[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                      ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999

========================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                                ________

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

                JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania, Chairman

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky              VIC FAZIO, California
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan            PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey  CHET EDWARDS, Texas
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi             ED PASTOR, Arizona
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama              
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full 
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full 
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

       James D. Ogsbury, Jeanne L. Wilson, and Donald M. McKinnon,
                            Staff Assistants
                                ________

                                 PART 1

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                           CORPS OF ENGINEERS
              OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
                  (CIVIL WORKS) AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

                              
                                ________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-431 O                    WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office            
        Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office,        
                          Washington, DC 20402                          












                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS                      

                   BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman                  

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania         DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin            
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida              SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois           
RALPH REGULA, Ohio                     LOUIS STOKES, Ohio                  
JERRY LEWIS, California                JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania        
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois           NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington         
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky                MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota         
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                  JULIAN C. DIXON, California         
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia                VIC FAZIO, California               
TOM DeLAY, Texas                       W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina 
JIM KOLBE, Arizona                     STENY H. HOYER, Maryland            
RON PACKARD, California                ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia     
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama                MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                  
JAMES T. WALSH, New York               DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado           
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina      NANCY PELOSI, California            
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                  PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana         
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma        ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California   
HENRY BONILLA, Texas                   NITA M. LOWEY, New York             
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan              JOSE E. SERRANO, New York           
DAN MILLER, Florida                    ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut        
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                   JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia            
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                 JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts        
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi               ED PASTOR, Arizona                  
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey    CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida             
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi           DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina      
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York            CHET EDWARDS, Texas                 
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington  ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin             
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California  
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                    
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                   
TOM LATHAM, Iowa                       
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky              
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama            

                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
















          ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999

                              ----------                              

                                           Tuesday, March 24, 1998.

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                           CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                               WITNESSES

DR. JOHN ZIRSCHKY, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOE N. BALLARD, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
MAJOR GENERAL RUSSELL L. FUHRMAN, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS
THOMAS F. CAVER, JR., CHIEF, PROGRAMS MANAGEMENT DIVISION, DIRECTORATE 
    OF CIVIL WORKS
MAJOR GENERAL JERRY L. SINN, NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
LAWRENCE PETROSINO, NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
MAJOR GENERAL PHILLIP R. ANDERSON, MISSISSIPPI RIVER DIVISION
DONALD W. HERNDON, MISSISSIPPI RIVER DIVISION
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
MORLEY HOFER, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
BRIGADIER GENERAL RICK CAPKA, SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION
WILLIAM DAWSON, SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION
BRIGADIER GENERAL HANS A. VAN WINKLE, GREAT LAKES AND OHIO RIVER 
    DIVISION
MICHAEL WHITE, GREAT LAKES AND OHIO RIVER DIVISION
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT VAN ANTWERP, SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
BRIAN TARAS, SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
COLONEL (P) CARL A. STROCK, PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION
DAVID LAU, PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION
COLONEL DONALD R. HOLZWARTH, SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON, JR., SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION

                   Opening Remarks of Chairman McDade

    Mr. McDade. The committee will come to order. We are very 
pleased to have the Corps of Engineers with us this afternoon 
for what will be a very interesting discussion. It always is. 
This one, however, is a bit special. I want to welcome all of 
the division officers here. We enjoy having you here.
    And I want to tell you what is going on so you will 
understand why this is kind of chaotic this morning. We are 
having a hearing of the full Appropriations Committee across 
the hall. The issues that are involved are highly significant. 
For example, the supplemental appropriations bill for the 
current fiscal year for Bosnia is about $2.6 billion. We are 
going to act on the supplemental. Obviously, that money has to 
be appropriated for the men in the field. Is it going to be 
offset? That is the subject of one argument. Or is it going to 
be added to the deficit? That is the other side of the issue. 
And it goes on and on and on. There is also disaster 
assistance, which you will be called upon to implement.
    So I want to welcome each of you. And, General, since this 
is a different kind of a hearing, a different afternoon, a 
different atmosphere around the hall, I am wondering if all of 
the division officers couldn't stand, identify themselves, 
except for this fellow back here.
    Mr. Ballard. You know him, sir.
    Mr. McDade. We have known each other for a lot of years. 
And I was going to suggest that you stand and identify 
yourselves. We want to welcome you to the Committee. We 
appreciate all of your hard work.
    Colonel Strock. I am Colonel Carl Strock. I command the 
Pacific Ocean Division.
    Mr. McDade. Welcome, Colonel.
    General Van Winkle. I am Brigadier General Hans Van Winkle. 
I command the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division.
    Mr. McDade. Welcome, General.
    General Griffin. Brigadier General Robert Griffin, 
commanding the Northwestern Division.
    Mr. McDade. Welcome.
    General Sinn. I know you told me not to get up, but I will. 
I am Jerry Sinn. I command the North Atlantic Division.
    Mr. McDade. The general and I go back a long time. It is 
good to see you here, and you are most welcome.
    General Anderson. Sir, Major General Phil Anderson. I 
command the Mississippi Valley Division at Vicksburg, 
Mississippi.
    Mr. McDade. Delighted you are here, General.
    General Anderson. Thanks.
    General Capka. Brigadier General Rick Capka. I am with the 
South Pacific Division in San Francisco.
    Mr. McDade. Welcome, General.
    General Van Antwerp. I am Brigadier General Van Antwerp. I 
command the South Atlantic Division of the Corps.
    Mr. McDade. Welcome, General. Glad to have you here.
    Colonel Holzwarth. Sir, I am Colonel Don Holzwarth. I 
command the Southwestern Division in Dallas, Texas.
    Mr. McDade. Colonel, you are most welcome. I don't know how 
a colonel got into that crowd, but we are glad to have you 
here. We, as all of you know, proceed here in an informal sort 
of way, so I want to welcome Dr. Zirschky here and General 
Ballard. We are going to hear from the Assistant Secretary 
first. You are encouraged, as you know, to put your remarks in 
the record and to proceed extemporaneously. The Assistant 
Secretary is recognized.
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir. I would like to have my statement 
included in the record.
    Mr. McDade. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 3 - 23--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                   Opening Statement of Dr. Zirschky

    Dr. Zirschky. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here 
today. I am proud to be part of the Army Corps of Engineers. We 
have been the nation's problem solvers since 1775. I think we 
have a long and proud history of serving this country.
    With me today are the Chief of Engineers, Lieutenant 
General Joe Ballard; Major General Russ Fuhrman, the Director 
of Civil Works; and to his left, Fred Caver, our Director of 
Programs.
    I am going to start by, I guess, giving a few remarks, the 
bottom line of which is please don't shoot the messenger.
    Mr. McDade. Uh-oh. Mike, what do you think that means?
    Mr. Parker. I don't know.
    Dr. Zirschky. The General has agreed to notify my next of 
kin.
    Mr. McDade. You are most welcome to proceed.
    Dr. Zirschky. Throughout my tenure, the Army has tried to 
work with Congress. We got rid of, for example, the prohibition 
on district engineers speaking to members of Congress without 
our permission. We implemented a policy where the Corps of 
Engineers was going to actually fulfill Congressional adds and 
we were going to quit fighting about them. If the President 
signed the bill, that is the law and we are going to execute 
them. We have also tried to in any restructuring decision, 
under the restructuring program, make sure members were fully 
aware of everything that we are doing. We have also put a lot 
of emphasis on our performance.
    In 1993 a lot of you will probably remember how we were 
being disparaged because of the '93 Midwest floods. And I think 
we have come a long way to now where we are getting headlines 
for saving millions and millions of dollars of damages. In 
fact, last year we saved about $40 billion in flood damages 
through our flood protection system. We are still trying to 
improve our performance. In the last few years we have cut a 
year off our planning process, still have a way to go.

                              FY 99 Budget

    Now to get to the budget. I am still breathing, I see. 
Okay, no one is happy with this budget request, not the 
Administration, not our customers. I don't know of any member 
of Congress that is happy with it, nor am I. The Administration 
wants to work with you. In fact, Director Raines has put an 
offer in writing over to several senators who wrote to him 
saying that if you will get a group together, he will come meet 
and see if we can arrive at a mutually satisfactory future 
funding level for the Corps.
    The $784 million we requested for Construction, General is 
a significant cut and a difficult level to work with, but it is 
how we are implementing the balanced budget agreement. Let me 
try and explain how we got to the Construction, General request 
we made, and that is all pretty much that I am going to focus 
on, sir. Our other programs, O&M, for example, are generally 
okay. They might need some more money, but generally we can 
live within the amounts that we requested for that.
    OMB is trying to stay within the balanced budget agreement. 
The chart over here to the left, of which there are copies on 
the dias, show sort of a large gap between how the 
Administration is implementing the balanced budget agreement, 
which is the green line, and the current follow-on funding 
required to keep all the projects we have currently started 
going at their optimal rate.

                              FUNDING GAP

    Mr. McDade. Dr. Zirschky, it looks like a grand canyon to 
me.
    Dr. Zirschky. It is a huge gap, sir, and it----
    Mr. McDade. It is impossible, isn't it?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir, it is very--I don't have the 
capability to manage the program in a good fashion with that 
large a difference.
    Mr. McDade. Not even Moses could handle this one.
    Dr. Zirschky. Well, Moses probably could. He had some help.
    Mr. McDade. I don't think so. He might have some help. 
Maybe he would get some help down at OMB or wherever this came 
from.
    Look at that chart now, will you please? Is that a chart 
prepared by your office, or did OMB do that?
    Dr. Zirschky. That is an--well, we actually have the Corps 
do it based on the planning guidance provided by OMB. And it is 
the chart that was used----
    Mr. McDade. So, in the parlance of the day, when you made 
that chart up, you were following orders?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McDade. Because you recognize, as I do, that the red 
line represents the need and the bottom line represents--or 
allegedly represents--the amount of money that is available 
because of the budget cap. Is that your position?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir. And that is a chart that was used 
in the line item veto statement to talk--to try and begin a 
dialogue on trying to come to some agreement. There will be 
many questions, I am assuming, today on why projects didn't get 
all the money that they need.
    Mr. McDade. Let us just stick on that for a second, because 
I find that chart very misleading to the Committee and to the 
general public, because, as you know, that represents a very 
small total of the domestic discretionary budget of the United 
States of America. I realize you are the messenger and that you 
didn't construct this, but OMB is not being accurate or 
truthful with the Committee or the public when they present 
that budget. The discretionary budget of the United States is 
how much? Do you know, Doctor?
    Dr. Zirschky. No, I don't know, but we are 0.2 percent of 
it.
    Mr. McDade. Well, it is about a third of a trillion seven. 
This figure over here that indicates there is no room within 
that is absolutely fallacious, and I am sure you are aware of 
all the spending initiatives that have come up from the White 
House as new initiatives that could well be plugged into that 
line and have the bottom line equal the red line on the top. 
That is a matter of choice, isn't it?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, I believe the Congress and the 
Administration have differing priorities on how they would like 
to allocate the money available under the balanced budget 
agreement, but the green line is an accurate statement of what 
we currently have and how we put together this budget.

                              FY 99 BUDGET

    Mr. McDade. You can't justify sending up to this Committee 
a budget that can't be executed.
    Dr. Zirschky. Well, sir----
    Mr. McDade. And OMB can't either. I mean, if you want to 
stay the messenger and not the advocate, stay the messenger.
    Dr. Zirschky. Sir, I have to advocate, too. It is--I am 
here to try and present the President's budget and argue for 
it. We can execute the program, unfortunately, to bring all the 
project funding at the red line down to the green line. We 
didn't give anybody or hardly anybody the amount of money they 
needed to fully implement their projects this year. So, for 
example, on----
    Mr. McDade. Dr. Zirschky, are you trying to say that there 
is money in there for all the projects that were begun last 
year, that the construction budget is----
    Dr. Zirschky. No, sir.
    Mr. McDade--Executable? Are you saying the construction 
budget can be executed as presented to this Committee?
    Dr. Zirschky. It can be. There is very little money, 
follow-on money for '98 new construction projects. Those were 
not funded by the Administration. For the '97 projects, yes, 
there is sufficient funds to do some amount of work on every--
to my knowledge, every continuing project, but nowhere near the 
optimal amount we could use. For example, on Houston/Galveston 
we could have used $64 million. We were able to budget five. We 
had to----
    Mr. McDade. Now let us look at that number again, because 
we had a lot of interest on the floor in that figure last year. 
The budget that would be efficient, spend the taxpayers dollar 
wisely and have the Corps do what they can do best, i.e. 
complete the project in a timely way, would require $60 
million.
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, for that----
    Mr. McDade. Is that your testimony, Doctor?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, there is a disclaimer that--let me just 
submit it for the record, that OMB likes me to put when we talk 
about project capabilities. I will just submit that for the 
record, if I could.
    [The information follows:]

    Although project and study capabilities reflect the 
readiness of the work for accomplishment, they are in 
competition for available funds and manpower army-wide. In this 
context, the FY 99 capability amount for ________ considers the 
________ project by itself without reference to the rest of the 
program. However, it is emphasized that the total amount 
proposed for the Army's Civil Works program in the President's 
budget for FY 99 is the appropriate amount consistent with the 
Administration's assessment of national priorities for Federal 
investments and the objective of achieving and maintaining a 
balanced budget. Therefore, while we could use ________ on the 
________ project, offsetting reductions would be required in 
order to maintain our overall budgetary objectives.

    Individual projects could use more money, but if we gave 
every project all the money it could possibly use, we frankly 
would be above our capability to execute the program, because, 
as you see, it would take $5 billion. And we are not prepared 
in Fiscal Year '99 to fulfill $5 billion worth of work.

                          zero funded projects

    Mr. McDade. My friend, Mr. Messenger, I don't put a bit of 
credence in what you are telling me. You guys zero funded a 
host of ongoing projects, didn't you?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes.
    Mr. McDade. How many ongoing projects did you zero fund?
    Dr. Zirschky. Almost all of the 1998 construction adds, 
along with some policy-sensitive projects.
    Mr. McDade. Construction what?
    Dr. Zirschky. All the adds--almost all the adds from the 
Fiscal Year '98 budget construction----
    Mr. McDade. High priority items that were inserted because 
of Members' requests from around the country?
    Dr. Zirschky. I am sorry, sir?
    Mr. McDade. You are talking about high priority items that 
were requested by Members from all around this nation for the 
benefit of the people of the country? Is that what you mean?
    Dr. Zirschky. Sir, the Administration decided not to 
provide follow-on funding for Fiscal Year '98 construction 
projects.
    Mr. Callahan. Would the Chairman yield?
    Mr. McDade. I am delighted to yield to my friend.

                    Opening Remarks of Mr. Callahan

    Mr. Callahan. Mr. Chairman, you know, this is prevalent in 
nearly every subcommittee that we serve on and the full Committee on 
Appropriations. The President has submitted a budget that is a charade. 
And what you are doing is backing up a charade. Now you know and the 
President knows that we are not going to be so irresponsible as to not 
fund the needs of the Corps of Engineers to maintain channels and to 
continue to fund ongoing projects. You know damn well we are not going 
to do that. So what you did, you agreed with the President and he 
concocted all of these new fresh programs that came from out of the 
blue that sounded good. He is going to save social security and he is 
going to balance the budget. He knows full well that Congress is not 
going to be so irresponsible, but you as a soldier are irresponsible in 
following the lead of your Commander in Chief to say--to sit there and 
say that the money you have requested is sufficient to perform your 
job.
    Dr. Zirschky. No, I said it was----
    Mr. Callahan. You have submitted the budget.
    Dr. Zirschky. I have----
    Mr. Callahan. You have requested and you backed the budget 
up, so you are irresponsible if that is indeed what you are 
doing.
    Dr. Zirschky. What I said was we have sufficient funds to 
keep the projects going, not that we have the sufficient funds 
to keep them going at their optimal rate. And, sir, if I could 
continue with the presentation, what I have also said is that 
OMB does not consider----
    Mr. McDade. Just a moment, please.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Parker

    Mr. Parker. Why should we continue with the presentation? I 
don't quite understand this. I mean, I am sitting here wasting 
my time listening to this individual stand up and say we can 
continue the projects but not at optimal rate. You are taking 
the American taxpayer and you are stealing from that taxpayer 
because you are not spending the money in the proper way. I 
mean, we are dealing with a President who, in his budget 
brought to the House and the Senate, did not even include any 
money for Bosnia, even though we are going to have troops in 
Bosnia. Just for clarification, when the hell did OMB start 
mandating and deciding what was going to happen in the country 
contrary to public law that the Congress of the United States 
makes and you are supposed to follow and you have a 
responsibility to follow? I am supposed to listen to this trash 
that you are bringing forth to us, and you are telling me that 
you have made law but we don't have to follow that? We have got 
somebody somewhere that has made a decision that we are not 
going to do this. And you are party to that.
    Dr. Zirschky. Sir----
    Mr. Parker. Try to explain that to me so I can understand 
it, because I am not the brightest person around.
    Dr. Zirschky. Well, you are certainly a bright person, sir. 
I would be delighted to continue the presentation. I have said 
on the record that $784 million is not a sufficient amount, but 
that is the number that we have and that is the money that was 
assigned to our program. But everyone at this table is an 
Administration official. If I might continue, sir, with the----
    Mr. Rogers. Would the Chairman yield?
    Mr. McDade. The gentleman from Kentucky.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Rogers

    Mr. Rogers. Let me just follow up on this. This is 
absolutely a charade. I know your request to OMB was not what 
you are here with today, is it?
    Dr. Zirschky. No, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. The Corps requested of OMB funding far 
different from what you are presenting here today, correct?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Dr. Zirschky is truly a messenger, but he is 
the only one we can find to lay some gloves on here.
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. That is sort of like that general that was seen 
standing in his command post with his teeth out and a private 
running out the parking lot with those teeth clamped to his 
rear end, and the general saying, ``Come back, I am not through 
with you yet.'' We are not through with you yet.
    This budget by the OMB and the White House is a charade 
across the board. It is not just the Corps of Engineers, 
certainly. I know on the subcommittee that I chair we have the 
SBA, Small Business Administration. They sent a budget up, Mr. 
Chairman, for the SBA that requested the Congress to double the 
interest rate charged to disaster victims who had no other 
recourse to loans, who had been wiped out by flood or fire or 
tornado or earthquakes in California by the millions--people 
who could not borrow money anywhere else, by definition making 
them eligible for a disaster loan. And they were proposing that 
we double the interest rates on those poor, disaster-stricken 
people.
    You know what we did in that case? When the Director of SBA 
appeared before my subcommittee to testify with such a sham 
budget, I let her make her statement. Then I declared a recess 
in the hearing and sent her packing. I said we don't even want 
to hear your testimony or ask you questions until you can 
present a budget that has reason and logic and truth to it. And 
we showed her the door.
    Now there are other shams that I could tell you about. I 
mean, it is across the board in this OMB. They are absolutely 
nuts if they think the Congress is going to pass these fees and 
these tax increases and all of that to fund the programs that they 
refuse to fund and shift the money somewhere else. And it is true in 
the case of the Corps of Engineers.
    In my district alone there are eight or ten flood projects 
that the gentleman has flown with me to look at in past years. 
One of those projects is costing $180 million to protect people 
against flooding. It is probably 80, 85 percent or more 
finished and in your budget request you propose just to stop 
right there, zero, and waste the 140 or 150 or 160 million 
dollars you have spent and not spend the extra $10 or $15 
million to finish a massive project--not to mention the 
disaster awaiting the people there if we don't finish the 
project. It is absolutely, utterly stupid. And I wish you would 
convey that, Dr. Zirschky, to the folks that told you that you 
could not present your budget to this Congress.
    In the first place, I find it ridiculous that a legitimate, 
honorable agency of the U.S. Government is not allowed to come 
before the Congress to say what they need to carry out the 
Congress' wishes. How did you come by that? How come OMB has 
that kind of authoritative power over the Corps of Engineers?
    Dr. Zirschky. Sir, we are here to make the presentation on 
the budget, but are allowed to answer any question as members 
of the United States Army truthfully without fear of recourse. 
So after we make the presentation, we can answer any question 
you have.
    Mr. Rogers. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we do the same 
with the Corps that we did with the SBA: ask them to go back to 
OMB and present us a budget that is sensible and logical and 
then we will consider it.
    Mr. McDade. We might do that, but we will chat about it for 
a second. I want to recognize my friend from Arizona, the 
distinguished gentleman.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Pastor

    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two doors down we are 
talking about the President's policy on Bosnia or lack of 
policy on Bosnia, and we forget that last week this Congress, 
or at least this House, voted to keep the troops in Bosnia. I 
guess that, as we deal with these budgets, it is a good time to 
bash the Administration and its officials. And so I am happy to 
see Chairman Rogers tell you that you are only the messenger, 
but we won't kill you, hopefully. We will allow you to go back 
and take the message.
    Mr. Zirschky. And then they will kill me.
    Mr. Pastor. No, I doubt they will. They are honorable men, 
so I would tell you that I don't think they are going to do 
that. But it will be interesting after the Easter break, when 
the majority will bring out their budget, to see where we will 
be in terms of some of these issues. But I want to thank you 
for being here, even under these circumstances.
    Mr. Chairman, if I could, could I ask some questions? Do I 
have some time to ask some questions here on some of the 
projects?
    Mr. McDade. Yes, you do.
    Mr. Pastor. Are you going----
    Mr. McDade. I was going to go back and permit General 
Ballard to give his testimony.
    Mr. Pastor. Okay, I will suspend.
    Mr. McDade. May I say to my colleagues that the suggestion 
by the gentleman from Kentucky is very attractive to us. On the 
other hand, we know that General Ballard brought in all of his 
division officers from around the country. They have all got 
busy work to do, and so I want to hear the general speak to 
this budget. We want to ask you questions. So, General, you are 
recognized. Proceed in your own manner.
    General Ballard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members 
of the subcommittee. I--
    Mr. Pastor. Excuse me, General Ballard.
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Pastor. Could I ask the Chairman a question?
    Mr. McDade. Indeed.
    Mr. Pastor. Will I have time to ask the questions or are we 
just going to take the testimony and recess?
    Mr. McDade. May I say to my colleague, we intend to hear 
the testimony and then ask questions.
    Mr. Pastor. Okay.
    Mr. McDade. And try to--if we can between votes over there 
and testimony here--conclude.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McDade. That is our objective. And we will get back to 
you shortly.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, General Ballard.
    General Ballard. Thank you.
    Mr. McDade. General, proceed in your own fashion. We are 
glad to have you here.

                  Opening Statement of General Ballard

    General Ballard. Sir, I will do a little bit of 
paraphrasing, based upon the conversation that just pursued. I 
have submitted my statement for the record, so I will go ahead 
and summarize it.
    Mr. McDade. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 31 - 50--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                       civil works program budget

    General Ballard. I would like to summarize quickly on just 
five topics here, sir. I want to talk a little bit about the 
division restructuring, something about the headquarters 
relocation, then come back at my own peril to talk about the 
Civil Works program budget, say a little bit about the Corps of 
Engineers financial management system and our Civil Works 
program execution.

                         division restructuring

    First I would like to take a moment to review the progress 
of division restructuring. Beginning in April of 1997, the 
Corps began to implement the restructuring which reduced the 
number of division headquarters from 11 to 8. I approved most 
of the division commander's implementation plan in May of 1997, 
and since that time the new organization has been up and 
running. I am convinced that the division restructuring 
provides a more efficient organizational structure that will 
result in greater efficiencies in the future. We expect that 
the staffing level for the eight divisions will be about eight 
percent less in FY '99 than the division usage in '97 and about 
18 percent less by FY '02. I am targeting the Corps Civil Works 
headquarters activities for achievement of comparable manpower 
savings.

                        headquarters relocation

    Briefly, some comments about the plans to relocate the 
Corps headquarters. The Corps proposes to relocate its 
headquarters in August of 2000 to the underutilized spaces in 
the headquarters building of the General Accounting Office at 
441 G Street Northwest, Washington, D.C. By relocating from the 
Pulaski Building, we will leave commercially leased space to 
make more efficient use of government-owned space. The close 
proximity of the GAO headquarters to the Pulaski Building will 
minimize the impact of the relocation on the Corps employees. 
Additionally, our headquarters will not be disrupted by 
reconfiguration or modernization of space which would be 
required if we were to remain in the Pulaski Building.

                          fy 99 budget request

    Turning now to the Civil Works Direct Programs, I know that 
you have seen and your staff have analyzed the proposed funding 
level, but let me highlight a few key points. New discretionary 
funding for FY '99 includes $3.075 million for domestic 
programs and $140 million for the newly assigned defense 
program FUSRAP. It is smaller by some $836 million than the 
total appropriation in FY '98--and I think you are aware of 
this--largely reflecting a $685 million reduction in the CG 
program. Seventeen percent of the funding will come from one 
special and two trust funds that are set up to fund our work 
and one proposed special fund to be resourced from permit 
application fees. The proposed funding includes traditional 
plus the advanced incremental funding. And this approach is in 
support of the Administration policy to commit up front to 
funding all federal investment and fixed assets.
    The overall impact of this budget is consistent with 
efforts underway to balance the budget, which is important to 
the nation. It provides funding for Corps traditional missions, 
including funding for new starts in each year of the five-year 
program to address some of our more pressing water resource 
management needs. A special concern of mine, however, is our 
ability to maintain our existing Civil Works infrastructure. 
The facilities are getting older and funding is declining. 
Major General Fuhrman has been focusing on this problem.

             corps of engineers financial management system

    A few words about our new financial management system, 
CEFMS. As of 30 September '97, we have completed deployment at 
44 Corps locations. To date in FY '98 we have completed 
deployment at our Cold Region Research and Engineering 
Laboratory, Northwest Division, Alaska District, Transatlantic 
Engineering Center, Europe and initial deployment at the South 
Pacific Division. We will complete the process at all locations 
this month. And in fact, we have done that.
    I am proud to report the success of our first division to 
have fully operational use of CEFMS for a year. The U.S. Army 
Audit Agency has advised me that it will be issuing an 
unqualified audit opinion for the first time for the FY '97 
financial statement for our Southwest Division. This will be 
the first time a major component of the U.S. Army and the 
Department of Defense have been able to earn an unqualified 
audit opinion. So we are pleased and flattered that CEFMS is 
being adapted for widespread use throughout DOD.

                           program execution

    A quick word on our execution rate. Currently our execution 
rate against unscheduled expenditures range from 94 to 102 
percent, so as you know, these performance measures are 
critical ones for the Corps. And we will keep working on this 
area to sustain good performance and improve where necessary.

                               Conclusion

    So in conclusion, with the recently implemented 
improvements in our business systems and practices, we have 
raised the quality and the quantity of our production and in 
turn the level of customer satisfaction while simultaneously 
enabling us to participate significantly in efforts to 
downsize. Our strategic management plan commits us to four more 
dramatic improvements in performance and customer satisfaction 
with the goal to revolutionize our effectiveness in problem 
solving.
    And finally, sir, thanks to the direction set by leaders of 
this Committee and the trust placed in the Corps, the Civil 
Works Program does have a strong balance and is highly 
productive. And I will truly miss the invaluable contributions 
of our retiring members, you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Fazio and 
Mr. Parker. I look forward to a continuing partnership in this 
essential program that is so beneficial to our great nation.
    Sir, that concludes my statement. We are prepared to take 
your questions.

                         construction, general

    Mr. McDade. General, thank you for your comments. As I look 
at the budget, your construction account is cut by $690 
million, or 47 percent, is that right?
    General Ballard. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. McDade. Can you tell me when the Construction, general 
account, which is about $784 million, was last below $800 
million? Can you tell me when that was?
    General Ballard. Yes, sir, I have--we have had some 
research done on this. I asked the same question about three or 
four months ago. And it would depend on how you would calculate 
it. If you go back and look at just pure dollars, current 
dollars----
    Mr. McDade. We want real dollars.
    General Ballard. Current dollars would be 1970. If you 
account for inflation, we have never had a budget quite this 
low.
    Mr. McDade. Never had a budget this low?
    General Ballard. No, sir.
    Mr. McDade. Now as I understand it, many projects underway 
are not funded at all. 46 of 50 high-priority projects which 
were sent down in law, signed by the President, are now 
defunded--46 out of the 50 that were sent down. Is that an 
accurate assessment?
    General Ballard. I think that number is correct. I would 
look for General Fuhrman here, but I think that is accurate.
    Mr. McDade. Let me just try to put a little bit of 
specificity into that. General, how much is in the budget for 
the St. Paul Harbor Project, which was a project that was 
underway?
    General Ballard. To give you the exact number, sir, let me 
have Mr. Caver look that up.
    Mr. McDade. Get ready because I am going to ask you about 
several. You can tell the general what the answer is, but we 
want to go pretty quickly if we can. I want to recognize Mr. 
Pastor.
    Mr. Caver. The budget is zero.
    General Fuhrman. The budget is zero, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McDade. Zero? How much for American River Watershed, 
California?
    Mr. Caver. One million.
    General Fuhrman. One million, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McDade. How much is in for the Port of Long Beach?
    General Fuhrman. Zero, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McDade. Zero. How about for the Palm Valley Bridge in 
Florida?
    General Fuhrman. Zero, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McDade. Zero. How much for the Wabash River, New 
Harmony, Indiana?
    General Fuhrman. Zero, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McDade. Zero. I am getting a lot of zeroes. We are 
pitching a shutout here.
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McDade. I want you to put at this point in the record, 
General, every project that was underway that is funded at the 
zero level.
    General Ballard. Yes, sir, will do.
    [The information follows:]

[Page 54--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. McDade. At this time I want to yield to my friend from 
Arizona, Mr. Pastor, who has a few questions.

                         remarks of mr. pastor

    Mr. Pastor. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope I have a better 
batting average than that with some of the projects I am going 
to ask about. But first of all, before I ask the questions, I 
want to thank you for being with us and providing the 
information that will allow us to mark up a bill. So I know 
there is some dissatisfaction, but this is the budget that is 
before us and I think we need to work with it the best we can.
    But, Mr. Chairman, let me first recognize the efforts of 
General Ballard. I have had the opportunity to participate in 
at least two conferences in which he has tried to extend 
opportunities to the small business community and to the 
entrepreneurs who want to participate with the Corps of 
Engineers, and so I want to let you know that that effort is 
going on. And I want to congratulate General Ballard for his 
efforts and wish him the best, and I look forward to working 
with him on that.
    General Ballard. Thank you very much, Mr. Pastor.

                               rio salado

    Mr. Pastor. Most of the questions will deal with projects 
specific to Arizona, General, so I don't know if you want 
General Capka to respond. So let us start with this. My first 
question deals with the Rio Salado feasibility study for 
environmental restoration. The question is whether it is still 
on schedule to make authorization under this year's award?
    General Ballard. Go ahead, please.
    General Capka. Yes, sir, it will be. In fact, the 
feasibility report position, engineer's notice, will be 
completed by the 10th of April. We expect that the chief's 
report will be provided to the Administration for forwarding to 
Congress within about 30 days. And we also expect to initiate 
the preconstruction engineering and design by May.
    Mr. Pastor. The second question: What is your FY '99 
capacity for furthering the Rio Salado project?
    General Capka. Sir, subject to the normal qualifying 
language that Dr. Zirschky had submitted for the record, the 
total funds of $2 million could be used in Fiscal Year '99 for 
additional design for the environmental restoration project. 
This would advance completion of the PED, the preconstruction 
engineering design, by about 24 months.

                             rillito river

    Mr. Pastor. General, what is the status of the recreation 
bridges over the Rillito River, Arizona, project?
    General Capka. Sir, the Los Angeles District recently 
addressed comments by our headquarters on the limited 
reevaluation report and is working with the sponsor to 
negotiate an amendment to the project cooperation agreement. 
And it is tentatively scheduled for execution in June of this 
year. And we expect construction to be scheduled for start in 
September of this year.

                          ajo detention basin

    Mr. Pastor. General, when will you be ready for 
construction of the Ajo detention basin and Section 1135 
environmental restoration project and what is the current cost 
estimate?
    General Capka. Sir, if funding is made available, a 
construction award could be made during the first quarter of FY 
'99. The current total cost estimate is about $4.6 million, and 
would be cost shared on a 75/25 percent basis between the 
Federal government and local.

                              challenge 21

    Mr. Pastor. General, Pima County, Arizona, is very 
interested in your Challenge 21 initiative. Can the Challenge 
21 initiative be included in any part of the Santa Cruz River 
Basin?
    General Capka. Yes, sir. The Challenge 21 is an initiative 
being recommended by the Administration to Congress to plan and 
implement projects that restore riverine ecosystems while 
mitigating flood hazards. Los Angeles District is ready to 
propose the Santa Cruz River be included in the initiative, 
provided that there is legislation for Challenge 21 under the 
Water Resources Development Act, perhaps this year.

                               tres rios

    Mr. Pastor. In view of the time, this will be my final 
question, Mr. Chairman, and I will submit the rest for the 
record. General Capka, if you were not limited by overall 
Administration budget objectives, how much additional funding 
could you productively utilize in FY '99 for the Tres Rios 
feasibility study?
    General Capka. Sir, we can use--again, subject to the 
limitations, we budgeted for $610,000 and can use $700,000 to 
advance a study completion in approximately three months.
    Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the fine work 
of the Los Angeles District Office. They have been very 
cooperative, and in Arizona we have had very positive results 
from that cooperative endeavor. And I also want to thank 
General Capka for all the leadership he has given. So thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the remaining questions.
    Mr. McDade. Without objection. We appreciate the 
gentleman's input. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.

                            harlan, kentucky

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask you 
specific questions about projects in my district, but I am 
doing it to make a larger point. You have spent $162 million so 
far on a flood control project in Harlan, Kentucky,and you are 
about 85, 90 percent finished. How much is in your budget for next year 
for Harlan?
    Dr. Zirschky. Nothing, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Zero.
    Dr. Zirschky. Zero.
    Mr. Rogers. Same thing for Middlesboro. We have spent 
$15\1/2\ million out of $26 million. How much is in the budget 
for Middlesboro?
    Dr. Zirschky. Zero.
    Mr. Rogers. Williamsburg, a flood wall. We have spent 
$19\1/2\ million toward its total of $22 million. How much is 
in the budget for it for next year?
    Dr. Zirschky. Zero.
    Mr. Rogers. City of Martin, same thing.
    Dr. Zirschky. Zero.
    Mr. Rogers. Martin County, same thing.
    Dr. Zirschky. Zero.
    Mr. Rogers. Pike County?
    Dr. Zirschky. Zero.
    Mr. Rogers. And with a good deal of those you have got 
people sitting in the mud with a wall half finished or a ditch 
half dug. They are not protected from the flood. We spent 
hundreds of millions of dollars and yet you propose to just 
stop them dead in their tracks, right?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Now what can I tell those people? How can I 
explain to sensible people back there that their government is 
doing something like this? Help me out.
    Dr. Zirschky. Well, sir, at some point if I can return to 
my opening statement I think I could make it a little clearer, 
but short of that, there are only a limited amount of funds and 
the Administration does not view those projects as having a 
favorable benefit cost ratio and chose not to fund them.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, the point is that they are 90 percent 
done. And in spite of what they may think about the original 
decision to do the projects, they are 90 percent done and the 
people are sitting in the mud and danger and we will have 
wasted all of that money. What do you say about that?
    Dr. Zirschky. Sir, on some of the projects if there is not 
a favorable benefit cost ratio on the work that remains to be 
done, then to continue the work OMB would view it as continuing 
to waste money. Many times we have been successful on cases 
where there is a positive benefit cost ratio to completing the 
last bit of work to get them to successfully fund it. And we 
could look to see if any of those are in that category. That is 
the only time we have been successful with OMB.
    Mr. Rogers. Now I am assuming that the list that I gave you 
is typical of the rest of the country. Is that right? There are 
ongoing projects which have been just stopped dead cold, 
correct?
    Dr. Zirschky. I would say that those projects are--they are 
more concentrated, sir, in your region of the country than----
    Mr. Rogers. Because they are section 202 projects?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. When the Congress passed that law, by 
definition the 202 projects were designated to occur regardless 
of the cost benefit ratio, correct?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. So they don't stand on the same footing as 
other types of projects, but is it not true that projects 
around the country--although maybe not to this degree--have 
been zeroed out?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir, most of the 1998 new starts have 
been zeroed out for reasons----
    Mr. Rogers. Now I am not talking new starts. I am talking 
ongoing projects now, not new starts.
    Dr. Zirschky. No, sir, most projects were not zeroed out. 
Almost none of them got the amount of money that they needed.

                            fy 99 new starts

    Mr. Rogers. All right, now let us talk about new starts. 
How much did OMB send up here for new starts, brand new starts? 
How much money?
    Dr. Zirschky. It wasn't very much. I don't know the exact--
--
    General Ballard. I think, Fred, do you have that number?
    Mr. Caver. No, I don't.
    Mr. Rogers. I have got it for you. It is $410 million. 
Anybody dispute that?
    Dr. Zirschky. That is the total once they are all built.
    General Fuhrman. It is total once they are all built.
    Dr. Zirschky. It is 16,100,000, roughly, for this year.
    Mr. Rogers. But you are committing yourselves with these 
new starts this year to a total construction cost of $410 
million?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. These are new projects, right?
    General Ballard. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. They are not in the middle of construction or 
anything. They are brand new starts.
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. And so you are proposing to stop construction 
or underfund existing projects around the country in order to 
start new starts that OMB says should be started, correct?
    Dr. Zirschky. No, sir. What I was trying to get to with my 
presentation is to explain why this budget request was so low 
and to make an offer that Frank Raines has put in writing to 
meet with the committees personally and try and come up with a 
new number that addresses those concerns.
    Mr. Rogers. We don't meet with them. We will do our budget, 
and if he likes it, fine. If he doesn't, who cares?
    Dr. Zirschky. Well, sir, the----
    Mr. Rogers. He does not write this Committee's spending 
priorities. He does not spend the taxpayers' monies. By the 
Constitution and the law, we spend those dollars, and by God, 
we will. Tell him that.
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir. I don't actually get to talk to him 
very much. He is higher up the food chain than I am. But yes, 
sir, we did request some new starts. The message we are trying 
to send is that the Administration does want new starts. What 
they would like to get an agreement on is what level of a 
construction budget in the future.
    And it does matter, because if we can't come to some 
agreement, our lives become increasingly unmanageable, because 
every year we put together the budget--I had two choices this 
year with the amount of money that I had. I could have chosen 
to fund only a few of the projects at their optimal rate and 
left a lot of other projects zeroed out. But instead, to do the 
best I could to work with the Committee, I told the Corps to at 
least try and give every project that OMB would let us some 
amount of money to keep it going so that at least you wouldn't 
have to get it added back to the budget. It would become an 
issue of agreeing on how much extra money to put in that 
program. That has us in a very difficult situation, because if 
we can't get some agreement next year we are going to be up 
here with probably a bigger problem.

                              army request

    Mr. McDade. Let me interrupt for just half a second, only 
because my colleague has asked a good question and you are 
trying to give a good answer. You are basing your answer on the 
amount of money that OMB apportioned to you for that portion of 
the budget?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, that is what we are required to do.
    Mr. McDade. What did you request?
    Dr. Zirschky. $1.8 billion for Construction, General.
    Mr. McDade. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
    Mr. Rogers. You requested $1.8 billion?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. And how much did you get?
    Dr. Zirschky. I successfully argued for $784 million.
    Mr. Rogers. And you didn't even get to talk to Raines?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir, I did talk to Raines at several 
points during the line item veto discussions to urge a 
moderation of line item vetoes and to urge a negotiation with 
the Congress to try and get some agreement, because the 
situation is getting more and more unmanageable.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, surely he will understand one of these 
days that it is better for him to send up a credible budget 
request here on your behalf and other agencies' behalfs and 
have us discuss it sensibly because he sent up a rational 
budget spending plan. Surely he understands that that is much 
preferable to sending up a nonsensical budget plan that we 
throw in the waste basket. He loses all input into our 
deliberations at that point, because it is a nonsensical 
budget. Does he understand that? Well, you don't know.
    Dr. Zirschky. Well, I would hope that he would. There is 
some disagreement, frankly, about the levels of our funding. 
And I believe Director Raines understands the issues now. And I 
would hope that we could sort of all take the moral high 
ground, and even if this budget is unacceptable still get 
together and try and work out a new one.
    Mr. Rogers. No, I mean, once you send up your budget and it 
is nonsensical enough not to be considered, you lose all input. 
I mean, we will take it and do it over. We have to. And you 
lose all credibility. You lose all input. And that is 
unfortunate, because you are the experts. You are the people 
that are doing the work and are charged to do the work and 
should be doing the work. But when you give us something that 
is incredible, we throw it in the waste basket and we write it 
ourselves and OMB loses all input into the process. Is that 
what they want?
    Dr. Zirschky. I would hope not, sir. The problem for us is 
we have got to figure out what to do the rest of this fiscal 
year, and we don't know what we are going to have for '99. And 
we are going to be faced with the potential for work stoppages 
or not keeping projects going. I think we can handle all of 
them right now, but I would like to get some guidance before I 
leave from this Committee on reprogramming to at least keep 
your work going. I would be happy to discuss that at your 
convenience, Mr. Chairman.

                             reprogramming

    Mr. McDade. Do you mean reprogramming from within the 
construction account?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McDade. You are going to rob Peter and pay Paul. Is 
that what you are saying?
    Dr. Zirschky. I am going to rob Peter.
    Mr. McDade. Yes. We don't like robbing up here.
    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, I would object to that last 
remark.
    Mr. McDade. You know, as we sit in this committee room, we 
tend to forget what the impacts are. The gentleman from 
Kentucky was referring to citizens in his state with 
uncompleted projects and the consequences. Are you familiar 
with the Los Angeles County Drainage Area Project?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McDade. Do you know what the impacts are if this budget 
remains the same on that project?
    DMr. Zirschky. Yes, sir. And if the future allocations or 
assignments don't change, it will probably delay the project 
roughly 10 years.
    Mr. McDade. And what does it do to the local citizenry?
    Dr. Zirschky. The people who will not be removed from the 
100 year flood plain, are lower income people, and will have to 
spend a considerable amount of money, at least for them, on 
their flood insurance. I have written to Director Witt to ask 
him that if we cannot find more money within our program to 
keep LACDA going, would he consider trying to work something 
out where the flood insurance premiums would go directly to the 
project rather than to some insurance pool so we can get the 
job done.
    Mr. McDade. The information that has come to the Committee 
from the citizens of that area and the local sponsor is that 
their flood insurance of the, as you said, mostly lower income 
people will be 10 times greater if this budget stays in effect. 
Do you agree with that?
    Dr. Zirschky. I don't know about exactly 10 times, but 
their costs will be much more significant, and the chances of 
having a flood----
    Mr. McDade. You don't know that it is 10 times, do you?
    Dr. Zirschky. No, sir.
    Mr. McDade. Okay. The gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized.

                   Opening Remarks of Mr. Knollenberg

    Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, I think. 
Well, I don't believe we have any----
    Mr. McDade. Forgive me for interrupting. I don't want your 
questioning to be interrupted, and I am advised a vote is going 
to occur across the hall in just a few minutes. So we have to 
go, gentlemen, and be a party to the vote. The committee will 
recess for 15 minutes.
    [Recess.]

                               soo locks

    Mr. McDade. The Committee will come to order. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start with 
a couple of questions about a local situation in the State of 
Michigan. The first question concerns the Soo Locks. It is a 
replacement lock. Can you give me an update on the status of 
the Soo? How much have we spent, and how much will the total 
project cost?
    Dr. Zirschky. I can give you an update on the current 
status and would ask the General to provide the financial 
figures. We are in the process of trying to finalize a draft 
reevaluation report.
    Mr. Knollenberg. If you can, please be very brief in this 
analysis.
    Dr. Zirschky. Okay. All right. Right now we are looking for 
a state or states to be a cost-sharing partner for those locks 
and have not yet identified such a partner. And, General, if 
you want to go over the economics?
    General Fuhrman. We are continuing to use the FY '98 money 
to do that. There is no money requested in FY '99 for that 
project.
    Mr. Knollenberg. So then how much will the total project 
estimate be? How far are we from paydirt--from closure?
    General Fuhrman. Well, the entire project would be in the 
neighborhood of $300 million if we go to construction.
    Mr. Knollenberg. $300 million?
    General Fuhrman. Ultimately go to construction.
    Mr. Knollenberg. All right. But the whole thing is kind of 
on hold then. What you are saying is that there is no money in 
the budget to continue that?
    General Fuhrman. Yes, and the key piece, Congressman, is a 
cost-sharing partner sponsor for that project.
    Mr. Knollenberg. What are the risks if we don't proceed 
with this replacement lock?
    General Fuhrman. At this point in time, the locks that are 
there--the major lock that is there is adequate to handle the 
traffic. The issue is what sort of risk does one want to take 
in the future.
    Mr. Knollenberg. And by the future you mean, General, when?
    General Fuhrman. In the next--I guess it would be in the 
next 10 to 15 years depending on an analysis of what the 
traffic patterns and commerce associated with that lock are and 
the Great Lakes are.

                             lake st. clair

    Mr. Knollenberg. Let me go to a question about Lake St. 
Clair, which is also a Michigan lake. There is a program called 
the Aquatic Plant Control Program in Lake St. Clair. I don't 
know who would have the specifics on that. But I want to know 
just what progress the Corps is making in fighting the invasive 
plant species. We have a real problem in Lake St. Clair, as you 
well know.
    And I know in 1998 Congress appropriated $5 million for 
that program, which was a $3 million increase over '97, and I 
see this year the President's '99 request is $2.6 million. What 
level of funding is necessary to maintain control of Lake St. 
Clair? Is it adequate at the present? Is that reduction proper?
    General Fuhrman. That money is only for R & D. It is not 
for any actual removal of materials.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Would that reduction in the budget, 
though, impair or negate what it is you are trying to do there?
    General Fuhrman. It would slow down the speed of the 
research and from that perspective would delay any solutions 
for implementation.
    Mr. Knollenberg. As you know, the zebra mussels and the sea 
lamprey are the problem there, and it has been a real problem. 
Sometimes it is up, sometimes it is down, but it is never gone 
entirely. So you are saying there would probably be a 
negligible effect upon that situation if the funding were not 
maintained?
    General Fuhrman. Clearly, it would affect the rate at which 
we can conduct the research to find a plausible solution.

                                 fusrap

    Mr. Knollenberg. Let me go to a question on FUSRAP. And, by 
the way, I applaud what is being done in that regard. I think, 
General Ballard, you might be the one to speak to this. But I 
am interested in learning how the transition of the FUSRAP 
program to the Corps of Engineers is going, and I was 
encouraged when we moved that program from the DOE to the Corps 
of Engineers. I had some optimism about the fact that this will 
help clean up those sites that much faster.
    Specifically, in the report language in the conference 
report for the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for '98, it 
provided the following: the Corps should determine if it is 
possible and/or reasonable to meet the proposed 2002 completion 
date and report to the Committee on Appropriations within 90 
days on what steps must be taken to meet this date. Number 1, 
has the Corps met that 90-day deadline?
    Dr. Zirschky. No, sir, we did not. We got the report 
cleared late last week, and I believe it was submitted this 
morning.
    Mr. Knollenberg. So it will be another----
    Dr. Zirschky. No. I mean, it was submitted to Congress I 
believe this morning.
    Mr. Knollenberg. All right. So it is----
    Dr. Zirschky. It is late.
    Mr. Knollenberg. It is late. Okay. I am not trying to come 
down on the Corps on this thing--not necessarily. In fact, I am 
trying to encourage you to prove your worth in that regard if 
you are capable of cleaning up and closing out the FUSRAP 
sites. That is really the area that I want to investigate with 
you. The DOE failed in getting this program closed out. If the 
Corps proves effective with FUSRAP, could they become a player 
in other defense cleanup sites?
    General Ballard. Let me take that, sir. It is not if. We 
will execute the FUSRAP program when the----
    Mr. Knollenberg. I am not advocating that you take on 
everything that is out there because you have got----
    General Ballard. No, sir. I fully understand.
    Mr. Knollenberg [continuing]. Some limitations too, of 
course.
    General Ballard. We do have some limitations. When the 
program was transitioned to us, we established four key 
priorities: Number 1, that we would transition a program 
without slippage from the DOD original time line. We have done 
that. The second one was to do a complete assessment of the 22 
sites----
    Mr. Knollenberg. It is 22 sites?
    General Ballard. It is 22 that were transitioned to us, 
sir. And then to prepare that report, and, as you requested, we 
did that within the time that was given to us. The third 
priority was to then transfer that program from the DOE 
contractors and get it down to the districts and the divisions 
who were actually executing that work, and we have done that. 
The other priority that I laid on on my commanders was to 
leverage the dollars that were given to us without any growth 
in FTE so we have done that. This program I feel is on a sound 
footing, and we are beginning to move out on it.
    Mr. McDade. Will the gentleman from Michigan yield?
    Mr. Knollenberg. I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McDade. General, not only are you and your officers to 
be commended for not increasing employment, but in terms of 
administrative costs, the Corps beat the old system. I believe 
that we are saving about 30 percent in the administration of 
these contracts in the way you are executing them.
    General Ballard. I think in the rough order of magnitude, 
that is about correct, sir.
    Mr. McDade. And we have a roll call vote across the hall. 
We will recess for 10 minutes this time and will see you at 
3:15, we hope.
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.
    [Recess.]

                              EXPENDITURES

    Mr. McDade. The Committee will come to order, and the Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Visclosky. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman. Now, Mr. Secretary, you have a chart up here on fund 
expenditures in recent years with two bar graphs; the red 
indicating how much money was available to spend, a green bar 
indicating how much money we were able to spend. Is the green 
bar your capability, or is it simply what you spent?
    Dr. Zirschky. Well, sir, for the past years '94, '95, '96, 
that was our capability. That is what we were able to actually 
put out the door. We are proposing a half a billion dollar 
increase in our capability in '98, that we will be able to put 
out a half a billion dollars more work. That is a pretty 
significant growth in performance.
    Part of the difficulty, and I have skipped a number of 
charts in my presentation that we are looking at, is we will 
have a billion dollars in carryover at the end of fiscal year 
1998. And what I hope I can get from the Committee--not all 
that billion dollars we can use. I don't want to give that 
impression. I would be delighted to explain what that money is. 
I need some guidance from the Committee on how I might use some 
of that money to reduce the amount of carryover.
    That is why OMB reduced our Construction, General request 
is that we got so much money in fiscal year '98, they wanted to 
keep our outlays at roughly a billion dollar range so they 
subtracted the money we were going to carry over in 
construction from what they hoped we would spend in 
construction to come up with the $784 million. That is not the 
number they wanted either, but we got money faster than we 
could use it on many projects in fiscal year '98.
    And OMB and CBO agree that roughly on new construction 
money, we spend about 60 percent of that in the year we get it, 
and 40 percent of it carries over. And our growth in funding 
was so great that we will probably carry even some more of that 
over. Before I leave, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss 
with you how I might reprogram more money to reduce that 
carryover and get some projects back on schedule.
    Mr. McDade. Go ahead. We would like to hear from you. You 
might as well do it now. Mr. Visclosky?
    Mr. Visclosky. If you want to do it right now, that is fine 
with me.

                             REPROGRAMMING

    Dr. Zirschky. Okay. The next chart--it sounds like, you 
know, a billion dollars is a huge amount of money, and that is, 
frankly, how we got into this situation of not having a very 
big budget request that is in '94 and '95. In '94 we had $1.4 
billion left over, and to get our carryover down, we got our 
budget authority cut, and we have never been able to get that 
budget authority back.
    Of that $1 billion, about $145 million of it is easily 
reprogrammable. We have follow-on funding for those projects. 
It is budgeted in '99. Of that $145 million, about $112 million 
of that is construction money, and we have identified that we 
need $80 to $90 million of that and will be submitting a 
reprogramming request very soon to make----
    Mr. McDade. Let me ask you a question. Do you have to 
submit a request for reprogramming to the OMB?
    Dr. Zirschky. For certain amounts, yes, we do.
    Mr. McDade. What is the threshold?
    Dr. Zirschky. It depends on the kind of project. Fred, 
could you give a good rundown on the rules?
    Mr. Caver. Yes. In the construction account, which is 
mostly what we are talking about here, first we can restore any 
amounts that were reprogrammed away from those projects in the 
past up to the full amount of what was taken away. We can also 
restore savings and slippages that have been taken out of the 
projects. And then beyond that, we have----
    Mr. McDade. Is there a ballpark figure in there that you 
can put in for me? Is there a way you can articulate what the 
monetary equivalent might be?
    Mr. Caver. Well, it depends----
    Mr. McDade. I know it depends on the project.
    Mr. Caver [continuing]. On the project.
    Mr. McDade. But historic record.
    Mr. Caver. Historic record, I would say that we would be 
able to restore in most projects most of what we would need to 
continue them.
    Mr. McDade. But is there a dollar value that we have to 
clear?
    Mr. Caver. No.
    Mr. McDade. That is what I am trying to get from you.
    Mr. Caver. I am sorry.
    Mr. McDade. If you can amplify it for the record. Excuse 
me. Go ahead, Dr. Zirschky.
    [The information follows:]

  Army Corps of Engineers Construction, General, Reprogramming Limits

    Generally, reprogrammings to Construction, General (CG), 
projects in any fiscal year are limited to 15 percent of the 
sum of the conference amount plus the unobligated carryover 
from the prior fiscal year, except as noted below.
    Up to $300,000 may be reprogrammed to a project without 
regard to the percent limit for projects on which the amount 
available for the fiscal year is $2,000,000 or less.
    Up to $5,000,000 may be reprogrammed to a project without 
regard to the percent limit when the increased requirement 
results from a settled contractor claim, increased contractor 
earnings due to accelerated rate of operations, or a real 
estate deficiency judgement.
    Funds reprogrammed away from projects experiencing non-
funding delays in prior years or the current year may be 
restored if needed. Similarly, savings and slippage amounts 
assigned in prior years or the current year may also be 
restored if needed.
    The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) (ASA(CW)) 
reports quarterly to Congress on cumulative CG reprogrammings 
of $500,000 or more to specific projects.
    For reprogramming actions that exceed the Corps limits, the 
ASA(CW) confers with the Office of Management and Budget and 
then sends letters to the Subcommittees on Energy and Water 
Development of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 
to coordinate such actions.

    Dr. Zirschky. I am sorry. The problem is that we have this 
carryover. A lot of it we can't use, but it counts against us 
in putting the budget process together. They kind of, I don't 
know--pink, orange, whatever color that is--there is about $681 
million that is currently unavailable for reprogramming, partly 
by policy. The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Account, 
we have got about $300 and some million in there; $165 million 
of it is unidentified for needs so that is a surplus.
    Mr. McDade. Million or billion?
    Dr. Zirschky. Million, I am sorry--$165 million currently 
uncommitted. That cannot be reprogrammed to construction 
because it is a different account. The coastal wetlands 
account, that is money in a trust fund that we are holding for 
other agencies, and it can't be used for construction.
    But here is my problem. I have about 25 percent of that 
amount of money is in the construction budget. Past 
Administrations would have tried to reprogram that money. This 
Administration has tried to work by the Committee by not 
reprogramming it because it is kind of a double-edged sword. We 
didn't budget for it in '99. So if I take the money for those 
projects, I have no way to pay it back.
    Mr. McDade. On his watch, we are back to robbing Peter 
again?
    Dr. Zirschky. Right. Past Administrations didn't care. They 
did that. I don't want to do that at least without talking to 
you.
    Mr. McDade. What are you suggesting to Mr. Visclosky and 
the Committee?
    Dr. Zirschky. I am suggesting, sir, that if we can try and 
get some better understanding with OMB. I would like to take 
some of that money, even though I can't promise to pay it back, 
and get some projects done that are being starved for money and 
get that carryover down because a billion looks bad.
    Mr. McDade. There are an awful lot of them, and every day 
that we don't proceed in an orderly way, it is costing 
everybody a lot more money and inflicting the kind of pain on 
people that we were discussing a bit ago.
    Dr. Zirschky. But my problem is I can't promise to pay it 
back.
    Mr. McDade. Excuse me. I am taking----

                               capability

    Mr. Visclosky. No, not at all, Mr. Chairman, not at all--
which leads me to my original question. On the red and green 
bar graphs, from what you are telling me in your discussion 
with the Chairman about reprogramming, there would be no point 
in reprogramming if you didn't have greater capability?
    Dr. Zirschky. Correct.
    Mr. Visclosky. So the shortfall here isn't because of a 
lack of capability, it is a lack of money that you can apply to 
certain projects, whether it is because of a legal impediment, 
or a lack of reprogramming; it is not lack of capability?
    Dr. Zirschky. Well, it is not entirely correct. There are 
projects----
    Mr. Visclosky. Well, if I followed your conversation with 
the Chairman and your conversation about requesting 
reprogramming, is there any point in the Committee 
reprogramming a penny for you if you can't use it?
    Dr. Zirschky. We would put it on projects that we could 
use, but the problem is----
    Mr. Visclosky. Well, that is capacity. That is capability. 
Right?
    Dr. Zirschky. But the problem is if we had full follow-on 
funding for all the projects that were started in 1998, we 
would exceed our capability to spend the money in the out years 
and starting in 2000.
    Mr. Visclosky. The out years?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes.
    Mr. Visclosky. In the out years, not this year?
    Dr. Zirschky. Not this year.
    Mr. Visclosky. Not this year. All right.
    Dr. Zirschky. I hope not.
    Mr. Visclosky. And what you are simply suggesting is in the 
out years based on--and I don't say it in a derogatory 
fashion--arbitrary decisions that were made last year, you 
lacked the capability because you lack money?
    Dr. Zirschky. This year. In the out years, we will lack 
capability because we don't have the ability to get the work 
done. We are currently projecting growth of $5 billion. That 
chart you are looking at shows full follow-on funding of about 
$5 billion.
    Mr. Visclosky. Because of your assumption you won't have 
the money?
    Dr. Zirschky. No, because we have not executed $5 billion 
in 20 years. General Ballard is working very hard to get our 
efficiencies up to get the work out the door. But we had over 
$5 billion we could have spent in fiscal year '94, and we 
didn't do it. We got $3.3 billion worth of work out the 
door.Right now today if you gave us $5 billion, we couldn't effectively 
spend it in this year. Now, we could build to it. We could grow back up 
to what we used to have, but it has been a long time. And I don't think 
we can grow fast enough to get that done, and that is part of the 
problem.

                         construction execution

    Mr. Visclosky. Let me get back to your bar chart. Do you 
have a bar chart for simply your construction budget?
    Dr. Zirschky. No, sir. And that is a program that we can 
oftentimes spend great deals of money if we get some big 
projects going, but I don't have a separate bar chart for 
execution of our construction budget with me. I can get that 
for you.
    Mr. Visclosky. Could you, for the record, for the years 
covered by this bar chart give us the figures, and I don't need 
a----
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Visclosky. The committee doesn't need a chart--just 
figures as far as what that would look like for construction?
    [The information follows:]

[Page 68--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                               capability

    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir. In fact, in that package for our 
total budget is a chart prepared by the Corps. It has a blue 
line and a red line and kind of a big multicolored hump. The 
red line is our current capability to do work. This was 
prepared by the Corps--that chart--and I think we could put it 
up over there.
    Everything above that red line exceeds our ability to get 
the work done at our current levels of efficiency, and we can 
work hard to do better. But that is a snapshot. If we don't get 
any better than we are right now, that is what we can do. And, 
trust me, this is not a story people want me going around 
telling the world.
    Mr. Visclosky. So that I understand your answer, in the 
short term, the shortfall is money?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes.
    Mr. Visclosky. In the long term, it is money and 
capabilities, because given your current staffing and your 
current expectations and plans, you literally lack the 
personnel?
    Dr. Zirschky. No. We have plenty of people. We have a 
smaller budget than we had 30 years ago and the same number of 
people roughly. What we have done and part of it is in years we 
have made ourselves inefficient; not that the people aren't 
great, but we have rules and procedures that make things take 
time. They are not efficient. We are trying to fix those. But 
we put out less workload per person today than we did 10 years 
ago.
    Mr. Visclosky. And that is why you would lack capability in 
the out years?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes.
    Mr. Visclosky. Even if we gave you more money?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes. We don't need more people. I have 
probably 500 more FTE's in our Support for Others Program than 
I have clients to do the work.
    Mr. Visclosky. So what do we have to change so that we can 
give you more money and increase your capability if the 
Committee would be so inclined?
    Dr. Zirschky. On behalf of the Administration, we don't 
want more money until we get an agreement because of these 
issues, but I think General Ballard----
    Mr. Visclosky. Let us forget about more money. Let us talk 
about efficiencies for the personnel you have today.

                             strategic plan

    Dr. Zirschky. Okay. All right. We have a strategic plan as 
required under the Government Performance Results Act, and some 
goals were set that General Ballard has included in his 
strategic plan.
    Mr. Visclosky. And I don't mean to interrupt, but is that 
the one that you scored 11 out of 105 on last year?
    Dr. Zirschky. I hope--no, sir. This is a much different 
plan. We didn't do very well on that plan, and one of the first 
things I did was to restart that process. I hope you will like 
our new plan better. And General Ballard has a strategic vision 
and a plan to implement the Administration's goals that I 
believe he can get our efficiencies up. He has a tough job 
ahead of him.
    Right now today, I mean, you can ask him, I don't thinkwe 
could do $5 billion worth of work. But I think given his vision, some 
chances to push it, to do better, to focus on how we can do a better 
job and start saying what is it we can do instead of it is somebody 
else's fault, we will get there. And I think he can get us there. But 
right now we are not there.
    Mr. Visclosky. What do we have to do?
    Dr. Zirschky. It is not what you have to do, it is what we 
have to do and all the commanders sitting here have to do. We 
have to get more, find new ways of doing business, be more 
efficient, work together more as a team. I mean, frankly----
    Mr. McDade. If I may interrupt you, we have another 
recorded vote in the Committee across the hall. We will recess 
for 10 minutes and will be back. The Committee stands in 
recess.
    [Recess.]

                             total funding

    Mr. McDade. The Committee will come to order. At this 
juncture, let me ask you a question, doctor. That number you 
are mentioning, $5 billion, represents what? The total account 
of the Corps? What does it represent?
    Dr. Zirschky. That was if we fully funded everything at its 
optimal schedule that we currently have ongoing, it would 
require about $5 billion in future funding at future budget 
requests.
    Mr. McDade. Well, the construction budget that is under 
discussion is about $1.8 billion, isn't it?
    Dr. Zirschky. That was our request to OMB.
    Mr. McDade. Is it yes or no? That is the amount, isn't it?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes.
    Mr. McDade. Are you saying that couldn't be executed by the 
Corps?
    Dr. Zirschky. Sir, I would be very doubtful that if you 
gave us $1.8 billion in fiscal year '99 that we would spend 
over 80 percent of it.
    Mr. McDade. You doubt it. General, let me get your personal 
opinion. Do you believe that the Corps could execute 
efficiently a $1.8 billion construction budget?
    General Ballard. Yes, I do, sir, and that was the budget we 
submitted.
    Mr. McDade. And I would assume that having submitted the 
budget you believe you could execute it?
    General Ballard. I think that is correct, sir.
    Mr. McDade. Let me ask you a question. And this isn't going 
to happen, this is hypothetical. But if we were to move that 
line up--and as I say to you I don't see that happening; we are 
trying to get back to ground zero is what it amounts to--would 
you have capacity beyond that?
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McDade. Is it not a fact that all of the slowdowns that 
were referred to and decreased productivity are a result of 
regulation and not the Corps' capacity to let contracts and 
build?
    General Ballard. Well, that is part of the problem. Let us 
if I might----
    Mr. McDade. Please, General.
    General Ballard [continuing]. Just talk about the execution 
of the program. To go back to what Congressman Visclosky said, 
capacity is driven by dollars because if I had the dollars, 
then I could increase the capacity, either by growing the 
number of contractors or partners or building the workforce in-
house if necessary. The uncertainty of not having the dollars 
preclude such things as making reasonable agreements with our 
cost-sharing partners because of the uncertainty of the dollars 
being there.
    In many cases, and I think you know of projects where if we 
were certain that the Federal share would be there, then our 
partners would move more aggressively towards coming up with 
their share of the money. Then you run into problems with real 
estate. You run into problems of environmental restrictions 
that hold down the ability to execute the project.
    Mr. McDade. A lot tougher today to do it, isn't it?
    General Ballard. Very tough, very tough. But in terms of 
building efficiency, yes, we are aggressively addressing 
efficiency and trying to raise that to become much more 
productive and customer focused. But I could execute it, the 
$1.8 billion.
    Mr. McDade. I thank you for your opinion, General, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Parker.

                        questions of mr. parker

    Mr. Parker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, how long have 
you been with the Corps?
    General Ballard. I have been in USACE, sir, 18 months--this 
Corps right here, but I have been an engineer officer for 32 
years.
    Mr. Parker. I am very much concerned, of course, about the 
direction that the Corps is going. I get a little perturbed 
sometimes. I keep getting people playing these little political 
games and that bothers me. It appears to me that sometimes 
decisions are made somewhere that certain water projects should 
not be done regardless of what Congress says or any legal 
directive that is there. And on the other hand, it seems okay 
if you are asked to spend enormous sums of money on projects 
that I never even thought were in the scope of the Corps' 
primary mission, and I will get to that in just a second.
    Now, I know politics involve just about everything. My 
daddy was a country preacher, and I watched politics up close 
early on in my life. And it just seems to me that the current 
Administration thinks it is okay to play politics with any 
congressional adds that we have. They want to refer to them as 
pork, and they think that they can shut off anything with a 
very simple bureaucratic directive. Now that bothers me.
    Now, you have already come before this Committee and said 
that the request that you have brought doesn't represent a true 
accounting of the Army Corps' funding priorities. What you have 
said is, ``I am going to defend this budget by the President.'' 
Now, that is disingenuous. I don't think that it smacks of a 
great deal of honesty from my viewpoint, but you have come to 
us with that.
    Now, I have got a couple of questions. Can you explain to 
me the validity of requesting $117 million for fish mitigation 
on the Columbia River in Washington state and nearly $100 
million on Everglades restoration and not requesting funds to 
continue ongoing construction projects around this country? 
Now, that is just a basic, simple question.
    Before you say anything, let me just add one thing here. 
Now, I know that our Vice President, the Honorable Al Gore, has 
said that what he wants is a third of the Corps' projects to be 
environmental in nature. And if I am wrong about that, I would 
like to be corrected. But how does that fit in with your 
answer? And I would like to have it answered.
    Dr. Zirschky. First, sir, would you like to put me under 
oath?
    Mr. Parker. No.
    Dr. Zirschky. You have questioned my veracity.
    Mr. Parker. No. Before you start this little game, you told 
us that the numbers, the President's numbers that you are up 
here justifying did not meet the Corps' priorities.
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes. And I also said that OMB was not happy 
with those numbers and desired to try to come to an 
accommodation on those numbers.
    Mr. Parker. The accommodation is that the Office of 
Management and Budget should have told you to send up the 
numbers that you need to do your job that you are charged to do 
under your mission from the Congress of the United States, and 
you didn't do that.
    Dr. Zirschky. No, sir, we did. We submitted the numbers to 
OMB that we felt----
    Mr. Parker. Dr. Zirschky, you can't have it both ways. 
Either you come up with the numbers that you know will work and 
that you have to have to do the projects like they should be 
done in a forthright manner, or you don't come up with the 
numbers. You decided to bring up bogus numbers from the White 
House through OMB, and here we are sitting here now, and you 
are now telling me, ``No, I am being very honest about this. 
This doesn't represent our priorities, but these are the 
numbers I have to stand here and justify.'' If that weren't the 
case, you would have never started off this thing about don't 
shoot the messenger.
    Dr. Zirschky. Sir, it is a very constrained budget request 
that Director Raines has put in writing, that he wants to come 
talk with the Members because they realize that it is a 
difficult situation. Maybe they didn't realize that at the 
time. There are hopefully no jobs that will be shut down. None 
of them will proceed at their optimal rate.
    I am not trying to be disingenuous. Everyone at this table 
is an Administration official--everyone. Everyone wearing a 
uniform is an Administration official. The Army works for the 
Executive Branch, sir. We will do our best, however, to 
implement the law. We don't make the budget decisions. I may 
not like it, I may hate it, but it is my job to at least try 
and explain it, and I regret that I didn't get an opportunity 
to explain it. Now, as for a fish----
    Mr. Parker. Do you want to answer the question about the--
--
    Mr. Zirschky. Yes, sir. I would like to answer the 
question.
    Mr. Parker. I will tell you, let me ask the General. What 
is the validity of requesting those sums of money, $117 million 
for fish mitigation, $100 million for Everglades restoration? 
Is that part of your core mission?
    General Ballard. Well, first of all, the short answer is 
yes. We do have--part of our Corps' mission--fish mitigation is 
one. The environmental mission is a growing portion of the 
Corps' mission, and it has been for a number of years. I think 
what is really at odds here is a balanced approach between 
those missions that I have for flood control, environment, et 
cetera.
    Mr. Parker. Do you think the numbers that have been brought 
forward to this Committee are balanced?
    General Ballard. As opposed to my other missions of flood 
control, no, sir.
    Mr. Parker. Would you like to respond, doctor?
    Dr. Zirschky. Sir, the Administration--first of all--well, 
okay. Let me start--the Administration believes that those 
numbers are correct because if we do not save the fish, you 
don't get a second chance, and the Everglades is a vital 
natural resource that, again, if it is lost cannot be 
recovered. That is the Administration's belief. The Army put no 
projects on a high priority list. We did not recommend that any 
project get special treatment.
    General Ballard. I want to make sure I understood Mr. 
Parker's question, and I thought I did. You were asking the 
question of balance in between what came out of the budget as 
opposed to what I perceive my mission to be?
    Mr. Parker. That is right.
    General Ballard. Okay, sir.
    Mr. Parker. Let me point out, I love fish. I mean, they are 
delicious. That is not the point. The point is is that you are 
talking about $217 million on these two projects, and we are 
juxtapositioning those against other ongoing projects that we 
basically zeroed out. And that has been a decision made by a 
bureaucrat.

                           LUMP SUM CONTRACTS

    I want to ask you about a letter you received last November 
from T.J. Glauthier, Associate Director of OMB. In this letter, 
he stated that due to the continuing problem of inadequate 
funding for Corps projects ``we are directing the Corps to 
enter into only lump sum contracts with the funds provided by 
Congress for the unrequested new construction projects.''
    Now, I have got a list of those projects here, and you have 
got the letter. So I want to know whether you and others at the 
Army Corps: number 1, agree with this decision; and, two, 
consider it a sound financial approach to funding shortfalls in 
your agency of addressing the problems that you are 
experiencing now?
    Dr. Zirschky. Well, I am not sure it is addressing 
shortfalls. That letter has been changed, sir. As of yesterday, 
the Administration has added its projects that it started in 
fiscal year--for fiscal year 1998 to that list. Our 
recommendation was that there not be such a list, but now all 
of the projects that were started in fiscal year '98 are on 
that list, including the Administration's.
    Mr. McDade. It is a budget that changes every day.
    Mr. Parker. And if you don't like it today, wait till 
tomorrow. I have got one final thing. When you look 
specifically to the list provided by OMB, two of the projects 
on the list are from the State of Mississippi. And I know that 
it winds up being local politics.
    Now, neither one of these projects are in my district. But 
neither of these projects are new construction projects either. 
But they are ongoing projects. And you have got local people 
down there that have been working on these projects for years. 
It is something that you have a tremendous amount of community 
involvement on.
    Did anyone at the Corps inform them that these projects, 
are zeroed out? In general, does OMB or the Corps contact 
people and say we are going to zero out this project? How do 
you handle that?
    Dr. Zirschky. To my knowledge, sir, no one at OMB contacted 
anyone, nor did anyone at the Corps contact anyone. We received 
the list and we implemented it, and through Iguess the 
implementation process, they would have been informed after the fact.
    Mr. Parker. Let me just close by saying this. My problem 
that I have is that--and I consider this a major change--I 
consider the Corps of Engineers the crown jewel of a lot of 
government programs. It has done tremendous things for our 
country both in wartime and specifically in peacetime. If you 
come to my part of the country, there are great things that the 
Corps has done. We would not be able to be the society we are 
today if it had not been for the Corps. And I consider its 
budget and these are very strong words--dishonest.
    Somewhere somebody has got to stand up to OMB and stand up 
to the Administration and say this is not right. You are 
destroying the Corps of Engineers and the projects that we have 
out there and what we want to do for the country and what we 
have to do for the country for us to survive as a nation, and 
to have the type of living standards for our people that we 
want them to have. Somebody has got to stand up.
    I have a hard time believing that Martin Lancaster would 
have ever put up with what is going on. He would have left. He 
wouldn't have come up here and justified this. I have a hard 
time believing that he would have. But I have to tell you I 
have very strong feelings about this, and there are a lot of 
other people--that have those same feelings.
    The problem is that we are letting it just kind of mull 
along. I think this Committee has a responsibility not to 
accept it. We have to change it and do what is right, and that 
is going to be going straight in the face of OMB, which is an 
anarchy. I mean, these people are nuts. And if you don't 
realize that, somebody had better realize it.
    These people are not elected officials. These people 
counter a legal directive that we have in law; they turn around 
and with a bureaucratic device, they just say, ``well, we don't 
have to do that.'' It is astounding to me. And I have to tell 
you there are going to have to be changes. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Dr. Zirschky. Sir, we did file two vigorous appeals. Again, 
my only--I guess I don't understand your comments about my 
honesty. I came here to say that the OMB is not happy with this 
budget request, that it is workable in all parts but 
Construction, General, and I think I have not acted in any way 
that would reflect on my integrity.
    Mr. McDade. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.

                  Opening Remarks of Mr. Frelinghuysen

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman 
from Mississippi is a hard act to follow, Mr. Chairman. As you 
told me once when I got on this Committee, if you don't ask 
parochial questions, somebody will be replacing you as a member 
of Congress. I have 32 questions I would like to put forward, 
but I am not going to ask you, although I would like to get to 
the issue of congressional direction and intent.
    And as I see it from New Jersey's perspective, there has 
been a refusal on the part of OMB to budget for a number of 
important coastal and dredging projects, not only in New 
Jersey, but all across the United States. In my state alone, 
the Corps' budget, from what I understand, is some $60 million 
below your planned capability for these projects.
    The budget request for New Jersey's top priorities is 
totally inadequate. In fact, when I looked at the budget, there 
were so many zeroes in it I thought maybe there was a 
typographical error. Congress, for as long as I have been here, 
has told OMB and the Administration to incorporate coastal 
protection projects into your budget submission. The 
Administration continues to refuse to do so, and I want to know 
why.
    What is even more galling, again this year--after a strong 
commitment by Vice President Gore at a press conference two 
years ago to address the dredging needs in the New York/New 
Jersey harbor--you have underfunded critical projects for the 
Port of New York and New Jersey. It is simply not acceptable. 
You cannot have it both ways and make promises you can't keep.

                    kill van kull channel deepening

    For example, a critical project for our port--and there is 
$70 billion worth of commerce that comes into metropolitan New 
York and New Jersey--is the Kill Van Kull Channel Deepening 
Project. That project is underfunded, as I understand it, by 
$22 million. The Vice President was there in the flesh to 
promise it would move forward. Yet, you have chosen to 
underfund this project. Can you tell me why this project is 
underfunded if the Vice President was there to highlight the 
need to get this project moving?
    Dr. Zirschky. I guess like all of our projects, we chose 
not to I guess pick, within our ability projects to be fully 
funded. We decided that we would take the allocation we have 
and try and spread it out to keep as many projects as we could 
going. 10 million dollars is actually, in that light, a large 
amount compared to what other ports have gotten. I know it is 
much below what that project needs, and at the current funding 
levels it will be 2020 before that project is done.
    I would be happy to try and do all I could to advance that 
project. Again, my only source--I have a little bit of money 
left available to easily reprogram, and then I am going to have 
to get into--well, it is not showing up here--some of the CG 
money that you--Construction, General money you have provided 
for '98 of which I can't guarantee there will be follow-on 
funding in '99 to pay them back. I would love to see that 
project get done faster. I would love to see----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, what is the point of designating 
it a high priority channel if the funds aren't there to do the 
job, or is everybody's project designated high priority?
    Dr. Zirschky. No, sir, not by any stretch are everyone's 
projects high priority. $10 million was actually viewed within 
the context of our current constraints a large amount of money.

                            shore protection

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am not sure that that response or any 
response, quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, is going to be 
adequate. I am angered not only because of the dredging issue, 
but I am angered that critical shore protection and flood 
protection projects throughout my state are either zeroed out 
or underfunded.
    And as much as I love to participate in this process, let 
me compliment the General and all the good people who come from 
the Army Corps. We get the definite feeling that they would do 
whatever they could if they weren't hamstrung by, as 
Congressman Parker says, other Administration priorities that 
appear to have more political and environmental visibility than 
the traditional work that the Army Corps has been doing for 170 
years. I mean, something has got to give here.
    I think they need to get back to your core missions and get 
off these high visibility projects no matter how important they 
are to the retention of fish populations andthe Everglades. 
Little wonder you have a lack of resources, given the amounts of money 
that we learned are budgeted for the Power Marketing Authorities, who 
were in here the other day. And I don't want to get into another issue, 
but the amounts of money are just staggering.
    That having been said, let me give you some kudos for what 
you are doing on FUSRAP. It was cited that there has been an 
orderly transition, and let me credit you also for the good 
work you do--you never get the credit--on a variety of 
Superfund programs.
    I come from the school of thought that would like the Army 
Corps to take over the management of all our national Superfund 
projects. This is not to say that you wouldn't need money to do 
it, but indeed there is plenty of money. Most of it is tied up 
in litigation and overhead. But I would love to see you get 
more of those resources so the job could actually get done. But 
if the Chairman has no objection, I would like to put my 
questions into the record to get responses.
    Mr. McDade. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
    Mr. McDade. We thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I am 
pleased to recognize my friend from California, Mr. Fazio.

                      Opening Remarks of Mr. Fazio

    Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me not 
apologize for being late because, unfortunately, we were 
meeting at the same time down the hall. And it tees me off that 
we would have this conflict. It is not Mr. McDade's fault. He 
has tried to deal with people from all over the country who 
have made an effort to be here today, and I certainly don't 
want to fail to accommodate them as well.
    But it does irritate me when we have done so little this 
year in this Congress that on the first real day we have to 
have a hearing that takes the Committee's time down the hall 
when we have perhaps the most important issue to come before 
this subcommittee this year, the Corps of Engineers' budget.
    Let me say I am just as dissatisfied as my colleagues have 
reportedly been with the Corps' budget submission, but I am not 
about to shoot the messenger because I have been struggling 
with all of you, as you knew that you were sending us not only 
an inadequate but a politically indigestible budget. So there 
is no point in firing away at you folks any further.
    We have a problem here, and the only place we can go to 
solve that problem is to the full Committee for an enhanced 
allocation, and that won't be easy either. As we have learned 
today, as we try to balance the cost to the supplemental, it 
isn't easy to find money to move around. But I know that my 
colleagues in both parties are going to consider a proposal 
that cuts below last year's construction budget by $800 million 
or so a nonstarter.
    I would admit that the Committee has been probably asking 
more of you than you are capable of doing, and I think that is 
a measure of the degree to which there is demand here in 
Congress for these projects in an El Nino year. But neither can 
I agree to the Administration's budget. I mean, that is 
basically an insult to the priorities that have been 
established on a bipartisan basis. What did we lose on our bill 
last year, the Nevada delegation?
    Mr. McDade. That is about it.
    Mr. Fazio. Yes. And they have their special problem. So, in 
effect, it was unanimous. So the question is where do we go to 
fix this, and we don't have a lot of time or running room. And 
we will need to work together, and we probably ought to begin 
now instead of continuing to beat each other up for fun and 
profit.
    The Administration has got to step up and I think take more 
responsibility for the kind of projects that, I think, 
transcend the category of pork. You have got good cost benefit 
ratios. You have got broad political support and little 
environmental or taxpayer group opposition to 98 percent of 
what is in here.
    It is a question of following Mother Nature around and 
trying to clean up after her. And I can only tell you that in 
California the needs are growing, not diminishing. So maybe we 
ought to try to say what can we do to put things back together 
from this point. It is obviously incumbent on all of us that we 
do that. Dr. Zirschky, do you want to respond?
    Dr. Zirschky. I wouldn't say this has been either fun or 
profitable for me. I am hopeful that Director Raines will 
indeed discuss this issue with you so that next year we are not 
back up here in the same situation. It is not fun, but it is 
our mission.

                       recognition of lew whitney

    Mr. Fazio. Well, I would want to just take a second to lay 
down the cudgel. This is my last year on this Committee after 
19, and I really do want to indicate to the Corps how much I 
have appreciated working with all of you. Some of you I have 
seen almost all of those 19 years; some of you a fraction of 
that time.
    But we have done a lot of good things, and it seems to me 
we can do a lot more, and I think the Corps' capability has got 
to be maintained, and enhanced in some places so that we can 
fulfill more of the needs the country has identified. There is 
somebody in the audience who is retiring as well, and that is a 
friend of mine, the Deputy District Engineer for Project 
Management from the Sacramento District, Lew Whitney. Would you 
stand up, Lew?
    Mr. Whitney. Sure.
    Mr. Fazio. I want to thank you for your career at the Corps 
and your contributions to those of us in our region.
    Mr. Whitney. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I 
appreciate the opportunity really having grown out of UCD in 
the 60's where everyone wanted to find out what it was they 
could do to do something for humanity. We had pretty broad 
goals at that time, and, frankly, I was delighted to be able to 
serve the United States through the Corps of Engineers, and I 
want to thank you and Mr. McDade and all the other Committee 
members for that opportunity. You have all been great about 
supporting the Corps over the years, and it meant a lot to me 
to have a great 30-year career with the Corps. Thank you.
    Mr. Fazio. Thank you very much.
    Mr. McDade. We thank you for your public service, sir.
    Mr. Fazio. There are a lot of other people out there like 
you, Lew, and despite our frustrations, I think all the Members 
of this Committee have friends like you in almost every 
district of the country who have made the kind of contributions 
that have really enhanced the public interest.

                            el nino response

    I would like to commend the Corps for its response to the 
'97 floods and some of the advanced measures taken on El Nino 
in California. I would be more than happy to yield to anyone 
who would like to briefly indicate for the Committee just how 
much we have accomplished in the last 12 months. I know General 
Capka is here.
    General Ballard. Sir, I would like to have General Capka to 
address that. I visited out there several times, as you know, 
but General Capka and his great team has been on the front line 
day to day. So, Rick, if you would step up?
    Mr. Fazio. They have done a great job. I would like to just 
have the Committee get a sense of what the problem was and how 
much ground we have covered in a relatively short period of 
time.
    General Capka. Thank you very much, sir, and I appreciate 
the opportunity. And, of course, I will talk a little bit about 
El Nino and just be very brief. But those comments are interim 
comments since we are still in the middle of the El Nino winter 
out in California and the West so the books haven't been closed 
on that.
    But unlike last winter, the El Nino hasn't been confined to 
just central and northern California. It has impacted the 
entire state. From the coastal structures and channels on the 
coast to the interior, levee systems have been affected. And I 
am confident that we are going to see more before the season is 
over, and we will be seeing more as waters recede from the 
levees, and we will be able to take a better look.
    The good news though is that the fruits of our last year's 
response have paid great dividends. As you know, the 
preparation for El Nino began with our recovery from last 
January's floods. Together with your decisive efforts and that 
of the entire Committee, the cooperation and efforts of other 
Federal and state agencies working together, we were able to 
complete contracts worth more than $120 million, to repair more 
than 600 damaged levee sites in less than 11 months.
    Additionally, we worked closely with other Federal, state, 
and local agencies to coordinate response plans in anticipation 
of this year's El Nino winter. And I would also like to say 
that even in the regulatory function we got our act together, 
and all the districts had regional general permits in place to 
facilitate response to anything that might happen during the 
winter, and it has worked very well.
    The winter, however, has brought additional challenges. We 
have had to respond to more than 45 flood fights as a result of 
El Nino, many on and most on non-Federal levees at a cost of 
about $20 million; 30 technical assistance requests. We have 
had other work for others. We have done other things for about 
$5 million.
    But before the winter is over, we have got the snowpack to 
look at. If we have some warm rains combined with that, we will 
have some challenges left, but it was a real sobering 
experience out in California to know that we have got a Federal 
team, a state team, a local team, and the folks back here in 
Washington tugging on the rope in the same direction.
    Mr. Fazio. Well, I think everybody in California on a 
bipartisan basis certainly appreciates what has been 
accomplished, and I think the cooperation with state and local 
government really helped facilitate that. I want to thank the 
Chairman and, even though they are not here, the Chairman and 
Ranking Member on the other side for the report language that 
went into the bill that we adopted last October, because it 
allowed for Public Law 84-99 money to be spent on what had 
been, in the opinion of some, problems that had preceded last 
winter's emergency. And that has permitted about $25 million--
cost shared, with state and local government putting up 25 
percent--to be expended. Would you touch on how that is working 
and when we hope to accomplish our goals there?
    General Capka. Yes, sir. As you pointed out, the work that 
we did last year in the immediate aftermath of the floods was 
focused on conditions that weren't preexisting; in other words, 
restoring the system back to its original shape in December of 
'96. The cost shared 84-99 work is designed to look at the more 
challenging work that perhaps had preexisting conditions.
    And in order to execute this, because there is some sense 
of urgency to get that work done, it is being done not in a 
business-as-usual mode. We are planning to get work under 
contract this year for many of the projects, and some of those 
will be finished before next winter, the 1st ofNovember '98. 
And we anticipate that all the work under this expanded Public Law 84-
99 will be done before 1 November of '99. And, again, it has required 
the same cooperation among all agencies--Federal, state, and local--in 
order to execute this properly.
    Mr. Fazio. It is unprecedented for us to have local cost 
share on what has been emergency money, flood-fighting money, 
under 84-99. For the record, it seems to me it was worth it to 
those communities to belly up to the bar and put some money 
down in order to attract the Federal money, and I certainly 
hope we will make more use of this flexibility in the future 
and certainly in other parts of the country.
    We almost eliminated the ESA for purposes of flood control 
projects last year. Would you tell the Committee whether or not 
environmental factors have played a part in the work you have 
just discussed with us, and in what way have we made them less 
of a factor in slowing down our work?

                      environmental considerations

    General Capka. Well, sir, certainly the environmental piece 
is a major consideration when we design any kind of work and 
execute that work. In the aftermath of last year's floods, we 
knew that we had to get a lot of work done very quickly. And 
some of that Federal agency cooperation that I mentioned to you 
had to do with working very carefully with the Fish and 
Wildlife community, with California Fish and Game, and a number 
of those folks who are interested in precisely what you have 
pointed out. But by working with them very carefully up front, 
we were able to obviate what could have been some major 
problems. And that particular issue did not hold up our 
execution.
    Mr. Fazio. I understand the Fish and Wildlife Service is 
cutting its normal 135-day assessment to 45 days on this Public 
Law 84-99 work. Is that correct?
    General Capka. Yes, sir. In fact, we are working that issue 
with them right now. Normally, it is 135 days to turn around 
response on some of the issues, and we are looking to push that 
to 45.
    Mr. Fazio. Not longer?
    General Capka. Yes, sir. Some of those are very difficult.
    Mr. Fazio. Do we seem to have their attention at the 
moment?
    General Capka. Yes, sir. The situation has everybody's 
attention.

                     sacramento river levee systems

    Mr. Fazio. Would you give the Committee some sort of an 
evaluation of where we are on the five phase Sacramento River 
Project that was put in law in 1990 after the floods of 1986? 
We were in some cases embarrassed that some of that work hadn't 
been completed by the floods of last winter. But could you give 
us a status report?
    General Capka. Yes, sir. Last year, in fact, you asked us 
if it was possible to accelerate some of the delivery of that 
work, and I am happy to report that in that intervening time we 
have been successful in positioning that work to be accelerated 
for the most part by an entire year, if not more.
    We now expect to have all construction complete by 
September of the year 2000 with all levee work essentially done 
by December of '99. That, of course, is dependent upon the 
availability of funding to do that work. But we are in a 
position to execute, as I have described, subject to that 
adequate funding. And if you would like, I could go through 
each phase individually.
    Mr. Fazio. Would you do that for the record for the benefit 
of the Committee?
    General Capka. Yes, sir, I will.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 82 - 83--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


         sacramento-san joaquin river basin comprehensive study

    Mr. Fazio. I appreciate that. We have a comprehensive study 
of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins currently underway. 
I think it is a joint state-Federal study. Obviously, this is 
our attempt to get sort of an assessment as to the flood system 
that is in place; some of it obviously is largely Federal, but 
some of it not. Could you give us your estimate of when that 
can be completed? Obviously, as usual, we are in a hurry and 
want to get it done as quickly as we can so we can begin to 
further pursue the Corps' capability.
    General Capka. Yes, sir. As you are well aware, this 
particular study was initiated as a result of the overwhelming 
floods that we had last January that affected not just one of 
those watersheds, but the entire watershed of the Central 
Valley and really attracted our attention to the requirement to 
have an overall, comprehensive look at the system.
    That is underway. In fact, we have an initial report due to 
you here in Congress by April of next year, an 18-month report, 
and that report will provide information on some hydraulic and 
hydrologic modeling, post-flood assessments, and they are fully 
funded. This particular piece--$4.5 million. We will have that 
work to you. We will have the initial assessment of what we 
will have for a blueprint and how to attack the problems that 
are associated with what damage prevention. We expect to 
deliver that report April of '99.
    Mr. Fazio. Well, I realize that there will be a large state 
contribution. We may see a bond act in California for flood 
control activity, and for those who are concerned that we just 
fix old and maybe outdated, antiquated project solutions, we 
are going to be looking at meander builds and other 
nonstructural solutions in part of the region. And that is all 
going to be encompassed in the study that the Corps and the 
state are working on.
    General Capka. Absolutely, sir. There is no alternative 
that will be left out of the equation, whether it is a 
structural alternative, a nonstructural alternative. They will 
be all considered as far as the best fit for a specific 
problem.

                             american river

    Mr. Fazio. I realize that I am taking a lot of time here. 
There is a lot to talk about. I apologize to my colleagues, but 
we have in the Sacramento area the largest urban community 
threatened by flooding in the nation. Certainly parts of Los 
Angeles may be equally vulnerable but not the entire community. 
We are making tremendous progress in Los Angeles and in Orange 
County as we deal with some of their ongoing concerns.
    But in Sacramento in the American River Floodway, we have 
yet to really reach consensus on what would be best for us. The 
Auburn Dam was before the Congress last year and did not seem 
to have broad support. We have recently had a Sacramento Area 
Flood Control Agency vote, which urged us to proceed with 
changes in the way Folsom Dam is configured and improve levees 
downstream of that facility.
    Could you explain the differences between the work you have 
undertaken already to make a recommendation as to the NED 
project that we supported in the last Congress and the work 
that is now being discussed as an alternative, a fallback that 
might come before this Congress as part of a WRDA amendment?
    Dr. Zirschky. I am sorry. Would you repeat the question?
    Mr. Fazio. No.
    Dr. Zirschky. Is it about how we would handle the WRDA 
issue on American River?
    Mr. Fazio. Yes. What can you do for us, Dr. Zirschky, to 
get WRDA to take care of our problems on the American River?
    Dr. Zirschky. We actually had a meeting on that yesterday 
afternoon at OMB. The Administration does want to support that 
project subject to, of course, all the budget concerns. One of 
the things--these are just considerations, no decisions have 
been made--we are looking at is to do a two-part authorization.
    Because we are looking for a WRDA bill of about $2 billion, 
we would probably want to divide up that project and in '98 
seek authorization for modifications to Folsom Dam and in 2000 
perhaps seek authorization for increasing levees. But the 
discussions are extremely preliminary, and, sir, if you have 
specific views on what you would like----
    Mr. Fazio. Well, it is very important to the community that 
we find consensus, and you know how hard that has been. But we 
had a common element that was included in the last 
authorization that would have required $9.4 million in funding 
from the Administration to keep faith with our consensus; 
instead, it was funded at $1 million in this year's budget.
    I guess that is just one of a thousand cuts, so to speak, 
that we have all felt. But in this case, it is sort of 
indicative of whether or not we are serious about going on and 
dealing with the problem in general. We know the common 
elements are just the beginning, and we hope that we can bring 
you a community-based and congressional-delegation-agreed-upon 
solution that would perhaps be a large project but far less 
expensive than this Auburn Dam proposal that the Congress 
rejected last year. Your thoughts of dividing that into two are 
based upon what?
    Dr. Zirschky. Simply, the Administration would like to 
tentatively limit a WRDA bill to about $2 billion on authorized 
projects, and the total cost of the levee raising and Folsom 
Dam could become a significant chunk of that amount so we are 
going to try and consider spreading that out if we cannot get 
some consideration for a higher authorization bill.
    Mr. Fazio. Is that something that is still on the table 
down at the OMB?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes. We have submitted draft legislation. We 
are still working----
    Mr. Fazio. If it is $3 billion, it is a veto; if it is $2 
billion, it will be signed?
    Dr. Zirschky. I have a feeling, sir, that decision will be 
made when the bill shows up in final form.
    Mr. Fazio. So do I, so I would say we should go for it. I 
am not asking you to comment, but I am just telling you this 
Congressman's reaction.
    Dr. Zirschky. This Administration would prefer a $2 billion 
WRDA bill at this time. I have given similar advice to anybody 
who has asked me.
    Mr. Fazio. How much demand is there for that $2 billion?
    Dr. Zirschky. We could probably on a handful of projects 
use up that $2 billion. Our problem isn't so much 
authorization, it is how we fund it in the future, which is----
    Mr. Fazio. Right. But here we are, and I don't think 
anybody disputes my assessment of the flood threat. Do you know 
how much it would cost if we lost $16 billion of assessed 
valued property? What are we talking about here? What are we 
doing this for? We are doing this to protect life and limb and 
the Federal taxpayers' vulnerability, aren't we?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Fazio. But we can't get there from here?
    Dr. Zirschky. Sir, I hope we can get an agreement on future 
funding levels to allow us to do all the critical work, but we 
are not there yet, and we need your help to get there. I know--
--
    Mr. Fazio. Well, we will do better in Congressbut we have a 
long way to go. We admit that. And our appetite does exceed our ability 
to feed it. But at the same time, I think we all are making the same 
point in many different specific ways, and that is the need is out 
there. We are not kidding. This isn't just to make somebody we know 
wealthy or something. This is because the people we represent are 
threatened, and I think this is a prime example.
    I would love to be able to give you a project that is far 
less expensive than the one we were toying with, and yet we 
can't even find a way to get that into the WRDA this year if we 
could reach agreement? Gosh, I find that pennywise and pound 
foolish to say the least. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of 
other issues that I will put in the record at this point.
    Mr. McDade. Without objection.
    Mr. Fazio. And I do appreciate the time of my colleagues. 
The anguish we all feel is evident. Again, I know the Corps 
would like to do more and would like to have asked for more, 
and I hope we can work together to find a way to patch this 
together to the best of our mutual ability.
    Mr. McDade. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Arkansas, Mr. Dickey.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Dickey

    Mr. Dickey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I don't plan to 
take the rest of the afternoon as Mr. Fazio did.
    Mr. Fazio. Mr. Dickey, I was actually restrained, and I 
have to apologize.
    Mr. Dickey. Well, I finally----
    Mr. Fazio. I could have really gotten carried away.

                     montgomery point lock and dam

    Mr. Dickey. All right. Dr. Zirschky, I want to tell you I 
believe what you are saying is----
    Mr. Zirschky. Thank you.
    Mr. Dickey [continuing]. What you mean, and you have to 
consider the source. I wish you were here when Mr. Parker 
starts embellishing some of his stories and tries to play them 
off as true. We have the same problem with him. You have got a 
problem though and that is that you are trying to defend an 
insult, and I think that is what we have here. And I don't 
quite understand it myself. I don't understand how we can get 
about it, but I want to talk specifically about something, and 
maybe we can work into more general things. Montgomery Point 
Lock and Dam is on the Arkansas River. Are you familiar with 
it?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Dickey. Can you briefly tell this Committee what the 
present status is of construction on that lock and dam?
    Dr. Zirschky. Currently, sir, construction has been stopped 
on that project. The reasons are still under review. It has 
been--one view is that it is from lack of funding, another is 
from high water. We are still sorting that out. But we 
currently do not have sufficient funds to restart that project 
and will need to do a reprogramming to get it back online.
    Mr. Dickey. What is this Committee going to be required to 
do in that reprogramming process?
    Dr. Zirschky. We just had sort of a--I guess it has been a 
couple hours ago now--the reprogramming rules are very 
difficult. We would notify the Committee of our desires to 
reprogram and hope for the Committee's approval.
    Mr. Dickey. Is there a dollar amount?
    Dr. Zirschky. I think we need probably at least $30 million 
would be my guess.
    Mr. Dickey. $30 million more plus the reprogramming?
    Dr. Zirschky. No, the reprogramming of $30 million to get 
the job back up and running.
    Mr. Dickey. Okay. Now, do you need that for the '99 budget?
    Dr. Zirschky. No. I have to use '98 funds to do that, sir.
    Mr. Dickey. Okay. And how much do you want for the '99 
budget to keep it going at its anticipated pace?
    Dr. Zirschky. Okay. I have the exact numbers here for that. 
There was a disclaimer that, again, we will submit for the 
record, but subject to that, we have asked for $19 million, and 
we believe we could effectively use $60 million.
    Mr. Dickey. Now, you take 60 minus $19 million or are you 
talking about $79 million?
    Dr. Zirschky. No. I am talking we would need another $41 
million.
    Mr. Dickey. All right. What has been the impact on the 
completion schedule, as stated in the contract with the 
builder, of the amount in the Administration's 1999 budget 
request, as well as the Administration's proposed subsequent 
budgets?
    Dr. Zirschky. I don't know about the contract, but I know 
we have slipped the schedule about four more years because of 
our funding shortfalls.
    Mr. Dickey. Is there a problem with the contractor?
    Dr. Zirschky. I would prefer--because with contractors 
those get worked out on a different channel if there is a 
contract dispute through the acquisition folks. We would prefer 
if we could to answer that one for the record?
    [The information follows:]

    There is not any known problem with the contractor resuming 
work once funds are made available.

                             grand prairie

    Mr. Dickey. Okay. That will be fine. All right. Now, we 
have a project in Arkansas called the Grand Prairie Irrigation 
Project and the Bayou Meto Basin Project. Are you familiar with 
that?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Dickey. There is $11.5 million for construction in 
Grand Prairie and $2.5 million for the Bayou Meto study. Is 
that adequate for this coming year?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir, I believe so on both of 
thoseprojects.

                              boeuf-tensas

    Mr. Dickey. And then there is a Boeuf-Tensas study of 
$500,000. Now, PED, is that a study?
    Dr. Zirschky. Oh, that is engineering design, sir.
    Mr. Dickey. And that is not a study?
    Dr. Zirschky. No. I mean, there may be some studies to help 
us do the design, but it is mostly design, sir. It is 
engineering work.
    Mr. Dickey. Do we have a study for Boeuf-Tensas in 
Arkansas?
    Dr. Zirschky. Zero.
    Mr. Dickey. What is the recommendation? Is there a 
recommendation, General Fuhrman?
    General Fuhrman. The capability for that is $1.8 million, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Dickey. In the coming year?
    General Fuhrman. In '99, yes.
    Mr. Dickey. For the study?
    General Fuhrman. Yes.
    Mr. Dickey. Assuming I don't have enough clout from way 
down on this end of the table, what is the least amount that we 
could get by with on that study?
    General Ballard. Let me defer that to----
    General Fuhrman. We will need to provide that for the 
record.
    [The information follows:]

    Sir, the minimum amount that could be used effectively in 
FY 1999 is $500,000.

                        mississippi river levees

    Mr. Dickey. Okay. Good. Now, let me ask General Anderson 
something. Are you awake over there, General Anderson?
    General Anderson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Dickey. Briefly describe the condition of the levees on 
the Mississippi River as to what storm level or project flood 
level these levees could protect against, and what would be the 
damage impact if we were to face a major storm such as a 100-
year or more flood?
    General Anderson. Yes, sir. At this time, the Mississippi 
River levees could not sustain the project flood. It was based 
upon what we experienced in 1927 and some other hydrologic 
effects. We are working towards meeting project completion on 
the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project as quickly as we 
can, but we do at this time have deficient sections of levee. 
They are deficient in both height and section. They are 
deficient with respect to seepage problems that require remedy, 
and that work remains to be done. And without correcting those 
deficiencies, then we find ourselves in a flood-fighting 
situation as we face potential project flood flows.
    Mr. Dickey. Now, is that taken care of in this budget or in 
this insult, excuse me?
    General Anderson. The Mississippi River and Tributaries 
amount in this particular budget is $280 million subject to the 
previously made caveats and limitations. We have the capability 
in fiscal year '99 for $330 million.

                     montgomery point lock and dam

    Mr. Dickey. Okay. Thank you, sir. Let me go one step 
further. General Fuhrman, can we continue on Montgomery Point 
Lock and Dam? Can we continue?
    General Fuhrman. With the reprogramming of money and if we 
have a minimum of about $44 million in FY '99, we can continue.
    Mr. Dickey. But other than that, it is going to be a 
stoppage?
    General Fuhrman. Yes, sir. If we do not have that money, we 
will have to stop. If I cannot reprogram those dollars into 
that program, we will have to stop it.
    Mr. Dickey. Now, we have already had the ribbon-cutting 
ceremony, haven't we?
    General Fuhrman. Yes, we have.
    Mr. Dickey. How can you stop something where we have gone 
on and christened it?
    General Fuhrman. Well, it is our desire not to stop it.
    Mr. Dickey. All right.
    Mr. McDade. Would you yield, Jay?
    Mr. Dickey. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McDade. I just want to clarify the number in the next 
fiscal year on the gentleman's project.
    Mr. Dickey It is $41 million.
    Mr. McDade. I thought I heard $40 million at one point and 
$30 million at another.
    Dr. Zirschky. $30 million is for this year, sir.
    General Fuhrman. $30 million is what is required to be 
reprogrammed in FY '98.
    Mr. McDade. And then $40----
    General Fuhrman. And a minimum of $44 million in FY '99 
with a capability of $60 million.
    Mr. Dickey. Now, General Fuhrman, would that $44 million 
replenish the reprogrammed money or not? Would you just have to 
deal with that some other way?
    General Fuhrman. We will have to deal with that somewhere 
else.
    Mr. Dickey. I want to thank General Ballard, Dr. Zirschky, 
General Fuhrman, and Mr. Caver, and General Anderson. You all 
have been very kind to answer all my questions, and I think we 
are all in this thing together. Let us just hold hands while we 
go through it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further 
questions.

                       operation and maintenance

    Mr. McDade. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. General 
Ballard, let me touch on a couple of points with you. The Corps 
has about 1,200 facilities to maintain around the country, and 
a lot of them have reached beyond their designed capable life. 
They are still going, correct?
    General Ballard. I would say that is an accurate 
assessment, sir.
    Mr. McDade. And we are proud of the work that you have done 
and the fact that they are still onstream. When I look at the 
operation and maintenance budget, you are $137 million below 
last year in this account. Is that a correct number?
    General Ballard. That is about right, sir.
    Mr. McDade. What kind of number do you need, General, to be 
able to efficiently maintain and care for the facilities that 
you are responsible for?
    General Ballard. I will turn it----
    General Fuhrman. Our recommended budget was $1.8 billion.
    General Ballard. Was this O & M you are talking about?
    Mr. McDade. Yes, operation and maintenance. What did you 
ask from OMB?
    General Fuhrman. $1.8 billion.
    Mr. McDade. And what did you get? Is it $137 million below 
the----
    General Fuhrman. Yes.

                                 fusrap

    Mr. McDade. You were cut $137 million somewhere along the 
line. Okay. Let me, General Ballard, if I may, turn to the 
FUSRAP program, which we are all very interested in and in 
which this Committee has a special interest.
    General Ballard. Okay, sir.
    Mr. McDade. I have heard that there have been some 
procedural roadblocks put in the way of the project as a result 
of DOE's conversations with the Corps, that there are some 
colloquies back and forth that are not advancing the project. 
Would that be an apt characterization on what is happening?
    General Ballard. I wouldn't call them roadblocks. Let me 
say that there have been some difficulties in addressing 
certain issues; primarily the issues involving real estate, 
some regulatory issues in terms of authority to designate new 
sites if need be, some issues that speak to the condition of 
the status of cleanup of previous sites. We currently are 
involved and working with DOE and OMB to try to reach some 
agreements on a memorandum of understanding, if I understand 
your question correctly.
    Mr. McDade. So the discussion is still ongoing. It has not 
been settled?
    General Ballard. No, sir, not yet.
    Mr. McDade. Does it need legal clarification or a 
memorandum of understanding? What do you need to get this 
behind you?
    General Ballard. I think that the letter that the Committee 
submitted as to clarification of the original language was 
sufficient enough as far as I was concerned. I clearly 
understood the intent of Congress. I would say it probably 
would need some agreements on the part of DOE to come to the 
table and seriously negotiate on this issue. OMB is assisting 
us in that endeavor.
    Mr. McDade. Yes, but you are still kind of one party at the 
table, are you?
    General Ballard. Yes, sir. I think that would be accurate.
    Dr. Zirschky. We are in agreement with OMB. The Corps has 
now reached agreement with OMB as to where we would like it to 
end up. So I guess there is two out of three of us agreeing so 
far.
    Mr. McDade. You mean OMB has not been able to bring DOE to 
the table?
    Dr. Zirschky. I think, sir, they were a bit surprised in an 
answer that was given to this Committee a few weeks ago.
    Mr. Fazio. OMB was?
    Dr. Zirschky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McDade. General, we are going to invite you to keep us 
informed as to how this thing is progressing because we don't 
want to see any artificial roadblocks. We want cooperation. We 
want to see the Corps solve this problem. We are happy that you 
have it. We don't want to see it impeded. We have another vote 
on, I am informed. Are there any other questions from the 
Members? The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Visclosky, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, simply to state that relative 
to earlier comments, I have found the Corps offices--and 
particularly the regional office in Chicago--to be very 
dedicated, very flexible, very hardworking, and I personally 
think understaffed. That is my comment. That is not theirs.
    I think you have greater capacity, and I did not bring up 
the score on your strategic plan earlier to be critical, but I 
don't see how anybody could expect you to come up with a plan 
given the way you are tugged and pulled with these various 
budgetary figures. I think it is an impossible task that you 
have been dealt here. So that was not meant to be a negative 
comment.
    And I will stop while I am ahead, except to say you do many 
useful projects that preserve the environment, save lives, and 
make our economy more efficient. And you deserve the dollars 
you are capable of spending.
    Dr. Zirschky. Thank you.

                          additional questions

    Mr. McDade. Gentlemen, we have additional questions, which 
we will be submitting to you. We appreciate your attention to 
them and frank answers. Thank you for being here. We appreciate 
all your work on behalf of the country. The Committee is in 
recess till tomorrow at ten o'clock.
    [The questions and answers for the record follow:]

[Pages 92 - 420--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]










                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                           CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                         Secretary of the Army

                                                                   Page
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Direct Program...............    93
Army Corps of Engineers Construction, General, Reprogramming 
  Limits.........................................................    65
Army Request..................................................... 59-60
Budget Request--Overview........................................226-231
Capability....................................................66-67, 69
Civil Works Budget...............................................   215
Coastal Protection................................170-171, 177, 259-266
Competition: Private Engineers vs. Corps of Engineers............   257
Complete Statement of Dr. John H. Zirschky.......................  3-23
    Acceptance of Non-Federal Funds..............................    12
    Advance Appropriations for New Investments and Near-term 
      Completions................................................    10
    Annual Flood Damage Report to Congress.......................     9
    Budget Allocations for New Investments....................... 11-12
    Civil Works Business Programs................................ 14-17
    Conclusion...................................................    17
    Constant 1995................................................    20
    Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response.................    17
    Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Request................   8-9
    Environment.................................................. 14-16
    Environmental Resources Fund for America..................... 10-11
    Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction.....................    14
    FY 1999 Civil Works Budget...................................    10
    FY99 Budget by Business Program..............................    23
    FY99 Budget Ceilings vs. Requirements........................    19
    FY99 New Construction........................................    22
    Geographic Distribution of FY99 Army Civil Works Budget......    21
    Government Performance and Results Act.......................   6-7
    Hydropower...................................................    16
    Improving Performance in the Civil Works Program.............   7-8
    Multi-year Funding Levels for Civil Works....................     9
    Navigation...................................................    14
    New Civil Works Investments.................................. 13-14
    O&M Cost Reduction Initiative................................ 13-14
    Performance Goals for FY 1998................................     8
    Performance of the US Army Civil Works Program...............    18
    Recreation...................................................    16
    Regulatory...................................................    16
    Seamless Funding for Preconstruction Engineering and Design 
      Activities.................................................    13
    Summary of the FY 1999 Civil Works Program................... 13-23
    Support for Others...........................................    17
    The Army Civil Works Budget..................................  9-12
    The President's Request for Civil Works......................   8-9
Complete Statement of General Ballard............................ 31-50
    Comparison with FY98 Funding................................. 35-36
    Conclusion...................................................    49
    Construction, General........................................ 43-44
    Corps of Engineers Financial Management System............... 44-42
    Corps Vision and Strategic Plan.............................. 48-49
    Decision Document Review/Approval............................    38
    Direct Program...............................................    34
    Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies........................    46
    Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.............    45
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program..............    47
    FY99 Civil Works Program Budget..............................    33
    General Expenses.............................................    47
    General Investigations....................................... 42-43
    Government Performance and Results...........................    41
    Headquarters Relocation Planning.............................    33
    Headquarters Responsivements to Field Offices................ 38-39
    Improvement in Business Processes............................ 38-41
    Introduction.................................................    32
    Net New Funding..............................................    36
    New Funding..................................................    35
    Operation and Maintenance, General........................... 44-45
    Partnering...................................................    40
    Program Execution and Outlook................................ 42-47
    Project Cooperation Agreements...............................    39
    Regulatory Program...........................................    45
    Reimbursed Program...........................................    37
    Restructuring................................................    33
    Significance of Budget for Corps............................. 36-37
    Staffing..................................................... 37-38
Construction Execution...........................................    67
Construction, General............53-55, 93, 112, 130-131, 178, 184, 186
Continuing Contracts............................................126-129
Contractor Shutdowns............................................109-110
Cooperation with Other Water Resources Agencies..................   151
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies, States, and Non-Federal 
  Interests......................................................   144
Credits and Reimbursements.......................................   132
Customer Satisfaction...........................................237-238
Earthquake Engineering Research Program.........................160-161
Environmental Considerations.....................................    80
Environmental Data Studies Program and Climate Change Activities.   155
Environmental Quality Research and Development..................157-158
Expenditures..................................................... 63-64
Fiscal Year 1999 Construction Starts............................172-173
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies............................   120
Flood Damage Prevention Studies.................................174-176
Flood Plain Management Services Program..........................   152
FUSRAP...........................................................    90
FY 1999 Funding Impacts--Mississippi Valley Division.............   187
FY98 Construction, General, Expenditures.........................    68
FY99 Construction, General Program Benefits Foregone and Delay 
  Costs.........................................................101-108
FY99 New Starts.................................................. 58-59
General Expenses................................................116-119
General Investigations..........................................129-130
General Investigations Reconnaissance Efforts....................   169
Global Competitiveness...........................................   125
Government Performance and Results Act...........................   136
Impacts of Proposed Budget Reductions on Mississippi River and 
  Tributaries Maintenance Program................................   163
Innovative Design and Construction Program.......................   160
International Water Studies Program.............................153-154
Lump Sum Contracts............................................... 73-74
Materials and Structural Engineering Research and Development....   157
Minimum Dredge Fleet.............................................   133
Mississippi River and Tributaries Construction Funding...........   162
New Project Starts/Flood Control.................................   215
New Starts......................................................217-218
Northwestern Division Major Rehabilitation.......................   164
Office of Congressional Affairs.................................241-242
Opening Remarks of Mr. Callahan..................................    27
Opening Remarks of Mr. Dickey....................................    86
Opening Remarks of Mr. Fazio..................................... 76-77
Opening Remarks of Mr. Frelinghuysen.............................    75
Opening Remarks of Mr. Knollenberg............................... 60-61
Opening Remarks of Mr. Parker....................................    27
Opening Remarks of Mr. Pastor....................................    29
Opening Remarks of Mr. Rogers....................................    28
Opening Statement of Dr. Zirschky................................ 24-27
    Funding Gap..................................................    25
    FY99 Budget.................................................. 24,26
    Zero Funded Projects.........................................    27
Opening Statement of General Ballard............................. 30-50
    Civil Works Program Budget...................................    51
    Conclusion...................................................    52
    Corps of Engineers Financial Management System...............    52
    Division Restructing.........................................    51
    FY99 Budget Request.......................................... 51-52
    FY99 Direct Program..........................................    50
    Headquarters Relocation......................................    51
    Program Execution............................................    52
Operation and Maintenance..............................90, 164-165, 173
Operation and Maintenance Cost Savings Initiative................   115
Operation and Maintenance Funding Levels.........................   114
Permit Issues....................................................   286
Planning Assistance to States Program............................   147
Program Execution................................................   134
Project Terminations.............................................   216
Questions for the Corps of Engineers Submitted by Congressman 
  Pastor........................................................299-301
Questions for the Record from Congressman Edwards...............288-298
Questions for the Record From Congressman Fazio.................192-214
Questions for the Record From Congressman Rogers................215-253
Questions for the Record from Congressman Visclosky.............283-287
Questions for the Record from Mr. Parker.........................   278
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Dickey........279-282
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Frelinghuysen.. 
                                                                258-277
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Knollenberg...254-257
Questions for the Record, Chairman Joseph M. McDade..............92-191
Questions of Mr. Parker.......................................... 71-74
Recognition of Lew Whitney.......................................    77
Recognition of Mr. William Johnson, Jr...........................   288
Reconnaissance Policy Exemptions...............................163, 188
Reconnaissance Studies...............................165, 173, 180, 184
Reconnaissance Studies Over $100,000.............................   190
Reconnaissance Study Criteria...................................178-179
Regulatory Administrative Appeals Program.......................138-139
Remarks of Mr. Pastor............................................    55
Reprogramming....................................................60, 64
Research Laboratories............................................   156
Resource Management/Program Management..........................239-240
Restructuring of the Corps of Engineers.........................254-256
Revolving Fund...................................................   135
Risk Analysis....................................................   146
Scientific and Technical Information Centers Program.............   155
Small Business Program...........................................   299
SPD Construction Program.........................................   180
SPD Operations and Maintenance Program...........................   180
Special Investigations...........................................   148
Status Report--Great Lakes and Ohio River Division..............351-380
    Area of Responsibility.......................................   351
    Construction, General.......................................365-373
        Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1999......................   365
        Dam Safety Assurance.....................................   373
        Flood Damage Reduction..................................369-372
        Highlights of Fiscal Year 1997-1998......................   365
        Major Rehabilitation.....................................   373
        Multi-Purpose Projects...................................   372
        Navigation..............................................367-368
        New Starts...............................................   366
        Shoreline Protection.....................................   369
    Flood Response Activities....................................   378
    General Investigations......................................353-364
        Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1999......................   353
        Fiscal Year 1999 New Survey Start........................   354
        Flood Damage Reduction Studies..........................355-358
        Highlights of Fiscal Years 1997, 1998....................   353
        Navigation Studies.......................................   354
        Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design................363-364
        Special Studies.........................................358-362
    LRD Division Office Restructuring............................   379
    Operation and Maintenance, General..........................374-377
        Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1999......................   374
        Environmental Stewardship................................   377
        Flood Damage Reduction...................................   376
        Highlights of Fiscal Years 1997-1998.....................   374
        Hydropower...............................................   376
        Navigation..............................................375-376
        Recreation...............................................   377
    Regulatory Activities........................................   378
    Specific Partnering Activities...............................   380
    Summary of Fiscal Year 1999 Program.........................351-352
Status Report--Mississippi Valley Division......................323-350
    Area of Responsibility.......................................   324
    Construction, General Program...............................333-341
    Fiscal Year 1997 Program Performance.........................   324
    Fiscal Year 1998 Program Management..........................   324
    Fiscal Year 1999 Program Summary.............................   325
    General Investigations......................................325-333
        Surveys.................................................325-330
        Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design................331-333
    Mississippi River and Tributaries Program...................342-350
        Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration 
          Act....................................................   350
        Construction............................................344-349
        General Investigations...................................   342
        Maintenance..............................................   350
        Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design.................   344
        Surveys.................................................342-344
    Operation and Maintenance, General..........................341-342
        Flood Control Projects...................................   342
        Multiple-Purpose Projects................................   342
        Navigation Projects.....................................341-342
        Protection of Navigation.................................   342
Status Report--North Atlantic Division..........................302-312
    Accomplishments..............................................   304
    Conclusion...................................................   312
    Construction, General--Highlights of Fiscal Year 1997 Program   308
        Highlights of the Fiscal Year 1998 Program...............   308
        Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1999......................   308
    Description of the North Atlantic Division Geographic 
      Settings..................................................303-304
    Districts....................................................   304
    General Investigations.......................................   305
        Highlights of Fiscal Year 1997 Program...................   305
        Highlights of the Fiscal Year 1998 Program...............   305
        Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1999......................   305
    Introduction.................................................   303
    Operation and Maintenance, General...........................   311
        Highlights of Fiscal Year 1997...........................   311
        Highlights of Fiscal Year 1998...........................   311
        Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1999......................   311
    Overall Budget Request.......................................   305
Status Report--Northwestern Division............................381-393
    Conclusion...................................................   393
    Construction, General.......................................384-388
    Construction, General, Continuing Authorities................   389
    Description of Division......................................   381
    Expenditure Performance......................................   381
    General Investigations......................................382-384
    Operation and Maintenance, General..........................389-392
        Columbia River Spring Freshet of 1997....................   392
        Columbia River Water Management..........................   391
        Cultural Resources.......................................   392
        Missouri River Master Water Control Manual Review & 
          Update.................................................   390
        Missouri River Record Runoff in 1997.....................   392
        Missouri River Water Management..........................   391
        O&M Direct Funding From Bonneville Power Administration 
          (BPA)..................................................   389
    Overall Budget Request.......................................   381
Status Report--Pacific Ocean Division...........................414-420
    Construction, General........................................   417
    Description of Division......................................   414
    Emergency Response...........................................   420
    FY99 New Start Study........................................414-417
    General Investigations.......................................   414
    Operation and Maintenance, General...........................   420
    Overall Budget Request.......................................   414
    Summary......................................................   420
Status Report--South Atlantic Division..........................313-322
    Conclusion...................................................   322
    Construction................................................317-322
        Continuing..............................................318-320
        Fiscal Year 1998........................................317-318
        Fiscal Year 1999.........................................   318
        New......................................................   318
    Division Area................................................   314
    General Investigations......................................314-316
        Continuing...............................................   316
        Fiscal Year 1998.........................................   315
        Fiscal Year 1999.........................................   315
        New.....................................................315-316
    Introduction.................................................   314
    Operation and Maintenance...................................320-322
        Fiscal Year 1998........................................320-321
        Fiscal Year 1999.........................................   321
        Flood Control Projects...................................   321
        Multiple Purpose Projects................................   321
        Navigation Projects......................................   321
        Protection of Navigation.................................   322
    Overall budget...............................................   314
    Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design....................316-317
        Continuing..............................................316-317
        New......................................................   316
Status Report--South Pacific Division...........................409-413
    1997 Flood Recovery/1998 El Nino Preparations and Flood 
      Recovery..................................................409-410
    Collaborative Multi-Agency Endeavors.........................   411
    Conclusion...................................................   413
    Construction, General........................................   412
    Fiscal Year 1999 Budget......................................   412
    FY 1997 Achievements.........................................   411
    FY 1998 Program..............................................   412
    General Investigations.......................................   412
    Introduction.................................................   409
    Operations and Maintenance..................................412-413
    Regional Overview...........................................410-411
Status Report--Southwestern Division............................394-408
    Construction, General.......................................400-402
        Continuing Construction..................................   400
        Fiscal Year 1999 Construction Program....................   401
        New Construction Starts..................................   400
        Project Completions......................................   402
    Fiscal Year 1999 program.....................................   394
    Fiscal Year 1997 Performance.................................   395
    General Investigations......................................395-399
        Completion of Feasibility Studies........................   398
        Completion of Reconnaissance Studies.....................   309
        Continuing PED Projects..................................   399
        Cost Shared Feasibility Studies.........................397-398
        Fiscal Year 1999 Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design 
          Program................................................   399
        Fiscal Year 1999 Survey Program.........................396-397
        Full Federal Feasibility Studies.........................   398
        Initiation of PED........................................   399
        Initiation of Reconnaissance Studies.....................   397
        Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design (PED)...........   398
        Survey Studies...........................................   396
        Completion of PED Projects...............................   399
    Operation and Maintenance...................................402-407
        Channels and Harbors.....................................   403
        Emergency Management....................................406-407
        Flood Control............................................   404
        Flood Damages Prevented..................................   406
        Locks and Dams..........................................403-404
        Multiple Purpose Power Projects.........................404-405
        Protection of Navigation.................................   405
        Recreation...............................................   406
        Regulatory Program.......................................   407
        Return of Funds..........................................   407
    Summary......................................................   408
Strategic Plan................................................... 69-70
Surveying and Mapping Research...................................   159
Time For Completion of Projects.................................232-237
Total Funding.................................................... 70-71
Water Management................................................243-244
Water Management Function........................................   279
Water Resources Management Research Area........................158-159
Year 2000 Computer Conversion Problem............................   137
Zebra Mussel Research Program...................................161-162

                          Projects and Studies

531 Projects.....................................................    25
AIWW--Replacement of Federal Highway Bridges, North Carolina.....    31
Ajo Detention Basin..............................................     5
Ajo Detention Basin, AZ--Section 1135............................299-30
Akutan Harbor, Alaska............................................    41
Ala Wai Canal Environmental Restoration, Oahu, Hawaii............    41
Alaska Environmental Infrastructure, Alaska......................    42
Alaska Environmental Restoration Studies.........................    41
Alaska Navigation FY98 Reconnaissance Studies, Alaska............    41
Alenaio Stream Flood Control, Hawaii.............................    41
Alexander and Pulaski Counties, Illinois.........................    32
Alexandria, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico.....................    34
Aloha-Rigolette Area, Louisiana..................................    33
American River Watershed, CA..................................84-86, 41
American River, CA--Common Elements Funding FY 1999..............194-19
American River, CA--Comprehensive Plan...........................    19
American River, CA--Optimum Funding Schedule.....................    19
American River, CA Basin Hydrology...............................193-19
Amite River-Darlington Reservoir, Louisiana......................    32
Arthur Kill Channel, Howland Hook, Marine Terminal, NY & NJ......    27
Assateague Island, MD.............................171-172, 173, 177, 30
Atchafalaya Barin Floodway System, Louisiana.....................345-34
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.....................................    34
Atlantic Introcoastal Waterway Bridge at Great Bridge, VA........    30
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Deep Creek, 
  VA.............................................................    30
Augusta, KY......................................................    35
Ballwin, St. Louis County, Missouri..............................    32
Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources, Deep Run-Tiber Hudson, MD    30
Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii...............................    41
Barkley Dam and Barkley Lake, KY, TN.............................    37
Bayou Pierre, Mississippi........................................    32
Beach City Lake, OH..............................................    37
Beals Creek, Big Spring, Texas...................................    29
Bethel Bank Stabilization, Alaska................................    41
Big Sioux River Project..........................................    16
Big Sioux River, Sioux Falls, SD.................................    38
Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway in the Vicinity of Jackson, 
  Alabama........................................................    31
Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO..............................    38
Boeuf-Tensas.....................................................     8
Bonneville Power Administration..................................    16
Bonneville Power Administration..................................    16
Bonneville Powerhouse (Major Rehab Phase II), OR & WA............    38
Brays Bayou, Houston, Texas......................................    29
Buford Trenton Irrigation District (Land Acquisition), ND........    38
Burns Harbor, Major Rehabilitation, Indiana......................    28
Calfed and Bay-Delta Studies.....................................181-18
Calfed Bay-Delta Program.........................................144-14
Canaveral Harbor, Deepening, Florida.............................    31
Cape Girardeau, Jackson, Missouri...............................189, 33
Central and Southern Florida Project Review Study................    18
Central and Southern Florida, Florida............................    31
Chain of Rocks Canal, Mississippi River, Illinois (Deficiency 
  Correction)....................................................333-33
Challenge 21--Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard 
  Mitigation......................................................11, 5
Challenge XXI Initiative--Pima County, AZ........................    30
Channel Improvement..............................................    34
Cheat River Basin, Beaver Creek, WV, and Cheat River Basin, 
  Sovern Run, WV.................................................    36
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Baltimore Harbor Connecting 
  Channels, (Deepening) De & MD..................................    30
Chesterfield, Missouri...........................................    32
Chicago Shoreline, IL............................................    36
Chicago Shoreline, Illinois......................................    28
Chignik Harbor, Alaska...........................................    41
City of Martin...................................................250-25
Clover Fork......................................................252-25
Coastal America..................................................    15
Coastal Massachusetts Ecosystem Restoration Massachusetts and 
  Cape Cod Bays..................................................    30
Coastal Studies of Navigation Improvements, Alaska..............190, 41
Columbia River Channel Deepending, OR & WA.......................    38
Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program...........................166-16
Columbia River Fish Mitigation, ID, OR, & WA.....................    38
Columbia River Treaty Fishing Access Sites, OR & WA..............    38
Columbus Metropolitan Area, OH...................................    35
Comite River, Louisiana..........................................    33
Concrete and Structural Engineering Research.....................156-15
Conemaugh River Basin, Nanty Glo Environmental Restoration, PA...    36
Cook Inlet Navigation, Alaska....................................    41
Crookston, Minnesota.............................................332-33
Dallas Floodway Extension........................................169-17
Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Iowa..............................    32
Des Plaines River Basin, IL......................................    36
Detailed Project Reports for Section 202.........................    37
Detroit versus Chicago...........................................    28
Devils Lake, North Dakota........................................    33
Devils Lake, North Dakota........................................    33
Dewey Lake, Kentucky........................................251-252, 37
Dillingham Bank Stabilization, Alaska............................    41
Duck River Watershed, TN.........................................    36
Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, ID...................................    39
East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana...............................    33
East St. Loius, Illinois....................................188, 335-33
Eight Mile Creek, Arkansas.......................................    34
El Nino Response.................................................  78-8
Elk Creek Lake, OR...............................................    38
Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Florida......    32
False Pass Harbor, Alaska........................................    41
Festus and Crystal City, Missouri................................    32
Festus and Crystal City, Missouri................................    33
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.......121-124, 202-214, 
                                                                 274-27
Fort Wayne Metropolitan Area, IN.................................    37
FUSRAP...........................................................  62-6
Garrison Dam and Powerplant (Major Rehab), ND....................    38
GIWW--Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Texas....................291-29
Grand Forks, North Dakota--East Grand Forks, Minnesota...........    33
Grand Prairie....................................................     8
Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas (Bayou Meto 
  Basin Separable Element).......................................    34
Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas (Grand 
  Prairie Region)................................................    34
Grays Harbor, WA.................................................    39
Great Miami River, Oxbow Area, OH, IN............................    35
Green and Barren Rivers Navigation Dispostion Study, KY..........    35
Grundy, VA Element of Section 202................................    37
Gulf of Mexico Program...........................................148-14
Harlan, Kentucky.................................................  56-5
Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas....................................    34
Hocking River, Monday Creek, OH and Hocking River, Sunday Creek, 
  OH.............................................................    36
Holes Creek, Wes Carrollton, OH..................................    37
Homer Spit Storm Drainage Reduction, Alaska......................    42
Homme Lake, North Dakota.........................................    34
Honolulu Harbor Modifications, Oahu..............................    41
Houston--Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas....................288-29
Iao Stream, Maui.................................................    41
Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration, Illinois...................    32
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Beach Nourishment...............    28
Indiana Harbor and Canal, Indiana, Dredging and Disposal.........283-28
Indiana Harbor, IN...............................................    37
Indianapolis Central Waterfront..................................    28
Intracoastal Waterway Locks, Louisiana...........................    32
Jackson Hole Restoration, WY.....................................    38
Jackson, Kentucky................................................    25
James River Project..............................................    16
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana......................................    32
Johnstown, PA, Local Protection Project..........................    37
Joseph G. Minish Waterfront Park and Historic Area, New jersey...    27
Kake Harbor, Alaska..............................................    41
Kanawha River Navigation, WV.....................................    35
Kankakee River Basin, IL, IN.....................................    35
Kansas River Basin Studies, KS & MO..............................    38
Kaumalapau Harbor, Lanai, Hawaii.................................    41
Kawaihae Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii, Hawaii.......................    41
Kentucy River Tributaries, Frankfort, KY.........................    35
Kikiaola Harbor, Kauai, Hawaii...................................    41
Kikiaola Small Boat Harbor, Kauai, HI............................    19
Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels, NY & NJ...................258-25
Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay, NY & NJ............................    17
Kill Van Kull Channel Deepening..................................  75-7
Kissimmee River, Florida.........................................    32
Kodiak Harbor, Alaska............................................    41
Lafayette Parish, Louisiana......................................    32
Lake Ashtabula and Baldhill Dam, North Dakota....................    34
Lake Ashtabula and Baldhill Dam, North Dakota (Major 
  Rehabilitation)................................................    34
Lake George, Indiana Fish and Wildlife Restoration...............    28
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana......................188, 33
Lake St. Clair...................................................  61-6
Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana...............................    33
Levisa and Tug Forks of Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland 
  River, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky (Section 202)....179, 245-25
Lexington, Fayette County, KY....................................    35
Licking River, Cynthiana, KY.....................................    35
Licking River, Falmouth, KY......................................    35
Little Calumet River Basin Cady Marsh Ditch, Indiana.............    28
Little Calumet River, Illinois, Indiana..........................    28
Little Calumet River, IN.........................................    37
Lock and Dam 14, Mississippi River, Iowa (Major Rehabilitation)..    34
Lock and Dam 24, Illinois and Missouri (Major Rehabilitation)....    34
Lock and Dam 24, Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri (Major 
  Rehabilitation) Phase II.......................................    33
Lock and Dam 25, Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri (Major 
  Rehabilitation)................................................    34
Lock and Dam 3, Mississippi River, Minnesota (Major 
  Rehabilitation)................................................    34
Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, PA................    36
London L&D WV....................................................    36
Los Angeles County Drainage Area, CA.............................182-18
Los Angeles Harbor--PCA..........................................    20
Los Angeles Harbor Pier 400 Navigation Project, CA...............    20
Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana....................    34
Loves Park, Illinois.............................................    33
Lower Columbia River, OR & WA....................................    38
Lower Missouri River Basin Studies, MO & KS......................    38
Lower River Des Peres, Missouri..................................328-32
Lower River Des Peres, Missouri..................................    33
Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation, ID, OR, & WA...    38
Lualualei Flood Study, Oahu, Hawaii..............................    41
Maalaea Small Boat Harbor, Maui, Hawaii..........................    41
Magpie Creek, CA.................................................    19
Marmet Locks and Dam, WV.........................................    36
Marshall, Minnesota..............................................    33
Maumee River, OH.................................................    35
McAlpine Locks and Dam, KY, IN...................................    36
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, AR & OK--Moore's 
  Bayou..........................................................    27
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, AR & OK--Tow-
  Haulage........................................................    28
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, IL...............................    36
Melvin Price Lock and Dam, Illinois and Missouri.................    33
Memphis Metropolitan Area, Tennessee and Mississippi.............    34
Meramec River Basin, Valley Park Levee, Missouri................189, 33
Mercer County, WV................................................    35
Metro Center Levee, Davidson County, TN..........................    36
Metropolitan Louisville, Beargrass Creek, KY.....................    36
Metropolitan Louisville, Mill Creek Basin, KY....................    35
Metropolitan Louisville, Pond Creek, KY..........................    37
Metropolitan Region of Cincinnati, Duck Creek, OH................    37
Middle Brazos River, Texas.......................................290-29
Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, IN..............................    36
Mill Creek, OH...................................................    37
Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine Areas, Mississippi and 
  Louisiana......................................................    34
Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana..............................    34
Mississippi River--Gulf Outlet, Louisiana (Inner Harbor 
  Navigation Canal Lock, Louisiana)..............................    33
Mississippi River at Quincy, Illinois............................    32
Mississippi River Between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers 
  (Regulating Works), Missouri and Illinois......................    33
Mississippi River in Alexander County, Illinois and Scott County, 
  Missouri.......................................................342-34
Mississippi River Levees......................................88-89, 34
Mississippi River Ship Channel Improvements, Louisiana...........    32
Missouri National Recreational River, NE & SD....................    38
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, IA, NE, KS, & MO....    38
Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KA, & MO....................    38
Molly Ann's Brook, NJ............................................    31
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.............................86-88, 89, 10
Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana............    34
Muscatine Island, Iowa...........................................    33
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.....................................    31
National Estuary Program and Calfed..............................    14
Neches River and Tributaries, Saltwater Barrier, Texas...........    29
New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.................................    33
New York-New Jersey Harbor Disposal Crisis.......................267-26
New York and New Jersey Harbor, NY and NJ.......................268, 30
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, NY and NJ Port Jersey, NJ. 
                                                                 270-27
Nome Harbor Improvements, Alaska.................................    41
Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi.......................    34
North Chickamauga Creek, TN......................................    36
Nutwood Drainage and Levee District, Illinois....................    33
Ohio River Mainstem Systems Study, Kentucky, IL, IN..............    35
Olive Hill, KY...................................................    35
Olmsted Locks and Dam, IL, KY....................................    36
Onondaga Lake Management Conference, New York....................    17
Onondaga Lake, NY................................................    35
Orleans Parish, Louisiana........................................    32
Panther Creek, KY................................................    35
Passaic River Preservation of Natural Storage, NJ................    26
Patoka Lake, IN..................................................    36
Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi...............................    33
Peoria Riverfront Development, Illinois..........................    32
Perry Creek, IA..................................................    38
Pine River Dam, Cross Lake, Minnesota............................    33
Platte River Basin Studies, CO & NE..............................    38
Portage, Wisconsin...............................................    33
Portugues and Bucana Rivers, Puerto Rico.........................    31
Powell River Watershed, VA.......................................    36
Powerplant Rehabilitation Projects...............................    32
Presque Isle Peninsula, PA.......................................    36
Puerto Rico Flood Control Projects...............................199-20
Puget Sound Studies, WA..........................................    38
Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, NJ...................271-27
Ray Roberts Lake, Texas..........................................294-29
Raymondville Drain, Texas........................................    17
Red River Below Denison Dam, AR, LA, & TX-Bowie County Levee.....297-29
Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas and Louisiana..............    28
Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and Louisiana......    28
Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas...............    28
Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana...    33
Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee and Kentucky............................343-34
Regulatory Oversight of FUSRAP Activities........................    21
Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, Georgia and South Carolina......    32
Rillito River....................................................     5
Rillito River, AZ Recreational Bridges...........................    29
Rio Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico....................................    31
Rio Salado.......................................................     5
Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project, AZ.......................300-30
Rio Salado, AZ Feasibility Study.................................    29
Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation.......142-14
Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, WV, OH.............................    36
Roughans Point, Revere, MA.......................................    31
Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, CA.....................    19
Sacramento River Levee Systems...................................  80-8
Sacramento, CA Area Flood Threat.................................    19
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin Comprehensive Study...........     8
SAFCA Reimbursement--Natomas.....................................196-19
Salyersville, Kentucky...........................................    25
Sam Rayburn Dam, Texas (Dam Safety)..............................    29
San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico.....................................    19
San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico.....................................    31
Sand Point Harbor, Alaska........................................    41
Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ.................................    31
Santa Ana River Mainstem, CA.....................................    41
Saw Mill Run, Pittsburgh, PA.....................................    37
Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program...............    19
Seward Point Harbor, Alaska......................................    41
Sheyenne River, North Dakota.....................................    33
Shore Protection.................................................     7
Sims Bayou, Houston, Texas.......................................296-29
Skiatook Lake, OK................................................168-16
Soo Locks........................................................     6
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Projects.....................184-18
South Sacramento Streams, CA.....................................    19
Southeast Arkansas, Arkansas.....................................280-28
Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana...................................    33
Special Area Management Plans....................................     1
St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.........................346-34
St. John's Bayou--New Madrid Floodway, Missouri..................    34
St. Louis Flood Protection, Missouri.............................    33
St. Louis Harbor, Missouri.......................................    33
St. Paul Harbor, Alaska..........................................    41
Ste. Genevieve, Missouri.........................................    33
Superfund........................................................    27
Susquehanna River Basin Compact and Delaware River Basin Compact.    27
Tanque Verde Creek, AZ...........................................    30
Tennessee River and Tributaries, Eastern Band Cherokee Nation, NC    35
Tennessee River and Tributaries, Franklin, Macon County, NC......    35
Tennessee Valley Authority.......................................140-14
Tensas Basin, Arkansas and Louisiana.............................    34
The Dalles Powerhouse (Major Rehab), WA & OR.....................    38
Three Sovereigns Governance of the Columbia River Basin Ecosystem    16
Tillamook Bay and Estuary, OR....................................    38
Tippecanoe River, IN.............................................    35
Toledo Harbor, OH................................................    37
Tres Rios........................................................     5
Tres Rios Habitat Restoration Project, AZ........................    30
Tres Rios, AZ--FCSA Funding......................................    30
Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV................................    41
Tucson Drainage Area, AZ--WRDA 1998..............................    30
Turtle Creek Watershed, Brush Creek and Lyons Creek, PA, and 
  Turtle Creek Watershed, Upper Turtle Creek, PA.................    36
Tygart Lake, WV..................................................    37
Tygart Three-Watershed, Fords Run, WV, and Tygart Three-
  Watershed, Maple Run, WV.......................................    36
Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Navigation Study............    18
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River Navigation Study, 
  Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.............    33
Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program, 
  Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.............334-33
Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study, Illinois, 
  Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.......................    32
Upper Missouri River Basin Studies, SD & ND......................    38
Upper Passaic River and Tributaries, NJ..........................    27
Upper Rockaway River, NJ.........................................    27
Waco Lake, Texas.................................................    29
Walla Walla River Watershed, OR & WA.............................    38
Wallace Lake, Louisiana..........................................327-32
Wallisville Lake, Texas..........................................292-29
Walter F. George Powerhouse and Dam, Alabama and Georgia.........    31
Waukegan Harbor, IL..............................................    35
West Bank--Vicinity of New Orleans, Louisiana....................    33
West Columbus, OH................................................    37
West Shore--Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana........................    32
West Tennessee Tributaries, Tennessee............................349-35
White River Navigation to Newport, Arkansas......................    33
Whiteman's Creek, Arkansas.......................................    34
Willamette River Basin Studies, OR...............................    38
Willapa River & Harbor, WA.......................................    39
Winfield Locks and Dam, Kanawha River, WV........................    36
Wolf Creek Dam and Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.....................    25
Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee...................................    34
Wood River Drainage and levee District, Madison County, Illinois.    33
Wood River Levee, Illinois.......................................326-32
Wood River, Grand Island, NE.....................................    38
Yazoo Basin, Mississippi.........................................348-34
Youghiogheny River Lake Storage Reallocation, PA, MD.............    36