[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000

_______________________________________________________________________

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
                              FIRST SESSION
                                ________

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

                    RON PACKARD, California, Chairman
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky              PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan            CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York          ED PASTOR, Arizona
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey  JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa                   
                                    

 NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, 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
                 OFFICEOFTHEASSISTANTSECRETARYOFTHEARMY
                  (CIVIL WORKS) AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

                              

                                ________
         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-790                     WASHINGTON : 1999



                        COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

 RALPH REGULA, Ohio                    DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
 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               STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
 TOM DeLAY, Texas                      ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
 JIM KOLBE, Arizona                    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
 RON PACKARD, California               NANCY PELOSI, California
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama               PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 JAMES T. WALSH, New York              NITA M. LOWEY, New York
 CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                 ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
 ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma       JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
 HENRY BONILLA, Texas                  JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan             ED PASTOR, Arizona
 DAN MILLER, Florida                   CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
 JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
 JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey   ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi            Alabama
 MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York           JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,            MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
Washington                             LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
 RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,            SAM FARR, California
California                             JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                   CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                  ALLEN BOYD, Florida
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa
 ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
 JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
 KAY GRANGER, Texas
 JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania     
                                    
                                    
                                    

                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                  (ii)


          ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000

                              ----------                              

                                           Tuesday, March 23, 1999.

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                           CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                               WITNESSES

HON. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL, 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

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Packard

    Mr. Packard. Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to call 
the hearing to order. Members are here, and there will be more 
coming, I am sure. We are particularly grateful to welcome our 
witnesses this morning, and we are grateful that you brought 
with you all of your division commanders. We welcome them.
    In the event that there are questions that would better be 
answered by your division commanders, they would be welcome to 
come to the table and participate in the Q and A sessions, and 
it will be important for them to use the microphone for the 
benefit of our stenographer. They are certainly welcome to 
participate.
    We have as our witnesses the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army for Civil Works, Dr. Joseph Westphal. We are grateful to 
have you with us, Mr. Secretary.
    Dr. Westphal. Thank you.
    Mr. Packard. We are also very grateful to have with us 
General Ballard, who is the Chief of Engineers for the Army 
Corps of Engineers.
    Also, we are very pleased to have with us General Russell 
Fuhrman, who is the Director of Civil Works.
    You will be our three chief witnesses this morning. We 
appreciate all of you being here. We appreciate your 
statements. Your statements have been made available to all 
members of the committee. I presume that they have read them. I 
have. And I ask if you would summarize; we would appreciate 
that.
    I can't tell you how many questions we have listed. We are 
not going to ask them all, I can promise you. There are over 
four-hundred questions here in my notebook. And I am not going 
to ask all of those questions. But the fact is that there are 
many, many important questions that we do have, and we would 
like to spend as much time addressing those questions as we 
can.
    You may take as much time as you would like. Certainly we 
are not going to constrain your time. But again, if you can 
summarize, that would be appreciated. So with that, do you have 
a statement?
    Mr. Visclosky. No, I am fine.
    Mr. Packard. We are glad to have Mr. Visclosky and the rest 
of the members of the subcommittee with us this morning.
    This is a very important subject for us, obviously. Water 
issues, Army Corps issues, and flood control issues are of 
significant importance to every member of the subcommittee and 
every Member of Congress. Every district in the country, of 
course, is greatly affected by water issues. At least to us in 
the West--and I believe this is true in the South and the East 
and the Midwest and wherever we go in this country-- water is 
the lifeblood of our civilization.
    Mr. Rogers. Some of us have too much, and some of you have 
too little.
    Mr. Packard. We certainly have to ration ours out very 
carefully, and we try to do that in the West. But I had a 
father that was a very, very mild-mannered man. He was a 
magnificent person and never became upset over anything. And 
yet, the one time as a young boy I ever saw my father angry, it 
was over water rights. So I know how important it is to the 
life of our civilization.
    We are pleased to have you here, each of you.
    Mr. Packard. Dr. Westphal, we would like to have you speak 
first, and then we will go to General Ballard. And then we have 
General Fuhrman. If you please, Doctor.


                       statement of dr. westphal


    Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished 
members of the subcommittee. I am delighted to be here, and I, 
like you, Mr. Chairman, share the appreciation and importance 
of water resources to our Nation. And I have been a student and 
a teacher and a professor of political science in which my 
specialty area has always been water resources. So I have been 
a part of this type of policy initiative for a long time.
    And I am particularly honored and excited as this is my 
first time before this very esteemed subcommittee, after having 
followed water policy for so many years. This is a committee 
where so many of the key and important decisions that we made 
in our Nation about water development and water quality, in 
fact, in some cases were made here.
    And so I am very honored to be before you, and I 
congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your assuming the 
chairmanship of this subcommittee. It is, I think, one of the 
most important ones in the Congress, and I am delighted tohave 
the opportunity to work with you during my tenure in this job.
    And I am also delighted to be here before our other good 
friends and members of the committee, who give us a great deal 
of support and attention, which I think is very important to 
this program.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to summarize my summary, my oral 
statement for you.
    Mr. Packard. I didn't mean to put the fear into anybody.
    Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, I am really anxious to answer 
those 400 questions you have there, but I will tell you that I 
will be ably assisted. As you mentioned in your introductory 
remarks, our eight division commanders are here, and I am sure 
there will be a lot of very project-specific questions that I 
certainly can't answer. General Fuhrman is here, and Mr. Fred 
Caver. Fred Caver is our Chief of Programs Management Division 
for the Directorate of Civil Works. So one of us in this crowd 
ought to be able to answer very technical questions if you have 
them.

                        fiscal year 2000 budget

    Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, by 
stating that the large differences that existed between the 
administration's budget proposal last year and the amounts 
which you appropriated in both fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 
1999 are now reconciled in the fiscal year 2000 budget I am 
about to discuss. The President's budget for the Civil Works 
Program for fiscal year 2000 includes 3.9 billion for the 
discretionary program, comparable to the amount appropriated 
for the program in fiscal year 1999, and significantly above 
last year's budget.
    With cost-sharing contributions by non-Federal sponsors 
plus other funding, the fiscal year 2000 program will total 
$4.2 billion. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the non-
Federal sponsors are truly our partners in this program, and we 
are committed to a very responsive and timely allocation of 
resources to meet their efforts. I personally look forward to 
working with you and your colleagues in both the House and 
Senate in meeting the challenges of this very important 
partnership.

                       operation and maintenance

    The President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the Civil Works 
Operation and Maintenance, General Program is $1.84 billion 
this year. This level of funding is very strong, demonstrating 
the Administration's commitment to maintaining our existing 
infrastructure, much of which is aging and requires greater 
upkeep.

                         construction, general

    Funding for the Construction, General Program is $1.24 
billion, a significant increase from last year's request.

                               new starts

    This budget provides a strong program of new work, 
including one new survey, nineteen new construction projects, 
five major rehabilitation new starts, six new Plant Replacement 
and Improvement Program major acquisitions, and our proposal 
for a Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard 
Mitigation Program, which we call Challenge 21.

                          harbor services fund

    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, a key component of 
the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the Army Civil 
Works Program is a proposal for a new harbor services fund and 
harbor services user fee. As you know, in March of 1998, the 
Supreme Court ruled that the harbor maintenance tax was 
unconstitutional as applied to exports. This new proposal, 
which should be--which we should be ready to send to you in the 
next couple of weeks, as soon as we are finished with an 
interagency review, will provide a reliable source of funding 
for important navigation needs, including construction and 
operation and maintenance. It results in significantly greater 
funding for these port and harbor activities.

                        port and harbor projects

    The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 included $258 
million for Construction, General, and $693 million for 
Operation and Maintenance, General, for port and harbor 
projects. This totals $951 million, which is to be derived from 
the Harbor Services Fund for an overall increase of $382 
million over the President's fiscal year 1999 budget for 
harbor-related activities. This level of funding will allow us 
to proceed in an optimal rate for nearly all O&M and 
construction activities related to ports and harbors using 
funds contributed by users.

                          civil works missions

    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this Administration 
is committed to the traditional mission areas of improving our 
navigation and transportation system, protecting our local 
communities from flood damages and other disasters, and 
maintaining and improving hydropower facilities across the 
country. In addition, the protection and restoration of the 
environment is an important and integral part of the Civil 
Works portfolio.

                              challenge 21

    An example of a program that will integrate environmental 
concerns into more traditional Civil Works missions is our 
Challenge 21 Program. This year's budget includes $25 million 
to begin the Challenge 21 Program. It is designed to accomplish 
both flood hazard mitigation and ecosystem restoration and 
emphasizes nonstructural measures as a means to accomplish 
these objectives.

                           regulatory program

    With respect to our Regulatory Program, our fiscal year 
2000 budget proposes an increase of $11 million over the 
enacted level in fiscal year 1999 funding, for a total of $117 
million. In this program we are proud that we not only protect 
our vital aquatic resources, but we try to help people within 
the law to find environmentally sustainable solutions to their 
problems.
    In fiscal year 1998, the Regulatory Program authorized 
90,000 activities in writing, the most in any year, and nearly 
95 percent of all actions in less than 60 days. This budget 
will ensure that this level of service is maintained and 
improved even with an increasing workload.
    Mr. Chairman, when we last met, you urged me to work 
towards assuring that our Regulatory Program be sensitive to 
the needs of individuals to receive not only prompt service and 
attention, but a helpful attitude in concert with other Federal 
partners who have an interest in this program. I can assure you 
that I have sent that message forward and that I respect and 
agree with your interest in expediting the permit process in a 
cooperative and helpful manner.

                water resources development act of 1999

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, we 
are all anxiously awaiting the movement of a water resource 
development bill in the House. This Administration is committed 
to water resources development and the biannual authorization 
process. A strong water resources development program is a 
sound investment in our Nation's economic future and 
environmental stability. Communities across the country benefit 
from water resource projects to reduce flood damages, compete 
more effectively in world trade, provide needed water and 
power, provide recreational opportunities and protect and 
restore our rich aquatic resources.
    In this regard, I have been working hard with members and 
staff of the authorizing committees in both Houses to complete 
a Water Resources Development Act for 1999. We believe that 
passage of the water bill of 1999 will allow usto get back on 
schedule and proceed to move a bill in the year 2000 that will include 
new important initiatives, important to both the administration and the 
Congress.

                               conclusion

    In conclusion, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget for 
the Army Civil Works Program is a good one. It demonstrates a 
commitment to Civil Works missions, with a strong support for 
all programs. I plan to address the constitutional problem with 
the existing harbor maintenance tax and propose an especially 
strong program of new construction, maintain a firm commitment 
to maintaining existing water resources management 
infrastructure, and increase the application of Civil Works 
program expertise to environmental protection and restoration.
    In short, I look forward to working with you and members of 
the subcommittee in addressing the overall program needs and 
priorities. Fully realizing the budget restraints we all are 
under this year and in the years to come, I stand ready to work 
with all of you to make this program responsive, relevant and 
responsible as we move into the 21st century.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your 
statement. We will hold questions, of course, until all three 
of the witnesses have testified.
    [The biography and prepared statements of Dr. Westphal 
follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      statement of general ballard

    Mr. Packard. And so we will move to you, General Ballard.
    General Ballard. Mr. Chairman, and members of the 
subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear for the third time 
before this distinguished body, along with my eight division 
commanders and supporting staff. And I wish to add my 
congratulations to you also.
    Today the Civil Works Program is strong and highly 
productive. Thanks to you and the committee for your great 
support of this critical program, there is really an investment 
in our Nation's future.
    Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will summarize my 
statement also.
    I would like to begin with a short discussion of what is 
happening inside of the Corps. In the last two years we have 
worked diligently to become more client-focused, to 
dramatically change our internal processes, and to become more 
responsive and cost-effective, and to take advantage of changes 
in technology.

                           program management

    Time doesn't permit me to get into very much depth, but I 
would like to give you a snapshot of our process in a few 
selective areas. We have fully implemented the project 
management concept providing our clients a single point of 
contact and responsibility for Corps' projects and programs. 
This has greatly enhanced our relationship with our clients and 
at the same time integrated the resources of the organization 
to focus on quality projects, delivered on time and within 
budget.

                     project cooperation agreements

    Secondly, we are really looking at our entire planning 
process from the time a project is identified until the project 
cooperation agreement is signed. This area has been 
particularly frustrating for our clients and for us. The 
process takes too long; it is a bit bureaucratic and somewhat 
costly. We have reviewed the recommendations of a project 
action team to streamline the PCA process, minimize burdens on 
local sponsors, and delegate much of the approval and execution 
authority to the divisions and districts. The Secretary and I 
are currently working on many of those recommendations.

                     continuing authorities program

    We have also made significant changes to our Continuing 
Authorities Program to simplify, expedite and make it more 
user-friendly, and these efforts are only the beginning.

                         organizational issues

    Finally, we are reevaluating our organization at every 
level. Over the past three years our GE staffing has declined 
by seventeen employees to about 1,180 in fiscal year 1999. That 
is a fourteen percent reduction at the same time we have had an 
increase in workload. And as you know, we reduced the number of 
divisions from eleven to eight and continue with our downsizing 
of the division staffs. We have also continued to reduce 
headquarters staffing. Hopefully, these three points will give 
you some insight into a much larger process that will continue 
to accelerate over the next few years.

                           program execution

    A few words on execution of our program. In fiscal year 
1998, we have increased our expenditure execution by $400 
million over what had been a flat execution of about $3.7 
billion for each of the preceding three years. In fiscal year 
1999, we have scheduled an additional $500 million in 
expenditures, meaning that we have increased the Corps' 
capability by $900 million in two years, as the same time 
maintaining the quality that has marked our work for years. But 
in spite of that record, we are not yet satisfied with our 
execution rate. We will continue to examine and evaluate ways 
to expedite our projects from start to finish.

           formerly utilized sites remediation action program

    Next I would like to report on our progress in another 
important program that was recently given to you, and that is 
the FUSRAP Program. We have accomplished the first two 
priorities in the FUSRAP Program following the transfer of 
execution from DOE. We maintained the schedule during the 
transition period; have put a number of cost-saving measures 
into place.
    At the current rate of funding, we should complete all of 
our sites by 2010. I feel this program is a real success story, 
and I am very proud of our contributions to the Nation and our 
track record.

                           regulatory program

    There are three additional issues that I would like to 
touch on briefly before concluding. The first one is regulatory 
funding and the appeals program. This is an area that we have 
really struggled with. Our funding level to date has only been 
enough to provide the most basic level of permit review and 
response to the public. Trying to meet your intent, we are 
implementing a limited appeals process this year. The proposed 
funding level for next year will permit us to implement the 
complete regulatory appeals process.

                       operation and maintenance

    Next is the O&M funding level. The level proposed for this 
year for the first time is adequate to meet our current O&M 
needs; however, we have a large backlog of maintenance and 
repair for our infrastructure. During this year O&M will be a 
significant focus for me. I will look at every single area for 
ways to reduce our operating costs, accomplish needed 
maintenance and repair, and improve our services.

                            general expenses

    My final point is that of the GE funding level. Earlier in 
my statement, I extolled our progress in reducing division and 
headquarters staff, and we have made great progress in this 
area, but I don't believe we can go any lower in staffing. 
Since 1991, we have reduced GE staffing level by thirty-three 
percent. I am convinced that we must hold at the current 
staffing level to provide the program direction and oversight, 
for which you and the public rely on us.
    Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, 
thisconcludes my statement. And, again, it is a pleasure to appear 
before you.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, General.
    [The biography and prepared statements of General Ballard 
follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      statement of general fuhrman

    Mr. Packard. General Fuhrman, do you wish to make a 
statement?
    General Fuhrman. Mr. Chairman, I submitted my statement for 
the record, and I have no oral statement.
    [The biography and prepared statement of General Fuhrman 
follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           regulation program

    Mr. Packard. The last thing I want is for the press to say 
I muzzled the generals of the Army today in asking you to be 
brief, but we appreciate your brevity, and we do have your 
written statements.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary and General. At the 
outset, I would like to very briefly amplify upon what the 
Assistant Secretary and I had an opportunity to discuss when he 
graciously came to my office. He alluded to it briefly, but I 
would like to mention it for the benefit of the division 
commanders that are here and those who work for them at the 
district level and so forth.
    For some time now, I have felt that many of the regulatory 
agencies of government--and frankly, the Army Corps is not the 
biggest offender--exhibit a certain attitude problem. I believe 
that there are many of our regulatory agencies in government 
that almost go out of their way to make life miserable for 
those who have to deal with government--those who apply for 
permits and a variety of environmental permits and so forth. It 
has appeared in the past that their role--and the goal of many 
of the agencies, particularly the regulatory agencies of 
government--has been to seek to make life difficult for those 
who are having to deal with government.
    I believe that it is past time for our agencies to have a 
change of attitude: an attitude changed from looking for ways 
to make it difficult, to entrap, to imprison, to fine, to hurt, 
to financially disadvantage anyone that has to come before the 
Federal government, whether it be private enterprise or whether 
it be cities, countries, school districts or a variety of other 
government agencies at the local, State, and county level. I 
think the role of our regulatory agencies ought to be to 
enforce the rules.
    No one is asking that people not be expected to follow the 
rules and the laws, but we need an attitudinal change where 
regulators look for ways to help people comply with the rules. 
That is an attitude that I think would be welcomed in all 
sectors of our society. Your goal and your role should center 
on what can be done to help people comply with the rules and 
get the job done.
    I think that we are seeing that attitudinal change at the 
top levels, and I appreciate that. But we are sometimes not 
seeing it at the field level, and that is where the people have 
to deal with the agencies of government.
    I would deeply appreciate it if you would review the way 
you, and those who are under you, deal with people who have 
difficult problems to resolve, difficult rules and regulations 
to work through. The last thing they need is a regulator who is 
perceived to be the enemy rather than a friend and an ally in 
what they are trying to accomplish.
    Our goal is all the same, and that is to get things done 
that are appropriate and within the rules and the laws. This 
includes building facilities to help make life better for 
people. Frankly, much of what you do is help us build 
facilities and infrastructure that really service our people. 
And that is a wonderful position to be in--that kind of service 
position where your job is to help people enjoy the benefits of 
modern technology and modern life in the best way that we can.
    With that, I will move on to questions. I have got many 
that I want to get into, and we will, but let me go to my 
colleagues first.
    Mr. Visclosky, let's start with you if you would like.

                    opening remarks of mr. visclosky

    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Mr. Secretary, Generals, I appreciate your testimony today. 
I appreciate the work you do.

                       indiana harbor ship canal

    And at the outset, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you, as 
well as Generals Ballard and Fuhrman, for all of your work in 
finally coming to grips with the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal 
situation and coming up with what I think was a unique and 
progressive--and hopefully precedent-setting--agreement with 
all of the parties involved. Hopefully, this solution can be 
replicated in other areas that are in significant jeopardy as 
far as commerce, as well as the kind of environmental problems 
that we faced up there, are concerned. I do appreciate very 
much the unique approach that the Corps took.

                            indiana projects

    I have a number of written questions on specific projects, 
and some of those were included in the Chairman's prepared 
questions on the Kankakee River in Indiana. I have a series of 
questions including several on the Indianapolis Central 
Waterfront project, but those will all be submitted for the 
record.

                          harbor services fee

    Mr. Visclosky. I simply want to express my concern that, 
while the Corps is not perfect (and none of us are), we are all 
human beings.
    I do regret that the Administration didn't ask for 
additional dollars, because I think there are unmet needs in 
this country. Also, I am concerned that, assuming (and this is 
only my assumption) the harbor service user fee is not 
approved, that not only--my perspective again--are we short of 
money for the Corps, but we have somewhat of a misallocation, 
if you would, given the way the Administration constructed the 
budget to make the user fee more palatable. I would hope that 
the committee can work with you to make sure that we have an 
equitable apportionment of the monies, if you would.
    But with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back my time.
    Mr. Packard. Well, that was very short, Mr. Visclosky.
    Mr. Visclosky. How am I doing?
    Mr. Packard. We will give you more time on the second go-
around.
    Mr. Rogers, you will be next.

                     opening remarks of mr. rogers

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am absolutely shocked of the brevity of the two 
gentlemen.
    Mr. Packard. I think it is only a warm-up exercise.
    Mr. Rogers. Let me say welcome to Dr. Westphal and to the 
generals and staff who are here this morning, and at the outset 
say thank you for the great work that the Corps is doing around 
the country. You have got a tough job. You have got budget 
constraints that the process puts on you that makes your job 
even more difficult. You can't plan too far ahead because you 
don't know how much money you are going to get or when, and for 
multiyear projects that is an excruciating problem. We 
appreciate that.
    Let me say to Dr. Westphal, whom I have known in at least 
two of his previous lives for a number of years, how glad we 
are that he is in this position. Congratulations on your 
selection by the President and your confirmation by the other 
body. We know that you bring expertise to this job that few in 
the history of this position have had, not to mention your 
compassion and your understanding of the process that we 
operate under. You served as a staffer, in fact, on the Hill, 
among the other chapters of your life. So we are glad that you 
are where you are.

                             kentucky pride

    And let me say thank you also to Dr. Westphal and Major 
General Van Winkle from the Cincinnati Division, who is with us 
today, for spending the day with me yesterday in my district 
looking at projects that are ongoing in an effort called 
Kentucky Pride. This is an environmental cleanup effort that I 
think is unmatched in the country.
    It is a comprehensive State, Federal, and local 
governmental cleanup effort that is coalesing together along 
with thousands of volunteers who are picking up trash even as 
we speak. This is the cleanup week, the second spring cleanup 
week. There are literally thousands of kids and senior citizens 
and church groups and others that are out there picking up 
trash, even as we were looking at illegal dumps and so on 
yesterday. And the Corps is participating in a major way in 
that effort and in the water cleansing, the stream cleansing 
that is going on.
    So I thank you for yesterday's work and your ongoing 
commitment to the Corps, and to this type of project, which is 
vitally important in this day and age, and which is fairly new, 
I guess, to the Corps. But you are doing it in a masterful way, 
and I appreciate it.

                               new starts

    I want to talk to you about your budget request and how you 
are allocating your construction monies among new and old 
projects. How much is the Corps asking for for new construction 
costs in fiscal year 2000?
    Dr. Westphal. For new construction--well, the total 
construction general account is $1.24 billion.
    Mr. Rogers. And how much for new construction costs and 
flood control?
    Dr. Westphal. What percentage is that for new projects?
    Mr. Rogers. Yes, or the amount, the dollar amount.
    General Fuhrman. About $80 million would be for new.
    Mr. Rogers. Those are for new starts?

                              challenge 21

    General Fuhrman. Yes. And $25- of that $80 million 
approximately is for Challenge 21.
    Mr. Rogers. What is Challenge 21?
    Dr. Westphal. That is our river and ecosystem restoration, 
that is the nonstructural flood control program that we are 
proposing. And actually it is being proposed in the water bill 
that is before the House today.

                            ongoing projects

    Mr. Rogers. Now, the Corps still has some ongoing flood 
control projects, correct?
    Dr. Westphal. Correct.
    Mr. Rogers. Are you proposing to finish all of the old 
starts before you start the new ones?
    Dr. Westphal. Well, I guess the philosophy behind the 
budgeting of these projects is that while we really need a lot 
more resources to be able to finish projects that we started on 
time and to finish them on schedule in the ideal world, we also 
need to begin new projects which are new priorities for both 
the Administration and for Congress, and so we try to do a mix 
of both of those priorities as best as we can and juggle what 
is a huge need out there with very limited resources.

                          project terminations

    Mr. Rogers. And would you just completely stop projects 
that are not yet finished? Will they just absolutely stop in 
their tracks, leaving folks in the middle of mud and disrupted 
streets and water intakes, and the like? Will those projects 
just sit there unfinished? Is that what we are talking about 
here?
    Dr. Westphal. No, sir. We would hope that we could work 
with the Congress to, you know, reorient those priorities, but 
we are trying desperately to make room for additional new work, 
which emanates from this House and from the Senate and 
certainly from all of our local sponsors.
    Mr. Rogers. I am not sure I understand. For example, in my 
district, there are seven or eight flood control projects, some 
of them massive, particularly on the upper Cumberland River. 
One of them in Harlan County is a $180 million project, and you 
are 95 percent complete. And yet, that extra 5 percent will get 
people out of the mud that is left from the construction. Are 
you proposing to finish that project, for example? You are 
requesting no money for it.
    Dr. Westphal. Well, Congressman Rogers, those projects, we 
are hoping to be able to continue to schedule work on those 
projects with whatever funds we have available. But we did not 
budget for them, you are correct. They weren't in the 
President's budget.
    Mr. Rogers. They weren't in the President's budget?
    Dr. Westphal. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Were they in your budget request to the 
President?
    Dr. Westphal. Yes, sir.

                         corps recommendations

    Mr. Rogers. And were all of the unfinished projects upon 
which construction has been started proposed to be finished in 
your budget request to the White House?
    Dr. Westphal. Yes, they were.

                       administration priorities

    Mr. Rogers. And so it is the White House that is saying, 
``no, we are going to leave those people in the mud----
    Dr. Westphal. Well, the White House----
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. ``On those projects?'' Yes or no?
    Dr. Westphal. Well, the answer is I would have to say no to 
that, in the sense that the Administration certainly doesn't 
want to do that. But I think that we were working this year 
with such tight budget cap limitations from the budget 
agreement that the very, very difficult decisions had to be 
made by OMB as they processed all of these budget requests that 
we provided in every other agency. So that is the best answer I 
can give you on that.

                               new starts

    Mr. Rogers. I wish we had the justification--your 
justification or the White House's justification--for these new 
starts and the uniqueness of those projects that make them rank 
so much higher than finishing out what you already started. Is 
there a way to get that?
    Dr. Westphal. We can try to provide that for you, sure.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           navigation program

    Mr. Rogers. Now, these same questions apply, I think, to 
your navigation projects as well; do they not?
    Dr. Westphal. Well, we are fully funding at optimal levels 
on our navigation projects, our deep draft navigation projects, 
both construction and O&M on that.
    Mr. Rogers. In the flood projects I am referring to (and I 
assume that all or most of the flood projects in the country 
are the same) the Corps entered into agreements with local 
communities where they committed to foot their portion of the 
bill. The Corps signed project cost-sharing agreements with 
those local communities which put up their portion of the 
costs, correct?
    Dr. Westphal. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, are you just going to breach those 
agreements, those contracts, those solemn commitments by the 
United States Government to the towns and the counties and the 
municipalities where these projects are taking place? What are 
they to do? Are they to try to spend their own money to finish 
these projects, which are millions of dollars, which they can't 
afford to do? Are you not just breaching those agreements that 
we entered into?
    Dr. Westphal. Well, as I mentioned earlier in response to 
your question, we did budget for those projects, and we do want 
to honor those commitments, and we do feel that these projects 
need to continue forward. We made a considerable Federal 
investment in most of them. Like you--as you will face in the 
very near future--and I think O&M and the White House and the 
Administration in general face a serious problem of trying to 
budget for all of these significant activities, plus a growing 
interest in additional new work everywhere else around the 
country, and we tried to put a strong emphasis on the operation 
and maintenance part of the budget.
    We have got such an aging infrastructure out there that we 
tried to fund and pick up on some of the backlog that we have 
in that area. And for that reason, plus, again, the 
competitiveness, the lack of flexibility in the caps, the 
President working under a very strict--giving us strict rules 
that we could not touch any portion of the surplus, the 
decisions that the White House and OMB were that certain 
projects would have to be slowed down.

                              role of omb

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I have another round of 
questions, but let me just close with this. I know this is not 
your budget that we are talking about here. It is the White 
House's scrubbing of your budget, with which most of us, I 
think, disagree very excitedly. Time after time we have had 
agency heads come here, Mr. Chairman, before this subcommittee 
and all the others of the Appropriations Committee, and upon 
questioning we find out that their budget is radically 
different from the one that the agency had requested of the 
White House.
    I don't know why we don't just subpoena the OMB and ask 
them these questions, because these folks can't defend this 
budget. Its logic is indefensible. We ought to be questioning 
the people who radicalize the budget requests at the White 
House and put them under the gun. That is what I would really 
dearly love to do, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. I don't know that that will be done this year.
    Mr. Rogers. Maybe it will be done next year.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Pastor was the next to arrive.

                     opening remarks of mr. pastor

    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, let me welcome Dr. Westphal and General 
Ballard. Good to see you again.
    General Ballard. Good to see you.
    Mr. Pastor. I am going to probably ask your permission for 
General Madsen to join you at the table. I made a slip, it is 
still Colonel, but the promotion is pending, I hope.
    General Ballard. It is pending.
    Mr. Pastor. We would like for him to get that star as 
quickly as possible. I have to tell you that we lost General 
Capka to the hinterlands. But Colonel Madsen, his successor, 
has been very active in the State of Arizona, along with 
Colonel Carroll from the Los Angeles Division. They visited 
Arizona and have seen the projects in Arizona that are very 
important to us. And I have to tell you that Dr. Westphal has 
learned the difference between Don Julio and Arturo Fuentes, 
but he enjoys the company of both.

                          ajo detention basin

    Colonel Madsen, if you would respond to a few questions. 
You and I both know that all politics is local, so we will 
localize it to the district. You have been to the Ajo Detention 
Basin. What is the current status of it?
    Colonel Madsen. Sir, we are in the process of reviewing the 
modification of plans that the local sponsor, Pima County, 
requested that we look at and due to changes in disposal area 
requirements, we expect to finalize our cost estimates once 
review is complete. And those plans and specs are about 95 
percent completed at the present time.
    Mr. Pastor. When do you expect to initiate construction,and 
how much is needed to initiate and complete construction in the year 
2000?
    Colonel Madsen. We plan to initiate and complete in fiscal 
year 2000 and we expect that funds of about $4.25 million will 
be required to initiate and complete construction.

                           rio salado project

    Mr. Pastor. $4.25 million? You have also been to the Rio 
Salado project in Tempe and Phoenix. Again I ask you the status 
of the two projects for Phoenix and the Tempe Reach.
    Colonel Madsen. Yes, sir. We initiated design for the 
Phoenix Reach in August of 1998, scheduled to complete that in 
September of 2000. On the Tempe Reach design it was initiated 
this month, March of 1999, and it is scheduled to complete in 
March 2001.
    Mr. Pastor. Hopefully it will be approved one of these days 
and hopefully quickly. Mr. Chairman, if you can do anything to 
advance that, it is very important to all of us. And I was very 
sorry to see that a little problem in northern California is 
keeping all of these much-needed projects from being 
authorized.
    Mr. Packard. If the gentleman would yield, I have tried to 
lay the groundwork, but we will move forward, hopefully, with 
or without the northern dispute resolved.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the authorizing 
legislation is approved, and hopefully it will be approved, 
what funds will be required to accelerate the schedule to 
initiate the construction in fiscal year 2000?
    Colonel Madsen. Regarding the Phoenix Reach, if 
construction funds of $300,000 are made available we could 
negotiate and execute our project cost-sharing agreement and 
award that construction contract. And for the Tempe Reach, 
construction funds of about $100,000 will be used to negotiate 
and execute a project cost-sharing agreement for that reach and 
that project will be ready for construction in late fiscal year 
2000.

                            nogales, arizona

    Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, Colonel Madsen and Colonel 
Carroll were recently with me down in Nogales, Arizona, where 
we saw the problems that confront this particular part of the 
border. Here, all the waters start in the Mexican side and then 
come into the American side and flood the citizens in Arizona. 
And one of the problems that Colonel Madsen pointed out is that 
our construction of Federal structures--the ports of entry, and 
different Federal structures along the border--has caused the 
water to basically come together and increase its velocity and 
further exacerbate the damage.
    And so with Colonel Madsen's participation, we would like 
to look at the issue, which is basically an international 
issue, and work with the International Boundary and Water 
Commission and BECC and all the interested agencies, so that we 
can solve the problems in the United States when rains occur on 
the Mexican side. So, Colonel Madsen, you may want to comment 
on that.
    Colonel Madsen. Yes, sir. It is very difficult problems and 
we have several projects that we are working with the 
International Boundary Waters Commission on, to include flood 
warning systems; several studies, to include Ephram Canyon 
Wash, and other Section 219 infrastructure design services. But 
it is a very difficult challenge. Later this week, Thursday, I 
am going to be meeting with the Border Environmental Compliance 
Commission and see where we can work together to solve some of 
those difficult problems where watersheds sit right on the 
border.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Colonel Madsen. And General Ballard, 
if there is anything I can do to help get him started, I am 
here to help.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Knollenberg.

                   opening remarks of mr. knollenberg

    Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Mr. 
Secretary, welcome. Generals and staff, thank you very much for 
being here.

                         division restructuring

    I very quickly wanted to compliment the Corps on bringing 
the number of divisions down to eight. We had quite a 
discussion about that in previous years, as you know, General 
Ballard. And I might ask you a question a little later about 
what savings might result from that.

          harbor services user fees and harbor maintenance tax

    But first, let me go to the subject of harbor services user 
fees. And I think Mr. Visclosky brought this up in my absence. 
I don't know how far you got into it, but I have some 
questions, and if they have been answered, stop me. I know that 
the funding request of the Corps of Engineers for the past 
several years has been, in my view, dangerously reduced by the 
Administration. At least we got more money back into the Corps 
last year.
    I just want to talk, though, about what I see as a $950 
million source of revenue from the Harbor Services User Fee. I 
am familiar with the Harbor Maintenance Tax, which was the 
revenue vehicle that was used before, and it seemed to work 
fairly well. I had some questions though, about the transition 
from the HMT to the HSUF. You can answer this for the record; 
it may take some digging to produce this. How much was received 
by the HMT on exports each year for the last three years? And 
if you can provide that for the record, it will give us a 
chance to study it, because we want to compare the HMT with the 
HSUF.
    [The information follows:]

                     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund

Receipts from tax on exports

        Fiscal years                                         In millions
1996..............................................................  $209
1997..............................................................   214
1998..............................................................    91

    Mr. Knollenberg. Perhaps you can answer this question now. 
How much does or did the HMT bring in domestically? How much 
revenue did it bring in domestically?
    Dr. Westphal. Well, if what you mean, under the old harbor 
maintenance tax, under the tax, in 1997, for example, we 
collected $736 million from both imports and exports.
    Mr. Knollenberg. In 1997?
    Dr. Westphal. In 1997. That is the last date that I can 
give you some numbers. I can try to get those updated for you.
    Mr. Knollenberg. If you would, please. Maybe the real 
question is whether this new $950 million revenue scheme 
collects more or less than what was collected under the export 
and domestic receipts of the HMT?
    Dr. Westphal. I can give you a general explanation of that. 
For example, in 1997 we collected $736 million from both 
imports and exports under the tax. In the year 2000, the tax 
continues but only on the import side. The Supreme Court ruled 
it unconstitutional on the export side. On the import side we 
are expecting to collect somewhere around $629 million, on the 
import side. So roughly the export you could say, if you could 
compare those two numbers, the export side is a very small 
amount of money.
    Mr. Knollenberg. It appears to me that more revenue is 
going to be generated from the HSUF than was generated through 
these other measures. Was that something caused by GATT or 
NAFTA? What was the driving force behind that?
    Dr. Westphal. The tax was ruled unconstitutional on the 
export side for violating the export clause of the 
Constitution. On the import side, we have some serious problems 
with GATT on the import side and that is one of the reasons 
that the Administration is coming forward with a new proposal 
this time for a user fee and not a tax to alleviate the 
problems of GATT, so once the user fee proposal is approved it 
would immediately repeal the existing harbor maintenance tax on 
imports. The balance of what is in the fund would be 
transferred over to the new Harbor Services Users Fund.
    Now, the amount of money that you cited and that the 
Chairman cited and that I cited in my testimony, which is about 
$951 million assumed in our budget, that amount, the way we 
came up with that is this way. We did a historical review of 
how much we have spent for dredging and maintaining our harbors 
for the last five years. And then we did essentially a 
projection of what it might take to continue our work in the 
outyears.
    So we tabulated that amount and that is what we instructed 
the fee to collect; to collect just enough money to meet the 
needs of the O&M part of this.
    Now, in addition to that, we also did a historical review 
of how much we spent on the construction side on deep water 
harbor projects and then we added that to the equation as well. 
So we came up with a fee that will roughly equal the amount of 
money that we expect to be spending on the maintenance of 
harbors in the coming years.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Does the Administration increase taxes 
under this HSUF? Does it have a plan for increasing those taxes 
or fees, if you will? Do they have a projection over the coming 
year?
    Dr. Westphal. No, we do not.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Now, it seems to me that this creation has 
produced more revenue than what you were receiving before. It 
is designed to produce more revenue. Is that some way to make 
up for something that----
    Dr. Westphal. No, no, it only is larger because we would 
expect that because we are fully funding construction and O&M 
for deep water harbors, that if we spend X amount in 1998 or 
1999, that we will probably be spending a little bit more for 
inflation and other costs in the coming years. So it is only 
designed to collect what we expect to spend.
    Now you asked the question about raising the fee, for 
example, in the future. That might happen if Congress and the 
Administration decide that there is more--a greater need for 
additional work if we begin to deepen harbors more and more to 
45 and 50 feet around the country, as there is a lot of 
increasing pressure to do. It simply depends on Congress' and 
the Administration's interest in moving the program forward 
that we would increase the fee to meet that demand.
    Mr. Knollenberg. I am going to conclude. I think I have 
used my time, Mr. Chairman, but I thank you, and I will be 
ready for a second round momentarily.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you. Mr. Edwards?

                     opening remarks of mr. edwards

    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be 
fairly brief. And as long as you will not interpret my 
submission of written questions as being less meaningful than 
asking them orally, I will do that and save the committee time 
on a number of project specific questions.
    But Dr. Westphal, General Ballard, General Fuhrman, Mr. 
Caver, I want to thank you all for coming. And I agree with 
many of the concerns expressed by Mr. Rogers and hope in the 
years ahead we can find a way to get more funding for the 
projects that you have responsibility for.

                      accomplishments of the corps

    At the same time, I want to thank all of you--not only you 
here at the table but all of those of you in uniform, and 
civilians as well, who work with the Corps. I think oftentimes 
what we read about in the press focuses on when the government 
has failed. We don't read a lot in the press about Corps of 
Engineers' grand failures. And, as you know, the quality of 
life in this country is so much better because of what you have 
done.
    And I get somewhat of a kick out of a handful of my 
constituents who turn on the tap water after they wake up in 
the morning and drink Corps of Engineers' water from a Corps of 
Engineers' lake. And then they go down to the garage which, had 
it not been for the Corps of Engineers dam that was built, 
would be flooded on a regular basis, and get in their boat and 
spend the afternoon fishing on a Corps of Engineers' lake, 
catching bass. And then they come tell me: ``If it just weren't 
for the darned government, life would be wonderful.''
    I think that to, at least confound the cynics, we need to 
do a better job of talking about the positive things the 
government does. While no institution is perfect, no individual 
is perfect, I consider the Corps of Engineers as an institution 
to be dedicated, nonpartisan, and professional. I know our job 
here is to ask specific questions and even challenge you. That 
is an important part of our job on this committee, and I 
appreciate the questions that members ask. But I just want to 
add to the testimony today that I for one deeply appreciate the 
job that you do. And I think all of us, and many others in the 
House, feel the same way. And I would imagine that is reflected 
in the number of additional requests we have, Mr. Chairman, 
from Members of the House, both Republican and Democratic 
alike. So thank you again for what you are doing, and we look 
forward to continuing to work with you.
    Dr. Westphal. Thank you.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Forbes.

                     opening remarks of mr. forbes

    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to align 
myself with the comments of my colleague, Mr. Edwards. I happen 
to agree. And we appreciate the presence of the Army Corps on 
Long Island and, Dr. Westphal, we celebrate your Long Island 
roots particularly. So thank you for being here today.

                     project cooperation agreements

    Mr. Secretary, the project cooperation agreement process 
appears to be the root cause of delay in a lot of the 
construction projects of the Corps. The process is very 
cumbersome. It really takes a lot of time in too many 
instances, I believe, to get construction started on a lot of 
worthy projects, thus driving up the cost of those very 
projects.
    Could you talk a little bit about the possible adoption of 
some private sector initiatives to streamline that process and 
yet make it responsive to the concerns of those who have to 
sign off on these projects?
    Dr. Westphal. Sure, I am going to let, actually, Chief 
Ballard address some of those specific things since he has been 
working on them since he became Chief of Engineers.
    As you know, the Corps is as old as the Army and that makes 
us about 223 years. Not that we have been signing PCAs for 223 
years, but over the years, I think the Army has built an 
infrastructure and a process to try to take care of a lot of 
issues that over the years have come up to ensure that these 
agreements are well done, meet the tests of the laws, meet the 
Administration priorities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And 
so we have built up over time a process that maybe today in 
today's world, where you need decisions to be made quicker and 
faster and where we can decentralize and delegate better and 
where there is increasing pressure for more and more activity, 
we need to reexamine it. And I think the Chief has been doing 
that, not just now because it is coming up now but since he 
took over as Chief of Engineers, which is at least two years 
before I came on board. So let me give him the mike.
    But I want to tell you that we are both committed to 
reexamining this process. We both have some similar and some 
different responsibilities in this area. The Chief is the chief 
implementor of the program so he gets the phone calls from the 
local sponsors that tell him, ``Where is my project; where is 
my PCA; why can't we get this done?'' I am the political 
person, the policy person, the legislative personand the budget 
person. So I get the calls as well from you and your staffs and your 
sponsors.
    So we are equally concerned. And I want to make sure that 
we do the right thing for our taxpayer and our government, our 
Administration and certainly the Congress and your 
constituents. Let me turn the mike over to him and let him give 
you the specifics.
    General Ballard. Congressman, it is a real pleasure to 
answer that question because we have spent a considerable 
amount of time reviewing the process and looking at some of our 
business practices. But let me just summarize and say that the 
intent is to foster trust with our partners, clients out there. 
And to do this we have developed a procedure where we have a 
model PCA that states how this is to be structured. Some of the 
recommendations foster around empowering the division engineer 
and the district engineer to sit around the table and to work 
out the best agreement both to protect the government's 
interests and the clients' interests, and to structure that 
document in such a manner that would satisfy those needs, 
forward it one time or a minimum of times, we are hoping at 
least one time to the headquarters for legal and technical 
review and back down to sign it.
    In the past, as you know, we have had documents come 
forward to the headquarters as many as thirteen, fourteen 
times, even for a single one-word change. That is ridiculous, 
and it is very bureaucratic, so we are cutting through that. 
What we did was to create a process action team with members of 
the Corps, our stakeholders, meaning those clients, and we have 
identified a number of problems which I could submit to you for 
the record of their desires.
    We have worked those out. In the next week or so, the 
Secretary and I will sit down and hopefully come to some 
agreements on those changes and then we will push them out to 
the field.
    Mr. Forbes. Do you have any idea what the average time is 
currently to get approvals? Could you share that? Do you have a 
general idea of that?
    General Ballard. Let me bounce that off to General Fuhrman, 
but it doesn't really depend upon the size of the project. The 
process is about the same regardless. But what is the average 
time?
    General Furhman. I don't know if we could give you an 
average time but it varies from literally two, three, four, 
five, years, depending on the complexity of the project, to a 
matter of----
    Mr. Forbes. Twelve years? fifteen years?
    General Furhman. There are some of those that have gone on 
for that period of time. The fundamental issue is that our 
bureaucratic process right now does not allow the critical 
policy and legal issues to work their way up to Washington very 
quickly to the decision maker where we can get a quick decision 
and get it back, and that is what we are working at.
    Mr. Forbes. I appreciate that. And I hear your sensitivity, 
and I am hopeful that we can end this nightmare, because it 
really does become protracted. You are talking about twelve to 
fifteen years from the decision to start a project to final 
approval. That delay can be a very costly one for the 
taxpayers, so I appreciate the sensitivity. And I will stick 
around for the second round, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Clyburn will be next. Let me do a little 
housekeeping first. Virtually all the committee members are 
here, for which I am grateful. The next hearing will be next 
Thursday at 10 o'clock. With all of you here, I thought it 
might be well to mention that.
    And second, a significant number of questions will be 
submitted, and we will ask you and your staff to respond to 
them. They can be submitted by any Member or the committee 
staff.
    Dr. Westphal. We will be very prompt in getting those 
answers back to you.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Clyburn.

                     opening remarks of mr. clyburn

    Mr. Clyburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me 
begin by expressing my appreciation to all the witnesses here 
this morning. I want to first of all join my colleague Mr. 
Forbes in associating with the comments made by Mr. Edwards, 
because as all of you know, I represent a congressional 
district with a large Corps of Engineers' presence. And in 
fact, the Charleston District Office is located on one side of 
a street--if it were on the other side of the street, it would 
be in my district. But it is adjacent to my congressional 
district. And of course I visit it very often with the staff. I 
think Colonel Rowlette does a great job.

                            wetlands issues

    Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss one of the 
things I am particularly impressed with about the Corps. In my 
area, we have a lot of wetlands issues to be concerned with. 
And the Corps does an outstanding job of balancing 
environmental protection with common sense and sensitivity--not 
just to commerce, but sensitivity to the community as well.

                             carolina bays

    As many of you know, we have something that some people 
call a phenomenon. There is a very unique topographic feature 
called Carolina Bays. We don't know exactly where they came 
from or how they were formed. Of course, the theory that I 
accept most is that they were formed by some meteorite showers. 
But whatever their origin they are, they are there, and we like 
them and we appreciate the effort in preserving them.

                           charleston harbor

    The Administration's budget has about a $37 million request 
for Charleston Harbor, a project that I am particularly 
interested in. I think it is very, very generous. As you all 
know, Charleston, South Carolina was hit very hard with the 
last round of base closures, and every time we hear talk of 
base closure, as we are hearing today, the people of my 
congressional district are very, very concerned. We have Fort 
Jackson, Charleston Air Force Base. We have the Marine Air 
Corps. We have Parris Island. All of those things impact our 
economy significantly down there. And if we are going to have a 
comeback in the Charleston area, and if we are going to 
preserve the growth that we are experiencing in South Carolina, 
we really need to have the Charleston Port functioning at its 
fullest capacity.
    We have been working with the Corps in trying to get that 
harbor deepened, and we have let the first contract. I 
understand a $59 million contract has been let to start that 
work. That is going to go a long ways towards helping that 
community come back from the closure of five entities that we 
lost with the last round of base closures. And so I am very, 
very appreciative of that.
    Now having said all of that, I want to express a little 
concern that I have. And so far, I have been very pleased with 
the way the Corps has reacted. As you know, though, I am a 
strong supporter of the port. And we havethree ports down 
there; Port Royal and Georgetown Port just happen to not be in my 
district. But the Charleston Port is very, very important to us, and I 
support them very strongly. However, in the efforts that are being made 
to expand that port to its fullest capacity to do as effective a job as 
possible, we seem to be locally--not the Corps--stepping on the 
feelings of a significant number of people in and around the port. I am 
asking the Corps to be sensitive to this.
    I am going to ask the Corps to be very, very conscious of 
the fact that its reputation for balancing interest in commerce 
with the community interest could very well be jeopardized if 
you are not very careful as to how permitting is to take place 
in this area as we expand.
    We have to be very careful of that, and it is beginning to 
bubble to a point where I think it could be very, very serious 
for the people in and around this area. As you probably can 
appreciate, much of the area--Daniel Island and the Huger 
community, for example--was comprised of plantations. And a 
significant number of people who have not grown, through no 
fault of their own, with the economy in that area are now 
seeing their meager holdings threatened. In addition to the 
threat of takings, the value of their lands is escalating to 
the point where they can't pay the taxes on it. And so I want 
you to be very, very careful of all of these things as we go 
forward. And I want to once again thank you for all of your 
work and let you know that I am a strong, strong supporter of 
it.

                   lake marion regional water agency

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have been talking with General 
Ballard, and I want to thank him for all of his help with the 
Lake Marion Regional Water Agency. It is in the heart of my 
district. Right in the center of my district, this is an area 
where there are a lot of health problems and where we don't 
have the economic growth that we ought to have, in spite of the 
fact that there is plenty of water, plenty of highways, and 
plenty of educational institutions. But the project that we are 
working on there will significantly uplift that community. And 
I want to thank the gentleman for all of his work on that. My 
community is very, very appreciative of it. Thank you very 
much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you Mr. Clyburn.
    Dr. Westphal. Congressman, I thank you for your leadership 
in that area. You mentioned on the harbor, and General Ballard 
and I have talked about that, and we will pay some very close 
attention, and we ask you to continue to be engaged and help us 
with the State as well to make sure we are addressing the 
issues that you are concerned about, but we both agree with you 
that that is something that we need to have our eyes and ears 
open about.
    Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

                  opening remarks of mr. frelinghuysen

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, Mr. 
Secretary, Chief, Generals, let me echo the sentiments of all 
of my colleagues. You are a most professional and dedicated 
group of men and women, and I always like to see the Army 
Corps' fingerprints on a lot of things up in the Northeast 
involving flood control, beach restoration, FUSRAP, Superfund. 
It gives me a feeling of reassurance that you are involved. And 
I am very pleased to work with General Sinn; it is good to know 
that ``Sinn'' is in, General. We appreciate your work, the 
dedication of your staff, and your attention to detail. I know 
you have been given Europe as part of your assignment, but I am 
sure that won't in any way take away from the North Atlantic 
Division's traditional responsibility.
    But your attention to detail in and out of our offices--for 
me, both in New Jersey and here in Washington on a regular 
basis--is really reassuring, and I am most appreciative. I am 
sure those sentiments are echoed up and down the line here.
    I would like to follow up a little bit on Congressman 
Forbes' discussion relative to the project cooperation 
agreements, General Ballard. And I think you have given us some 
better assurances. Setting up a model PCA, involving process 
action teams, sounds like a military way to approach things, 
and we appreciate that.
    I am not sure that Congressman Forbes got an adequate 
response to the question of what is the average time it takes 
the Corps to complete a PCA. And I understand the notion that 
some things are so darned complex that it may take some years. 
But it is our view, from our perspective in our office, that it 
takes the Corps ten months to complete a PCA--some longer, some 
shorter. I don't know whether that is an accurate average. But 
more importantly, with the changes you have outlined, what do 
you anticipate will be the time line for most of these PCAs in 
the future? I assume you have a pretty good idea of where we 
are going. So let's say the current average is ten months, 
depending on the complexity. What do you think we might see in 
the future?
    General Ballard. See, there is a danger in this question. 
Whatever answer I give, next year when I don't make it, we will 
get hit with it. But that is all right, I will step out.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Fantastic; you are a risk taker.
    General Ballard. I am a risk taker.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. We like risk takers on this committee. 
And we know that you take a risk presenting a budget that you 
don't entirely agree with.
    General Ballard. No comeback, sir.
    Assuming that everything that we propose to do in our--
meaning inside the Corps, and with the Secretary's office takes 
place, I would like to see the average PCA take no longer than 
twelve months.
    Now, I mean one year, you have to consider what all goes 
into a PCA. It is more than just the agreement. Part of this is 
getting the real estate, making sure that the sponsor comes up 
with their share of money, et cetera, et cetera, and putting 
all the technical stuff together before the signing takes 
place. It is a long process. But I will tell you, two, four, 
five, twelve years is simply too long.
    Our intent is to drive that down. If we can get it under a 
year, we would be ecstatic, to say the least. I am shooting for 
seven months and twelve months.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Sounds like a positive development 
heading in the right direction. And obviously, if the projects 
are less complicated, you can do it in a much shorter time 
period.
    General Ballard. Could do it much shorter.

                       shore protection projects

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Those are the kind of assurances that we 
like to hear. Mr. Secretary, I continue to be concerned, as are 
other members are that represent coastal States, about the lack 
of funding for shore protection projects. Out of necessity we 
need to be somewhat provincial, but certainly, coming from New 
Jersey, we are not alone in having shoreprotection needs. Each 
and every year this Congress adds money for worthwhile projects. Since 
last year's testimony, what progress has been made in defining the 
Corps' coastal policy? A nice softball for you there.
    Dr. Westphal. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I know what you want to do, so you can 
always tell us what you want to do.
    Dr. Westphal. Well, the bottom line is we want to be able 
to fund the beach nourishment projects. We want them to be on 
an equal footing with other projects in terms of the 
competition for dollars.
    What that means is that the Administration developed a 
policy earlier that said basically we would support beach 
projects that protected property, but would not support 
projects which the Administration felt essentially would be 
there for tourism, to attract tourism, and could be therefore 
paid by those who are making money out of that tourism.
    We proposed last year in the water resources development 
where we submitted a policy change saying basically that if we 
could alter the cost-sharing formula for these projects, that 
we would have additional savings from that change of the cost-
share formula, that would allow us then to budget for many of 
these projects that the administration has felt it cannot 
budget. There are simply not enough resources to do it.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. So you are basically saying that we are 
at the same place as last year?
    Dr. Westphal. We are fairly sure this year, the 
Administration continues to insist on the existing policy until 
we can get it changed in WRDA.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. You have got quite a lot of zeroes by a 
lot of our New Jersey shore protection projects, and I am sure 
this is true of New York and California. And the gentleman 
raises the fact that this is the situation all across the 
country. We need to increase attention on these needs, and I 
suspect that we will be putting some money in these projects 
despite the protest from the Administration. Much of our 
economy depends on these projects. Speaking for my State, 
perhaps $16 billion or $17 billion of New Jersey's economy is 
tied to these types of projects. And you can call it economic 
activity, or you can call it tourism, but it is pretty 
important to the economic vitality of our States, and we hope 
that the Administration recognizes that.
    In the North Atlantic Division, were there any projects or 
studies reduced or not funded in the budget submission due to 
the Administration's policy on shore protection? Could you 
provide for the record the amount needed in fiscal year 2000?
    Dr. Westphal. We will do that.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             kill van kull

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. All right. What is the status of the 
Kill Van Kull project and the New York Bay project? We were 
thrilled to have the Vice President come up to our part of the 
world up there with quite a large amount of money, but I would 
like to know where we stand relative to these two projects.
    Dr. Westphal. Okay.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. First of all, when will construction be 
initiated, and what is the true funding level that could be 
efficiently utilized to continue construction of the 45-foot 
project? I know there is an issue of what can actually be 
utilized.
    General Sinn. Sir, regarding status of the Kill Van Kull 
and the New York Bay project, as you know we had a project 
cooperation agreement which was executed in January. Now we 
have already awarded the first construction contract in the 
KVK. Very fortuitous for us. It also came under the government 
estimate by a significant amount. And we are always pleased to 
see that. We will initiate construction, we believe, in April 
sometime. Worst case, early May for that particular project. We 
are working very hard for the second phase of that and should 
have that awarded this year also.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. What would be the timetable?
    General Sinn. Total completion of the KVK project, sir?
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
    General Sinn. As you know, we have worked two time lines on 
it. One is 2010, and the other one is a compressed time line 
which our local sponsor desires. The New York/New Jersey Port 
Authority is bringing it back into 2004.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. You are supportive of the narrower time 
line?
    General Sinn. Yes, absolutely, sir, if we can. The New York 
District in concert with the New York/New Jersey Port Authority 
has kind of got that thing squished down, if you will, to 2005 
and continues to work on the other port. Long pole in the tent 
here kind of being the transit time to move dredge material out 
of that area into where we can suitably place it. If we can 
shorten that up a little bit and get more clever on the way we 
put equipment into that area, we will be in a lot better shape.
    So looking at where we are at as we proceed into the 2000 
budget, what we have asked for in terms of $60 million there 
equals our capability; that is in line even with project 
compression. And if you asked me what the total cost was going 
to be as we compressed from the 2010 figure into 2004, I think 
it a little premature.

                            new york harbor

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. As you know, General, for the last two 
years, Congress has funded a study investigating the deepening 
of channels in the New York Harbor to fifty feet. What are the 
status and preliminary results of this study, and when will 
results be finalized?
    General Sinn. Sir, we are right on track with that study 
and I will make my answer short to this one. We will deliver 
the results of that study in December of 1999, of this year.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have plenty 
of other questions that I will ask if I get a chance.
    Mr. Packard. We will come back to you.
    Mr. Latham.

                     opening remarks of mr. latham

    Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And welcome. 
And I want to associate myself with the kind words about the 
Corps and the job you do.

                upper mississippi river navigation study

    In 1993, the Corps began a 6-year feasibility study to 
evaluate the transportation lock modernization needs of the 
Upper Mississippi. Can you give us an idea of how long it will 
take to repair, maintain and modernize the locks and dam on the 
Upper Mississippi? And what are the cost estimates for 
enlarging the locks from 600 feet to 1,200 feet? And also, 
there was a national economic development plan that was going 
to be issued. When can we see that report?
    General Fuhrman. Sir, that particular study is on schedule 
to be completed in the December 00 time frame. Atthis point, it 
is premature to deal with any hard numbers as far as what the 
engineering costs will be to make appropriate fixes. We will just have 
to wait until----
    Mr. Latham. What is the time frame for modernization on the 
locks on the Upper Mississippi?
    General Furhman. That will be determined by the 
recommendation of the NED plan that comes as a result of that 
study, sir.
    Mr. Latham. You say it will be the end of this December?
    General Furhman. End of 2000. December of 2000.

                      agricultural drainage wells

    Mr. Latham. As I am sure you are aware, we have a real 
problem with agricultural drainage wells and how to close the 
ag drainage wells and still get relief for drainage.
    As you know, the Iowa Drainage District submitted about 
eighty pages of sequential assessment of practical alternatives 
to drainage improvements before regulators finally agreed that 
there was no alternative to mitigating the farm wetlands. The 
problem is that we have about eighty more of these to go. Have 
you given any thought to changing the section 404 guidelines to 
recognize existing land uses and prior investments in the 
farmed wetlands?
    Dr. Westphal. Well, no. I have to say we have not given 
that--my office has not given that any thought, but maybe we 
should. And let me address that issue and try to get you some 
sense of where we might go with that. As you know, we are 
putting forth for public review a new nationwide permit 26 
process and so we are undertaking some significant changes in 
the wetlands program.
    Mr. Latham. Well, I am not sure you are aware of this, but 
now we have these large hog lagoons and if one of those breaks, 
the waste could go directly into the aquifer. And there is 
money from the farmers, the drainage districts, and the State 
of Iowa. There are Federal dollars. Everyone wants to solve 
this problem as quickly as possible, but the problem is we are 
dealing with a regulatory nightmare--not only with the Corps, 
because you have been extremely helpful. And I want to 
emphasize that, extremely helpful. But with Fish and Wildlife, 
with EPA, with NRCS, we have four bureaucracies all claiming 
jurisdiction here, and we cannot get anything done although 
everybody knows it is an impending environmental disaster out 
there. And it is very personal to me let alone the whole of 
upper Iowa, because I live on a farm, and my water comes out of 
that aquifer right there.

                          perry creek project

    In Sioux City, Perry Creek has been a long-term project. 
Can anyone give me a status and progress report on Perry Creek?
    General Griffin. We have completed phase one on Perry Creek 
this year. We have reprogrammed an additional $4 million into 
the project this year. We will award phase two in the next 
couple of weeks. We have requested $10 million. It is in the 
budget and that is our capability.
    Mr. Latham. Thank you.
    General Griffin. So it is well on track, sir.

                      missouri river master manual

    Mr. Latham. Just one last question. Missouri River Master 
Manual Review is still in progress. Can you give us a time 
frame for the release of the draft environmental impact 
statement? Obviously it is a serious concern up there, and not 
controversial at all.
    General Griffin. Sir, we went through quite a time in 1994. 
It sent us back to the drawingboards, as you know, for some 
more data. We have that data, and we did a revised preliminary 
draft EIS and we did that, sir, to get the Missouri River Basin 
Association, who we think is really the best chance to pull the 
States together, and come up with a regional alternative that 
they can agree on. And they are working that, sir. Their report 
is due in about the May-June time frame and we are helping them 
all we can. And to answer your specific question, the draft EIS 
is due out in October of 1999.
    Mr. Latham. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         environmental projects

    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Latham. It is obvious 
that you have made great relations over the years with the 
members of the subcommittee. They have thrown you a lot of 
softballs, with the exception of Mr. Rogers. But I am going to 
return to Mr. Rogers, because I have a deep feeling about 
something that I sense is a policy decision from this 
Administration that I would like to discuss with you.
    I don't want this to sound like I am against restoring our 
environment, but more and more of the projects that are being 
funded by this subcommittee are environmental projects rather 
than traditional flood control and navigation construction 
projects for the benefit of citizens.
    To illustrate, in the budget for 1996, three environmental 
projects were funded. In 1997, 32; in 1998, 52; in 1999, 88; 
and in the 2000 budget proposal, 108 environmental projects.
    At the same time, as Mr. Rogers' questions really zeroed in 
on, we are not able to fund even ongoing construction projects 
to allow them to continue on schedule. We are told they cannot 
be completed on schedule because of a shortage of funds.
    That is a trend that is of great concern to me and, I 
presume, many of the members of this subcommittee. And I don't 
want to sound like we are not in favor of restoring our 
environment. We have committed to do that. But at the same 
time, I sense that we are getting significantly out of balance 
in terms of where our priorities are for this committee's 
projects.
    In the budget proposal--and this has been discussed a 
little bit--we are relying rather heavily on additional harbor 
user fees, harbor service funds and so forth, which may or may 
not materialize. In fact, this Administration has not even 
submitted authorizing language that would permit those fees to 
be imposed. The prospect for that authorizing language to be 
enacted by the time this budget has to be implemented is very 
questionable. So, you have a Construction, General budget 
request of a little over a billion and a quarter dollars, which 
is a decrease, incidentally, of a quarter of a billion dollars 
in that account alone. $258 million of that lower request is 
from harbor fees and is derived from unauthorized harbor 
services funds. The decrease of a quarter of a billion dollars 
is about a 17 percent decrease in your request. Add to that 
another 20 percent decrease because user fees remain 
unauthorized. Then we are looking at huge shortfalls in the 
construction budget.
    At the same time, you are funding not only 100 percent of 
the environmental projects, but you are also initiating new 
projects, most of which are environmentally-oriented projects. 
That is moving, in my judgment, in the wrong direction. I would 
like you to comment.
    Dr. Westphal. The initial part of your statement, your 
question about the environmental projects, the large numberof 
environmental projects you mentioned there, almost all of them are 
small projects. They are all brought to us from local sponsors, from 
Members of Congress. They are not really what I would consider to be 
high administration priority projects that we are pushing. In other 
words, those are projects that are coming to us and they include a 
large number of projects under new authorities given to us in previous 
water bills like Section 1135 which are small. These are all generally 
small projects. Some of them are also projects within other authorities 
that allow us to build waste treatment plants and do sort of clean 
water action type of activities, so for the most part we are funding 
simply what we feel is a need out there and a series of requests that 
are coming from all over.
    Mr. Packard. Go ahead and finish, please.
    Dr. Westphal. I was going to say that we do have some other 
fairly high-budget environmental projects such as restoration 
of the Everglades and projects that we are doing in the 
Northwest on mitigating--fish restoration of the salmon.
    Mr. Packard. Those many small projects add up to a lot of 
dollars, and if they are not a high priority of the 
Administration, then perhaps there needs to be a re-evaluation 
of the budget request. Even though these are small projects, 
they cumulatively add up to a lot of dollars. In contrast the 
budget proposes to shut down or extend the construction time of 
many of the essential projects that are already underway. And 
certainly, new projects are proposed at the expense of ongoing 
projects that need to be completed. That is why I question the 
Administration's priorities.
    Dr. Westphal. Well, I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that those 
projects for the most part are high priority for both the 
Administration and Congress. They tend to be small projects, 
they are driven from local sponsors, brought up to us either 
through member offices or through direct contact with our 
offices or the Corps at district and divisional levels.
    So they are part of the work that we are being requested to 
do. Now, in 1999, the President's budget for Construction, 
General was $806 million. And we brought forth a request this 
year at $1.2 billion. So we had a sizable increase in our 
request. Now, it is a couple of hundred million dollars more 
than what you appropriated last year. But in terms of what we 
have been submitting historically, our Construction, General as 
well as our O&M is, I think, significantly higher than what was 
proposed last year by the President.

                       operations and maintenance

    Mr. Packard. Your O&M budget is higher, but of that higher 
amount, close to $700 million of it is to be derived from 
harbor service user fees. That is about a third. If that is not 
realized, how do you plan to fund the O&M budget?
    Dr. Westphal. Well, there are funds in the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund. There is almost $1.5 billion, I don't 
know the exact number, but I can get that to you.
    [The information follows:]

                     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund

    The balance of the HMTF as of February 28, 1999, is 
$1,273,252,805.

                     harbor maintenance trust fund

    Mr. Packard. Can you draw down on that trust fund?
    Dr. Westphal. Yes, sir, we have that fund. But the part 
that is more difficult is the $200 to $300 million on the 
construction fund for deepwater harbor projects, and that is 
the part that is assumed in this budget request that 
essentially could be problematical in terms of the caps for the 
committee.

                           funding priorities

    Mr. Packard. We have become aware that the fiscal year 2000 
budget includes approximately two-thirds of the funding 
required to maintain optimum schedules for flood damage 
reduction, inland waterways and shore protection projects. But 
on the other hand, environmental mitigation and ecosystem 
restoration projects are funded at 100 percent. Again, this 
demonstrates that there is a higher priority accorded by this 
Administration to ecosystem restoration and environmental 
projects than to those that would resolve many of the flooding 
and navigation problems at the local and State level. In other 
words, from what we understand, we are funding at a much lower 
percentage the requirements for traditional construction 
projects vis-a-vis environmental projects, we are funding 
virtually 100 percent of the requirements for environmental 
projects.
    In addition, each of these projects requires the local 
cost-sharing match. So what we are doing with this policy is 
not only spending significantly more of our Federal dollars for 
environmental restoration projects than weare for those that 
provide shore protection and flood control benefits to our people, but 
we are also requiring that communities spend more of their local monies 
on that same basis.
    And that really flies in the face of the priorities of many 
local leaders who have a hard time coming up with the match. 
And then when they can't fund a project that literally takes 
them out of the mud because of requirements to fund those that 
are for restoring and preserving the environment, it really 
does require the use of local funds, in their judgment, in the 
wrong area as well. And so it is a double whammy when our 
taxpayer money is spent in an imbalanced proportion or ratio on 
environmental and ecosystem restoration. That is the concern 
that I have with this budget. I see it right up front. It comes 
out loud and clear. And I personally believe that the committee 
would be more satisfied, and certainly more comfortable, with a 
better balance between those kinds of projects.
    The Corps historically has been building projects to 
provide flood protection, to provide stability on our beaches 
and to improve our harbors. And there has been a significant 
shift in policy. And I recognize that that is a policy of this 
Administration, and I am not sure that it is a policy of the 
Corps. But I think the Corps is under obligation to implement 
that policy under the circumstances. But that is where my 
concern is, and I don't really have a question, because I think 
that your budget reflects this concern. Do you have a comment?
    Dr. Westphal. Sure, I would like to give you a more 
thoughtful answer to that question and do that in terms of some 
better information. You listed 108 projects, I think that was 
the number you mentioned in your question, and environmental 
projects. What I would like to do, if you will permit me, I 
would like to--you have provoked some thinking on my part. I 
would like to do some background work and look at what those 
projects are and whether they are, in fact, being funded at 100 
percent, where we are on that and give you some assessment on 
that.
    [The information follows:]

                         Environmental Projects

    The 108 environmental projects to which you refer include 
82 General Investigations studies, 10 General Investigations 
preconstruction engineering and design projects, 13 
Construction, General projects, and 3 Operation and 
Maintenance, General projects. Of the 13 Construction, General 
projects designated as environmental restoration in the fiscal 
year 2000 budget request, only 2 were not included in the 
fiscal year 1999 budget. Funding for these designated 
environmental activities includes $22,274,000 under General 
Investigations, $210,515,000 under Construction, General, and 
$745,000 under Operation and Maintenance, General. These 
amounts represent 16.50 percent, 16.98 percent, and 0.04 
percent, respectively, of the amounts included in the fiscal 
year 2000 budget for the 3 accounts, or 7.27 percent of the 
total amount included in the fiscal year 2000 budget for all 3 
accounts. The overwhelming majority of budgeted environmental 
restoration activities are studies which may or may not be 
constructed in the future and are relatively inexpensive when 
compared to the cost for most construction projects. The number 
of such studies is a reflection of increased concerns about our 
environment and will probably not diminish in the near term. 
The fiscal year 2000 budget seeks to provide a balanced program 
of investment in existing infrastructure, new projects and 
programs, and restoration of important environmental resources, 
and it generally succeeds in this regard.

                   funding constraints and priorities

    Mr. Packard. In the past, I know this committee has had to 
limit funding for new projects. That is perhaps unfortunate but 
probably represents a better decision than to shut down 
projects that are already underway. The highest costs, are 
incurred when we start a project, get it moving, and then kill 
it in the middle of development. There is no benefit and yet 
great cost.
    And I have great concerns, as Mr. Rogers initially 
expressed, of starting projects and then letting them get 25, 
35, 95 percent complete, and then not having the money to 
complete them. There should be money in every budget to 
complete the projects that we have underway if they are worthy 
projects. And I have to assume that they would not have been 
started by this subcommittee had they not been worthy projects. 
And the Corps surely would not have started them had they not 
been good projects.
    As we get into the writing of a bill, we are going to have 
to make difficult decisions as to how to distribute the short 
supply of funds. I think the inclination of this committee is 
to finish what we started, first and foremost. Then if there 
are new projects that are worthy and need to be started, that 
is fine. Then we will seek to strike a better balance between 
environmental projects and the major flood control and 
navigation construction projects. I hope I am expressing the 
general sentiment of the committee. I certainly am representing 
the views of the Chairman. So with that, let's go on again to 
Mr. Visclosky.

                     protection of private property

    Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frelinghuysen 
engaged in a conversation about shoreline erosion. Erosion 
doesn't just occur on the oceanic coasts but also inland on the 
Great Lakes. And the conversation turned to protecting private 
property.
    Is there a policy--a specific administration policy--
relating the protection of private property to public access to 
those shorelines? I have in mind a specific problem, as some of 
you are aware, in Northwest Indiana involving a private 
community that would like the Corps to assume a liability that 
they do not have today to essentially engage in shoreline 
protection of this community. But in fact, if not in law, that 
beach, such as it is today, is the community's beach and not 
the general public's beach. And I am loath to ask taxpayers to 
protect private property in that instance when citizens who 
have paid that tax are not allowed on that beach. It is the 
community's beach when water levels are low. It is supposed to 
be the Corps' beach when levels are high.
    Is there a policy that you have as far as protection of 
private property is concerned? There is no problem in this 
specific instance in my district, but it leads me to the 
broader question because you mentioned protection of private 
property.
    Dr. Westphal. Well, in general, again, very limited funds 
for these types of projects, and so it is hard to pick an 
individual project and generalize about it. Projects are 
picked--we look at projects one at a time and we look at what 
the needs are. But generally what I am getting at in terms of 
what the existing administration policy has been is if you have 
got private property that is in real serious danger, yes, we 
may come in and use taxpayer funds to replenish a beach or to 
fix a problem that is of imminent danger to private property.
    However, we hope to be able to rectify this by changing the 
policy and allowing for the local cost-share to be higher, 
realizing a savings and additional monies into the Treasury to 
be able to fund more of these projects and to be able to put 
them on a par with every other beach erosion project.

                             public access

    Mr. Visclosky. Is the issue of public access to these 
shorelines being addressed as well? I appreciate the protection 
of private property. Sometimes you have----
    Dr. Westphal. I don't personally know of any case, but 
maybe General Fuhrman does.
    General Fuhrman. Of course there are always exceptions, but 
the general rule is that we protect public investment with 
regard to our shore protection projects. And beyond that, as 
part of the project cooperation agreement, where we do work, 
part of that agreement is to ensure public access to those 
facilities that we fix, that we improve. That is the general 
rule that we follow.

                         project implementation

    Mr. Visclosky. There has also been some suggestion in other 
questions and commentary about the length of time between 
conception of a potential project and construction, and a lot 
of the discussion has obviously focused on improvements within 
the Corps. I assume part of that problem, though, involves the 
legislative process and how projects are authorized and 
selected.
    I assume part of the problem also involves the local and 
State responsibility in coming to grips with the decisions they 
may have to make that they thought they should avoid or that 
are going to cause them an expense.
    I have an example in my district. The idea was conceived in 
1973 and last week, the mayor finally decided--many mayors 
removed--that they were going to go it alone. The Corps up 
until the end tried to provide some flexibility. But I look at 
that example and I look at the authorization process. I look at 
local decisions (or lack thereof), and I see this is a tough 
problem you face.
    Dr. Westphal. I mean, many of the reasons for the delay, of 
course, are the things that we mentioned earlier, but many are 
also the fact that there are issues with the non-Federal 
sponsor in terms of their particular willingness to agree to 
certain parts of the agreement, their ability to come up with 
the resources. And I am sure you can elaborate on that much 
better than I can.
    General Ballard. Right.
    Mr. Visclosky. Which doesn't absolve the Corps or us from 
trying to be as efficient as possible. But clearly, as in the 
case of Lake George and Hobart, the passage of time increases 
the cost of a project. Some of that increase can be avoided in 
some cases, and it should be if we have control at the Federal 
level.
    General Fuhrman. Congressman, from my perspective in the 
foxhole, working this both on the division side and as Director 
of Civil Works, the piece that we control, the Corps, the piece 
that I control, is that our bureaucrat system does not allow us 
to focus right now on what the critical policy and legal issues 
are dealing with a particular project and quickly focusing them 
for the local sponsor, local communities and at whatever 
leadership level in the Administration that that decision has 
to be made at, and quickly bringing these parties together to 
get a decision.
    The bureaucrat process that we have right now doesn't 
support that piece, and that is where the process action teams 
that the Chief has instituted are focused on to get it to a 
decision faster. And whether the sponsor likes that decision or 
not, that is another issue, but at least they got a decision.
    General Ballard. That is right.

                         columbia river salmon

    Mr. Visclosky. One last question, if I could. There is the 
whole issue of fish recovery strategies up in the Northwest 
portion of the country. You have a Corps strategy. You have a 
proposal by the National Marine and Fisheries Service. You have 
an Environmental Council proposal. You have a tribal proposal. 
There is a great deal of controversy attaching to the Corps' 
position.
    Would you comment on the Corps' current attitude and 
position on this controversial issue?
    Dr. Westphal. Okay. Well, I am going to actually turn it 
over to General Griffin. But let me tell you why, because this 
is such a local matter, I mean it is one in which there are so 
many key players. This whole issue has evolved over the last 
year and a half in ways that were really unpredictable, and the 
complexities of it in terms of what is going on there with 
National Marine Fishery Service and the Federal agencies and 
State, the tribe, the things you mentioned, is forever 
evolving.
    General Griffin is the point man on this, and I think he 
can give you a pretty good assessment of where we are.
    Mr. Visclosky. In my ignorance, I never thought much of 
fish, and then I spent four days in the Chairman's state 
talking about water policy, and I realized that there are fish 
involved here, too.
    General Griffin. Sir, you are right, there are a number of 
fish recovery strategies. The one the Corps is following is the 
result of the 1995 biological opinion on listing these 
endangered salmon. We did a record decision and we established 
some near-term, interim, and long-term objectives, basically 
for making the lower Columbia River dams, four on the Columbia, 
four on the lower Snake River dam, more fish friendly.
    And by that I mean not so much upstream passage of adult 
salmon, but this is all about getting the ``smolt,'' is what 
they call them, the small fish down river and out in the ocean 
in the least destructive manner. That is what all of this is 
about.
    Now, as a result of this biological opinion and record 
decision, we basically signed up for a fish recovery plan in 
concert with the National Marine Fishery Service, and so they 
are in essence the Federal biologist and we are the Federal 
engineer, ensuring that we do those projects on our Corps 
projects to make the system as fish friendly as possible. And 
that is what we are about, sir.
    Mr. Visclosky. Is there a final long-term strategy that has 
been agreed upon?
    General Griffin. Sir, I don't think you are ever going to 
get to the last measure that makes the dams ultimately fish 
friendly, totally. I don't think you will get there. Now, sir, 
our strategy right now, the current proposal that we have is a 
twelve-year strategy.
    Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, thank you. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

                           corps bureaucracy

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me be sure the record is straight. I have no problem 
with the Corps. In fact, I think you are dedicated public 
servants who dedicate your life to public service. I don't know 
of a wealthy person in the Corps.I don't know everything, but 
most all of you in the Corps are career people who are working at 
salaries that you could triple or perhaps quadruple in private life.
    You are sacrificing public servants. So I have great 
respect and admiration for the people in the Corps. Where I do 
have a problem is with the bureaucracy in the White House that 
tries to restrict or radically change what we all know needs to 
be done by the Corps. So it is not an argument with you. It is 
an argument with OMB down at the White House.
    But I do have a problem with the bureaucracy inside the 
Corps. I know the Secretary is trying to cut through this 
bureaucracy, as is General Ballard, General Fuhrman and others. 
It seems to me that the biggest challenge all of us face is 
streamlining to some degree the inordinately time-consuming, 
frustrating, and idiotic process that results in delays and 
that gets in the way of getting the job done.

                     project cooperation agreements

    And I know you as engineers want to get things done. You 
want a starting point and an ending point, and a straight line 
in between. We all want the same thing. And yet bureaucracy is 
strangling us. One idea that I have discussed with the 
Secretary and General Fuhrman involves streamlining the PCA 
process for small projects, microprojects.
    There are lots of them around the country. In my district 
they are called Section 531s. Now they must go all the way up 
to Washington and all the way back down. These are minuscule 
projects, and they are practically all the same. It seems to me 
that we could streamline those types of projects.
    And I know you have been talking about possible ways to do 
that. Could you amplify on this for us, Mr. Secretary and 
General Fuhrman?
    Dr. Westphal. Sure. Well, we have, in fact, addressed that 
very subject, and as the Chief mentioned earlier, we are going 
to get together probably in the next week, take in the 
recommendations of these teams, and we are looking at various 
aspects of the PCA process and make some decisions that we can 
implement right away for streamlining that process.
    And we agree with you, that it takes too long. We agree 
with you that that is a serious problem in terms of the 
delivery of our program. It is not one we can tolerate. We are 
committed to doing it. And we hope to be able to have a more 
defined answer for you in the next couple of weeks when we get 
together in order to process all the information that we have 
gathered on the process itself, and that when we testify before 
you next year or before that, if you want us to testify before 
that, we will be ready to give you a better answer to that.
    Mr. Rogers. I am not going to wait a year. I hope we 
understand that. These are routine small projects that can be 
handled by the district, frankly, and that need not clutter up 
the desks of you important policymakers in Washington. What do 
you think about that type of idea, delegating these routine, 
small PCA approvals to the district level as opposed to either 
the division or Washington?
    Dr. Westphal. Right. No, we are in favor of doing that. We 
are in favor of moving as much of that as we can to create a 
speedier process, particularly on the Continuing Authorities 
Program, which I think are most of the projects that you 
mentioned.
    Mr. Rogers. How soon would you anticipate making a change?
    Dr. Westphal. I think we can do it probably in the next few 
weeks.
    Mr. Packard. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
    Mr. Rogers. Sure.

                          nationwide permit 26

    Mr. Packard. Is replacement of the nationwide permit 26 
process moving in the opposite direction of what you say you 
want to do? Would that complicate the bureaucracy, considering 
that those projects that are currently done through nationwide 
permit 26 would instead be done pursuant to individual permits? 
Would that take longer, with more bureaucratic problems to deal 
with?
    Dr. Westphal. We don't believe it. We believe actually it 
will make the process go faster. We don't think that it will 
create a greater need for individual permitting. We are hoping 
that if we get the kind of--well, it is out for public review 
and public comments, that we have to assess that, and then we 
put out a final rule this summer. But I am hopeful that we can 
avoid further delays and that this process will actually make 
the nationwide program much more efficient.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, it seems that it would be beneficial to 
everyone if you can make it a policy to get off of your desks 
in Washington a lot of the routine stuff that is going to be 
rubber-stamped anyway at some future time. In the meantime, 
these local communities are hurting, and they have got their 
money tied up. The local cost shares are tied up while you 
dilly-dally in Washington, when the district offices could 
easily take care of those routine matters.
    General Ballard, do you have a thought about that?
    General Ballard. At the heart of our proposals, which have 
been a little unfair to the Secretary because he has yet to see 
all of the proposals, but we absolutely concur with you, Mr. 
Rogers, especially those projects that fall under our 
Continuing Authorities Program. And those are the small 
projects that part of the recommendation is to delegate that 
authority to the district and the division commanders to make 
those decisions out in the field where possible.
    There are some legal ramifications involved with that, but 
hopefully in the next week or so, the Secretary and I will 
reach some agreements to do what you just are proposing.
    Mr. Rogers. Godspeed to you----
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.

                         corps accomplishments

    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. On that. In closing, Mr. Chairman, 
I am going to say this. I have been on this subcommittee a long 
time, many years, and I have been involved in Corps projects 
ever since I have been a Member of Congress, over eighteen 
years now. And there has not been a time, in my experience with 
the Corps, when things were going better in the Corps than 
right now--at least the 18 years that I have been hanging 
around the Corps' business. I commend the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army who is in charge of the Corps, Dr. Joe Westphal, 
and the excellent general staff here in Washington. The 
regional office in Cincinnati under General Van Winkle, who is 
with us, is excellent and cooperative in every way, as are the 
three district offices that I deal with in my congressional 
district: Louisville, Huntington and Nashville. The colonels 
and the staff at those district offices are cooperative and 
work hard and try to accommodate every need that we throw at 
them.
    So I don't know of a time in my experience when the Corps 
has been better staffed and better managed than right now. And 
we just need to knock on wood and hope it continues.
    Mr. Packard. Well, thank you. I think you expressed the 
sentiment of most of us. Certainly, I have found that the Corps 
is one of the few regulatory agencies that I find great 
pleasure in working with. The Corps has been more cooperative 
than most. I have had a better relationship with the Corps, and 
we have gotten more done with consensus than we have with any 
other agency that I have dealt with. And I want to express, as 
Mr. Rogers and others have, the remarkable respect we have for 
the work you do.
    Mr. Rogers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Packard. Of course.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you think we can get the OMB under the 
jurisdiction of this committee?
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Knollenberg.

                      projects in distressed areas

    Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, could I just comment on 
something on Congressman Rogers? I did visit with him, his 
projects, and I have done that in the past in his district and 
I must say, I feel your pain. I mean, none of us sitting at 
this table would like to in any way limit our ability to carry 
out projects and to do the things that all of and your 
constituents need. We are all public servants, and we think 
that we are in the Federal Government and we think the Federal 
Government can play a role and an important role.
    We are particularly, I think the Chief and I here maybe for 
the first time in terms of an Assistant Secretary and the Chief 
sort of agreeing in this issue, we are in particular agreement 
that we have to do more to help those communities, those rural 
communities, those underprivileged communities, those 
communities that can't come up with cost share, that can't come 
up with dollars, but have true and significant need.
    We are committed in trying to find ways that we can advise 
you, the Members of Congress, and the local sponsors on how we 
might be able to raise those funds, how we might be able to 
develop these projects that affluent communities and other 
parts of the country have no difficulty doing. So in viewing 
the work that you have done in Pride, Mr. Chairman, you have 
got a true environmental ecosystem restoration.
    He is doing a great job, not just in terms of protecting 
his people, but also in terms of advancing the quality of life 
for them, because it is truly needed there. So I really admire 
what you are doing, Chairman Rogers, and I commend you for it. 
And I want to be helpful, and we will be supportive as much as 
we can from this chair.
    Mr. Rogers. If the Chair would yield briefly. I appreciate 
the Secretary's comments. As I say, I have known him many 
years, long before he was Assistant Secretary, and he is a very 
compassionate and very caring individual. He spent the day with 
us yesterday looking at those projects in an Army helicopter 
for eight or ten hours, and it was a grueling day. We were with 
General Van Winkle and others, and I deeply appreciated his 
commitment of time and effort to be there.
    Mr. Visclosky. Would the gentleman yield for one second? I 
would want to make the effort to have OMB placed under our 
auspices a bipartisan effort. I would be happy to work with 
you.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you. Mr. Knollenberg, would you like to 
follow that?

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

    Mr. Knollenberg. Let me get into a couple of things: first 
of all, a question on FUSRAP. That is an acronym that I have 
learned, but I have to stop and think about what it means. I 
have talked to a number of you about that program.
    General Ballard, before the FUSRAP Program was transferred 
from the DOE to the Corps, there were a lot of people skeptical 
about how that would work out. You may have been one of them, I 
don't know. How does such a transfer really work? When you 
testified last year before this committee, we discussed this 
program, and you mentioned that the Corps had four top 
priorities for this program. I just want to enumerate those 
quickly:
    Number one, that we would transition the program without 
slippage from the DOE original timeline.
    Number two, complete assessment of the twenty-two sites 
that were transitioned to the Corps.
    Three, transfer that program from DOE contractors and move 
responsibility down to the districts and the divisions that 
were actually executing that work.
    And then number four, leverage the dollars that were given 
to us without any growth in the FTEs.
    As you stated then, FUSRAP was on a sound footing. By the 
way, for the record, it means Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 
Action Program.
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Knollenberg. We all know that. You know that. The 
question is, do you believe this program is still on a sound 
footing, and what are the priorities now that you have a year 
behind you working on the program? You can be brief in 
response.
    General Ballard. Okay. I will give you a more detailed one 
for the record. But let me be brief. I do believe that the 
program is on sound footing, and this year the President's 
budget has an increase of about $10 million over what the past 
2 years was when it was transferred to us of about $140 
million.
    We are on the optimum funding, looking at a completion day 
of 2006; optimum funding being around $180 million. But on the 
current funding level we can do it in 2010. Now DOE was on 
record as saying----
    Mr. Knollenberg. General, what is the differential in 
funding again?
    General Ballard. About $30 to $40 million per year. Optimum 
funding, we can--optimum funding is about $180 million and the 
current budget is about 150, which means that we would have a 
slippage of about four years in completion of those twenty-two 
sites.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Depending upon funding, all twenty-two 
sites will be cleaned?
    General Ballard. By 2010 under current budget level.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Right.
    General Ballard. If you optimum-fund it, which means push 
it up to around $180 million, we can do it in 2006.
    Mr. Knollenberg. How smooth would you say this transition 
from the DOE to the Corps has been?
    General Ballard. I would say, sir, that it has been almost 
flawless, after some----
    Mr. Knollenberg. What do you attribute this flawlessness 
to?
    General Ballard. A couple of things. When we took the 
program, we folded into our existing contract mechanism. We 
didn't create any new contracts. We had existing Corps' 
contracts that were out there, TERC contracts, the Total 
Environmental Restoration Contracts. We didn't increase any 
FTE. We pushed the majority of the money, in fact all of it, 
with the exception of the small amount for oversight, down 
tothe districts. And they aggressively jumped on those projects.
    I would think that we are ahead of schedule. We are talking 
total cleanup of the sites, not--go ahead, I am sorry, sir.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Just compare, if you would, the plan that 
you have with that of DOE. Are you ahead of schedule and within 
a lower budget then they would have been had we left the 
program with DOE?
    General Ballard. Yes. Yes, we are. We are ahead of the 
DOE's schedule. DOE, without criticizing their plan too much, 
they had limited the scope of the program. For example, I will 
just talk about two sites. In the Niagara site, the plan was to 
leave some of the materials on site rather than move all of it 
offsite to a licensed storage facility. And they were not doing 
some cleanup of groundwater. We are removing all of the 
hazardous wastes and attacking the groundwater project.
    And at the St. Louis site, we are cleaning it up to what we 
call industrial standards versus what DOE had proposed to clean 
it up to a restricted standard. We have worked very closely 
with the community to address their needs and concerns for all 
of these sites.
    Mr. Knollenberg. You mentioned the two dates, 2006 and 
2010. Will there be any long-term monitoring costs beyond that 
if you still have wastes under your jurisdiction?
    General Ballard. Under the current standards that we are 
approaching, we do not foresee--and I will glance down at this 
table--any long-term monitoring projects--is that right?
    General Fuhrman. After we clean up a particular site, that 
property is remanded to DOE or wherever for that.
    Mr. Knollenberg. So it is out of your hands?
    General Fuhrman. It is out of our hands after we complete 
it.
    Mr. Knollenberg. It, in fact, could be an ongoing expense 
for DOE, however?
    General Fuhrman. Yes, there could be in some cases.
    General Ballard. There could be.
    Mr. Knollenberg. But you are done with the job at that 
point?
    General Ballard. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Just a couple of quick things. I 
appreciate, by the way, the work you do on FUSRAP. What I hear, 
what I see, and what I sense is that it is working well, and I 
applaud you on your achievements.
    General Ballard. Thank you, sir.

                         division restructuring

    Mr. Knollenberg. Two issues. If you want to respond for the 
record, you can. I would like to know what cost savings you 
have calculated as a result of reducing the divisions down to 
eight. I am particularly interested in FTE savings. Please 
discuss any other savings in your response as well. If you 
could respond for the record, I would appreciate it. We would 
like to see what savings have been realized in comparison to 
where we were. If you want to make a quick comment, please do.
    [The information follows:]
      Division Office Restructuring General Expenses--Cost Savings
Cost savings
    In compliance with Congressional direction, the Corps of Engineers 
reduced the number of divisions from 11 to 8 in FY 1997. The cumulative 
savings, or ``cost avoidance,'' as a direct result of the overall 
division restructuring and downsizing (based on reconstructed cost 
estimates for the 11-division structure) is $23 million from FY 1997 to 
FY 1999, $72 million by FY 2002, and more than $21 million annually 
thereafter.

                             FTE reductions

    General Ballard. A quick comment, and I will provide it for 
the record. In 1990 those eight division headquarters were 
staffed at about 950 FTE; my GE-funded today, they are at 584 
and reducing.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Are those folks that are no longer there 
holding positions elsewhere?
    General Ballard. Or retired or left the service. No one was 
fired.
    No one fired. And at headquarters, we have reduced my 
headquarters from 608 to about 453. When you talk about gross 
numbers and dollars in savings, the division headquarters in GE 
funds costs us about $8 million a year, so by the mere fact of 
going from eleven to eight, we didn't recoup all of that in 
terms of savings, but it was a significant amount. We can give 
you a detailed answer.
    Mr. Knollenberg. If you would please provide that for the 
record.
    [The information follows:]
    Division Office Restructuring General Expenses--Staff Reductions
Division Office Staff Reductions in Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
FY 1996--(11 Division Offices)--677 FTE.
FY 2000--(8 Division Offices)--570 FTE.
FY 1996-2000 FTE Reduction--107 FTE.

    Mr. Packard. Before you leave that question, if you would 
yield, please.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Sure.
    Mr. Packard. None of the offices were closed, to my 
understanding. Even though you reduced the number of divisions 
from eleven to eight, those same offices still remain open. How 
have you supported those offices with such a reduction in FTEs?
    General Ballard. Well, what has happened--let's talk 
Northwest Division, the office in Washington, in Portland there 
with General Griffin, we had an office out in Omaha. But in 
order to maintain reasonable presence, we have reduced that 
office from a division headquarters to a regional office, but 
collapsed the FTE from about 100--I can't remember the exact 
figure at that time, but both offices will be staffed with a 
total of 72 folks.
    Mr. Packard. I see.
    General Ballard. So what we did was to spread the presence. 
In Omaha we focused mainly on the Missouri River and that area, 
and the office up in Portland is focused on the Snake River.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Knollenberg.

                               Soo Locks

    Mr. Knollenberg. The final question that I have which may 
be answered for the record, regards Soo Locks in Michigan.
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Knollenberg. I think a couple hundred thousand dollars 
was put forward for a study----
    General Fuhrman. $300,000.
    Mr. Knollenberg. $300,000.
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Knollenberg. What ever became of that? Is the study 
underway?
    General Fuhrman. We are moving forward with that study.
    Mr. Knollenberg. You haven't completed the study yet, 
General?
    General Fuhrman. No, sir, we haven't. And we will provide 
that for the record.
    [The information follows:]

Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors, MI and WI Upper St. Marys 
                      River (Vidal Shoals) Element

    $300,000 was reprogrammed in fiscal year 1999 to the Great 
Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors project to complete 
preconstruction engineering and design (PED) for deepending the 
Upper St. Marys River (Vidal Shoals) element. No additonal 
funds are needed to complete PED for this effort.

    Mr. Knollenberg. If you would provide a response for the 
record as well, I would appreciate that. And with that, I 
conclude and thank you very much.
    General Ballard. Thank you.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I have just a few brief observations 
following up on Mr. Knollenberg. I think the Army Corps ought 
to take credit for its good work on FUSRAP, I don't think the 
public is aware of your involvement to the degree that it 
should be.
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.

                               superfund

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Secondly, you are involved to an extent 
in managing Superfund projects. There are some in my neck of 
the woods that have been expedited as a result of the Corps' 
work and leadership, and I would like to note that Colonel 
Debra Lewis has been very active. She is working out of 
Philadelphia and has been doing some good things in my 
backyard. I would love to see you manage more of those 
projects; obviously, we would have to give you more money for 
that purpose and take it away from a few other Federal 
agencies. But thank you.
    General Ballard. We would like that also, sir.

                      disposal of dredge material

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good. And entered thus on the record. I 
have a number of questions that I will provide for the record, 
relating to the disposal of dredge material in the New York/New 
Jersey region. I don't need any reassurance, but I do think we 
need to have better public education as to what we have been 
doing with that material.

                innovative shore protection technologies

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. And lastly, I recently have been made 
aware of section 227 of the WRDA Act of 1996, which authorizes 
money for research and innovative technologies for shore 
protection. I would like to know--and you may provide your 
answer for the record--what the Corps is doing with some of 
these innovative technologies, such as artificial reefs and 
interlocking disks. I think there are some pretty exciting 
developments in that area, and I think the public ought to be 
aware of your involvement and leadership. Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]

    General Fuhrman. In the past, the Corps has investigated 
and evaluated the performance of innovative shore protection 
technologies in conjunction with a number of coastal projects. 
In the 1970's, a comprehensive national program (called Section 
54) was authorized and conducted to demonstrate various shore 
protection tecnnologies. These were properly engineered, 
monitored, and fully evaluated. Several publications on the use 
of ``low cost'' shore protection approaches were published and 
widely disseminated. In addition to this program, the Corps has 
since had the opportunity to partner with several different 
state and local governments to monitor, evaluate, and report on 
the performance of the coastal de-watering system, geo-textile 
barriers, artifical seaweed, and near-shore per-cast concerete 
reef systems. This is in addition to efforts within our Civil 
Works R&D programs to evaluate innovations such as nearshore 
dredged sediment feeder berms for beach replenishment in 
conjuction wih our coastal navigation projects.
    Although the Corps has not had specific funding in recent 
years to research and evaluate innovative approaches, we 
continue to be in frequent contact with developers, state and 
local agencies, other federal agencies and the internationl 
coastal engineering community, exhanging information on 
promising innovations.

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
    General Ballard. Thank you.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Latham.

                     administrative appeals process

    Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several years ago, the 
Corps was expected to establish an administrative appeals 
program, whereby the public could appeal the decisions in 
jurisdictional determinations. The adoption of the appeals 
program was held up due to funding limitations. Without such an 
appeals system, the public has to resort to litigation. The 
Corps stated that once it received the necessary funding, it 
would implement the appeals process to allow jurisdictional 
challenges.
    How can we in the subcommittee be sure that the Corps will 
properly spend appropriated funds designated for the appeals 
program? Can you assure us that if funds are appropriated, they 
won't be spent on personnel and other programs as they have 
been in the past?
    Dr. Westphal. Congressman, the rule on the administrative 
appeals process is before--it is in the Federal Register now, 
and we are seeking public comment on that. And we hope to be 
able to implement that rule sometime later this summer and be 
ready to fully implement it after a final rule by the beginning 
of next year. Now, that is on the denial portion of this. And 
the more difficult case, of course, is on the jurisdictional 
part, which would be much more time-consuming and an intense 
process. That part of the rule is also finished.
    We have done all of the work to get that rule ready to go, 
and we are hoping that you will agree with us on the need for 
the additional funding in our regulatory program, because it is 
going to be essentially aimed at making sure that we can 
implement that administrative appeals, both the denial and 
jurisdictional part, fully implement that and make that process 
a lot easier for those folks seeking permits or seeking to 
appeal their permits.
    Mr. Latham. If we do appropriate the funds, what assurance 
do we have that it will be spent as it is supposed to be, 
rather than on personnel and other programs as in the past?
    Dr. Westphal. Well, you know, I think we are committed to 
that process, and I think we can assure you that we will do the 
best we can to make sure that we implement it to its fullest. I 
think I have to ask General Fuhrman this question, but I 
believe on the Regulatory Program, most of the dollars 
essentially pay for people to process the permits.
    General Fuhrman. Yes. But I would say 85 percent of our 
regulatory budget is involved in personnel and, quite frankly, 
most of the appeals dollars that are required for the denial 
process and jurisdictional process will be FTEdollars for 
people at the division level to handle the administrative reviews 
there.

                         columbia river salmon

    Mr. Latham. I have one last question. The Administration 
proposes to spend $100 million on salmon restoration in the 
Columbia and Snake Rivers. Can you tell me which salmon species 
are to be counted during the upriver migration? And just as a 
point of reference, how many salmon returned to the Columbia 
and Snake Rivers last year?
    Mr. Packard. May I suggest that the question be answered 
for the record?
    General Griffin. Please.
    Mr. Latham. From what I understand, a few years ago there 
were six. Six salmon.
    General Griffin. No, it is in the tens of thousands.
    General Fuhrman. It depends on the species, how many 
return.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is like the Census.
    Mr. Packard. I have stood at the falls on the Columbia 
River, back when I was in dental school in Portland, Oregon, 
and I can assure you they can't count them all.
    Mr. Latham. That is good. Thank you.

                          california projects

    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. Would Colonel Madsen be 
kind enough come to the table? Some of these questions he might 
be able to address, and some may be more general. I would like 
to discuss the Corps failure to allocate the full amount that 
Congress appropriates for particular projects. I presume 
several projects around the country are in this situation, but 
certainly I can give illustrations in California: the Tijuana 
River, the project in San Diego County, the San Diego Harbor, 
National City Project, the Newport Bay San Diego Creek project.
    They were funded at certain levels. In the case of the 
Tijuana River project, $200 million was appropriated, and yet 
only $10,000 have been spent on it. In other examples, $100,000 
was appropriated, but only, $5,000 has been spent in fiscal 
year 1999. Of $250,000 appropriated for a study in the Newport 
Bay area, only $20,000 has been allocated.
    Why do we find that the money is not being spent for the 
purposes for which the money was appropriated? Anybody?
    Colonel Madsen. I can address--for instance, you asked 
about the upper Newport Bay, and that is a feasibility study. 
The process, the study referred is ongoing. And I would tell 
you that our schedule for completion of that project is in 
February--January of 2000. So I mean, in that particular effort 
that you reference, the project is ongoing. Some of the earlier 
surveys and reconnaissance surveys that you do and the 
feasibility studies, I mean, the reconnaissance surveys, you 
try to expedite them, where you put $100,000 against them and 
try to get them done in under twelve months' time.
    We pushed forward on all of those studies last year. My 
particular division, twenty-six we completed, and we are 
pursuing another eighteen in this current fiscal year. So I 
would tell you that, you know, we are pushing forward on all of 
those that we have been given starts on.

                         camp pendleton permit

    Mr. Packard. I have two specific questions that relate to 
my district, and I appreciate my colleagues giving me the 
opportunity to address very specific issues. A permit is being 
requested by Camp Pendleton for a helicopter pad. Where does 
that stand?
    Colonel Madsen. Sir, last week the district engineer, 
Colonel John Carroll met with Major General Hanlon, who is the 
Camp Pendleton commander, just to facilitate the coordination 
for that helicopter pad. In the eyes of the district engineer, 
the way they have redesigned and relocated some of the pad, 
they feel that the project can be permitted under the 
Nationwide Permit 26, and the redesign effort has really 
reduced the impacts of that particular training facility. And 
the Marines are very close to completing their redesign. So we 
see that as very permittable.

                            murrietta creek

    Mr. Packard. Good. That is good news. We have been working 
for some time on the Murrietta Creek flood project. And I think 
you are very familiar with that. When will that study be done? 
And obviously it needs to be completed before we can include it 
in WRDA.
    Colonel Madsen. Right, sir. We see the completion of that 
feasibility study being done in February of year 2000,and it 
will be a flood control plan that will be very environmentally 
sensitive.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Visclosky. I am fine, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Packard. Are you done? Do you have further, Mr. 
Frelinghuysen. Mr. Latham. I think we are done.

                     closing remarks of mr. packard

    Well, this has been a very, very good hearing. We have 
really appreciated not only the forthrightness, but also the 
thoroughness of your testimony and answers. As I mentioned 
earlier, there will be many questions submitted for your 
response. If you would respond, we would appreciate it.
    We are here to work with you to accomplish your goals. We 
hope that we will continue to have the compatible relationship 
that we have had in the past. I am aware that that relationship 
has been very good. This is my first opportunity to really work 
closely with the top echelon of the Corps. I worked more down 
at the levels with the colonels and the generals in my division 
and in my districts, an opportunity for which I have been very 
grateful. It has been a great opportunity for me to work with 
them. And I have worked with them, in fact, since I was mayor 
of the city that I represented years and years ago.
    So it has been a pleasure. Again, we are grateful that you 
have all come to Washington and helped us in this hearing. Mr. 
Secretary.
    Dr. Westphal. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
members of the committee. I think we are committed to working 
on many of these issues with you, certainly the beach 
protection and shore protection project, which we think are 
important. As a Long Islander, I think they are certainly 
important. And you mentioned work we do on Superfund and some 
other areas.
    And just so Congressman Latham doesn't feel left out, we 
have got this Upper Mississippi Navigation Study, the Missouri 
Master Manual, the Upper Mississippi Environmental Management 
Program, all of these things. We are trying to push them to 
move faster and get decided quicker so we can make many 
decisions so we can move forward. And so we are very attuned to 
that as well.

                              adjournment

    Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. If there is nothing 
further, the hearing is adjourned.
    [The questions and answers and prepared statements of 
division commanders follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                           CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                         Secretary of the Army

                                                                   Page
1998 Texas Flooding.............................................336-338
Accomplishments..................................................   499
Accomplishments of the Corps.....................................   106
Acid Mine Drainage.............................................159, 308
Activities under the Construction, General Appropriation......... 71-74
Activities under the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 
  Appropriation..................................................    87
Activities under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
  Program (FUSRAP)...............................................    88
Activities under the General Expenses Appropriation.............. 88-90
Activities under the General Investigations Appropriation........ 62-71
Activities under the Operation & Maintenance, General 
  Appropriation.................................................. 74-86
Activities under the Regulatory Program Appropriation............    86
Activities under the Revolving Fund..............................    90
Addison, NY......................................................   220
Adequacy of MR&T Budget Request..................................   162
Adjournment......................................................   134
Administration Priorities........................................    96
Administrative Appeals.....................................170, 440-442
Administrative Appeals Process...................................   131
Agricultural Drainage Wells......................................   115
AJO Detention Basin..............................................   102
Akutan Harbor, AK................................................   524
Ala Wai Canal Environmental Restoration, Oahu, Hawaii............   524
Alamogordo, NM...................................................   274
Alaska Environmental Infrastructure, AK..........................   531
Alaska Navigation Maintenance and Dredging.......................   531
Alaska Watershed Studies.........................................   523
Alexandria, Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico......................   204
American River Watershed, CA.....................................   547
Amite River--Darlington Reservoir, LA............................   186
Anacostia & Tributaries, Prince Georges County Levee, MD & DC....   211
Ancostia River Federal Facilities Impact Assessment, MD & DC.....   215
Anchorage Harbor Deepening, AK...................................   525
Aniak Flood Damage Reduction, AK.................................   528
Aniak, AK........................................................   238
Antelope Creek, Lincoln, NE......................................   227
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration....................................    73
Aquatic Plant Control Program....................................    73
Area of Responsibility.........................................443, 470
Arecibo River, Puerto Rico.......................................   254
Arecibo River, PR................................................    99
Arkansas City, KS................................................   283
Arthur Kill Channel, Howland Hook, Marine Terminal, NY & NJ......   318
Astoria East Boat Basin, North Breakwater, OR....................   518
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, LA............................   207
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge at Great Bridge, VA........   503
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Deep Creek, 
  VA.............................................................   502
Automated Information System Support--Tri-Service CADD./GIS Tech 
  Ctr............................................................    68
Automation.......................................................    90
Backlog of Deferred Maintenance..................................   163
Ballwin, St. Louis County, MO....................................   187
Baltimore Harbor and Channels, MD (Brewerton Channel)............   221
Baltimore Harbor and Channels, MD (Brewton Channel)..............    98
Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources, Gwynn Falls, MD..........   211
Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources, Gwynns Falls, MD.........   502
Barbara Point Harbor Modification, Oahu, HI......................   527
Barnegat Bay, NJ.................................................   217
Base Research and Development....................................    69
Beauty Creek, IN.................................................   331
Bell County DPR, KY..............................................   293
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.............................72, 158
Biographical Statement of the Honorable Dr. Joseph W. Westphal...   6-7
Biography of General Fuhrman.....................................    58
Biography of Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard...................    32
Black Warrior & Tombigbee Rivers, Vic of Jackson, AL.............   256
Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, AL.............................   246
Blackstone River Watershed Restoration, MA & RI..................   216
Bluestone Lake, WV (Dam Safety)..................................    97
Bonneville Powerhouse (Phase II--Main Unit), OR & WA (Major 
  Rehab).......................................................235, 513
Boston Harbor, MA................................................   221
Brays Bayou, Houston, TX.......................................284, 341
Brevig Mission Harbor, AK........................................   525
Brewton and East Brewton, AL.....................................   247
Brunswick, GA....................................................   252
Budget Request Overview.........................................297-307
Buffalo River & Tributaries (White Oak Bayou), TX................   277
Buford Powerhouse, GA (Major Rehab)..............................   260
Buford Trenton Irrigation District (Land Acquisition), ND........   513
Bureau of Reclamation Dams.......................................   333
Burns Small Boat Harbor, IN......................................   330
Cady Marsh Ditch, IN.............................................   329
Cahaba River Watershed, AL.......................................   248
CALFED--Bay Delta...............................................65, 263
California Projects..............................................   132
Camp Pendleton Permit............................................   133
Canaveral Habor, FL..............................................   256
Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge, MA..............................98, 505
Cape Girardeau--Jackson, MO......................................   198
Carolina Bays....................................................   109
Cedar Hammock (Wares Creek), FL..................................   253
Central & South Florida, FL......................................   258
Central and Southern Florida Restudy............................261-263
Challenge 21..................................................... 4, 95
Channel Improvement, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN.................   207
Channels and Harbors.............................................   558
Charleston Estuary, SC...........................................   249
Charleston Harbor................................................   109
Chatfield, Cherry Creek & Bear Creek, CO.........................   228
Chatham County, GA...............................................   248
Cheat River Basin, WV............................................   182
Chemung River Basin Environmental, Restoration, NY...............   217
Chena River Dredging, AK.........................................   531
Chena River Watershed, AK........................................   238
Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, Baltimore Harbor Connecting Channels 
  (Deepening), DE & MD...........................................   221
Chesapeake Bay Environ Rest & Protection Program, MD, VA & PA....   225
Chesapeake Bay Program...........................................    64
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, SD.........98, 231
Chicago Shoreline, IL..........................................184, 330
Chignik Harbor, AK...............................................   528
City of Albany, KY...............................................   294
City of Cumberland, KY...........................................   292
City of Martin, KY...............................................   291
City of Savannah, GA.............................................   248
Civil Works FY 00 Direct Program Table...........................    56
Civil Works Issues...............................................    37
Civil Works Missions.............................................     4
Civil Works Program Budget Fiscal Year 2000......................    34
Civil Works Program Budget Fiscal Year 2000......................    39
Civil Works Program Execution and Outlook........................    36
Civil Works Program Performance..................................    17
Claremont Terminal Channel, NJ...................................   323
Clear Creek, TX..................................................   284
Closing Remarks of Mr. Packard...................................   133
Coastal Connecticut Ecosystem Restoration, CT....................   500
Coastal Erosion--Willapa River & Harbor, WA......................   518
Coastal Field Data Collection...................................67, 148
Coastal Inlets Research Program..................................    74
Coastal Studies of Navigation Improvements, AK...................   237
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act.......   495
Collaborative Multi-Agency Endeavors.............................   545
Collection and Study of Basic Data...............................    65
Colonias Along the Texas-Mexico Border...........................   343
Columbia River Channel Deepening, OR & WA........................   509
Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program, ID, OR & WA.......235, 333, 514
Columbia River Runoff in 1998....................................   521
Columbia River Salmon..........................................122, 132
Columbia River Treaty Fishing Access Sites, OR & WA..............   515
Columbia River Water Management..................................   520
Comparison with FY 99 Funding....................................    42
Complete Statement of Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard.......... 38-56
Complete Statement of the Honorable Dr. Joseph W. Westphal......152-157
Completion Schedules............................................152-157
Conclusion, Complete Statement of Lieutenant General Joe N. 
  Ballard........................................................    55
Conclusion, Complete Statement of the Honorable Dr. Joseph W. 
  Westphal.......................................................    24
Conclusion, Detailed Statement of Major General Russell L. 
  Fuhrman........................................................    91
Conclusion, Oral Statement of Dr. Westphal.......................    12
Conclusion, Oral Statement of Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard..    37
Conclusion, Statement of Dr. Westphal............................     5
Conemaugh River Basin, Nanty Glo Environmental Restoration, PA...   183
Confined Disposal Facility (CDF).................................   461
Construction, General............................................     3
Construction, General............................................    21
Construction, General............................................    46
Construction, General--FY 2000 New Starts........................   296
Continuing Authorities Program...........................23, 29, 52, 71
Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO..............................   512
Contractor Shutdowns.............................................   150
Cook Inlet Navigation, AK......................................239, 529
Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, SC..............................   257
Coordination w/Other Federal Agencies, States & Non-Federal 
  Interests.....................................................62, 147
Corps Accomplishments............................................   125
Corps Bureaucracy................................................   123
Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS)...........    54
Corps Projects Capabilities.....................................345-439
Corps Recommendations............................................    96
Corps Request to OMB.............................................   329
Corps Vision.....................................................    54
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX..................................   276
Cost Shared Feasibility Studies..................................   552
Credits and Reimbursements......................................137-139
Cultural Resources...............................................   522
Cultural Resources (NAGPRA/CURATION).............................    78
Cypress Creek, TX................................................   281
Cypress Valley Watershed, TX.....................................   278
Dallas Floodway Extension, Trinity River, TX.....................   335
Dam Safety Assurance.............................................   460
Deer Creek, IL...................................................   331
Delaware Bay Coastline, DE & NJ..................................   212
Delaware River at Camden, NJ.....................................   323
Delaware River Main Channel Deepening, NJ, PA and DE...........222, 505
Department of Energy FUSRAP Estimates............................   174
Des Plains River, IL.............................................   183
Detailed Statement of Major General Russell L. Fuhrman........... 59-91
Devils Lake Emergency Outlet, ND...........................189, 200-203
Dewey Lake, KY...................................................   292
Dillingham Bank Stabilization, AK................................   530
Direct Program................................................... 40-43
Disposal of Dredge Material......................................   130
Districts........................................................   499
Division Restructuring....................................104, 128, 176
Divisions........................................................    49
Dog River, AL....................................................   246
Donaldsville to the Gulf, LA.....................................   205
Douglas Harbor Expansion, AK.....................................   525
Dredge Wheeler Ready Reserve.....................................    75
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program....................73, 159
Dredging Data and Lock Performance Monitoring System.............    80
Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program (DOER)....    75
Dredging Operations Programs.....................................   164
Dredging Operations Technical Support (DOTS) Program.............    76
Earthquake Engineering Research..................................    70
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program for Building and Lifelines..    82
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA......................................   191
East St. Louis, MO...............................................   196
Economy and the Environment......................................11, 19
Efficiency Improvements..........................................   177
Elk Creek Lake, OR...............................................   515
Emergency Management.............................................   562
Emergency Operations Organization................................    50
Emergency Response...............................................   532
Employees' Compensation..........................................    74
Environmental....................................................   531
Environmental Data Studies.......................................    68
Environmental Mitigation, Restoration and Protection.............   461
Environmental Projects....................................116, 119, 135
Environmental Restoration........................................   523
Environmental Stewardship........................................   465
Erosion Control..................................................   530
Everglades Restoration..........................................240-245
Execution of Project Cooperation Agreements......................   147
Expenditure Performance..........................................   508
False Pass Harbor, AK............................................   525
Festus and Crystal City, MO......................................   192
Fiscal Year 2000 Budget..........................................     3
Flood Control, Mississippi River & Tributaries..................159-160
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies............................   166
Flood Control and Inland Navigation..............................   152
Flood Control, Miss River & Tributaries, AK, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & 
  TN............................................................204-209
Flood Damage Data Collection.....................................    68
Flood Damages Prevented..........................................   561
Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration.......    73
Flood Mitigation, Pierre, SD...................................234, 517
Flood Plain Management Services..................................    66
Flood Response Activities........................................   466
Flushing Bay & Creek, NY.........................................   217
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)..130, 174, 467
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)30, 36, 45, 126
Fort Pierce Harbor, FL...........................................   247
Fort Worth Sumps, 14 and 15, Upper Trinity River Basin, TX.......   281
FTE Reductions...................................................   129
Full Federal Feasibility Studies.................................   553
Funding Constraints and Priorities...............................   120
Funding Priorities...............................................   118
FUSRAP Program Execution.........................................   175
FUSRAP Schedule Cost to Complete.................................   175
FY 00 Civil Works Program Budget.................................    40
FY 1998 Achievements.............................................   546
FY 1999 Program..................................................   546
FY 2000 Civil Works Program Budget...............................10, 16
FY 2000 Funding Capabilities....................................346-439
FY 99 Congressional Adds Funded in the FY 00 President's Budget.298-300
Garrison Dam and Power Plant (Maj Rehab), ND.....................   515
Gneral Expense..............................................30, 47, 176
General Investigations...........................................    23
General Investigations...........................................    45
General Investigations...........................................   143
GIWW--Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, TX.......................   338
Government Performance and Results...............................    53
Graham (Brazos River Basin), TX..................................   281
Grand Forks, ND-East Grand Forks, MN............................97, 193
Grand Prairie Region & Bayou Metro Basin, AR...............206, 207-209
Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, Operation & Maintenance.....   185
Greens Bayou, TX.................................................   282
Guadalupe River Project..........................................   272
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos River, TX......   279
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Port O'Connor to Corpus Christi, TX..   280
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, TX...................................   339
Gulf of Mexico Program...........................................    64
Harbor Maintenance Fee Data Collection...........................    81
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund..............................104-106, 118
Harbor Services Fee..............................................    93
Harbor Services Fund.............................................     3
Harbor Services Fund Proposal.................................11, 17-19
Harbor Services User Fee.........................................   328
Harbor Services User Fees and Harbor Maintenance Tax.......104, 139-142
Hawaii Navigation Dredging.......................................   532
Hawaii Water Management Study, HI................................   528
Headquarters Relocation Planning.................................    91
Headquarters, Resource Management Consolidation & Staffing.......    48
Highlights.......................................................    42
Highlights of the FY 2000 Continuing Program..................... 20-24
Hillsboro Inlet, FL..............................................   250
Hocking River Basin Environmental Restoration, Monday Creek, OH..   181
Hodges Village Dam, MA...........................................   226
Homer Spit Storm Damage Reduction, AK............................   531
Honolulu Harbor Modifications, Oahu..............................   527
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, TX......................283, 335
Howard Hanson Dam, WA............................................   230
Hudson River Habitat Restoration, NY.............................   210
Humboldt Harbor & Bay, CA........................................   271
Hunting Bayou, Houston, TX.......................................   342
Hurricane Georges................................................   534
Hydropower.......................................................   464
Iao Stream Flood Control, Maui...................................   530
Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration, IL.........................   188
Improvement in Business Operations............................... 51-53
Indian Creek, Council Bluff, IA..................................   510
Indian Harbor and Canal Confined Disposal Facility, IN...........   330
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal........................................    93
Indiana Projects.................................................    93
Indiana Shoreline Erosion, IN....................................   330
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, IN..............................   332
Initiation of PED................................................   554
Initiation of Reconnaissance Studies.............................   552
Inland Waterways User Board......................................    72
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA...........................   194
Innovative Technologies for Shore Protection...............130, 321-323
Interagency and International Support............................    65
Interagency Water Resources Development..........................    64
International Water Studies.....................................67, 147
Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA..................................   185
Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach County, FL.....................   250
Introduction to FY 00 Civil Works Program Budget.................    40
Introduction to FY 00 Civil Works Program Budget.................    62
Inventory of Dams................................................    65
Jackson Hole Restoration, WY.....................................   509
Jacksonville Harbor, FL..........................................   251
Jamaica Bay, Marine Park & Plumb Beach, NY.......................   214
James River, SD & ND.............................................   227
Jefferson Parish, LA.............................................   186
Jim Chapman Lake, TX.............................................   344
John H. Kerr Dam & Reservoir, VA & NC (Major Rehab).............99, 255
Johnson Creek, Arlington, Upper Trinity Basin, TX................   280
Joseph G. Minish Waterfront Park and Historic Area, NJ...........   320
Jurisdictional Determinations....................................   170
Kahului Deep Draft Harbor Modification, Maui, HI.................   527
Kake Harbor, AK................................................240, 529
Kankakee River Basin, IL & IN....................................   178
Kansas City, MO & KS.............................................   229
Kansas River Basin Studies, KS & MO..............................   509
Kaumalapau Harbor, Lanai, HI.....................................   527
Kawaihae Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii, HI...........................   529
Kaweah River, CA.................................................   270
Kenai River Navigation, AK.......................................   237
Kentucky Lock and Dam, Kentucky..................................    22
Kentucky Pride...................................................    94
Kentucky River & Tributaries, Frankfort, KY......................   178
Kikialoa Small Boat Harbor, Kauai, HI...........................99, 530
Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay, NJ & NJ.....................114, 314, 504
Lake Marion Regional Water Agency................................   110
Lake Tahoe.......................................................    63
Lake Washington Ship Canal, WA...................................   229
Lake Worth Inlet Sand Transfer Plant, FL.........................   251
Level of Services................................................   162
Levisa & Tug Forks of Big Sandy River & Upper Cumberland River, 
  WV, VA, KY (Section 202)......................................286-291
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River & Upper Cumberland 
  Rvr, WV........................................................   184
Lexington, Fayette County, KY....................................   179
Licking River, Falmouth, KY......................................   179
Little Calumet River, IL & IN....................................   329
Lock & Dam 12, Miss River, IA (Major Rehab).....................97, 193
Lock & Dam 3, Miss River Embankments, MN (Major Rehab)...........   204
Lock and Dam 24 Part 2, Miss River, MN...........................    97
London Locks and Dam, WV.........................................    97
Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.....................    22
Louisiana State Penitentiary, LA.................................   209
Lower Columbia River Basin Bank Protection, OR & WA..............   234
Lower Missouri River Basin Studies, MO & KS......................   509
Lower Potomac Estuary Watershed, Wicomico & St. Mary's Watershed, 
  MD.............................................................   216
Lower Potomac Estuary Watershed, Mattawoman Watershed, MD........   216
Lower River Des Peres, MO........................................   192
Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction, CA...................   272
Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation, ID, OR & WA....   515
Lower Truckee River, Washoe County, NV...........................   268
Lower West Branch, Susquehanna River Basin Environmental Rest, 
  Buff Crk, PA...................................................   219
Maalaea Small Boat Harbor, Maui, HI..............................   530
Major Rehabilitation.............................................   158
Management Tools for Operation and Maintenance...................    84
Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, NC......................................   253
Marshall, MN.....................................................   198
Marysville-Yuba City Levee Reconstruction, CA....................   273
Maumee River, OH.................................................   183
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Locks & Dams, AR 
  & OK...........................................................   283
Melvin Price Lock & Dam, IL & MO.................................   194
Meramec River Basin, Valley Park Levee, MO.......................   199
Mercer County, WV................................................   180
Metropolitan Louisville, Mill Creek Basin, KY....................   179
Metropolitan Louisville, Pond Creek, KY..........................   184
Middle Brazos River Basin, TX....................................   336
Middle Rio Grande Flood Protection, Bernalillo To Belen Unit, NM.   275
Mid-Valley Area Levee Reconstruction, VA.........................   273
Minimum Dredge Fleet.............................................   163
Mississippi River at Qunicy, IL..................................   186
Mississippi River Ship Channel Improvements, LA..................   185
Mississippi Valley Division Operation and Maintenance............   204
Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN............   206
Mississippi Valley Division......................................    97
Missouri National Recreational River, NE & SD..................233, 516
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, IA, NE, KS & MO.....   516
Missouri River Levee System Units L455 & L460-471, MO & KS.......   229
Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS & MO...................233, 516
Missouri River Master Canal......................................   116
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual Review & Update.......   519
Missouri River Runoff in 1998....................................   521
Missouri River Water Management..................................   521
Mobile Harbor, AL................................................   256
Mojave River Forks Dam, CA.......................................   266
Molly Ann's Brook, NJ............................................   324
Monitoring of Coastal Navigation Projects (MCNP).................    77
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam....................................    22
Mount St. Helens Sediment Control, WA............................   234
MR&T Budget Reductions...........................................   160
MR&T Capability..................................................   161
MR&T Maintenance.................................................   160
MR&T Outyear Funding.............................................   161
MR&T Savings and Slippage........................................   161
Murrietta Creek..................................................   133
Myrtle Beach, SC.................................................   258
Napa River, CA...................................................    99
Napa River, CA...................................................   547
Nassau County, FL................................................   254
National Dam Security Program....................................    79
National Dam Safety Program......................................    79
National Emergency Preparedness Program (NEPP)...................    81
Nationwide Permit 26.............................................   124
Navigation Program...............................................   101
Coastal Studies of Navigation Improvements, AK...................   524
Neches River and Tributaries Saltwater Barrier, TX...............   100
Net New Funding..................................................    42
New Funding......................................................    41
New Investments..................................................10, 20
New Project Starts/Flood Control.................................   295
New Starts.......................................................     3
New Starts.......................................................    94
New Starts.......................................................    96
New Starts.......................................................   158
New York & Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel, NJ............   223
New York and New Jersey Harbor, NY & NJ....................22, 210, 501
New York Harbor..................................................   114
New York Harbor Anchorage Areas, NY..............................   210
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel, NJ...   318
New York-New Jersey Harbor Dredging.............................315-317
Newport Bays/San Diego Creek Watershed, CA.......................   266
Nogales, Arizona.................................................   103
Nome Harbor Improvements, AK.....................................   525
Nome Harbor, AK..................................................   239
Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Craney Island, VA...................   211
Norfolk Harbor and Channels, VA..................................   223
North Atlantic Division Policy Impacted Coastal Projects.........   113
North Branch Potomac River Environmental Restoration, Georges 
  Creek, MD......................................................   212
North Shore of Long Island, Bayville, NY.........................   215
Northern California Streams, Fairfield Streams & Cordelia Marsh, 
  CA.............................................................   266
Northern California Streams, Vacaville, Dixon and Vivinity, CA...   265
Nutwood Drainage and Levee District, IL..........................   192
O&M Direct Funding from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)....   518
Ohio River Main Stem System Study................................   177
Olive Hill, KY...................................................   180
Olmsted Locks and Dam, Illinois and Kentucky.....................    22
Ongoing Projects.................................................    95
Onion Creek, TX..................................................   342
Opening Remarks of Mr. Clyburn...................................   109
Opening Remarks of Mr. Edwards...................................   106
Opening Remarks of Mr. Forbes....................................   107
Opening Remarks of Mr. Frelinghuysen.............................   110
Opening Remarks of Mr. Knollenberg...............................   103
Opening Remarks of Mr. Latham....................................   115
Opening Remarks of Mr. Packard...................................   1-2
Opening Remarks of Mr. Pastor....................................   102
Opening Remarks of Mr. Rogers....................................    93
Opening Remarks of Mr. Visclosky.................................    93
Operation and Maintenance, General...............................    20
Operation and Maintenance........................................     3
Operation and Maintenance........................................    30
Operation and Maintenance Cost Savings Initiative................   162
Operation and Maintenance Costs..................................   329
Operation and Maintenance, General...............................    46
Operation and Maintenance........................................   118
Oral Statement of Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard.............. 33-37
Oral Statement of the Honorable Dr. Joseph W. Westphal...........  8-12
Organizational Issues............................................    29
Orleans Parish, LA...............................................   187
Pacific Northwest Forest Case Study..............................    64
Pacific Northwest Salmon.........................................    21
Palm Valley Bridge, FL...........................................   257
Pascagoula Harbor, MS............................................   257
Passaic River Mainstem, NJ......................................324-326
Passaic River Preservation of Natural Storage Areas, NJ..........   224
Passaic River Preservation of Natural Storage, NJ................   317
Patoka Lake, IN..................................................    97
Patuxent River Water Resources, Anne Arundel County, Towser 
  Branch, MD.....................................................   212
Pecan Bayou, Brownwood, TX.......................................   280
Peoria Riverfront Development, IL................................   188
Performance Based Budgeting Support Program (PBBSP).............84, 165
Perry Creek Project..............................................   116
Perry Creek, IA..................................................   516
Pike County Tug Ford Tributaries, KY DPR.........................   294
Pillar Point Harbor (Deepening), CA..............................   264
Pine Flat Dam, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Restoration, CA...........   270
Plainview, Brazos River Basin, TX................................   279
Planning Assistance to States....................................    63
Planning Process.................................................    52
Platte River Basin Studies, CO & NE..............................   510
Ponce De Leon Inlet, FL..........................................   251
Poplar Island, MD................................................   225
Port and Harbor Projects.........................................     4
Port Everglades Harbor, FL.......................................   252
Port Fourchon, LA...............................................98, 193
Port Lions Harbor Expansion, AK..................................   526
Portugues & Bucana Rivers, Puerto Rico...........................   259
Powell River Watershed, VA.......................................   182
Prado Basin Water Supply, CA.....................................   267
Prince William County, VA........................................   220
Program Execution...............................................30, 143
Program Execution and Outlook....................................    44
Program Management...............................................    29
Project Cooperation Agreements.............................29, 107, 123
Project Implementation...........................................   121
Project Management...............................................    51
Project Terminations.............................................    95
Projects Funded in FY 99 but Excluded from the FY 00 President's 
  Budget........................................................301-303
Projects in Distressed Areas.....................................   125
Projects Recommended to OMB but Excluded from the President's 
  Budget........................................................305-307
Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment.........    72
Protecting, Clearing and Straightening Channels..................    81
Protection of Private Property...................................   120
Provo & Vicinity, UT.............................................   265
Public Access....................................................   121
Puget Sound Confined Disposal Site(s), WA........................   226
Puget Sound Studies, WA..........................................   510
Questions of Chairman Packard....................................   135
Questions Submitted by Mr. Callahan..............................   327
Questions Submitted by Mr. Edwards..............................335-345
Questions Submitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen........................314-326
Questions Submitted by Mr. Rogers...............................286-313
Questions Submitted by Mr. Rogers and Mr. Callahan..............309-313
Questions Submitted by Mr. Visclosky............................328-334
Rappahannock, VA.................................................   220
Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay, NJ.................................   213
Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, NJ...................   319
Raymondville, TX.................................................   282
Reconnaissance Studies..........................................144-146
Recreation Management Support Program............................   164
Recreation Management Support Program (RMSP).....................    79
Red River Bendway Weirs, TX......................................   340
Red River Chloride Control, TX...................................   339
Red River Sediment Transport Study, TX...........................   340
Red River Waterway, Miss Rvr to Shreveport, LA...................   195
Reelfoot Lake, TN & KY...........................................   205
Regional Business Centers........................................    49
Regulatory Program........................................3, 23, 30, 92
Regulatory Program--Administrative Appeals Process..............168-170
Regulatory Program--Full Time Equivalent Employment (FTE)........   166
Regulatory Program--Nationwide and Replacement Permits..........171-174
Regulatory Program--Nationwide Permits..........................309-313
Regulatory Program--Permit Fees..................................   167
Reimbursed Program & Staffing....................................   167
Reliability Models Program for Major Rehabilitation..............    85
Remaining Items Overview.........................................    62
Removal of Sunken Vessels........................................    81
Request to OMB...................................................   149
Research and Development.........................................   148
Research and Development......................................... 68-71
Resource Management Consolidation & Staffing.....................    49
Restructuring....................................................    48
Return of Funds..................................................   563
Richard B. Russell Dam & Lake, GA & SC...........................   259
Rillito River, Pima County, AZ...................................   266
Rio De La Plata, Puerto Rico.....................................   259
Rio Grande Floodway, San Acacia to Bosque Del Apache Unit, NM....   275
Rio Guanajibo, Puerto Rico.......................................   254
Rio Salado Project...............................................   102
Roanoke River Upper Basin, VA....................................   259
Role of OMB......................................................   101
Russian River Watershed, CA......................................   267
Sabine-Neches Waterway, TX.......................................   276
Sacramento River Flood Control Project, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation 
  District, CA...................................................   273
Saint Paul Harbor, AK............................................   529
Salyersville, KY.................................................   291
San Antonio Channel Improvement, TX..............................   285
San Clemente Creek, CA...........................................   271
San Diego Harbor, National City, CA..............................   264
Sand Point Harbor, AK............................................   526
Santa Ana River Mainstem, CA.....................................   548
Santa Barbara Harbor, CA........................................99, 547
Santa Paula Creek, CA............................................   247
Santa Ynez River, CA.............................................   144
Santee, Cooper & Congaree Rivers, SC.............................   250
Savannah Harbor Expansion, GA....................................   252
Savannah River Basin Comp, GA....................................   249
Scientific and Technical Information Centers.....................    67
Seattle Harbor, East Waterway Deepening, WA......................   519
Section 211 Projects.............................................   342
Sediment Management..............................................   327
Seward Harbor, AK................................................   526
Ship Creek Watershed, AK.........................................   238
Shore Protection Projects........................................   112
Shoreline Protection...........................................142, 456
Sitka Lightering Facility, AK....................................   237
Small Business Program...........................................    52
Soo Locks........................................................   129
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration..............................    21
South Main Channel, TX...........................................   282
South Shore of Long Island, NY...................................   218
South Shore of Staten Island, NY.................................   215
Southeast Arkansas, AR...........................................   205
Southeast Louisiana, LA.........................................22, 197
Southern & Eastern Kentucky Environmental Infrastructure, KY (531 
  Projects)......................................................   293
Special Investigations...........................................    64
Special Studies.................................................448-451
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO.........................   209
St Louis Flood Protection, MO....................................   191
Statement of Dr. Westphal........................................   2-5
Statement of General Ballard..................................... 29-31
Statement of General Fuhrman.....................................    57
Status of Kentucky Section 202 Elements that are under 
  construction..................................................288-292
Status Report of Brigadier General Carl A. Strock, Pacific Ocean 
  Division......................................................523-532
Status Report of Brigadier General J. Richard Capka, South 
  Atlantic Division.............................................533-544
Status Report of Brigadier General Robert H. Griffin, 
  Northwestern Division.........................................508-522
Status Report of Civil Activities in South Pacific Division.....545-548
Status Report of Civil Activities in Southwestern Davison.......549-563
Status Report of Major General Jerry L. Sinn, North Atlantic 
  Division......................................................497-507
Status Report of Major General Phillip R. Anderson, Mississippi 
  Valley Division...............................................469-496
Status Report on Civil Works Activities in Great Lakes & Ohio 
  River Division.................................................   443
Strategic Planning...............................................    51
Streamlining the Civil Works Process.............................   328
Success Dam and Reservoir, CA (Dam Safety).......................    99
Success Dam and Reservoir, Tule River (Dam Safety Seismic 
  Remediation), CA...............................................   547
Superfund........................................................   130
Support for Others...............................................    91
Tennessee River & Tributaries, Franklin, Macon County, NC........   181
Tennessee River & Tributaries, Eastern Band Cherokee Nation, NC..   180
The Dalles Powerhouse (Maj Rehab), WA & OR.......................   517
Tillamook Bay & Estuary (Ecosystem Restoration), OR..............   228
Tillamook Bay & Estuary, OR......................................   510
Time of Completion of Projects...................................   308
Tinley Creek, IL.................................................   331
Topeka, Kansas...................................................   229
Total Civil Works Research and Development Funding...............    70
Town Brook, Quincy & Braintree, MA...............................   224
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ............................   319
Transformation of the Corps...................................... 35-36
Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV................................   548
Tucson Drainage Area, AZ.........................................   269
Tygart Three--Watershed Ecosystem Restoration, WV................   182
U.S. Department of the Army Budget Matrix for FY 1993-00........241-245
U.S. vs. Wilson..................................................   171
Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction, CA...................   274
Upper Delaware River Watershed, NY...............................   218
Upper Guadalupe River, CA........................................   270
Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study, IL, IA, MN, 
  MO, & WI.......................................................   189
Upper Mississippi River System Navigation Study, IL, IA, MN, MO, 
  & WI.........................................................115, 190
Upper Missouri River Basin Studies, SD & ND......................   511
Upper Passaic River & Tributaries, NJ..........................212, 320
Upper Rockaway River, NJ.........................................   321
Upper Susquehanna River Basin Environmental Restoration, NY......   219
Upper Trinity River Basin, TX....................................   278
Valdez Harbor Expansion, AK......................................   526
Village Creek, Jefferson County, AL..............................   248
Waco Lake, TX (Dam Safety).......................................   339
Wailupe Stream Flood Control Study, Oahu, HI.....................   239
Walker River Basin, NV...........................................   269
Walla Walla River Watershed, OR & WA...........................228, 511
Wallace Lake, LA.................................................   187
Walter F. George Power Plant, AL & GA (Major Rehab).............99, 260
Water Management.................................................   528
Water Operations Technical Support (WOTS) Program................    80
Water Resources Development Act of 1999..........................     5
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 and 2000.............10, 16, 17
Waterborned Commerce Statistics..................................    81
Watershed/Ecosystem..............................................   452
Watertown & Vicinity, SD.........................................   230
West Bank--Vic of New Orleans (Hurrican Protection), LA..........   198
Western District Harbor, Tutuila, American Samoa.................   528
Wetlands Functional Assessment Methodology.......................    85
Wetlands Issues..................................................   109
White Oak Bayou, Houston, TX.....................................   342
White River Navigation to Newport, AK............................   191
Whiteman's Creek, AR.............................................   209
Willamete River Temperature Control, OR..........................    98
Willamette River Basin Studies, OR...............................   511
Willamette River Temp Control, OR................................   230
Willamette River Temperature Control, OR.........................   512
Wilmington Harbor, NC............................................   257
Winfield, KS.....................................................   283
Wolf and George Lakes, IN........................................   332
Wolf Creek Dam and Lake Cumberland, KY, Debris Rack..............   293
Wood River Levee, IL.............................................   186
Wood River, Grand Island, NE...................................233, 517
Wrangell Harbor, AK..............................................   527
Wyoming Valley (Levee Raising), PA...............................   503
Yadkin-Pee Dee Rivers Watershed, SD..............................   249
Youghiogheny Lake Storage Reallocation, MD, PA...................   181
Yuba River Basin, CA.............................................   271
Zebra Mussel Research Program (ZMRP).............................    78

                                
