement is approved''.
       Page 5, line 17, after the period insert: ``Fair market 
     value shall be determined by majority vote of a panel of 3 
     impartial appraisers qualified in accordance with State 
     regulatory requirements. The District shall select one member 
     of the panel. The Secretary shall select one member of the 
     panel. The third member of the panel shall be selected by the 
     other two members.''.

  Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I have consulted with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] and I ask unanimous consent that the debate on 
all amendments to H.R. 412 be limited to 10 minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for that agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon we had general debate on this 
legislation, and I said at that time I would be offering an amendment. 
This is the amendment that I discussed during general debate. The 
purpose of this amendment is to get a fair appraisal of the value of 
this project before the Federal Government gives this project to the 
irrigation district.
  As some may remember from the general debate, in fact what we have 
here is we have an expenditure by the Federal Government of some $88 
million, a portion of that which will be paid by power users to 
subsidize the power to the irrigation district and pay back some of the 
obligations to the Federal Government, and then the question of the $14 
million that this irrigation district owes with respect to its 
repayment contract for this project.
  This is a project that has been plagued by problems, that has not 
operated in a manner in which the irrigators believe that it should 
but, in spite of all that, is delivering a benefit to the irrigators 
within this district. And I believe that before we turn this project 
over to those irrigators and to the beneficiaries of this expenditure 
of public moneys, we ought to have an independent appraisal as to the 
value of this project. If it turns out that the benefit and value have 
been diminished, so be it, they should pay us back a diminished value. 
What we ought not to do is to have the parties of interest get into a 
room and negotiate this and then decide that this is a fair deal when 
in fact we can end up with the irrigators of some 10,000 acres of 
orchards paying the Federal Government nothing for a project that is in 
fact delivering a benefit to them.
  During the general debate, the suggestion was that the Federal 
Government is on the hook for a lot of additional costs and that 
therefore we should settle this agreement. Those are allegations, I 
appreciate, in the complaints of the district. In its lawsuit they 
choose to sue the Federal Government rather than negotiate and correct 
this project and pay the value of those corrections, but we do not know 
whether or not the Federal Government is in fact on the hook for those. 
The Bureau of Reclamation has not admitted that in spite of the 
allegations that that is the suggestion.
  I think what this amendment does is it guarantees simply fair value 
for the taxpayers and a fair deal for the irrigation district, and I 
think that is important. In the past when we have had these problems, 
we have corrected them, the Federal Government has absorbed those 
costs, but we have not allowed people who continue to get a benefit to 
escape all of their obligations to the Federal Government. And the fact 
of the matter is that this district, even its O&M and others is in line 
with what other people in the area are paying and we ought not to make 
an exception in this case.
  I would hope that people would support this amendment on behalf of 
the taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. This 
amendment, although perhaps on its face it appears reasonable, is 
really a killer amendment. It will void the settlement agreement which 
has taken the irrigation district and the Federal Government 6 years to 
develop. If the amendment is adopted, the parties are right back where 
they started with the Federal Government on the hook for at least $51 
million in damages and the irrigation district refusing to make 
payments on this defective irrigation system. If title is not 
transferred to the district, the Federal Government will still have to 
make the repairs to this lemon of a public works project.
  Given that the Bureau of Reclamation has had 30 years to get the 
project

[[Page H1064]]

right, without success and with the greater costs involved whenever we 
get the Federal Government building something, I would say it is the 
taxpayers who will be taking a bath if the Miller amendment is adopted.
  That is why Citizens Against Government Waste is supporting H.R. 412. 
That is why the Clinton administration is supporting H.R. 412. I think 
we ought to give the irrigation district the chance to fix the system.
  I just remind you, Mr. Chairman, that indeed it was the Federal 
Government; they know this is such a bad project, they insisted that 
the district take title. The district did not want title but the 
Federal Government insisted that the district take title, and by giving 
the title of the works, this nonprofit entity should be able to get the 
financing it needs to make these expensive, far-reaching pairs.
  Despite what my colleague from California has been implying, this is 
clearly not a case of something for nothing. Let us look at what the 
district has agreed to under the settlement agreement:
  First, it has agreed to pay $350,000 in cash; second, to repair 
deteriorating water pipes at a cost of at least $14 million which the 
Federal Government will otherwise have to pay absent this settlement; 
third, it agrees to waive its claims against the United States which 
have been estimated by the Government to be at least $4.5 million; 
fourth, the district agrees to accept the United States liability for 
third party claims associated with the project; fifth, it agrees to 
reduce the time and the amount of power it will receive to help pump 
irrigation water, where under current law the district is entitled to 
unlimited power forever; and sixth, it will provide free water for 
federally-owned wildlife mitigation facilities.
  In turn, the Federal Government will, first, transfer the defective 
water system to the district which is causing untold damage to public 
and private property; and second, it will forgive the district's 
contract repayment which the Government estimates has a present value 
of $4.2 million, not 13.9, which is over 45 years at present value of 
4.2 million, an amount even less than the value of the claims the 
district has waived against the United States.
  As my colleagues can see, enactment of H.R. 412 as reported from the 
Committee on Resources will save the Federal Government money according 
to the CBO. By voiding the settlement agreement and subjecting the 
United States to a lengthy lawsuit, the Miller amendment will only 
increase the exposure of the Federal purse and ultimately result in 
higher costs to the taxpayer.
  What is the market value of this defective water irrigation system? 
Zero. These works are not portable sprinklers, but are gigantic fixed 
pipes and flumes which have a single use, to supply the water for 
irrigation to the Oroville-Tonasket region, a job that it does quite 
poorly. The water in the system already belongs to the district so to 
what other use can the delivery system be put?
  I think these facts illustrate the real reason this amendment is 
being offered. Mr. Miller opposes transferring any Federal asset to 
local ownership. This local government unit can repair and operate this 
Government facility and save taxpayer money. The Government does not 
want this decrepid system and wants to avoid the substantial liability 
associated with it.
  This transfer will not serve as precedent. This lawsuit involves the 
total and complete failure of the Government to design, build, and 
deliver a working irrigation system, an event which I hope should be 
rare.
  In addition, the committee report clearly states that, H.R. 412 also 
should not be regarded as precedent for legislative action to transfer 
Bureau of Reclamation facilities at other projects. The litigation 
problems surrounding the transfer of the Oroville-Tonasket unit and 
continued provision of power at low project power rates are unique.
  This is one of those times when the Clinton administration and I 
agree on something. I urge the Members to oppose the killer Miller 
amendment and let the people in north central Washington correct this 
substandard irrigation works while saving the Federal Government money.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. While on the surface of it, it may appear that there is some 
merit to it, I would say that in the implementation, trying to appoint 
a three-member panel that could accurately ascertain the fair market 
value of a project which is subject to a lot of exigencies and their 
impact in value would make it impossible for that group to come to an 
accurate conclusion.
  The bottom line is we have the Government agency which has the 
greatest knowledge about the value of this project that entered into an 
agreement willingly with the water district in order to transfer title 
to it. They made that decision in order to minimize the costs to the 
Federal Government and made that agreement in order that they would 
also be working in the best interests of the taxpayers of the United 
States.
  The Miller amendment, I fear, would scuttle this agreement; it would 
expose the taxpayers to greater potential costs. We should defeat this 
amendment, and we should pass the bill which has the support of the 
Clinton administration.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, does the gentleman from 
California have further speakers? I know he wishes the right to close.
  Mr. MILLER of California. No, it is just me.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, let us take a look at the 
facts. This is a very narrowly drawn claim settlement bill. There is no 
net market value to this project. For example, the CBO in their scoring 
of this, weighed what the district owed versus what the Federal 
Government was for and determined that the Government would save money 
by having the Government unload this district. In other words, 
liabilities in this case exceeds the value.
  I believe that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] knows this. 
I believe that he knows there is no market value to this project. I 
believe that he knows that no one except the district would even 
consider taking over this project; and furthermore, Washington State 
law prohibits any irrigation district in that State from raising its 
fees to purchase a project.
  So I wonder why is the gentleman offering this amendment at this 
eleventh hour?

                              {time}  1715

  I think it is simple. I think the gentleman knows that this amendment 
would kill the agreement between the Clinton administration and the 
local irrigation district; and I might emphasize, by law, this 
agreement must be approved by April 15 of this year. Failure to ratify 
this agreement will simply send the issue back to the courts and will 
mean the district would pursue its pending $51 million lawsuit. That is 
a bad deal for Uncle Sam, and it is a bad deal for this Congress.
  That is why the Clinton administration, and not the local irrigation 
district, proposed the transfer of this facility. It is the only way 
for the Government to avoid millions of dollars in court costs, 
millions of dollars in repair costs, and millions of dollars in damages 
that they would be forced to pay if they should lose the court case.
  Mr. Chairman, let me propose three reasons to oppose this amendment. 
First, a vote for the Miller amendment is a vote to stick the taxpayers 
with tens of millions of dollars in repair costs. Second, a vote for 
the Miller amendment is a vote to stick the taxpayers with untold 
billions of dollars in damages as a result of the court case. Finally, 
a vote for the Miller amendment is to send the issue back to the court 
and stick the taxpayers with hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
additional legal fees to the Government. As I mentioned from the 
outset, this is a very narrowly drawn bill.
  Mr. Chairman, as a result then, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
feel-good Miller amendment and support my commonsense bill to relieve 
the

[[Page H1065]]

Federal Government of this tremendous liability.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it rather interesting that the proponents of 
this legislation keep standing up and saying that there is no value to 
this project, but the beneficiaries of this project are willing to take 
this project, and they say they are going to have to spend millions of 
more dollars on this project, but they will take it anyway, because 
there is no value to it.
  The fact of the matter is there is value to this project. There may 
not be value to this project for people in Pennsylvania or California 
or Washington, DC, but to the beneficiaries this project, with the 
expenditure of over $88 million, Federal dollars, is delivering water 
to the land of the members of this irrigation district, and they are 
receiving an economic benefit from it, a gross income of about $3,000 
an acre, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, and that is the 
benefit of this project.
  They can have the project. There is nothing in my amendment that does 
not let them have the project. They can have the project. All I want is 
an impartial appraisal as to the value of this project in its 
diminished state, if that is the case, and then pay the taxpayers for 
what they created for us.
  They keep saying no value, it is not worth anything. Yes, it is. It 
is delivering thousands of acres of feed of water to land that 
otherwise would not have it. That is why they came back here in 1952 
and 1962 and 1976 and 1995 and 1996, because there is value.
  Mr. Chairman, what we ought to do is recognize two things: The 
project was not properly designed and this operation has been impaired 
and the value has been diminished, but what we ought to do is get an 
appraisal as to what that means and then ask the district to relieve 
the taxpayers of that burden. They can have the project, they can 
manage it, they can make the improvements if they want.
  So I think it does not quite add up when something has no value, but 
some are fighting so hard to take it, and then they say what they are 
giving up is millions of dollars in benefits that they could receive in 
the cost of a court case and millions of dollars in future 
expenditures, and they still want to take on the project. So there is 
something that does not ring true here.
  The fact that the Committee on the Budget has said that this is 
budget-neutral in an opinion, in a letter that they sent to the 
committee, they said, while seemingly perverse, this estimate may in 
fact accurately represent. Yes, it is perverse, when it is said to 
people who have refused to pay the Government what they owe them, then 
there is a finding that they probably would have never paid us; 
therefore, there is no budget implications.
  If we keep doing business that way, I say to my colleagues, we will 
end up with no money in the Federal Government. We do not say that to 
people who cannot pay their taxes or decide not to pay their taxes. We 
do not say that to people who do not want to pay for services rendered. 
But all of a sudden, they can say, we do not like this, we are not 
going to pay for it, and then the CBO comes along and says, because 
they did not pay for it, they probably will never pay for it, and 
therefore, we are not going to charge it against the Treasury.
  The fact of the matter is the Treasury is owed this money, these 
people signed a contract for this, this project is delivering a 
benefit, and what we ought to do now is simply protect the taxpayers in 
the process of transferring this project to the beneficiaries of it. I 
urge an ``aye'' vote on the Miller amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think it is very clear that both the Clinton administration and 
Citizens Against Government Waste and the bipartisan opponents to the 
Miller amendment understand that this amendment will cost the taxpayers 
money.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] argues in favor of the 
taxpayers, but advances a proposition that will expose the Government 
to much greater liability than it already has. For that reason we 
oppose the Miller amendment. For that reason, the Clinton 
administration has actually come out in support of this bill as the 
settlement was reflected in the bill.
  That is something I have noted that has been very rare. I cannot 
think of another time we have had that happen in the last couple of 
years, when the administration has actually supported something like 
this. Why? It is because they believe it is in the best interest of the 
Government. Over here, the taxpayer groups represented by Citizens 
Against Government Waste also believe it is in the best interest of the 
Government.
  The facility, as we pointed out, is in a terrible state of repair. 
There are significant claims that this district has that can be 
asserted against the Government. The Bureau of Reclamation has 
recognized that at least $4.5 million are valid claims, according to 
the Government, that the district has against them, and for that reason 
this settlement has been proposed.
  The Miller amendment is a bad amendment because it will nullify the 
settlement and will force renegotiation and force a court action. For 
that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Miller amendment and a ``yes'' 
vote on H.R. 412.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller has offered 
similar fair market value amendments on the floor before.
  In the 104th Congress, H.R. 535 transferred the title of the Corning 
National Fish Hatchery from the Department of the Interior to the State 
of Arkansas. In committee and on the floor, Mr. Miller offered an 
amendment much like the one he offers today to require the payment of 
fair market value before the asset is transferred. He also offered this 
same amendment to H.R. 584, which transferred the Fairport National 
Fish Hatchery from the Department of the Interior to the State of Iowa.
  His amendments both failed resoundingly, in one case 96 to 315 the 
other by voice vote.
  The arguments made against those amendments apply equally here:
  First, the Federal Government does not want this asset--in this case 
the irrigation works. As you can see from the photographs displaying 
the deplorable state of the irrigation system and the harm that it has 
caused other public and private property, I can certainly see why the 
Federal Government is happy to transfer the works and avoid any past or 
future claims associated with its failure to operate.
  Second, the recipient has made some investment in the project in the 
past and will make substantial financial commitments to the project in 
the future. The Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District has already paid 
$350,000 and will be obligated to pay at least $14 million to repair 
deteriorating water pipes. This district is also waiving its claims 
against the Government, estimated even by the Bureau of Reclamation to 
be $4.5 million at a minimum. In addition, the district is accepting 
liability for third party claims associated with the project. Finally, 
the district is also accepting a reduction on the time and amount of 
power it will receive to help pump irrigation water. This is clearly 
not a case of something for nothing.

  The district is a not-for-profit entity and having title to the 
project will allow it to raise the funds needed to repair the extensive 
piping system so that it will operate as promised by the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
  Third, transferring the project under the bill as reported from the 
Resources Committee will likely save the Federal Government money--
these are the words of the Congressional Budget Office, not mine. If 
the Miller amendment is adopted, the settlement agreement will be void 
and the parties will default to the courts. The Government will 
continue to be exposed to liability for damages. When the suit was 
filed in 1995, the irrigation district claimed $51 million in damages; 
these may have increased since then. In addition, the Government may 
ultimately pay for court costs and interest on the claims. These can be 
substantial. In the Whitney Benefits, Inc. versus U.S. case filed under 
the surface mining law, where the initial claim filed was for $60 
million, the Government's failure to timely settle meant the U.S. 
Treasury was held liable for $150 million in principal and interest 
after 8 years of additional litigation. The Miller amendment will not 
save the taxpayers money but will only increase the exposure of the 
Federal purse and ultimately to the taxpayers.
  Fourth, like the fish hatchery transferred under H.R. 535, it is 
unclear what, if any, fair market value the irrigation works have. It 
is not as though these works are portable sprinklers so that other 
purchasers could make use of them. They are gigantic, fixed pipes which 
have a single use--to supply water for irrigation to the Oroville-
Tonasket region, a job

[[Page H1066]]

these works do poorly. The water in the system already belongs to the 
district. I know that I would not be quick to purchase these faulty, 
single-purpose works even at fire sale prices and I can't imagine 
others would either. The fair market value is likely to be zero or 
less.
  Fifth, opposition to transferring assets from Federal to local 
government ownership. Perhaps the real reason that this amendment is 
being offered is that its author is opposed to transferring any asset 
out of Federal ownership, whether a fish hatchery in Arkansas or an 
irrigation system in Washington. If this local government unit can 
repair and operate this Bureau of Reclamation facility and in doing so 
save the Federal Government money, then I say, let it.
  The proponent of the amendment also argues that this bill sets a 
dangerous precedent for future asset transfers. I should hope not, 
where the whole reason for the transfer is the total and complete 
failure of the Federal Government to design, build, and deliver a 
working irrigation system in the first place, an event I hope will be 
rare.
  Therefore, I ask my colleagues to once again defeat this killer 
Miller amendment and allow the parties to settle this lawsuit.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 195, 
noes 232, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 51]

                               AYES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--232

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Eshoo
     Istook
     Kaptur
     Tauzin
     Turner

                              {time}  1744

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Kaptur (OH) for, with Mr. Istook (OK) against.

  Messrs. CHAMBLISS, SUNUNU, HANSEN, and BONO changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no''.
  Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. DeGETTE, and Messrs. SCOTT, ALLEN, FAWELL, and 
FORBES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will designate sections 5 
through 11.
  There was no objection.
  The text of sections 5 through 11 is as follows:

     SEC. 5. CONSIDERATION AND SATISFACTION OF OUTSTANDING 
                   OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) Consideration to United States.--Consideration by the 
     District to the United States in accordance with the 
     Settlement Agreement approved by this Act shall be--
       (1) payment of $350,000 by the District to the United 
     States;
       (2) assumption by the District of full liability and 
     responsibility and release of the United States of all 
     further responsibility, obligations, and liability for 
     removing irrigation facilities constructed and rehabilitated 
     by the United States under the Act of October 9, 1962 (Public 
     Law 87-762, 76 Stat. 761), or referenced in section 201 of 
     the Act of September 28, 1976 (Public Law 94-423, 90 Stat. 
     1324), and identified in Article 3(a)(8) of the Repayment 
     Contract;
       (3) assumption by the District of sole and absolute 
     responsibility for the operations and maintenance of the 
     Project Irrigation Works;
       (4) release and discharge by the District as to the United 
     States from all past and future claims, whether now known or 
     unknown, arising from or in any way related to the Project, 
     including any arising from the Project Irrigation Works 
     constructed pursuant to the 1964 Basic Contract or the 1979 
     Repayment Contract;
       (5) assumption by the District of full responsibility to 
     indemnify and defend the United States against any third 
     party claims associated with any aspect of the Project, 
     except for that claim known as the Grillo Claim, government 
     contractor construction claims accruing at any time, and any 
     other suits or claims filed as of the date of the Settlement 
     Agreement; and
       (6) continued obligation by the District to deliver water 
     to and provide for operations and maintenance of the Wildlife 
     Mitigation Facilities at its own expense in accordance with 
     the Settlement Agreement.
       (b) Responsibilities of United States.--In return the 
     United States shall--
       (1) release and discharge the District's obligation, 
     including any delinquent or accrued payments, or assessments 
     of any nature under the 1979 Repayment Contract, including 
     the unpaid obligation of the 1964 Basic Contract;
       (2) transfer title of the Project Irrigation Works to the 
     District;

[[Page H1067]]

       (3) assign to the District all third party agreements 
     associated with the Project Irrigation Works;
       (4) continue power deliveries provided under section 6 of 
     this Act; and
       (5) assume full responsibility to indemnify and defend the 
     District against any claim known as the Grillo Claim, 
     government contractor construction claims accruing at any 
     time, and any other suits or claims filed against the United 
     States as of the date of the Settlement Agreement.
       (c) Project Construction Costs.--The transfer of title 
     authorized by this Act shall not affect the timing or amount 
     of the obligation of the Bonneville Power Administration for 
     the repayment of construction costs incurred by the Federal 
     government under section 202 of the Act of September 28, 1976 
     (90 Stat. 1324, 1326) that the Secretary of the Interior has 
     determined to be beyond the ability of the irrigators to pay. 
     The obligation shall remain charged to, and be returned to 
     the Reclamation Fund as provided for in section 2 of the Act 
     of June 14, 1966 (80 Stat. 200) as amended by section 6 of 
     the Act of September 7, 1966 (80 Stat. 707, 714).

     SEC. 6. POWER.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as having any affect 
     on power arrangements under Public Law 94-423 (90 Stat. 
     1324). The United States shall continue to provide to the 
     District power and energy for irrigation water pumping for 
     the Project, including Dairy Point Pumping Plant. However, 
     the amount and term of reserved power shall not exceed, 
     respectively--
       (1) 27,100,000 kilowatt hours per year; and
       (2) 50 years commencing October 18, 1990.

     The rate that the District shall pay the Secretary for such 
     reserved power shall continue to reflect full recovery of 
     Bonneville Power Administration transmission costs.

     SEC. 7. CONVEYANCE.

       (a) Conveyance of Interests of United States.--Subject to 
     valid existing rights, the Secretary is authorized to convey 
     all right, title, and interest, without warranties, of the 
     United States in and to all Project Irrigation Works to the 
     District. In the event a significant cultural resource or 
     hazardous waste site is identified, the Secretary is 
     authorized to defer or delay transfer to title to any parcel 
     until required Federal action is completed.
       (b) Retention of Title to Wildlife Mitigation Facilities.--
     The Secretary will retain title to the Wildlife Mitigation 
     Facilities. The District shall remain obligated to deliver 
     water to and provide for the operations and maintenance of 
     the Wildlife Mitigation Facilities at its own expense in 
     accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
       (c) Reservation.--The transfer of rights and interests 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall reserve to the United States 
     all oil, gas, and other mineral deposits and a perpetual 
     right to existing public access open to public fishing, 
     hunting, and other outdoor recreation purposes, and such 
     other existing public uses.

     SEC. 8. REPAYMENT CONTRACT.

       Upon conveyance of title to the Project Irrigation Works 
     notwithstanding any parcels delayed in accordance with 
     section 7(a), the 1964 Basic Contract, and the 1979 Repayment 
     Contract between the District and Reclamation, shall be 
     terminated and of no further force or effect.

     SEC. 9. INDIAN TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES.

       The District shall remain obligated to deliver water under 
     appropriate water service contracts to Indian Trust Lands 
     upon request from the owners or lessees of such land.

     SEC. 10. LIABILITY.

       Upon completion of the conveyance of Project Irrigation 
     Works under this Act, the District shall--
       (1) be liable for all acts or omissions relating to the 
     operation and use of the Project Irrigation Works that occur 
     before or after the conveyance except for the Grillo Claim, 
     government contractor construction claims accruing at any 
     time, and any other suits or claims filed as of the date of 
     the Settlement Agreement;
       (2) absolve the United States and its officers and agents 
     of responsibility and liability for the design and 
     construction including latent defects associated with the 
     Project; and
       (3) assume responsibility to indemnify and defend the 
     United States against all claims whether now known or unknown 
     and including those of third party claims associated with, 
     arising from, or in any way related to, the Project except 
     for the Grillo Claim, government contractor construction 
     claims accruing at any time, and any other suits or claims 
     filed as of the date of the Settlement Agreement.

     SEC. 11. CERTAIN ACTS NOT APPLICABLE AND TERMINATION OF 
                   MANDATES.

       (a) Reclamation Laws.--All mandates imposed by the 
     Reclamation Act of 1902, and all Acts supplementary thereto 
     or amendatory thereof, including the Reclamation Reform Act 
     of 1982, upon the Project Irrigation Works shall be 
     terminated upon the completion of the transfers as provided 
     by this Act and the Settlement Agreement.
       (b) Relationship to Other Laws.--The transfer of title 
     authorized by this Act shall not--
       (1) be subject to the provisions of chapter 5 of title 5, 
     United States Code (commonly known as the ``Administrative 
     Procedure Act''); or
       (2) be considered a disposal of surplus property under the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
     U.S.C. 471 et seq.) and the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 1601 et seq.).
       (c) Deauthorization.--Effective upon transfer of title to 
     the District under this Act, that portion of the Oroville-
     Tonasket Unit Extension, Okanogan-Similkameen Division, Chief 
     Joseph Dam Project, Washington, referred to in section 7(a) 
     as the Project Irrigation Works is hereby deauthorized. After 
     transfer of title, the District shall not be entitled to 
     receive any further Reclamation benefits pursuant to the 
     Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, and Act supplementary 
     thereto or amendatory thereof.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Everett, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee has had under consideration the bill (H.R. 412) to 
approve a settlement agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and 
the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District, pursuant to House Resolution 
94, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitue.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on 
the table.

                          ____________________