[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5540-H5564]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SONNY BONO MEMORIAL SALTON SEA RECLAMATION ACT

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

[[Page H5541]]

call up House Resolution 500 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 500

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3267) to direct the 
     Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of 
     Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study and construct a 
     project to reclaim the Salton Sea. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the amendment 
     recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the 
     bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Resources; (2) a further amendment printed in 
     the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, 
     if offered by Representative Miller of California or his 
     designee, which may be considered notwithstanding the 
     adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, shall be 
     considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for one hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Dayton, 
Ohio (Mr. Hall), the distinguished ranking minority member of the very 
prestigious Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

                              {time}  1645

  I will say that all time that I will be yielding will be for debate 
purposes only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, this rule makes in order a bill that will 
bring to fruition the hard work of our late friend and colleague, Sonny 
Bono. Specifically, it makes in order H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono 
Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act, under a modified closed rule.
  The rule does provide for a substitute to be offered by the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller), or his designee. The structured rule is 
necessary, Madam Speaker, to protect a fragile compromise that is 
supported by all of the stakeholders in the restoration of the Salton 
Sea.
  The compromise ensures the expeditious development and congressional 
consideration of a plan to stop the ongoing environmental damage to the 
Salton Sea and to restore its health.
  Because the environmental problems facing the wildlife refuge and 
reservoir are worsening so quickly, it is important that Congress pass 
legislation that allows it to be addressed as quickly as possible. This 
rule, Madam Speaker, also ensures, as I said, that a minority 
alternative will be fully debated.
  I would like to commend the members of the bipartisan Salton Sea Task 
Force. The leaders of that have been our California colleagues, Mrs. 
Bono, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Brown, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Doolittle 
of the Subcommittee on Water and Power. They have done a tremendous 
job, and they have worked long and hard in reaching a consensus that 
will allow this legislation to move forward.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3267 is critical to the health of both the 
environment and the economy in both Imperial and Riverside Counties. 
The Salton Sea is an integral part of the Pacific Flyway, providing 
food and a major rest stop for hundreds of thousands of waterfowl and 
shore birds. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the health of 
the sea is essential to the long-term viability of the migratory bird 
population on the west coast. Five endangered or threatened bird 
species and one endangered fish species depend on the Salton Sea.
  The economic impact of the project is equally significant. A study by 
the University of California Riverside's Economic Data Bank and 
Forecasting Center estimates the economic benefits of restoring the 
Salton Sea of between $3.4 and $5.7 billion. This includes the benefits 
of increased tourism, recreation, farming and other economic activity 
around the restored sea.
  The Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Restoration Act will halt a 
serious and ongoing decline in the local economy and replace it with 
real jobs and good, positive growth for the area.
  Madam Speaker, the deterioration of the Salton Sea is a problem that 
can be solved. While reducing the salinity presents a significant 
challenge, there are feasible plans for addressing the problem, 
including diking off a portion of the sea to serve as a final sink for 
collecting salt. The bill that the House will consider today allows 
this and other policy responses to be thoroughly researched so Congress 
can later consider the most cost-effective approach.
  Given the importance of the Salton Sea to the local economy and as a 
habitat for wildlife, it makes sense for the Federal Government to work 
in partnership with State and local governments to try to develop a 
plan for fixing the problem. This is particularly true given that H.R. 
3267 only commits the Federal Government to considering a cleanup plan, 
not to helping fund the cleanup.
  This is a fitting tribute to a man who cared deeply about restoring 
the Salton Sea and for whom H.R. 3267 is named. For these reasons, 
Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from California 
(Mr. Dreier) for yielding me this time.
  This resolution puts forth a modified, closed rule. It provides for 
consideration of H.R. 3267, which is the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea 
Reclamation Act.
  This is a bill to reduce and stabilize the salt content of the Salton 
Sea near Palm Springs, California. As my colleague from California has 
described, this rule provides for 1 hour of debate to be equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Resources. Only one amendment may be offered.
  Madam Speaker, there is agreement on both sides of the aisle that 
Congress needs to protect the worsening environmental conditions at 
Salton Sea, and there is a consensus that our late colleague, Sonny 
Bono, is deserving of a fitting tribute. Unfortunately, this bill will 
probably do neither.
  There are numerous provisions in the bill which will raise 
objections. For example, the bill makes funds available from the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, which was established to preserve park 
land and open spaces, not for water projects. Also, it authorizes 
construction of a $350 million project before enough study has been 
done. These and other provisions will probably hold up the bill in the 
Senate and result in a Presidential veto.
  The bill should have an open rule so that all House Members will have 
the opportunity to make improvements through the amending process on 
the House floor. The rule also waives the 3-day layover requirement for 
the committee report, which was filed only yesterday, and this makes it 
even more difficult for the House to work its will.
  I have no further comments to make at this particular time, Madam 
Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my 
very distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Palm Springs, 
California (Mrs. Bono).
  Mrs. BONO. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule 
governing H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono Salton Sea Memorial Reclamation 
Act.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), as well as the rest of the 
Committee on Rules members, for crafting a rule that is both fair and 
reasonable.
  The bill that we will be debating today is a good environmental bill. 
It sets out a sound process for both study and action to save the 
Salton Sea. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) knows all too 
well the problems facing the Salton Sea. When

[[Page H5542]]

Sonny passed, and the Speaker spoke of the need to save this national 
treasure, the gentleman was right there all the way. I believe that 
when he sat down to craft this rule, he had in mind the need to save 
the Salton Sea and the urgency of which it needs to be saved. Unlike 
the opponents of this bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
and the rest of the Committee on Rules want to save the Salton Sea.
  For those who do not find this rule fair, I say, what was so fair 
about allowing the sea to get worse over the last 25 years when this 
very body had an opportunity to take measures to save it then? What is 
so fair about environmental groups who finally stand up and take notice 
of the sea when they have rarely been there in the past? It is real 
simple. One is either for the sea and the environment and vote ``yes'' 
on the rule, or one is for the demise of the Salton Sea, against 
Sonny's dream, and for the opposition of this rule. Vote ``yes'' on the 
rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  The issue here today is not whether or not we are going to be 
honoring our former colleague, Congressman Bono. I think all of us who 
had an opportunity to serve with him are committed to having an 
appropriate memorial of that nature. Nor is there a lack of interest on 
the part of Members of this Congress dealing with the environmental 
problems associated with the Salton Sea.
  The issue that I am concerned about, and I hope the House will take a 
step back and look very carefully at this, is that we are moving ahead 
with a significant sum of money to try and deal with what in and of 
itself was a failed project in the past. This water resources project 
years ago was well-intended, but has moved in the wrong direction.
  It is an issue that I am personally concerned with. As we speak 
today, this Congress has not exercised appropriate oversight for other 
water resources projects where we have not laid an appropriate 
foundation environmentally in engineering terms to make sure that we 
are not spending good money after bad.
  My colleagues will hear in the course of the debate, both on the rule 
and on the measure itself, that there is not at this point a clear 
understanding of the exact nature of the problem, and despite years of 
study and engineering research, there is not a good plan in hand right 
now.
  To go ahead with a preauthorization of a third of a billion dollars 
for something that this House does not really understand fully and will 
not have control over is a step clearly in the wrong direction. Not 
only would we be wasting it, there is a probability that it could even 
be made worse.
  I am pleased that our friends on the Republican majority have 
rediscovered the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Annually only about 
$260 million of this fund is spent on this purpose intended for the 
purchasing of conservation funds. It is a dramatic stretch, I think, 
for this House to dedicate resources of this order of magnitude in one 
little portion of the United States when we have hundreds of projects 
that go begging around the country. I hope that we will have a more 
thoughtful discussion about the utilization of this resource.
  I really do hope that we will approve the Miller amendment, have an 
opportunity to look at this in a more thoughtful fashion, and provide 
really a truly appropriate memorial in the long run.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter), our colleague who shares 
representation of Imperial County with the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Bono); the man who gave his most sterling speech this morning 
before the Republican Conference.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I will try to be almost as brief as I was 
this morning.
  My colleagues, we have a real opportunity here to do three things 
that are very important. One is we have an opportunity to right what is 
perhaps the worst environmental disaster in our Nation, and that is the 
continuing pollution and continuing salinization of this huge 360-
square-mile body of water next to the Mexican border in southern 
California. It is fed by the New River and the Alamo River, and the New 
River is considered to be the most polluted river in North America 
coming north from Mexicali, traveling 50 miles through the California 
desert, and emptying into the Salton Sea. In going through Mexicali, it 
goes through the industrial area of Mexicali, takes a lot of waste. If 
one goes down there, it is somewhat like America was in parts of this 
country in the 1930s, literally with yellow toxins spewing out of pipes 
directly into the river; also, with the sewage system in Mexicali that 
is attached to that river.
  So we have an opportunity to right what is right now one of the most 
difficult environmental disasters we have ever had in this country.
  Secondly, in cleaning up the sea, which we are going to do with this 
bill, we have the opportunity to expand one of the greatest natural 
resources and recreational resources in this country.
  One of the great things about the sea that the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono) loves so well and Sonny loved so well is the 
fact that it is so close to a lot of working Americans. It is within 
driving distance of about 8 percent of America's population. That means 
that the average guy and his wife and his kids on the average weekend 
can get in their camper in Covina or Los Angeles or the Inland Empire 
or San Diego or Orange County and drive to the Salton Sea.

                              {time}  1700

  He can enjoy what up until a couple of years ago was the most 
productive fishery in the United States. He can enjoy, or could, up 
until a couple of years ago, great waterskiing. That family could enjoy 
great camping opportunities, and they could do that without having to 
have the financial resources to jet off to New Zealand, to go fly 
fishing, to do other things that some people can do but others cannot 
do. The Salton Sea is a great opportunity for working America to have a 
wonderful recreational site.
  Thirdly, we have the opportunity to do something that I think Sonny 
Bono taught us so well, and that is what the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono) is continuing to teach us, and that is to use 
common sense. We are using common sense in this bill.
  We changed judicial review at the request of a number of the 
environmental folks to an expedited judicial review, nonetheless, not 
cutting it off completely. But as the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Mary Bono) said, the sea is on a death watch. It is going to die in 10 
years or so when it gets up to 60 parts per million of salinization. We 
cannot let lawsuit after lawsuit tie up the project until the sea is 
dead.
  We are undertaking the project in Mexicali to wean the Mexicali 
industrial waste and their industrial waste from the New River. That 
project is going to break ground here in the next couple of months, so 
it is important and it is necessary and it is appropriate that we get 
to going on the sea and we start the project.
  As one North Salton Sea resident said in one of the articles, he said 
that this Congress studies the sea and then they disappear, and come 
back a couple of years later and study it again. We are committing, 
with this bill, with this authorization, to fix the Salton Sea; that 
is, to take care of the salinization problem.
  We have literally volumes of studies that have been done that have 
narrowed down the options to basically two options, and that is diking, 
or else having an infall or outfall; that is, exporting saline water or 
importing nonsaline water. We have those two options. Secretary Babbitt 
is going to decide which one works best. He is going to come back and 
tell the Congress which is best. Then we will act. He said he could do 
it in 18 months.
  The only exception, you have 18 miles of river feeding the Salton 
Sea, and we have come up with an environmentally friendly way of 
cleansing that river. We are going to have 50 miles of marshes, and we 
are going to filter the New River through those 50 miles of marshes, 
but we cannot do it, some lawyers tell us, under the Clean Water Act 
because the Clean Water Act says if you take a glass of water out of 
the New River, you have to pour it

[[Page H5543]]

back in in drinking water quality. You cannot incrementally clean up a 
river under that law. You cannot filter part of it in the first mile 
and part in the second mile and part of it in the third mile. You are 
totally stopped, so you do not do anything. The sea continues to get 
polluted.
  This is a great bill. I thank the Committee on Rules for bringing it 
up. Let us have an overwhelming vote in favor of the rule and the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ken Calvert), another Member who has 
worked on the task force.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, my 
good friend from Covina, for not only putting together a good rule but 
for his support for saving the Salton Sea.
  Here we go again. We have been studying the Salton Sea now for well 
over 30 years. There have been many reports, many studies, many 
millions of dollars on how to save the Salton Sea. Today finally we are 
going to establish the groundwork to do exactly that; that is, to save 
the sea, the birds, the fish, and most importantly, we are going to 
save an opportunity for people to visit the Salton Sea. Not too many 
years ago more people visited the Salton Sea than they did Yosemite, on 
an annual basis, it is so close to so many millions of Americans in the 
southwest United States.
  I as a young man, boy, would go waterskiing at the Salton Sea. It was 
probably the best waterskiing in all of California, and certainly, I 
think, throughout the southwestern United States. It is unfortunate 
that people do not have that same opportunity anymore, or at least not 
with the quality of water as it exists today.
  The other gentleman from California, our esteemed friend from 
Imperial County, mentioned the New River and how polluted it is, and 
what is going on there. It is certainly horrible. We have a chance 
today. We have this rule. Sonny Bono certainly dreamed of this day. I 
think he is looking down on us right now wondering what we are going to 
do finally.
  Sonny, we are going to pass this rule. Furthermore, we are going to 
pass this bill, and we are going to vote against the Miller-Brown 
substitute and move ahead.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this 
rule, because the rule does a very important thing. It allows for an 
alternative.
  I think that in approaching this, that everyone in this room is in 
agreement that we need to solve the Salton Sea issue, and that we ought 
to do that under the name of our former colleague, Mr. Bono. But I do 
not think we all agree on how to get there. What we need before we get 
there is a road map. That road map is very important, because it is not 
being provided in this legislation, but it is being provided in the 
rule in the substitute. I rise in support of the rule because of the 
substitute.
  I am concerned that in the bill, the main bill, there is an 
appropriation in there, there is an authorization for an appropriation 
of $350 million that can be taken from the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. That is the entire 2 years of appropriations for this House for 
all of the projects in the United States. So every Member who is voting 
for this bill ought to be concerned that those projects that are going 
to restore lands with authorized use from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, those projects may be put in jeopardy as this 
project takes priority to all of that.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to look at the substitute, the 
Miller-Brown substitute. I think it provides a much better solution. It 
is a complicated issue. This is essentially a sea or a lake that is 
taking the drainage.
  Water in Southern California is getting scarcer and scarcer and more 
valuable as we use reclamation, cleaning up dirty water and using it 
for agriculture, which will be in demand. The cost and uses of water 
that would go to the lake to sustain it are going to be in great 
demand. I do not think we can solve the problem by jamming it through 
with this solution. We need the substitute.
  The rule is a good rule because it provides that substitute. When we 
get to that, I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mount Holly, New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the very 
distinguished chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.
  Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, let me just begin by saying that I rise in support of 
this rule and of the underlying bill, H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono 
Memorial Salton Sea Act.
  Let me just say, or let me just express my admiration for the great 
job that the gentlemen from California, Mr. Duncan Hunter, Mr. Kenny 
Calvert, Mr. David Dreier, my friend here, Mr. Duke Cunningham, have 
done, and let me say just especially to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Mary Bono) how pleased I am to be here today to support this 
major effort she picked up on just several months ago, and has really 
led the way in this effort. I have not seen this many Californians 
agree on an issue in the 14 years that I have been here, and I say to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), it took her to bring them 
all together.
  As an Easterner and as chairman of the Fisheries Conservation, 
Wildlife and Oceans subcommittee. Let me just stress how important I 
think this bill is. It represents a major stride towards improving the 
water quality of the Salton Sea by reducing the salinity and 
stabilizing the elevation along the shoreline.
  The Salton Sea is certainly of extreme importance as a major stopover 
for avian species along the Pacific flyway. As chairman of the 
subcommittee, I must stress the importance of saving habitat for 
migrating birds. Already many of the traditional nesting and feeding 
areas have been destroyed, and if the degradation of the Salton Sea 
continues unabated, this important habitat will surely be lost.
  Let me just say also that I have received a number of communications 
from ornithological council members, which include the eight major 
scientific societies of ornithologists in North America. Collectively, 
these professional organizations include over 6,000 scientists and 
students of bird life.
  The letter of the council states that ``The Salton Sea ecosystem has 
long been recognized as providing significant wetland habitat for 
immense numbers of migrating birds.''
  Let me just say, in conclusion, to my friends from the other side of 
the aisle, with whom I oftentimes, in fact most often, agree, I think 
we all want to get to the same place. I will be supporting the 
underlying bill. Others here will obviously support the substitute. I 
am hopeful that the underlying bill will prevail and that we will be 
able, therefore, to proceed to come to a conclusion that is beneficial 
to all concerned.
  Let me once again congratulate the members of the California 
delegation, and particularly the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mary 
Bono), for their great leadership in bringing this bill to the floor 
today.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good 
friend, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, my daughters, April and Carrie, got 
the first duck mud between their toes in a goose blind over in the 
Salton Sea with their Grandpa Jones. He also taught them how to blow a 
duck call in that same place.
  Why is it important? It is a major flyway from Connecticut to 
Sacramento to the Salton Sea and then down to Mexico for the winter 
feeding grounds. There are also many of the endangered species and also 
porvina, which is a fish that lives there, which is dying in very fast 
order.
  I do not believe we are trying to get there in the same place, 
because if Members want to delay a bill in this body, if they want to 
kill a bill, just have a study with no commitment, with no commitment 
to carry it through. That is exactly what the Miller substitute does, 
study, study, study, knowing good and well that we will come back and 
not be able, when the funds are low, to fund it.

[[Page H5544]]

  Support the Bono amendment and let us pass this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very 
good friend, the gentleman from Monticello, Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who 
was a very, very close friend of the late Sonny Bono.
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton 
Sea Reclamation Act. The Salton Sea has only 12 years of life left 
until it will cease providing a haven for over 375 species of birds and 
fish, including numerous endangered and threatened species. The 30,000 
acre lake salt level continues to rise to levels which are already 
causing great amounts of disease in the species which rely upon the 
sea's resources. In just a short period of time the species will no 
longer be able to survive.
  To remedy the situation this bill provides for five things: reducing 
and stabilizing the salinity level, stabilizing the sea's surface 
elevation, restoring fish and wildlife resources, enhancing 
recreational use and environmental development, and ensuring the 
continued use of the sea as a reservoir for irrigation and drainage. 
The policy is to manage all the resources in order to balance the needs 
of wildlife, natural resources, and humans. They are all intertwined 
and all part of the same equation.
  Those who oppose this commonsense measure instead advocate a slower 
and more cautious approach. I have listened to some of the words. They 
say, let us be more thoughtful, or let us have a better road map. What 
this really means they are choosing the course that will eventually 
cause the demise of this valuable natural resource.
  It is indeed necessary for Congress to be responsible for the funds 
that it authorizes and appropriates. However, it is necessary for 
Congress to act responsibly in a timely manner in order to avoid a 
disaster. Losing the Salton Sea would be a disaster for all the species 
which utilize the area, the local economies of the communities near the 
sea, and anyone who is concerned about our Nation's resources.
  Those in opposition to this bill complain that the measure authorizes 
both a feasibility study and construction. In fact, this bill requires 
the Secretary of the Interior to report back to the authorizing 
committees after the feasibility study in order to approve the 
construction plans.
  In basic point, what we have here is a conflict. Radical 
environmentalists, who are also preservationists, find themselves in 
conflict with also their advocacy of protection of the endangered 
species. So what they really have here is they are endorsing the 
radical preservationists' view on the environment, and they want the 
Salton Sea to die, just let it go, let it go, let it go.
  We say no to that position. In memory of Sonny Bono, we will step 
forward and manage our Nation's resources, protect the environment, 
ensure that the species on the endangered species list are protected. 
It is management of our natural resources, which this bill is about. I 
ask for the passage of the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Brian Bilbray), another great San Diegan, a great 
friend, and hard-working two-termer.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Those of 
us who live along the southwestern border have grown tired of the 
Federal Government constantly finding excuses not to address the issues 
that only the Federal Government can address. We are talking about a 
crisis here that has been created by the lack of Federal action in the 
last 30 years. Pollution coming across the border, the lack of 
cooperation between Mexico and the United States, this is a Federal 
responsibility and a Federal obligation and a Federal preserve.
  They can talk about, let us spend more money having more sanctuaries, 
more preserves, but if the Federal government, those of us in Congress 
are not willing to move forward and take action, not talking about 
protecting the environment but actually doing something to protect the 
environment, if we will not do it where the Federal Government is the 
only agency that can execute it, the only agency that has the 
jurisdiction to execute many of these types of strategies, then let us 
not keep talking about that we care about the environment.
  If we do not move forward with this proposal at this time, then let 
us stop talking about how much we care about the environment. Now is 
the time to prove who really supports the environment.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Miller), ranking member of the committee.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, the troubles of the Salton 
Sea are not new to any of us in California. In fact, the Salton Sea has 
had serious biological problems for many years. They have been well 
publicized fish kills and die-offs of migratory waterfowl that raise 
both environmental concerns and issues involving international treaty 
obligations. Various scientific studies have attempted to pinpoint the 
biological cause of the enormous fish kills and the bird die-offs that 
afflict this body of water.
  In 1992, the Congress passed legislation that I wrote expanding these 
studies and the Department of Interior is engaged in that additional 
research, although there have not been the appropriations in the last 
couple of years to finish that research or to move it very far down the 
line.
  There really is no mystery about some of the aspects of the problems 
of the Salton Sea. It is an artificially created body of water formed 
through an engineering catastrophe earlier in this century. It is 
growing increasingly salty and contaminated because most of its inflows 
come from agricultural wastewater and municipal wastewater, loaded 
salts and heavy metals and pesticides and contaminants.
  The fact of the matter is the only real source of any water of any 
volume for the Salton Sea is contaminated, polluted wastewater. That is 
some of the best water that is in this sea at the current time. Yet the 
inflows of the better quality of water in the sea itself, these waters 
are questionable over the next few years, and we continue the problem 
of the increased salinization of this area.
  The question really is, what do we do about the Salton Sea? How do we 
arrive at a program that will work? The suggestion that we have made 
tracks much of what is in this legislation, and that is that we go out, 
the minority has decided that we would spend a million dollars a month 
or more than a million dollars a month over the next 18 months and 
direct the Secretary to conduct these studies and come back and tell us 
what will work or what will not work. And then at that time, based upon 
those alternatives, authorize this project or not authorize this 
project based upon what the Congress deems to be feasible or not 
feasible.
  The point is this, with the passage of this legislation, the Salton 
Sea will immediately become the second largest construction program 
within the Bureau of Reclamation. Only the Central Arizona Project will 
be larger, if one works it out over a 10-year period of time which is, 
of course, the time line that has been set by the concerns of the 
supporters of this legislation.
  I think before we commit the Congress of the United States and the 
taxpayers of the United States to a $300 million decision, we ought to 
know what those facts are. We ought to make those determinations, but, 
as somebody said, if we do the studies first and then we come back to 
the Congress, the Congress will not give us the money. So what they 
want to do is, they want to take the money up front today, before the 
studies come back and tell us what it is, and the project will be 
authorized without regard to those studies. The authorization will be 
squirreled away.
  The point is this, this is a very complex problem. It is not just the 
issue of salinity. It is the issue of nutrient loading. Many of the 
scientists say we can deal with some of the salinity problems with the 
diking program and others, but the problem is that we still have not 
dealt with what may be killing many of the birds and the wildlife in 
this area.

[[Page H5545]]

  So the point is that I think that we have an obligation to treat this 
project as we treat all other projects: That is, we authorize studies 
to come up with the feasibility to determine what is feasible, to 
determine what the costs are going to be, and then we come back and we 
authorize that project for the purposes of appropriation, if those 
studies work out. That is how everyone else in this Congress gets their 
projects authorized.
  The fact of the matter is, in some cases after we do the studies, we 
make determinations that that is really not worth the expenditure of 
the public's money or a project has to be redesigned or we scale a 
project down. Those are all determinations that are made within the 
process of these projects.
  I also want to point out that this legislation has a number of 
problems on it that have been raised, concerns, by statement of 
administration policy from the Clinton administration. They have 
problems with letter funding mechanisms of this legislation, the fact 
that the bill currently takes the funding from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. This is a trust fund that is to be used for the 
purchase of public lands and the maintenance of our parks and 
wilderness areas on the public lands. And this would invade that to the 
extent of over two times of what we authorize in a single year would be 
taken out for this single project.
  The cost sharing would exempt irrigators from the cost-sharing 
responsibility for project implementation. So we are putting that load 
on the taxpayers. The limitations on liabilities, we find what we are 
doing is we are taking the liability for anything that goes wrong in 
this project, we are taking that off of the back of everybody else that 
is around the Salton Sea and saying we are going to load that 
liability, if things go wrong, on the back of the Federal taxpayer.
  Clean water exemptions have already been addressed. The 
administration has problems with those. And the congressional review, 
the Department of Justice has advised that the provisions granting 
congressional committee authority to approve or disapprove executive 
actions without the enactment of legislation would be unconstitutional.
  So this is a piece of legislation that may very well pass this House, 
but it certainly is not going to get consideration in the Senate. 
Senator Chafee has already indicated that their committee would not 
have time to take this legislation up in this condition. They would 
hope that we would send them a clean bill so they could pass the 
legislation, and we can get on with the studies that are necessary to 
be done. There is nothing in the substitute that delays those studies. 
There is nothing in the substitute which does not require the Secretary 
then to report back the results of those studies. But I think it is a 
way to get this bill enacted so that we can get on with those studies.
  We can cut down the time frame in which to deal with the problems of 
the Salton Sea and make some determinations. As Members know, the 
majority leader of the Senate said if it takes more than an hour, it is 
not coming up in the Senate between now and adjournment.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  It is an irony that we have really what I consider would be a very 
popular and a very positive initiative in terms of trying to clean up 
and try to address the problems of the Salton Sea. I do not know if it 
is possible to really clean it up in terms of both the nutrients and 
the salt, because of the nature of the delta that it rests on, this 
ancient seabed. But in any case, it is ironic that we get wrapped 
around the axle here today on the basis of an unknown type of action 
and project.
  Everybody apparently agrees there has to be study because the measure 
before us and the substitute that my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller) is going to present, which I support, says that 
we have to do a study. You have to do more study in terms of putting in 
place the nature of the type of project. There has been a great deal of 
research work that has been done on this, but unfortunately it is not 
in specifics yet.
  I think that the opposition to this is not one in terms of delaying 
it, because clearly it is going to take the 18 months, which the 
sponsors and advocates for this are proposing to be in place. If you 
really want to push this program up, what you really ought to do is 
appropriate the money right now for the project. That is, in essence, 
what is being done in terms of authorization. We would not see the 
appropriators standing up in the House doing that without any specific 
project. The authorizers themselves on our Resources Committees should 
not be proposing without some definitive policy path, especially 
considering what the elements are. I mean, the limits on judicial 
review, the limits on the Clean Water Act, the limits on liability, the 
limits on who is going to be paying in terms of who is responsible for 
some of the damage in the future, the limits on not using the Colorado 
water, this is the delta of the Colorado River, yet you cannot use 
water from the Colorado River for this particular purpose.
  So these are just some of the obvious shortcomings that exist with 
regard to this measure. We will have a chance to discuss them further, 
but this rule is a closed rule and one that I cannot support. I think 
the process is one that I do not think is sound in terms of dealing 
with and developing a good policy path on an issue that there would be 
and could be consensus upon but for the getting the cart before the 
horse on this measure.
  This authorization of over $350 million deserves a deliberate process 
and the use of a full open authorization appropriation actions.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and thank him for his 
statement.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Redlands, California (Mr. Lewis).
  Californians could not ask for a more able dean of our delegation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I express my appreciation to 
my colleague from the Committee on Rules not only for his work today 
but the hard work he has put into shaping this rule and being of such 
assistance to those of us on the task force who are involved in 
attempting to save the Salton Sea.
  I listened to the discussion of my colleague from California from the 
committee as he was discussing the rule and could not help but be 
reminded of the fact that, as he reminded us, that the Salton Sea has 
been under consideration for a considerable length of time.
  The problem is that the Salton Sea and the economic, the 
environmental challenge it provides for us has been around for a long, 
long time. It is to the point of being the most significant 
environmental crisis in the west at this moment. If indeed our 
committees had chosen to go forward with serious action regarding this 
problem years and years ago, the problem would have already been 
solved. It would have cost considerably less money.
  I must say that this very important environmental project has not 
received that kind of priority in the past, and I am very disconcerted 
about that, especially when Members suggest that we are moving forward 
much too rapidly now in terms of consideration when the challenge has 
been there for several decades.
  I must say that I could not be more pleased, however, with the fact 
that this act will be entitled the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea 
Reclamation Act, for it was not until Sonny Bono really grabbed this 
problem by the horns and drug a lot of us along with him to make sure 
that the Congress focused upon this crisis, made sure we had a pathway 
to action regarding finding a solution, he was responsible for leading 
the Salton Sea task force, which involves my colleagues, the gentlemen 
from California (Mr. Brown), who is in the adjacent district of mine in 
Southern California, (Mr. Hunter), (Mr. Calvert) along with myself. And 
in recent months we have had the able leadership of the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Bono), our colleague who represents much of the 
sea.
  I must say it has been her dynamic expression of concern that we 
follow through on this priority of Sonny's that has added the sort of 
momentum

[[Page H5546]]

that we need to see this legislation through to success.
  There is little doubt that the challenge is very real, but also the 
problem is a solvable problem if we will but move forward. This 
legislation lays the foundation for reviewing a whole series of studies 
that have gone on for years and years and years, selecting the 
alternative approach to solution, and at the same time lays the 
foundation for the kind of authorization we need to actually decide on 
which avenue is the best one to follow.
  We have begun the appropriations process by the way. There is funding 
in a number of appropriations subcommittee bills now to move forward 
with the studies that we are talking about. In turn, we want to make 
sure as quickly as possible to move forward with authorization of 
construction for there is not time to fool around with this any longer. 
The committees have ignored it in the past for far too long. It is my 
judgment the sooner we have a broadly based authorization, the sooner 
we can get appropriations in line that will actually lead to 
construction and begin to save this fabulous environmental opportunity 
that we have in the southland that provides huge recreational 
opportunities, economic opportunities, changing an entire region in 
terms of that which will be available to a sizable portion of the 
population in Southern California and regions that surround.

                              {time}  1730

  So I want to express my deep appreciation first to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Mary Bono) for her leadership, but beyond that to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. David Dreier) and the Committee on 
Rules for helping us with this rule today, and we urge support for the 
rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to simply say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), I believe, speak for many 
of us over here relative to their concerns and what they want this 
legislation to do. And if this rule passes, I would hope that we would 
go with the Miller amendment. That seems to be the best way to go.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Obviously, with the remarks that we have heard from Members, not only 
from California but from other parts of the country, this is a very 
important environmental issue for us and it is a very important tribute 
not only to the late Sonny Bono but to his successor, the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Mary Bono), who has done a very, very important 
job here for the entire Nation, and I urge support of the rule.
  Mrs. BONO. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of the rule 
governing H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono Salton Sea Memorial Reclamation 
Act.
  I would like to thank Chairman Solomon and Congressman Drier, as well 
as the rest to the Rules Committee members for crafting a rule that is 
both fair and reasonable.
  The bill that we will be debating today is a good environmental bill. 
It sets our a sound process for both study and action to save the 
Salton Sea.
  Congressman Drier knows all too well the problems facing the Salton 
Sea. When Sonny passed, and the Speaker spoke of the need to save this 
national treasure, Mr. Drier was right there all the way.
  I believe that when he sat down to craft this rule, he had in mind 
the need to save the Salton Sea, and the urgency of which it needs to 
be saved.
  Unlike the opponents of this bill, Mr. Drier and the rest of the 
Rules Committee want to save the Salton Sea.
  For those who do not find this Rule fair, I say: what was so fair by 
allowing the Sea to get worse over the last 25 years, when this very 
body had an opportunity to take measures to save it then?
  What is so fair about environmental groups who finally stand up and 
take notice of the Sea, when they have rarely been there in the past?
  It's real simple: You're either of the Sea and the environment, and 
vote Yes on the Rule.
  Or you are for the demise of the Salton Sea, against Sonny's dream 
and for the opposition of this Rule.
  Vote Yes on the Rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam 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 (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 500, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 3267) to direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study and 
construct a project to reclaim the Salton Sea, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The bill is considered as having 
been read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 3267 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3267

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Sonny Bono 
     Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

                TITLE I--SALTON SEA RECLAMATION PROJECT

Sec. 101. Salton Sea reclamation project authorization.
Sec. 102. Concurrent wildlife resources studies.
Sec. 103. Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge renamed as Sonny Bono 
              Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge.
Sec. 104. Alamo River and New River irrigation drain water.

      TITLE II--EMERGENCY ACTION TO STABILIZE SALTON SEA SALINITY

Sec. 201. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 202. Emergency action required.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Salton Sea, located in Imperial and Riverside 
     Counties, California, is an economic and environmental 
     resource of national importance.
       (2) The Salton Sea is critical as--
       (A) a reservoir for irrigation, municipal, and stormwater 
     drainage; and
       (B) a component of the Pacific flyway.
       (3) Reclaiming the Salton Sea will provide national and 
     international benefits.
       (4) The Federal, State, and local governments have a shared 
     responsibility to assist in the reclamation of the Salton 
     Sea.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) The term ``Project'' means the Salton Sea reclamation 
     project authorized by section 101.
       (2) The term ``Salton Sea Authority'' means the Joint 
     Powers Authority by that name established under the laws of 
     the State of California by a Joint Power Agreement signed on 
     June 2, 1993.
       (3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation.
                TITLE I--SALTON SEA RECLAMATION PROJECT

     SEC. 101. SALTON SEA RECLAMATION PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in accordance with this 
     section, shall undertake a project to reclaim the Salton Sea, 
     California.
       (b) Project Requirements.--The Project shall--
       (1) reduce and stabilize the overall salinity of the Salton 
     Sea to a level between 35 and 40 parts per thousand;
       (2) stabilize the surface elevation of the Salton Sea to a 
     level between 240 feet below sea level and 230 feet below sea 
     level;
       (3) reclaim, in the long term, healthy fish and wildlife 
     resources and their habitats;
       (4) enhance the potential for recreational uses and 
     economic development of the Salton Sea; and
       (5) ensure the continued use of the Salton Sea as a 
     reservoir for irrigation drainage.
       (c) Feasibility Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall promptly initiate a 
     study of the feasibility of various options for meeting the 
     requirements set forth in subsection (b). The purpose of the 
     study shall be to select 1 or more practicable and cost-
     effective options and to develop a reclamation plan for the 
     Salton Sea that implements the selected options. The study 
     shall be conducted in accordance with the memorandum of 
     understanding under paragraph (5).
       (2) Options to be considered.--Options considered in the 
     feasibility study--
       (A) shall consist of--
       (i) use of impoundments to segregate a portion of the 
     waters of the Salton Sea in 1 or more evaporation ponds 
     located in the Salton Sea basin;
       (ii) pumping water out of the Salton Sea;
       (iii) augmented flows of water into the Salton Sea; and
       (iv) a combination of the options referred to in clauses 
     (i), (ii), and (iii); and
       (B) shall be limited to proven technologies.

[[Page H5547]]

       (3) Consideration of costs.--In evaluating the feasibility 
     of options, the Secretary shall consider the ability of 
     Federal, tribal, State and local government sources and 
     private sources to fund capital construction costs and annual 
     operation, maintenance, energy, and replacement costs. In 
     that consideration, the Secretary may apply a different cost-
     sharing formula to capital construction costs than is applied 
     to annual operation, maintenance, energy, and replacement 
     costs.
       (4) Selection of options and report.--Not later than 12 
     months after commencement of the feasibility study under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall--
       (A) submit to the Congress a report on the findings and 
     recommendations of the feasibility study, including--
       (i) a reclamation plan for the Salton Sea that implements 
     the option or options selected under paragraph (1); and
       (ii) specification of the construction activities to be 
     carried out under subsection (d); and
       (B) complete all environmental compliance and permitting 
     activities required for those construction activities.
       (5) Memorandum of understanding.--(A) The Secretary shall 
     carry out the feasibility study in accordance with a 
     memorandum of understanding entered into by the Secretary, 
     the Salton Sea Authority, and the Governor of California.
       (B) The memorandum of understanding shall, at a minimum, 
     establish criteria for evaluation and selection of options 
     under paragraph (1), including criteria for determining the 
     magnitude and practicability of costs of construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of each option evaluated.
       (d) Construction.--
       (1) Initiation.--Upon expiration of the 60-day period 
     beginning on the date of submission of the feasibility study 
     report under subsection (c)(4), and subject to paragraph (2) 
     of this subsection, the Secretary shall initiate construction 
     of the Project.
       (2) Cost-sharing agreement.--The Secretary may not initiate 
     construction of the Project unless, within the 60-day period 
     referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary, the Governor of 
     California, and the Salton Sea Authority enter into an 
     agreement establishing a cost-sharing formula that applies to 
     that construction.
       (e) Determination of Method for Disposing of Pumped-Out 
     Water.--The Secretary shall, concurrently with conducting the 
     feasibility study under subsection (c), initiate a process to 
     determine how and where to dispose permanently of water 
     pumped out of the Salton Sea in the course of the Project.
       (f) Relationship to Other Law.--
       (1) Reclamation laws.--Activities authorized by this 
     section or any other law to implement the Project shall not 
     be subject to the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388; 43 
     U.S.C. 391 et seq.), and Acts amendatory thereof and 
     supplemental thereto. Amounts expended for those activities 
     shall be considered nonreimbursable and nonreturnable for 
     purposes of those laws. Activities carried out to implement 
     the Project and the results of those activities shall not be 
     considered to be a supplemental or additional benefit for 
     purposes of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 
     1263; 43 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.).
       (2) Preservation of rights and obligations with respect to 
     the colorado river.--This section shall not be considered to 
     supersede or otherwise affect any treaty, law, or agreement 
     governing use of water from the Colorado River. All 
     activities to implement the Project under this section must 
     be carried out in a manner consistent with rights and 
     obligations of persons under those treaties, laws, and 
     agreements.
       (3) Limitation on administrative and judicial review.--(A) 
     The actions taken pursuant to this title which relate to the 
     construction and completion of the Project, and that are 
     covered by the final environmental impact statement for the 
     Project issued under subsection (c)(4)(B), shall be taken 
     without further action under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (B) Subject to paragraph (2), actions of Federal agencies 
     concerning the issuance of necessary rights-of-way, permits, 
     leases, and other authorizations for construction and initial 
     operation of the Project shall not be subject to judicial 
     review under any law, except in a manner and to an extent 
     substantially similar to the manner and extent to which 
     actions taken pursuant to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
     Authorization Act are subject to review under section 203(d) 
     of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1651(d)).
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the Project 
     the following:
       (1) For the feasibility study under subsection (c) and 
     completion of environmental compliance and permitting 
     required for construction of the Project, $22,500,000.
       (2) For construction of the Project, $300,000,000.

     SEC. 102. CONCURRENT WILDLIFE RESOURCES STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide for the 
     conduct, concurrently with the feasibility study under 
     section 101(c), of studies of hydrology, wildlife pathology, 
     and toxicology relating to wildlife resources of the Salton 
     Sea by Federal and non-Federal entities.
       (b) Selection of Topics and Management of Studies.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a committee 
     to be known as the ``Salton Sea Research Management 
     Committee''. The Committee shall select the topics of studies 
     under this section and manage those studies.
       (2) Membership.--The committee shall consist of 5 members 
     appointed as follows:
       (A) 1 by the Secretary.
       (B) 1 by the Governor of California.
       (C) 1 by the Salton Sea Authority.
       (D) 1 by the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Tribal 
     Government.
       (E) 1 appointed jointly by the California Water Resources 
     Center, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Salton 
     Sea University Research Consortium.
       (c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall require that studies 
     under this section are conducted in coordination with 
     appropriate Federal agencies and California State agencies, 
     including the California Department of Water Resources, 
     California Department of Fish and Game, California Resources 
     Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency, 
     California Regional Water Quality Board, and California State 
     Parks.
       (d) Peer Review.--The Secretary shall require that studies 
     under this section are subjected to peer review.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For wildlife 
     resources studies under this section there are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary $5,000,000.

     SEC. 103. SALTON SEA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE RENAMED AS 
                   SONNY BONO SALTON SEA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

       (a) Refuge Renamed.--The Salton Sea National Wildlife 
     Refuge, located in Imperial County, California, is hereby 
     renamed and shall be known as the ``Sonny Bono Salton Sea 
     National Wildlife Refuge''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in any statute, rule, 
     regulation, executive order, publication, map, or paper or 
     other document of the United States to the Salton Sea 
     National Wildlife Refuge is deemed to refer to the Sonny Bono 
     Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge.

     SEC. 104. ALAMO RIVER AND NEW RIVER IRRIGATION DRAIN WATER.

       (a) River Enhancement.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     research and implement actions, which may include river 
     reclamation, to treat irrigation drainage water that flows 
     into the Alamo River and New River, Imperial County, 
     California.
       (b) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall implement subsection 
     (a) in cooperation with the Desert Wildlife Unlimited, the 
     Imperial Irrigation District, California, and other 
     interested persons.
       (c) Permit Exemption.--No permit shall be required under 
     section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1342) for actions taken under subsection (a).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For river reclamation 
     and other irrigation drainage water treatment actions under 
     this section, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary $2,000,000.
      TITLE II--EMERGENCY ACTION TO STABILIZE SALTON SEA SALINITY

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) High and increasing salinity levels in Salton Sea are 
     causing a collapse of the Salton Sea ecosystem.
       (2) Ecological disasters have occurred in the Salton Sea in 
     recent years, including the die-off of 150,000 eared grebes 
     and ruddy ducks in 1992, over 20,000 water birds in 1994, 
     14,000 birds in 1996, including more than 1,400 endangered 
     brown pelicans, and other major wildlife die-offs in 1998.
       (b) Purposes.--The purpose of this title is to provide an 
     expedited means by which the Federal Government, in 
     conjunction with State and local governments, will begin 
     arresting the ecological disaster that is overcoming the 
     Salton Sea.

     SEC. 202. EMERGENCY ACTION REQUIRED.

       The Secretary shall promptly initiate actions to reduce the 
     salinity levels of the Salton Sea, including--
       (1) salt expulsion by pumping sufficient water out of the 
     Salton Sea prior to December 1, 1998, to accommodate 
     diversions under paragraph (2); and
       (2) diversion into the Salton Sea of water available as a 
     result of high-flow periods in late 1998 and early 1999.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the 
amendment printed in House Report 105-624 is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3267, as amended, is as follows:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Sonny Bono 
     Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                TITLE I--SALTON SEA RECLAMATION PROJECT

Sec. 101. Salton Sea Reclamation Project authorization.
Sec. 102. Concurrent wildlife resources studies.
Sec. 103. Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge renamed as Sonny Bono 
              Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge.

[[Page H5548]]

Sec. 104. Relationship to other laws and agreements governing the 
              Colorado River.

TITLE II--EMERGENCY ACTION TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY IN THE ALAMO RIVER 
                             AND NEW RIVER

Sec. 201. Alamo River and New River irrigation drainage water.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Salton Sea, located in Imperial and Riverside 
     Counties, California, is an economic and environmental 
     resource of national importance.
       (2) The Salton Sea is critical as--
       (A) a reservoir for irrigation, municipal, and stormwater 
     drainage; and
       (B) a component of the Pacific flyway.
       (3) Reclaiming the Salton Sea will provide national and 
     international benefits.
       (4) The Federal, State, and local governments have a shared 
     responsibility to assist in the reclamation of the Salton 
     Sea.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) The term ``Committees'' means the Committee on 
     Resources and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
       (2) The term ``Project'' means the Salton Sea reclamation 
     project authorized by section 101.
       (3) The term ``Salton Sea Authority'' means the Joint 
     Powers Authority by that name established under the laws of 
     the State of California by a Joint Power Agreement signed on 
     June 2, 1993.
       (4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation.
                TITLE I--SALTON SEA RECLAMATION PROJECT

     SEC. 101. SALTON SEA RECLAMATION PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in accordance with this 
     section, shall undertake a project to reclaim the Salton Sea, 
     California.
       (b) Project Requirements.--The Project shall--
       (1) reduce and stabilize the overall salinity of the Salton 
     Sea;
       (2) stabilize the surface elevation of the Salton Sea;
       (3) reclaim, in the long term, healthy fish and wildlife 
     resources and their habitats;
       (4) enhance the potential for recreational uses and 
     economic development of the Salton Sea; and
       (5) ensure the continued use of the Salton Sea as a 
     reservoir for irrigation drainage.
       (c) Feasibility Study.--
       (1) In general.--(A) The Secretary shall promptly initiate 
     a study of the feasibility of various options for meeting the 
     requirements set forth in subsection (b). The purpose of the 
     study shall be to select 1 or more practicable and cost-
     effective options and to develop a reclamation plan for the 
     Salton Sea that implements the selected options.
       (B)(i) The Secretary shall carry out the feasibility study 
     in accordance with a memorandum of understanding entered into 
     by the Secretary, the Salton Sea Authority, and the Governor 
     of California.
       (ii) The memorandum of understanding shall, at a minimum, 
     establish criteria for evaluation and selection of options 
     under subparagraph (A), including criteria for determining 
     the magnitude and practicability of costs of construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of each option evaluated.
       (2) Options to be considered.--Options considered in the 
     feasibility study--
       (A) shall consist of--
       (i) use of impoundments to segregate a portion of the 
     waters of the Salton Sea in 1 or more evaporation ponds 
     located in the Salton Sea basin;
       (ii) pumping water out of the Salton Sea;
       (iii) augmented flows of water into the Salton Sea;
       (iv) a combination of the options referred to in clauses 
     (i), (ii), and (iii); and
       (v) any other economically feasible remediation option the 
     Secretary considers appropriate;
       (B) shall be limited to proven technologies; and
       (C) shall not include any option that--
       (i) develops or promotes an ongoing reliance on Colorado 
     River water; or
       (ii) is inconsistent with section 104 (b) or (c).
       (3) Project design calculations.--In making Project design 
     calculations, the Secretary shall apply assumptions regarding 
     water inflows into the Salton Sea Basin that--
       (A) encourage water conservation;
       (B) account for transfers of water out of the Salton Sea 
     Basin;
       (C) are based on the maximum likely reduction in inflows 
     into the Salton Sea Basin; and
       (D) include the assumption that inflows into the Salton Sea 
     Basin could be reduced to 800,000 acre-feet or less per year.
       (4) Consideration of costs.--In evaluating the feasibility 
     of options, the Secretary shall consider the ability of 
     Federal, tribal, State and local government sources and 
     private sources to fund capital construction costs and annual 
     operation, maintenance, energy, and replacement costs. In 
     that consideration, the Secretary may apply a cost sharing 
     formula to annual operation, maintenance, energy, and 
     replacement costs that is different than the formula that 
     applies to construction costs under subsection (e).
       (5) Interim report.--Not later than 270 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Congress an interim report on the study. The interim report 
     shall include--
       (A) a summary of the options considered in the study for 
     the reclamation of the Salton Sea; and
       (B) any preliminary findings regarding preferred options 
     for reclamation of the Salton Sea.
       (6) Report and plan.--Not later than 18 months after funds 
     have been made available to carry out the feasibility study 
     under this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       (A) submit to the Committees a report on the findings and 
     recommendations of the feasibility study, including--
       (i) the reclamation plan for the Salton Sea pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), including a cost sharing formula for operation 
     and maintenance; and
       (ii) complete specifications of the construction activities 
     to be carried out under subsection (e), that are sufficient 
     to use for soliciting bids for those activities, including 
     professional engineering and design specifications and 
     drawings and professional engineer cost estimates; and
       (B) complete all environmental compliance and permitting 
     activities required for those construction activities.
       (d) Congressional Review of Report and Reclamation Plan.--
       (1) Review by committees.--After receipt of the report of 
     the Secretary under subsection (c)(6), each of the Committees 
     shall--
       (A) adopt a resolution approving the reclamation plan 
     included in the report; or
       (B) adopt a resolution disapproving the reclamation plan 
     and stating the reasons for that disapproval.
       (2) Reclamation plan deemed approved.--If any of the 
     Committees fails to adopt a resolution under paragraph (1)(A) 
     or (B) within 60 legislative days (excluding days on which 
     Congress is adjourned sine die or either House is not in 
     session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a 
     day certain) after the date of submission of the report by 
     the Secretary under subsection (c)(6), that Committee is 
     deemed to have approved the reclamation plan included in the 
     report.
       (e) Construction.--
       (1) Initiation.--Subject to paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection and the availability of appropriations, the 
     Secretary shall initiate construction of the Project.
       (2) Cost sharing.--The Federal share of the costs of 
     construction of the Project shall not exceed 50 percent of 
     the total cost of that construction.
       (3) Cost sharing agreement.--The Secretary may not initiate 
     construction of the Project unless the Secretary, the 
     Governor of California, and the Salton Sea Authority enter 
     into an agreement that--
       (A) adopts the cost sharing formula for annual operation, 
     maintenance, energy, and replacement costs that is included 
     in the reclamation plan approved by the Committees under 
     subsection (d); and
       (B) implements the cost sharing requirement under paragraph 
     (2) of this subsection for construction costs.
       (4) Limitation on expenditure of federal funds.--No Federal 
     funds may be expended for any construction activity under the 
     Project unless there are available to the Secretary from non-
     Federal sources amounts sufficient to pay the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the activity.
       (f) Relationship to Other Law.--
       (1) Reclamation laws.--Activities authorized by this Act or 
     any other law to implement the Project shall not be subject 
     to the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388; 43 U.S.C. 391 et 
     seq.), and Acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto. 
     Amounts expended for those activities shall be considered 
     nonreimbursable for purposes of those laws. Activities 
     carried out to implement the Project and the results of those 
     activities shall not be considered to be a supplemental or 
     additional benefit for purposes of the Reclamation Reform Act 
     of 1982 (96 Stat. 1263; 43 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.).
       (2) Preservation of rights and obligations with respect to 
     the colorado river.--This Act shall not be considered to 
     supersede or otherwise affect any treaty, law, or agreement 
     governing use of water from the Colorado River. All 
     activities to implement the Project under this Act must be 
     carried out in a manner consistent with rights and 
     obligations of persons under those treaties, laws, and 
     agreements.
       (3) Judicial review.--Any complaint or challenge of any 
     decision, action, or authorization taken pursuant to this Act 
     shall be filed in a United States district court within 60 
     days after the date of the decision, action, or the 
     authorization. Such court shall have jurisdiction to resolve 
     any complaint or challenge in accordance with chapter 7 of 
     title 5, United States Code, except that the court shall 
     expedite its review as necessary to ensure that remedial 
     actions at the Salton Sea are not unduly or inappropriately 
     delayed. If a temporary restraining order or preliminary 
     injunction is entered into by a court, the court shall 
     proceed to a final judgment in the matter within 90 days 
     thereafter.
       (4) Limitation on liability.--(A) In regard to any actions, 
     programs, or projects implemented by the Secretary under the 
     authority of this Act, the Imperial Irrigation District and 
     Coachella Valley Water District shall not be liable for any 
     damages arising from--

[[Page H5549]]

       (i) enlargement of the Salton Sea and the encroachment of 
     water onto adjacent lands;
       (ii) reduction of the elevation of the Salton Sea, 
     including exposure of lakebed sediments to the environment; 
     or
       (iii) any other occurrence which might result in a claim of 
     damage by any owner of property adjacent to the Salton Sea or 
     any other person.
       (B) No person, including the Imperial Irrigation District, 
     California, the Coachella Valley Water District, California, 
     the Salton Sea Authority, the Metropolitan Water District of 
     Southern California, and the San Diego County Water 
     Authority, but not including the Government of the United 
     States, shall be liable for damages arising from any effects 
     to the Salton Sea or its bordering area resulting from--
       (i) cooperation with the Secretary in regard to any 
     actions, programs, or projects implemented pursuant to this 
     Act;
       (ii) any action to comply with an order of the Secretary 
     under this Act, a State or Federal court, or a State or 
     Federal administrative or regulatory agency interpreting this 
     Act; or
       (iii) any other action that reduces the volume of water 
     that flows directly or indirectly into the Salton Sea.
       (C) This title shall not be construed to exempt any person, 
     including the Imperial Irrigation District, California, the 
     Coachella Valley Water District, California, the Salton Sea 
     Authority, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
     California, and the San Diego County Water Authority, from--
       (i) any requirements established under the California 
     Environmental Quality Act or the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); or
       (ii) any obligations otherwise imposed by law.
       (D) The limitation on liability of the United States 
     contained in section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act for the 
     control of floods on the Mississippi River and its 
     tributaries, and for other purposes'', approved May 15, 1928 
     (chapter 569; 33 U.S.C. 702c), shall not apply to surplus 
     flood flows that are diverted to the Salton Sea pursuant to 
     this Act.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out the Project the following:
       (A) For the feasibility study under subsection (c), 
     including preparation and any revision of the reclamation 
     plan under subsections (c) and (d), and completion of 
     environmental compliance and permitting required for 
     construction of the Project, $22,500,000.
       (B) For construction of the Project in accordance with a 
     reclamation plan approved by the Committees, $350,000,000.
       (2) Allocation of appropriations.--Amounts authorized under 
     paragraph (1)(B) may be appropriated to the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the 
     Interior in amounts that ensure that neither the 
     Administrator nor the Secretary is appropriated substantially 
     all of the Project construction costs.
       (3) Appropriations to the administrator of the 
     environmental protection agency.--Amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (1)(B) to the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall be directly available to the 
     Secretary.
       (4) Appropriations to the secretary of the interior.--
     Amounts appropriated under paragraph (1)(B) to the Secretary 
     may be--
       (A) derived from the land and water conservation fund;
       (B) appropriated to the Bureau of Reclamation; or
       (C) any combination of subparagraphs (A) and (B);

     as specified in appropriations Acts.

     SEC. 102. CONCURRENT WILDLIFE RESOURCES STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide for the 
     conduct, concurrently with the feasibility study under 
     section 101(c), of studies of hydrology, wildlife pathology, 
     and toxicology relating to wildlife resources of the Salton 
     Sea by Federal and non-Federal entities.
       (b) Selection of Topics and Management of Studies.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a committee 
     to be known as the ``Salton Sea Research Management 
     Committee''. The committee shall select the topics of studies 
     under this section and manage those studies.
       (2) Membership.--The committee shall consist of the 
     following 5 members:
       (A) The Secretary.
       (B) The Governor of California.
       (C) The Executive Director of the Salton Sea Authority.
       (D) The Chairman of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla 
     Tribal Government.
       (E) The Director of the California Water Resources Center.
       (c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall require that studies 
     under this section are coordinated through the Science 
     Subcommittee which reports to the Salton Sea Research 
     Management Committee. In addition to the membership provided 
     for by the Science Subcommittee's charter, representatives 
     shall be invited from the University of California, 
     Riverside; the University of Redlands; San Diego State 
     University; the Imperial Valley College; and Los Alamos 
     National Laboratory.
       (d) Peer Review.--The Secretary shall require that studies 
     under this section are subjected to peer review.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For wildlife 
     resources studies under this section there are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary from the land and water 
     conservation fund $5,000,000.

     SEC. 103. SALTON SEA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE RENAMED AS 
                   SONNY BONO SALTON SEA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

       (a) Refuge Renamed.--The Salton Sea National Wildlife 
     Refuge, located in Imperial County, California, is hereby 
     renamed and shall be known as the ``Sonny Bono Salton Sea 
     National Wildlife Refuge''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in any statute, rule, 
     regulation, executive order, publication, map, or paper or 
     other document of the United States to the Salton Sea 
     National Wildlife Refuge is deemed to refer to the Sonny Bono 
     Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge.

     SEC. 104. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS AND AGREEMENTS GOVERNING 
                   THE COLORADO RIVER.

       (a) Preservation of Rights and Obligations With Respect to 
     the Colorado River.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     to alter, amend, repeal, modify, interpret, or to be in 
     conflict with the provisions of the Colorado River Compact 
     (45 Stat. 1057), the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact (63 
     Stat. 31), the Water Treaty of 1944 with Mexico (Treaty 
     Series 944, 59 Stat. 1219 and Minute 242 thereunder), the 
     Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (94 Stat. 
     1063), the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887), the 
     decree entered by the United States Supreme Court in Arizona 
     v. California, et al. (376 U.S. 340) (1964) and decrees 
     supplemental thereto, the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 
     Stat. 1057), the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act (45 
     Stat. 774), the Colorado River Storage Project Act (70 Stat. 
     105), the Colorado River Basin Project Act (82 Stat. 885), 
     including the Criteria for Coordinated Long Range Operation 
     of Colorado River Reservoirs and the Annual Operating Plans 
     developed thereunder, the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights 
     Settlement Act (102 Stat. 4000), any contract entered into 
     pursuant to section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, or 
     any other entitlement to the use of the Colorado River 
     existing pursuant to or recognized by Federal law. 
     Furthermore, nothing contained in this Act shall be construed 
     as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to change 
     the existing relationship of Federal law to the laws of the 
     States or political subdivisions of a State with regard to 
     the diversion and use of Colorado River water, or to relieve 
     any person of any obligation imposed by any law of any State, 
     tribe, or political subdivision of a State. No provision of 
     this Act shall be construed to invalidate any provision of 
     State, tribal, or local law unless there is a direct conflict 
     between such provision and the law of the State, or political 
     subdivision of the State or tribe, so that the two cannot be 
     reconciled or consistently stand together.
       (b) Limitation on Colorado River Water.--Nothing in this 
     Act shall be construed to enlarge an existing entitlement or 
     to create a new entitlement to Colorado River water for 
     California or any user therein.
       (c) Flood Flows.--In no event shall Colorado River water be 
     diverted for Salton Sea restoration except as provided in 
     this subsection. Diversion into the All-American Canal for 
     delivery directly to the Salton Sea of flood flows in the 
     Colorado River that are required by the Water Control Manual 
     for Flood Control, Hoover Dam and Lake Mead, Colorado River, 
     Nevada-Arizona, adopted February 8, 1984, and which would 
     pass to Mexico in excess of the amount required to be 
     delivered pursuant to the Mexican Water Treaty and Minute 242 
     thereunder may be made available to carry out the purposes of 
     this Act. The volume of water diverted pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be limited to the excess capacity of the 
     All-American Canal to carry such flood flows after, and as, 
     it has been used to meet existing obligations. The diversion 
     of water from time to time under this subsection shall not 
     give rise to any ongoing right to the recurrent use of 
     such waters or the All American Canal or facilities.
TITLE II--EMERGENCY ACTION TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY IN THE ALAMO RIVER 
                             AND NEW RIVER

     SEC. 201. ALAMO RIVER AND NEW RIVER IRRIGATION DRAINAGE 
                   WATER.

       (a) River Enhancement.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized and directed 
     to promptly conduct research and construct river reclamation 
     and wetlands projects to improve water quality in the Alamo 
     River and New River, Imperial County, California, by treating 
     water in those rivers and irrigation drainage water that 
     flows into those rivers.
       (2) Acquisitions.--The Secretary may acquire equipment, 
     real property, and interests in real property (including site 
     access) as needed to implement actions under this section if 
     the State of California, a political subdivision of the 
     State, or Desert Wildlife Unlimited has entered into an 
     agreement with the Secretary under which the State, 
     subdivision, or Desert Wildlife Unlimited, respectively, 
     will, effective 1 year after the date that systems for which 
     the acquisitions are made are operational and functional--
       (A) accept all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     equipment, property, or interests; and

[[Page H5550]]

       (B) assume responsibility for operation and maintenance of 
     the equipment, property, or interests.
       (3) Transfer of title.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date a system developed under this section is operational and 
     functional, the Secretary shall transfer all right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to all equipment, 
     property, and interests acquired for the system in accordance 
     with the applicable agreement under paragraph (2).
       (4) Monitoring and other actions.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a long-term monitoring program to maximize the 
     effectiveness of any wetlands developed under this title and 
     may implement other actions to improve the efficacy of 
     actions implemented pursuant to this section.
       (b) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall implement subsection 
     (a) in cooperation with the Desert Wildlife Unlimited, the 
     Imperial Irrigation District, California, and other 
     interested persons.
       (c) Clean Water Act.--No permit shall be required under 
     section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1342) for a wetlands filtration or constructed 
     wetlands project authorized by subsection (a)(1) of this 
     section.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For river reclamation 
     and other irrigation drainage water treatment actions under 
     this section, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary from the land and water conservation fund 
     $3,000,000.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed 
in the Congressional Record, if offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller), or his designee, which shall be considered 
read and debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the 
bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for purposes of control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert) will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California. As my colleagues can 
probably tell, he is not feeling well and so I will fill in for our 
able friend from California. I have a statement to read on his behalf.
  Mr. Speaker, I appear on behalf of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don 
Young) for consideration of H.R. 3267, authored by our colleague the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Duncan Hunter).
  As many of my colleagues are aware, restoration of the Salton Sea was 
a primary concern of our late colleague, Sonny Bono. This bill, H.R. 
3267, the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act, is designed 
to promote Sonny's dream of quickly and effectively restoring the 
Salton Sea.
  This legislation will provide the authority to deal with issues 
affecting salinity and water levels at the Salton Sea. A great deal of 
work has been done to evaluate the causes of increased salinity as well 
as the periodic inundation and exposure of lands around the Sea. If we 
are ever to find and implement the solutions, the time for action is 
upon us. Water quality is at an all time low. The Sea can no longer 
serve as the recreation resource it once was, and wildlife populations 
continue to be adversely affected.
  Land, recreational, and ecological values associated with the Sea 
have declined over the last two decades, due in large part to the 
rising salinity and surface elevation. Without efforts to reduce and 
stabilize the salinity levels, they will continue to rise and will have 
severe impacts on surrounding landowners, individuals who wish to use 
the Sea for recreation, and the existing fish and wildlife species.
  H.R. 3267 establishes the process for determining and implementing an 
engineering solution to save the Sea, while also continuing the 
analysis to evaluate and ensure the long-term health of the Sea's 
wildlife populations. Additionally, this measure will authorize a water 
reclamation project along the New and Alamo Rivers, the major sources 
of water flowing into the Sea.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, we obviously are in favor of moving this bill 
and opposing the Miller substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in opposition to this bill, reluctantly, because 
I believe that there is a great need in the Salton Sea if we can begin 
to remediate all of the problems that it has. However, the legislation, 
as drafted, contains a number of anti-environmental provisions which 
could jeopardize the Sea's revitalization.
  This bill provides unneeded exemptions from the Clean Water Act, it 
places time limits to judicial review associated with the project, and 
it improperly uses the Land and Water Conservation Fund to fund its 
cleanup. The LWCF provides funding for acquisition of high priority 
lands, and by diverting up to $350 million from the LWCF to the Salton 
Sea project, it jeopardizes the acquisition and protection of other 
high priority lands across the country. In fact, this funding exceeds 
the total of $270 million that Congress appropriated in fiscal year 
1998 for LWCF acquisitions.
  Consequently, I am supporting the Miller-Brown amendment, which 
authorizes an exhaustive 18-month study of the problems of the Salton 
Sea, combining both science and engineering considerations, to 
determine the best solution.
  It is true we have ignored this important environmental problem for 
several decades, but that is even more reason why we should not rush in 
to a remediation without completing the necessary studies that we need 
to conduct. Therefore, I urge support of the Miller-Brown amendment and 
I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation if that amendment does not 
pass.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), a gentleman who has a substantial portion of 
the Sea in his Congressional District and who has the privilege to 
represent Imperial County.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I 
want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ken Calvert) for his 
great work, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Brown) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Jerry Lewis), and, of course, 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mary Bono) in putting this bill 
together.
  This thing is really beyond being a remediation of a terrible 
problem. This total project, including the Salton Sea and the New 
River, is going to create one of the biggest wetlands in the United 
States. This is great news for people that love wildfowl and waterfowl 
and all the bird species. There are some 380 bird species that utilize 
the Salton Sea.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Duke Cunningham) said, it is a 
major piece of the Pacific flyway. It is a stop-over. In Imperial 
Valley, in fact, we actually have a bird festival, a waterfowl and bird 
festival, that attracts now thousands of people because the south end 
of the Salton Sea is one place where they stop on that sojourn from 
Canada, in some cases down to Mexico, in other cases all the way down 
to Central and South America.
  We are going to build, along the 50 miles of desert river, from where 
New River enters the United States at Calexico and Mexicali, we are 
going to build 50 miles of marshes. And through those marshes we are 
going to sift New River.
  So we really have three legs to this project. One is a desalinization 
problem. And that is the idea of diluting this salt before it gets up 
to 60,000 parts per million and kills the Sea.
  The other part of this project, of course, is the Mexicali project. 
And that is the part I have talked to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) about, in many cases, and that is the part in which 
we join with Mexico, which we are doing right now, to wean the Mexican 
sewage system in Mexicali, Mexico, off the New River. Right now that 
system still breaks down at times and pours stuff into New River, and 
that waste ultimately makes it way up to the Salton Sea. So we are 
doing a totally new project with Mexico.
  And, lastly, we are doing the third leg, of course, which is this 50 
miles of desert river that we are going to build

[[Page H5551]]

into 50 miles of marshes that will host hundreds of bird species and be 
an enormous boon to everyone who loves wildlife and loves conservation. 
This is a great, great program.
  And I just want to say one last thing, and that is simply that we had 
to have an exemption to the Clean Water Act because we cannot clean a 
river with marshes, according to the lawyers, under the Clean Water 
Act. It says if we take out the first bucketful of water, we have to 
return it in drinking water form. And using marshes to clean up rivers, 
which is environmentally accepted, is an incremental process. Some of 
the river is cleaned up in the first mile, some of the river in the 
second mile, some of the river in the third mile.
  There are bull rushes, there are duck weed, there are pond weed, and 
all this various aquatic plants that take the bad stuff out of the 
water. Our environmentalists like that process. Unfortunately, when we 
wrote the law up here as congressmen, we made a little mistake and we 
made it so tight that we cannot use marshes to clean up rivers. So we 
have what ``60 Minutes'' has called the most polluted river in North 
America.
  So let us use that good old common sense. We really worked with the 
environmental community in putting this thing together. We extended the 
time, the study period, from 12 to 18 months, because Secretary Babbitt 
thought he needed 18 months. Instead of blocking judicial review, we 
cannot have people sue in Federal Court every day until the Sea dies, 
so we just told the court to expedite that review. If somebody sues, 
give them their day in court, but do not wait years to bring them to 
court while the Sea dies. We think that is reasonable. That is 
something a lot of environmentalists should like, the fact that we are 
going to clean this thing up so it does not languish in courts. So we 
have touched on all those bases.
  And once again I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Calvert), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who has really been a driver in 
this process; but also the gentleman from California (Mr. John 
Doolittle), who came over here pretty much under the weather and really 
worked with us as we were putting this thing together. This is a great 
bill. Let us pass it and let us celebrate for the environment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me just say that I hope that this debate does not get redundant, 
because I think there is a point at which, obviously, both parties to 
this debate believe that these studies should, in fact, be conducted so 
that we can make some determinations about how to clean up the Salton 
Sea, if in fact that is possible to do. But we have already heard some 
suggestions about how we are going to do that, and the suggestions are 
being made here in advance of those studies, and that is a problem we 
have.
  In 1992, we tried to step up those studies and we passed legislation 
to step up those studies but, unfortunately, the appropriations for 
those studies have not been forthcoming. So here we are again now 
asking the Secretary of the Interior to engage in these studies and to 
report back to us in 18 months.
  The substitute that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Brown) 
and I will offer to this legislation later in the debate does exactly 
that. It coordinates a project, scientific studies, for 18 months, some 
of which the Secretary of the Interior has already started to 
undertake, and it requires an interim report after 9 months delineating 
what they think some of the alternatives will be and what the status of 
those alternatives and the studies are, and to have oversight hearings 
and to identify additional authorities if they need it. This puts the 
studies on the same timetable.
  Then we would do what I think this bill does unconstitutionally, we 
would then come to the Congress, to the Committee on Resources, and ask 
them what is this project that we want authorized; do we want to 
authorize this project or do we not; do we want it this scale, smaller; 
or if there is going to be alternatives which the studies lay out, 
which alternative do we want to do.
  I think that is simply a prudent use of the taxpayers' money. It does 
not slow this project down at all unless we believe that somehow by 
doing it this way today they are stealing the money and Members of 
Congress will not understand that we are talking about $380 million in 
a single project. Then I guess we want to do it today. Otherwise, we 
would do it in the regular order, as all Members of Congress do when 
they are representing projects that they are interested in.
  For those reasons and for those distinctions between the bill, that 
is why the administration opposes this legislation. That is why almost 
every major environmental group opposes this legislation. It is why 
Taxpayers for Common Sense oppose this legislation. Because we have a 
terrible history in this Congress of authorizing water projects 
sometimes that are not thoroughly studied, and we go back and spend 
billions of dollars trying to correct the mistakes that were made 
because we did not put the proper foresight into them, or because we 
had the political rush on to do something that overwhelmed our good 
judgment, overwhelmed the science, and then we ended up funding 
something that, in fact, did not work, and either spent a lot of time 
with the Federal Government inheriting a huge amount of liability or 
trying to correct horrible environmental consequences of these 
projects.

                              {time}  1745

  And that has been true, and that is the life of these projects, 
whether this is the central Arizona projects, the Central Valley 
project in California, the central Utah project, the Garrison project. 
All of these were projects in the hundreds of millions of dollars where 
we ended up having to come back later and make major, major changes 
because of the unforeseen consequences and because of inadequate 
studies and because of an overwhelming political pressure to get this 
done.
  Whatever it is that we do that we want to get done should be done 
based upon the sciences, and the Congress should have the opportunity 
to review that and then to authorize, and the key word there is to 
``authorize,'' as the Justice Department points out in the President's 
statement of administration policy. That is the order. That is what the 
Constitution requires.
  I think, in fact, that the Miller-Brown substitute will speed this 
process up because I think that is the alternative that has the best 
chance of being taken up in the Senate and passed by the Senate. This 
legislation will probably not pass the Senate. The chairman of the 
committee over there has said that he opposes this legislation. Our two 
Senators have opposed this legislation. Senator Lott says if it is 
controversial and takes more than an hour, it probably will not go to 
the floor in the Senate.
  So the purpose here of the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) and 
myself is to offer an amendment that we think preserves the intent, the 
purposes and the outcomes that everybody wants with respect to the 
Salton Sea in California, but does it, I think, in a simpler manner, in 
a more timely fashion, and one that is geared toward greater chance of 
success as the closing days of this session come into sight. And that 
is an important part of this consideration.
  Finally, I would just say that no matter what funds we look at with 
respect to this project, whether the money comes out of the Atlanta 
Water Conservation Fund or whether the money comes out of EPA or the 
money comes out of the Bureau of Reclamation, we are talking about a 
major, major commitment of funds in this day and age.
  As every Member can tell us, as they line up before the Committee on 
Appropriations and ask for small amounts of money to keep projects 
going, this one is a major commitment of any of the funds within any of 
those budgets with respect to construction projects in this day and age 
and in the budget constraints that we have. And I think that is another 
reason why we owe the regular order to the Members of Congress and to 
the taxpayers to do the studies and then come back and, if we determine 
it is justified, to reauthorize the project and to do it without all of 
these offenses to the Clean Water Act, to the questions of liability of 
the Federal

[[Page H5552]]

taxpayers if things go wrong in this project and to holding other 
people harmless who should have a stake in this legislation.
  For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, when the time is appropriate, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) and myself will be offering an 
amendment when it is allowed under the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend the 
gentleman from upstate New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in support of this 
Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act.
  The legislation before us today authorizes significant new resources 
to improve water quality and habitat for wildlife in and around the 
largest body of water in America's most populous State. Though concerns 
have been expressed by some about the way in which this project will be 
funded, and we are going to address that in a moment, there is no 
question that this bill will result in substantial improvement to a 
unique natural resource.
  This legislation will result in the creation of extensive new 
wetlands critical to migrating waterfowl in the Pacific flyway. 
Thousands of ducks and geese and shore birds visit the Salton Sea each 
year. They do so now at their own peril.
  This legislation will result in the removal of tons of pollutants 
daily that are now flowing into the Salton Sea. This legislation will 
protect and improve habitat for the birds and fish that depend on the 
Salton Sea for their survival. Indeed, I can make a good case that this 
legislation is proenvironment.
  As this legislation was being developed, concerns were raised about 
its Clean Water Act provisions. As the chairman of the House 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I worked with both the 
majority and minority members of the Committee on Resources to address 
the concerns presented.
  The bill before us explicitly limits changes to the Clean Water Act's 
permitting process to constructed wetland projects, salt removal 
projects, and wetlands filtration projects on the Alamo and New Rivers, 
the two primary tributaries into the Salton Sea.
  The bill also contains measures protecting Good Samaritans who 
undertake water quality improvement projects on the Alamo and New 
Rivers from lawsuits. Again, the inclusion of these measures was to 
expedite the pace of environmental restoration at the Salton Sea.
  In a few minutes, there will be offered for unanimous consent 
language deleting the single largest outstanding concern, the use of 
Land and Water Conservation Funds for this project. I would hope that 
that would address the principal concern of so many of my colleagues 
and will enable them to support the bill.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that the League of Conservation 
Voters and the Audubon Society have stated repeatedly that the Salton 
Sea is an environmental disaster. We are here today to take a critical 
step towards addressing this environmental disaster.
  Some, instead of action now, will advocate a lengthy study of the 
problem that the environmental community concluded years ago to be an 
environmental disaster. This reminds me of the acid rain debate of the 
1980s when Governor Tom Kean, Governor of New Jersey, said if all we do 
is continue to study the problem, we are going to end up with the worst 
documented environmental disaster in history.
  We know the problem and we know the solution. I think the time to 
begin cleaning up the Salton Sea is long overdue. Let us get on with 
the job, and let us pay tribute in a responsible way to a former 
colleague who served in many respects as an inspiration to a lot of us 
in a lot of ways. And let us say to the sitting Member who represents 
that district who is advocating this legislation, she is doing a good 
job and we appreciate it and we are with her.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just 
in response.
  First of all, let us understand that the timetables for the studies 
is identically the same. The difference is that we asked for a 
coordination of the scientific studies and the salinity studies to see 
whether or not we can, in fact, come up with a solution.
  The bill offered by the majority only deals with salinity. The birds 
and the fish are dying off today. It is not the salinity itself that is 
killing them. The salinity will get worse and in all likelihood will 
have a greater adverse impact on the fish kills and the bird die-offs.
  But that is the point of how we constructed the study. So we have the 
information. There is no requirement in the bill to require the 
Secretary to consider all the available findings and reports that the 
science subcommittee established pursuant to this legislation. And we 
think that this is a very important part, because when we talk to the 
scientists, the scientists will tell us that it is not the salinity 
alone that is the problem. The salinity is an egregious problem, but it 
does not solve the problem of the Salton Sea.
  So people obviously can say whatever they want, but they should not 
suggest that somehow this legislation is a diversion to lengthy 
studies. The time frame is the same. The studies are the same. The 
coordination is better. And the report back and the interim actions by 
the Secretary during those 18 months study so Congress will have the 
fullest amount of evidence and the best evidence available as they make 
a decision to commit $350 million, that is called for in this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  For some reason, long ago, sometime when I was very young, I became 
aware of the Salton Sea and became kind of fascinated with this inland 
body of water created by a manmade engineering mistake and had been 
saddened in later life to see its incredible degradation, and in 
particular the highly publicized die-off of large numbers of migratory 
birds.
  This is a very prime stopping point for migratory birds, so not only 
would it be a tremendous resource for the people of southern California 
in terms of its recreational values and environmental values, but also 
for migratory birds and things that would benefit all of us in the 
United States by having it appropriately restored to health.
  That being said, we have a common objective. The problem here is the 
process. And I have got to say that I am a bit puzzled by recent 
actions in the committee on which I have served now for more than 11 
years, formerly called the Interior Committee and formerly called 
Natural Resources, now called Resources. And I guess therein lies the 
rub. The current chairman removed the word ``natural'' from the title 
because he took some offense to that, and things have been a little bit 
weird ever since.
  That is what is going on here today. We are considering a number of 
bills tomorrow in the Subcommittee on Water and Power that have some 
merit in terms of turning over reclamation projects to local districts, 
but the chairman of the subcommittee is going to insist on 
environmental waivers, which the President has promised will bring 
about vetoes on all of those, no matter what merit they might have.
  I have the same problem with this legislation before us. Why not work 
out the differences with the administration?
  I know that the majority does not like the reality of Bill Clinton in 
the White House. There are some days I do not like the reality of Bill 
Clinton in the White House. Other days it is okay.
  The point is, it is a reality, and we have a lengthy statement of 
administration policy here which is pretty definitive. There are some 
problems we have to work out. Why not work out these problems and 
achieve our common objective, which is to clean up the Salton Sea?
  I think that this was a great dream of our deceased member, and I 
fully am supportive of that dream. I would love to see it come to 
fruition in my lifetime, and I would like to see it happen without a 
lot of unnecessary delay, but there are substantive concerns here.
  I am pleased to hear from the previous speaker that they are going to 
drop the proposal that the money come

[[Page H5553]]

out of the Land and Water Conservation Funds. That would have been an 
unprecedented expenditure, and that is fine. I am happy to find the 
money elsewhere in the budget. I can come up with some budgetary 
offsets to fund this, if it costs $350 million or half a billion or 
less. I do not know what it is going to cost, because the other concern 
here is I do not know that we know the solution at this point in time.
  From what I heard in the committee and in the deliberations in the 
committee, we are not quite certain of how we are going to go forward, 
what technology or which one of these methods will work, what exactly 
are all the interrelationships between the salinity and the other 
pollution problems, the bird die-offs. None of this is totally 
explicable.
  I do not think that the Miller bill is being offered in the spirit of 
trying to delay the cleanup. It is not being offered because of some 
sort of pride of authorship. It is a genuine attempt to get this thing 
done this year by this Congress and move it forward so that we can all 
live to see the cleanup of the Salton Sea. That is what is going on 
here.
  These are not insignificant concerns. There is probably a 
constitutional problem with the way this bill is being written by the 
manager's amendment to require that the committees of jurisdiction 
basically sign off on the final project, and the Secretary would be 
subject to a resolution of the committees, not of the entire Congress.
  I have been down that road with other legislation. That does not 
stand up to scrutiny. If some obstructive person wants to sue, they can 
delay this thing for years just because of that provision. Why have 
that provision? We could have an expedited congressional review. There 
are other ways to get around that problem. It just seems that that was 
done in haste and perhaps out of a desire to get this done, but I think 
it is a problem.
  The Clean Water Act exemption, that is a problem. It is a problem 
with the administration. It is a problem with some Members on this 
side.
  Limitations on liability, that should lie with both sides of the 
aisle. We do not want to expose the Federal taxpayers to have them 
assume new liabilities that they do not currently have when there are 
other responsible authorities who should share in any future liability 
that might arise.
  Cost sharing, irrigators benefit. Irrigators are a big part of the 
problem in terms of the increased salinity in the chemical soup we are 
dealing with here. Why should not they have some cost sharing if they 
are going to continue to benefit and will doubly benefit by an improved 
and cleaner Salton Sea? There are a number of other minor provisions 
that are of concern.

                              {time}  1800

  But I rise out of a genuine concern that we do something significant 
here today, not just something symbolic, something that actually will 
be enacted into law.
  Too many times that I have been here, both with my own party in 
charge and now with the Republicans in charge, we do things for the day 
or for the moment or to say we passed them out of the House of 
Representatives. Does not do us a lot of good if they do not get 
through the United States Senate and they do not get signed by the 
President of the United States. And a number of the problems that I am 
pointing out here that are addressed by the Miller substitute are 
problems that are going to cause problems in the other body and are 
going to cause big problems downtown.
  So I would just urge us to move ahead deliberately with what I 
believe is probably the intent of all Members of this body, and that is 
to get this job done as expeditiously as possible and honor the memory 
of our diseased colleague.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing).
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  I would like to thank Representatives' Mary Bono, Duncan Hunter, and 
Ken Calvert, as well as the rest of my colleagues who worked diligently 
to bring H.R. 3267 ``The Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Restoration 
Act'' to the floor today.
  This is an important piece of legislation which I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of.
  The Salton Sea, located in both Riverside and Imperial counties in 
California, is the State's largest inland body of water.
  It has been determined that the Salton Sea has about only 12 years of 
life left before it becomes a dead sea, whereby no life can be 
sustained. Passing H.R. 3267 goes a long way in preventing that from 
occurring.
  What H.R. 3267 attempts to do is to simply improve the water quality 
of the Salton Sea by reducing the salinity, and to stabilize the 
elevation along the shoreline.
  It does this by authorizing $22.5 million dollars for a feasibility 
study, environmental review, and an engineering design of a 
construction project.
  The bill also authorizes 350 million dollars for a construction 
project for the Salton Sea. There is also a 50/50 cost share between 
the federal government and non-federal entities to finance such a 
project.
  It is important to note that the Salton Sea is also a major stop over 
for avian species along the Pacific Flyway. This is the primary reason 
why the Salton Sea is of national importance, and why if it dies, it 
stands to take many birds with its decline.
  In the past five years, hundreds of thousands of birds have died at 
the Sea. In fact, at least 17,000 birds have died at the Salton Sea 
this year along. It is vitally important that we act now, and not wait 
to address this desperate situation.
  I believe we must take action to save the Salton Sea now, or risk 
losing a major environmental resource for not only the state of 
California, but the nation as a whole.
  Again, I would like to thank Representatives' Bono, Hunter, and 
Calvert for all their hard work in bringing H.R. 3267 to the House 
floor today. This bill is a fitting tribute to my good friend, the late 
Sonny Bono. H.R. 3267 is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San 
Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, too often we hear about the wetlands, 
not too often because wetlands have been denigrated. But a plant in the 
middle of the desert, because it flourishes for a few weeks, is not a 
wetland, or something that is frozen at the top of a 12,000 foot peak 
for the last thousand years in my opinion is not a wetland. But the 
opponents say that they oppose this bill, and yet it creates 50 miles 
of wetlands complete with marshes that purify and clean the 
environment, 50 new miles with marshes that create wetland. The wetland 
that is saved and enhanced is the size of the Beltway here in 
Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a farm pond. We are talking 
about a sea so big that if we were in a boat, it is like being in an 
ocean. I have been there, and I think the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller) has, too. But we are actually creating good with the 
wetlands.
  The Miller substitute would study, and I agree there are other 
problems besides salinity with the Salton Sea. Agriculture is mostly to 
the south, though. Around the Salton Sea, if my colleagues have gone, 
it is all desert. The pollution comes in through the New River, and 
down, and filters, and that is what we are going to fix, but the 
farmlands are way to the south. They flow toward Mexico. They do not go 
in the Salton Sea. But yet I still think that pesticides and things 
like that are a problem for the birds that land in those farmlands, but 
not the Salton Sea.
  And I would say to my friend that said that, well, the Senate, the 
two senators from California, are against this. The one gentlewoman 
from California, her views are so extreme she even opposed the tuna/
dolphin bill which the President and the Vice President and five 
environmental groups supported.
  So I would say support the bill, reject the Miller substitute.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Santa Clara, California (Mr. McKeon), my good friend.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding this time to me.
  I am pleased to rise today in support of one of the most important 
pieces of environmental legislation that we will consider this year. 
Our late friend, Sonny Bono, worked hard and in a bipartisan manner to 
bring about awareness for the Salton Sea and would be proud that his 
efforts are now rewarded.
  Mr. Speaker, the Salton Sea is a unique body of water, and it is a 
great

[[Page H5554]]

resource that should be preserved. Although it was created by accident 
93 years ago, it is a potential jewel that we should do all that we can 
to save. However, the sea is unfortunately dying. According to studies, 
in only 12 years this body of water will become dead. It will not 
support life. Further complicating this problem is the presence of 
botulism in the water that has affected the native fish. As the fish 
become infected in the water, birds along the Pacific flyway eat the 
fish and retain and spread the disease. Since last year alone some 
10,000 fish and 2,000 birds have perished.
  Why is this important? Should the Salton Sea continue its decline to 
death, it will take with it many more birds and fish, thus robbing 
California and our Nation of a valuable environmental resource.
  H.R. 3267 addresses these concerns and takes quick action to save 
this important body of water. This legislation provides funding for 
research, environmental review and engineering designs to stabilize the 
shoreline of the Salton Sea and reduce its salinity. It also provides 
for an expedited judicial review to ensure that this area will not 
become hostage to a lengthy court fight, given its relative short life 
expectancy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important legislation and the hard work that our colleague and my 
friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), has made to 
improve our environment and finish the work begun by her late husband, 
Sonny.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have talked about many of the reasons why the Salton 
Sea is worth saving. I think that there is agreement on both sides of 
the aisle that we want to save the Salton Sea. The difference between 
the approach of the majority and the minority in this case is that we 
actually want to do something about it.
  For over 30 years I have been reading newspaper articles about this 
study and that study, about amounts of money that have been going in to 
look at the catastrophe of the Salton Sea, and nothing has happened, 
and yet again today we talk about yet another study that leads 
potentially nowhere. The great difference between the proposal today by 
the Salton Sea Task Force is that we actually are going to do something 
about a problem that has existed for a long time, not talk about it, 
but actually do something about it.
  People have talked about the birds, the fish, the recreational 
resources that are going to waste. We can talk about that until the sea 
dies. And, Mr. Speaker, Sonny was a person that spoke plainly, so I 
will speak plainly: It is time that we do something about this, and 
that is why we are here.
  Fifteen million people live near the Salton Sea. Actually much more 
than that around the southwest United States utilizes it and have for 
many years. It would be a shame if today we let this opportunity pass 
us by.
  So I am hopeful that today we will pass the bill, we will defeat the 
Miller substitute, and we can be proud of the fact that we are going to 
save the Salton Sea for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Bono) who represents the beautiful area of Palm 
Springs and a good part of the Salton Sea who has really taken over the 
fight to save the Salton Sea.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 
3267, the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act. The Salton 
Sea is California's largest inland body of water, and it sits in both 
my and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter's) district. This 
great body of water was formed by accident in 1905 and since then has 
become an integral part of the region's ecosystem system. In fact, it 
also now home to over 300 native bird species. It provides a major 
stopover on the Pacific flyway and up until a few years ago provided 
enjoyment for thousands of tourists who came to view this magnificent 
wonder. Unfortunately, its health is in jeopardy.
  The Salton Sea, quite simply, is on a death watch. It has been 
estimated that if nothing is done to reverse the salinity content of 
the sea, it will die within 10 to 15 years. Currently, the Salton Sea 
is 25 percent saltier than that of the Pacific ocean, and the selenium 
is rising. Over the past few years more than 100,000 birds have died 
due to avian botulism. These numbers will continue to rise. It will 
only get worse. We must act fast to save this great body of water.
  H.R. 3267 provides the framework for this action. Named after my late 
husband, Sonny, and authored by my good friend and fellow task force 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Duncan Hunter), H.R. 3267 
sets forth the process to reclaim the Salton Sea. A vote for H.R. 3267 
is a vote for the environment. There is no other way to describe it.
  I invite any of my colleagues to come visit the Salton Sea so they 
can witness firsthand the devastation that has occurred in this part of 
the country, the pictures of dead birds lying around the shoreline 
along with the stench of the body of water would make anybody's stomach 
turn. However, in contrast, as one comes up upon the Salton Sea from a 
distance, it is one of the most beautiful sights anyone's eyes may ever 
witness. It is like an oasis in the middle of the desert, as Sonny used 
to say, yet there are those who advocate the Salton Sea should just dry 
up and die.
  Quite frankly, this is not an option. This is one of the most dynamic 
ecosystems in North America, teaming with avian and aquatic life. Also 
what would be accomplished by killing the sea? Absolutely nothing. With 
over 90 percent of all wetlands in southern California lost, we would 
destroy one of the last remaining stopovers in the Pacific flyway. We 
would only compound the fish and bird deaths. All that would be 
accomplished is that the bad environmental problem would be made worse.
  Is that what people want, and is that pro-environment?
  To those who argue for more study I say is not 20 years enough? Is 
that not enough time to study this problem?
  Contrary to public opinion, Sonny was not the first person to notice 
the Salton Sea and that it was in dire shape. In fact, this problem was 
first brought forth by Jerry Pettis back in the early 1970s. If action 
was taken then to address this problem, we would not be here today 
talking about this urgent need to save the sea. But the sea was put on 
the back burner then, not getting the attention it needed or deserved. 
Other projects in California took center stage, and the sea became 
worse.
  Well, my fellow colleagues, the sea cannot be put on the back burner 
any longer. Action needs to be taken, and H.R. 3267 must be passed.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank all 
of the people who have been involved with this bill. First and 
foremost, I would like to thank the Salton Sea Task Force members, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) for keeping Sonny's dream of 
restoring the Salton Sea alive with this bill. These are the people 
that guided me through much of this debate surrounding H.R. 3267, and I 
owe them my deepest gratitude.
  Secondly, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle) for his leadership and hard work guiding this bill through 
his Subcommittee on Resources. He always made time for me when I had 
questions, and I thank him for his efforts.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for 
allowing this bill to be brought before his committee. Without him we 
would not be here today.
  I especially want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) 
for making the Salton Sea a major environmental cause for the 105th 
Congress. Again, I want to thank Speaker Gingrich. I know he was deeply 
moved by the carnage of the Salton Sea when he came out to visit it 
shortly after Sonny's death, and I knew at this point by the look in 
his eyes he believed then that it was good public policy.
  I also want to thank Tony Orlando on my staff and all the members of 
staff who have worked hard on this bill.
  And, lastly, I want to thank all of those whose footsteps I walked 
behind, the Members who spoke of the need and urgency to save the 
Salton Sea, but whose pleas fell on deaf ears, people like Julie and 
Jerry and Shirley Pettis,

[[Page H5555]]

Al McCandless, and, most of all, Sonny whom this bill is in memory of. 
Their voices are on this bill, Sonny's voice is on this bill, and I 
proudly stand in support.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on H.R. 3267.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3267, the Sonny 
Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act.
  This legislation offers an opportunity to restore the Salton Sea for 
recreational and ecological purposes and to improve water quality in 
the Alamo River and the New River.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has an interest in 
several sections of this bill, particularly section 101, which 
authorizes the project to, among other things, improve water quality in 
the Salton Sea by reducing salinity, including authorization of 
appropriations to carry out this project to the Environmental 
Protection Agency; and section 201, which authorizes actions to improve 
water quality in the Alamo River and New River, including a waiver of 
section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for those 
persons who utilize a wetland filtration or constructed wetlands 
project to improve such water quality.
  I would like to thank the leadership of the Resources Committee for 
working with me on these provisions. The Young-Doolittle substitute 
addresses some of the concerns over the source of funding for this 
important project by ensuring that the cost of construction is divided 
between EPA and the Department of Interior such that neither agency 
funds substantially all of the project. The intent of this provision is 
to allow this project to be funded without adversely affecting other 
important projects funded by either EPA or the Department of Interior.
  The Young-Doolittle substitute also addresses concerns over the 
waiver of Clean Water Act permitting by clarifying that this waiver 
applies only to wetlands filtration and constructed wetlands projects 
to improve water quality in the Alamo River and the New River.
  Even though it is not clear that these wetlands projects even require 
a Clean Water Act permit, it is an unfortunate reality that, under the 
Clean Water Act, someone can be sued for stepping in and taking action 
to improve water quality. For example, in Calaveras County, California, 
the local community took action to protect its water supply by building 
some dams and holding ponds to reduce runoff from an abandoned mine. 
They were sued by an environmental group who got the court to agree 
that, by taking action to protect their water supply, they became 
responsible for bringing the abandoned mine into compliance with the 
Clean Water Act, which will cost over $10 million.
  We need to protect Good Samaritans from similar lawsuits under the 
Clean Water Act so they will be willing to step forward and take action 
to improve water quality in the Alamo and New Rivers.
  I urge members to support this important legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1815


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be adopted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Amend the proposed section 101(g)(4) to read as follows: 
     ``(4) Appropriations to the Secretary of the Interior.--
     Amounts appropriated under paragraph (1)(B) to the Secretary 
     may be appropriated to the Bureau of Reclamation as specified 
     in appropriations Acts.''.

  Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request 
of the gentleman from New York?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object 
for the purpose of having the gentleman explain his amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, essentially the amendment deletes on page 
14 of the bill paragraph 4, subsections (A) and (C), to make it 
abundantly clear that we are not going to have a raid on the land and 
water conservation fund to finance the program.
  The environmental community raised this objection as its principal 
objection to the bill. I have here a letter signed by a whole host of 
representatives from key environmental organizations with whom the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and I work very closely and have 
over the years. They point out that they are strongly supportive of 
efforts to clean up the Salton Sea, but they are specific in their 
strong objection to the authorization of funding from the land and 
water conservation fund. We agree with that, and I am pleased to report 
that this amendment would eliminate that principal objection.
  I am not trying to suggest to anyone that this eliminates all of the 
objections; it does not, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
and I both know. But I think this makes a major improvement to the 
bill, and I am pleased to offer the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman for his last point, because the environmental groups 
continue to oppose this legislation even with this amendment, should it 
be accepted.
  I would also like to raise the question, because I think the 
amendment needs to be fixed here for a second, because land and water 
conservation funds are also used for the wildlife studies and for the 
river reclamation and drainage and water treatment to the tune of about 
$8 million. I would ask that the gentleman's amendment include those, 
since those are unauthorized purposes for which the land and water 
conservation fund is created.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would be so kind as to 
jot that down.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I think the gentleman amends proposed 
section 101(g)(4), which does what the gentleman said it does. But in 
another section of the bill, in section 102(e) and section 201(d), 
there is additional monies coming from the land and water conservation 
fund. I would just ask that those also be made a part of this amendment 
so that we do not use any of this for unauthorized purposes.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I do 
not think I have an objection. The gentleman and I have worked so well 
over the years, and we are in basic agreement on this. I would like to 
see it in writing, if the gentleman could just jot it down.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman wants to go 
ahead without prejudice and work out this language, I am be glad to do 
that.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the amendment for now.


   Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Miller of 
                               California

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, Amendment No. 1, printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. 
     Miller of California:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sonny Bono Memorial Salton 
     Sea Restoration Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Salton Sea, located in Imperial and Riverside 
     Counties, California, is an economic and environmental 
     resource of national importance.
       (2) The Salton Sea is a critical component of the Pacific 
     flyway. However, the concentration of pollutants in the 
     Salton Sea has contributed to recent die-offs of migratory 
     waterfowl.
       (3) The Salton Sea is critical as a reservoir for 
     irrigation, municipal, and stormwater drainage.
       (4) The Salton Sea provides benefits to surrounding 
     communities and nearby irrigation and municipal water users.
       (5) Restoring the Salton Sea will provide national and 
     international benefits.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) The term ``Study'' means the Salton Sea study 
     authorized by section 4.
       (2) The term ``Salton Sea Authority'' means the Joint 
     Powers Authority by that name established under the laws of 
     the State of California by a Joint Power Agreement signed on 
     June 2, 1993.
       (3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation.

[[Page H5556]]

     SEC. 4. SALTON SEA RESTORATION STUDY AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in accordance with this 
     section, shall undertake a study of the feasibility of 
     various alternatives for restoring the Salton Sea, 
     California. The purpose of the Study shall be to select 1 or 
     more practicable and cost-effective options for decreasing 
     salinity and otherwise improving water quality and to develop 
     a restoration plan that would implement the selected options. 
     The Study shall be coordinated with preparation of an 
     environmental impact statement pursuant to the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 evaluating alternatives for 
     restoration of the Salton Sea. The Study shall be conducted 
     in accordance with the memorandum of understanding under 
     subsection (g).
       (b) Study Goals.--The Study shall explore alternatives to 
     achieve the following objectives:
       (1) Reducing and stabilizing the overall salinity, and 
     otherwise improving the water quality of the Salton Sea.
       (2) Stabilizing the surface elevation of the Salton Sea.
       (3) Reclaiming, in the long term, healthy fish and wildlife 
     resources and their habitats.
       (4) Enhancing the potential for recreational uses and 
     economic development of the Salton Sea.
       (5) Ensuring the continued use of the Salton Sea as a 
     reservoir for irrigation drainage.
       (c) Options To Be Considered.--
       (1) In general.--Options considered in the Study shall 
     include each of the following and any appropriate combination 
     thereof:
       (A) Use of impoundments to segregate a portion of the 
     waters of the Salton Sea in 1 or more evaporation ponds 
     located in the Salton Sea basin.
       (B) Pumping water out of the Salton Sea.
       (C) Augmented flows of water into the Salton Sea.
       (D) Improving the quality of wastewater discharges from 
     Mexico and from other water users in the Salton Sea basin.
       (E) Water transfers or exchanges in the Colorado River 
     basin.
       (F) Any other feasible restoration options.
       (2) Limitation to proven technologies.--Options considered 
     in the Study shall be limited to proven technologies.
       (d) Factors To Be Considered.--
       (1) Science subcommittee findings and reports.--In 
     evaluating the feasibility of options considered in the 
     Study, the Secretary shall carefully consider all available 
     findings and reports of the Science Subcommittee established 
     pursuant to section 5(c)(2) and incorporate such findings 
     into the project design alternatives, to the extent feasible.
       (2) Other factors to be considered.--The Secretary shall 
     also consider--
       (A) the ability of Federal, tribal, State, and local 
     government sources and private sources to fund capital 
     construction costs and annual operation, maintenance, energy, 
     and replacement costs;
       (B) how and where to dispose permanently of water pumped 
     out of the Salton Sea;
       (C) the availability of necessary minimum inflows to the 
     Salton Sea from current sources, including irrigation 
     drainage water; and
       (D) the potential impact of Salton Sea restoration efforts 
     on the rights of other water users in the Colorado River 
     Basin and on California's Colorado River water entitlement 
     pursuant to the Colorado River Compact and other laws 
     governing water use in the Colorado River Basin.
       (e) Interim Report.--
       (1) Submission.--Not later than 9 months after the 
     Secretary first receives appropriations for programs and 
     actions authorized by this title, the Secretary shall submit 
     to the Congress an interim progress report on restoration of 
     the Salton Sea. The report shall--
       (A) identify alternatives being considered for restoration 
     of the Salton Sea;
       (B) describe the status of environmental compliance 
     activities;
       (C) describe the status of cost-sharing negotiations with 
     State of California and local agencies;
       (D) describe the status of negotiations with the Government 
     of Mexico, if required; and
       (E) report on the progress of New River and Alamo River 
     research and demonstration authorized by this Act.
       (2) Congressional action.--Upon receipt of the interim 
     report from the Secretary, the appropriate committees of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate shall promptly 
     schedule and conduct oversight hearings to review 
     implementation of the Salton Sea restoration plan included in 
     the report under subsection (f), and to identify additional 
     authorizations that may be required to effectuate plans and 
     studies relating to the restoration of the Salton Sea.
       (f) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after 
     commencement of the Study, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Congress a report on the findings and recommendations of the 
     Study. The report shall include the following:
       (1) A summary of options considered for restoring the 
     Salton Sea.
       (2) A recommendation of a preferred option for restoring 
     the Salton Sea.
       (3) A plan to implement the preferred option selected under 
     paragraph (2).
       (4) A recommendation for cost-sharing to implement the plan 
     developed under paragraph (3). The cost-sharing 
     recommendation may apply a different cost-sharing formula to 
     capital construction costs than is applied to annual 
     operation, maintenance, energy, and replacement costs.
       (5) A draft of recommended legislation to authorize 
     construction of the preferred option selected under paragraph 
     (2).
       (g) Memorandum of Understanding.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out the Study in 
     accordance with a memorandum of understanding entered into by 
     the Secretary, the Salton Sea Authority, and the Governor of 
     California.
       (2) Option evaluation criteria.--The memorandum of 
     understanding shall, at a minimum, establish criteria for 
     evaluation and selection of options under subsection (a), 
     including criteria for determining the magnitude and 
     practicability of costs of construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of each option evaluated.
       (h) Relationship to Other Laws.--
       (1) Reclamation laws.--Activities authorized by this 
     section shall not be subject to the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 
     Stat. 388; 43 U.S.C. 391 et seq.) and other laws amendatory 
     thereof or supplemental thereto. Amounts expended for those 
     activities shall be considered nonreimbursable and 
     nonreturnable for purposes of those laws.
       (2) Law of the colorado river.--This section shall not be 
     considered to supersede or otherwise affect any treaty, law, 
     or agreement governing use of water from the Colorado River. 
     All activities to carry out the Study under this section must 
     be carried out in a manner consistent with rights and 
     obligation of persons under those treaties, laws, and 
     agreements.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary $30,000,000 to carry out 
     the activities authorized in this section.

     SEC. 5. CONCURRENT WILDLIFE RESOURCES STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--Concurrently with the Study under section 
     4, the Secretary shall provide for the conduct of studies of 
     hydrology, wildlife pathology, and toxicology relating to 
     wildlife resources of the Salton Sea by Federal and non-
     Federal entities.
       (b) Selection of Topics and Management of Studies.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a committee 
     to be known as the Salton Sea Research Management Committee. 
     The Committee shall select the topics of studies under this 
     section and manage those studies.
       (2) Membership.--The Committee shall consist of 5 members 
     appointed as follows:
       (A) 1 by the Secretary.
       (B) 1 by the Governor of California.
       (C) 1 by the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Tribal 
     Government.
       (D) 1 by the Salton Sea Authority.
       (E) 1 by the Director of the California Water Resources 
     Center.
       (c) Coordination.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall require that studies 
     conducted under this section are conducted in coordination 
     with appropriate international bodies, Federal agencies, and 
     California State agencies, including, but not limited to, the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission, the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of 
     Water Resources, the California Department of Fish and Game, 
     the California Resources Agency, the California Environmental 
     Protection Agency, the California Regional Water Quality 
     Board, and California State Parks.
       (2) Science subcommittee.--The Secretary shall require that 
     studies conducted under this section are coordinated through 
     a Science Subcommittee that reports to the Salton Sea 
     Research Management Committee. In addition to the membership 
     provided for by the Science Subcommittee's charter, 
     representatives shall be invited from the University of 
     California, Riverside, the University of Redlands, San Diego 
     State University, the Imperial Valley College, and Los Alamos 
     National Laboratory.
       (d) Peer Review.--The Secretary shall require that studies 
     under this section are subjected to peer review.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For wildlife 
     resources studies under this section there are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary $5,000,000.

     SEC. 6. SALTON SEA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE RENAMED AS SONNY 
                   BONO SALTON SEA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

       (a) Refuge Renamed.--The Salton Sea National Wildlife 
     Refuge, located in Imperial County, California, is hereby 
     renamed and shall be known as the Sonny Bono Salton Sea 
     National Wildlife Refuge.
       (b) References.--Any reference in any statute, rule, 
     regulation, Executive order, publication, map, or paper or 
     other document of the United States to the Salton Sea 
     National Wildlife Refuge is deemed to refer to the Sonny Bono 
     Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge.

     SEC. 7. ALAMO RIVER AND NEW RIVER.

       (a) Research and Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary 
     shall promptly conduct research and construct wetlands 
     filtration or construct wetlands demonstration projects to 
     improve water quality in the Alamo River and New River, 
     Imperial County, California. The Secretary may acquire 
     equipment, real property, and interests in real property 
     (including site access) as needed to implement actions 
     authorized by this section.

[[Page H5557]]

       (b) Monitoring and Other Actions.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a long-term monitoring program to maximize the 
     effectiveness of any demonstration project authorized by this 
     section.
       (c) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall implement subsections 
     (a) and (b) in cooperation with the Desert Wildlife 
     Unlimited, the Imperial Irrigation District, the State of 
     California, and other interested persons.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For research and 
     demonstration projects authorized in this section, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $3,000,000.

     SEC. 8. EMERGENCY ACTION.

       If, during the conduct of the studies authorized by this 
     Act, the Secretary determines that environmental conditions 
     at the Salton Sea warrant immediate and emergency action, the 
     Secretary shall immediately submit a report to Congress 
     documenting such conditions and making recommendations for 
     their correction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment has been described earlier in the debate. 
It is offered on behalf of myself and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Brown). The purpose of this amendment, somebody said they want to 
be plain speaking, is let us just do something about the Salton Sea.
  The point is this: When we make a decision to commit the $350 
million, we ought to do that which we know works. The many shortcomings 
in the current bill that is before us have been outlined in both the 
objections by taxpayer groups, by environmental groups and by the 
Clinton Administration with respect to serious problems that exist in 
bill.
  But with respect to the studies, let me say that the legislation 
offered by the committee goes ahead and does some studies relating to 
feasibility. With respect to dealing with the salinity, there is a 
whole other body of studies that are in that legislation and in our 
legislation. There are scientific studies that deal with this issue of 
nutrient loading, that deal with the issue of botulism, that deal with 
other concerns that are killing the fish and wildlife at the current 
time that have got to be developed, and any project that we develop for 
the Salton Sea should make sure that it deals with the full array of 
problems that are presented by the current conditions in the Salton 
Sea.
  That is terribly important, because we know that the salinization of 
the Salton Sea is going to continue to get worse. We also know that 
some of the best water that flows into the Salton Sea currently, about 
1 million acre feet, or over 1 million acre feet of agricultural drain 
water, that maybe half a million acre feet of that water may leave the 
Salton Sea because water is going to be sold into other markets.
  Discussions are under way to sell water to San Diego and elsewhere, 
so that drainage water will not necessarily flow to the Salton Sea. 
That will make this problem even worse. There is nothing any of us can 
do about that. That is the right of the water rights holders and the 
contractors there in the Imperial Irrigation District and elsewhere, 
should they so decide to enter into that contract and if that is 
approved.
  What our amendment says is the same timetable as the majority 
amendment, the same set of studies, but what we do is we require you to 
coordinate these studies so you, in fact, make these decisions based 
upon the evidence, not simply one part of this problem that everybody 
admits is going to get worse over the next decade. But the birds and 
fish and wildlife are dying today. That is because of what we do not 
know yet as to what is causing that.
  People want to portray this as somehow that nobody paid attention to 
this. In 1992, we passed a bill. The majority party has not provided 
the appropriations for that legislation to do these studies. Everybody 
in the State wants to do something about the Salton Sea. The reason 
things have not been done is because we do not know what to do.
  We can spend a lot of money, we can run around and build a lot of 
projects, but unless we know they are going to work, we are not keeping 
faith with the taxpayers and with the Members of Congress in terms of 
the authorization of the money.
  That is the purpose of the substitute that is offered by us. My 
conversations with the Senators from our State, my conversations with 
the environmental groups and with the leadership in the other House 
lead me to believe that this also has the best chance of being passed 
by the Senate and in fact becoming law.
  If we send this legislation over here with all of these bells and 
whistles, with the united opposition of the environmental groups, with 
some of the taxpayer organizations against this legislation, with the 
statement of administrative policy that has serious problems with this 
legislation, we are dramatically reducing the likelihood that we can 
get on with curing the problems of the Salton Sea.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) 
is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard the point from the minority that this is a 
salinity-only bill. That is nonsense. This bill takes a holistic 
approach to restoring the Salton Sea. At the request of this Secretary 
and the Salton Sea authority, $5 million is earmarked for wildlife 
resources studies to provide real-time science to support the 
decisionmaking processes during the feasibility study.
  Additionally, $3 million is included to improve water quality in the 
Alamo and New Rivers, the major sources of water for the Salton Sea. 
The New River, which has been explained earlier, is the most polluted 
river, in some estimation, in the North American continent.
  But if we do not address the sea salinity, we might as well just 
write the sea's ecosystem off. No leading scientist, none that I am 
aware of, dispute this fact.
  In a speech by Dr. Milt Freed, Chairman of the Science Subcommittee, 
delivered on July 29 at the U.S. EPA Ecosystems Restoration, a national 
symposium to bring together practitioners and researchers, he notes the 
salinity of the sea has reached 43,000 parts per million, a level that 
is 26 percent greater than ocean water. Salinity is increasing at a 
rate of approximately 1 percent per year and will soon reach a level 
that will cause a collapse in fish populations, thereby eliminating the 
food base for fish-eating birds that come to the sea. This will also 
end the sports fishery.
  The salinity issue is analogous to passing the particles from one end 
of an hourglass to another. The time frame is finite, and no amount of 
discussion or study will alter the end result. The collapse of the 
biological components of the ecosystem due to the physical parameter 
will have far-reaching impacts on many of the other values humans 
expect from the sea.
  So let us quit talking about, let us get something done, let us 
defeat the Miller-Brown substitute and get on with saving the Salton 
Sea.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be adopted.
  I would point out that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and 
I have worked out agreement on the language that the gentleman 
addressed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Amend the proposed section 101(g)(4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) Appropriations to the secretary of the interior.--
     Amounts appropriated under paragraph (1)(B) to the Secretary 
     may be appropriated to the Bureau of Reclamation as specified 
     in appropriations Acts.''.
       Page 16, beginning on line 5, strike ``from the land and 
     water conservation fund''
       Page 21, beginning on line 9, strike ``from the land and 
     water conservation fund''

  Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?

[[Page H5558]]

  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, 
I thank the gentleman for the changes that he has made, which would 
completely remove the use of the land and water conservation funds for 
this legislation. I think that is important.
  I would, again, reiterate in our discussions with many of the 
environmental coalitions opposing this legislation this does not remove 
their opposition to that legislation. They have numerous items that 
they are in opposition to.
  But I would, if I might, ask the manager of the bill, as we remove 
this source of funding, the land and water conservation fund, what then 
becomes the source of funding here? What is left? EPA and Bureau of 
Reclamation?
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I do not control the appropriations 
process.
  Mr. MILLER of California. What is authorized to be used?
  Mr. CALVERT. Certainly the Secretary of Interior can designate those 
funds from various accounts.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I guess I am trying to 
determine what is left with respect to the authorization?
  Mr. CALVERT. If the gentleman would yield further, the standard 
appropriations process, it does not preclude the appropriators to 
appropriate funds from various accounts that they appropriate from.
  Mr. MILLER of California. But what is the gentleman's expectation? 
And I do not have the language that has been removed.
  Mr. CALVERT. Obviously, the Bureau of Reclamation is a source that 
has been talked about, Fish and Wildlife resources, resources within 
the appropriations process.
  Mr. MILLER of California. So the Bureau of Reclamation remains the 
source of funding then for this legislation?
  Mr. CALVERT. I would not expect any single source of funding for this 
legislation on any major project. As the gentleman knows, we have 
probably never had very many that have had a single source of 
appropriation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me 
back up here then. My problem is we are preauthorizing in this 
legislation. What are we authorizing it from? We were going to 
authorize it from the land and water conservation fund. Now what are we 
authorizing it from?
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the 
Secretary of Interior and EPA can designate those appropriations.
  Mr. MILLER of California. So it is the gentleman's expectation this 
would come out of the Bureau of Reclamation budget and/or the EPA 
budget?
  Mr. CALVERT. That is correct.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) offering this 
amendment to avert the use of LCWF funds. The reason, I think, is 
pretty transparent as to why the land and water conservation fund was 
being used, because you would have no new authorization here and it 
would not score in terms of CBO uder the umbrella of LCWF authority.
  That is interesting, but it is also interesting and important to find 
out in 34 years that these funds have been authorized for the land-
water conservation, authorized until appropriated, in that sense a 
trust fund, that there has not been anything of this magnitude of 
misuse proposed, much less enacted. There have been, I think, some 
minor uses, especially in the last few years, as individuals are 
attempting to look for authorization without CBO scoring and use some 
of the land-water conservation fund, but this measure and action is 
unprecedented. One-third of a billion or nearly $400 million with 
studies coming out this fund would be three or four times the amount 
that this Congress is willing to, in fact, appropriate from that fund 
on an annual basis in recent years.

                              {time}  1830

  So this is an important change. I think there are some other 
questions that need to be answered about this legislation, but I think 
it is a step in the right direction to present this as what it is; this 
is a new authorization that is going to have to score, and clearly, the 
money should be derived from the various program titles and protocols 
of the Bureau of Reclamation and/or other agencies that would have a 
legitimate role. I guess Fish and Wildlife Service would have some 
role, but it is not clear. I think this is another example of why we 
need to adopt, or should adopt, a more definitive plan as to what is 
going to happen regards such Salton Sea project. This measure is simply 
standing the process on its head.
  But that is not the gentleman from New York's problem, but the 
problem of those that are advocating this particular policy.
  So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) for yielding 
under his reservation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, continuing on my reservation, 
just one point here is as I read the manager's amendment, it says, 
``May be appropriated to the administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the Secretary of the Interior in amounts to 
ensure that neither the administrator nor the Secretary is 
appropriating substantially all of the construction costs.''
  So I do not know if that means they split them, but I just think 
again, since this is a preauthorization of this $350 million project, 
Members ought to understand that the rational reading would be about 
half of it is going to come out of EPA, which is receiving reductions 
in funding, and half of it is going to come out of the Bureau of 
Reclamation, which is receiving reductions in funding and not able to 
meet the demands that the Members already place on those two funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment is adopted.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miller substitute.
  I would just call to my colleagues' attention that the Salton Sea and 
the resolution that is of concern to the Members is heartening; that 
is, that we are buoyed by the fact that there is a great deal of 
interest in terms of trying to restore this area--or at least stabilize 
it. But I would hasten to point out that the Salton Sea is a man-made 
ecological disaster. It is a man-made ecological disaster.
  The fact is that this particular landscape, this particular area is 
the product of millions of years, and certainly in the last couple of 
100,000 years, the accumulation of various types of salts and other 
nutrients, as my California colleague (Mr. Miller) has pointed out, in 
this large delta area, the site of an ancient sea. The fact is that in 
the early part of this century, something like around 1905, this sea 
came into existence because of modifications to the manmade hydrology 
and the landscapes modifications in this region of California.
  It has, of course, had continued contributions, accelerated 
contributions of nutrients and contaminated waters that have 
reactivated many of the salts, many of the nutrients to make the kind 
of soup that exists in the Salton Sea today that is obviously not 
conducive to the existence of, even in terms of fauna and flora that 
would normally occur in the ocean, because the salinity as an example 
and the nutrients as an example are even greater than what exists in 
any living ecosystem, in other words, it is toxic to a normal natural 
ecosystem.
  So I think the fact that we have this ecological man-made disaster 
that continues to of course be compounded by the existing treatment of 
the watersheds and rivers and the modifications that have occurred, and 
this is not the only place in the country, incidentally, that we have 
this problem.

[[Page H5559]]

  In fact, if we look at the Bureau of Reclamation, and, in fact, the 
Corps of Engineers have spent billions and billions of dollars, south 
Florida as an example is another place, and we find that they have so 
changed the landscape and hydrology, have provided for the incursion of 
salt water and the damage to these natural areas to a great extent by 
upsetting the balance. But what we do not need on top of the ecological 
man-made disaster here is a legislative disaster. That is, frankly, 
where we are going.
  Everyone agrees that there ought to be a project which addresses the 
problem but we ought to make the commitment to do that, and that it 
ought to be done on a broad-based basis, and there is someone out there 
that has apparently come up with a number: $350 million to something in 
excess of that with studies, $350 million, over a third of a billion 
dollars, to, in fact, resolve this problem, and they are apparently not 
ready to say exactly what that project ought to be. But they suggest to 
those of us that raise questions about this that, in fact, we have had 
enough study; we have had study for 20 years, and we do not need any 
more study.
  Well, I think we need to know how we are going to use that 
information, how we are going to use that knowledge. The fact is that 
water projects that are actually understood and defined much less 
presented in a glowing generality such as this Salton Sea project are 
often among the most controversial measures that the Congress deals 
with.
  Our job in Congress really is not all that complicated. I always 
think of it as trying to translate new information or knowledge into 
public policy. But what is missing here is not the accumulation of a 
lot of information, but a conclusion a solution and we are passing the 
buck, quite frankly, in this bill. In the next 18 months we are saying 
to the administrator, whether it is Secretary Babbitt or whether it is 
others in the EPA in this Clinton administration in whom I have some 
confidence, we are suggesting that they will come up with a final 
solution, and they will bring it to Congress for a review, but it is 
not within the context of our legal law making responsibilities, not 
within the context of our oversight responsibility in terms of this.
  In fact, there has been some question as to statements made by the 
advocates of this measure that the actions that they pretend are 
powerful limits in terms of what Congress would do are not even 
constitutional in terms of their nature. In fact, they represent 
something like akin to and connected to a legislative veto. That is not 
possible. It is not possible to do that. We have been there, we have 
tried that, and the courts have said that particular congressional 
action is invalid.
  So the suggestion that we can bring this back and somehow keep review 
of it is a curious statement and in error. But just giving 18 months 
and suggesting we have a study and solution, and today preauthorizing 
or authorizing over a third of $1 billion to go to this particular 
project without knowing exactly what it is, I suggest, is a predicate 
to legislative disaster, just as we have had the ecological disaster. A 
350 billion dollar water project without definition!
  I understand that without quick action, without better action, we 
will have a continuing compounding of the problem that is going on 
within the Salton Sea ecosystem, but if we are so hell-bent on action 
in this case, one way we could do that is to appropriate the money this 
year, right now, appropriate some money and fence it so that it is 
there pending authority as to enactment of a policy law. That is what 
the major hang-up is going to be in terms of what we are doing here 
coming up with the money. In other words, we authorize many programs, 
and they do not receive the funding or the full funding--that is what 
has repeatedly occurred with this issue in fact!
  I noted that our colleague from California, the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Appropriations, implied that some funds have already 
being set aside, but I doubt anything of the magnitude of what is being 
done. That is \1/3\ of billion has been set aside! In other words, the 
spending and standing the legislative process on its head as is being 
proposed in the underlying vehicle here is, I think, the wrong way to 
go and likely raising hopes but in the end frustrating a final 
solution.
  I think it is destined to be and to make something that should not 
and would not apparently be controversial, extremely controversial.
  So I would hope that in this instance we would stop and take a closer 
look at this, recognize that having it follow the normal process in 
terms of going through and pushing and directing the administration, as 
this bill initially does and as the substitute does, directs the 
administration to come up with a sound proposal that we can then 
authorize and fund, and go through the proper form of debate, rather 
than suspending our responsibilities and then afterwards suggesting 
that we can deal with this by remote control. Look, Ma, no hands.
  We cannot function that way in this institution. We should not. I do 
not think it is a responsible way. I applaud my colleagues for their 
enthusiasm, and I applaud them for their efforts to do something good 
for the Salton Sea, but this is the wrong way to do it.
  The right way to do it is by adopting the Miller amendment in this 
case and providing a specific project, providing specific actions that 
we know, and then try to come back at that point with that knowledge in 
hand, with that specific project in hand and deal with whatever 
mitigation has to be done, allocating the dollars based upon a sound 
authority and policy.
  There are many problems with this bill that I could go into, 
including the cost-sharing, the lack of cost-sharing by the irrigators 
in this area, which are, after all, one of the, I think in my judgment, 
in the studies that I have read, one of the principal contributors to 
the saline and nutrient problem. Looking at the modifications that need 
to be made to facilitate the dealing with the Clean Water Act, dealing 
with NEPA, dealing with the judicial review process so that we can move 
ahead quickly, but having a common understanding of what the specific 
project is going to be, we do not have that.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. The 
gentleman is on a border State.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am on a what State?
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is on a border State; he is 
up North, I am down South. There are two borders, though we forget 
about that sometimes.
  I want to clarify. The gentleman said this happens in many places. 
Where else in the United States do we have a problem like this that has 
been perpetuated through either Federal inaction or inappropriate 
action and been perpetuated through Federal agreements with foreign 
governments?
  I think the gentleman has to admit this is unique in one aspect.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there are some unique 
aspects of this. I am just pointing out that there are man-made 
ecological disasters of some magnitude in Florida, in California. 
Fortunately, I do not know that we can compare the great State of 
Minnesota's environmental problems to this. We have had some problems 
incidentally with Canada and nonnative species like the sea lamphrey in 
Lake Superior. But I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his point. 
And hope he understands mine. That's why I support the Miller 
substitute.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to address some of the concerns that have been voiced here by 
the last speaker, my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Vento).
  First, this is a bipartisan bill, and this is a bill that is the 
subject of enormous compromise. I want to tell my colleagues first 
about part of that compromise.
  A number of the groups that have written in saying they have some 
problems with the bill, and the first biggest problem has been taken 
care of, and that was using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That 
is now no longer a problem.
  They said there was another problem. They said, you are changing the 
Clean

[[Page H5560]]

Water Act. Well, once again, we have a legal opinion voiced by a number 
of attorneys who should know who say that one cannot clean up a river 
using wetlands under the present tight construction of the Clean Water 
Act because, it says, if one takes a bucketful of water out of a river, 
one has to return that bucketful of water in drinking-water form.
  Now, one cannot do that if one builds a series of marshes along the 
New River, as we intend to do. We intend to build one of the biggest 
wetlands projects in America that will host hundreds of thousands of 
birds, hundreds of species, and yet, because of the way we wrote the 
Clean Water Act, we cannot do it, so we live with the most polluted 
river in North America in New River.
  Now, we worked with all sides on this thing, and I have here the 
author of this much-hated provision, and the author, according to my 
memorandum, is the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). Because the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) sent a memo over to the chairman 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), or his staff did, saying, in general, 
the gentleman's preferred course of action is to amend Title I of the 
bill, as reported, et cetera, and they go on to give us the language 
that they would like to have. The language says, ``Subsection D, 
authorization of appropriations for river reclamation and other 
irrigation of drainage water actions under this section, there are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for Land and Water 
Conservation Fund 3 million.'' That is the $3 million that goes into 
cleaning up New River. And above that, ``No permit shall be required 
under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 USC 
1342, for a wetland filtration or constructed wetlands project 
authorized by subsection A-1 of this section.''
  We took the gentleman's exact language that he gave us to put in the 
bill to take care of the problem, and now we are told that it is still 
a problem. I guess I would say to my friend from California (Mr. 
Miller), I want the gentleman to take yes for an answer.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows my first 
preference was to remove the exemption from the legislation. We were 
then asked technically on how you would do it if you were going to do 
it the way you wanted to do it, and we said that is how you would do it 
the way you wanted to do it. Our first preference was to take it out of 
the bill, as recommended by the administration and others.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of compromise, however, the 
gentleman did provide language and we did put in, I would say to the 
gentleman, his precise language.
  Now, let me go to the second point, and that point is the 18 months.

                              {time}  1845

  We had a 12-month period for study before construction, although this 
thing has been studied 30 years, as the gentlewoman and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert) had mentioned. We had given a 12-month 
period for study. We sat down in a good talking session with Secretary 
Babbitt at the Salton Sea, with Secretary Babbitt, his staff and 
himself. He said essentially to me, I do not think I can do it in 12 
months, but he did say in that conversation they thought they could do 
it in 18 months.
  We worked with his staff. His staff sat in on a number of these 
meetings, and they said 18 months. When we met with Senator Boxer, she 
wanted us to move from 12 to 18 months, so we did it. We said, we will 
compromise, we will give 18 months.
  Another thing we were concerned about, of course, was judicial 
review. We did not want lawsuits to stop action on the sea while the 
sea died. I think the gentleman can understand that, because as the 
gentlewoman from California (Mary Bono) has shown us, the sea is on a 
death watch. It is very predictable. At 60,000 parts per million, as it 
gets saltier and saltier, all the fish die, so we have to move now. And 
if somebody sues us and the court date is not set for 2 years, and then 
another suit is filed and that court date is not set for 2 years, the 
sea expires. The sea dies while we are tied up in court.
  So what we said was, okay, to Senator Boxer and others who wanted to 
have judicial review, we said we will. Let us just say that we have to 
have expedited judicial review. We said we wanted to direct the court 
in this language to expedite review.
  That means when you have a temporary restraining order, if somebody 
sues and says, I do not like this because I live down here and I do not 
want to have the sea saved because I think the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Vento) is right, it is an ecological disaster, so let us have it 
die, and they happen to get a TRO from somebody, a temporary 
restraining order, we will say you have to go to trial in 60 days. That 
means do not put the thing off for 2 years while the sea dies, that 
means you go to trial in 60 days. So we have put in expedited judicial 
review instead of eliminating judicial review, so in all areas we have 
made compromises.
  I say to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), I 
called one of my constituents last night who had signed one of the 
letters from one of the environmental organizations that said, we are 
against it for umpteen reasons. I explained the reason for the clean 
water change.
  He said, that makes perfect sense. He said, that is not what they 
told me when they called me and said they wanted me to sign it. I think 
if Members explain that to the people who really care about the 380 
bird species, they are going to agree to.
  So let us get on with this bill. Let us get it passed. I thank the 
gentleman for taking the unanimous consent to make the land-water 
conservation fix that was offered by this side, but this is the right 
action to take. Once again, let us go back to Sonny Bono, who said, why 
can not we just get this thing done? Let us get started, at least.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Redlands, California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding time to me. It is a pleasure to rise today and join my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are strongly committed to 
finding solutions to the tremendous challenge that is this great 
environmental project in Southern California that is known as the 
Salton Sea.
  I must say that in the initial stages of my hearing this discussion, 
I was intrigued to see both my colleague, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) speaking, and he was being aided by his friend, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bruce Vento), and it was almost deja vu 
all over again. I remember fighting months on this, fighting to get 
access to our desert lands by both the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Vento) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and the thrill 
of that process was that we won a few.
  I have a sense we might win a few today, as well, for there is little 
question that this coalition has gone together that is a nonpartisan, 
bipartisan effort to make sure that this tremendous asset, the Salton 
Sea, is saved, finally. It is going forward.
  I must say to my friend, it is going forward almost entirely because 
of the rather fantastic leadership of the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Bono), the new congresswoman from Riverside County, who has done 
a phenomenal job to make sure we keep our eye on this very important 
target.
  If we should remove our serious attention from this for a moment the 
Salton Sea will be gone in terms of its effective use for the people of 
Southern California, and peoples all over the country who appreciate 
just what an important environmental asset this is.
  I must say that the cost that is being suggested here is almost 
beside the point. We are moving forward quickly with rounding out what 
have been years and years of study. The authorized amount that involves 
the project is the minimum amount we need for whatever approach is 
finally selected. There is little doubt that we are going to get to 
that decision very, very quickly.
  I would suggest to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller), that we need to have this authorization in place early on 
because that is the way we go about getting money in the pipeline in 
the appropriations

[[Page H5561]]

process, very quickly. We cannot afford to wait. Therefore, we are 
going forward with that minimum amount that is needed.
  In turn, I must say that if my colleague remembers some years ago, 
back in 1974, when Shirley Pettis was a Member of Congress, she being 
here because her husband, too, had been killed in a tragic accident, 
raised this flag, the most important environmental project in the 
country, I must say, if we had moved forward then instead of having 
these same kinds of questions interfering with that progress, the 
project would have been completed. It would have cost, before, one-
fifth of what it is going to cost, and indeed, this discussion would 
not have been necessary today.
  I want Members to know that I am proud, very proud of those 
colleagues who have joined with me in this effort, but especially 
pleased to join with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mary Bono) 
in what will be a successful and perhaps the most important 
environmental project of this decade.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman that he has 
been this year appropriating some money to get the process started, he 
has already moved out on the project. We deeply appreciate that action. 
It was really timely, and we are going to be able to move this year. I 
understand the administration is moving this year.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, but I would 
not have been able to do that if the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Bono) had not been beating me over the head almost every day.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman for his hard 
work in moving this Salton Sea project. With the gentleman's help, we 
are going to get this done today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It will be a great time to celebrate, but it 
is only the beginning. I really do appreciate this nonpartisan effort.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown).
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I think I owe the body an apology for not being 
able to be here earlier, because I wanted very much to participate in 
this debate, but I was engaged in a ceremony which only occurs once in 
a lifetime. That is being hung, your portrait being hung, in the 
committee room.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to take much of 
the gentleman's time, but I was away at that hanging as well, and I 
must say, at the Library of Congress they had this wonderful ceremony 
where both the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Jim Sensenbrenner) and the 
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Brown) were being 
honored with their portraits being presented to a cross-section of 
family and friends as a reflection of years and years of dedicated work 
on both their parts, but especially my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Brown). And I know he wanted to be here.
  I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), he should be the 
first to know that we have taken out of the bill those few little items 
he was concerned about, so he can be as enthusiastic as he likes.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments. Of course, I am extremely enthusiastic about the need to 
solve the problems of the Salton Sea and the efforts we are making. I 
am encouraged by the large amount of interest in the Congress, and in 
general in the public, in doing something about this problem.
  I have been rather cynical over the past, because I have followed 
every study for the last 30 years aimed at solving this problem, and 
seeing them come to naught, including the 1992 legislation, which 
actually authorized the same general type of study that we are 
authorizing here in this bill, and $10 million in order to fund that 
study, and nothing of any substance has come out of that, which, as I 
say, has left me somewhat cynical.
  I would like to say that I am a coauthor of the bill. I want to see 
suitable legislation passed. I have had reservations about the bill as 
it had emerged from committee, not because I did not appreciate the 
work done in committee to get the bill out, but because I was fearful 
that the product would not survive the intense scrutiny of the other 
body, and that in all likelihood might not survive and be approved by 
the President. That concerns me, because I do not wish to have spent 
all of this time and effort in a futile exercise if we can do better.
  It is my view that we could do better. I have cosponsored the 
amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller), because that amendment or that substitute on his part has 
eliminated much of the material that I think would have caused this 
problem in the other body, or would have precluded or would have caused 
the President to veto the bill.
  Now I am encouraged by the fact, as my good friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis) has just reported to me, and as the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) had reported to me earlier in 
the afternoon, that agreement had been reached to resolve the problem 
of funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which some 
Members may not think is important, but anything that brings down the 
wrath of practically every environmental group in this country is of 
considerable importance to me. It could mean I would not get reelected, 
for example, and that sometimes influences my judgment a little bit.
  The fact that the authors and managers of the bill have been willing 
to accept that change is a very encouraging thing in itself. That does 
not solve all of the problems. Nothing ever does in a piece of complex 
legislation.
  I am learning a great deal about the politics of water in the inland 
empire and in the Salton Sea area, and how many different interests are 
at stake here, and the steps that will be taken in order to protect the 
interests of some of the groups that are involved. I hope I can benefit 
from what I have learned here.
  I am going to support the Miller amendment, because while it reduces 
the scope of the bill, and originally I had wanted a bill that would 
make it clear that the Congress wanted to carry this thing through to 
completion, that it would authorize not only the necessary research and 
the design and specifications for the preferred solution, but would 
actually authorize the construction, I am inclined to think that that 
is one of the things that has added undue complexity to this bill, and 
that by simplifying it and doing it in two stages, we are likely to 
succeed in getting better legislation in the long run.
  My expectation is that the House will disregard my advice and the 
advice of my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), 
and will pass a less than perfect bill. It would not be the first time 
that that has happened.
  Mr. Speaker, I have co-sponsored this amendment with my colleague 
from California to offer a constructive alternative that takes into 
account political, fiscal and environmental realities. My motivation is 
simple: I do not just want a House-passed bill, I want a bill which 
will be passed by the Senate and signed by the President. The 
underlying bill, though it may win House approval, will not be enacted 
into law.
  The substitute which I have co-sponsored with my colleague Rep. 
Miller, does not contain both the authorization of feasibility studies 
and construction, which might hasten the completion of the project. 
However, it does set specific deadlines for Congressional and 
Administration action, including direction to the Administration to 
provide draft authorizing language for the selected mitigation option.
  I must admit to having a less than adequate response to those who are 
asking: ``Why should we authorize $350 million for a project that is 
not fully defined?'' They can rightly claim we are asking them to buy 
``a-pig-in-a-poke.'' It is not possible to fully define environmental 
restoration projects from the outset. This amendment provides a 
framework to begin action.
  I would rather see the process of saving the Salton Sea move forward 
more slowly, but

[[Page H5562]]

with more certainly, than risk losing this bill because of the 
questionable shortcuts which are included in it.
  I would like to take a few minutes to outline some of the other 
provisions of this amendment.
  Our substitute authorizes funding through traditional sources of 
water project funding. The funds needed for research, feasibility 
studies, and construction on the Salton Sea should come from the 
traditional sources dedicated to these purposes. While it is tempting 
to suggest otherwise, we westerners cannot avoid setting priorities for 
expenditures on our water projects by raiding other accounts.
  This is tantamount to admitting that the Salton Sea isn't really a 
priority and that southern California should not expect to be allocated 
its fair share of water project funds. I firmly reject both of these 
notions.
  This substitute contains no Clean Water Act permit exemptions. I do 
not believe the authors of the underlying bill intended anything bad in 
the provisions of the underlying bill. However, the truth is--this 
provision is unnecessary and it looks suspicious. It is true that the 
New and Alamo Rivers are in desperate need of clean up, but so are many 
of our other rivers, and we can not and should not address the problems 
through permit exemptions.
  The constructed wetland projects that are envisioned can move forward 
in a timely manner. We do not need to bypass the Clean Water Act and 
leave the process open to criticism.
  Our substitute also does not contain the broad liability exemption 
for the local water districts that have made their way into the 
underlying bill since introduction. While some type of limited 
liability protection may be reasonable, that is not what the underlying 
text contains. We should not be creating an open-ended exposure for 
federal liability in our efforts to address the Salton Sea's problems. 
I, and all concerned, want to ensure that federal, state, and local 
dollars are spent on clean up activite, not on lawsuits.
  Finally, I want to once again reiterate my continued commitment to 
work with all interested parties to restore and preserve the Salton 
Sea. I want a bill that Members of both parties in both legislative 
bodies will be proud to support and that the President will be anxious 
to sign. I want a bill that is as enthusiastically endorsed by the 
environmental community as it is by the water district representatives. 
I believe the substitute Mr. Miller and I are offering is closer to 
achieving that goal than the underlying bill and I urge my colleagues 
to support our substitute.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
is recognized for 11 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing on 
this amendment, I think what this amendment does is it ensures the 
probability that this legislation will become law, and that we can get 
on with curing the problems of the Salton Sea. It also ensures that 
when we go to cure those problems, that we know exactly what we are 
doing, and that the decisions we make and the money we spend will be 
spent in a scientifically sound fashion; that we will not deal with 
just one part of the problem of the Salton Sea, which is the 
salinization, the continued increased salinization of the Salton Sea, 
but we will also deal with the other concerns with respect to the fish 
kills and the bird die-off that is taking place today, before the 
salinization reaches the levels people have talked about in the coming 
decade. That is the problem of the Salton Sea currently today.
  Also, let me say this, that this amendment removes all of the 
objections of the Clinton administration. It removes all of the 
objections of the Taxpayers for Common Sense. It removes all of the 
objections of the environmental legislation.
  That means that this legislation, if amended with my substitute, 
would have the ability to go to the Senate, be taken from the desk, and 
bypass all of the committee considerations and all of the things that 
we know happen to you when you go to the Senate late in the legislative 
year.
  I believe that with the commitment of the coalition, the commitment 
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono) and everybody else to this process, that we will 
in fact see the results of these studies enacted into law.

                              {time}  1900

  I think we have a better opportunity of seeing that done with this 
amendment. We have accepted the change, I was hoping to offer the 
amendment but the rule did not allow for that, but we accepted the 
unanimous consent request by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) 
to remove the funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That 
is an improvement.
  But let me reiterate and emphasize to all of my colleagues that that 
does not remove the objections of the environmental organizations. That 
does not remove the objections of the Clinton administration, 
objections which are substantial, objections that are serious to this 
legislation.
  I would hope that the Members of the House would vote for this 
substitute because it does deal with the problems of the Salton Sea. It 
does deal with them on the timetable suggested by the majority, but 
what it does not do is it does not preauthorize an unknown $350 million 
project. It does not waive the Clean Water Act or limit judicial 
review. It does not make the U.S. taxpayers 100 percent liable for all 
of the activities that will take place around the Salton Sea. And it 
does not contain an unconstitutional review scheme.
  It does preserve the purpose, the intent and the outcomes that are 
sought in the legislation but without all of the harmful provisions 
that are currently embodied in the bill as it came from the committee. 
I would hope that Members would support the substitute by myself and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miller amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miller-Brown amendment, and in 
strong opposition to the underlying bill. While I fully support efforts 
to restore the Salton Sea, I cannot support a bill which includes 
exemptions from the Clean Water Act, and could actually reduce the 
ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect this 
resource.
  The proponents of the bill claim that it will benefit the 
environment. If that is so, why is every major environmental 
organization opposed to it? The reasons are simple--
  It creates an exemption to the Clean Water Act.
  It excuses local water companies from their rightful liabilities.
  It could divert scarce resources from EPA's environmental programs.
  These concerns make the bill unacceptable.
  I am particularly concerned about the exemption in this bill to the 
Clean Water Act. How can you say that you are doing good for the 
environment if you need an exemption from environmental protection 
laws?
  The Clean Water Act has been under assault by the majority since they 
won control of the House. In the last Congress, we had to fight the 
waivers, loopholes and rollbacks of H.R. 961--the Dirty Water Bill. 
Later, we had to fight anti-environmental riders to the Appropriations 
bill. Now today, we are faced with yet another attempt to create more 
exemptions to environmental protection. These assaults on the Clean 
Water Act must stop.
  The Clean Water Act is our Nation's most successful environmental 
law. Yet, one of its most glaring weaknesses is that irrigation return 
flows are not subject to regulation. How ironic that, at the Salton 
Sea, are these very irrigation return flows are the major source of 
pollution, and that this bill specifically allows untreated irrigation 
return flows to continue to be dumped into the Salton Sea.
  Instead of treating the sources of pollution to the Salton Sea, this 
bill would preserve the existing exemption for irrigators, and create a 
new exemption from the Clean Water Act.
  If the proponents of this bill are serious about addressing the water 
quality issues at the Salton Sea, their bill should address the sources 
of the pollution. That objective would best be served by preserving the 
Clean Water Act, and addressing the pollution from irrigation return 
flows.
  This bill does neither.
  If we want to improve the quality of the environment and protect the 
Salton Sea, we should reject the pending bill and support the Miller-
Brown substitute.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to point out that there is an existing 30 years of studies on 
the shelf. Quite literally, thousands of pages and millions of dollars 
have been spent and the time for action has finally come to move from 
the study

[[Page H5563]]

phase to a consensus-based Federal, State, local, NEPA approved 
engineering solution. Every day compounds the environmental problems of 
the sea, adding time and expense to the solution. Act now or the sea 
dies, period.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
in California (Mrs. Bono).
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and dear 
friend for, first of all, his leadership on this and steering it 
through today. I am a little bit disturbed about something I heard 
earlier in the remarks by one of my colleagues from California when he 
said that he bowed under pressure that he was facing from certain 
environmental groups to go ahead and support the Miller-Brown 
substitute.
  What about pressure from ordinary people? What about pressure from 
people who live near the Salton Sea within the 44th district of 
California? What about pressure from those people, not the pressure 
from people who live inside the Beltway, who live inside Washington 
here?
  Who cares about how we are going to be rated on a score card if this 
is what is, in fact, right. And it is. One of my greatest political 
mentors is Bruce Herschson. He said something brilliant. He said, one 
day as a Member of Congress you might have that vote that comes before 
you that you know is right. You know you are going to have to make that 
vote and know that it might cost you something. Perhaps this is that 
vote for my colleague here.
  I am deeply concerned about the Miller substitute for a number of 
reasons. First of all, I think it is a mistake to offer something, a 
study, again, authorize a significant amount of money to say we will 
study this again, knowing that perhaps we might not go through with the 
solution here. I think that is the ultimate deal here.
  I think we are saying we are going to go ahead and tell the American 
people again, we are afraid to lead here in Congress so we will write a 
check and study it again. Three years from now we are going to maybe 
study it again. That is where we are right here.
  It is time for Congress to say no more. It is time for Congress to 
say, we are serious here, and we are going to do this. I think that we 
need to get away from the Miller amendment just for that very reason.
  The Salton Sea will never be 100 percent perfect for anybody, their 
side, our side, whomever. But it can be a lot better than it is. It is 
a mistake for us to stop what we are doing, to stop the progress simply 
because it cannot be 100 percent. I think we see that in all of the 
issues that they have raised. It will never be 100 percent, but it will 
be close to that.
  I think to study it again, once more, will just be an insult to the 
people who live around the area. And when I travel, when I campaign, 
when I just get out in the district, all I hear is, let us save the 
Salton Sea. People see the studies, and they know that it is a joke. 
They will see the front pages and the headlines, and they will say, no 
more studies.
  Let us get serious here. The one thing that Sonny said is, no more 
studies. I think we need to prove that now. I think, again, it is time 
for Congress to lead. I just think it is time for a bipartisan Congress 
to prove that we will finally get serious here and clean up the Salton 
Sea.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. 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 202, 
nays 218, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 281]

                               YEAS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NAYS--218

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Dingell
     Gonzalez
     Hill
     Linder
     McNulty
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rogers
     Roybal-Allard
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sununu
     Weygand
     Yates

[[Page H5564]]



                              {time}  1923

  Mr. WELLER, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. LAZIO of New York, and Mr. BLUNT changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WEXLER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, as I was returning 
from the White House, I missed rollcall vote 281. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye'' on the Miller substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House Resolution 
500, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 200, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 282]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Dingell
     Gonzalez
     Hill
     Linder
     McNulty
     Miller (FL)
     Oxley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Roybal-Allard
     Schumer
     Yates

                              {time}  1941

  Messrs. GOODLATTE, KINGSTON, EHLERS and HEFNER changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________