[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.
____________________