Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 94 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)

[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.

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.

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''

[[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.

____________________