[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2281-H2313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           FLOOD PREVENTION AND FAMILY PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 142 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 142

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 478) to amend the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 to improve the ability of individuals and local, State, 
     and Federal agencies to comply with that Act in building, 
     operating, maintaining, or repairing flood control projects, 
     facilities, or structures. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Resources. After general debate the bill shall 
     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Resources now printed in the bill. Each section of the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 142 is an open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 478, the Flood Prevention and Family Protection 
Act of 1997. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided 
equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Resources.
  House Resolution 142 makes in order the Committee on Resources 
amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment.

                              {time}  1400

  The rule also provides that the Committee on Resources amendment in 
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule continues the approach of according priority 
in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record. It is not a requirement, but I believe it will 
facilitate consideration of amendments.
  Finally, House Resolution 142 provides for one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority Members 
of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a standard open rule and the Rules Committee has 
ensured that all Members who wish to modify the bill through the 
amendment process have every opportunity to offer their amendments.
  The legislation that this rule brings to the floor will amend the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 to improve the ability of individuals, 
local, State, and Federal agencies to comply with the act in building, 
operating, maintaining, or repairing flood control projects, 
facilities, or structures. In short, H.R. 478 will simply allow flood 
control experts the ability to repair and maintain existing man-made 
flood control structures in order to help protect American citizens and 
their homes, businesses, and farms from the destruction of rising flood 
waters.
  Let me be very clear. We all support species protection, and the 
Endangered Species Act has been instrumental in the preservation of a 
number of threatened species since becoming law. However, in some cases 
the programs of the Endangered Species Act have had an effect which is 
opposite the intent, and they often have a detrimental impact on the 
affected communities. It is also compromising human lives.
  This is one such case in which we should make a small modification 
where human lives are at stake. Unfortunately, the rigidity of current 
law has placed obstacles in front of those who wish to repair and 
maintain flood control structures.
  We heard testimony in the Committee on Rules of the opportunities to 
avoid flood tragedies that were lost because bureaucratic redtape 
delayed necessary levy repairs. Rather than taking the proactive 
endeavors that would repair levees, State and local officials were 
bogged down in studies and mitigation requirements that have resulted 
in levee failures, significant economic damage, and the loss of human 
life.
  It is my hope that this modification in the Endangered Species Act 
will save lives, safeguard property, protect species whose habitats are 
near flood control structures, and significantly reduce the demand for 
massive annual appropriations for emergency relief.
  H.R. 478 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Resources by 
the vote of 23 to 9, and the open rule was unanimously approved by the 
Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we 
may proceed with general debate and consideration of the merits of this 
very important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and urge my 
colleagues to support it so that all our alternatives and potential 
improvements to this legislation may be considered.
  The bill made in order by the rule, however, concerns me a great 
deal. Even the name of the bill, ``the Flood Prevention and Family 
Protection Act'' is misleading. This legislation will neither prevent 
floods nor will it protect families from floodwater. Instead, it takes 
political advantage of the recent tragedies associated with flooding in 
various States and uses them to attack one of our Nation's landmark 
environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act.
  This bill is overbroad, and would open a gaping hole in the 
Endangered Species Act. It would permanently exempt the reconstruction, 
operation, maintenance, and repair of all dams, hydroelectric 
facilities, levees, canals, and other water-related projects from the 
safeguards and protections of the Endangered Species Act, whether these 
projects are Federal or non-Federal. There are literally thousands of 
dams and other structures nationwide that have flood control as a 
purpose. Under this ill-advised legislation, almost all water-related 
projects, from repairing levees to operating massive hydroelectric 
facilities, would be exempt from the Endangered Species Act, meaning 
that no consultation whatsoever would be required regarding those 
projects' potential effects on endangered species or their habitats.
  Moreover, the bill is unnecessary. The Endangered Species Act is 
already flexible enough to allow expedited review for improvements or 
upgrading to existing structures in impending emergencies. And, most 
important, the act already allows exemptions for the replacement and 
repair of public facilities in Presidentially declared disaster areas. 
And the Fish and Wildlife Service has already issued a policy statement 
clarifying that flood-fighting and levee repairs are automatically 
exempted from the Endangered Species Act if they are needed to save 
lives and property.
  However, it is important for us to point out that the Endangered 
Species

[[Page H2282]]

Act did not cause floods. I believe that is an act of nature.
  If there are burdens that are imposed by the Endangered Species Act 
on landowners, we should look for ways to reduce the burdens without 
compromising the protection of our vanishing wildlife. But legislation 
that reduces those burdens by eliminating the protection of endangered 
species is not reform; it is repeal.
  I had hoped that after last year's disastrous attempts to gut our 
Nation's landmark environmental laws, that bills like H.R. 478 would be 
put to rest, but I was wrong. Now it appears that the American people 
will witness a more insidious repeat of the 104th Congress, one in 
which back-door attempts to chip away at environmental protections are 
brought to the floor under the guise of protecting families.
  Mr. Speaker, while I do not oppose this open rule, I strongly urge my 
colleagues to defeat the bill that it makes in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no disagreement with the rule, but I do strongly 
disagree with the direction that this bill takes in terms of its 
representations and action fundamentally undercutting seriously the 
Endangered Species Act, an act which should be reauthorized and dealt 
with on its merits as opposed to these single shots and, I might say, a 
broad attempt here today to suspend the application of the Endangered 
Species Act to a wide range of regular activities dealing with the 
repair, the reconstruction, the maintenance, and even the operation of 
various water projects.
  Mr. Speaker, we are aware that when water projects are put forth and 
justified, they are justified on the basis of a series of different 
criteria and purposes. One of those purposes is flood protection, 
another might be for navigation, it may be for power production and 
certainly for recreation and the enhancement of the natural features, 
the wildlife and other flora and fauna that might be present in the 
project areas.
  What we see here is that in the reconstruction, in this whole series 
of operation and other activities, that this would be completely 
suspended. We would not look at one of the significant factors that are 
involved in such project. Under the Endangered Species Act, there have 
literally been 25 to 40,000 consultations. This suspends any 
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service as to the aspects of 
that impacting the flora and fauna that may be endangered, may be 
threatened, or may be candidate species, we would not have a 
consultation with them, we would not have conferencing, and, finally, 
we would suspend the provision if they in fact do damage, what we call 
takings within the Endangered Species Act, would also be null and void.
  Doing this under the auspices of somehow protecting safety and health 
and life, in fact I think that the supposition that somehow that the 
Endangered Species Act is responsible for the flooding and the loss of 
life in California has not been demonstrated. In the hearings on this 
matter, there was evidence that they had an 11-year project and that 
this segment was the last phase of the project that was not rehabbed 
and constructed for a whole variety of reasons, some of which were 
financing and other activities. There was a determination on how they 
would proceed with this. It is true that it does take time to discuss 
and to talk about the impacts of replacing or building flood control 
projects, but it hardly was the basis in which a natural phenomenon, a 
hydrological event in terms of rainfall, a hydrological-meteorological 
event, I might say, that heavy rainfall and snow melt which occurred 
and caused that particular catastrophic event. We have seen this happen 
over and over again recently by the House in recent years. Very often 
in fact if the environmental rules were followed with regard to how we 
treat watersheds and wetlands, we would see a lot less of this flooding 
and a lot more capacity of an area to absorb that type of a natural 
event that occurs. The effort to use the endangered species as the 
scapegoat and responsible for this problem is wrong. This measure being 
proposed is not just for emergency situations. This would be a 
permanent exemption by amending the Endangered Species Act, as I said, 
for a broad range of activities, for dredging, as an example, and that 
occurs in the Mississippi water basin, it occurs in Florida, all of 
those activities. The endangered species would be exempt in those 
instances, there would be no consultation, there would be no protection 
of the endangered or threatened species or candidate species in those 
instances.
  Mr. Speaker, we will have an opportunity during the debate to vote 
for the Boehlert-Fazio amendment which will provide a temporary 
exemption which will sunset when the emergency is gone, which will deal 
with the aftermath, the floods, and other types of damage that may be 
done to water projects so that we are not under the necessity to have 
the rules and regulations when there is a legitimate emergency or 
crisis situation, we can deal with it. This bill, of course, in its 
current form, the administration has reported that they are going to 
veto it. All of the major environmental groups across this country are 
opposed to it.
  Mr. Speaker, this harkens back to the last Congress when repeatedly 
we were on this floor with a multitude of environmental bills that 
attempted to repeal the bipartisan heritage of environmental policy 
that has been developed in the last 30 years. This is the first 
opportunity that Members have had to stand up and to say no to that 
type of head-in-the-sand operation with regard to environmental 
legislation. I hope Congress will say no today on the major bill and 
vote for the Fazio-Boehlert amendment which will be offered to make 
this a reasonable targeted attempt at policy with a sunset.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415, 
nays 8, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 107]

                               YEAS--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden

[[Page H2283]]


     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
  


                                NAYS--8

     DeFazio
     Filner
     Furse
     Hinchey
     Kennedy (RI)
     McNulty
     Stabenow
     Vento

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Blunt
     Burr
     Clay
     Cox
     Gejdenson
     Reyes
     Schiff
     Taylor (NC)

                              {time}  1434

  Mr. McNULTY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MARTINEZ changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers). Pursuant to House Resolution 
142 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 478.

                              {time}  1437


                     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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 
478) to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to improve the ability 
of individuals and local, State, and Federal agencies to comply with 
that act in building, operating, maintaining, or repairing flood 
control projects, facilities, or structures, with Mr. Hastings of 
Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to point out to the Members 
that we are beginning debate on what is a very important bill. It is 
very important to my district, it is very important to the Central 
Valley of California, but it is also very important to the Nation as a 
whole.
  We are undertaking an effort to put some common sense into the 
maintenance, management of our flood control system. It is not a broad-
based bill; it does not go after all of the problems that we would like 
to fix with the Endangered Species Act, but it does go after one 
specific problem that we have had, and that problem is that the routine 
maintenance of our levee system has not been allowed to continue, has 
not been allowed to happen on a timely basis because of the 
implementation of this act the way that it is being implemented in 
California today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young], chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is H.R. 478, 
the Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act of 1997.
  The Committee on Resources reported the bill to the House on April 10 
by 29 votes, including 6 Democratic votes.
  As my colleagues know, in the last Congress I made the 
reauthorization and reform of the Endangered Species Act a top priority 
of my committee. I am one of the few Members, in fact probably the 
second Member of this whole body, who voted for the Endangered Species 
Act in 1973.
  I have supported the goals of the Endangered Species Act throughout 
my 25 years in Congress. However, as an early supporter I can tell my 
colleagues that today, 24 years later, I am sorely disappointed in the 
way that this law, with its good goal, has been abused by 
environmentalists, both in and out of our Government, who use this law 
not to protect wildlife and endangered species, but to control the use 
of lands. I believe the professional environmentalists have taken an 
extreme position on this bill, favoring beetles and their habitat over 
the protection of human life, property, and environment.
  May I stress that in California, the big flood break that started 
there is because we were trying to mitigate where the Corps of 
Engineers said it had to be fixed, an area that had beetle habitat. And 
after 6 years they finally said: Yes, you can repair. After $10 
million, we can repair the levee next summer. Guess what? The levee 
broke, as the Corps said it would break. Right here, right here is the 
statement, 6 years later the levee did break. We lost three lives and 
millions of dollars of damage done to private property and the 
agricultural base of California. Guess what? We even lost the 
elderberry bush. So what did we accomplish? Nothing.
  Now, I am going to suggest to my colleagues that H.R. 478 by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Herger] is a solution to a problem. All it does is give us the 
authority to in fact maintain levees, maintain levees. My colleagues 
will hear later on today about an amendment that says great things but 
does nothing. In fact, it makes it worse than it is right now.
  So I am asking all of my colleagues in this room to keep in mind my 
position. First, the process, the committee process, and second, do we 
truly cherish human life, do we cherish the property, and should we put 
up roadblocks under an agency with a law that cherishes beetles over 
human life? We lost the elderberry bush, we lost lives, in fact, we 
lost great amounts of tax dollars.
  The amendment later on to be offered by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert] says yes, we can repair the levee after the break or we 
can repair the levee or work on it if it is in imminent danger right 
now. No one defines who spells that out. Nor in fact will it give us an 
opportunity to maintain a levee prior to.
  I come from an area in California, originally born there, and I went 
through four floods. I am going to suggest respectfully, for those that 
say that this bill is gutting the Endangered Species Act, I ask my 
colleagues, did they vote for the Endangered Species

[[Page H2284]]

Act? No. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] did not vote for 
it; the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] did not vote for it; the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] did not vote for it. I did.
  I went through the hearing process. I knew what was intended. What we 
are trying to do is fix a small part of the Endangered Species Act and 
make it more logical and it can be applied to the protection of human 
life and property that must be protected. That is our responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and very frankly a big ``yes'' 
vote on H.R. 478.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill 
which would gut the Endangered Species Act. Make no mistake about it. 
The bill would, and I quote, exempt any maintenance, rehabilitation, 
repair, or replacement of a Federal or non-Federal flood control 
project, facility or structure, and it goes on and on.

                              {time}  1445

  H.R. 478 bears no resemblance to the benign, narrow bill its sponsors 
describe. H.R. 478 is advertised as a targeted response to an emergency 
situation. Yet, this bill would exempt from the Endangered Species Act 
any work at any existing flood control facility, even if there was no 
conceivable threat to public safety. Is a blanket exemption to the 
Endangered Species Act necessary to respond to or to prevent emergency? 
Obviously not.
  H.R. 478 is advertised as a way to provide relief to communities that 
have suffered or will suffer from disasters. Yet, this bill is so broad 
that it would never be signed into law. Can a bill that never becomes 
law help a single person? Obviously not.
  H.R. 478 is advertised as being pro-environment. Yet, this bill is 
vehemently opposed not only by every environmental group, but by such 
sportsmens' group as Trout, Unlimited, and by conservative wildlife 
management groups such as the International Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Associations. Would a pro-environment bill be opposed by the 
entire environmental community? Obviously not.
  H.R. 478 is advertised as striking a balance between human needs and 
the preservation of wildlife, yet this bill would prevent any wildlife 
consideration from being taken into account in managing such areas as 
the Everglades or the Columbia River Basin, or the Colorado River. Can 
a bill simultaneously do away with wildlife considerations and provide 
any protection for endangered species? Obviously not.
  The deficiencies in this bill are, indeed, glaringly obvious. We 
cannot ignore them simply because this bill is being proposed in the 
wake of tragic floods. This bill has little to do with responding to 
floods and everything to do with using them as political cover.
  However, we must not be distracted by shouting ``flood'' in a crowded 
congressional Chamber. Does this mean that the Endangered Species Act 
does not need to be reformed? No. But today's debate is about emergency 
measures, not about comprehensive reform. Does this mean that Congress 
does not mean to make any changes to the Endangered Species Act in 
response to floods? No. But we respond with moderate, targeted, 
sensible solutions to real problems.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to respond with moderate, targeted, sensible 
solutions to real problems, solutions that can get signed into law. I 
will offer a substitute that fits that description, a measure that will 
work as advertised.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to read H.R. 478 to understand its 
expansive impact. We must not allow legitimate concerns about flooding 
to wash away 25 years of effort to preserve endangered species. We have 
better ways to protect human lives and property, the goal we all share. 
I ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 478 and to support the Boehlert 
substitute.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I come to the well as an expert in what 
can happen when levees are not sufficient to withstand raging flood 
waters. Three weeks ago the city of Grand Forks went under. We have a 
city of 50,000, the second largest city in my State, which sustained 
hundreds of millions of dollars of damage. In fact, the Federal Reserve 
Board of St. Paul has estimated that the damage in Grand Forks and 
through the Red River Valley, the property damage alone is $1.2 to $1.8 
billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe an ESA exemption sufficient to address levee 
repair, where necessary to protect human life or prevent substantial 
property damage, only makes very basic sense. This body must evaluate 
and weigh conflicting priorities on critical issues like the one before 
us. Clearly we have to come down on the side of protecting human life. 
We have to come down on the side of preventing major property damage. 
We have to protect levees. Let us pass this bill, as amended by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here as lawmakers. I will not disagree with 
anything that has been said by the previous speakers, but I think they 
have failed to read the law that they are asking the Members to adopt. 
That law as it comes to the floor says that consultation conferencing 
is not required for any agency for the reconstruction, the operation, 
the maintaining or repairing of Federal or non-Federal flood control 
projects, facilities, or structures. Then it lists the reasons why. But 
it also says it will also apply when it consists of maintenance, and 
including operation of a facility in accordance with previously issued 
Federal license, permit, or other authorized law.
  What this says is that you no longer have to consult or confer with 
people when you are going to build a dam, when you are going to operate 
a dam, when you are going to build any kind of structure. Why is this 
consultation important? It does not say just in floods. It says any 
time, any time. It could be just clear, beautiful, sunny weather; 
ignore the endangered species, ignore the species, because endangered 
species goes into looking at all species.
  I happen to represent a lot of fishermen. Their fish depend on water 
quality and water flows. What this is saying is that the farming 
interests here or the interests of those who maintain levees should 
supersede the rights of those who benefit from the water.
  That is not what this Congress wants to do. The problem with this 
bill is not the intent, because I think the intent is supportable. The 
problem with this bill is the way it has been drafted and comes to the 
floor. It makes a hole so wide that nobody in their right mind would 
want to have these broad exemptions.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been through those floods that the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young] talked about. I am a fifth generation 
Californian. I was through the floods of 1986 in the Sacramento Valley, 
and nobody raised this issue. There was as much water in 1986 as there 
was this year.
  I was through the floods in 1995, in the Salinas Valley. Do you know 
what? People said the river was not dredged because of the Endangered 
Species Act, but then they went back to the record and could find no 
proof there was ever any issue there with the Fish and Wildlife Service 
of any endangered species.
  The water has something to do with floods. I do not think we an ought 
to blame it all on the species, and some of those species we use for 
commercial purposes, particularly the fishermen. I stand in opposition 
to this bill, in support of a strong commercial fishery industry, in 
support of a balanced approach to problem-solving.
  If Members remove this, I will tell them what is going to happen. 
People are going to enter the opposition through lawsuits. The 
consultation process is to avoid lawsuits. It is to essentially 
mitigate disputes before they happen. If we want to exempt that in 
emergency purposes, then do it for emergency purposes, not just for all 
time, forever.
  Therefore, the bill in its present state is just too broad. It needs 
to be

[[Page H2285]]

amended. It needs at this time to be defeated.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, now I remember why I retired 2 years ago. It has to do 
with the exaggeration of this place, and at times, the exaggeration of 
the issues. It seems to me reasonable people ought to come to 
reasonable concerns about the past, at least, and learn from them.
  In 1996 there was devastation in California with floods, and the 
Corps of Engineers and others said, come forward here, look at what we 
must do. We must repair and maintain these canals, or we are going to 
lose people, lives, and property. That did not occur for many of the 
reasons that we have heard from the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Pombo] and others.
  What happened? We had the devastation of another flood. We will have 
another one in the future. So I suggest to all of us here, we ought to 
take a look at the past and learn from it, allow us to maintain these 
canals. Why do we not think about human life, as well as we think of 
snakes and beatles, especially if we have somebody telling us we have 
human life at stake here. Hey, who are we protecting in this body, 
anyway, if we have the choice? We are going to protect more endangered 
species by this bill than we do without it. Why? What happens when we 
have a tragic flood? It is like what happens when you have a tragic 
fire. It burns everything, floods destroy everything. How many 
endangered species do Members think were lost in this flood of 1996? I 
recommend much more, many, many more than we would have protected had 
they given us this bill.
  This bill saves lives, it saves endangered species, and it saves 
property. I thought that is what we were all about.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Fazio-
Boehlert amendment. I supported this amendment in the Committee on 
Appropriations, and I think this is a real commonsense amendment. 
Basically, what it says is that any activity that is needed for the 
repair of flood control projects is exempted from the consultation 
process of ESA. But this amendment goes far beyond that. It says we are 
going to exempt any project anywhere in the country that is involved in 
flood control. That is an overreach. It is not what we should be doing 
here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I happen to believe, I am a strong believer in the 
Endangered Species Act, even though up in my State we have had terrible 
problems with the marbled murrelet, the northern spotted owl, and 
salmon. But what we have done is worked with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service. We have had consultation, and we were able to work out 
solutions that protect the environment, that protect species. The Fish 
and Wildlife Service has already, in California, exempted the work that 
has to be done to fix the levees and do the repairs. Mr. Chairman, the 
underlying bill, frankly, is unnecessary.
  Second, what in essence we are doing here today with the Boehlert-
Fazio amendment is putting into statute what the Fish and Wildlife 
Service has already done, and which this administration strongly 
supports. That is going out there and doing the fixes that are 
necessary to help the people that are hurt.
  This amendment goes beyond that and says any flood control project in 
the entire country is exempted from the Endangered Species Act. I am 
ashamed of the other side who presents this, because they tried this 
same thing last year and they were defeated when many Republicans, 
Republicans who would support the Endangered Species Act, deserted and 
stood with those of us in the House who believe we should have some 
concern about species.
  We are a specie. The health of the ecosystem is important not only to 
the species, but also to the humans. In our long-term best interest, I 
think we are in better shape when we work with the agencies and come up 
with rational solutions. So let us not overreach, let us not try to use 
the floods in California to gut the ESA, let us legislate today 
carefully and competently. Let us accept the Fazio-Boehlert amendment, 
which gets to the heart of what needs to be done, without overreaching.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger], the author of the bill.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, today I wish to speak on behalf of my 
legislation, H.R. 478, the Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act 
of 1997. This legislation addresses a critical need that can be found 
in virtually every district in the United States. Not one area of this 
country does not possess some structure created for the sole purpose of 
flood control.
  Levees and other flood control structures work well to preserve human 
life and animal habitat when they are properly designed, constructed, 
maintained, and repaired. If left unrepaired or improperly maintained, 
these structures have the potential of failing during flood events and 
imperiling human life and the environment.
  This year alone, floods have devastated areas across the United 
States. Rising waters have taken lives and destroyed property in 
California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, North Dakota, Minnesota, and 
the entire Ohio River Valley. Controlling these floods is a national 
responsibility that requires a national solution.
  It amends the Endangered Species Act to allow flood experts to repair 
and maintain existing man-made flood control structures. The ESA was 
never intended to compromise human life, yet that is exactly what 
happens each time a levee or other needed flood control project is 
postponed or delayed due to extensive and costly regulations mandated 
by the ESA.
  Since 1986, after devastating floods weakened levees along the 
Feather River in my northern California district, flood control 
officials near the community of Arboga, CA, attempted to repair and 
reconstruct their failing levee system. In 1990, a U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers report determined repairs should occur on the Arboga levee as 
expeditiously as possible, stating, ``Loss of life is expected under 
existing conditions, without remedial repairs, for major flood 
events.''
  Despite this acknowledgment, more than 6 years of mitigation passed 
before permission was finally granted to begin repairs in the summer of 
1997. Unfortunately, it was too late for the residents of Arboga. Levee 
officials were required to spend 6 years, and on January 2, at 12:20 
a.m., the levee broke in the very location predicted 7 years earlier.
  We have a photo of that. As you can see by this photo, a levee 
failure is a traumatic event. Homes are lost, property is destroyed, 
and critical habitat is irreparably damaged. More importantly, human 
lives are put in jeopardy and often lost.
  The levee break at Arboga took the lives of three people. The first 
was 75-year-old Claire Royal, a retired elementary school teacher who 
had taught school for 20 years at Far West Elementary School and Beal 
Air Force Base.
  The second was 55-year-old grandmother Marian Anderson. Marian was 
also the wife of levee manager Gene Anderson, who, ironically, was out 
inspecting other portions of the levee when his wife was drowned.
  The third person that drowned that night was World War II veteran 
Bill Nakagawa. Bill had served in World War II with the famed and 
distinguished Japanese-American 442d Combat Team of the U.S. Army in 
the European Theater. He was found in his home one-quarter mile away 
from the broken Arboga levee.
  Thirty-two thousand other people were driven from their homes, 25,000 
square miles of property and critical habitat were flooded, and more 
than 600 head of livestock, cows and horses, were drowned.
  If H.R. 478 had been in place, this tragedy could have been avoided. 
Repairs would have been allowed to begin back in 1990 when the critical 
nature of the levee's condition was first noticed. Instead of 
proceeding directly with construction, however, officials were required 
to spend 6 years and more than $10 million on studies and delaying 
mitigation that was eventually washed away in the January 2 floods.

[[Page H2286]]

  This example occurred in my district in northern California, but the 
same thing could happen virtually in every other district across the 
United States. All it takes is a flood control structure and a listed 
species. Necessary and require repairs and maintenance will be delayed.
  I urge Members' support of this legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think all of the Members in the Chamber to one extent 
or another believe in the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. 
Whether you think that it is exactly right or whether you think it is 
mostly right, most of us do agree that there is a need to protect 
certain species that are either threatened or endangered.
  The problem with the bill of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Herger] is that those projects which it exempts tend to be where many 
endangered species live. That creates a very difficult situation for 
those of us who would like to maintain a balance in the endangered 
species area, simply because the exempted projects and the exempted 
parcels of land are the home for many of these species. So that makes 
it very difficult.
  I know my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], 
has some language which he will offer later in the form of an amendment 
which moves toward changing the situation somewhat. He adds the 
language that says that the exemption will be in effect where necessary 
to protect human life and to prevent the substantial risk of serious 
property damage.
  I wish I could support the Campbell amendment. However, by the very 
nature of the location of flood control projects, they are built to 
protect from the risk of substantial damage to property, life, and 
limb. And so I would suggest to my friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Campbell], that his language simply maintains the 
status quo as contained in the Herger bill and does not really have the 
effect that I know he intends it to have.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would apply to the broadest 
part of the Herger-Pombo bill. What it would do is to take it from, I 
think, a very broad and too broad expansion down to the specific case, 
``where necessary to protect human life or to prevent the substantial 
risk of serious property damage.'' In that sense I believe it is really 
quite limiting. I confess, although it might have been because I did 
not hear all of the gentleman, though I tried, that I do not understand 
his point, in what sense my amendment was inadequate.
  Mr. SAXTON. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that flood control projects are 
built only where there is a risk of significant loss of property, life, 
or limb. Therefore, the gentleman, by exempting only those projects 
which fall under that category, by nature of the definition exempts all 
of the projects that the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] exempts 
in his original bill.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I represent the State of Louisiana, which 
drains about 43 States. The district I represent sees the water coming 
through every year. Every year the water in the Mississippi River alone 
rises above the level of the inhabitants of the city of New Orleans by 
about 17 feet, 17 feet below sea level. In the case of a hard flood, 
hurricane conditions, we are told we could expect 27 feet of water in 
New Orleans if we do not protect our levees.
  The choice you will face today will be a choice between making sure 
that the very precious funds available for the reconstruction, 
maintenance, and repair of existing levees and facilities designed to 
protect human lives, that those precious funds are in fact spent to do 
that. Or the choice will be to adopt the California solution.
  This is the California problem. This is the set of regulations that 
levee maintenance people have to undergo in California in order to 
repair a levee. Testimony after testimony was heard at our committee of 
levee managers, both those who represent the State and local levee 
boards and those on Federal projects, who tell us that time and time 
again the precious dollars available to repair those levees had to be 
spent on mitigation projects demanded by the Fish and Wildlife Service 
and the Interior Department, projects that took those precious dollars 
away and, more important, took the time away from those necessary 
repairs. The gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] read us the 
results: human lives lost, massive flooding.
  Let me put it as clearly as I can to my colleagues. We will have a 
choice between an amendment that seeks to give America the California 
problem, the Boehlert amendment will simply codify this Federal 
solution in California and give it to Louisiana and the rest of the 
Nation, or a choice to say very simply that endangered species, yes, 
ought to be protected but not with levee board funds, not with funds 
designed to repair and rebuild and fit levees to protect human lives.
  Whether we are for protecting animals and plants and the endangered 
species or not, and I think we all are, we ought to be for the 
proposition that when precious dollars and time is available to save 
precious human lives, that it ought not be spent on other worthwhile 
things. That money ought to go to build levees and repair them and keep 
people safe. If we vote today to put this California problem in place 
for the rest of America, we will be condemning citizens of this country 
to death and property to destruction all over this country.
  We in Louisiana depend upon levees. Every Member of our delegation, 
Democrat and Republican, has signed onto the Pombo bill. Every member 
of our delegation, Democrat and Republican, urban and rural, 
understands how critical maintenance of levee construction projects, 
maintenance of levee facilities are to the health and safety of our 
communities.
  The city of New Orleans today is protected by something called a 
Bonne Carre spillway. It is a set of gates that open up water from the 
Mississippi River and spills it out into Lake Pontchartrain. Do we like 
doing that to the lake? No. We do it to keep the water levels down 
because in New Orleans today, if you go to our fair city, you will see 
ships plying the Mississippi above the level that people live. We need 
to pass the Pombo bill, defeat the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. 
I do agree with my colleague the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], 
that we ought to learn from the past. But I am afraid that debate here 
today is largely beside the point.
  First and foremost, the bill today addresses something that simply is 
not a problem. The information I have received from my State, and we 
know something about flooding; if it is not wet, if we are not under 
water, we are wet in Oregon. We have had lots of flooding. But we have 
had our experience that the opportunities under the ESA right now, the 
emergency consultation, do provide adequate provisions in dealing with 
problems. To the extent that we think that it needs clarification, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] here will address that.
  But I think the arguments that we are hearing today are reinforcing a 
tragic notion that somehow we are going to engineer our way out of the 
flooding. We have spent billions of dollars treating our water systems 
as machines and there is the notion, the false notion, that somehow by 
passing more levee construction, more money, that we are going to stop 
it. The fact is there are only three things that we should do to try 
and learn from the past, that will make a difference.

[[Page H2287]]

  First and foremost, we should stop having people build in harm's way 
and help move people who are there out, rather than spending money time 
and time again to rebuild where God does not want them.
  Second, we have to stop relying on building new dams and levees which 
simply make the problem worse, move the problem downstream. Why has the 
State of California had three floods of the century over the last 111 
years? It is not getting better after $38 billion.
  And, last but not least, when we have paved 53 percent of the 
wetlands in the lower 48 States, you do not have any place for this 
water to go. It still comes down and we have floods. For heaven's sake, 
people who have simplistic ideas that we can go ahead and continue to 
pave our wetlands are sadly mistaken. Without changes in our thinking, 
we are going to continue to be wasting lives and money and coming back 
year after year with these sad, sad presentations.
  I urge adoption of the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New 
York and California.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dooley].
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Pombo-Herger legislation and in opposition to the Fazio-Boehlert 
amendment.
  I believe very strongly that we have an opportunity to make a 
responsible modification to our Endangered Species Act to ensure that 
we can establish that balance in terms of how do we protect the health 
and safety of people and the economic livelihood of many of our 
communities, at the same time not unduly endangering many endangered 
species.
  A lot of people have to keep in mind that a lot of these flood 
control projects and levies were established, they had to go through a 
NEPA process, had to be developed in accordance with the Endangered 
Species Act, had to provide mitigation at that time. And now all too 
often we are finding for them to do the ongoing maintenance of these 
projects is that Fish and Wildlife, unfortunately, is asking them for 
additional mitigation just to maintain the projects that were built 
according to the NEPA and according to our environmental laws. What we 
are asking here is just, I think, a responsible step forward.
  I would also point out that I think this is actually going to result 
in environmental enhancement, because if we have a flood control 
district and a levy district that knows that they can maintain their 
levies, that they will not be threatened if they allow for habitat to 
be established, they do not have that incentive to go out and sterilize 
these.
  I think the Pombo-Herger legislation is a responsible step forward, 
and I urge its passage.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 478, a 
bill which would gut the Endangered Species Act and which would be 
disastrous to imperiled species and ecosystems.
  It is inconceivable to me how blame has been placed so readily and so 
callously on the Endangered Species Act for causing and aggravating the 
recent flooding in California. This is simply not the case. Rather, a 
shortage of funds, design flaws, and water management practices all 
contributed to this flood damage.
  This bill exempts the reconstruction, operation, maintenance, repair, 
rehabilitation or replacement of any flood control facility from the 
requirement to protect endangered species at any time. Any activity 
related to a flood control facility, such as dredging, would be 
exempted from these requirements.
  It is here, however, that the legislation's true effect is revealed. 
The ESA exemption to flood control facilities is permanent. As a 
result, the exemption would not have to be examined within the wider 
context of the total ESA provisions.
  Currently, protection for endangered species is distributed equally 
among all parties which impact that species. This bill would remove 
flood control activities from the responsibility and shift it to 
others. That is why I support the substitute amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to do so, and I urge them to oppose this inaptly named 
legislation.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to engage the gentleman 
in a colloquy to clarify the intent of the amendment to section 
7(A)(5)(B) and sections 9(A)(3)(B), which allows maintenance, 
rehabilitation, repair, or replacement of a Federal or non-Federal 
flood control facility, including operation of the facility in 
accordance with a previously issued Federal license, permit or other 
authorization.
  Would it be the gentleman's understanding that these types of 
facilities are operating under authorizations which were granted after 
passing environmental reviews necessary at the time of the project, 
facility or the structure was built?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that, yes, that 
is my understanding.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. With regard to that same language, is it the 
gentleman's intent that when these licenses or permits expire these 
types of facilities will be fully subject to the provisions of the 
Endangered Species Act just as any other similar facility seeking a 
license, permit or authorization?
  Mr. POMBO. Yes, that is my intent.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. With regard to the reconstruction, repair, 
operation and maintenance of flood control facilities, is it the 
gentleman's understanding that replacement work would not extend beyond 
the physical footprint of the original project, facility or structure?
  Mr. POMBO. Yes, that is my intent.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
clarifying that.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me this time.
  After the disastrous floods of this winter I came back to Congress 
not only intent on finding the funds in the supplemental appropriations 
bill to deal with the needs of the constituents that those of us in the 
Central Valley of California represent, but to deal with the Endangered 
Species Act so that we could put the system, the complex flood control 
system, back in place by next winter.
  I took an approach which was consistent with the advice I was given 
from the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Water Development, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
McDade], and that was to come up with an amendment that would not be 
controversial and in some way impede the passage of the supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  We drafted language that dealt with the emergency up through the end 
of next calendar year and provided, in addition, for special procedures 
if imminent danger to life and property were to occur. That language 
was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Appropriations after some 
fine-tuning. It was expanded to cover the entire country at the request 
of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
  I now find we are having a vote on a separate standing authorization 
bill, which I believe is really a vote on what language will ultimately 
be added to the appropriations supplemental when it finally comes to 
the floor, probably next week. There is no real hope of this separate 
bill going to the President.
  The language that the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] is 
advocating has explicitly been opposed by the administration and a veto 
has been threatened. Just today, after a number of weeks of 
conversation, we were told they would accept the language that the 
Committee on Appropriations passed unanimously that the gentleman from 
New York and I bring forward today.

[[Page H2288]]

  I want to deal with the art of the possible. I want to deal with the 
immediate problem that our constituents face, and that is to get the 
flood control system they have helped pay for over a long period of 
time--along with the Federal taxpayer--back to a point where they can 
feel protected.
  I understand the need to thoroughly review the Endangered Species 
Act. I would like to see it brought to the floor in totality. I would 
like to see us work our will on changes that are required in it, not 
just single-shot changes like this one. I hope that can be accomplished 
in this Congress. But I do not want this very hot issue, where emotions 
are obviously boiling over, to impede the approach that I have taken, 
which will be signed as part of the supplemental, which will help the 
people that I represent just as the two gentlemen from California, Mr. 
Pombo and Mr. Herger, and others do.
  If this Boehlert amendment that has come from the Committee on 
Appropriations, which it passed unanimously, can pass this floor, it 
will be signed into law. But if the Pombo bill that is before us today 
is somehow to survive this process and go to the President as part of 
the supplemental appropriations effort it will bring down the entire 
bill; not a result that helps the people of California who have been 
victimized by this flooding. I, therefore, support the Boehlert 
substitute.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support of H.R. 478, the 
Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act of 1997.
  Flood control is a necessity, not a luxury, and unfortunately 
opponents of the measure see the world much differently. A recent 
letter from the environmental lobby, which is opposed to this 
legislation, stated:

       H.R. 478 would give dam-managing agencies * * * carte 
     blanche to destroy aquatic wildlife in the name of flood 
     control.

  Does anybody really believe this is what these local decisionmakers 
have in mind? This kind of extreme rhetoric is a symptom of the 
controversy surrounding the current environmental debate. If we are 
ever going to address today's environmental problems, we can no longer 
rely on yesterday's solutions.
  The proponents of the status quo, I believe, are less concerned about 
protecting endangered species than they are in giving up Federal 
control of environmental decisionmaking to local authorities. How many 
species survived the recent levy washout in California? How much 
habitat was destroyed? How many people died?
  The proponents of H.R. 478 are not opposed to species protection; 
they are simply opposed to policies that undermine our ability to 
protect people from the dangers of floods.
  This bill makes a commonsense change in the Endangered Species Act to 
help prevent flooding before it occurs, not just in dealing with it 
after. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 478.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yieldin me 
this time.
  I would like to list a number of things here. Everyone here wants to 
save the lives of people, and everyone here wants to put people out of 
harm's way, and I would assume that everyone here wants to understand 
the natural mechanics of the flow of water and the mechanics of 
creation, how things work.
  No. 1, this area in California is already exempted as a result of 
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act from consultation. This area 
declared a disaster is exempted from the Endangered Species Act.
  No. 2, the amendment of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boehlert], 
goes a little bit further than already existing law to ensure that 
repairs are made at least by December 1998, and it can be extended 
beyond that.
  I am going to amend the Boehlert substitute by ensuring that we have 
some sense of understanding as far as what maintenance means and the 
cost of mitigation.
  Now, the present bill on the floor, whether it is the present bill or 
whether the present bill is amended by the gentleman from California, 
[Mr. Campbell], exempts in a blanket manner the Corps of Engineers from 
ESA consideration in the following areas: Dams, reservoirs, erosion 
control, beach replenishment, levies, dikes, walls, diversion channels, 
channel operations, draining of agricultural lands, you name it, the 
list goes on and on and on.
  Now, the issue here is an emergency. We are dealing with an emergency 
with the present law. With the Boehlert amendment we will ensure that 
what we see here will be repaired. But I want my colleagues to take a 
close look at what they see here. We see levies, we see when levies 
fail they cause great problems in the other picture.
  The problem is, as far as I am concerned, and we are missing the mark 
in this debate, is that we are dealing with, at least, a 500-year-old 
engineering design. That design is called levies. Most of the levies in 
the area of California were built 100 years ago. In 1997, we have 
better engineering skills. Levies, by their very nature, increase the 
level of the water and increase the speed of the water. Levies 
exacerbate upstream and downstream flooding. Levies fail because they 
conflict rather than conform to the natural processes of the water.
  A gentleman earlier, from Oregon, said that if we had more areas 
where the water could meander into, more wetlands, then we might have 
nuisance flooding every once in a while, but the problem is when we 
channel that water and speed up that water and we raise the level of 
that water, not only do we have flooding, we have major flooding. And 
not only do we have major flooding with this faulty design of levies, 
we have human misery.
  So, it is about time that we have some sense of understanding as to 
the construction of these levies. My fear is that if we pass the bill 
in its present form or even with the Campbell amendment, we will once 
again give people the false impression that levies will protect their 
lives and property, and that simply is not true.
  Levies, by their very nature, the design of levies are going to fail, 
whether they have been maintained or whether they were some of the best 
levies and they met all the standards. I think if we look at the levies 
in this picture they look like they are pretty well maintained, the 
grass is cut, we do not see a lot of bushes. Whether this was the best 
maintained levy in that district of California or whether it was the 
worst maintained levy in that district of California, levies are 
designed to fail, and if we bring the people of this country some 
tranquil sense that we are going to protect them, this bill will not do 
it.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Campbell].
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] for 
yielding time.
  The bill that was offered before us will be amended in a manner that 
has been described by a number of speakers. I would like to take a 
moment and say what my amendment does. It limits the Herger-Pombo bill 
to those existing projects, so it is not for all new projects as has 
been said; it has to be for existing projects only, that previously 
have received a Federal license, and then this qualification: ``where 
necessary to protect human life or to prevent the substantial risk of 
serious property damage.''
  I do not know what sort of a project my colleague would like to delay 
where its purpose is to protect human life and to prevent substantial 
risk of serious property damage. That is a very narrowing amendment. It 
makes Herger-Pombo much more constrained to a real case of need. I just 
cannot see who would be opposed to letting a project go ahead where it 
fits those criteria, necessary to protect human life, or to prevent the 
substantial risk of serious property damage.
  Finally, on the Boehlert amendment, which we will vote on in a bit, 
bear in mind that that amendment only applies to imminent threats. 
Oftentimes we know the river is going to rise, but it is not rising 
yet. For that reason we need Herger-Pombo as amended by my amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

[[Page H2289]]

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 478 is an extreme and environmentally 
dangerous bill that expands the waiver of the Endangered Species Act 
requirements to a broad range of nonemergency situations. This bill 
would allow for an ESA waiver for the daily routine maintenance and 
repair of any existing flood project anywhere in the Nation. This 
exemption would apply to all projects, Federal and non-Federal, at any 
time regardless of flood threat.
  H.R. 478 would subject large tracts of land to environmental hazards 
and damage by denying them the protection of the ESA. The Boehlert-
Fazio substitute is a bipartisan substitute that is in response to this 
excessive measure. The substitute allows for ESA exemptions to true 
emergencies including prospective emergencies. H.R. 478 proposes 
extreme sweeping changes to the ESA legislation, changes which I cannot 
endorse. The Boehlert-Fazio substitute allows us to address emergency 
repairs and gives us the opportunity to debate broader ESA issues at a 
later date. I am very much in support of the Boehlert-Fazio substitute 
for this reason.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Thornberry].
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, there are lots of Americans who work 
hard every day to make ends meet and spend their weekends with their 
kids or work in the yard who are searching for a little bit of common 
sense to come into government programs. I do not know if there is a 
clearer example of where a dose of common sense is needed than in this 
bill. There are levees that need to be fixed. Many of them will not be 
fixed without this bill, at least not fixed in time to stop the 
devastation. If they are not fixed, then not only are people's homes 
destroyed or lives lost, but the habitat is also destroyed of the 
animals and plants that we are trying to protect.
  The base bill, I think, is the least that we can do that will make a 
difference in people's lives. If we wait under the Boehlert amendment 
until the water comes rolling down the canyon, it is too late at that 
point to do anything to save them. It makes sense to maintain the 
levees to prevent the flooding, to begin with, rather than wait until 
it gets into that situation and then try to run in and come to the 
rescue. This is a dose of common sense, and it is the least that we can 
do to save this badly flawed legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I am from a State that was very hard hit by 
flooding this past winter. As a result, I am very concerned about 
anything that might be responsible for costly damages my constituents 
had experienced. So I called Oregon's Governor's office. I asked him to 
find out whether the Endangered Species Act had in any way contributed 
to the flooding in Oregon. The answer was a resounding no.
  Let me read from a letter from the director of Oregon's Emergency 
Management Department, quote:

       As the director of the State's emergency management agency, 
     I want to let you know that consideration of endangered 
     species has not caused unreasonable delays in implementing 
     flood recovery in Oregon.

  She went on to say:

       The ESA includes an emergency consultation process. 
     Consultation by telephone usually allows emergency response 
     to proceed with the least disruptive action.

  In other words, the Endangered Species Act does not cause or 
exacerbate flood damages in my State. The bill is not needed.
  But there is something worse about this bill. Not only will it not 
help prevent flood damages, it will cause a huge unintended 
consequence. That consequence is further loss of fishing jobs in our 
beleaguered sports and commercial salmon fishing industry.
  Let me read from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 
Association, that said about H.R. 478: ``The ESA is a necessary tool 
for West Coast salmon recovery. A blanket exemption of this sort would 
lead to widespread extinction of large portions of the Pacific salmon 
fishery industry. Such a categorical exemption,'' as is in this bill, 
``grants a license to kill this Nation's valuable aquatic resources.''
  They go on to say that this is hidden ostensibly in the name of flood 
control. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell my colleagues that this license 
to kill will kill jobs in my State. It will kill jobs on the West Coast 
of this country. It is a bad bill. It is hiding the Endangered Species 
Act under this emergency. It is not a flood control bill. Vote ``no'' 
on H.R. 478.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, debates like this make me wonder what we are doing 
here. I thought this was a House that put together laws that 
represented the people. I thought there was a phrase once said that 
laws were to be made of the people, by the people, and for the people. 
It seems that this debate is trying to tilt to laws of the beetle, by 
the beetle, and for the beetle. That is the debate, Mr. Chairman. Are 
we going to expend all kinds of resources and human energy to protect a 
beetle, or are we going to remember the people in this debate? Are we 
going to remember Bill Nakagawa, an 81-year-old very distinguished 
World War II veteran and hero who risked his life to fight for life of 
the humans, property of the humans, and Bill Nakagawa died in this 
flood in California.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time we get our priorities straight in this 
debate.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
  (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues in strong 
support for H.R. 478. This bill is probably the most commonsense 
solution and needed piece of legislation that I have encountered in the 
105th Congress.
  Earlier this year, several States experienced severe flooding, 
including my State, the State of Nevada. Many people's lives and 
futures were put in jeopardy or lost because levees did not hold. The 
underlying question behind this is why. The reason is clear. Several of 
the levees were not adequately maintained or repaired to properly 
contain the water because of these very same governmental regulations.
  H.R. 478 applies commonsense solutions to the Endangered Species Act 
when the act affects flood control projects. Let me state that the 
current law only allows the waiver of the ESA after a disaster happens. 
H.R. 478 amends the law to allow maintenance activities on flood 
control facilities to take place before a disaster strikes, not 
afterward.
  Mr. Chairman, human life cannot be balanced against the life of a 
beetle or any other non-human species.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Hill].
  Mr. HILL. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the debate has been a little bit confusing here, but, 
simply stated, H.R. 478 places protection as a priority above redtape. 
When confronted with the need to make repairs to our Nation's flood 
control structures, delays can be fatal to people, to wildlife, and to 
the environment. Flood control structures work to preserve human life 
and animal habitat. It is important to everyone that they are properly 
designed, properly constructed, and maintained and repaired. If they 
fail when left unrepaired or improperly maintained, people, habitat, 
and the environment all lose.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a commonsense approach to maintaining 
existing flood control facilities when there is a direct threat to 
public safety and human life. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri [Mrs. Emerson].
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, the eastern border of my district has 200 
miles of Mississippi River frontage. I can tell my colleagues that when 
the Mississippi River floods, the wildlife head to our levees. If we 
are going to talk about truly protecting wildlife, then I think the 
best way to do that is to have a levee that is structurally sound, 
well-maintained and able to withstand the extraordinary floods that we 
have had in the past few years.
  Our levee boards, our drainage districts that work on a daily basis 
to maintain these levees, who touch and see and feel and who actually 
have some experience with the levees, oppose the Boehlert amendment and 
support H.R. 478. These folks have to face

[[Page H2290]]

the daily threat of the Department of Interior and the EPA swooping 
down on them because they disturbed wildlife while doing some sort of 
general maintenance work, all in the name of endangered species. If we 
cannot do preventative maintenance, then the levees fail and we do not 
protect anything. As a matter of fact, our Department of Conservation 
every 2 years has to spend $1 million to put the wildlife habitat back 
together. If the levees were intact, that would not be the case. That 
is just taxpayer dollars. If we cannot do preventative maintenance, the 
levees will fail, we will not protect anything, we will not save the 
communities, the people in those communities or the birds, the fish and 
the beetles. We have to be able to perform maintenance that prevents 
levee failures. As the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] says, 
current ESA provisions allow repairs only after natural disasters have 
begun to destroy human life and property and only after the President 
declares this a Federal disaster area.
  I urge support for H.R. 478. Let us put people first for a change.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we have heard again and 
again today that H.R. 478 guts the Endangered Species Act. Is that 
true? Does it open the floodgates? I have listened to the evidence and 
the answer is no, no, no.
  The Endangered Species Act is very important when we build levees, 
when we build dams, how we locate them, how it is going to affect 
creatures and people and protect people. But today we just want to 
maintain them. We want to keep them working so they perform what they 
were built to do.
  The Endangered Species Act bureaucracy has failed us with endless 
delays. It has not worked. Does it open the door? No, we only can use 
it when there is critical imminent threat to public health and safety 
or to address catastrophic events, to make sure that our structures 
work.
  I have listened to this debate carefully. There has been no evidence 
given that we are gutting the Endangered Species Act or endangering it 
in any way. It is a common sense bill brought about by the failure of 
the bureaucracy that has enforced the Endangered Species Act to prevent 
us from just repairing the structures that have been built to protect 
this country.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Interior appropriations 
subcommittee for 21 years and when the new Republican majority took 
over, one of the first things they did was cut out the money for the 
work that is necessary under the Endangered Species Act.

                              {time}  1545

  It was gutted in our committee, and the reason they are having 
difficulty in getting consultation done and other work done on the ESA 
is because they cut out the money for the bill, the money for the work.
  Now if my colleagues are truly sincere about what they are trying to 
do today, they would offer an amendment to put the money back in so 
they could do the consultation.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit].
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pombo bill. 
Unfortunately, in the areas needing flood control facilities the 
maintenance of these facilities have been compromised by excessive 
mitigation requirements. While I and most of us do not quarrel with the 
need to take strong measures to conserve endangered species, we 
strongly disagree with placing species conservation priorities above 
flood control projects.
  Mr. Chairman, what we need to be doing is trying to fix levees, 
streams, before we get to a flooding stage, and we think that what Mr. 
Pombo's bill does is allow us to protect the people in those areas. Let 
us fix those levees and streams, let us get to doing the job of doing 
that, and in doing that we think in the long term we will save species 
and we will save human life and property.
  So, I would urge all my colleagues to support the Pombo bill, and I 
would congratulate him on this effort.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of reasons why we should gut the 
Endangered Species Act with this legislation. Unfortunately, most of 
them just turn out not to be true. We are told that the floods in 
northern California in the Yuba City area happen because of endangered 
species. But listen to what the Sacramento Bee, the newspaper of 
record, tells us, and what the Corps of Engineers tells us, and what 
the Fish and Wildlife Service tells us.
  The fact of the matter is the Fish and Wildlife Service signed off on 
that project in 1990, 1992, and 1994, but what happened? The local 
agency came in and asked that it be delayed so it could be built 
larger. Then the person who lost the bid came in and sued and delayed 
the project. That is why the project, it had nothing to do with 
endangered species.
  We are told that somehow the floods in central California happened 
because of endangered species, that the lower San Joaquin failed. We 
had levees that were designed for 8,000 cubic feet per second; that had 
80,000 cubic feet per second come through there in a flood, 10 times 
the amount of water. These were perfectly maintained levees, according 
to the Corps of Engineers. They failed because 10 times the amount of 
water.
  The Coachella bypass, 10 times the amount of water that that levee 
was designed for came through that river and blew out those levees. 
Those levees were perfectly maintained, according to the Corps of 
Engineers.
  What we have here is a ruse. The same coalition that brought us the 
repeal of the Endangered Species Act from our committee last year is 
bringing this to the floor. The same coalition that brought us logging 
without laws that almost devastated the forests of this country now 
brings us levees without laws. This is nothing more than to blow a hole 
in the Endangered Species Act that far exceeds the holes blown in the 
levees by 10 times the amount of anticipated water.
  Historic floods, historic amounts of water, but what is their answer? 
Their answer is to repeal and exempt large, integrated, publicly 
subsidized water projects from any compliance with the Endangered 
Species Act, and that should not be allowed because the record is 
clear. Nobody can point to the Endangered Species Act in this case of 
suggesting that is why these levees broke. That is not what the corps 
said.
  But the most important point is this. Mr. Boehlert's amendment allows 
all of those levees to be fixed, and it allows all of those levees to 
be maintained in anticipation of an eminent threat to health or safety. 
That is Mr. Boehlert's amendment. We do not have to blow a hole in the 
Endangered Species Act to take care of this problem. This problem will 
be taken care of by the substitute offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  More importantly, that substitute will be signed into law. The rest 
of this is an interesting exercise, but the President has already said 
he would veto it.
  So the point is this: The evidence is clear. These levees failed, 
these well-maintained levees failed, because of 10 times the amount of 
water blew through these levees than was anticipated before, and that 
was true up and down the State of California. And when the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] waves that book of regulations, that is 
California law, that is not Federal law.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I just want to refute what the 
ranking member said. We did not repeal the Endangered Species Act, nor 
did we attempt to. We tried to rewrite it without any help from the 
minority at all, and this administration has been asked many times, and 
they sit on their fat never mind. No, I am not yielding any time. The 
gentleman said we repealed; we did not. We tried to do what is right.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion on the debate, I would just like to say 
that

[[Page H2291]]

the point is we have drafted a bill which is designed to allow routine 
maintenance and operation of the levee system in California. That is 
what it is designed to do.
  We have heard a lot of statements that have been made here today 
which are factually untrue. It does not gut the Endangered Species Act, 
it does not blow a hole in the Endangered Species Act; none of that is 
true. What it does is it allows regular routine maintenance of the 
levee system to happen on a timely basis. That is what it allows.
  Mr. Chairman, the entire levee system was built to protect peoples' 
lives and property. Why do our colleagues find it so difficult to put 
that as a priority of the levee system? Is it so difficult for them to 
place people as the No. 1 priority of our levee system, of our flood 
control system?
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple bill that has a targeted, very narrow 
problem that we are trying to correct. That is what we are after at 
this time. All of the stuff we keep hearing from the minority really is 
just an effort to block passing on control to the local district 
managers and giving them the opportunity to manage their levee system.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, the Flood Prevention and Family Protection 
Act before us today provides an opportunity to restore a small amount 
of critically needed balance to the Endangered Species Act.
  The Psalmist raises the question:

       What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? . . .
       For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and 
     hast crowned him with glory and honour.
       Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy 
     hands;
       Thou hast put all things under this feet.
       All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
       The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and 
     whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. . . .

  This bill gives this body an opportunity to clearly state what a 
majority of my constituents believe: the preservation of human life 
should take priority over the preservation of endangered species.
  In July 1994, the Flint River in my State of Georgia flooded. Several 
lives and substantial property, including cropland, were lost in that 
flood.
  If a local flood control official in Georgia needs the flexibility to 
prepare for a future flood on the Flint River, I want that official to 
have the flexibility needed to do what it takes. I do not want the 
Endangered Species Act to stand in the way of protecting the lives and 
property of the people I represent.
  It is only common sense that any major flood is devastating to every 
plant and animal in its path.
  Let's not be fooled into believing that an otherwise preventable 
flood will not further endanger the very plants and animals the 
Endangered Species Act was designed to protect.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I am adamantly opposed to H.R. 478. This 
legislation is a transparent effort to gut the Endangered Species Act.
  Supporters of this bill would have us believe that the Endangered 
Species Act was somehow responsible for the tragic floods that occurred 
earlier this year in the Midwest and California. There is simply no 
evidence to support their claim that the Endangered Species Act was in 
any way linked to these events. Both the Interior and Commerce 
Departments have emphatically stated that there were no cases where it 
could be demonstrated that the implementation of the Endangered Species 
Act caused any flood structure to fail. The truth is that the floods in 
California and the Midwest were the result of storms that were 
unprecedented in recent history. Reservoirs and levees were simply 
overwhelmed.
  It should be noted the Endangered Species Act already contains 
emergency waiver provisions that permit the President to grant 
exemptions to ESA regulations in major disaster areas.
  The legislation before us would undermine the basic protections of 
the Endangered Species Act. H.R. 478 would prevent species protection 
from being taken into account at any existing dam, levee or flood 
control project, even in cases where there is no conceivable threat to 
public safety.
  Earlier this week, I received a letter from the sponsor of this 
legislation that contained a picture of water pouring over a breached 
levee with the admonition, ``Let's work to Prevent this from Happening. 
Support H.R. 478.'' I wonder that the author of this letter did not 
also attempt to link the Endangered Species Act to last summer's crash 
of TWA Flight 800 or, for that matter, the sinking of the Titanic. Even 
the name of this bill is misleading. The ``Flood Prevention and Family 
Protection Act'' will neither prevent floods or protect families.
  We should do everything humanly possible to reduce the possibility of 
future flooding. To that end, we must look to the real causes of these 
disasters. We should not use these tragedies to undercut the Endangered 
Species Act. I will support the substitute offer by Mr. Boehlert which 
allows repairs to flood control projects to go forward anywhere there 
is an imminent threat to human lives or property. Should the Boehlert 
substitute fail, I urge the defeat of H.R. 478.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the assault on the basic 
environmental laws of this country is underway once again on the floor 
of the House of Representatives. Some 2 years ago, it was the ``logging 
without laws'' rider that legitimized devastating timber practices in 
utter disregard for the Nation's environmental protection and resource 
management laws.
  Now we are presented with H.R. 478--the ``levees without laws'' 
proposal. This legislation pretends to be responsive to the victims of 
recent flooding, but its provisions go far beyond flood relief.
  ``Levees without laws'' pretends to promote protection of families. 
But it really protects those who would sanction the permanent 
management of dams and other facilities without regard for the ESA, 
regardless of any danger of flooding.
  We are once again being asked to legislate by anecdote: A Member 
cites a case where a levee failed, although there is plenty of doubt--
and no real evidence--that the ESA had anything to do with that 
failure. And off we go: waiving the ESA on every flood control 
facility, anywhere in America, for repairs, reconstruction, 
maintenance, whatever; not just for this flood season, not just for 
imminent flood threats, but for any reason, and forever.
  Let me tell you how far-reaching and damaging H.R. 478 would be, 
because the impact of passing this bill will not only be on the 
endangered species. It will be on your water districts. On your 
constituents who enjoy fishing. On commercial fishing operations. On 
logging companies and employees in your districts. On the economy of 
towns and counties you represent.
  This bill doesn't wipe out the ESA, much as its sponsors would like 
to do. It just creates a great big exemption for levees and dams and 
other flood control facilities. Let me tell you what that means. If 
these projects are excused from making their contribution to ESA 
protection and mitigation, the whole burden is going to pass to those 
further downstream whose actions may impact on the species. The flood 
control district may escape its responsibilities, the farmer may escape 
his responsibilities. But that means that all the more impact will be 
felt by those other individuals, businesses, and activities that also 
affect the species.
  This is directly contrary to the way we have been moving in species 
management protection. In California, where few have thought there was 
much chance for it, we have brought irrigators and cities and 
environmentalists and fishermen together and pounded out agreements on 
how to apportion water and how to manage our resources. It isn't easy 
and it doesn't always work quickly; but everyone stays at the table and 
negotiates because they know their interests are best protected by 
their being there and participating.
  But H.R. 478 tells the levee districts and the flood control 
districts: You're free to do whatever you want that affects endangered 
species, as long as you can call it maintenance or repairs or 
operations. You get to get up and walk away from the table, and pass 
all those responsibilities and burdens on to other people and economic 
interests in your community. You alone do not need to consult with 
anyone else; you do not need to participate in the species protection 
program, even though excusing you may well double or triple the burden 
for the logging industry, or municipalities, or the fishing industry, 
or the recreation industry.
  This isn't speculation; this is what is going to happen if we exempt 
maintenance and operational requirements of dams to protect endangered 
fish, like salmon in the Pacific Northwest. That is what H.R. 478 will 
do. The Everglades ecosystem could be devastated if the central and 
south Florida flood control project no longer has to consider 
endangered species with respect to water diversions and flows. 
Decisions on outflows in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San 
Francisco Bay will no longer have to consider impacts on delta smelt or 
winter run chinook. In the Upper Colorado Basin, purchases, sales, and 
exchange of water rights, which users have come to rely on, would 
cease.
  That is what H.R. 478 will do.
  Now, no one--and I stress that again, no one--is saying that the ESA 
should interfere with efforts to repair and rebuild damaged facilities, 
or to make necessary repairs to prevent flooding from occurring. The 
Fish and Wildlife Service has approved such waivers. The Army Corps of 
Engineers has agreed. An amendment to rewrite H.R. 478 to permit

[[Page H2292]]

those emergency actions is going to be offered later today by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].

  But that is not what H.R. 478 does.
  There is no urgent need for those provisions of H.R. 478 that go 
beyond the relief for flood victims and prospective flood areas, as 
provided in Mr. Boehlert's amendment. The additional issues raised in 
H.R. 478 are extraneous to the debate over flooding. They deserve to be 
addressed during the comprehensive debate over reauthorization of the 
Endangered Species Act in the Committee on Resources. Our committee, 
however, has not yet begun that debate, and it is premature and 
inappropriate to bring these complicated issues before the House when 
we simply will not have the time nor expertise to address such 
wholesale changes to the ESA.
  Let us keep the focus where it belongs today: On the floods of 1997 
and what we should do to alleviate the damage and loss of those who 
have suffered or who might suffer from future flooding.
  As both the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Interior have 
stated, as many of the witnesses that testified at our hearing stated--
the California levees broke because there was too much water, not 
because of the ESA. The rains and the melting snowpack combined to 
produce water that were 10 times the normal rates in some cases.
  Waiving the ESA is not going to stop floods. We have to consider many 
options: restoring channel complexity, wetlands protection, and setback 
levees, so that we can catch the water where it falls instead of 
dumping it down stream. We need to look at forest management policies 
that allow upstream clear cutting and the construction of logging roads 
which lead to erosion and slides that not only destroy valuable 
fisheries habitat, but contribute to downstream floods as well.
  We should provide more direct and indirect aid for moving homes and 
businesses out of the hazard zone, and we must limit the circumstances 
where we will permit the use of Federal funds to rebuild in harm's way. 
Existing levees systems should be re-engineered to ensure that they 
maximize flood hazard reduction. Rather than relying solely on repairs 
to existing levees, the Corps of Engineers should review the causes of 
the breaks and determine whether levees should be moved or constructed 
differently to withstand future floods. Finally, we need to look at how 
project planning and contracting processes and local funding issues 
slow the repairs and maintenance that need to be done.
  This bill does not address any of those problems, however. Instead, 
it focuses on one single aspect of the flood control planning process 
and takes a sledge hammer to the ESA.
  Please remember this bill is not about flood protection. It is an 
initial, and a sweeping, weakening of the Endangered Species Act that 
applies to any activity, on any flood control project, at any time, 
rain or shine. Flooding, or the threat of flooding, does not even have 
to be an issue.
  If this bill passes, no flood control project will ever be required 
to mitigate for its maintenance activities ever again. Nor will there 
be a requirement for mitigating the impacts of replacement, repair, 
rehabilitation, or operational activities regardless of whether these 
activities were conducted to protect human lives or property, and 
regardless of the impacts on endangered species.
  Now if there were no alternative but to choose between human lives 
and property or an endangered species, the argument would be different. 
But there is an alternative. We can provide the flexibility that is 
needed in the event of floods and flood threats, and we can do that 
without destroying the Endangered Species Act. We can achieve those 
goals by supporting the Boehlert substitute without modification when 
it is offered.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, it is unbelievable that an outdated law to 
protect endangered species is causing catastrophic harm to animals, 
humans, and agriculture. In my home State of California, the floods of 
1997 have already caused the deaths of nine people and more than $1.6 
billion in total damage. If flood control structures had been properly 
maintained, this loss of life and property could have been avoided. 
Unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act prohibits much-needed 
maintenance of these areas. In fact, the very animals who kept the 
flood control structures from being repaired in the first place were 
also displaced and killed by the devastating floods.
  In January 1997, California experienced the worst flooding in State 
history. However, California was not alone. Numerous other States were 
ravaged by flood waters. Most recently, the citizens of North Dakota 
saw the waters destroy their towns and homes. It is horrible to see the 
loss of life and property which resulted from the devastating floods. 
However, it is far worse to realize that some of this damage could have 
been avoided.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud my dear friend and colleague Wally Herger for 
introducing the Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act which 
attempts to prevent the disaster of flooding. As a proud cosponsor of 
this bill, I know that we must prevent these disasters before they 
occur. Once the floods have destroyed our homes, there is little we can 
do to restore the photo albums and family treasures. However, we can 
take the appropriate steps toward avoiding future flooding problems by 
enacting this bill. This legislation will allow for proper maintenance, 
repair, and reconstruction of existing dams, levees, and other flood 
control systems. Not only will this bill save lives and ecosystems, but 
homes and family memorabilia. I am very pleased to support this 
legislation today.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 478, the so-
called Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act of 1997.
  This bill will not provide any more protection beyond current law to 
those who live in areas threatened by flooding. Instead it will create 
a giant sinkhole in the Endangered Species Act.
  Right now, without passage of this bill, the Endangered Species Act 
has provisions that allow for expedited review for improvements or 
upgrades to existing structures in emergencies.
  This bill will permanently exempt the reconstruction, operation, 
maintenance, and repair of all flood control projects, including dams, 
hydroelectric facilities, levees, and canals. This means that 
operations like those designed to revive the salmon on the Pacific 
Coast could be threatened and possibly suspended. As Secretary of the 
Interior Bruce Babbitt has pointed out this could exempt the entire 
Columbia River basin from provisions of the Endangered Species.
  Some Members have said that the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle 
delayed repairs which caused the levees to collapse. However, as my 
colleague, Mr. Miller, has pointed out the levees that failed in the 
Central Valley failed not because they were not repaired, but because 
there was 10 times the amount of water than the levees were designed to 
withstand.
  H.R. 478 is not a flood prevention bill. Instead it is a backdoor 
assault on the Endangered Species Act, and I urge my colleagues to 
adopt the substitute offered by Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Fazio and reject 
H.R. 478.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is an ill-advised, 
destructive approach to a law that was intended to protect species from 
extinction, not to be manipulated as a substitute for poor disaster 
response.
  Natural disasters affect human lives and can be devastating to local 
communities and economies. My community has certainly experienced its 
share of natural disasters and I know firsthand the difficulties people 
encounter in rebuilding their homes and lives in the aftermath of such 
devastation. We should be sensitive and responsive to these human 
needs, and we should address them on an immediate basis. Residents in 
flood-prone areas should be protected and added steps can be taken to 
ensure the safety of people and their property in these areas. Response 
to the California flood disaster should not be used as an excuse to 
obliterate the law that gives lasting defense to the survival of 
threatened species on Earth.
  In an emergency threatening human lives the current law provides for 
the Endangered Species Act to be waived.
  But H.R. 478 goes to the extreme in allowing a nonemergency exemption 
of the act with the result of permanently decimating the intent of the 
ESA. It would codify actions now considered damaging to the protection 
of species the law was intended to protect. H.R. 478 will not prevent 
floods, but it will prevent needed environmental protection of 
threatened species.
  The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations advises a 
vote against H.R. 478 on the basis of the potential threats to 
restoration of northern California salmon populations under the ESA. In 
their letter they emphasize:

       The California Central Valley is the source of most of the 
     West Coast's remaining salmon harvests. Eliminating ESA-
     driven water reforms in the California Central Valley Project 
     would seriously damage Washington's Oregon's and California's 
     salmon harvests, wiping out tens of thousands of fishery jobs 
     as far north as Alaska which those resources now support.

  The arguments linking flood damage to the ESA are unfounded. In the 
Statement of Administration Policy, OMB states:

       The administration of ESA by the Fish and Wildlife Service 
     [FWS] and the National Marine Fisheries Service has not 
     resulted in significant delays in construction or proper 
     maintenance of flood control facilities. For example, during 
     the recent California flooding, FWS implemented ESA 
     provisions which allowed emergency actions in disaster areas 
     to be taken quickly without the Act's normal ``prior 
     consultation'' requirements.

  In the Dissenting Views filed with the committee report to H.R. 478, 
it is noted that both the Department of Interior and the Corps of 
Engineers,


[[Page H2293]]


       were emphatic that there were no cases where it could be 
     demonstrated that the implementation of the ESA caused any 
     flood structure to fail, or where the presence of any listed 
     species prevented the proper operation and maintenance of 
     flood control facilities.

  H.R. 478 is a misdirected attack against an imaginary enemy. The 
Endangered Species Act did not cause California's devastating floods. 
Our response to this disaster can be positive--let's repair or replace 
the damaged flood control facilities under the current ESA waiver and 
work together on sound water management policies that will protect 
people and the environment into the future.
  This is the most important environmental vote to come before the 
House in this session. We should not revisit the rancor of the last 
Congress where the majority went against the mainstream of public 
sentiment which favor greater protections for our environment. In a 
letter to Members of Congress, the President of Republicans for 
Environmental Protection states that

       the American people do not want to see our environmental 
     laws weakened. And they certainly do not want to see such 
     things accomplished by bad, opportunistic legislation such as 
     H.R. 478.
  I urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan initiative and support 
Boehlert-Fazio amendment and to vote against final passage of H.R. 478.
  The Endangered Species Act must not be another casualty of the 
floods.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall 
be considered by section as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment, and pursuant to the rule, each section is considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Flood Prevention and Family 
     Protection Act of 1997''.

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in 
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to reduce the regulatory burden 
     on individuals and local, State, and Federal agencies in 
     complying with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 in 
     reconstructing, operating, maintaining, or repairing flood 
     control projects, facilities, or structures to address 
     imminent threats to public health or safety or catastrophic 
     natural events or to comply with Federal, State, or local 
     public health or safety requirements.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973.

       (a) Actions Exempt From Consultation and Conferencing.--
     Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1536(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Consultation and conferencing under paragraphs (2) 
     and (4) is not required for any agency action that--
       ``(A) consists of reconstructing, operating, maintaining, 
     or repairing a Federal or non-Federal flood control project, 
     facility, or structure--
       ``(i) to address a critical, imminent threat to public 
     health or safety;
       ``(ii) to address a catastrophic natural event; or
       ``(iii) to comply with Federal, State, or local public 
     health or safety requirements; or
       ``(B) consists of maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, or 
     replacement of a Federal or non-Federal flood control 
     project, facility, or structure, including operation of a 
     project or a facility in accordance with a previously issued 
     Federal license, permit, or other authorization.''.
       (b) Permitting Takings.--Section 9(a) of such Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1538(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, an activity of a 
     Federal or non-Federal person is not a taking of a species if 
     the activity--
       ``(A) consists of reconstructing, operating, maintaining, 
     or repairing a Federal or non-Federal flood control project, 
     facility, or structure--
       ``(i) to address a critical, imminent threat to public 
     health or safety;
       ``(ii) to address a catastrophic natural event; or
       ``(iii) to comply with Federal, State, or local public 
     health or safety requirements; or
       ``(B) consists of maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, or 
     replacement of a Federal or non-Federal flood control 
     project, facility, or structure, including operation of a 
     project or a facility in accordance with a previously issued 
     Federal license, permit, or other authorization.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute?


                     amendment offered by mr. pombo

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. It is printed in the 
Record as No. 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pombo:
       Page 3, after line 12, insert the following new line after 
     the word `authorization':

     where necessary to protect human life or to prevent the 
     substantial risk of serious property damage.
       Page 4, after line 8, insert the following new line after 
     the word `authorization':

     where necessary to protect human life or to prevent the 
     substantial risk of serious property damage.


           modification to the amendment offered by mr. pombo

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to correct line 
references in my amendment as follows:
  The reference to page 3 after line 12 should be page 3 after line 15, 
and the reference to page 4 after line 8 should be page 4 after line 
12.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Page 3, after line 15, insert the following new line after 
     the word ``authorization'': ``where necessary to protect 
     human life or to prevent the substantial risk of serious 
     property damage''.
       Page 4, after line 12, insert the following new line after 
     the word ``authorization'': ``where necessary to protect 
     human life or to prevent the substantial risk of serious 
     property damage''.

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to reach a consensus on this 
bill we have worked long and hard. I have met with Members of the 
minority repeatedly, I have met with Members of my own party who had 
concerns repeatedly. We have narrowed the bill substantially from the 
way it was first introduced. But as of last night, or as of yesterday, 
there were still concerns that maybe the bill could be interpreted to 
be more broad than the intention.
  Because of that and in consultation with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Campbell] a decision was made that we would add 
additional language to the bill which would narrow the scope and meet 
his concerns.
  Having said that, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Campbell].
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate, what I would like to do is 
inform my colleagues and friends on the other side of this issue that I 
would like to use the 4 minutes, but then I would be happy to engage in 
debate with any colleague on their time. I will stay here for that 
purpose.
  Here is what my amendment does: I believe that the present Herger-
Pombo bill is too broad. I have great respect for my two colleagues 
from California, but I believe they created an exemption that was too 
broad. So I began to speak with them and I said, ``What is the real 
focus of your concern?'' They point out that the real focus of their 
concern is when a levee bursts, when there is harm to human life or 
substantial risk to properties in that kind of context.
  So I said, ``Why do we not limit your amendment to the specific cases 
we just discussed?'' They agreed. Here is what the amendment says: 
After all of the provisions that we have talked about regarding a 
maintenance, rehabilitation, repair or replacement of a Federal or non-
Federal flood control project, after all of those, the limitation would 
now be imposed: ``where necessary to protect human life or to prevent 
the substantial risk of serious property damage.''
  That being my amendment, I offered that to my colleagues; and they 
were

[[Page H2294]]

kind enough to say that they would accept it. I put to my colleagues, 
give me the case when you would not be in favor of expediting 
maintenance, rehabilitation, repair or replacement when it is necessary 
to protect human life? I just do not think anyone would have such a 
case. Or where it is necessary to prevent the substantial risk of 
serious property damage?
  With that limitation, it is no longer true that the Herger-Pombo bill 
runs a serious risk of ``blowing a hole in the Endangered Species 
Act.'' The bill is now limited to restoration of existing projects that 
already have a Federal permit where necessary to protect human life or 
prevent the substantial risk of serious property damage.
  It was raised in debate by one of my colleagues, the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], that we ought to await the comprehensive 
Endangered Species Act reform before adopting an amendment such as 
mine, or a proposal such as mine.
  I remember when I first came to Congress in 1989, we began talking 
about the Endangered Species Act. When I left in 1992, we were still 
talking about the Endangered Species Act. We never got a chance to 
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. We are really playing with 
people's lives to say, let us wait until we have the overall omnibus 
Endangered Species Act.
  What we have now is a proposal dealing with a specific crisis and the 
steps necessary to prevent other crises. I would love to see the 
Endangered Species Act amended in order to take this into account, but 
we cannot wait for that to happen.
  Lastly, in my opening remarks, the subject of the Boehlert amendment 
has been raised. I have a very good friendship with the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert]. I admire him immensely. But I do refer to the 
fact that his amendment refers to imminent threat, there has to be an 
imminent threat--except for the case the repairs of those properties 
that were damaged in California in the most recent flooding. Imminent 
threat means that the water is already rising.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman form California 
yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I cannot, but I am happy if the gentleman 
would yield me time on his time to conduct a discussion. That was what 
I said at the start. So I will stay here for that debate, Mr. Chairman. 
I look forward to debating the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  But the phrase in the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] is, ``in response to an imminent threat to human lives and 
property.'' And contrast that with my phrase, ``where necessary to 
protect human life or to prevent the substantial risk of serious 
property damage.''
  It is all the difference in the world between waiting for the 
disaster to be so imminent. Are you going to have to build up the berms 
higher, or can you take the action in advance when the imminent threat 
is not yet upon you, but where it is wise to act.
  I have only one final remark in my opening remarks, and that is that 
my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], said that 
my amendment was broad enough so that everything would be included in 
it. That is not so. Perhaps in debate further I will be able to 
illustrate why, as my time is presently expired.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, while the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] is 
there, maybe I can have a colloquy with him. Is it the intent of the 
gentleman that his amendment will affect all of section B?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it is my 
intent to affect all of section B.
  Mr. FARR of California. OK. Mr. Chairman, on my own time, the issue 
raised here is whether this amendment really does anything to the bill. 
Remember, we are dealing with the issue of flood control projects. 
Flood control and the purpose of flood control is to control damage 
done by excessive water.
  I do not think that the amendment is material to really what the 
purpose of the bill is, which is to drive a hole in the Endangered 
Species Act by exempting from that act consultation for operations. 
Remember, there is nothing in the language in this bill that even 
mentions the word ``levee,'' yet everybody who got up and proposed it 
said that this was a levee bill.
  This is about operations of water facilities, operations forever, not 
just when it rains, not just when there is flood damage, it is 
operations. Operations is why so many people are concerned about this, 
particularly the fishermen.

                              {time}  1600

  The reason, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] knows, is 
that in California with the Sacramento River the whole issue of water 
flow releases is to try to control the water temperature so that we can 
maintain a salmon run. If there is not enough water, the water gets too 
warm and then the species that lives in that water cannot survive. So 
the purpose of trying to make sure that when we are operating a flood 
control district, that we consult in this process, is so that we get 
all of the concerns on the table.
  The Corps of Engineers has interpreted this ``structures and 
projects'' to mean dams, to mean pumps, levees, dikes, channels, 
draining systems, dredging projects, reservoirs, and even beach erosion 
control. In the committee the issue was raised that it was going to 
include beach erosion control, and the author indicated that he would 
accept an amendment to that, although we do not see it in the bill at 
all.
  So the bill on the floor with the gentleman's amendment I do not 
really think ensures that we are going to be able to continue to 
maintain these facilities for all the interested parties that rely on 
water usage, and that is the purpose of flood control districts.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, my purpose in asking for 5 minutes now is to complete 
my one last comment regarding the point made by the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton], and then to yield to anyone who wishes to engage 
in debate. I see my colleague from California [Mr. Pombo], wants a 
word, but let us save some time for debate, because I do wish to have 
the opportunity for anyone who wishes to debate me on this to do so.
  The one last thing I wished to comment on was the point of the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], Mr. Chairman, and that was that 
my amendment was too broad because everything would fit in it, in that 
all flood control is done to prevent risk of loss of life, or serious 
property damage. This is not quite correct because my amendment deals 
with maintenance, rehabilitation, repair or replacement; it does not 
deal with construction.
  For instance, once the flood control device, the berm, has broken, 
then there is no further imminent loss of property, nor any further 
imminent loss of life. The imminent loss of life, the threatened, or 
the likely prospect of it, is when the tension is building up behind 
the berm. Once that is broken, as to whether that particular part is 
reconstructed or not would no longer pose a question of the necessity 
to protect human life, because it has already broken, that pent-up 
pressure is gone. Nor would it any longer present a substantial risk of 
serious property damage.
  So I hope that answers the question of my good friend from New 
Jersey. I would be happy to yield to him further if he wants to respond 
to it. But I believe I responded to his point. I believe I responded to 
the other points, as well.
  This is a sensible improvement on Herger-Pombo. I do not see anyone 
in the Chamber who ought to oppose this amendment. I would go further 
to say that this makes a such a further improvement that the Boehlert 
amendment is unnecessary, and on that there may be further debate. 
However, on whether my amendment is desirable, I just do not think 
there is further dispute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just 
wanted to add, in response to a statement by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], 
even if this legislation were to pass and be signed into

[[Page H2295]]

law, I have a list from an environmental impact statement for the 
Sacramento River system control plan which listed the following Federal 
laws which must be complied with before the levee repairs could begin:
  National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological and Historical 
Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Preservation 
of Historic Properties, Abandoned Shipwreck Act reviews, Clean Air Act, 
Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, the Endangered Species 
Act, the Estuary Protection Act, the Federal Water Project Recreation 
Act, and it goes on and on and on. It has over 20 Federal laws and 
State laws that we had to abide by before we could repair the levee.
  All we are asking for is to allow us to maintain our levees. That is 
all we are asking for, to protect human life and private property. This 
is not that difficult.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will now yield to 
anyone who wishes to debate me on this amendment. If there anyone who 
wishes to debate me?
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, why is the word ``levee'' in 
here? It is projects. It is all of these projects.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time so that I might 
respond, there is more then one form of flood prevention, and a levee 
would be only one form. There are other forms of flood prevention.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, there are dredging projects.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I reclaimed my time to answer the 
question and I am almost done.
  The purpose here is that whatever project it is that will be 
necessary to prevent--not just be helpful but be necessary to protect 
human life or to prevent substantial risk of serious injury--I wish to 
cover; and if that is more than a levee, it is for a good purpose, 
because it has that qualifier, where necessary to protect human life or 
prevent substantial property loss.
  Now I yield to my colleague. Go right ahead.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that explanation.
  My point that I made to the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] was 
that I think the bill goes far beyond what he originally intended, 
because it goes into projects that are greater than levees. It goes 
into dredging, it goes into dams, it goes into beach erosion, and I do 
not think that was what the intent was as a result of the problem that 
occurred in the Sacramento Valley.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, as to all of 
those, I remind my good friend from California, as to all of those, the 
language I just announced would apply, that in answer to the 
gentleman's question earlier, the limitation ``where necessary to 
protect human life'' or the limitation ``where necessary to prevent the 
substantial risk of serious property damage'' applies to all of B.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned, dredging, dams. Could they 
dredge, if the gentleman's language was adopted as part of this bill, 
could they go in and dredge under that language?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they could, only 
where necessary to protect human life or to prevent substantial risk of 
serious property damage. Off the top of my head, that would be a very 
narrow case.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Campbell] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Campbell was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman portrays as a qualification a 
very high threshold, ``where necessary to protect human life or serious 
property damage.'' I think I have it right. I was trying to get a copy 
of it. In searching two areas of the bill, both undertaking to 
eliminate the clause undertakings and consultation and conferencing, is 
that correct?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I would say in response, not quite. The 
phrase is ``necessary to protect human life or to prevent the 
substantial risk,'' just if I could answer, taking my time back to 
answer your question fully, ``or to prevent the substantial risk of 
serious property damage.''
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, of 
course that is an additional qualifier, risk. So, for instance, if I am 
riding barges up and down the Mississippi, and I represent a community 
on the Mississippi, and it is portrayed that in order to maintain the 
channels so that the barge would not run into one of the wing dams, 
that then, which would run the risk of deck hands on the barge just 
falling off and perhaps drowning in the river, would that be an 
adequate test then, to prevent the loss of these individuals from 
falling in the river and drowning?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, not necessarily. The 
reason is I did not say just to prevent risk or minimize risk or lower 
risk. I intentionally said prevent substantial risk, which would be to 
say that you would have to bring the probability of it happening from a 
high number down to a low number.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield down, I think 
the issue is being portrayed as some sort of a crisis. Is it a crisis 
to in fact go through the National Environmental Protection Act and the 
Clean Water Act and other activities, and all of a sudden the 
Endangered Species Act would not be important in terms of trying to 
prevent, for instance, that barge, because if we did not have the 
channel, it might run into a bridge and cause serious property damage?
  MR. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time in order to answer, 
lest we run out of time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I will ask for 
more time if we run out.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I am just worried that I will not get to 
answer.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased because I would not want the 
gentleman to think that there is not concern or opposition about his 
amendment or that it solves the problem, because I do not think it 
does.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman to please 
proceed as long as he likes and then I will respond. I apologize for 
the interruption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Campbell] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Campbell was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would allow me to say 
that there is need for something less than imminent risk, because 
imminent is what the Boehlert amendment proposes, and more than 
ordinary maintenance. What I am trying to do is get at the prevention 
where the threat is high.
  So if we want to go just with the imminent risk of something about to 
happen, then that is Boehlert. It is not good enough. Now, however, 
should we allow any old dredging, any old maintenance without ESA; no, 
that is not my desire. it has to be to prevent a substantial risk of 
serious property damage, or necessary to protect human life.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, the 
gentleman is a very good attorney and learned in law. The gentleman in 
the well is just a humble science teacher. But I would suggest to the 
gentleman that in fact this will be used. As it affects this particular 
law, I have no objection to it in terms of what is down here. It may be 
somewhat of an improvement, but I do not think it gets to the 
criticisms and the concerns that I have and frankly the Boehlert-Fazio 
amendment deals with in this bill.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the chairman of the subcommittee, I 
do

[[Page H2296]]

not think there is any opposition here to accepting this amendment. We 
believe it is basically a restatement of law, and we have a long night 
ahead of us.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I do intend on 
accepting the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, that is fine with us.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
this is a friendly amendment. The committee is in agreement with the 
work that the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] has done and we 
intend on accepting the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


 Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. BOEHLERT

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Boehlert:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Flood Prevention and Family 
     Protection Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) does not delay 
     flood control facility repairs that are required to respond 
     to an imminent threat to human lives and property.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973.

       Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1536(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5)(A)(i) Consultation and conferencing under paragraphs 
     (2) and (4), with respect to a project to repair or replace a 
     flood control facility located in any area in the United 
     States that is declared a Federal disaster area in 1997, 
     shall only be required in the same manner and to the same 
     extent as would be required for that project if it were 
     carried out in the area in California that is subject to the 
     United States fish and Wildlife Service Policy on Emergency 
     Flood Response and Short Term Repair of Flood Control 
     Facilities, issued on February 19, 1997.
       ``(ii) This subparagraph shall not apply to projects in a 
     Federal disaster area after the earlier of--
       ``(I) the date the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
     Civil Works determines that all necessary emergency repairs 
     to flood control facilities in the area have been completed; 
     or
       ``(II) December 31, 1998.
       ``(B)(i) Consultation and conferencing under paragraphs (2) 
     and (4), with respect to any project to repair a flood 
     control facility in response to an imminent threat to human 
     lives and property, shall only be required in the same manner 
     and to the same extent as would be required under the policy 
     referred to in subparagraph (A)(i) for a project that is 
     substantially similar in nature and scope.
       ``(ii) This subparagraph shall not apply after December 31, 
     1998.
       ``(C) This paragraph shall not affect the authority of the 
     President under section 7(p).''.

  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this substitute would accomplish what the 
sponsors of H.R. 478 only claim to do. That is, it would ensure that 
the Endangered Species Act never subverts emergency work to prevent or 
respond to floods, while keeping fundamental species protection intact.
  Here is precisely what this substitute would do. First, in disaster 
areas it would allow the repair or replacement of flood control 
facilities to move forward without prior consultation with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. This would mean, to use my opponents' terminology, 
that no redtape or faceless bureaucrats could prevent emergency repairs 
from proceeding immediately.
  Second, in places that are not disaster areas, let me stress, not 
disaster areas, my substitute would allow repairs to move forward 
without prior consultation whenever a flood control project poses an 
imminent threat to human life or property.
  Now, the sponsors of H.R. 478 ought to like that language. It is 
taken from the one targeted section of their bill.
  Third, the substitute makes clear that we are not limiting in any way 
the President's authority to issue further exemptions in disaster 
areas.
  Fourth, the substitute is an amendment to the Endangered Species Act.
  I need to emphasize these points because the opposition has 
repeatedly mischaracterized this amendment. In this substitute, we have 
responded to virtually every real concern we have heard about the ESA 
and flooding. We have heard that the ESA has prevented repairs from 
taking place. This substitute ensures that repairs can take place.
  We have heard that repairs are needed not only in disaster areas, but 
throughout the country. This substitute addresses potential disasters 
as well as actual ones.
  This substitute clarifies language in the supplemental appropriation 
that was approved by voice vote, so it can hardly be accused of 
appealing to a narrow constituency. So what have we done? Again, we 
have responded to what we have heard is actually or potentially harmful 
about the ESA and emergency situations.
  However, here is what we have not done. We have not used these 
legitimate concerns as an excuse to undermine fundamental species 
protection. H.R. 478 would emasculate the Endangered Species Act. Our 
substitute, while creating new exceptions, would keep the law 
fundamentally intact.
  Most endangered species live along or in waterways. H.R. 478's 
blanket exemption for flood control projects, even with the language of 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], threatens any species 
that depend on waterways to survive.
  The endangered species actions that have been taken to protect 
salmon, whooping crane, sea turtles, manatees, and other creatures 
would not have been possible if H.R. 478 had been in effect.

                              {time}  1615

  Protecting newly listed species would be virtually impossible under 
the bill. That is why this bill is opposed by every environmental 
group, by Republicans for Environmental Protection, by American Rivers, 
by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, by 
Trout Unlimited, by the American Canoe Association; by just about any 
group, large or small, that has any interest in protecting our 
waterways and their denizens.
  It is not that these groups do not care about human beings. It is not 
that these groups are all in agreement on ESA reform. It is that they 
understand that H.R. 478 is quite literally a case of overkill. My 
substitute accomplishes H.R. 478's stated objectives without 
threatening the environment.
  Let me add, Mr. Chairman, that I do not claim that my substitute 
takes care of every legitimate concern with the Endangered Species Act. 
Some Members, for example, have concerns with the cost of mitigation. 
But our express purpose here today is to take care of narrow problems 
related to emergency situations. Mitigation is a broad and fundamental 
issue that must be addressed in the context of comprehensive ESA 
reform. I daresay that a comprehensive bill would not reform mitigation 
in the ham-handed way envisioned by H.R. 478.
  Let us not hold up emergency legislation because additional concerns 
must be addressed at a later time. My substitute would be signed into 
law and would provide real relief for real people facing real 
emergencies. H.R. 478 would not be signed into law and will not help 
anyone. By voting for it, I would suggest Members would be making the 
wrong move. I urge my colleagues to support balance, moderation, a real 
solution for a legitimate problem.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the so-called Boehlert amendment, here, let me go 
through something. It fails to protect human life and the environment. 
It is too little too late. It allows only emergency repairs when 
disaster has already occurred or is threatening. By the way, it 
protects Federal employees from the ESA penalties for impacting 
habitat, but keeps the penalties for local officials. It ties their 
hands. They cannot maintain these levees.
  By the way, it is only temporary. I want the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio] to hear this, it is only temporary. It is only 
temporary. It is only temporary until 1998. It retains unfunded 
mandates on States and local

[[Page H2297]]

governments, and frankly, would continue further delay through 
encouraging litigation. This is a charade of amendments. This is an 
amendment that does nothing. In fact, I do not know why the gentleman 
is even offering it. It does nothing, absolutely zero.
  May I remind the gentleman, it says, ``This paragraph shall not apply 
after December 31, 1998.'' That says you only have time to repair the 
existing breaks, the ones that broke. I am not really worried about the 
ones that broke, and I feel sorry for the people, but I want to prevent 
those breaks and the dollars we have wasted. May I stress, $10 million 
was used to mitigate. They finally agreed last week to repair the 
levee. It was supposed to cost $3 million, now $13 million. The levee 
breaks, which we were told it was going to break, and we lose the 
lives, we lose the property, and guess what, we lost the habitat. We 
lost the habitat. We ought to be proud of what the ESA has been able to 
do.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment guts the so-called Herger-Pombo bill. I 
think that is really what they are trying to do is gut it. They are 
trying to put a charade out and trying to protect a few people who 
might be directly affected by supposedly not supporting the Pombo-
Herger bill, but in reality, it does nothing. It, in fact, is worse, 
because it takes the California doctrine and applies it to the rest of 
the Nation.
  As I have told people before, if they want California's problems and 
the bureaucracy, then vote for the Boehlert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I 
suggest respectfully, if Members want to solve a problem, then they 
will vote for the Herger-Pombo bill. They will make this bill a 
reality. They will make this bill save lives, save property.
  By the way, I heard somebody today say we have to change the way man 
is living. We have to give more room to let the water go out and 
meander like it did back in the year 1600. Think about that a moment. 
That means the whole city of Houston is gone. Some people might like 
that. It means the whole city of New Orleans will be gone. I would not 
like that. It means probably Sacramento would be gone, too, period, and 
flooded out. I am sure the gentleman from California would not like 
that.
  Probably, I might suggest respectfully, if we want to follow this 
theory of the so-called environmental groups who are supporting 
Boehlert, we all ought to be drowned. Think about that a moment. I will 
admit, I lived on a levee. I was born on the Sacramento River. I looked 
out on that river every morning when I got up. I watched it flood.
  Yes, we could not dredge. I admit that now. Then we did. I will tell 
the Members something; those levees were built way back during the Gold 
Rush days. We rebuilt them. It has given California one of the finest 
standards of living in the world. It has protected people and property, 
and it is a system that does work.
  We can talk about the thousands and thousands and thousands of acres 
and feet of water that go down and are wasted and going into the ocean, 
and by the way, I want the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to 
hear that. We had a drought in California a few years ago, does the 
gentleman remember that? We had no water. Now they have water clear up 
to their elbows.
  I am suggesting respectfully if they want to take and have the 
Endangered Species Act, stop repairing those levees, then, very 
frankly, they can vote for the Boehlert amendment. We can forget lives, 
we can forget property, we can forget those people that live all around 
this great Nation of ours near water flow.
  I know some of us would like to have more wetlands. I know how they 
can create wetlands. They can flood Sacramento, the city of Sacramento, 
the capital, by the way; they can flood every major city, and they will 
have wetlands. I do not believe in that. I think it is important we 
allow this tool to be available for the local people, that this tool be 
available for the Federal people, so we can in fact solve the problems 
of the flood.
  It is wrong not to maintain these levees. Some people say they did 
not cause the flood. We have documentation with the Corps of Engineers 
where they did say this area will break if it is not addressed, and it 
did break. So do not tell me that these areas did not create floods.
  I will say, every break, by the way, is not caused by the Endangered 
Species Act, but we can have both. We can have the Endangered Species 
Act and we can have the people.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Pombo and by unanimous consent, Mr. Young of 
Alaska was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, we can have the endangered species 
protected and the people protected. I want to keep stressing that. We 
have heard people talk about my wanting to repeal the Endangered 
Species Act. I never attempted to repeal the Endangered Species Act.
  I had 17 hearings with the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], and 
we had hundreds of witnesses testify before us that the system is not 
working, and I want to fix it. I want to protect the endangered 
species, but I want to also have man's involvement in the protection of 
the endangered species. I do not want to join the SSS's club. I don't 
want to belong to that club. Some Members want to shoot, shut up, and 
shovel. I do not want anything to do with that. What I want is 
protecting the species, and the act today is not working.
  I asked the gentleman from California and this administration, Mr. 
Babbitt and Katie McKinney and the President, to come down and give me 
some suggestions. They did not do that last year. They sat quietly and 
beat our brains out because we tried to improve the act. They said we 
tried to repeal it. We did not do that. We tried to improve it, and it 
should be improved.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Miller of California and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Young of Alaska was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I tried to make the point in 
general debate, and as the gentleman knows, we have levee failures in 
our State and we have had them across the country, and there is very 
little or sketchy evidence, in my opinion, that says it is due to ESA.
  But also, the Corps of Engineers in fact requires annual maintenance 
of the levees that includes mowing, burning, vegetation removal, 
filling in of burrow sites; all of the things the gentleman and I 
associate in the Sacramento Delta with that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, only if it is 
in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife, and they agree to it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. This is an annual requirement of the 
maintenance of the levee by the Corps. Fish and Wildlife signs on.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If it is a federally controlled levee. If it is 
a district, such as in the Sutter Basin, if that is under district 
control then Fish and Wildlife can only give them the authority, and 
they do not have that authority. That is what happened out in the Yuba 
County area. They would never give them the right to do that.
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is not the case, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, Mr. Chairman. Both in the Chowchilla River and in 
the San Joaqain there were perfectly annually maintained levees that 
failed because instead of 8,000 cubic feet, Yuba was more, and that was 
not about maintenance.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, we cannot say there will 
never be another flood, I will not say that, but it is ridiculous to 
allow a flood because we were supposedly protecting the habitat of the 
elderberry beatle, which they have never seen, by the way. This is the 
greatest thing in the world. They were protecting the habitat, the 
elderberry bush, when the levee went out. Guess what, this took the 
elderberry bush. So what have we accomplished, besides losing 3 lives 
and millions of dollars? Why cannot we take those few dollars we have 
left in the Treasury and address that problem?
  Mr. Chairman, I am just suggesting what we have to do is vote down 
the Boehlert amendment. Very frankly, it

[[Page H2298]]

is ill-conceived. It is an attempt to gut the bill. I understand where 
the gentleman is coming from. But the bill as written by the gentlemen 
from California, Mr. Wally Herger and Mr. Pombo, as it came out of the 
committee is a bill that will solve the problem.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate, as we discuss this 
amendment, to consider what is happening in California as repairs to 
levees are proposed. We heard the testimony of flood managers and levee 
managers from California before this bill was passed through our 
committee. I want to give an example of what happened, as the chairman 
of our committee just alluded to.
  A repair was requested to a project in California on the west bank of 
the Mokelumna River that would involve approximately .37 of an acre, 
one-third of an acre. This is what the Interior Department required in 
a letter of instruction to those wanting to repair the levee.
  First, they would have to find every single elderberry bush in that 
one-third of an acre and transplant it. They would have to transplant 
it to an acreage five times as big. They would have to plant new 
elderberry bushes, five times as many as they transplanted from the old 
site. In addition, biologists had to be on site to monitor the 
transplanting of these elderberry bushes.
  Second, they had to provide to a resource agency or a private 
conservation organization fee title. They had to buy the land and give 
it to this organization to maintain these elderberry bushes. It had to 
be maintained, and money had to be provided to maintain it in 
perpetuity. Understand, the levee may not be maintained in perpetuity, 
but the elderberry bushes will be.
  Third, the qualified biologists had to be on site managing everything 
that was done. There had to be written documentation that all 
conditions would be carried out in perpetuity. There had to be an 
annual assessment of the facility to mechanically pull out any weeds. 
Biologists and law enforcement agencies had to have full access to the 
project at all times to monitor it. Permanent fencing had to go up.
  Every five elderberry seedlings had to have two other types of 
species planted next to it, because apparently the beatles like other 
species. Every year for a period of 10 years, qualified biologists had 
to come in, assess the elderberry bushes, and make reports. Maps 
showing where every individual adult beatle was and the exit holes that 
were observed in each elderberry plant had to be analyzed, the survival 
rates of the plants and the beatles had to be reported on. Get this, 
the on-site personnel, who were supposed to be repairing the levee, had 
to go to school for instructions regarding the presence of elderberry 
beatles. They had to go to beatle school.
  Mr. Chairman, all of this was done for one-third of an acre. I have 
showed Members the large book. The bill we are debating today does not 
say you cannot protect these beatles. It does not say you cannot have 
sites to put elderberry bushes and raise beatles on if you want to do 
that. It simply says that the money that was to be spent on this one-
third acre to construct the repairs to this levee should be spent to 
repair this levee, and not to do this beatle protection program.
  It simply says that when this levee was in dire need of repair, we 
should have done it. We should have done it on time. We should have 
saved those five lives that were lost in California because levees like 
this failed. It says that across America we ought to recognize that the 
good environmental things we do to protect beatles are fine, and we 
ought to find the money and fund it to do that if they are important to 
us, but we ought not to take it out of funds necessary to repair 
bridges and levees.
  The Boehlert amendment says, in effect, that this California system 
ought to be the system we use across America.

                              {time}  1630

  In Louisiana, when the Mississippi levee, as it is in north 
Louisiana, is 6 feet too short, we are in serious trouble and we have 
to do a mitigation program, too, like the California program. Unless 
the flood is imminent and we are about to be flooded, the Boehlert 
amendment gives us no relief. In fact, the Boehlert amendment says if 
we do not build the repairs before a certain date, forget it; we still 
have to go through the beetle program of California.
  The Boehlert amendment says, in effect, that in Louisiana and every 
State, we are going to get letters like this compelling our levee 
managers to do what they had to do in California. The Boehlert 
amendment says that we are going to see loss of lives in our State like 
we saw in California.
  We maintain levees all over my State. Levee managers try to do a good 
job. When the Federal Government contributes a dime to that levee 
construction, when it contributes one dime, it requires the State 
manager of the levee or the local manager to assume full liability if 
the levee fails.
  Here is the situation. The Federal Government says: You are fully 
liable if the levee fails; but, by the way, if you try to fix it, we 
are going to put you in a beetle protection program instead, and you 
cannot fix the levee. When it fails and people flood and lives are 
lost, it is on your nickel; it is your responsibility.
  The Boehlert amendment, Mr. Chairman, is a phoney solution. If we 
want to solve this problem, if we want to make sure that in Louisiana 
and every State we fix levees, then we need to vote for the Pombo bill.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert amendment and for 
H.R. 478, the Pombo bill. Let me say first of all that I am as 
committed as any other American in this country to preserving clean air 
and water and to preserving wildlife across this Nation. But this 
debate is not about preserving wildlife and saving species in this 
country. What we do is we stand here today, 25 years after the 
Endangered Species Act was enacted, trying to figure out how we got to 
this position in the first place. The authors of that law never 
intended for us to have this battle today. What we are standing here 
talking about is groups that are way out there on the fringe who have 
figured out a way to use this law to now impose power, their personal 
agenda over communities across this country.
  Do we think for one second that they care about these beetles or 
these bugs or these snails or these creatures all across the country 
that in many cases are just used in court documents and have never even 
been seen by the groups that are pushing to try to save these species? 
That is not what this is about. This is about power.
  If I could engage the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] in a 
colloquy for just a second, let me just show another instance of how we 
have gotten out of control. Is it true that there is a fly that is 
classified as a maggot in California that is on the endangered species 
list and then caused a delay of construction of a hospital that a 
community needed?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, yes; that is correct. It was in southern 
California. It was a fly that was listed as endangered, and the result 
of that was that we had a hospital delayed because of that.
  Mr. BONILLA. It cost millions of dollars, if I am correct.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, it was several hundred thousand dollars per 
fly.
  Mr. BONILLA. The groups that are in favor of spending this money and 
delaying a hospital that a community needed were quoted in an article 
in the Washington Post as saying that this maggot is actually a 
national treasure and was worth spending this money on. Is the 
gentleman aware of that?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that. I did see the article 
that they considered it a national treasure and that it was worth 
delaying the opening of a hospital for several months and the spending 
of several hundred thousand dollars per fly by the taxpayers of 
Riverside County.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, there was a quote that said, it is a ``fly 
you can love.''
  The point I am making here is that the folks that oppose the 
gentleman's bill and oppose what we are trying to do here are the same 
folks that are

[[Page H2299]]

quoted as saying this maggot is a fly we could love and do not care how 
it affects the community at hand. That is the point I am trying to 
make.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
think that the point is they are opposed to any change in the 
Endangered Species Act regardless of how good a cause it is.
  Mr. BONILLA. Now, what we have had is, we have had people lose their 
lives in California. When is it going to stop? What we are talking 
about here is human life. We are talking about human rights. In many 
cases, these folks who are thinking maybe somewhere in the cosmos up 
there that perhaps these bugs and beetles and snails are more 
important. I frankly do not understand how someone can think like that. 
What we are talking about here today is we are either standing with us 
for human rights and human life or we are standing with the bugs and 
the slugs and the scrubs. Get real.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult situation because I believe that 
the goals of the bipartisan coalition that supports the Boehlert 
amendment and the goals of the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] 
and the goals of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] are all the same. But what makes 
this difficult is that there are two approaches, one which is 
reasonable and can become law, and the other which is somewhat less 
reasonable and in my opinion cannot become law.
  Why is it that it cannot become law? It is really pretty simple if we 
know the process in Washington, DC. We have received, for example, 
strong vibes, strong statements from the administration that it will 
not become law with the Herger-Pombo language even as amended by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
  So this is an exercise in futility and in fact I will not yield at 
this time. And so why we would send a bill out of this House escapes 
any rational explanation that I can think of.
  Second, if we send this bill to the Senate, which I do not think we 
will do unamended, if we send this bill to the Senate, I know some 
Senators and I know Members of both parties in the other House that 
will not vote for the Pombo-Herger language either. And as we all know, 
the Senate requires 60 votes in order to get cloture and to come to a 
vote on final passage. I do not think there are anywhere near 60 votes 
in the other House for the Pombo-Herger language. And as a matter of 
fact, I can count votes pretty well in this House, too. And I do not 
think the Pombo-Herger language with the Campbell amendment is going to 
pass in this House either.
  So as the accusations have kind of flown back and forth between the 
bipartisan coalition and those who would like to have it the other way, 
I think everybody should keep in mind that we both have the same goal 
and that there is one proposal that can make it to meet that goal, and 
that happens to be embodied in the Boehlert amendment.
  Why can Pombo-Herger become law? Well, it is being advertised as a 
very narrow bill, which with regard to flood concerns, the bill 
basically makes significant changes in ESA in the areas under 
consideration, which are levees. I think it is important for us to 
recall that most endangered species live along waterways. And so the 
very critters that ESA tries to protect are being directly and 
adversely affected in large numbers by the Herger bill. The bill would 
exempt further from ESA consideration specifically from the 
requirements to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
takings prohibition any activities related to any existing flood 
control project.
  I must add at this point that I disagree with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Campbell], my friend. The reason we accepted his 
language is because we think it does not change the Pombo-Herger bill 
at all. The reason for that is that the language that the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Campbell], my friend, has included is quite 
specific and is added to the language of the Pombo bill and the 
language that is added to talks about the routine operation, 
maintenance, rehabilitation, repair or replacement of Federal or non-
Federal flood control projects. And here is the new language: where 
necessary to protect human life or to prevent the substantial risk of 
serious property damage.
  Why are levees built? Why do they exist in the first place? To 
protect human life or to prevent substantial property damage.
  So the language that was added to the Herger bill simply states again 
what the purpose of the levee system is and I do not think does 
anything to change the original intent at all and continues, therefore, 
to have the Herger language applied to the entire flood control system 
in our country as we know it.
  In addition to that, the law applies, the Herger language applies 
regardless of whether this is any conceivable threat to the public. 
This would prevent any project reviewed to prevent damage to existing 
listed species, and it would make it virtually impossible to protect 
new species.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Saxton was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, those are the basic reasons that Secretary 
Babbitt has indicated some disagreement with this bill. That is the 
basic reason that I think the President will veto the bill. Those are 
the basic reasons that I think the Senate will not pass the bill. And 
those are the basic reasons why I think the bill unamended by Boehlert 
will fail here today.
  Now, the Boehlert amendment, on the other hand, will be targeted at 
what Pombo and Herger claim correctly that their complaint is that ESA 
prevents vital repairs to levees and other flood control projects, and 
we agree. We think relief is needed. We believe that our amendment, 
therefore, will exempt the repair of flood control projects from the 
consultation requirements of ESA all across the country, not just in 
California. It applies to both disaster areas and to any place where a 
project poses an imminent threat to human life or property and, as I 
said, it applies nationwide.
  So this amendment, this bill as amended by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] can become law. It goes to accomplish the purposes 
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo]. I believe that we should vote for it on a 
bipartisan basis. I think we should get behind it wholeheartedly and 
pass this amendment so that we can have a bill that becomes law.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Campbell, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Saxton was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, there were two points I would like the 
gentleman to give a very candid, honest answer to. First of all, is it 
the gentleman's understanding that the President's veto threat applies 
to Herger-Pombo even as amended by Campbell.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the gentleman's well-
intended amendment changes the bill at all and, therefore, I believe 
the President's veto threat remains in effect.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I am going to ask him a slightly different way. Is the gentleman's 
understanding of a veto threat expressed by the White House after the 
White House was informed of the existence of the Campbell amendment?
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the White House 
believes, as I do, that the well-intended language of the gentleman 
from California does not change the bill at all in terms of its 
practical application to the entire flood control system as we know it 
in this country and, therefore, it is my opinion, I have not talked to 
the White House about this, but it is my opinion that the veto threat 
remains.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman talked to the White 
House or any spokesperson for the White House since the Campbell 
amendment became known?

[[Page H2300]]

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time for a moment, 
before I respond, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes a 
very important point because under the Pombo legislation as amended by 
Campbell, the threshold that is required is the ordinary threshold we 
use for any public works project and any maintenance of any public 
works project, because that is always the rationale for the expenditure 
of the public moneys.
  So we still have the position where we could get into extensive 
maintenance which could include flushing out the bottom of Shasta Dam 
and destroying downstream habitat. You could get into massive 
rehabilitation of levees. You could move levees from 50-year protection 
to 100-year protection.
  So the Campbell amendment simply does not do anything to mitigate the 
concerns that the White House and many of us have about this 
legislation, because it is such a low standard. It is the same standard 
we use for any public works project.
  So I think the gentleman makes a very good point, that if we want to 
take care of this problem and we want to take care of it on a timely 
basis and we want to respond to these people who have, who have been 
flooded out and those who may be in the future, the Boehlert-Fazio 
approach is the only one that is going to get us there.
  I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill and in 
support of the Boehlert-Fazio amendment.
  This measure's portrayal after the floods, the basic underlying 
measure is misleading and inaccurate and is an attempt to misuse the 
tragic loss of human life as a basis for a wholesale retreat from the 
Endangered Species Act.

                              {time}  1645

  I would ask those who would disagree with me to simply look at the 
facts. I sat in the hearing, I heard some of the panels of witnesses, 
and the Endangered Species Act had, in the final analysis, nothing to 
do with causing the floods in California and the upper Midwest.
  Anecdotal explanations will not do for this debate. According to the 
preliminary report of California Governor Wilson's flood emergency 
team, unprecedented water flows were simply too much for that channel. 
Designed capacities and sustained high flows saturated and further 
weakened levees. In fact, as the gentleman from California, the ranking 
member, Mr. Miller, has pointed out, 10 times the flow capacity.
  When one adds to this fact that these levees had silty and sandy soil 
beneath a top layer of clay, the claims that the ESA or fauna or flora 
protection are somehow to blame for that, this is clearly the result of 
a catastrophic act of God and even becomes more ridiculous in 
considering it.
  Blaming the floods of 1997 on the Endangered Species Act would have 
been like Noah blaming the great flood on the animals he brought with 
him on the ark. It just does not make sense. It does not add up.
  What is evident is the design and intent of some special interests to 
exploit these human tragedies as a basis and a scapegoating of the 
Endangered Species Act. This is incredible, it is not fair, and it is 
not the way we should make decisions or laws.
  So why are we here today? We are debating this when there are 
thousands of flood victims working to rebuild their homes and their 
lives in the wake of these horribly destructive natural events this 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert-Fazio amendment provides us the 
opportunity to repair the flood damage that has occurred. I submit that 
that will carry the day. What we need, of course, is action on that. We 
need to get the supplemental bill passed. And the fact is that some are 
trying to use this as a basis to write this measure into law.
  Frankly, I thought we were through and had passed the dark shadow of 
some of the problems in the last session for the last few years that 
have persisted in the Congress but, apparently, this is yet not the 
case. Are we to suspend every law and regulation that affects or 
impacts the construction of water projects? Are we so concerned about 
the nourishment of beaches that the Endangered Species Act, the 
National Environmental Protection Act, Coastal Zone Protection, all of 
that should be disregarded because it represents somehow a 
qualification or encumbrance on that particular activity? I think not.
  I think that this effort is wrong. I think the Boehlert-Fazio 
amendment is a well-tailored amendment to address the major issue that 
we have before us. I would hope that this Congress would act positively 
on that amendment and respond to what is necessary.
  This legislation, the underlying legislation, virtually suspends 
almost all water projects and activities, from dredging, as I said, the 
channel nourishment, from the law. This would affect almost every 
district, as some have said, in the country because most of us have 
some water projects of a sort in our area.
  The law actually can work and does work smoothly. From time to time 
we do run into issues where there are threatened or endangered species, 
but the type of requirements that were outlined here as an example of 
redtape, simply do not hold up in most of the jurisdictions that we 
represent.
  This is an important law, along with the other laws that we have to 
protect clean water, to deal with the issues that arise when water 
projects and activities go on. It is wrong to scapegoat, as I said, one 
law in this instance, and I think that the motives and the effect of 
this is negative and reflects badly on this Congress and body in terms 
of dealing with facts rather than anecdotal stories.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me, and I think he raises a very important point.
  If we want to scapegoat the Endangered Species Act, we can, but the 
mounting evidence is, in these floods, that the Endangered Species Act 
was a nonfactor. In central California we had 10 times the amount of 
water come through the river channel than the levees were designed to 
hold. We had somewhere between 70 and 80,000 cubic feet per second in a 
channel that was designed for 8,000 cubic feet per second.
  Further north in the Yuba City area we had the failure of a levee. We 
had the failure of a levee in the area of where maintenance was talked 
about. But the fact of the matter is, over the last decade the Fish and 
Wildlife Service has signed off on a number of plans.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Miller of California, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue 
to yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, what happened was the local 
levee agency, the local flood control agency kept coming back to the 
Corps and making additions to the levees. Change orders.
  Those of us who know about military expenditures know the cost goes 
up because of change orders. They kept changing the design, and in this 
case the levee. The costs kept going up. They had to come back through 
budget cycles to get the money. Then the person who lost an open bid to 
do the work sued, saying the process was illegal, held the bid up and 
delayed the project. Had nothing to do with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service and ESA. The fact is they signed off on all these changes on 
all these projects.
  So we can scapegoat the ESA, and people can come down here, and we 
saw a little while ago in the well, and we can rail against the slugs 
and bugs and we can rail against the ESA. I would suggest that, for the 
most part, that is the genesis of this bill.
  If we look at the people who are supporting this legislation, they 
are the same people that supported this legislation in our committee, 
if the gentleman will remember, that basically

[[Page H2301]]

just gutted the Endangered Species. They said we can save the species 
but we could not save the habitat. Hello? Where are the species 
supposed to go?
  So we have the same coalition. We can rail against it and feel good, 
and we can try to tell our constituents that this levee failed and that 
levee failed because of the Endangered Species. The gentlemen from 
Louisiana were up here talking about how they maintain their levees and 
how they have to dump water into their lake. They are doing that today. 
They are doing that today.
  There is nothing in the Boehlert amendment that requires the 
California mitigation plan. These are scare tactics. These are simply 
scare tactics, and the gentleman from Minnesota is making a very good 
point; that we ought to make this based upon the evidence and the 
information available. And the evidence and the information available 
simply does not add up that we should be blowing a hole through the 
Endangered Species Act with this legislation.
  And make no mistake about it, that is what part B of this legislation 
does, it blows it right out of existence with respect to all of the 
activities in large, integrated flood control and western water 
projects. They simply escape their liabilities.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's observations.
  I would just point out also that the underlying legislation here is 
permanent. It is a permanent change in terms of the Endangered Species 
Act as applies to water projects, which I might add, to my colleagues, 
is not a small activity that goes on in this country in terms of the 
amount of dollars. It is an important activity, one that is vital, but 
it has to be done and channeled.
  I would say more often than not that those environmental 
requirements, including the Endangered Species Act, are the best money 
we can spend. They are the best money because they have held 
accountable this Congress from the type of wasteful projects that are 
repeatedly brought to this floor. So I do not think the environmental 
laws of this Nation, including the Environmental Protection Act and the 
others, if anything, they have limited the type of wasteful spending in 
project after project.
  And if it does not work perfectly, let us improve it. Let us not 
permanently exempt all these projects. Let us adopt the Boehlert and 
Fazio substitute, which is a temporary fix and something that needs to 
be addressed.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise to join this debate and speak very strongly in favor 
of H.R. 478, as amended by the Campbell amendment, which has been 
accepted, and to speak very strongly in opposition to the Boehlert 
amendment.
  Let me explain my reasoning. We heard a lot of discussion about 
anecdotal information. I think it is important to focus on the language 
and the problem that is before us. Let me begin first with the language 
of the Boehlert amendment and make an argument and make a suggestion 
for why I think it does not do what is essential at this moment in 
time.
  The Boehlert language says that we could waive the essential 
requirements only when there is an imminent threat to human lives and 
property. The key word is ``imminent'' threat. I suggest we look at 
those words.
  I went to Webster's International Collegiate Dictionary and looked up 
the word imminent. The word imminent is defined. Two definitions. The 
first: ``Ready to take place.'' And the second, ``Hanging threateningly 
over one's head.''
  What that means, Mr. Chairman, is that we would have to wait until 
the threat was hanging threateningly over our head. We could not do the 
necessary maintenance until the flood waters were headed our way. That 
is a serious problem with that language, and let me illustrate that.
  In my State of Arizona we do not have waters that rise slowly over a 
period of days. We do not have waters that rise over a period of weeks. 
We have flash floods, flash floods that occur in an instant, flash 
floods that come up within a matter of hours and rise instantaneously.
  This language would make it virtually impossible. We cannot predict a 
summer thunderstorm. We cannot predict the quantity of water that it is 
going to dump. We cannot predict it in advance. But under the Boehlert 
language, since we would have to wait until that threat was hanging 
threateningly over our head, we would be essentially precluded from 
doing the necessary maintenance.
  Now, let us look by contrast at what has been accomplished with the 
Campbell amendment to the original Pombo bill. I think it offers ample 
protection, ample protection for anyone concerned. And why? Why does it 
go beyond the argument of my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, 
[Mr. Saxton], that it does not add anything in the bill? Where is he 
wrong in that?
  Let us look again at the language. The language says that the 
exemption would apply only where necessary to protect human life or 
where necessary to prevent substantial risk of serious property damage.
  Well, let us go back to the words that are being used. First, it is 
where necessary. It is not where it would be reasonable for the 
protection of human life. It is not where it would be good for the 
protection of human life. It is not limited to where it would be 
helpful for protection of human life. It does not even apply if it is 
desirable for the protection of human life. It says, instead, where it 
is necessary for the protection of human life or necessary to prevent a 
substantial risk of serious property damage.
  Again, let us look at the words and go to the dictionary definition. 
I pull out Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary and once again the 
definition of necessary is: ``An indispensable item or essential.''
  We are not talking about just casual need or desire or reasonable or 
good or helpful. We are talking about where it is essential to protect 
human life or essential to prevent the substantial risk of serious 
property damage. That is what we are talking about.
  This is not a waiver, a blanket waiver any time anyone feels like it. 
And as one of my colleagues on the other side pointed out quite early, 
these issues get litigated. In this case, the litigation will focus on 
this question: Does someone just want to do this levee work? That does 
not cut it. Is it good to do this levee work? That would not qualify 
under the law. If it would be helpful to do the work involved, that 
does not meet the standard. If it would be desirable to do this kind of 
maintenance work to protect human life or to avoid a substantial risk 
of property damage, that does not meet the test.
  It is defined, as amended by the amendment of the gentleman from 
California, [Mr. Campbell], as necessary. Understand what necessary 
means. Necessary means essential or indispensable. That affords the 
protection which the other side refuses to recognize.
  Now, perhaps the arguments on the other side were framed before the 
Campbell language came forward. Perhaps we discussed the threat of a 
veto before the President knew of the language. But I suggest to my 
colleagues that this language does do what is necessary to enable us to 
prevent and to protect against potential flood damage but not to wait 
until the waters are literally rising. And in my State of Arizona, that 
is a condition which cannot be met because of the flash flood 
conditions we face.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, as amended by 
the gentleman from California, and to oppose the Boehlert amendment.


 Amendment Offered by Mr. DICKS to Amendment No. 1 In The Nature Of A 
                   Substitute Offered By Mr. BOEHLERT

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks to amendment No. 1 in the nature of a 
substitute offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       On page 2, line 15, strike ``an imminent'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``a substantial''.

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I reserve a point of order 
against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] is recognized for 5 minutes 
on his amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment because I 
agree with the gentleman from Arizona, and

[[Page H2302]]

I think the words ``a substantial threat'' are better for us here than 
an ``imminent threat'' for many of the reasons he described. I think it 
will allow earlier action.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment 
provides necessary clarifying language, and I am willing to accept 
that. I think it is constructive, and I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on the amendment.

                              {time}  1700

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws the point of order.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks] to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
agreed to.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 478 introduced by my friends, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo], and in opposition to the Boehlert substitute.
  In January 1993 in my district, in the Temecula-Murrieta area of 
California, over $10 million worth of damage occurred in the old town 
area of Temecula and Murrieta when the Murrieta Creek overflowed its 
banks. It is not a theory, it is not my imagination. I was there, I saw 
it happen.
  Interestingly enough, the county of Riverside, the county flood 
control agency, had for months if not years attempted to get permission 
from the Federal authorities to do necessary repairs and cleaning out 
of that Murrieta Creek bottom. They were unable to get those permits. 
Because of that, that damage occurred. Furthermore, there was so much 
debris within that creek bottom, it went on down through Murrieta Creek 
and joined into the Santa Margarita Creek and went on through that 
area, and there was so much debris, it created an artificial dike for a 
while while the water accumulated behind it. Eventually that broke, and 
the water went through and hit the dike that protects the helicopters 
at Camp Pendleton in California. That dike broke, and that water 
cascaded without any warning on to the military base and I believe 
approximately $75 million worth of helicopters were destroyed because 
of that.
  We could have solved that problem. This was absolutely solvable. All 
we had to do was just clean out that river bottom. We were unable to do 
it. Fortunately since then we have been able to clean out the river 
bottom. We have been able to do that but unfortunately with a lot of 
effort. Just this last year we tried to clean it out, up until just a 
couple of weeks before the rainy season began, we still had a very 
difficult time getting the necessary permits to keep it cleared out. I 
have had a lot of disasters in my county. I am the same county, of 
course, that had the problem with the fire breaks and the inadequacy of 
the fire breaks and the Winchester fires in the same year which 
destroyed many homes of folks that could have been protected if fire 
breaks had been allowed. This bill does not address that. I would like 
to get into that somewhere down the road. But it does address necessary 
protection to flood control channels which protect life and property. 
If we cannot protect life and property and be Members of this Congress, 
I do not know what we can do.
  Please support the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and oppose the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] and let us move forward with this.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York.
  I have listened to the debate with a great deal of interest this 
afternoon. I have heard my colleagues who offer the legislation talk 
about the intention of the original authors of the Endangered Species 
Act. They were right. They said we did not want to prevent people from 
protecting their homes and avoiding calamities and taking steps 
necessary to repair after.
  I have also listened to my colleagues on the side who are pushing the 
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert]. They have said that the purpose of the original Endangered 
Species Act was to see to it that we protected precious species from 
being extinguished by the hand of man. Both are right. I think it is 
good that we should take steps to protect endangered species from being 
extinguished. I think it is also right that we should protect people. 
That leaves us a choice between the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York and the original piece of legislation. Interestingly 
enough at the time that the legislation was written, I was the chairman 
of the subcommittee. In fact, I was the author of the legislation. I 
thought it was good legislation then, and I still think it is good 
legislation. The distinguished gentleman from Alaska, if I recall 
correctly, was a member of the committee at the time we wrote that 
legislation. He is now chairman of the Committee on Resources, and I am 
delighted to see that because he is a fine chairman and a dear friend 
of mine. But I would observe to my colleagues that in choosing between 
the extinction and the extermination of species and the protection of 
human life, the choice here really is quite simple. That is, to adopt 
the amendment which was wisely and prudently offered by the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and to reject the basic language of the 
bill, because the basic language of the bill does not just protect 
human life, it gives an absolute absolution, it gives an immunity bath 
to the wiping out of any species in connection with the construction, 
reconstruction, amendment, repair, or other things of some kind of a 
flood control project. It goes as far as drains and dams and it goes as 
far as fishways and protection of fishways. It goes even to things like 
beach erosion. I am not sure that that is necessary for the protection 
of human life. It allows anything to be done without any consultation 
or anything else. The Boehlert amendment says that if there is 
substantial danger to human life, all those things are waived. 
Substantial danger. We have just changed it to deal with the concerns 
that were expressed about imminent.
  The bill also affords reasonable time limitations in terms of how 
long this will go. The Committee on Resources is not going to close up 
its business tomorrow. It is going to be here. They will have oversight 
and look at the way that this legislation should be conducted and I 
think that is the way the Congress should function, and I commend the 
committee for what it is it does. The legislation they have brought 
before us is not good legislation. The legislation as amended by the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would be good 
legislation. It would be legislation of which we could be proud. It 
would carry out the two purposes of the debate today. First, the 
protection of endangered species. If some of the proponents of this 
amendment would really like to talk to me about what they really have 
in mind, I would like them to tell me why we ought to wipe out species 
that are precious in terms of the gene pool, or that lend unique and 
rare quality to the life that we all enjoy in this world of ours. Or 
why it would be useful for us to sacrifice those kinds of species when 
there might be some future importance to them, to human beings going 
even beyond the simple knowledge that that species might be there.
  Let us talk about doing something and doing something quickly. The 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] makes 
it possible for us to have immediate relief. This legislation will 
whistle through the House if that amendment is adopted and it will 
whistle through the Senate because both bodies are looking for 
something to do. It also will be signed by the President.

[[Page H2303]]

  Now, the alternative is the adoption of the bill as it is laid before 
us, an immunity bath for any misbehavior under the Endangered Species 
Act which would relate to flood control projects. The President is not 
going to sign the bill as it now is. And so all of us are going to go 
home and we can tell our constituents about the wonderful speeches we 
made about how we were protecting people from floods. But the real 
answer is, if Members really want to protect people from floods, if we 
really want to do a wise and careful job of legislating, if we really 
want to protect endangered species and if we want to protect people, if 
we want to deal with the problems of floods and repairs and to do it 
responsibly and thoughtfully, adopt the amendment that is offered by 
the gentleman from New York and reject the bill as it is now drawn.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Boehlert amendment 
and in support of H.R. 478. I want to make perfectly clear what is at 
stake with maintaining and repairing flood control structures across 
the United States. In 1986, California was hit with what was up to that 
time the worst flooding in recorded history. This photo shows an 
example of the devastation. Members can see how the water in Linda in 
northern California in my district was up to the bottom of the road 
signs. In that disaster, 13 lives were lost and more than $400 million 
worth of damage was caused. After this tragic flood, the Army Corps of 
Engineers spent 4 years to study what levees needed to be repaired. 
Under the Boehlert substitute, the deadline would have been surpassed 
because the Boehlert substitute limits the time in which flood control 
experts can repair the levees to only 1\1/2\ years. Our Nation would in 
fact be worse off under the Boehlert substitute than under existing law 
which does not limit the window for making repairs nor does it require 
after-the-fact mitigation. Even if the repairs could be accomplished 
within the time limit, the Boehlert amendment would still require local 
communities to pay for costly environmental mitigation after the levee 
was repaired. The Boehlert substitute makes national law a policy that 
requires local officials to play Russian roulette with limited tax 
dollars by forcing them to choose between making necessary repairs or 
facing undetermined mitigation costs. It writes a blank check for the 
Fish and Wildlife Service to charge local communities whatever they 
want in mitigation costs. This is clearly another major unfunded 
mandate. But by far the worst part of the Boehlert substitute is that 
it does nothing to prevent flood disasters from occurring in the first 
place. The Boehlert substitute would only allow flood control 
structures to be repaired after a catastrophe occurs, only after lives 
have been lost, and only after the loss of wildlife that the ESA is 
supposed to protect. Why should a law prevent the repair of a flood 
control structure only to have that structure give way and take lives 
and devastate wildlife?
  Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert substitute simply defies common sense. 
Under H.R. 478, flood ravaged areas around the Nation could find 
comfort in knowing that they will have the regulatory relief necessary 
to do everything in their power to prevent flooding. When a levee, like 
this one in this photo, broke in my district on the Feather River on 
January 2, 1997, three people were drowned. Claire Royal, a 75-year-old 
retired elementary school teacher, was found drowned near her car in 
which she had been attempting to flee the flood waters. Marian 
Anderson, a 55-year-old mother of 10, was found drowned near her car in 
which she had been attempting to flee the flood waters. Bill Nakagawa, 
an 81-year-old World War II veteran who served with the famed and 
distinguished Japanese-American 442d Combat Team, was found drowned in 
his home a quarter mile away from the broken levee.
  Ask yourselves this: Would Claire Royal, Marian Anderson, and Bill 
Nakagawa, been better off under the Boehlert amendment that only allows 
repairs after the disaster has hit, or would they have been better off 
under our legislation, H.R. 478, that allows flood control officials 
like Mrs. Anderson's husband, the manager of the broken levee, to make 
the repairs while the sun is shining and the high waters are not 
present?
  Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert substitute is worse than current law and 
does nothing to protect communities from future devastation from 
floods. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boehlert substitute 
and ``yes'' on final passage of H.R. 478.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Herger was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman will be happy to 
know that we take care of his primary concerns.
  First of all my amendment does not deal with only after. We deal with 
prior to. We have made an adjustment as a result of the Dicks amendment 
to mine which I accepted. So if there is a substantial threat, we can 
do the repair work prior to. That is very important.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me ask the 
gentleman, is their not a 1\1/2\ year time limit on his bill? Does his 
bill not expire on December 31, 1998? Yes or no?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield, no. The answer is ``no.''
  Mr. HERGER. It is not written into the bill that it expires?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield, I would be glad to respond 
to the question.
  Mr. HERGER. Yes.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, what we do is 1998 is the time, and we do 
this for a very logical reason. What this Congress too often does is 
passes sweeping legislation for time immemorial. We want to try this as 
a pilot project. We think our colleague has a good idea; we want to 
assist him.
  Mr. HERGER. Let me reclaim my time. Could the gentleman from New York 
be specific on when it expires in his legislation?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Sure; the end of calendar year 1998, a pilot program to 
see how it works.
  Mr. HERGER. OK; that is what I thought. I reclaim my time.
  It ends on the end of calendar year 1998. That is 1\1/2\ years from 
the day. That does nothing to help future floods. And I might mention 
this study that was done was asked for in 1986 after another flood 
there, which I am sure the gentleman from New York may have fought us 
doing something about then. We did a study that determined the levee 
that broke where Mrs. Anderson was drowned, the Corps of Engineers in 
1990 said that there will be a loss of life unless this levee is 
repaired. For 6 years the Corps of Engineers jumped through hoops 
trying to mitigate for an elderberry plant, and, no I will not--tried 
to mitigate for this.
  This is serious. We had three people drown in our district because of 
those who have taken over the environmental movement, and it will not 
even allow for simple commonsense legislation that puts people, puts 
people ahead of endangered species. All we are talking about is 
repairing levees.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, there is some obligation to 
go to the accuracy of the remarks he is saying. There is no limitation 
on debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. MILLER of California, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. HERGER was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman suggested 
somehow that the Endangered Species Act prevents these projects from 
going forward.
  Mr. HERGER. That is correct, because it does.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I mean the gentleman can stand up in the 
well

[[Page H2304]]

and say whatever he wants, but he has some obligation to be accurate. 
But the fact of the matter is it is a water resources act, so if the 
gentleman from California does what he wants to do, it requires that 
mitigation be temporary, not the Endangered Species Act.
  The gentleman says the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] would have prevented the report from going forth; 
there is nothing in the amendment that prevents the report from going 
forward. And the gentleman says it would be worse than existing law, 
and the fact is what he does is waive the provisions of existing law 
requiring consultation.
  So the gentleman can get up here and rail against the Endangered 
Species Act. We have some obligation to be accurate in terms of the 
facts we present to the House.
  Mr. HERGER. The fact is, and I will reclaim my time, the fact is that 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] stated in a question I asked 
him that his legislation sunsets on December 31, 1988. That is 1\1/2\--
I have the time--this is very serious. We have lost three of my 
constituents in this levee break because of an Endangered Species Act 
that for 6 years kept mitigating for an elderberry plant and put a 
plant--Mr. Chairman, I have the time--that mitigated for 6 years, spent 
$9 million on a repair that would have only cost $3 million that 
finally, after jumping through 6 years of hoops, this repair was due to 
be done this summer.
  Guess what? It was about 6 months, too late for the lives of three 
Americans and constituents of mine.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware of any maintenance 
activities in his district that were delayed because of mitigation, the 
implementation of the Endangered Species Act?
  Mr. HERGER. I am aware of a number in my district that are delayed, 
and specifically the one that I have related to not only was delayed 
but it was delayed from 1990 until the summer, which has not come yet, 
of 1997, and prior to that time after 6 years the levee broke.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] 
has again expired.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman be 
given an additional 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger], and I understand his concern and it is 
legitimate, had the Boehlert language been in effect we would not have 
had that 6-year delay that he refers to. The fact of the matter is our 
substitute amendment is designed to take care of those situations. We 
want to prevent them from happening in the future.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
substitute amendment offered by the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Before us we have an amendment that strikes the requisite balance 
between providing for the timely repairs to our Nation's flood control 
infrastructure and protecting valuable endangered species such as 
salmon and steelhead.
  If we fail to adopt the Boehlert amendment, we will be left with a 
bill that threatens thousands of miles of our Nation's most valuable 
endangered species habitat.
  The threat H.R. 478 poses to rivers and streams across America was 
highlighted for me in a recent letter from one of America's leading 
sports fishing organizations, Trout Unlimited. I would like to read to 
my colleagues what our friends from Trout Unlimited are saying:
       Enactment of H.R. 478 would undercut trout and salmon 
     protection and recovery efforts nationwide. There are 
     literally thousands of dams and other structures nationwide 
     that have flood control as a purpose. H.R. 478 would give dam 
     managing agencies, such as FERC, the Bureau of Reclamation, 
     and the Army Corps of Engineers carte blanche to conduct or 
     authorize construction, maintenance, repair, and operation of 
     dams and other structures in the name of flood control 
     regardless of the impacts of those actions on listed species. 
     This is a prescription for species extinction and further 
     erosion of once thriving sport and commercial salmon 
     fisheries on both coasts of the Nation.

  It is for these reasons that our Nation's premier sports fishing 
organizations have united in strong opposition to H.R. 478. However, 
these same fishermen are supporting the Boehlert amendment as a 
reasoned approach providing balance to a very obvious problem and 
necessitating that truly needed repairs to our Nation's flood control 
structures that are not unduly delayed by the Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in strong support of the 
Boehlert amendment which strikes a balance between protecting valuable 
endangered species and providing for the timely repairs to our Nation's 
flood control infrastructure.
  This year's massive flooding has been a great American tragedy, and 
it would be irresponsible if this House does not consider how to reduce 
the likelihood of such tragedies from occurring again in the future. 
But Congress should not use this as an excuse to undercut the 
Endangered Species Act which, rhetoric aside, was not responsible for 
the rash of flooding.
  The passage of H.R. 478, unamended, will not guarantee increased 
safety. Instead, the bill's broad blanket exemptions to the Endangered 
Species Act would have environmental impact far beyond the stated goal 
of protecting human life and property.
  I believe that the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert] is a reasoned approach to assuring that truly needed 
repairs to our Nation's flood control structures are not unduly delayed 
by the Endangered Species Act.
  Today we are provided with a stark choice of one of our Nation's most 
important environmental policies. We can either vote to exempt millions 
of acres and thousands of miles of rivers from any endangered species 
protections, or we can vote to provide meaningful relief to those 
actually facing true flood control emergencies.
  Do the right thing. Support the Boehlert substitute.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert 
amendment.
  As my colleagues know, today we are provided with the stark choice of 
one of our Nation's most important environmental policies. We can 
either vote to exempt millions of acres and thousands of miles of 
rivers from any endangered species protection, or we can vote to 
provide meaningful relief to those actually facing true flood control 
emergencies.
  Let me put it in even more stark terms for my colleagues. They can 
vote for a measure that is strongly opposed by every major fishing and 
environmental group in the country, a measure that will most certainly 
be vetoed by the President, or they can vote for a measure that is 
supported by fishermen and environmentalists and can be signed into 
law.
  What do Trout Unlimited, the American Canoe Association, the Atlantic 
Salmon Federation, the Federation of Flyfishers and the International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies all have in common? The 
litany goes on. They all support the Boehlert substitute and strongly 
oppose H.R. 478.
  As noted in a recent letter I received from the International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, ``The language in H.R. 478 
is a broad overreach which goes way beyond circumstances related to 
disaster response measures and could significantly affect the recovery 
of endangered fish stocks, such as Pacific salmon.''
  We respectfully urge you to oppose any legislative proposal which 
contains this language.

[[Page H2305]]

We do support the substitute language to H.R. 478.
  Join me in supporting the Boehlert substitute. The only measure that 
can actually be signed by the President--the only measure that makes 
environmental sense--the measure that will provide real relief to those 
affected by flooding.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes] 
has expired.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes] have 3 additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Maryland?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the Boehlert amendment is extremely ill-
considered. I really wonder, as a member of the authorizing committee 
that passed the Herger-Pombo bill out, you read the language, it simply 
says, ``Consultation and conferencing is not required for any agency 
action that A, consists of reconstructing, offering and maintaining or 
repairing Federal or non-Federal flood control project, facility or 
structure.''
  Mr. Chairman, this really is a good debate. I am glad we are having 
it. We have been trying to get to this debate for over 2 years now in 
the Congress. It really is going to come down, I guess, between a very 
extreme application of the law, as is presently the case, by the 
bureaucrats and the Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS and others, or 
whether we are going to have a reasoned, balanced approach.
  In our State of California alone, there are over 6,000 miles of 
levees. There is the picture of one, on the far right, that broke. We 
have 6,000 miles of aging levees that have been built over the decades. 
Only 2,000 miles of those are even federally constructed levees. The 
rest are non-Federal.
  Since we have had the Endangered Species Act and the very extreme 
interpretations and additions that have come about over the years, we 
now find ourselves with tremendous aging, unstable levees in much of 
our State. We know it has been documented.
  The scientists have said that we live in an era of heightened 
volcanic activity with dramatically increasing weather changes. Just to 
illustrate this point, we have a hydrologic history in our State that 
goes back to about the turn of the century, and yet the five largest 
storms of record have all occurred since 1954 in the State of 
California.
  We may be facing these kinds of floods every year for the next few 
years. We need to begin now. We need to protect public safety and human 
life so that we do not have repeats of this kind of a scene. My 
heavens, how can we be debating this in this fashion when we have seen 
scenes all over the country of people whose lives have been ruined, who 
have been up to their necks in water, who have been forced to move out?
  They showed a special, I think on Prime Time Live here last week, 
talking about New Orleans, the district of the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Tauzin] when they had the floodings in the 1920's. Seven hundred 
thousand people were rendered homeless. Are we going to countenance 
policies like we have in the law today that will preclude the adequate 
maintenance and repair of these levees in order to prevent this from 
happening?
  This is outrageous, Mr. Chairman. We ought to defeat the Boehlert 
amendment. It is a bad amendment. It is calculated to stymie this very 
legitimate effort to allow local agencies or the Federal or the State 
agencies to do what needs to be done to protect people's lives and 
property.
  I am sorry, that comes ahead of a bug or a plant. I think the issues 
are pretty well defined in that regard.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] would agree that what happened here is we had a 500-year 
flood, a catastrophic event, that caused all this damage. It was 
certainly not the Endangered Species Act. How can my colleague possibly 
blame it on protection of habitat and species?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time to answer the 
question of the gentleman. You can have a 500-year flood every year in 
a row for 3 or 4 years. That does not mean they happen every 500 years.
  We had a 500-year flood. We had a 250-year flood a couple years 
before that in parts of the State. So, yes, I blame it on the 
Endangered Species Act. It does not allow flood control agencies to 
protect and maintain these levees without jumping through all the hoops 
that the gentlemen from California [Mr. Pombo] and [Mr. Herger] and 
others have described.
  It is absurd that we have to spend $10 million in mitigation on a 
project that costs $3 million to construct.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, as I remember, there were a lot of people 
offering amendments to cut out funding for the Corps of Engineers and 
also money for the Endangered Species Act that could have been utilized 
for these purposes. I think if the gentleman goes back and looks at the 
record, he will see that some of those amendments are a part of the 
reason why he did not get more of a response on these issues.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this is reasonable 
language that allows the maintenance and repair of levees without 
having to go through this absurd, years-long, multimillion-dollar 
process to protect people's lives and property. It is an extreme policy 
under the law now, and we are about to change it. Vote ``no'' on 
Boehlert and vote ``aye'' on the underlying language.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think all of us, 
if cool heads prevail, would have some understanding that, yes, there 
are problems with the Endangered Species Act; and I think we would all 
recognize that there are problems with maintenance on various levees. I 
think we would all recognize that there are costs associated with 
mitigation.
  If we look at the maintenance and we look at what has to be 
mitigated, it is hard to tell what comes first, the chicken or the egg, 
but there are serious problems with maintenance and mitigation. I will 
offer an amendment in a little while to try to deal with those 
problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here today to address the emergency issue at 
hand, and that is the levees and the levee system that failed, 
especially in these 48 counties in California, and how do we repair 
those levees right now. I am supporting the Boehlert amendment because 
the Boehlert amendment goes beyond present existing law to repair the 
levees up to 1998. Now, I would be the first one to say that some of 
those levees might not be ready in 1998 and we are going to have to 
extend that.
  I would also be one of the first people to say that there is a 
problem with understanding how to maintain a levee so that we do not 
have to deal with an elderberry bush or a small yellow snake; we can 
just clear that elderberry bush, fill in that snake hole, fill in that 
rat hole. I recognize that we have to deal with the situation that we 
are now presented with, and that is the safety of human beings that 
rely on the levee system. We have to deal with that.
  However, I would go further, Mr. Chairman, and say the weaknesses 
here today, when we focus on the photograph that the gentleman from 
California showed us, the breach in the levee and the woman being 
carried down with the fast-moving water, I would say that the real 
weakness, if we look at the big picture, is not with the Endangered 
Species Act. The real big picture here is not with maintenance or 
mitigation. The real picture here, the weakness, is within State and 
Federal approaches to flood management. The weakness is with the 
current labyrinth of dams and levees. The weakness is with land use 
planning and our attempts to engineer rivers.
  In this debate do we need to understand the mechanics of natural 
processes? Can we protect people behind levees for a 500-year flood 
that may happen 2 or 3 years in a row, and the answer is no. Do we want 
to repair the

[[Page H2306]]

existing levees? You bet we do. Do we want to resolve the problem of 
maintenance? You bet we do. Do we want to resolve the problem of 
mitigation? You bet we do. Do we need to find a solution for the 
mitigation costs? The answer to these questions is yes.
  I feel at this point that the gentlemen from California, [Mr. Pombo, 
Mr. Herger and Mr. Campbell], my friends, their motivations are right 
on target to resolve the problem of flood control, particularly with 
levees. I just happen to think that they go a little bit too far at 
this particular point.
  Do we want people to move off the levees or out of these cities? The 
gentleman from Louisiana said, do we want people to move out of New 
Orleans? The answer is no. Do we want people to move out of Sacramento? 
The answer is no. Do we want people that are behind levees right now to 
have to move and go someplace else? The answer is no.
  However, my question is--and I know that we want to protect those 
people behind those levees and clear up the problems with maintenance 
and clear up the problems with mitigation costs. I fear, though, that 
if we say adopt the present bill in front of us, that there will be a 
sense of protection that tranquility will prevail, and we will then 
begin to expand the levee system and we will put more people in harm's 
way.
  For this reason, Mr. Chairman, at this point, I support the amendment 
of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. I will offer an 
amendment to help resolve the problem of maintenance and mitigation 
costs. I will yield to the gentleman from California, and then I will 
yield to the other gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, I believe, understands the 
Boehlert amendment and understands the main bill that the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Herger] and I put together. Does the Boehlert 
amendment allow maintenance of the levee system?
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the Boehlert 
amendment, in my understanding, does not address the maintenance, the 
long-term maintenance. The gentleman is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Pombo, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest  
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert amendment deals with the 
existing emergency, which is to repair the levees up to 1998.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if the area was declared a disaster area 
from the floods of 1997, they allow us to repair the damages from the 
floods in disaster areas from 1997?
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say two 
quick things. No. 1, the Boehlert amendment ensures that repairs that 
were broken take place in the levee system; but No. 2, if the levees 
are maintained--and this is what I want to do in my study--if the 
levees are maintained and cut the grass and deal with the issues, we 
are not going to have an elderberry bush grow up.
  So my amendment, which will amend the Boehlert amendment, I think, 
will deal with the problem of maintenance.
  I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I 
appreciate his argument. There is a reason we go through the process of 
endangered species. There is a reason we go through environmental 
impact statements.
  Mr. Chairman, last year the Congress talked about spending $1 billion 
for one dam in California, one dam, $1 billion or more. We went through 
the assessments, we looked at the environmental assessments, we looked 
at the alternatives. What did we do? We changed the way we operate at 
Folsom Dam. We strengthened the levees. We did not build the $1 billion 
dam for the biggest floods in our State, and that system worked 
perfectly.
  That is why we go through these assessments, because good 
environmental practices and the taxpayers' interest coincide so very 
often. We could have chosen to build a $1 billion dam, we did not have 
to. And now for very little money, I think that is the point the 
gentleman makes, there is a reason for doing this.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman from California, I thank both gentlemen from California, and 
even the other gentleman from California. There are a lot of people 
from California here.
  I think that we all have to recognize that yes, there have been some 
extremes, and there are some examples. And the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger] described an example where some maintenance was 
held up because of the Endangered Species Act, because of the problems 
with maintenance and because of the problems of mitigation costs.
  Those are real issues that actually happened and create layers of 
bureaucracy that we are trying to swim through, pardon the pun. 
However, Mr. Chairman, at this point, I think this House would more 
adequately address the problem if we vote for the Boehlert amendment, 
which will end in 1998 and in that process ensure that repairs are 
taking place. In a minute I will offer an amendment to the Boehlert 
amendment that will deal with the maintenance and the mitigation costs.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has said that the Boehlert 
amendment does not address maintenance. The gentleman's amendment is 
asking for a GAO study. So neither one deals with the real problem that 
we have of preventive maintenance.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert amendment. I know 
that the Endangered Species Act is not as well-known to the rest of the 
country as it is to those of us in California who live with it on a 
regular basis, and I think that perhaps we speak with more emotion than 
many of the other people who engage in our debate, perhaps with the 
exception of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], who exceeds us 
all. But let me say something that I think has been lost in this entire 
discussion.
  The approach that the gentlemen from California, Mr. Pombo and Mr. 
Herger, are taking is not at odds with the approach that was taken by 
the full Committee on Appropriations unanimously and the essence of the 
substitute that the gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert, has brought 
to us on the floor today.
  We may have differences of opinion about the Endangered Species Act, 
and I, for one, would like to bring the authorization out and go 
through it line by line on this floor and resolve our various points of 
difference. But no matter how we feel about that, the bill, as reported 
out by the Committee on Appropriations coming to this floor next week, 
contains language which makes a difference for the people who are 
impacted by this flooding in California.
  That amendment was based on a simple premise, that emergency repairs 
should go forward without any ESA requirements for mitigation or prior 
consultation to impede them. In other words, for the next, what, 17 
months through the end of next year, we believe the districts, the 
State, and the Federal agencies responsible for putting back in place 
the flood control system that was rendered ineffective by the winter 
storms can do so without reference to the Endangered Species Act. That 
is the thrust of the Boehlert substitute.
  Now, it may not be enough to satisfy some, and I understand that 
there is need for some ongoing approach, maybe expedited approaches 
that would get through the redtape of bureaucracy more quickly, maybe 
some things that would provide commonsense permits for our local 
communities to proceed with on important flood control projects.
  We need to talk about streamlined process that gets these projects 
underway in a construction season, which is already limited by salmon 
runs and other requirements. We also need to discuss incentive-based 
approaches to get improved compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 
We need to make

[[Page H2307]]

a more cooperative and less heavy-handed bureaucratic approach.
  That is all to be done in an approach that could, I think, get broad 
bipartisan support on this floor as it relates to the entire Endangered 
Species Act; not a single-shot approach to flood control, but one that 
would affect all of our districts and that would move us further down 
the road toward, I think, some understanding of how we can live with 
this law.
  But get this: This Boehlert substitute, which is the only language 
that the President will sign, we got that message clearly today, is all 
we can accomplish in this short timeframe. The President will veto the 
Pombo bill, even as amended, because it is a fundamental rewrite of the 
ESA that we made up here on the floor, people adding amendments and 
subtracting amendments.
  I mean, the bottom line is we have not done our homework, we have not 
done the job that needs to be done. We are reacting out of emotion, and 
I understand that. I feel as the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] 
does about the deaths that have occurred in northern California, the 
devastating loss of property, and the cost to the taxpayers at every 
level.
  But the solution to this problem is not to take the Endangered 
Species Act out and shoot it, we can fix it; but it is to deal with all 
of the other environmental laws that we have not even talked about like 
the NEPA statute that affects consultation as well and, more 
importantly, to get the resources we need to fix the levees.
  We need State and local taxpayers and property owners and the Corps 
of Engineers to come up with a comprehensive approach to this solution. 
We need a flood bond act to pass in California. I am hopeful one will 
in the next calendar year, in the election either on the spring or fall 
ballot.
  We need to work together on that and not make it appear that the 
Endangered Species Act has caused the floods. It has, I believe, 
contributed to delays, I believe perhaps has contributed to additional 
costs, yes. That is an irritant, that can become a serious problem, but 
it is not the reason we have the floods. We need to focus on what we 
can do together to bring about the mix of funding sources that will get 
on top of this, and I would like to fix the Endangered Species Act in 
the context of a repair to that entire statute and not just because we 
have had to suffer in California and in other parts of the country this 
winter.

                              {time}  1745

  I think this effort that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
has made is designed to get both sides together to give us something we 
can say to the people of California and other parts of the country who 
have lost property and lives, and I think we can get the system back up 
and operating.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Miller of California and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Fazio of California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the 
gentleman for his remarks. I think he in fact makes maybe the most 
reasoned presentation so far on the floor. That is that we have all 
heard from our constituents and we have all heard from our colleagues, 
problems with implementation, management, and enforcement of the 
Endangered Species Act. That is a well known fact on the floor of this 
House.
  The fact is that we have watched and we have battled over this thing 
over the many years. But the gentleman makes a point; if we really want 
to address this, it has to be done in a reasoned fashion. We have to 
bang it out. The gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] started an 
effort last year and that came to naught. The gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young] has approached me this year about whether or not there is a 
chance to get a group of people to sit down and discuss this. The 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Saxton], and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] have 
talked to Members in their caucus about this.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is we are arriving at a point 
where there is a critical mass of people who believe that we have an 
obligation to address this in a comprehensive fashion. I think that is 
the important way to go about it.
  But to use this vehicle as a means of now just driving a large hole 
into it with respect to huge, huge integrated water projects throughout 
the western United States, through much of the area of flood control 
projects, I think would be a terrible mistake. We can do the Boehlert-
Fazio amendment. That is doable. The President will sign it. We can 
take care of this immediate problem. Then we can start with the very 
hard, difficult work, and that is getting a comprehensive review and 
changes with this act so in fact it can work for the rest of our 
economy.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to 
congratulate the ranking member. I am sure the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo] and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] are 
pleased to hear that kind of commitment, because we all know that kind 
of work has to be done.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, one of the realities here, too, is when 
people are talking about protecting flood control projects, that is one 
thing. But then there is going to be a higher burden on the farmers, on 
the miners, on the other industries, because we are going to have to do 
this protection at some point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Fazio of California was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear up one matter. Earlier in the 
debate when I was in the well, there was some question about the 
position of the White House. The gentleman from California just 
reiterated a position that I thought was valid, and that was that the 
White House, the President, would not sign the Pombo bill in its 
current form. I am also aware that calls have been made to the White 
House in the subsequent couple of hours. Would the gentleman bring us 
up to date on what he believes the position of the White House is?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe the White House 
remains opposed to the Pombo bill, as amended, and supports the 
Boehlert alternative, which is the only thing we can accomplish in this 
short time frame; maybe not from the standpoint of many Members the 
best, but it is what is doable. It is what we can bring home to our 
constituents in need. We can then go back and take a more comprehensive 
approach. The committee can do its work. We will not be supplanting 
them here on the floor.
  I do think that is the most constructive thing. What I really want to 
get across is this bill, as we know, is not going to pass the Senate. 
It is not going to even come to the President for a veto. It is a 
vehicle for debate. It is a vehicle to air a problem. Now, let us not 
lose sight of the fact that we owe it to our constituents to help them 
with a short-term crisis. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the 
Boehlert substitute.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment be limited to 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each side, equally 
divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. And all amendments thereto?
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
  Mr. GILCHREST. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and I do 
not want to object, but I would like to ensure that my amendment be 
protected in this time frame.
  Mr. POMBO. The request is to the Boehlert amendment and all 
amendments thereto. I will assure the gentleman that I do not have any 
objection to his amendment.

[[Page H2308]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] will control 
15 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking 
minority member, will, I assume, control the other 15 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DICKS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, is it not the regular order that Members who are 
standing are recognized for a portion of the 30 minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN. The request was to expedite and divide in half the 
control of the time, so the Chair exercised discretion to carry out 
that allocation which was clearly in agreement.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that 
it is 15 minutes a side. I ask unanimous consent to yield half my time 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], half of my 15 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] will control 
7\1/2\ minutes.


amendment offered by mr. gilchrest to the amendment in the nature of a 
                   substitute offered by mr. boehlert

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       At the end of the amendment add the following new section:

     SEC.  . GAO STUDY OF MITIGATION REQUIRED FOR LEVEE 
                   MAINTENANCE PROJECTS.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall--
       (1) conduct a nationwide study of the costs and nature of 
     mitigation required by the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, pursuant 
     to consultation under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)), for flood control levee 
     maintenance projects; and
       (2) submit to the Congress a report on the findings and 
     conclusions of the study.

  Mr. POMBO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 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. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment to the 
amendment in the nature of a sustitute be adopted.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
agreed to.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to address the Boehlert amendment. We have 
heard the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] speak very eloquently 
to the fact that we need to put off consideration because, after all, 
hopefully we will be dealing with the Endangered Species Act. But if we 
think for one minute that the entire act will not evoke more emotion 
and more concern than this particular bill does, then we are not 
thinking clearly, again.
  Certainly, organizations like Trout Unlimited and the Sierra Club 
will be lobbying any commonsense reform to the Endangered Species Act. 
The Boehlert amendment simply codifies into law that which is already 
being used by rules and regulations, and it is not working. The issue 
is, when are we going to put humans and human property above the lives 
of a beatle or a snail or various other species?
  These agencies have not been using common sense as they regulate. In 
Idaho, we have a highway that goes into a little town, Grangeville, 
that was being washed out because of flooding. Yet, the National Marine 
and Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service would not let 
us repair that highway. Instead, they allowed a huge amount of 
siltation and sediment load to occur in those streams and rivers that 
have been set aside as critical habitat for the salmon because this 
agency was not willing to make a decision.
  In the little town of Julietta the flooding occurred, and the sewer 
system up there was threatened with the settling ponds, and the Fish 
and Wildlife Service insisted that the town plant willows and other 
bushes on the dikes in order to protect the steelhead, and yet the 
settling ponds were flooding and effluent was going into another river 
that is critical habitat for the salmon.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that when agencies are left to their own, 
they are mixing up their priorities. We are simply, in this body today, 
trying to reestablish the priorities. Yes; these are not extreme 
emotions, and these are not extreme solutions that we are looking to. 
Mr. Chairman, as I look at these pictures, it does evoke emotion. It is 
of great concern to us. I think we need to do the responsible thing. We 
need to support the Pombo amendment and we need to defeat the Boehlert 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 478, the Flood Prevention and 
Family Protection Act, and in opposition to the Boehlert-Fazio 
substitute.
  There is a great deal of misinformation being spread around here 
today, I want to clear some of this up.
  Fact--under current law, the Endangered Species Act allows necessary 
repair work to levees and flood control structures only after flooding 
has begun to destroy human life, property and wildlife habitat, and 
only after the President declares the flooded area a disaster.
  In other words, flood prevention repairs can begin only after there 
is a devastating flood. That is not prevention, Mr. Chairman, and is 
yet another example of the inflexible nature of the ESA.
  Fact--H.R. 478 does not gut the ESA, as some claim. If H.R. 478 
becomes law, the NEPA process will still provide Federal agencies with 
an opportunity to ensure flood control measures do not harm endangered 
species.
  Fact--this is not a problem limited to California's 1997 winter 
floods. We have heard and will hear more ESA horror stories throughout 
the day. But, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about my home State of 
Idaho. We, too, were flooded in Idaho this winter. On New Years Day 
this year, streams became torrents of water, dykes were breached, 
levees were blown-out all over Idaho. I personally flew over the 
flooded areas to see firsthand the devastation. Livestock and other 
property were lost. Fourteen counties in Idaho were declared disaster 
areas.
  In Idaho, a river is eroding a county road near Grangeville--a road 
that is the sole access to a housing development. Because of the 
geological structure of the area, this is the only place that a road is 
possible. The river is cutting away at the bank and the road, pouring 
sediment into the river. This sediment impacts the endangered salmon.
  Yet, the National Marine and Fishery Service [NMFS] is holding up 
repair until they can determine if the repair will be harmful to the 
endangered salmon. This is a dangerous situation because an entire 
community can be cutoff, and at the very least, travel over this road 
is hazardous. In the short term, repairs may impact the salmon, yes, 
but in the long term, the community and the salmon would benefit--
sediment would no longer be pouring into the stream, and the citizens 
can safety travel over the road.
  Another example from Idaho, a stream bank on the edge of the town of 
Julietta--population 488--was breached by flooding. The water continues 
to threaten Julietta's sewer system. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service is requiring Julietta to plant shrubs and willows to mitigate 
impacts to the steelhead, a species that is proposed but not listed as 
endangered.
  The problem is that the planting on the stream bank isn't even in the 
town of Julietta, and is out of Julietta's control. Additionally, the 
steelhead isn't even listed. The levee remains breached, and Julietta 
remains at risk--even through the river remains high and the snow pack 
in the mountains is at record levels. All forecasts point to another 
flood.
  What we have in Idaho, then, Mr. Chairman, is sediment pouring into a 
stream--impacting both humans and fish--and the possibility of sewage 
effluent entering a river--again impacting fish and humans. Grangeville 
and Julietta and the fish are impacted by the inflexible nature of the 
ESA, and are at risk. This has also affected the species the ESA was 
meant to protect--this is simply unacceptable, especially in these 
emergency situations.

[[Page H2309]]

  North Dakota recently experienced flooding--and who knows where it 
could happen next.
  Is this the intent of the Endangered Species Act? Is it to be 
implemented in such a way that communities are threatened? I say no. We 
must provide the flexibility to protect our citizenry from flooding and 
in the end, as in the case of Grangeville, protect the endangered 
species, the salmon.
  H.R. 478 does not gut the ESA. This is a good bill which merely 
provides the flexibility to allow our citizens to prepare and try to 
prevent disasters.
  The Boehlert-Fazio substitute will not work. in fact, it will make 
the current situation worse. The substitute subjects the repair or 
replacement of all flood control projects in disaster areas around the 
National to requirements established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service for projects located in declared disaster ares in California. 
That's right, Boehlert-Fazio is limited to only California, and 
authorizes repairs only through 1998. What about my State of Idaho? 
What about future threats and disasters?
  Passing legislation that gives the FWS dominion over people sets up a 
very dangerous precedent--and is a real threat to families across 
America. The FWS has already shown that it puts the interests of 
wildlife over property rights. With the Boehlert substitute, the FWS 
would have the legal authority to place the interests of wildlife 
before the safety of people. The safety of people and wildlife should 
be treated at the same level.
  What's worse, the Boehlert-Fazio substitute provides no coverage for 
maintenance, either before or after flood disasters. As we in the West 
know, maintenance of dykes and levees is absolutely crucial to flood 
protection. The Boehlert-Fazio substitute makes existing law worse.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 478, 
and vote against the Boehlert-Fazio substitute.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, let us think about it for a minute. We would think that 
there was never a disaster in America before the Endangered Species 
Act. That act was adopted when Nixon was President in 1972. We wait 
until 1997 to get up and say that all the floods in California were a 
result of the Endangered Species Act? Then what they do is to bring an 
amendment to the floor which, frankly, the reason we are having such a 
long debate on is that it was very poorly drafted. It was poorly 
drafted because it opens a huge hole.
  If we look on page 2, and I hope all of us will read these bills, 
because that is what we are sworn in office to do as lawmakers, it says 
on line 21 that the consultation and conferencing under the paragraphs 
in this bill are not required for any agency; not required, not 
required. This is the big loophole.
  Mr. Chairman, before coming to the Congress I served in the 
California Legislature. I drafted bills that created water districts 
and irrigation districts. Before that I was on the board of 
supervisors. I sat on water districts and irrigation districts, and on 
air boards and transportation boards. The reason we have the 
consultation process in law is so we can avoid the unforeseen problems 
that come about when you start tampering with nature.
  If we are going to do levees and build dams and operate them, we are 
going to have downstream effects. Those downstream effects can affect 
people's livelihood. We do not want to exempt that process, because 
what happens if we do not have that consultation in the beginning, we 
are going to end up with someone filing a lawsuit in court, and if 
there is any way to delay a project, just get it tied up in the courts 
where nobody wins except the lawyers.
  I have all the respect in the world for the people that came and 
wanted to try to deal with the regulatory issues when it comes to 
floods, but this bill, the way it was drafted, is the wrong approach.
  I rise today in support of the Boehlert amendment. Many of the people 
who spoke in favor of this bill who gave these causes are California 
legislators. They never got up after the 1986 flood, where we lost 
lives, and blamed it on the Endangered Species Act. They never took 
action before when they were in Congress to amend the act.
  Do not make any bones about it, this bill, the way it came to the 
floor, opens a door far beyond what those who tell us they just want to 
kind of make the process a little bit expeditious really intend to do.
  Every time we make a decision to dig, drill, cut, build, repair, we 
are going to affect something. I assure the Members that they have to 
have a process where people talk about that before the effects are 
known, before the effects of the construction are placed upon those 
that have a negative effect.
  I urge Members to support the Boehlert amendment. It is a reasonable 
approach. It can get signed into law. If we really want to correct the 
problem, we want it to become law. That is what the President will 
sign. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Mrs. Emerson].
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, it pains me to have to rise and speak 
against the amendment of my dear friend, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert]. Mr. Chairman, it will not help my district in Missouri, 
and I realize that that sounds a little bit selfish, but the fact is 
that my job here is to protect the folks back home, and that is what I 
need to do.
  Let me explain by telling the Members about a couple of situations in 
my district. We have a small town called East Prairie, where the 
integrity of its levees are greatly threatened. This is a poor town and 
it is very prone to flooding every year. Because of this, there are a 
lot of folks who live on welfare in East Prairie because no companies 
want to come to East Prairie and locate because they keep getting 
flooded out.

                              {time}  1800

  So we have no jobs. We have lots of welfare recipients and we do not 
have any prospects for getting new jobs until our levees can be fixed 
and we can get two pumping stations to help keep those levees strong 
and maintain them.
  I need to know what I can tell the folks in East Prairie, MO, who 
desperately want to find work. Am I going to tell them that they ought 
to move away because Fish and Wildlife or the EPA thinks that the 
pallid sturgeon in our region is more important than them?
  And then several miles up the river in a place called Commerce, MO, 
right on the river we have another problem. If we had a flood half as 
bad as they had in Grand Forks, the Army Corps of Engineers tells us 
that we would have a huge chocolate tide coming in because our levees 
cannot hold the water and, it would spread all the way through our 
district, southern Missouri, all the way to Helena, AR, the home of our 
colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Berry] and the President's 
home State.
  Our levee simply cannot manage that influx of water. We stand to lose 
half a million lives, several interstates, schools, businesses, private 
property. It is a terrible situation.
  Our landowners, for example, we have to wait 2 years to have an 
environmental impact statement to tell us if we can even get a permit 
to fix this. That is not right. Our landowners in both these cases have 
offered five times the mitigation to maintain and repair these levees, 
but we are told by the EPA and Fish and Wildlife that since this is not 
natural wildlife they will not accept that, but five times hundreds of 
thousands of dollars of mitigation and it is unacceptable.
  So what do I tell these folks in my district? What do I tell them 
when their lives are in harm's way on a daily basis? That we have to 
wait 2 years to even try to fix this problem?
  So anyway, that is my problem. That is my concern. I sure think that 
the Pombo-Herger bill is going to help our folks in southern Missouri a 
lot more than that of my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen very much for yielding 
me the time.
  I rise in very strong support of the Boehlert amendment. I think the 
Boehlert-Fazio amendment is carefully crafted. It gets the job done but 
it does

[[Page H2310]]

not create this great big broad exception in the Endangered Species 
Act.
  Let me just read to my colleagues, I think very careful language that 
addresses why the bill as reported, the Pombo bill, is unacceptable. 
The bill would permanently exempt the reconstruction, operation, 
maintenance, and repair of all dams, hydroelectric facilities, levees, 
canals, as well as a host of other water-related activities, from the 
safeguards and protections provided in the Endangered Species Act. 
There are literally thousands of dams and other structures nationwide 
that have flood control as a purpose.
  H.R. 478 is clearly unnecessary. There is no credible evidence 
suggesting that the ESA has worsened flood damage. In fact the ESA is 
already flexible enough to allow expedited review for improvements or 
upgrades to existing structures in impending emergencies.
  The ESA also allows exemptions for replacement and repair of public 
facilities in presidentially declared disaster areas. The Fish and 
Wildlife Service issued a policy statement clarifying how the agency is 
implementing these emergency provisions in the 46 California counties 
that were declared Federal disaster areas this year. Under the policy, 
flood fighting and levee repairs are automatically exempted from the 
ESA if they are needed to save lives and property.
  By the way, just to read again the statement by the administration, 
the administration strongly opposes H.R. 478 because it would exempt 
all flood control projects from consultation and taking requirements of 
the Endangered Species Act. The administration clearly supports 
minimizing flood damage and protecting the residents living in flood-
prone areas, but does not believe that H.R. 478 will achieve these 
purposes. Because of severe economic and environmental impacts that 
would be caused by H.R. 478, the Secretary of the Interior would 
recommend that the President veto the bill in its current form.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I think the Boehlert-Fazio substitute, 
which is carefully crafted, which deals with the emergency situation, 
which in essence codifies in law what the President has already done in 
California through his declaration, is the right way to proceed. This 
will be in conjunction with what we are doing on the supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  I just hope Members really do understand that this amendment is aimed 
at weakening the Endangered Species Act and I think will produce a very 
negative consequence to the timber industry, to agriculture and mining 
who will have restrictions laid on them because of this exemption.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, we are down to the last few minutes of this 
debate on the Boehlert substitute. I think it is important to point out 
here that there are some things that we can get done today which will 
become law and there are some things that we ought not to get done 
today which frankly cannot become law.
  One of the things which cannot be done today is that we cannot make 
major changes to the Endangered Species Act because if we were to do 
so, we would have to have the cooperation of the administration, and 
the administration has clearly stated as late as the last couple of 
hours that the Pombo-Herger language is unacceptable and, therefore, it 
cannot become law.
  What can happen today is the adoption of this amendment, the Boehlert 
substitute, which can then become the base bill which can pass this 
House, which I believe can pass the Senate and which I believe can be 
signed into law, which will grant the constituents of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Pombo] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Herger] and the folks from North and South Dakota and the other flood 
stricken areas the relief that they need in order to repair the flood 
control systems that have been damaged by the floods.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to urge every Member to do what I have 
concluded is the right thing in order to pass this aid along, not in 
the form of money but the opportunity to get things done quickly and in 
a way that nobody seems to object to, particularly the administration 
whose cooperation we once again need.
  I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] for his hard 
work, as well as the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], who has a 
different approach, but I think that in the interest of moving the 
process forward and in the interest of getting the relief to the folks 
who need it the most, that there is only one answer and that answer is 
to vote ``yes'' on the Boehlert substitute.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis].
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two experiences I have had in my life that I 
would like to point to in setting up my share of this discussion. In 
1938 we had a major flood in California. I was 4 years old. I remember 
it clearly, dropping a ping pong ball outside my back window and it 
dropped about 12 to 18 inches and hit the water and floated out through 
the back fence. At that point in time, I understood clearly that nature 
could have a very big impact upon our lives and that disasters were of 
great potential that we needed to pay great attention to.
  The next event involved the late 1960's, when my colleague from 
California who is standing over here and I discovered the word 
environment. And it was a very important development before all of us 
recognized that mankind was having an impact upon our environment that 
we needed to pay very careful attention to. As a result of that and the 
work involving that, I once chaired a committee that developed the 
toughest air quality management district in the country. I take a back 
seat to nobody in terms of environmental questions.
  But when we find ourselves in a circumstance like that which 
California is experiencing now, where a major flood control project in 
southern California would be held up by the wooly star, which is 
nothing but a cactus that is almost laughable except it gets a little 
purple flower for about 2 weekends a year; when indeed the kangaroo rat 
is having a huge impact upon development in the Central Valley where 
these floods have recently taken place; when the Delhi Sands flower-
loving fly is impacting not only the development of a county hospital 
but the economy and the flood control in the very region I am worried 
about in the south lands. That would suggest to me that the 
environmental movement has some way gotten into the hands too often of 
those people who are on the very fringes of this entire discussion.
  It is time to make sense out of the Endangered Species Act. It is 
time to recognize that these flood control mechanisms in the Central 
Valley are critical to the health and welfare of our people. And we 
should not allow extreme voices to dominate this debate.
  If we defeat the Boehlert amendment and the Fazio amendment today and 
we go forward with this bill, we will set up a discussion that will for 
the first time in many, many a year cause everybody of good faith to 
say, hey, we have to make sense out of this thing. There is no doubt 
that my public is concerned about the environment, but they do not want 
to have idiocy prevail.
  To suggest that these gentlemen on my side of the aisle are 
interested in gutting the Endangered Species Act is less than a service 
to the process we are about here. Indeed, we have gone to extremes, and 
it is about time we took sensible voices to the bargaining table 
between now and the time the President ever sees this bill and make 
sure that endangered species that are important to all of us truly have 
their place in this debate, a very valuable place; but also people, a 
very valuable species, ought to have a place in this debate as well.
  Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong support of the Flood Prevention 
and Family Protection Act of 1997. This legislation was introduced by 
my colleagues Congressman Wally Herger and Congressman Richard Pombo 
following the January floods in California which devastated the San 
Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. This legislation, which enjoys wide 
bipartisan support, has been drafted in an extremely focused manner to 
correct a serious deficiency in the Endangered Species Act as

[[Page H2311]]

it relates to the interplay between wildlife habitat and flood control 
projects, facilities and structures.
  I also want to thank my colleagues Tom Campbell and Billy Tauzin for 
their thoughtful input and positive changes to this important 
legislation. The voices these members add to the debate help move this 
discussion in a positive direction. Their recommendations are welcomed 
by my colleagues and I who have long-standing concerns over the 
excesses of the Endangered Species Act and its oft-times arbitrary 
application.
  H.R. 478 allows the reconstruction, maintenance, repair and operation 
of existing flood control projects before a flood event occurs--not 
after the damage has been done. This is a critical point. Opponents of 
this legislation believe that we should sit on our hands while a 100-
year flood event wipes out people's property, species habitat and 
existing flood control projects. This makes absolutely no sense. I 
cannot believe that opponents of this measure think that endangered 
species like the delhi sands flower loving fly and the kangaroo rat 
should have the same priority as the protection of human lives and 
property. That's right, the extreme environmental groups place species 
protection over the protection of humans. I hope my colleagues 
listening to this debate don't have the same set of priorities. The 
fringe environmental community wants you to believe that this measure 
guts or rips the heart out of the Endangered Species Act. Nothing could 
be further from the truth. It simply adjusts shortcomings with the ESA.
  The County of San Bernardino, which I represent, is responsible for 
constructing, operating and maintaining hundreds of miles of flood 
control facilities. These facilities are designed to protect people and 
property from flood damage--not provide habitat for endangered species. 
The Santa Ana River Mainstem Project and the Seven Oaks Dam are located 
in my congressional district. These projects are responsible for the 
protection of millions of lives and billions of dollars of property in 
Riverside and Orange Counties. I certainly don't believe that the 
millions of people who are protected by these projects feel that we 
should wait until after a major flood catastrophe to repair these 
projects.
  As a result of the Endangered Species Act and its ever-changing 
interpretation and the ever-increasing list of threatened and 
endangered species, the mitigation requirements on many flood control 
facilities are cost prohibitive. In fact, the permitting process has 
become so costly and time consuming that critically needed projects are 
now often delayed and abandoned. At the very least, we need to provide 
State and local flood control professionals with the ability to repair 
existing flood control investments before disaster strikes. It is 
unfortunate that the regulatory burden on the permitting process has 
become so encumbered that the public, in many instances, no longer 
receives the same level of flood protection they once enjoyed.
  Make no mistake, this legislation can also reduce Federal costs 
associated with future flood disasters. As chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for the annual budget of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, I know full well the impacts that 
natural disaster supplementals have on other Federal programs. Prior to 
the 104th Congress, Congress and the Administration simply added the 
costs of disaster recovery to the deficit. Congress has now taken the 
responsibility of fully offsetting federal disaster recovery spending 
from other important federal programs. In fact, the disaster 
supplemental which will be on the House floor next week uses housing 
programs as an offset for disaster spending. While I don't believe that 
we should have to pit housing and other programs against disaster 
relief, these will continue to be the tough choices we face unless we 
get a handle on the costs of disasters.
  The Herger-Pombo Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act is one 
such tool we can use to decrease the exorbitant costs of future flood 
disasters.
  Let's give some relief to the past and future flood victims by 
providing flood control professionals the tools they need to do their 
job effectively. As Governor Wilson stated in a May 6 letter to 
Congressmen Herger and Pombo, ``this bill will make it much easier to 
avoid loss of life and property by expediting preventative maintenance 
prior to flooding with the expectation that this would reduce the risk 
to life and property during the flood itself.''
  I urge my colleagues to put people first. Support H.R. 478 and oppose 
the Boehlert-Fazio amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the end of this debate. Let me just 
suggest that the experience in Congress is not very good when we try to 
write wholesale exceptions to an individual law without considering the 
impact elsewhere.
  We did this 1\1/2\ years ago with logging without laws. Not only did 
we devastate a lot of the forests in the Pacific Northwest and 
elsewhere, but we found out we had horrible impacts in terms of 
landslides this year that killed people because of lack of restrictions 
on where cuts were made. We also see that we are having an impact on 
the commercial fisheries and on jobs.
  Now we come to it is essentially levees without laws. This 
Government, the taxpayers, have spent billions and billions of dollars 
taking the great rivers of this country that ran across thousands of 
miles, that have filled hundreds of miles of flood plains, and we have 
forced them into very narrow rivers with very high levees. Should we be 
surprised when every now and then the rivers jump out of those levees? 
That is what happened this year.
  But there is no indication at all that that happened because of the 
Endangered Species Act, and yet we are on the floor today talking about 
blowing a huge hole in the Endangered Species Act because we are angry 
about the floods. But the demonstration is simply this, we had too much 
water for the existing design of the levees and the water blew those 
levees out. It had nothing to do with the Endangered Species Act.
  We had river flows that most of us in our lifetime have never seen in 
the State of California, they had never seen in North Dakota, they had 
never seen in the Midwest. It had nothing to do with the Endangered 
Species Act. It had to do with the fact that so much water was coming 
through that there was no capacity of the levees to hold.
  We ought to be very careful before we accept a wholesale retreat on 
the Endangered Species Act with respect to huge publicly subsidized 
Federal water projects in the West and elsewhere.
  I say that because of this: If you get these exceptions, then the 
burdens of meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act fall 
on the commercial fishermen, they fall on the logger, they fall on the 
miner, they fall on the municipalities, because that burden has to be 
met somewhere else. And if the levee districts can escape their 
obligation under the Endangered Species Act, we will be looking to the 
people in the forests, we will be looking to the people in the 
commercial fishing industry to try to pick up that burden.
  I hope that we would vote for the Boehlert-Fazio amendment and reject 
Pombo.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I want my colleagues to understand that today they have a choice 
between going home and telling people they did something about levees 
and levee reconstruction or going home and saying that they made 
wonderful speeches and brought down the legislation which could have 
helped those people; that they have assured a veto or a filibuster in 
the Senate which will kill this legislation.
  I want to give my colleagues one example of what this means. In the 
West, salmon streams now are faced with a situation where salmon are 
becoming endangered species. What this says is that we are stripping 
those homeowners and others along the shore of the protection of 
Federal flood control, but we are also doing something else, we are 
stripping the salmon, which is one of God's great gifts to the people 
of the Western United States, of all protection. And we will find the 
great runs of salmon being a matter of cold hard history with those 
species now gone from the western rivers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York and against the legislation.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the close of a spirited 
and very serious debate, and I want to commend all those who have 
participated for the seriousness of purpose.
  My substitute addresses the stated objective of H.R. 478 in a manner 
that does not violate a very important piece

[[Page H2312]]

of legislation, the Endangered Species Act, and in a manner that is 
friendly and sensitive to the environment.
  We have a choice. Do we want to solve a problem or do we want to beat 
up on the Endangered Species Act? I do not find the Endangered Species 
Act, despite the fact that it is so well-intended, to be perfect. It 
requires some refinement. But that is another debate for another day. 
This purpose today is to address an emergency situation.
  We have been faced with an emergency situation and we have come up 
with an emergency response, a response that allows the repair work to 
go forward not just after the fact, as some have been concerned with, 
but prior to the fact if there is a substantial threat.
  Now, the crafters of H.R. 478 will tell my colleagues that their bill 
is narrowly crafted. Be wary of that. Do not buy anything from that, 
because their bill would exempt from the Endangered Species Act 
maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, or replacement of a Federal or a 
non-Federal flood control project, facility, structure. The list goes 
on and on. A blanket exemption.
  We have heard expressed here in eloquent terms how important the 
Endangered Species Act is to America. Do we just want to throw it out? 
The answer is clearly no. But no law is more important than human life, 
and we want to protect human life, and that is why we have the 
exemptions we do in this bill. When human life is threatened, when 
there are substantial property investments threatened, we do not want a 
lot of bureaucrats and red tape and a lot of paperwork saying, well, we 
are sorry. We do not want people to be in harm's way so we provide 
exemptions for that.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues something. People will say, well, the 
gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from 
Michigan, [Mr. Dingell] and some of the others are against flood 
control projects. They do not want to build any public works projects 
to protect the American people. How wrong they are. Because I am 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment that 
brought to this floor last year a $4 billion, 4-year program for flood 
control and important activities like that which are so essential to 
California, not just California but New York, too.
  So I suggest to my colleagues, if our desire is to beat up on ESA, go 
ahead. But that is not what we are here to address. We are here to 
address an emergency. We are here to legislate.
  I have been told by the administration that H.R. 478, even as 
amended, will not be signed into law by the President of the United 
States. So we can have all the grand speeches we want, all the press 
releases we want, but we will not have legislation to deal with real 
problems affecting real people in a real emergency. My bill will be 
signed by the President. The administration has said so. So that is 
very important.
  Finally, let me point out that my language, my proposal, was passed 
unanimously by voice vote in the Committee on Appropriations on a 
bipartisan basis. But that was not good enough. The committee was upset 
and they objected to it. That is why we are here. Support an 
environmentally friendly substitute. Let us do the people's business.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boehlert] is accurate 
on a few things, and I appreciate that he has come to the floor with 
his amendment. And if it did what he said it did, I would 
wholeheartedly support it. I would be the first person down here saying 
that it was a great piece of legislation and that we all should support 
it. But it does not do what he says it will do.
  It absolutely does not accomplish the goals that we set out. He says 
it does. His statement says it does. The things that he passed out says 
that it accomplishes what we want, but it does not.
  We do have a choice today, my colleagues. We have a very definite 
choice. What the amendment of the gentleman from New York would allow 
is that this break in the levee, it would allow us to fix that. It 
would not waive mitigation. It would not waive the Endangered Species 
Act. It would defer the Endangered Species Act until it was repaired.
  Well, what is the difference between that and current law? Nothing. 
The policy that was sent out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on 
February 19 said exactly what the gentleman wants to do. He says the 
administration will sign it. Well, of course they will sign it, they 
issued it. Of course they will. It does not take care of the problem 
that we have, and that is to prevent this from happening.
  I would like to show my colleagues, if I may, something that is very 
real. This is a picture of a levee bank. This is the picture of a levee 
bank right now. We can see the condition that it is in. They were 
prevented from maintaining that bank, clearing the brush out so that it 
could handle the 500-year flood, so that they could handle the amount 
of water that went through there.
  They wanted to do it. They were told they could not until they went 
through a lengthy bureaucratic red tape mess.
  But take a look at that picture a little closer. As they got a little 
closer in the boat, we begin to see just how bad this is. And we go a 
little bit closer and we can see the hole, the hole through the levee. 
We did not see it in the first picture because it is covered with 
brush, but we can see it if we get up 2 feet away. I know my colleagues 
cannot see this, but there is a man standing inside that hole.
  That is the other side of the river where they had a boil coming up 
with water pouring out. That is the reality of what we are trying to 
do.
  The amendment of the gentleman does absolutely nothing about this. 
The gentleman's amendment does nothing on preventive maintenance. It 
does not allow us to maintain that levee system.
  What it does do is it says if the President declares it a disaster 
area in 1997, from this year's flood, then we can fix it. We can go 
back and fix that break. It does nothing to take care of an ongoing 
maintenance problem so that we do not have to come back and do this 
again year after year after year. It falls short of the goal. It 
accomplishes nothing.
  Yes, we do have a choice. We can go home and tell our constituents 
that we actually did something about this problem or we can do what 
Congress has done for the past 40 years: Put up something that looks 
good, feels good and does absolutely nothing, because that is what the 
gentleman is giving us, nothing.
  The gentleman keeps talking about what is in our particular bill. It 
consists of maintenance, rehabilitation, repair or replacement of a 
Federal or non-Federal flood facility if there is a threat to human 
life or serious property damage. We can maintain our levees if there is 
a threat to human life. We can rehabilitate our levees if there is a 
threat to human life. We can repair if there is a threat to human life 
and a substantial risk of the loss of private property. That is what we 
are asking for.
  All of this stuff about gutting the act and everything else is just 
talk. We are asking for the chance to maintain our levees. What the 
gentleman is telling us is he is telling us that the airplane crew can 
provide maintenance on that aircraft as soon as it crashes and the 
people are dead, but until that point we are sorry.
  Vote no on the Boehlert amendment and yes on the base bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert 
amendment. We are all aware of the substantial needs of the victims of 
the recent floods and we should do all we can to help them. As 
currently provided in the supplemental emergency bill, all repair of 
flood control projects in federally declared disaster areas are exempt 
from ESA regulations. This language was approved by the Full 
Appropriations Subcommittee. However, since there were concerns over 
the ESA causing a delay in the construction of flood control projects--
although there is no evidence that the ESA is directly accountable to 
this claim--Mr. Boehlert has offered this amendment to be sure that 
repairs to flood control projects will not be delayed anywhere where 
there is an imminent threat to human lives and property. This will help 
current flood victims and dispel any concerns over future maintenance 
and repairs.
  H.R. 478 is not a bill to help flood victims. It is a poor attempt to 
weaken the Endangered Species act under the guise of emergency 
provisions. There are acknowledged problems with the ESA that should be 
addressed in a

[[Page H2313]]

complete reauthorization bill, but these should not be addressed 
piecemeal during times of crisis.
  Support the Boehlert amendment to alleviate immediate problems and 
leave other concerns for complete ESA reauthorization.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
amended, offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 196, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 108]

                               AYES--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--196

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews
     Barton
     Becerra
     Clay
     Delahunt
     Filner
     Foley
     McKinney
     Reyes
     Schiff

                              {time}  1850

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Filner for, with Mr. Foley against.

  Messrs. KLINK, NEUMANN, WELLER, and SMITH of Michigan changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was 
agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall No. 108. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Bonilla] having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 478) 
to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to improve the ability of 
individuals and local, State, and Federal agencies to comply with that 
Act in building, operating, maintaining, or repairing flood control 
projects, facilities, or structures, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________