Summary:

All articles in House section

SONNY BONO MEMORIAL SALTON SEA RECLAMATION ACT
(House of Representatives - July 15, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5540-H5564] 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 Conte

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

SONNY BONO MEMORIAL SALTON SEA RECLAMATION ACT
(House of Representatives - July 15, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5540-H5564] 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) Tabl

Summary:

All articles in House section

SONNY BONO MEMORIAL SALTON SEA RECLAMATION ACT
(House of Representatives - July 15, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5540-H5564] 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 Conte

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

SONNY BONO MEMORIAL SALTON SEA RECLAMATION ACT
(House of Representatives - July 15, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5540-H5564] 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) Tabl