[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                      ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2002

_______________________________________________________________________

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
                              FIRST SESSION
                                ________
              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
                         SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky             PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa                    ED PASTOR, Arizona
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi        JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
 JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California      
                         
 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.
  Robert Schmidt, Jeanne L. Wilson, and Kevin V. Cook, 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
 75-198                     WASHINGTON : 2001





                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

 RALPH REGULA, Ohio                  DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
 JERRY LEWIS, California             JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky             NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
 JOE SKEEN, New Mexico               MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
 FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia             STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
 TOM DeLAY, Texas                    ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
 JIM KOLBE, Arizona                  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama             NANCY PELOSI, California
 JAMES T. WALSH, New York            PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina   NITA M. LOWEY, New York
 DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio               JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma     ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
 HENRY BONILLA, Texas                JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan           JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 DAN MILLER, Florida                 ED PASTOR, Arizona
 JACK KINGSTON, Georgia              CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi        CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,          ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr., 
Washington                           Alabama
 RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,          PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
California                           JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                 MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
 ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa                    SAM FARR, California
 ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky           JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama         CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri            ALLEN BOYD, Florida
 JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire       CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
 KAY GRANGER, Texas                  STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey     
 JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
 JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
 RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
 JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York
 DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
 DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
 VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia     
                     
                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                  (ii)

 
          ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2002

                              ----------                              

                                         Wednesday, April 25, 2001.

                      U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                               WITNESSES

CLAUDIA L. TORNBLOM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY [CIVIL 
    WORKS]
LTG ROBERT B. FLOWERS, CHIEF, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MG HANS A VAN WINKLE, DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL FOR CIVIL WORKS
ROBERT VINING, CHIEF, PROGRAMS MANAGEMENT DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF 
    CIVIL WORKS
    Mr. Callahan. Good morning. Welcome to your first 
appearance before this panel, with me as chairman of it.
    I know you are all pros and experienced, and you know why 
you are here, and you know how to handle us. We look forward to 
a good working relationship with the Corps of Engineers, and we 
are happy to have the leadership of the Corps here today.
    We are pleased this morning to have Ms. Tornblom, Secretary 
Tornblom. It is nice to have you with us, the Acting Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for the Civil Works mission of the Corps 
of Engineers. Also here is Lieutenant General Robert Flowers, 
Chief of the Corps of Engineers, Major General Hans Van Winkle, 
the Deputy Commander for Civil Works, and Rob Vining, Chief of 
the Programs Management Division. We would also like to welcome 
all the Corps Division Commanders who are here today.
    Before we begin, I would also like to welcome the new 
members of the subcommittee. A couple of them are not here yet 
and we're going to have to educate them about the importance of 
being on time.
    With the exception of Mr. Doolittle, who is here. We have 
new members, like Mr. Wamp of Tennessee, Jo Ann Emerson of 
Missouri, James Clyburn of South Carolina, and Lucille Roybal-
Allard of California. So when they come--here comes Mr. Wamp 
now, exactly on time.
    Anyway, we welcome them.
    Mrs. Roybal-Allard is ill and she is in California, so she 
will not be joining us today. But we certainly hope she makes a 
speedy recovery to her illness.
    Because our panel is larger than it has been in the past, 
we will try to adhere to the five-minute rule, so that everyone 
can get a chance to ask their questions.
    Ms. Tornblom and General Flowers, the President's budget 
request for the Corps of Engineers presents us with a great 
challenge, and we look forward to working with you as we move 
through this appropriations process. We will place all of your 
written statements in the record, and you may summarize them as 
you wish.
    Before I recognize Ms. Tornblom, I would like to recognize 
my counterpart on the minority side, Mr. Visclosky, to see if 
he has any opening remarks.
    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I would 
join with you in welcoming the new members of the subcommittee, 
Mr. Wamp and Mr. Doolittle, who are here, and the others who 
are not. I would also want to welcome the new members of our 
staff, Kevin Cook and Paul Tumminello.
    I also want to welcome you, Mr. Chairman, as chair to the 
subcommittee. The chairman and I are classmates and entered the 
United States Congress in the same year. I have a profound 
respect to Mr. Callahan and his abilities, and for the ability 
to work with Mr. Callahan. I also look forward to a great deal 
of stability on the Energy and Water Subcommittee.
    I would make note that there were many, many years when 
there was an Alabama/Indiana nexus on the subcommittee, between 
Mr. Bevill and Mr. Meyers, and would point out very happily 
that that connection between those two great States has been 
again put together. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working 
with you very closely this year, and I again welcome you as 
chair of the subcommittee.
    Mr. Callahan. Ms. Tornblom, you may proceed.
    Ms. Tornblom. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 
the President's budget for the Civil Works Program of the Army 
Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2002.
    The 2002 Civil Works budget reflects the President's 
overall goals to slow the growth of Federal spending, provide 
for a tax cut, and reduce the national debt, while providing 
greater emphasis on education and protecting Social Security.
    The President's budget requires appropriations of $3.9 
billion for the civil works program. In addition to these 
appropriations, about $514 million will be contributed by 
Bonneville Power Administration, non-Federal cost sharing 
sponsors, and other additional sources. In combination, these 
funds will provide for a total civil works program of $4.4 
billion.
    The budget emphasizes the principal civil works missions of 
commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and 
environmental restoration.
    The program currently has an active construction backlog of 
about $40 billion, which includes $26 billion to complete 
ongoing regular construction projects, $6 billion to complete 
ongoing Mississippi River and Tributaries projects, and $8 
billion for projects currently in Preconstruction Engineering 
and Design. In order to address this backlog, available funding 
in 2002 is directed toward the construction of continuing 
projects. As a result, no new construction or project study 
starts are budgeted.
    The budget proposes new national studies in two areas that 
will provide information that is needed by the Army and the 
Chief of Engineers to assess potential changes in Civil Works 
policies and procedures.
    The 2002 budget presents a new Administration policy 
towards shore protection projects involving beach nourishment. 
For the initial sand placement on these projects, the 
Administration proposes no change to the existing cost sharing. 
However, for subsequent periodicnourishment of the projects, 
the Administration will seek a 65 percent non-Federal share, reducing 
the Federal share to 35 percent. This policy would apply to all 
renourishment work funded in 2002 and beyond.
    Until now, beach nourishment projects started since 1995 
have not received budgetary support. However, due to this 
change in policy, the budget does include funding for beach 
nourishment projects with 2002 requirements, regardless of when 
they were started. All together, $82 million is budgeted for 
these projects.
    For the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, the 
budget targets funds to high priority flood damage reduction, 
which is on the main stem of the Mississippi River and in the 
Atchafalaya River Basin in Louisiana.
    In the Operation and Maintenance Program, the budget gives 
priority among port and harbor and inland waterway activities 
to those that support higher commercial navigation use. Funds 
for operation of shallow draft harbors are limited to $47 
million. Among shallow draft harbors, subsistence harbors for 
isolated communities and harbors that involve relatively 
greater use for commercial cargo and fishing are given a higher 
priority, while harbors that are essentially recreational in 
nature are deemphasized.
    The budget includes $42 million for operation of low 
commercial use inland waterways, that is, waterways with less 
than one billion ton miles of traffic per year. Funds for 
maintenance of low commercial use waterways are limited to $25 
million for maintenance dredging. Again, these funds are 
targeted to the waterway segments with relatively greater 
commercial use.
    Recreation user fees will be increased in order to raise 
2002 receipts by about $10 million, to an estimated total of 
$44 million. This is the first step of a four-year effort to 
increase recreation user fees by a total of $25 million. About 
$4 million of this amount would be realized under existing 
authority. In addition, we plan to transmit a proposed 
legislative program to Congress to authorize certain changes in 
current fee collection authorities. All of the increased fees 
would be available without further appropriation for the 
operation, maintenance and improvement of Corps recreation 
facilities.
    Mr. Chairman, the Army is working closely with the Chief of 
Engineers to identify opportunities to strengthen the civil 
works planning process. In addition, as indicated in the 
President's Budget blueprint, the Army is considering options 
for strengthening the ability of the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Works to ensure policy oversight of project 
planning. Already, General Flowers and I have restored a past 
practice of concurrent vertical involvement of all 
organizational levels at critical steps in the early 
formulation of projects.
    Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers is the premier 
government agency for water resources project planning, 
construction and operation, for protection of the Nation's 
waters and wetlands, and for emergency response. As a 
decentralized watershed based organization with strong 
engineering, environmental and research capabilities, the Corps 
is very well positioned to continue developing integrated 
solutions to complex, modern water resources problems.
    With the Corps' strong emphasis on technical and analytical 
approaches to these problems, the Army Civil Works Program is a 
wise investment in the Nation's future.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This completes my statement.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Tornblom follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.006
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.008
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.010
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.011
    
    Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
    Good morning, Mr. Clyburn. Do you have a motion?
    Mr. Clyburn. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, because the Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development will be dealing with national security and other 
sensitive matters at its hearing on Atomic Energy Defense 
Activities, I move that the hearing on May 3, 2001, be held in 
executive session.
    Mr. Callahan. The clerk will call the roll.
    Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Callahan.
    Mr. Callahan. Aye.
    Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Aye.
    Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Latham.
    Mr. Latham. Aye.
    Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Wicker.
    Mr. Wicker. Aye.
    Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Wamp.
    Mr. Wamp. Aye.
    Mr. Schmidt. Mrs. Emerson.
    Mrs. Emerson. Aye.
    Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Doolittle.
    Mr. Doolittle. Aye.
    Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Young. Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Edwards. Mr. 
Pastor. Mr. Clyburn.
    Mr. Clyburn. Aye.
    Mr. Callahan. Proceed, General.
    General Flowers. Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee, thanks very much for inviting me to come back 
before you in support of the President's budget for fiscal year 
2002.
    I have a prepared statement that we furnished you, and I 
ask that you make it a part of the record.
    Yesterday, the Mississippi River reached a flood crest in 
Davenport, IA. Their home-grown levee held back the flood 
waters from snow melt and heavy spring rains that have brought 
floods to the upper Midwest.
    When I was there on Sunday, I met local officials, together 
with residents and volunteers, as they engaged in a heroic 
effort to keep flood damage at a minimum. Their actions are an 
affirmation of the spirit of that community.
    I am proud to say that our Army Corps of Engineers provided 
sandbags and technical assistance for the flood-fighting effort 
in Davenport and in other communities, large and small. Corps 
employees have been helping to keep high water from 
overwhelming their homes, their farms, their businesses, and 
their livelihoods.
    I would like to speak of some Corps heroes. The Granite 
Falls, MN, mayor, Dave Smiglewski, had a problem with the 
flooding Minnesota River at one o'clock in the morning on the 
12th of April. The Dike Road levee in his community had been 12 
to 14 feet wide on April the 11th. Early in the morning of 
April 12th, it was only 7 feet wide. The force of the current 
had washed away a substantial portion of the protective levee 
road.
    He found Tom Heyerman at his motel, then Doug Crum at work 
on emergency contracts at city hall in Granite Falls. Both men 
work for our St. Paul District and had volunteered for flood 
duty. The Corps' Crum and Heyerman and the mayor discussed the 
alternatives--the worst case, the probable case, the hydrology. 
The city and the Corps had prepared for this possibility ahead 
of time by adding sandbags in a dry channel where the water 
would go if this levee washed out. This was done to minimize 
the impact of the surge of water.
    They prepared for the flood levels of the 1997. They agreed 
they were ready if the levee failed. Fortunately, the levee 
held.
    Here is what Mayor Smiglewski said afterwards--and I quote. 
``It is a tremendous help to small towns to have the Corps 
present. They know how rivers react. The Corps was in Granite 
Falls close to two weeks, helping us prepare for this flood.''
    Sir, I think you can be proud of these public servants. 
They are 150 strong and they have been working around the clock 
to control the effects of high water on the Red, the Minnesota, 
and the Upper Mississippi Rivers. Their efforts and expertise 
are paying off for the citizens of home town America.
    While we stayed the course of our missions, we have been 
surrounded by controversies over the past year. When I became 
Chief last October, I found an organization that was on solid 
ground. Our very capable men and women have soldiered on to 
provide sound solutions to our Nation's water resources 
problems while we have had our credibility assailed and our 
integrity challenged. We have been investigated by 
congressional committees, our own Army Inspector General, and 
the National Academy of Sciences.
    As to the Upper Miss Nav study and whistleblower 
allegations, for them, I find it unfortunate that the Inspector 
General did not have the benefit of the National Academy of 
Science's review available when his report was published. I 
believe he would have taken an entirely different view of the 
proceedings if it were available.
    Had the Inspector General had that report, he would have 
found good, decent and honorable people coming to grips with 
both the flood economic model and insufficient data. Our senior 
leadership had recognized this problem and was attempting to 
resolve it when the whistleblower allegations were leveled 
against us. The lead economist on the study developed the 
model. He also raised the allegations.
    We received this scrutiny because of our profound impact on 
our Nation's well-being. For example, U.S. deepwater ports, 
coastal and inland harbors and waterways, move 2.3 billion tons 
of domestic and foreign commerce annually. Flood and shore 
protection projects prevent $22 billion in damages each year. 
Over 120,000 acres of aquatic wetland and flood plain 
ecosystems have been added to national habitat since 1998. The 
Nation's investment in the Army Corps of Engineers produces a 
26 percent annual rate of return and has put $30 billion in tax 
revenues and savings into the Treasury. These statistics 
confirm my belief that the American people have invested wisely 
in our Nation's investment in water resources infrastructure.
    Your Corps of Engineers has responded to our Nation's call 
for over two centuries. From the time when we first explored 
and mapped the western frontier to this day, when we help save 
lives and protect property, we have sought to improve the 
quality of life for our citizens. Today, however, as our 
population has increased and our infrastructure has aged, our 
investment in water resources has decreased. The Corps today 
has a $40 billion backlog of authorized but unfunded new 
capital investments that, when implemented, will provide 
benefits to the American people. Our critical maintenance 
backlog amounts to over $800 million a year, and as the 
infrastructure ages, the costs escalate.
    Have we as a society and a nation paid enough attention to 
the future? I say no. In a report card recently released by the 
American Society of Civil Engineers, the Nation's navigable 
waterways and its infrastructure received a D-plus.
    We also heard that same answer from 1,300 people, a cross-
section of concerned stakeholders from all walks of life and 
all areas of the country, when we went out and listened to 
their concerns last year.
    Finally, after seeing our men and women in action Sunday, I 
am more firmly convinced than ever that the Army Corps of 
Engineers has a critical contribution to make in solving our 
country's problems, today and in the future. Ours is an 
organization that has built flexibility into its structure, to 
seek out the best economic, environmental and social solutions 
to our Nation's tough jobs. We strive to bring synergy to 
problem solving. I am proud that our Nation looks to us when it 
needs the best.
    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks, and I am prepared 
to respond to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of General Flowers follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.012
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.013
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.014
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.015
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.016
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.017
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.018
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.019
    
    Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
    General Van Winkle.
    General Van Winkle. I have nothing to add, sir.
    Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much.
    Let me comment on the professionalism and the heroes that 
you mentioned, and the Corps of Engineers in general. Certainly 
I do not think anyone on this panel thinks that the Corps of 
Engineers is not a very professional, well-run organization. 
Certainly we have great appreciation for the employees of the 
Corps of Engineers and the members of your staff.
    Unfortunately, in the past year or so, you have received 
some unfavorable publicity--in my opinion, not justified--but 
nevertheless some tarnish of your reputation. I appreciate you 
defending that reputation.
    You know, in Alabama, we have witnessed the professionalism 
of the Corps of Engineers in times of strife and times of need. 
When we had Hurricane Frederick in 1979, the Corps of Engineers 
was immediately there. We had massive devastation, fortunately 
no loss of life. But the structural devastation to our 
community was almost unbelievable. The Corps responded 
immediately, just as they're doing in the Mississippi situation 
now. They were there, they cleaned up our city, they opened our 
streets, they protected everything that needed to be protected, 
and did it in a very professional and expedited way. So I have 
witnessed it first-hand.
    I was in the State Senate at the time, and it appeared to 
me that some people might have the impression that, because of 
my political position, I was receiving favoritism from the 
Corps of Engineers. I thought that myself, but since I was 
surrounded by fallen trees, I could not care less what public 
opinion was. [Laughter.]
    But I was real surprised to see that it was not only in the 
yard of that State Senator, it was in the yard of everybody in 
Mobile, with trees in the middle of their houses and water in 
their first floor levels, and streets torn apart. The Corps 
responded and did it in such a professional manner that I have 
well respected them ever since that time.
    Having been given the opportunity to work with them since 
coming to Congress, I have grown to appreciate and respect 
their professionalism. And we want to do everything we can to 
encourage you to talk to your colleagues in the Executive 
Branch of government about the need to continue this 
professionalism and the amounts of money we will need to do 
that.
    Unfortunately, President Bush, or Mitch Daniels, or OMB, or 
no one in the White House that drafted the budget that was 
presented to us, understands the needs of the Corps of 
Engineers, the waterway systems, because of their huge 
suggested reductions in your ability to perform services.
    I do not know what transpired. I have talked to the White 
House. I have talked to Mitch Daniels about the process that 
was used to determine the President's request for the Corps' 
fiscal year 2002 operating moneys. Frankly, they do not 
understand what you do. They do not understand the importance 
of what you do.
    Their request for nearly a 14 percent reduction in your 
appropriation levels from 2001 is totally inadequate. I know 
you are good soldiers and I know that he's the Commander-In-
Chief, President Bush is, and I know you have to follow orders.
    But I would like to start talking about the budget, which 
is why we are here, the appropriation for fiscal year 2002, and 
the direction that the Corps is going to take, and how we are 
going to achieve some success, with all of us working together, 
to convince the leadership of the House and the Senate and the 
White House of the importance of what you do.
    Let us start with that question, General, and Ms. Tornblom. 
Let us just start with the process. How much money did you 
request when you sent OMB your suggestions for the fiscal year 
2002 levels?
    Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Chairman, there was no budget request 
this year. The Administration chose to look at the current 
services levels government-wide and then make their policy 
decisions from that base. So we did not, in fact, submit a 
requested budget this year, as I don't believe any government 
agency did.
    Mr. Callahan. Had you submitted a budget request, what do 
you think it would have been?
    Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Chairman, in order to answer that, I 
guess I would have to refer to the decision-making process in 
which we did submit an appeal to the initial passback on the 
budget, which would come as close to a request as----
    Mr. Callahan. What would that appeal have been?
    Ms. Tornblom. It was approximately $6 billion.
    Mr. Callahan. So essentially, you told the White House that 
you needed $6 billion, and they cut you back below $4 billion; 
is that right?
    Ms. Tornblom. That's correct.
    Mr. Callahan. Did they give you any justification for doing 
this, other than they wanted to balance the budget? What was 
their justification?
    Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Chairman, I think the Civil Works budget 
is best understood in the context of the President's 
government-wide priorities, to provide for a tax cut and slow 
government spending and increase in a couple of areas of 
particular interest, education and so forth.
    Mr. Callahan. Was there any opportunity for any of you to 
discuss this with OMB or with the White House? I assume that 
you agree with me, that this is going to be devastating to your 
ability to perform the duties that you are obligated to perform 
under law and under emergency situations, such as the 
Mississippi flood problems that are cropping up.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we were able to discuss 
things at a staff level, but having no political appointees in 
place, we were not in a position to elevate issues to the White 
House.
    Mr. Callahan. Well, you're not a soldier, but I know you 
have great respect for the system.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Callahan. And I know that you have to look to our 
commander-in-chief as well. Would you disagree with the 
President, or with OMB's presentation, about adequately funding 
the needs of the Corps of Engineers?
    Ms. Tornblom. There are always discussions and give and 
take about priorities. It is a normal part of the process, 
although it certainly is more severe this year than in the 
past.
    Mr. Callahan. So if, indeed, we adhere to the President's 
request, the Corps of Engineers is going to be seriously 
hamstrung with respect to their ability to respond to the needs 
of the waterway systems and all of the restoration projects 
that we have, the beach restorations, all of the projects that 
we have. Would you say it seriously jeopardizes the ability of 
the Corps to fulfill their missions?
    Ms. Tornblom. For many projects, that would be correct, Mr. 
Chairman. Again, the resources that were made available to us 
are directed primarily to commercial navigation, flood damage 
reduction, and a few major environmental restoration projects. 
But even those are somewhat limited and certainly, as you 
describe, the impacts would be greater there.
    Mr. Callahan. Do you know how much money is in reserve in 
the navigation trust fund?
    Ms. Tornblom. The Inland Waterways Trust Fund?
    Mr. Callahan. Yes.
    General Flowers. It's $400 million, sir.
    Mr. Callahan. $400 million is there unappropriated?
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Callahan. So they are using that $400 million to 
balance the budget, even though it is collected to provide you 
with resources; is that correct?
    Ms. Tornblom. That is certainly one way to look at it, sir. 
The difficulty, of course, is that because the Inland Waterways 
Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are subject to 
appropriations, they count in the government-wide score 
keeping----
    Mr. Callahan. And Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund is just $400 million?
    Ms. Tornblom. I think we need to correct that number.
    General Van Winkle. Mr. Chairman, the Inland Waterways Fund 
is about $400 million. The Harbor Trust Fund is well over a 
billion. I believe it is $1.7 billion.
    Mr. Callahan. So that's about $2 billion in trust funds?
    General Van Winkle. The two of them together is close to $2 
billion.
    Mr. Callahan. So you have $2 billion in trust funds that 
you are collecting from users of the waterways and for shipping 
products into the United States. And yet, that was totally 
ignored by OMB? I mean, are they saying they want to use that 
$2 billion to balance the budget or use it for education or 
something else? What are they doing with that $2 billion fund?
    Ms. Tornblom. I'm afraid I don't have knowledge of the 
answer to your specific question, sir. But again, it was a 
matter of scorekeeping and government-wide total spending.
    Mr. Callahan. So from a scorekeeping point of view, they 
said we are going to take your $2 billion and balance the 
budget, and we are going to cut the Corps of Engineers 
operating capacity seriously back to a point that they cannot 
effectively operate? Would you consider that a reasonable 
assessment of where we are?
    Ms. Tornblom. I would have to defer to OMB Director Daniels 
for the correct answer on that, sir.
    Mr. Callahan. Well, we will get back to some more 
questions.
    Mr. Visclosky.
    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Madam Secretary, in your testimony you indicated that the 
budget reflects the President's overall goal to slow the growth 
of Federal spending.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes.
    Mr. Visclosky. Is that correct?
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes.
    Mr. Visclosky. I have a distribution table from the Wall 
Street Journal, and they have a bar chart here.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, sir, I have seen it.
    Mr. Visclosky. You have seen that chart?
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Visclosky. I would note for the record that the 
agencies that have received a cut in funding include energy, 
which this subcommittee also has jurisdiction over. But the 
Corps of Engineers is last on this list with a cut of 13.33 
percent, without any adjustment for inflation, and they are 
last.
    I do not equate, to be honest with you, a cut as a 
reduction in growth. Would you think there is a difference 
between those two descriptions?
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, Mr. Visclosky, I would certainly agree 
with you, that there is a difference. I believe four percent 
was a government-wide average.
    Mr. Visclosky. In the budget for this fiscal year, it is my 
understanding that we set aside $89.3 million for shallow draft 
harbors, and that in your budget you asked for $47.2 million. 
Is that a correct figure?
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Visclosky. That is a decrease of 53 percent.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Visclosky. People throughout the United States who use 
shallow draft harbors, what are they going to do next year if 
that cut of 53 percent would be legislated? What are they going 
to do?
    Ms. Tornblom. Of course, the available funds will be 
directed to subsistence harbors in isolated areas, mainly 
Hawaii and Alaska, and to the harbors with greater commercial 
use.
    We do have reprogramming authority in the operation and 
maintenance account, so if emergencies occur throughout the 
year, we will, to the extent we can, within the funds that are 
available at the time, reprogram funds to take care of those 
emergencies.
    Mr. Visclosky. If funds are available?
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Visclosky. For low commercial use inland waterways it 
is my understanding that for the operation of these waterways 
for this fiscal year we are spending $45 million. It is my 
understanding you have asked for a cut of $3 million for the 
operation of these inland waterways. Is that correct?
    Ms. Tornblom. I thought it was about 50 total for operation 
and maintenance of low commercial use waterways. But your 
numbers may be more correct than mine.
    It is a reduction, yes.
    [Clerk's note.--The Corps of Engineers submitted the 
following clarifying information for the record:]

    For fiscal Year 2002, $42 million is proposed for Operation 
and $25 million is proposed for Maintenance of low commercial-
use inland waterways.

    General Van Winkle. It is a reduction.
    Mr. Visclosky. And for maintenance dredging of these 
waterways, this year we are spending $58 million, as I 
understand it.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes.
    Mr. Visclosky. And I understand that in your request you 
are asking for a reduction to $25 million.
    Ms. Tornblom. That's correct.
    Mr. Visclosky. What do you think the economic impact on 
those communities is going to be?
    Ms. Tornblom. We have not had time to do project-specific 
assessments of that nature, but those funds will be directed to 
the waterway segments with the greatest commercial use to try 
to minimize that economic impact.
    Mr. Visclosky. Madam Secretary, it is my understanding that 
the critical maintenance backlog for the Corps this year, by 
the end of this fiscal year, is going to be about$450 million. 
Would my estimate be correct, that that backlog will almost double to 
$864 million?
    Ms.Tornblom. Yes, sir.
    [Clerk's note.--The Corps of Engineers submitted the 
following clarifying information for the record:]

    The backlog of critical maintenance is projected to 
increase from $415 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2001, to 
$835 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2002.

    Mr. Visclosky. Would you have any thoughts as far as the 
cost efficiency, as far as the budget the Administration 
submitted to us, as far as the implementation of existing 
programs--forgetting the issue of no new starts, which I 
absolutely and fundamentally disagree with--but as far as 
existing projects, are we going to end up spending more money 
on individual projects if we defer their completion into the 
future, would you guess?
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, Mr. Visclosky. There are two or three 
different kinds of impacts. One is just the delay in 
realization of the benefits from projects, so you are actually 
foregoing the benefits for those years that are lost.
    Also, there is inefficiency introduced into the 
construction schedules which tends to increase costs, and then, 
of course, there is the impact of inflation over time.
    Mr. Visclosky. Madam Secretary, I think you understand that 
my concern is not directed to you personally or, obviously, the 
Corps.
    Ms. Tornblom. I understand.
    Mr. Visclosky. I am very concerned about the 
Administration's hacking away at this budget, because I do 
believe that the work of the Corps is very important to the 
economic future and growth and productivity of this economy. I 
am abjectly disappointed in this budget.
    I know we have a lot of other members here and I would 
yield back at this time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Callahan. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to go from general comments to some specific 
comments, but before I do that, let me thank you, Madam 
Secretary, for being here, General Flowers, General Van Winkle, 
and General Rhoades, who does a very good job of looking after 
us in the Northeast. Crisis or non-crisis, the Army Corps has 
been there for us in the Northeast when we have had problems. I 
have been in elected office over 20 years, most recently in 
Congress, and the Army Corps has always been there, most 
professional.
    I think we are dealing with a Corps of Engineers that 
sometimes is not particularly visible. You have been visible in 
ways recently that perhaps have been unhappy for you, but 
behind a lot of good work across the country, the Army Corps 
has been there for the American people. And we know you are 
working with a very limited budget and you are going to 
continue that type of work, and I am here to commend the 
President for recognizing, at least in our New York, New Jersey 
area, the continuing commitment to some critical projects which 
affect our ability to navigate our waterways and keep our part 
of the country open for business.
    So I actually have some specific questions for General 
Rhoades, if it would be all right if he could come up.
    General Rhoades. Sure.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. We all have our frame of reference, and 
while my frame of reference is the nation, I have some specific 
concerns relative to the New York, New Jersey area.
    General Rhoades. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Rhoades, it has been over a year 
since the Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it 
is revising the rules for dredged material placement at the New 
York, New Jersey historic area remediation site known as HARS.
    Can you give me an update on where we are?
    For the committee members, this is a dumping site which is 
off the coast of both of our states which is badly in need of 
remediation. Past practices will no longer be allowed, but a 
corrective solution would be to properly cap it. So I would 
like to know where we stand relative to that issue.
    General Rhoades. Yes, sir.
    The EPA has asked the Corps to work with them in 
reevaluating the technical framework to determine which 
material is suitable to go out to the historic remediation 
site. This new framework will then be presented to a peerreview 
run by the EPA, and from that, they will determine if the methodology 
and the science used to come up with the new standard for that proposed 
disposal of material is suitable for the HARS and the EPA has 
established a date of February 2002 to complete that process.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. So we are not going to be old and gray 
by the time they come back with their study?
    General Rhoades. Sir, I am already old and gray just 
working on that specific project.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. We need to get a move on there.
    General Rhoades. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I know the Corps is not the hold-up, and 
certainly we have the right person as the administrator, but we 
have to expedite that process.
    It is amazing to me the growth in the economy that is 
related to these ports, and were it not for the Army Corps' 
work, your expeditiousness, we would really be in a bind. But 
we need to close that dump and do it in an environmentally 
proper way. We need to enhance public confidence that the 
materials that are being used are of the highest quality. But 
to let things go on and on and have toxins seep out of this 
HARS dump would be, I think, not the right answer.
    I would like to focus just a question or two on the New 
York, New Jersey Harbor study, the whole issue of the 50-foot 
deepening. This is not unique to our area; I suspect that 
around the country, these are the type of projects you are 
involved in.
    Can you give me an update as to the status of the New York, 
New Jersey pre-construction, engineering and design project 
relative to the 50-foot depth?
    General Rhoades. Yes, sir. A design agreement was reached 
with our non-federal sponsor, the New York and New Jersey Port 
Authority, and it was negotiated in January of 2002 and we are 
proceeding diligently with that effort now.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Do you have the money for it?
    General Rhoades. Yes, sir, we do have the money for it. We 
have $400,000 in 2002 for PED, and that is adequate.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Are there any efforts underway to 
implement the 50-foot harbor deepening in combination with the 
Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay channels?
    General Rhoades. Sir, we are looking with our non-federal 
sponsor, the Port Authority, at all of the options associated 
to get some economies of scale with our abilities to go to 50-
foot, and we are working diligently with them to identify those 
opportunities right now.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Time table?
    General Rhoades. Sir, I cannot answer that. I will have to 
answer that for the record.
    [Clerk's note.--The additional information is found in 
answers to questions Mr. Frelinghuysen submitted for the 
record:]
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. All right.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Callahan. Mr. Edwards.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, thank you for being here, General Flowers, 
General Van Winkle, and all of you, for your commitment to 
serving our country through your work with the Corps of 
Engineers.
    Madam Secretary, could I just ask if you or someone could 
fairly quickly give to this committee a list of all of your 
specific critical maintenance backlog projects? I think Mr. 
Visclosky said that totaled about $450 million. Is that list 
presently available?
    Ms. Tornblom. In 2001, the estimate is 435 million, I 
believe, and it approximately doubles with the 2002 budget. I 
do not have a list. There may be some examples here.
    [Clerk's note.--The Corps of Engineers provided the 
following clarifying information for the record:]

    The backlog of critical maintenance is projected to 
increase from $415 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2001, to 
$835 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2002.

    General Flowers. We have a list and we will provide it to 
you.
    [Clerk's note.--The additional information is found in 
answers to questions Mr. Edwards submitted for the record:]
    Mr. Edwards. Examples would be my second question, but if 
you could provide the list with at least a brief explanation--
there has to be a reason why those were put on the critical 
maintenance list--and I think that would be helpful to this 
committee so we could start looking at this specifically.
    My second question is, if you could give me 
examples,particularly I am interested in examples of maintenance that 
is not funded that results in higher expenditures later, and I can give 
you an example from the last several days.
    I visited a Corps project in my district and looked at a 
50-year-old turbine as part of the hydroelectric power plant in 
Whitney, Texas, and the engineers there said that turbine 
literally could fail at any given moment. They critically need 
maintenance funding to see that we do not end up spending ten 
times as much money down the road compared to if we maintain it 
properly.
    Could you give me some examples today, could you give me 
some examples of maintenance needs? If you do not invest in 
maintenance, the taxpayers will have to invest an awful lot 
more money a year or two or five years from now as a result of 
that?
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, just a moment, before General Van Winkle 
gives you those examples, you have just defined critical 
maintenance, sir. Critical maintenance, the way we use the 
term, is those items of work which, if not done this year, are 
expected to result in increased costs in the future or reduced 
services.
    Mr. Edwards. So kind of like trying to save today's budget, 
my family budget, by not putting as much oil in my car engine 
as I know I should, which might save me this month's budget, 
but next year, it is going to cost an awful lot to replace the 
car or rebuild the engine.
    Ms. Tornblom. That is a frequently cited example. I think 
General Van Winkle has some examples here.
    Mr. Edwards. Could you give us some examples for the time I 
have remaining?
    General Van Winkle. Sir, I will give you just a couple 
examples.
    For example, we have some embankment sliding down at 
Whittier Narrows Dam in California, about a $2 million project. 
Were we not to do that, obviously that is going to have some 
severe repercussions on our dam. So if we do not repair the 
embankment, the structural integrity of the dam would be 
threatened.
    Gate repairs on the lock and dam 13 on the Mississippi 
River. Again, we could suffer--if we do not have the gate 
working properly, there could be catastrophic failures of that.
    Mr. Edwards. General, could you take maybe ten examples 
like that, 20 examples--you pick them out at your discretion--
and as honestly as you can, estimate what the additional cost 
would be if you had catastrophic failure. I am sure you have 
cost/benefit studies that were used in building these projects. 
What could be the potential cost, catastrophic cost, not only 
in rebuilding the project, but in lost communities? Pick 10, 
pick 20; we have to start somewhere. If you could provide the 
committee with that, I would certainly appreciate that.
    General Van Winkle. Certainly.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.020
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.021
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.022
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.023
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.024
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.025
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.026
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.027
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.028
    
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Callahan. Mr. Latham.
    Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is a pleasure to be here with you, sir, and I welcome 
everyone.
    I have a concern, obviously, and like we were just 
discussing, you start talking about your local interests here, 
and one major concern in the western part of Iowa is the Master 
Manual on the Missouri River. Last fall, the Corps and the Fish 
& Wildlife Service released a Missouri River biological 
opinion. The opinion will have a substantial effect on barge 
traffic and river navigation from Sioux City, Iowa, south to 
where it flows into the Mississippi, and apparently Brigadier 
General Strock said, ``Our initial assessment is that elements 
of the biological opinion slightly increase the risk of 
flooding and are detrimental to navigation. It is possible that 
the Corps will propose an alternative that meets the biological 
objectives with reduced impacts on the areas.''
    I do not know who wants to respond, but has the Corps 
offered any revision to the opinion to date?
    Ms. Tornblom. The schedule currently calls for the Corps 
providing a draft environmental impact statement that would 
address all of these issues in--is it still June? Is that 
right?
    General Van Winkle. In the next couple of months, May to 
June, we will be addressing the implementation plan of that, 
and I mean, I think really--Carl Strock is here, so I would 
suggest that he give some more details.
    Mr. Latham. Please.
    General Strock. Thank you, sir. I am Brigadier General Carl 
Strock, Commander of the Northwestern Division.
    We have continued to work with the Fish & Wildlife Service 
as well as the Missouri River Basin Association and other local 
interests to try to better understand the impacts of the 
biological opinion.
    At issue really is the starting points for the spring rise 
and for lower flows during the summer. We are having some 
progress with that and as Madam Secretary has indicated, we 
will roll out the results of that in the next couple of months. 
But I think generally people will be pleased with the direction 
in which it is heading.
    Mr. Latham. Who will be?
    General Strock. I think most people in the Basin will be 
pleased with the direction in which we are heading on this, 
sir.
    General Flowers. What will happen, sir, is once the EIS is 
out, there will be a period of public comment. We will have to 
deal with those comments. The target now is to release a final 
master manual or record of decision in 2003.
    Mr. Latham. Okay. Well, as you know, this thing has been 
under much debate for a long, long time, and actually this 
issue held up the bill last year. But it is of grave concern as 
far as what happens with navigation, what happens with the 
recreational benefits on the river, flooding, property damage 
downstream. And if we were to have the situation today on the 
Missouri which we have on the Mississippi today, it would make 
the problem much worse.
    I think you are sensitive to the fact that people 
downstream on the Missouri River below the dams feel that there 
is very little benefit to and all the benefits stay up above in 
recreational opportunities for other states. And basically we 
get the consequences, and none of them are very good as far as 
the perception, at least, and, I believe, the reality of it.
    So it is something that we are going to be monitoring very, 
very closely, and have ongoing discussions about here with the 
Chairman. But it certainly is a huge economic concern we have 
and we will want to work with you. But if we can in any way 
mitigate the consequences here, it would be very, very helpful.
    General Flowers. Sir, you have our commitment that we are 
going to do the absolute best job we can to apply the best 
engineering and science that is available when we make our 
recommendations.
    Mr. Latham. Has anyone actually seen a pallid sturgeon up 
there?
    Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Latham, I just might add that the Corps 
has an extended public comment period planned for this draft 
environmental impact statement and will be holding a number of 
public meetings up and down the river to ensure that all of the 
views of all of the people affected by these decisions will be 
taken into account.
    Mr. Latham. Well, you know, we have done that before and 
had to start over.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Latham. And I appreciate that very much, because I 
think input from people who are affected and who are going to 
be flooded out of their agricultural land along the river with 
high levels in the spring is very important. And obviously 
everybody is concerned about energy today. But if you reduce 
the flow out of the dams, my understanding is you could reduce 
power generation up there by about 58 percent of capacity under 
the proposed plan, and that affects at least 33 communities in 
my district and the Bureau of Reclamation and everyone else who 
gets power from the dams up there. I hope we get a lot of 
input, you are right.
    Just one other thing, Mr. Chairman. There has been a lot of 
concern and debate about the locks and dams on the Mississippi 
River, and obviously we have some problems there today, but I 
would rather look a little bit longer-term when we have South 
American competitors in our agricultural sector and we are 
using a lot of U.S. dollars through IMF and the World Bank to 
build their infrastructure down there. And we seem to be having 
a real problem getting people on the same page as far as 
improving our infrastructure here. What do you see happening as 
far as the ongoing studies on the Mississippi River and the 
improvements we need?
    General Flowers. Sir, we are on the upper--specifically on 
the Upper Miss Nav Study, what we have done is we have taken 
the results of the inspector general report, the National 
Academy of Sciences review, and we have taken a pause in the 
study to form a principals group, interagency, to try and get 
the broadest inputs from those agencies whose expertise we need 
in order to develop the best recommendations to make to all of 
you.
    What we found as we got into the Upper Miss Nav Study--this 
was the most complex study we have undertaken, 37 locks and 
dams on two waterways, environmentally sensitive area, looking 
50 years into the future to try and predict what has happened. 
And what we found is we need the expertise of the Department of 
Agriculture, Department of Transportation, EPA, the Interior, 
to help us as we work our way through this process. So we are 
working very hard now with those groups, a principals group 
here in Washington and a regional group, to rescope the study.
    The mark we have put on the wall is to try and complete the 
study, as already promised, in July of 2002. We will know once 
we have rescoped this thing whether or not that is at all 
possible, but if it is not, they will have to justify to me why 
it is not.
    That is where we are. We have already invested, we have a 
lot of data that we have collected on this study, and we intend 
to use everything we have as we bring the study to closure.
    Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Callahan. Let me comment on that sturgeon now. You want 
to be careful with that sturgeon. We finally found one in 
Alabama and they put it in a pond and a turtle ate it. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Clyburn.
    Mr. Clyburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say how pleased I am to 
be back on the committee and subcommittee and I am looking 
forward to working during this session under your leadership, 
and I appreciate your friendship.
    Let me say first of all how much I appreciate the Corps of 
Engineers. I just want to add my voice to the voice of those 
who really applaud the Corps for what it has done and what I am 
sure you are intending to do under some very trying 
circumstances.
    I was thinking about those people who made the decisions 
leading to these budget recommendations. They must not have 
ever heard of those notorious characters Hugo and Floyd and the 
disaster they visited upon my district and North Carolina and 
Virginia. They must not have ever heard of the old town of 
Princeville and what took place there and how this Corps 
actually saved not just the character of those towns, but I am 
talking about the people there and how they were affected by 
it.
    I have been back to Princeville since--in fact, I was there 
just a few months ago to dedicate some houses there--and I just 
want you to know how much I appreciate what the Corps did 
there.
    I do not understand, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, how, just 
looking at the past ten years, twelve years, and reading all 
the scientific data that are out there about what we can expect 
in the future with these kinds of disasters, how we can look at 
the role that the Corps has played in all of this and really 
feel comfortable with this kind of a budget as wego off into 
the future. I just do not see how this is called adequate preparation 
for what we know the scientists all tell us we can expect in ways of 
disaster in the future. And every time you look around, if it is not a 
hurricane, it is a tornado, or it is a flood or it is something else 
that we can look forward to, and the Corps has always the sort of 
agency to go to in these kinds of things, and these communities would 
never be able to come back if we did not have the Corps there.
    Now, maybe somebody else could step up and do it, but the 
fact of the matter is the history is on the Corps' side, and 
that is all we have to go on in these things, and I just want 
to thank them for what they have done.
    I want to specifically mention Colonel Hill down in 
Charleston, in that District office. We have had some very 
interesting kinds of activities going on down there. We have 
been trying to deepen the Charleston Harbor and the Corps has 
been just great with that. But then, the Charleston Harbor or 
the expansion project down there and what that has meant in 
terms of the relationships that we have to maintain with 
communities in and around that harbor and the trying 
circumstances that have developed, and I want to congratulate 
the Corps for I think stepping in at the right time and being 
sort of a mediator between those constituents of mine and my 
state, because a lot of times in these kinds of circumstances, 
the state officials, though they know what the problems are, 
they cannot quite bring themselves, for various reasons, most 
of them political, to make the right kind of decisions, and 
when they can have the Corps there to help mediate that, as was 
done in Charleston, it saves heartaches for a lot of people. 
You all played a very critical role in all of that and I thank 
you for it.
    So I just wanted to say that, Mr. Chairman. I have no 
specific issues that I would like to bring up at this moment, 
but that does not mean that I will not have a pretty loud voice 
at some time in the not too distant future. But thank you so 
much for allowing me this opportunity, and I thank the Corps.
    Mr. Callahan. Mr. Wicker.
    Mr. Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am going to have a specific question about the 
Mississippi Valley Division and I expect you will want 
Brigadier General Arnold to answer that specific question.
    General Arnold. Sure.
    Mr. Wicker. But let me first just thank the Chairman and 
the ranking member for setting what I think is the correct 
bipartisan tone of this subcommittee.
    I support the role of the Corps of Engineers strongly, I 
support the Corps of Engineers and what they have done, and I 
agree with the Chairman that many of the criticisms have been 
unfounded. And I can only say that when a homeowner or a farmer 
whose property, whose livelihood, whose very residence is 
threatened, sees the Corps of Engineers coming to the rescue, 
they thank God that the Corps of Engineers was created and that 
this subcommittee has insisted on adequate funding over the 
past. So I think that anyone within the sound of our voices 
today could see a pattern developing with regard to some 
changes that need to be made in the budget.
    There are four of us on this side of the subcommittee who 
got here in the 1994 election, the major issue of which was 
that we could balance the federal budget for the first time in 
over a generation and provide tax relief at the same time, and 
we have done that. And I take a back seat to no member, Madam 
Secretary, in my desire to fulfill the goal, the general goal 
of the Bush administration to slow the growth of government and 
provide additional tax relief. And I think we can do that, Mr. 
Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member, if the administration will 
work with us and let us help the administration, show what this 
committee and this subcommittee has learned over time about 
where we can make the cuts and where we must have the money so 
that we are not being penny wise and pound foolish.
    I have a comment before I get to General Arnold, and that 
is concerning the Demonstration Erosion Control Program. It is 
a relatively small program, $15 million in 2001.
    There has been very strong language by this Congress in the 
past specifically recommending that the administration request 
funds for the Demonstration Erosion Control Program. They did 
not do so this time, and so I am disappointed in that and I 
think this is something that we can again work around to the 
benefit of the people, because the DEC is a program that is 
designed to protect highly erodible lands. It is beneficial to 
the environment, it prevents sedimentation out of tributaries 
into the main stream, and therefore, it prevents the threat of 
flooding, it keeps farmers from losing their land to erosion.
    In addition the technology that we are developing is being 
exported around the country if not around the world. Also the 
DEC is there to correct problems that the Corps of Engineers 
has made in past decades. So I think we can work around that, 
and I just wanted to put on the record, Mr. Chairman, that I 
believe that once again, we will be able to address this.
    Madam Secretary, you went on at length about beach 
nourishment. In the hill country, this is our beach erosion and 
nourishment and it is every bit as important to the landowners 
around there.
    Let me just ask my one question, General Arnold, about the 
Horn Lake Creek project in DeSota County, Mississippi. It is my 
understanding that the Corps is investigating the feasibility 
of providing a higher level of protection there in Horn Lake 
Creek under Section 541 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000.
    In light of my understanding that that is the case, why was 
funding not included in the fiscal year 2002 budget request for 
this reevaluation?
    General Arnold. Congressman, local interests have decided 
to pursue modification to the existing project under this 
authority rather than the Memphis metro study authority. The 
decision came after the passage of the WRDA 2000 and 
subsequently, after the decision had been made on what was to 
be included in the fiscal year 2002 budget request. Subject to 
slippages and savings and other MRT activities and relative 
priorities of other work, the Corps plans to reprogram $300,000 
into the Horn Lake Creek Project in fiscal year 2002 to 
continue the reevaluation. The Corps has already reprogrammed 
$225,000 into the project this year to initiate the 
reevaluation.
    Mr. Wicker. Okay. Well, I appreciate that assurance, 
General, and I think it indicates clearly that this is just a 
question of timing that it did not get in there and I 
appreciate the assurance that this money will be reprogrammed.
    One final comment, Mr. Chairman. We have had a number of 
statements concerning the critical maintenance backlog. Iwant 
to add my endorsement to that general line of commentary, and to 
specifically ask the Corps to submit on the record the expected 
critical backlog shortage in Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada Lakes, 
which are vital flood-control lakes of longstanding in North 
Mississippi. So I would appreciate you doing that on the record.
    Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]

    The critical backlog at the Mississippi Lakes is 
approximately $31,400,000: Sardis Lake, $10,600,000; Arkabutla 
Lake, $8,500,000; Enid Lake, $7,100,000; Grenda Lake 
$5,200,000.

    Mr. Callahan. Mr. Wamp.
    Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the ranking 
member for the courtesy and respect that I have received so far 
as a new member of this subcommittee. While I am new to serving 
on the subcommittee, I am not new to the needs of this 
subcommittee and the funding of this subcommittee.
    I want to also begin my service here by thanking the 
excellent staff of this subcommittee, on both sides of the 
aisle, but on our side of the aisle, Bob Schmidt, Jeannie 
Wilson, Kevin Cook, who are the very best I believe in the 
Congress. I really appreciate the work that they do. Tough, 
from time to time, supportive all the time, but they really do 
well and I thank them for that.
    I have two questions that I'm submitting for the record, 
that I would like a written response on within seven days, if 
possible, matters germane to my particular area.
    Mr. Wamp. I want to open by echoing some comments that have 
been made before. My father actually wore the castles on his 
lapel when he served on active duty in the United States Army, 
so I have a family appreciation for the Corps of Engineers. My 
father is an architect by trade. I appreciate as well the 
cooperation that I have received throughout my service from the 
Corps of Engineers.
    But I would also say this, which is maybe slightly 
different than what has been said before. The thing I 
appreciate most about this new administration is there seems to 
be few ``sacred cows''. The Pentagon is supported by, I am 
sure, everyone on this dias. But the Pentagon is now subject to 
a top-to-bottom review, because it is time to hold some 
agencies and institutions more accountable. There has been a 
propensity, I think, in recent years to assume that, if someone 
is in uniform, they are automatically efficient or as efficient 
as they can be. I think everyone should be subject to 
accountability along the way, wherever tax dollars are 
involved, and I think the Corps of Engineers is no exception.
    Yes, we support the Corps of Engineers. We should continue 
to support the Corps of Engineers. But it doesn't mean we are 
where we need to be and we can't improve. I think if the 
Pentagon is no longer off limits, and the first top-to-bottom 
review since President Eisenhower is underway, we can all use 
this as an opportunity to say we can and will do better. So I 
start this hearing, from my perspective, on that frontier, that 
we can do better, and I hope that we will.
    All politics is local. I also would assume that this 
administration looks to the funding of the Corps as a 
Legislative Branch responsibility. When it is all said and 
done, we are the extension of those local needs through this 
process. I am positive that we will improve on this budget 
request dramatically as we go through this process because we 
are the extension of the voices of the people in need and you 
are part of the support team necessary to meet those needs. So 
I am hopeful that the administration sent us a budget request 
less than adequate with the intention, expressed or otherwise, 
that we would, in fact, fix it. We begin that process today.
    With that said, we have a major need in the Southeast 
United States called the Chickamauga Lock. Now, the Kentucky 
Lock replacement, as you well know, is well underway, and 
that's behind us basically. But between now and next spring, 
WRDA 2002 will emerge. I just need the assurances from the 
Corps, because schedules have changed on the replacement of the 
Chickamauga Lock. We have concrete growth, we have an aging 
lock, more than 50 years old, in need of replacement. It has 
approximately a $300 million price tag, and we cannot allow the 
Tennessee River to close because it was the FederalGovernment 
that built these series of dams and locks throughout the Tennessee 
River. Obviously, that is one of those priorities that you would assume 
would be met. But in this day of budget shortfalls and inadequate 
budget requests, we are going to have to fight to make sure that these 
priorities are met.
    In this case, the Chickamauga Lock replacement should be in 
WRDA 2002 next spring, and the chairman of the authorization 
committee, Jimmy Duncan, is from the valley and understands the 
needs of this priority. But the Chief's report has to be 
completed in a timely manner in order for this project to be 
included in WRDA 2002.
    I need assurances from the Generals and Madam Secretary 
that this work by the Corps will be finished in a timely manner 
in order for the Chickamauga Lock replacement to be included in 
the authorization bill in 2002 so that we can begin the 
appropriations based on that authorization the following year.
    General Flowers. Sir, you will have the Chief's Report in 
time.
    Mr. Wamp. Not later than May, 02; is that what I heard?
    Ms. Tornblom. Excuse me. I will have to say we will do 
everything we can to support getting that Chief's Report to 
you. It will have to go through Army and Executive Branch 
review on its way to Congress.
    Mr. Wamp. I understand.
    Ms. Tornblom. We will do everything we can to expedite 
that.
    Mr. Wamp. As you know, each and every week I am available 
to work with you in every way, running traps, making calls, 
whatever is necessary. But I just need to know that there is a 
wall that we will not try to penetrate on the timing associated 
with this, so that when I go to Congressman Duncan, we have 
done the work necessary to move the project forward.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Callahan. Mr. Doolittle.
    Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I 
appreciate being a member of this committee, of Energy and 
Water, because we have critical shortages of both in the State 
that I represent, and certainly in the region that I represent. 
I really look forward to working with you and our members, and 
with Mr. Visclosky and his members, as we seek to address these 
issues.
    I support President Bush strongly and his priorities, and I 
am confident that he would support the development of our 
critical infrastructure in this country.
    Mr. Edwards mentioned the old turbine, and as I recall from 
my past service as Chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee 
reviewing power generation at Federal dams throughout the 
country, the percentage of time these assets are generating 
power has actually declined. That is due to inadequate 
maintenance. So there is a real issue there that needs to be 
addressed. I, for one, intend to do whatever I can to support 
efforts to address it.
    Now, in our region, General Flowers, we have a real 
problem. I heard you talking about Davenport. It was 
fascinating to me to watch the Davenport news coverage, where 
they know days in advance when the river is going to crest, and 
the Corps of Engineers and others have worked tirelessly to 
prepare for that, so far successfully.
    We have flowing through my district a river which is much 
bigger than people originally believed and, as a result, I 
believe the maximum notice we get on a flood is 12 hours. We 
have come within a hair's breath now twice, within 
approximately a ten year period, of breaching our 20-25 foot 
levees and having a tidal wave engulf hundreds of thousands of 
residents in Sacramento. We have the least amount of flood 
protection of any major community in the Nation.
    There is a facility that would provide that flood 
protection, provide water, provide recreation, provide energy. 
It's known as the Auburn Dam, an authorized Bureau of 
Reclamation project. There are studies underway by the Corps 
for the region, but they are limited only to the flood control 
aspects of the American River.
    My question to you, General, is it possible for the Corps 
of Engineers to expand this study to include as an alternative 
a multi-purpose Auburn Dam?
    General Flowers. Sir, as you are aware, this is a very 
controversial issue. The Corps has been working this issue for 
a good number of years. The alternatives that are being looked 
at now have been carefully thought through and vetted with all 
of the local interests.
    Our belief is that carrying through the study as it is 
presently designed is probably the best way to go at this time. 
Should the results of that study turn out and indicate that we 
are not going to be able to provide flood protection, then I 
think we need to investigate other alternatives--and that may 
be one of them.
    Mr. Doolittle. General, I have to tell you, I have a real 
problem with that. Your own studies show that the most flood 
protection that you can provide is about 140 years, after 
spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do so, whereas a 
major new dam would bring us up over a 400 year level of flood 
protection. So I can tell you already what your ongoing study 
is going to show. It's going to provide inadequate flood 
protection by definition.
    As a member from the region, I have to tell you, I really 
think the time is long overdue to go back and revisit. As long 
as you are doing the study, to not consider the one alternative 
that actually does provide adequate flood protection according 
to your standards, by the way, not even mine, to leave that out 
of the study is unacceptable to me.
    Well, if you were to put it in the study after you have 
considered this, which I realize you may or may not do, but how 
much of a delay would it cause?
    General Flowers. I think it's about a two year delay, sir.
    Mr. Doolittle. Okay. So if it were a two year delay, would 
that get it in time for the--I guess the next WRDA would be----
    General Flowers. 2004.
    Mr. Doolittle. So would it be in time for that?
    General Flowers. Yes, sir, based on the two year delay.
    Mr. Doolittle. And how much additional funding would be 
required to modify the study?
    General Flowers. A million dollars, sir.
    Mr. Doolittle. A million dollars. That would have to be 
provided this year if we were to go ahead?
    General Flowers. Yes, sir. We're talking 2002.
    Mr. Doolittle. Well, I would hope you and I might be able 
to talk further about this, with a view towards coming up with 
a solution. But you know what our energy crisis is. That Auburn 
Dam would generate up to 600 additional megawatts, which I 
think is enough power for basically theSacramento region, or 
much of it. And the water crisis is just as bad, if not worse, than the 
energy crisis. It is just not being focused on right now.
    Here is a proposal that I think really needs to be looked 
at because, if we're going to spend these hundreds of millions 
of dollars, we might as well solve a few problems at once, as 
opposed to inadequately solving only one of the problems.
    Let me move on from that to the Folsom Dam modification 
project, which is underway. I have supported that, as long as 
we mitigate to the maximum extent possible the traffic impacts 
that result from the construction of the project. As you know, 
the city of Folsom is split by the American River, and it 
exists on both sides of it. Eldorado County needs to get across 
that dam road--about 16,000 cars a day go across the road.
    Now I understand that we're seeing in the environmental 
assessment for the Folsom modification plan that the Corps is 
proposing significant closures of the Folsom Dam road, 
including 16 weekend closures, 750 night closures, and 30 
weekday closures, over the term of the construction.
    I just want to express to you my concern. That would be an 
intolerably high level of disruption. I just want to manifest 
my concern to you about that. It is not consistent with what I 
understood to be the representation of the Corps when we 
authorized this, that it would at a more minimal level.
    Could you give me your reaction to this?
    General Flowers. Sir, let me ask the Division Engineer from 
our South Pacific Division to come up and help talk you through 
that.
    I do look forward to working with you, however, on the 
Auburn Dam issue.
    Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
    General Madsen. Sir, I am Brigadier General Peter Madsen, 
Commander of the South Pacific Division.
    We recognize on Folsom Dam the real trouble we're going to 
have with traffic as we go through the modifications of the dam 
features there and that particular bridge. I will assure you 
that we are going to try to work through all the different 
alternatives and try to minimize the traffic impacts. It's a 
tough area. There is really only one good access across the 
riverway at that point. Nonetheless, we are going to work 
through all the alternatives to try to minimize what those 
impacts will be.
    Mr. Doolittle. Well, thank you. Let me encourage you to 
work directly with the officials of the city of Folsom and try 
to produce something that is acceptable to them.
    I also have, Mr. Chairman, three questions which I will 
just tender in writing, and would request a timely response.
    I thank you, ladies and gentleman, for this opportunity.
    Mr. Callahan. To give you a little background and history 
with the Corps of Engineers, my mother celebrated her 92nd 
birthday April 13th. She is still in good health, although she 
is going through some therapy right now.
    But she, too, retired from the Corps of Engineers, and with 
the assistance she got from her paycheck, raised nine kids, 
some of whom turned out to be something.
    Nevertheless, we, too, have that history.
    I don't want to go into a deep review today. But first of 
all, let me say to all the members of the committee that I 
would like you to submit any questions that you have, 
preferably today, and General and Madam Secretary, we would 
appreciate your quick response to these questions because we 
are going to be working with a limited amount of time in our 
efforts to try to reestablish in the minds of the 
administration the importance of the Corps of Engineers and to 
find some methodology of coming forth with a reasonable 
Appropriation level to assist you all in your endeavors for 
fiscal year 2002.
    I don't know how we are going to do that, but we will have 
to do it in a bipartisan fashion. I suppose that ultimately 
we're going to have to have a showdown with the President. We 
haven't had that opportunity at this point, but I suppose there 
will come a time in the next few weeks when he is going to need 
us, this committee, and especially those that fully understand 
the error in OMB's submission of this budget for the Corps.
    I guess what we are going to have to do is put up some road 
barrier on something else in order to get an audience in the 
Oval Office to pass on the concerns that I am sure you have, 
and yet are not reflecting in your testimony today. You are not 
indicating to me that you have any real concern about the fact 
that you have been shafted by OMB.
    You have to realize that this is a very serious situation, 
that the 302(b) allocations are going to be coming forth. If 
they come forth in the fashion as suggested by the 
Administration, we are going to have a very difficult time 
bringing your level of funding up to a necessary level. You 
know, we are going to do what we can do, but we need some help 
from you guys, too. We need help from the Pentagon, we need 
help from all of you. We are trying to help you. We are not 
trying to hurt you, and I know privately you all tell me that. 
``That's great. Do that, Sonny.'' But you have got to be vocal. 
You have got to get out there, too, in front of this parade. 
You have got to make your concerns known.
    I mean, you can sit here and talk about the heroes, 
General, that have come into focus during the Mississippi River 
flooding problems. But I haven't seen you on television, orany 
of you, indicating the fact that here we are facing the most serious 
dilemma facing the Corps of Engineers, maybe in it's history, from a 
funding level. And yet you are saying ``We'll let this committee take 
care of it.''
    You guys have got to get involved in this process. You have 
got to convince the Administration that what they submitted was 
submitted in such a hurried fashion, regardless of the 
circumstances--and I know Mitch Daniels told us he only had 
three days to prepare this budget--but we came out at the 
bottom of this list printed in the Wall Street Journal.
    If you look at all the increases in the President's 
proposal--I think you mentioned it, Pete, in some of your 
comments--you look at the Corps of Engineers at the very bottom 
of this list of funding, a 13.33 percent reduction. Now, we 
can't grab that money out of the air. We have got to have some 
help. We will do everything we can, and based upon what I have 
heard today, I am sure the committee is willing to do it.
    But what are you guys going to do to help us?
    Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Chairman, I will make a commitment to you 
to bring this to the attention of the new Secretary of the 
Army. I will have an opportunity to talk to him tomorrow.
    Mr. Callahan. Well, when are we going to have a new 
Secretary of the Army?
    Ms. Tornblom. I really don't think it is fair to ask the 
military officers, however, to publicly oppose the President's 
budget. But I can make a commitment to you that, within the 
Administration, I will do everything I can to turn this around.
    General Flowers. And I will tell you, sir, that--I am not 
speaking in opposition to the budget. I will just tell you the 
effect it has and hope that the description I am going to give 
you now helps.
    That is, we are going to only be able to fund ongoing 
projects at about 57 percent of what we should be funding them 
at. That's an average. Some are greater, some are lower.
    What that means is, you are going to have about $5.8 
billion in foregone benefits, and about another $.5 billion in 
losses, mostly due to interest, this year. Any Congressional 
adds that obviously are not budgeted for fiscal year 2002 will 
have to be terminated, so there will be additional termination 
costs for any congressional adds that don't get funded in 2002. 
Those will also come out of the budget.
    Our commitment is to try to do the absolute best job we can 
with what we have been given to work with, and we will try to 
apply the money in as smart a fashion as possible to benefit 
the taxpayers. But a 14 percent cut is a 14 percent cut, and 
you are absolutely right, sir. It hurts. We will do our best.
    Mr. Callahan. Indeed, Madam Secretary, you seem to take 
some issue with my position in trying to put these Generals on 
the spot. I am not trying to put them on the spot. I am trying 
to emphasize to the Administration that they made a very 
serious error.
    If you won't tell it, and they can't say it because they 
are soldiers, who is going to say it? You know, maybe someone 
will convey it to the President, that I am serious about this. 
But I am not going to sit idly by and in my first year as 
Chairman of this Subcommittee, funding the Corps of Engineers, 
to just let the Corps of Engineers disintegrate. I am not going 
to do it, and I am asking you for help.
    I do not care what position you hold in the Cabinet. I do 
not care what position you hold in the Army. I am telling you, 
we have a very serious problem, the most serious problem facing 
the Corps in its history, under the worst of circumstances 
because of the Mississippi River study problem, and yet here 
you are undermining the very people that the President will be 
coming to to help him on everything else.
    He wants my help on the tax cuts. He wants my help on 
energy projects. He wants my help on all of his foreign 
operations. He wants my help on defense. But I just can't sit 
idly by and let him go through this charade, which is what it 
is--it is not going to be this. But we need some help. If you 
can't do it, so be it. Then don't come running to us saying the 
Congress cut you, which is what most of the government does. 
They are going to wind up blaming it on the Congress of the 
United States.
    We had 1,100 requests from Members last year for projects. 
These are not ``pork'' projects. These are projects underway. 
These are projects to stop flooding. These are projects to stop 
beach erosion. These are projects to help people and to make 
this a better country.
    I am not going to sit idly by and let all this be destroyed 
and let you all, in the administrative branch of government, do 
what they have been doing for the past 15 years. ``Well, the 
reason we cannot do it is because Congress didn't give us 
enough money.'' That is not going to be the situation.
    The Administration is not asking for a sufficient amount of 
money to adequately fund the Corps of Engineers, and somewhere, 
somehow or another, that message has got to be given to the 
Administration, and it has to be done in a public fashion.
    I don't know who else to complain to. Who should I complain 
to? I have not met with the President. He has not bothered to 
call me on this. He contacted me because he had a pet project--
not a water project, but another project. I am sure we will 
have this opportunity, and I am sure this subcommittee will, 
too.
    I am sorry I cut in all you all's time.
    I am sorry, Jo Ann.
    Mrs. Emerson. You were talking and I was agreeing with you. 
Just keep going.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I had to leave for a minute, 
General Flowers, Secretary Tornblom, and General Van Winkle. 
Thank you for being here and thanks for the excellent job that 
you all do.
    I am happy to see General Arnold here, the Mississippi 
River Commander, and General Anderson, who used to have that 
job.
    It has really been a great pleasure for me to work with all 
of you.
    I want to get back to a question that Congressman Visclosky 
asked about the whole issue of shallow draft harbors. My 
concern is, obviously, with what Mr. Visclosky said about the 
definite shortfall in that budget. But it is my understanding--
and I could be wrong--that the shallow draft harbors which 
carry less than a billion ton miles of commodity flow per year 
were not funded in this Administration's budget. Is that 
correct, General Flowers, or Secretary Tornblom?
    Ms. Tornblom. That is very close. What we did was, because 
of the limited funding and the policy of allocating available 
funds to areas with more commercial use, we had to limit our 
funding for shallow draft harbors to $47 million, and for low-
use waterways, we limited the funding to about $50 million 
total, I believe half for operation and half for maintenance. 
For the low-use waterways, we used a criteria of a billion ton 
miles.
    For waterways with less traffic than that, through General 
Flowers, we instructed the field commanders to look at their 
programs, and for all the projects in that category, look at 
them and put the limited funds where there was more, rather 
than less, commercial use.
    [Clerk's note.--The Corps of Engineering provided the 
following clarifying material for the record:]

    For Fiscal Year 2002, $42 million is proposed for Operation 
and $25 million is proposed for Maintenance of low commercial-
use inland waterways.

    Mrs. Emerson. Okay. In other words, what you are telling me 
basically is that all of the small towns and small communities 
up and down in my district on the Mississippi River, which is a 
very important, if not the most important river in the country, 
all of those communities are now going to be left without 
critical maintenance dredging, while the big ports will get it; 
is that correct, in essence?
    Ms. Tornblom. It is not totally. We do have about $25 
million for maintenance of the low-use waterways, but it will 
be allocated to those segments of the low-use waterways where 
there is higher use, and then we will be prepared to take care 
of emergencies if and when they arise.
    Mrs. Emerson. I'm thinking about my district. I have the 
New Madrid County Port. I have Pemiscot County Harbor. We have 
commodities going to market to New Orleans through here. I 
mean, I cannot even envision that this Administration would 
want to hurt rural America in this way.
    Was this your determination after OMB told you this was the 
bottom line, that we are giving you this number, or this 
particular line item, or is this something that you all came up 
with on your own?
    Ms. Tornblom. This is instructions we received from OMB.
    Mrs. Emerson. So let me then ask a technical question, and 
maybe this should go to General Flowers--you all decide between 
you.
    If, in fact, we are not able to do maintenance and dredging 
of what you would call these noncritical harbors--which I would 
disagree with--if the dredging isn't done this year, then we 
have problems. If the dredging isn't done next year--I mean, 
what we are doing is ending up with more maintenance backlog; 
is that correct?
    Ms. Tornblom. These projects are part of the reason for the 
increase in the maintenance backlog, that is correct.
    Mrs. Emerson. Tell us again, what is your maintenance 
backlog? How much would it cost to take care of all of the 
maintenance backlog?
    Ms. Tornblom. We have a category called critical 
maintenance backlog, and that has increased from just over $400 
million to over $800 million, from 2001 to 2002, with the 
President's budget.
    There are other maintenance items that are not funded, a 
very large number, but they are not critical in the short run.
    Mrs. Emerson. I didn't ask you that. I asked you how much 
maintenance backlog all together you had. I don't care if it is 
critical or noncritical. I want to know how much maintenance 
backlog you have.
    Ms. Tornblom. It is about a billion and a half dollars.
    General Flowers. $1.6 billion.
    Mrs. Emerson. $1.6 billion. And you all have about $800 
million that is really----
    General Flowers. Critical.
    Mrs. Emerson [continuing]. Critical.
    General Flowers. What we will have is at the end of fiscal 
year 2001, that critical backlog will be about $415 million. At 
the end of 2002, with the current budget, it will increase to 
about $835 million roughly critical maintenance backlog, $835 
million. So what happens is, without that investment of 
whatever the delta is between the two, a little over 400 
million, that increases your critical maintenance backlog just 
that much more, and every year you under-fund it,it will keep 
going up.
    Mrs. Emerson. Right. Now, considering the work that you all 
have had to do with the flooding in the Upper Mississippi River 
Valley, how much have you all approximately had to expend out 
of your operations and maintenance budget that otherwise would 
not have gone to that, and would that require emergency funding 
or would it require--I mean, do we need to offer you all 
supplementary money? Because I assume you are having to take 
money out of O&M.
    General Flowers. So far, we have had enough money in our 
emergency accounts to deal with it out of the emergency 
accounts. There was a carryover from prior years, and we have 
not had to ask for any.
    Mrs. Emerson. Okay.
    General Flowers. And we have probably got enough left in 
our emergency account to handle one more emergency some place. 
We get more than that, we are going to have to come back to the 
Congress and ask for more money.
    But your point on O&M is a valid one in that we do not know 
until the water goes down and we can do a complete assessment 
of what work we may have to do. We know we have erosion of some 
of our locks and dams on the Upper Miss now. We have been 
dealing with it temporarily as the water stays high. Once the 
river goes back down, we will do an assessment and see if there 
is other maintenance that is going to be required. So there is 
a potential it will go up.
    Mrs. Emerson. Okay. And obviously we will be waiting for 
you all to tell us as soon as we need to.
    General Flowers. Right.
    Mrs. Emerson. Let me turn, since we are talking about 
Mississippi River flooding, let us turn to the Mississippi 
River and Tributaries Project. And one of my side jobs is to be 
the President of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control 
Association, and as such, my huge concern is the Mississippi 
River and Tributaries Project.
    Obviously I think that many people would agree about the 
critical importance of this program and the fact that it has 
saved the Government billions of dollars since it was first 
begun.
    I am real concerned about the Administration's request of 
only $280 million for MR&T which is totally inadequate and I 
would like it if you could tell me what is the Corps' total 
capability? Can you tell us what your capability is for fiscal 
year 2002 on MR&T?
    General Flowers. The total capability is $307 million.
    [Clerk's note.--The Corps of Engineers provided the 
following clarifying information for the record:]

    ``Although project and study capabilities reflect the 
readiness of the work for accomplishment, they are in 
competition for available funds and manpower Army-wide. In this 
context, the FY02 capability amounts shown consider each 
project or study PY itself without reference to the rest of the 
program. However, it is emphasized that the total amount 
proposed for the Army's Civil Works Program in the President's 
budget for FY 01 is the appropriate amount consistent with the 
Administration's assessment of national priorities for Federal 
investments. In addition, the total amount proposed for the 
Army's Civil Works Program in the President's Budget is the 
maximum that can be efficiently and effectively used. 
Therefore, while we could utilize additional funds on 
individual projects and studies, offsetting reductions would be 
required in order to maintain our overall budgetary 
objectives.''
    Hereafter, this statement is referred to as ``the usual 
qualifications.''

    Mrs. Emerson. $307 million and you----
    General Flowers. $370 million. Sorry.
    Mrs. Emerson. $370 million.
    General Flowers. $370 million.
    Mrs. Emerson. But yet the Administration only requested$280 
million. And does that $370 million take into--is that all that you 
think that you would need for this year?
    General Flowers. That would be our capability to execute in 
fiscal year 2002, would be $370 million. What we have done with 
the money that is currently in the budget, it will take care of 
projects on the main stem of the Mississippi, and what that 
does is essentially for projects that were on the tributaries, 
would probably put them at greater risk.
    [Clerk's note.--The Corps of Engineers provided the 
following clarifying information for the record:]

    The capability of the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
Program is $400 million.

    Mrs. Emerson. So in other words, the $280 million would 
take care of the main stem, but not any of the tributaries, 
which often cause more problems anyway?
    General Flowers. Correct.
    Mrs. Emerson. So that would totally have to be put over to 
another time.
    General Flowers. That is right.
    Mrs. Emerson. Okay. Thank you very, very much.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Callahan. Thank you, ma'am. I am sorry I did not see 
you come back.
    Mrs. Emerson. That is all right.
    Mr. Callahan. Pete, I am going to let you in just a minute. 
I started to tell the committee--I do not know if I got it 
out--that we should all submit any questions that we have today 
and encourage them to respond within seven days. I did not know 
if I got that out or not.
    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, you did, and I have visited 
with my colleagues who are present today and it is not a 
problem for us.
    Mr. Callahan. Okay.
    Mr. Visclosky. I might just point out that I do not know 
Mr. Pastor's status and Ms. Allard is obviously ill.
    Mr. Callahan. Well, obviously we will make exemptions if 
there is some valid reason for that.
    Let me just touch on two or three things, Pete, and then I 
will just turn it over to you.
    There is some speculation that there is going to be an 
emergency supplemental appropriation for our defense needs, and 
I would like to request that if that is going to be the case, 
that you go ahead and go to OMB and to the Administration and 
say include in that request to Congress some emergency 
supplemental monies that will be necessary for the operation of 
the Corps. It is an emergency situation if we only appropriate 
what they have suggested, and one way to get around that is to 
have them recognize their error and request an emergency 
supplemental appropriation to offset some of the Army's 
problems that they are going to be faced with. So if there is 
going to be one, I would encourage you to try to use that 
opportunity.
    Ms. Tornblom. We will be happy to take that up with----
    Mr. Callahan. Okay.
    Number two, let us talk briefly about new starts. Now, you 
say there is not going to be any new starts. What is a new 
start?
    Ms. Tornblom. A new start is normally considered for 
construction, the first time a project receives funds in a 
construction account unless it is specifically limited to 
some----
    Mr. Callahan. So the Congress passed a bill last year and 
told you to do some new starts with good justification, and now 
you are saying you are not going to do what Congress told you 
to do?
    Ms. Tornblom. I am sorry. You are speaking of the 
authorization bill?
    Mr. Callahan. I am talking the appropriations bill and new 
starts of the authorization bill.
    Ms.  Tornblom. Right. We normally reserve the phrase ``new 
start'' for the appropriations process, but there certainly 
were authorizations also last year.
    Mr. Callahan. I know that, but if we funded it, not only 
did we authorize it, we funded it; in a sense, we told you to 
do it. And now, is the Administration now saying they are not 
going to do some of those things we told them to do?
    Ms. Tornblom. Bear with me while I grab a piece of paper 
here.
    There were 104 unbudgeted projects added in theconstruction 
account last year, and we have been able to provide continuing funds 
for only 36 of those. I believe that is the answer to the question you 
were getting at.
    Mr. Callahan. So 36 of the new starts----
    Ms. Tornblom. This was a combination of--was this all new 
starts? It is continuing and new--this includes both continuing 
and new start projects. There were 104 unbudgeted projects that 
funding was added for, and we have budgeted funding to continue 
36 of those.
    Mr. Callahan. And how did you decide the priority----
    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman--and I do not mean to 
interrupt, but I think one of the questions the Chairman is 
asking is we earmarked new starts. Are all of those going to 
start this year?
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, we will be carrying out the----
    Mr. Visclosky. All of them will start this year.
    Ms. Tornblom [continuing]. 2001 program as directed in the 
bill and the reports accompanying the 2001 appropriation.
    Mr. Callahan. So all of the----
    Ms. Tornblom. We will carry out the 2001 program as 
appropriated.
    Mr. Callahan. That was not my understanding, but that is 
good news.
    Ms. Tornblom. 2001, yes.
    Mr. Callahan. Yes.
    Ms. Tornblom. But in addition, there are many----
    Mr. Callahan. But you have not requested second-year----
    Ms. Tornblom. That is correct.
    Mr. Callahan [continuing]. Funding, so what you would be 
doing is terminating the project midstream, causing you to 
spend money on termination costs.
    Ms. Tornblom. For those projects that had continuing 
contracts, that is correct, sir.
    Mr. Callahan. How about the Florida Everglades? Is that a 
new start?
    Ms.  Tornblom. No, sir. That was a new start last year.
    Mr. Callahan. That is what I am saying.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes.
    Mr. Callahan. Are you advocating you continue that?
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, sir, along with----
    Mr. Callahan. What made you establish that priority over 
some other new start?
    Ms. Tornblom. That is budgeted along with the 35 other 
projects that were found to be--it had been reviewed by the----
    Mr. Callahan. Who made the determination? You did not have 
any input into OMB. They did not really have enough time to get 
with you and ask your advice. Who decided what was going to be 
stopped and what was going to continue?
    Ms. Tornblom. Although the budget process was very 
abbreviated this year, most of these projects are familiar to 
people who----
    Mr. Callahan. Did you go down the list alphabetically and 
say, we are going to do everybody whose name starts with a B 
and stopped before you got to C?
    Ms. Tornblom. No, sir.
    Mr. Callahan. I mean, how did you determine what was going 
to continue and what was not?
    Ms. Tornblom. The projects that were budgeted to continue 
of those 2001 congressional ads were those for which the 
Administration had reviewed them and established a position 
that they were consistent with policy.
    There were also a small number that--on which there is no 
administration position yet and some additional funds were 
needed to complete a review to establish one, and those few 
projects received a small amount of funding to complete the 
study to establish an executive----
    Mr. Callahan. So what you are saying to Congress is, we do 
not care what you think was a priority last year; changes have 
been made and now we are not going to help you continue 
programs we have started that you directed us to start.
    I do not understand how you pick and choose. That is the 
question. Where did you get the--and where did OMB get the 
information to pick and choose projects? Who sat in on those 
meetings?
    Ms. Tornblom. I do not know a specific answer to your 
question, Mr. Chairman. I understand that many of these were 
based on longstanding Executive Branch policies. But as you 
point out, there was very little opportunity for review by this 
administration.
    Mr. Callahan. Would you suggest if we want to continue the 
projects that we appropriated last year appropriated and told 
you to do--where would you suggest we take that money from if 
we are going to stay at the lower level of the request? You 
want to take it out of navigation? You want to take it out of--
where do you want to take it from?
    I mean, we are not going to go back on these people who 
came to us last year and said, help us, these are vital 
projects in our district, they are not pork, they are vital 
projects, 100 and something of them. So we are going to 
continue to fund those things and we are going to take that 
money from somewhere, and you are saying that it is not right 
for me to ask the generals to go to the Commander-In-Chief and 
say it is not enough money, so we are going to take it out of 
your budget. Now, where do you want us to take it from?
    Ms. Tornblom. I would fully support the officers going to 
the Commander-In-Chief, sir.
    Mr. Callahan. Yes.
    Ms. Tornblom. I think that is exactly the right thing to be 
done.
    Mr. Callahan. Okay. All right.
    General Flowers. Sir, we will do that.
    Mr. Callahan. Unless the Commander-In-Chief is convinced 
and tells the leadership of the House and Senate that we have 
to have adequate monies, we are going to continue to fund those 
projects that you started, but we are going to take it out of 
something, so we are going to have to come back to you guys and 
say, tell us where you want to take it from, you know, tell us 
what area you want to take it from. We are not going to stop 
these new starts.
    Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Chairman, if you will forgive a little 
levity, this reminds me of a cartoon in the Washington Post 
when David Stockman was the director of OMB and he in the 
cartoon asked one of the cabinet officers the very question 
that you have just asked, and the answer that was provided in 
that cartoon was, someone else's budget.
    Mr. Callahan. Well, I understand that, but you see, 
unfortunately, we do not have much flexibility there. And we 
can cut the Department of Energy budget, we can do that. Maybe 
you all want to recommend that?
    Ms. Tornblom. We would have to again defer to Director 
Daniels----
    Mr. Callahan. We need some help, I am telling you. In any 
event, we need some explanation of how you determinedwhat you 
were going to continue and what you were going to stop in midstream. We 
need an explanation of that. And I think, Pete, and I hate to belabor 
this, but I think that we should get----
    Mr. Visclosky. Belabor it all you want, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Callahan. Well, I think we ought to give the Corps an 
opportunity. You know, the Corps' reputation has been tarnished 
because of this Dr. Sweeney problem and Mississippi River study 
problem, and the only thing that got any attention was his 
side, and I think that the Corps needs a podium and a spotlight 
to explain their side. I do not know how you get that message 
out, but this might be one way to do it, so I would just like 
for you to briefly explain to me, General, what took place from 
the Corps' point of view.
    I reviewed it and I find that I think there was a very 
serious mistake made, not on the Corps' part, although some 
different things should have and could have been done. I think 
the Corps has gotten a raw deal with respect to the reputation 
of the Corps and I would like to give you all this opportunity 
to respond to this committee and to bring the real facts or the 
rest of the story to the attention of the world.
    General Flowers. Sir, I appreciate the opportunity to do 
that.
    The Congress directed the Corps to study the Upper 
Mississippi and to look 50 years into the future to determine 
what was going to be happening on the Mississippi River 50 
years into the future. A pretty tough, environmentally 
sensitive area, 37 locks and dams.
    I have spent a lot of time in my first six months, when I 
just celebrated my anniversary six months on the job, reviewing 
all of the reports and everything that has been said and done 
on the Upper Miss Nav Study, and I will be very happy now to 
give you my take on that six months plus worth of study.
    I believe, sir, that what happened there was you had some 
very good people, the leadership, the Corps employees all 
trying to work very hard to accomplish the mission that they 
had been directed to do.
    The National Academy of Sciences basically said the model 
that was being used for trying to predict what was going to 
happen 50 years into the future was not one that was going to 
be able to accomplish what you were trying to get it to 
accomplish because it was in some ways flawed and in other ways 
there just was not enough data available anywhere to try and 
feed a model of that nature. So what the National Academy of 
Sciences recommended is that we go to a scenario based, which 
makes a lot of sense now.
    But the Corps, as they were working through with this 
model, and we had used models of this type many times in the 
past, micro-economic model to predict the effects on a system 
50 years into the future, started to run into some areas it had 
never been into before. How do you assess international 
competition in 50 years? What is going to happen with community 
development in 50 years on the river? What about agriculture?
    So what we started finding ourselves running into was 
macro-economics. Remember now, we had committed to finishing a 
project--and Congress asked us to expedite--finish a project to 
predict 50 years into the future in a relatively short period 
of time, and so besides that, what you have is the leadership 
of the Corps pressing to bring home a study on time and under 
budget, those who were executing the study and I think trying 
to do their jobs in the best way they could, to include Dr. 
Sweeney. Now, he developed the best model he could possibly 
develop and was pushing.
    What was happening were results that were coming out of 
those models were counterintuitive, they were not making sense, 
and now we know why--because the National Academy of Science 
told us you cannot get there from here using this type of 
model.
    So I think in that sense of frustration, the leadership, 
recognizing that results that are coming out of this thing are 
not making sense and pressure being put on the teams that were 
working it to redo, come up with--and you have to remember now, 
this study was still in its preliminary phases. No draft report 
had yet been prepared or sent out for public comment.
    So I think in the context of that frustration, what you had 
happen was the leadership directed a new study team be formed, 
economic study team to address this, and it was about that time 
that the whistleblower allegations were made.
    When you read the e-mails and the testimony available in 
the IG report, you get a sense for that frustration and that 
level of stress that was there in that study. I think that is 
reflected in what caused the whistleblower allegations.
    Unfortunately, the IG did not have the benefit of the 
National Academy of Sciences report in hand when they did their 
investigation, and I think the IG tried to do the best job they 
could, and what they did in their findings was just reflect 
what they saw in interviewing those witnesses and in reading 
those e-mails, and that was the sense of stress and frustration 
that was there.
    The only heartburn that I had with their findings was that 
that stretches it that says the Corps has a bias for large 
construction. They were investigating one study and one 
division. The Corps has done tens of thousands of studies, and 
so how you draw that conclusion from looking at one study is a 
little beyond me.
    But other than that, we have accepted the findings and we 
are incorporating them as we move forward. We are taking what 
we heard the National Academy say and moving forward, and I 
think in as efficient a way as we possibly can making use of 
the expertise of those other agencies that I think is necessary 
to come up with the best recommendation.
    I will also tell you that I think the three officers that 
were cited in the IG report are owed a great deal of thanks 
from their country for their service. General Russ Fuhrman, 33 
years in the Army, Vietnam veteran, a hero of the Chicago 
floods in the early 1990s. Major General Phil Anderson, over 30 
years in the Service. Took his combat group to Somalia, brought 
everybody home. Hero of the hurricanes in Florida. And Colonel 
Jim Mudd, the district engineer, Desert Shield, Desert Storm 
veteran, 28 years of service. You have to remember that all 
three of these men had absolutely nothing personal to gain for 
any action involved with this study.
    I go back to my original thing--everyone was doing their 
job. These three officers wore the uniform at times when it 
wasn't popular to wear it, and I think the nation owes them a 
great deal of gratitude.
    So I think we will learn from this experience and move on, 
but I do believe that we are fundamentally sound. I am working 
very closely with the Administration, I will send them a series 
of recommendations on some changes that I think we need to make 
in order to make our study process more efficient, and as soon 
as the new Secretary is appointed, andI believe we have an 
announcement on a new Secretary of the Army, so as soon as we have our 
team in place, sir, I will take my recommendations forward to them, and 
I am prepared to do that as soon as they are seated.
    Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
    Pete.
    Mr. Visclosky. General, I appreciate your comments. First 
of all, I would first of all associate myself with all of your 
remarks today, Mr. Chairman, and under normal circumstances, I 
would not belabor a point, but I intend to today because I 
think that the budget that was sent over for the Corps is 
inexcusable and represents a very, very bad economic policy.
    I would want to first of all, before I make some generic 
comments, get fact to the Chairman's line of questioning on the 
list, as I would like to call it.
    Madam Secretary, how many projects are on that list?
    Ms. Tornblom. I do not have all the names here, but by 
category, there were 96 projects that were not in the 
administration's budget in 2001 but were funded in the 
construction program by Congress.
    Mr. Visclosky. And of those 96, how many would have been 
characterized as new starts under the appropriation bill for 
2001?
    Ms. Tornblom. Fifty, I believe.
    Mr. Visclosky. Fifty. And so how would I characterize the 
other 46 and are they sub-divided further into----
    Ms. Tornblom. Well, they are continuing construction 
projects that, for various reasons, have been deemed by 
Executive Branch in many cases over a number of years----
    Mr. Visclosky. In your testimony, you said the 50 would 
be----
    Ms. Tornblom. Thirty. Sorry.
    Mr. Visclosky. Fifty or 30?
    Ms. Tornblom. Thirty are budgeted in 2002. Perhaps I 
anticipated the wrong question there.
    Mr. Visclosky. Okay. You have 96 in 2001. Fifty were new 
starts; 46 were others.
    Ms. Tornblom. Correct.
    Mr. Visclosky. And then for 2002, 30----
    Ms. Tornblom. Thirty of that list of projects are budgeted 
to continue construction. That includes a combination of new 
starts and continuing.
    Mr. Visclosky. Okay. And if you could for the record break 
that down by project, which are which.
    Ms. Tornblom. We would be happy to do that for the record, 
sir.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.029
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.030
    
    Mr. Visclosky. And I guess my problem here is there is this 
whole amorphous layer between Chairman Callahan, yourself, and 
then the President of the United States of America, but 
somebody has made some decisions here. Were these decisions 
made on each individual project or was this an amount of money 
that was determined by someone or some persons at OMB and then 
you were forced to make those tough choices?
    Ms. Tornblom. I believe for these projects, the decisions 
were project specific.
    Mr. Visclosky. Project specific by OMB.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Visclosky. Okay. And the Chairman asked who you talked 
to and you did not tell him who you talked to. Who made these 
decisions on a project-by-project basis?
    Ms. Tornblom. Well, certainly I spoke with the career 
employees at OMB on many occasions----
    Mr. Visclosky. Who are those career employees?
    Ms.  Tornblom. Are you asking for their names?
    Mr. Visclosky. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Tornblom. The Branch Chief of the Water and Power 
Branch is Rick Mertens. They have a new Division Chief; his 
name is Mark Weatherly.
    Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
    Ms. Tornblom. And above that level is the new political 
appointee who is the Associate Director for--his new title is 
Natural Resources Programs, and his name is Marcus Peacock.
    Mr. Visclosky. Okay. Now, you also mentioned that these 140 
decisions were made based on policy. Would there have been 
different applicable policies for each one of these projects?
    Ms. Tornblom. There were two reasons. One would be that 
there is no Administration position yet because one hasn't been 
established. In some cases, the projects were authorized 
without benefit of an Executive Branch review.
    There are other projects on this list that are known and 
have an Administration position, sometimes one of longstanding. 
There may be a non-standard cost-sharing concern, it may be 
that the project is not believed to be economically justified.
    Mr. Visclosky. If that might, for the record, be enumerated 
as to what the reasons were.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes.
    Mr. Visclosky. If there was no reason and no policy but 
they were eliminated, it would be nice to know that.
    Ms. Tornblom. We will be happy to provide that for the 
record.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.031
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.032
    
    Mr. Visclosky. The flooding along the Mississippi has been 
mentioned a number of times by members and in our 
conversations. The last time I had a flood in my district, 
someone died. And so we are obviously talking about property 
damage, we are talking about lost economic opportunities, we 
are talking about emergency fundings that we are going to have 
to spend that we would not have had to spend if we had had the 
flood control in place, and we also are talking about loss of 
life. People lose their lives in floods. And in this budget, 
for Section 205 flood control projects, there is a 14 percent 
cut; 20 percent cut for Mississippi River flood control; and 
other individual large flood control construction projects were 
cut as well.
    In your comments, Madam Secretary, you also talked about 
slowing the growth of spending and tax cuts, and I find it very 
interesting that one of the components of the budget that the 
Corps brought up was that we would increase user fees for 
recreation by an amount of I believe $10 million.
    Ms. Tornblom. Ten million this year with a goal of 25 
million annually in four years.
    Mr. Visclosky. Right. And that was going to be my next 
point, is that this is the first in a four-step journey to 
increase those fees by $25 million, essentially on campers and 
boaters and those who use these recreational facilities.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Visclosky. Which I think is, my personal opinion, 
disingenuous by an Administration talking about relieving the 
burden of government with tax cuts and then charging boaters 
and campers more money for public facilities.
    There was controversy in the 106th Congress about 
Nationwide Permit 26 and other wetlands regulations. It was the 
testimony of the Corps last year that to implement the new 
regulation, they would have needed--and I stand to be 
corrected--$6 million additional to implement that over and 
above their existing budget request, to ensure that there was 
no further delay.
    I am very concerned that we do not provide enough resources 
to the Corps to do permitting in as deliberate and expeditious 
a fashion as possible for the benefit of the citizens of this 
country, whether they be property owners or whether they be 
developers or others.
    Given the fact that the Corps last year needed $6 million 
more and given the fact that there have been some 
pronouncements by the Administration this year about 
clarification of the Tulloch Rule and potentially additional 
burdens over and above Permit 26 on top of their base, I find 
it disturbing that the Administration has only asked for a $3 
million increase.
    We have talked about critical maintenance a lot and 
understand we would end up at $864 million from $450 million if 
we pass this budget in its current form, and based obviously on 
the comments of the Chair, other members, and myself, that is 
not going to happen.
    What I would like to do is know what that critical backlog 
is going to look like if we spend in 2002 what wespent in 2001, 
for the record.

               CRITICAL BACKLOG FOR FY02 USING FY01 AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         FY 2002
                                               -------------------------
         Business process            FY 2001        Non-
                                      amount     deferrable    Critical
                                                   level       backlog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Stewardship........       79,716      108,372       28,656
Flood Damage Reduction...........      295,604      366,862       71,258
Hydropower.......................      151,707      186,649       34,942
Navigation.......................    1,201,685    1,574,643      372,968
Recreation.......................      241,807      308,332       66,525
Remaining Items..................       39,930       39,930            0
      Total......................    2,010,449    2,584,788      574,339
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And I guess, Mr. Chairman--and I do have a lot of questions 
for the record that I will submit--I would just close by saying 
that my fear here--and this is a very dangerous dance--is the 
chairman is going to work his face off and the people on this 
committee and the staff and people such as yourself, I would 
include you, are going to work your faces off to move this 
dollar figure up. And we are going to work and work and work, 
and at the end of the day--and I hope we do not end up here, 
but at the end of the day, we are kind of where we are right 
now. And then we will all sit back sometime in October or 
November, breathe a sigh of relief, and think, gee, we won 
because we got $600 million more money than we already had. And 
we are going to fall further behind, but somehow have this 
sense of relief that we have all done a good job because of the 
Herculean efforts of the Chairman and others.
    And I just really think this is a miserable mistake, just a 
miserable mistake. So I have had my say, too, Mr. Chairman. I 
thank you for your courtesy.
    Mr. Callahan. I would just respond somewhat before we go to 
Rodney. This is a new role for me. For the last 6 years, I have 
chaired the Foreign Aid Committee, and for the last 6 years, 
the President said if I did not give him more money, he would 
veto my bill. And I kept trying to give back money and return 
302(b) allocation, telling the Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee to give it someone else, to give it to Energy and 
Water. So I fought President Clinton for 6 years and Madeleine 
Albright and the other Secretaries of State because I would not 
give them enough money. And I feel like on the horizon I am 
going to get a call from President Bush telling me he is going 
to veto my bill because it is too high.
    So this is a new role for me.
    I do not know how to get more because all I have done for 
the past 6 years is get less. But you are right, we are going 
to work our face off--is that what you said?
    Mr. Visclosky. Yes.
    Mr. Callahan. Rodney.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Chairman, you are tough act to 
follow. I just have some questions, just to put things into 
perspective.
    Has there always been a critical maintenance backlog? The 
year before last, the year before that?
    Ms. Tornblom. The terminology was changed 4 or 5 years ago, 
but certainly we have always had a maintenance backlog.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just to put things into perspective, 
there has always been a backlog, and some of those backlogged 
projects have been fairly critical. Is that fair to say?
    General Van Winkle. That is true. There has been a backlog, 
and our tracking over the last 8 to 10 years, it has 
significantly increased.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes, it has gotten worse, but in 
reality, there has always been a critical backlog.
    I just have a couple other questions. In terms of 140 
unbudgeted, what are these, earmarks basically? New starts?
    Ms. Tornblom. These are new starts and continuing projects 
that received allocation in the conference report.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. The last cycle were there some that were 
never budgeted?
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, how many, just for the record?
    Ms. Tornblom. I do not know the answer. I know it was a 
small----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. So the practice of not budgeting, with 
all due respect, is not new to this administration.
    Ms. Tornblom. Correct.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is fair to say, too, that when we 
talk about no new starts, there are a lot of ongoing projects 
that would fall into that category. The public should not be 
deluded. These are projects that have been studied for years. 
It is not as if, you know, these are just right outof the box. 
I mean, they are fairly critical. Is that right? In the minds of those 
States, those Members of Congress.
    Ms. Tornblom. Certainly they all have project sponsors who, 
in most cases, have cost-shared the studies and design.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes, so there has been a commitment of 
time and effort, and I think, you know, as a committee we would 
like to recognize that because that is a good-faith effort in 
terms of local and other types of expenditures.
    I just have a few comments on your prepared remarks. 
Relative to your comments in your statement, you say here no 
project-specific new study starts are included in the budget. 
What does the statement mean after that, that is a little bit 
confusing, and I quote: ``However, policy-consistent studies 
that are underway will continue to move seamlessly from 
reconnaissance phase to the feasibility phase, from the 
feasibility phase to the preconstruction, engineering, and 
design, as they receive the necessary levels of review and 
approval within the Corps.'' What does that mean? Is that a 
rhetorical flourish, or does it pertain to--what does it 
pertain to? Does it pertain to this new situation?
    Ms. Tornblom. No. A few years ago, one of the problems that 
the Army and the Committee jointly addressed was a year or so 
of down time in between the phases of planning. In all of our 
efforts to try to speed up the planning process, we adopted a 
practice that we have been calling seamless funding, wherein 
when it comes time to put the budget together, if what you know 
about the prior phase of the study indicates that it would be 
favorable as a Federal interest, a non-Federal sponsor, and it 
looks like you will be able to come up with a viable justified 
alternative, then we go ahead and budget for the next phase in 
anticipation of the favorable study.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. So the 36 that have been budgeted--and 
we have not figured out how they came to be--are going to move 
through this expedited seamlessly----
    Ms. Tornblom. Seamless process does not apply to----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Seemingly a process which has very few 
impediments.
    Ms. Tornblom. That process has not been applied to 
construction new starts.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. It has not. All right.
    Ms. Tornblom. No. Each of them gets an individual new start 
review.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. And for the Committee--I commend 
you for this national dialogue. If there are more specifics 
that relate to how successful the permitting process is--in 
terms of streamlining, how successful you have been, I think 
the Committee would benefit from knowing what progress you have 
made. Since I have served on this Committee for 6 years, how 
specifically you have improved the permitting process, as well 
as in this booklet, the streamlining, the time to complete 
design, and construction for projects. It would be good to 
actually have some data. You have some in here. The average 
planning times for a Corps of Engineers project is roughly 5.6 
years. That is obviously a vast improvement over the last 5 or 
6 years. You ought to take some credit for it, and I think the 
Committee would be interested in knowing at what point are we 
in a precarious state of semi-paralysis, and how we would move 
from that.
    I just want to make a few positive comments, since things 
have been somewhat negative here, relative to the 
Administration's budget proposal, which is recognizing the 
importance of our Nation's coastal programs. The Chairman 
alluded to some of the things you are doing relative to many 
important coastal projects. Historically, you have done a lot 
of good work there, in large part due to the bipartisan support 
of Committee members here. It appears that I seem to be 
somewhat representing coastal interests today. But I am sure I 
do it in a way that is highly bipartisan.
    We are thankful that you have recognized a lot of coastal 
projects which in the past have been omitted from budget 
submissions. I think the Administration deserves some credit. 
As you are aware, there is quite a lot of sentiment among 
Members of Congress, and concerns. And I must say I strongly 
disagree with the whole development of a new cost-sharing 
requirement for non-Federal sponsors.
    Could you expand a little bit on that? Obviously it is 
governed somewhat by dollars and cents, but in many cases, 
parties that have been working with you in a very open way as 
your partners now are going to be required--I am talking about 
municipalities across the Nation--to pony up money that 
heretofore we had.
    Can you tell me how this developed, whether there is any 
additional information other than what you have provided in 
your testimony?
    Ms. Tornblom. For the last 10 or so years, there has been a 
great deal of concern about projects with up to 50-year 
periodic nourishment. There have been some environmental 
concerns, but I think even more concerns about the budget 
impact of these 50-year commitments.
    The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 did provide 
some modification of the cost-sharing for this type of project, 
and that was a great step forward. From the view of the 
executive branch, that authorization, while it was a great step 
forward, grandfathered everything that is in underway or 
authorized. And because of that grandfathering, the Executive 
Branch was unable to support continued funding for the shore 
protection projects without looking for additional policy 
options.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. So it is fair to say some of it is 
budget driven, some of it is environmental.
    Ms. Tornblom. I would say the vast majority is budget 
driven.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. All right.
    Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot of questions I 
would like to submit for the record, if that is all right. 
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Mr. Callahan. The gentleman from Arizona.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, let me apologize for being late. Like many of 
us, I had a Subcommittee hearing, and I have a lot of 
questions. There are about 20 of them. I know that you will be 
patient and let me ask them all.
    Mr. Pastor. Knowing that the Chairman has done a great job, 
I will submit them for the record.
    Mr. Callahan. I would appreciate if you would submit about 
19 of them.
    Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, I will submit them for the 
record. I just want to welcome General Flowers to his new post 
and I look forward to working with him, and I want tothank 
General Madsen and the L.A. District Office for the fine work they have 
done in working with the constituents of District 2 in Arizona.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Callahan. Any further questions?
    Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions, but if 
you are trying to wrap the hearing up, I will hold back and 
return the time to you.
    Mr. Callahan. Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, those are two hard acts to 
follow. I will submit a number of questions. But I do think it 
is important in a public setting if I could ask General Van 
Winkle again, if you could take 3 minutes and continue the 
answer of a few minutes ago to my question about what are some 
specific examples of critical unfunded maintenance projects 
that the lack of funding for has serious implications for 
different areas of the country. I again think the list--much of 
this will come in writing. I think in a public setting we need 
to get specific and let the taxpayers know what kind of 
projects might not get funded if we do not improve this budget.
    General Van Winkle. Congressman Edwards, I would be happy 
to do that, and perhaps I could direct your attention--I 
believe we have given you a briefing here which lays that out. 
It is the ``FY 2002 O&M Critical Backlog.'' Is that available 
to you? I believe we passed it out. If I could refer that to 
you, I think that specifically answers your question.
    Mr. Edwards. Pick two or three other projects you have not 
already mentioned and just list those and what the implications 
are, if you would.
    General Van Winkle. Okay. Let me turn to, for example, 
Portland District Bonneville Lock and Dam. On Slide 5, you just 
see some examples of very much eroded electrical equipment 
there. We have a requirement, a total backlog of about $1.5 
billion.
    Clearly, as you are well aware, in California the needs of 
power are very great, and our electrical power distribution 
system in the Northwest District not only provides power for 
the Northwest but also provides power for the State of 
California. There is a direct transmission line running back.
    And so when we have deficiencies in our power production, 
as we have in Bonneville Lock and Dam, then we very directly 
impact on our ability to produce power and produce it for both 
sections of the country, both very critical. So I think that is 
one good example.
    Pittsburgh District, we have a picture on page 9 of the 
spillway. There you see some of the debris that has fallen into 
the spillway. The spillway is very important in being able to 
move the water efficiently and effectively, and when we do not 
have those structures that perform as they are designed, again, 
we can have flood impact decisions.
    So those are two good examples. Probably perhaps the last 
one, perhaps, on 11, you see in Pittsburgh District, the Ohio 
River Lock and Dam. There we have some holes that are eroding 
all the way through the gates. Obviously, if the gate goes out, 
we will not be able to operate the lock and dam. When the lock 
is not functioning, we have to go to auxiliary. Oftentimes that 
is a lower capacity. That means the barges back up, and we 
impose costs on the transportation industry.
    So I think those are three pretty good examples, and there 
are more in there to explain that to you.
    General Flowers. And I would add, sir, that what Hans has 
said is absolutely accurate. Should something like one of those 
lock gates have a catastrophic failure and fail, we would have 
to in an emergency fix it. In order to do that, we would have 
to draw funds from someplace else and impact something else in 
the system. So that is the critical nature of it, and that is 
where we are at.
    Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you.
    One final comment, Madam Secretary. Of all the enormously 
important issues we are talking about today, the one that we 
members will hear more about than anything is the increase in 
recreation fees. Do you have a specific timetable planned with 
the amount of dollars each fee will go up?
    Ms. Tornblom. We have part of that in place, and we have a 
lot of work left to do to develop the details. We believe we 
can raise $3 or $4 million of the amount under current 
authority by raising camping and day use fees.
    Beyond that, we are still looking at options, and we have 
yet to develop the specifics of a legislative proposal.
    Mr. Edwards. If I could make a recommendation, please do 
not surprise Members of Congress. Let Members of Congress know, 
House and Senate alike, before those fees are increased at 
projects in their districts. And I would recommend you 
consider--if you are going to do that, consider seeing that 
each of those recreation areas get that specific money back. Is 
a lot easier to explain to our taxpaying constituents if that 
particular project is going to get the money back. If the folks 
in Alabama, for example, are having to pay higher fees just to 
send all that money to California recreation projects, it is a 
little harder for Alabama or Texas or whomever to explain that. 
Please, I would hope you would consider that. I think it would 
be helpful for all of us if you did not surprise Members of 
Congress when those fees go up.
    Ms. Tornblom. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Callahan. I wanted to get further into beach 
restoration--even though Rod mentioned it several times, and 
the importance of that. We have problems in New Jersey. We have 
problems in South Carolina. We have problems in southern 
Florida. We have problems in Alabama and problems on the Gulf, 
the Florida coast. And, seemingly, we are concerned about flood 
control, and we want to do everything we can to help people not 
have floods. But beach renourishment projects are in a sense 
flood control projects, too, because they stop the waves from 
hurricanes from coming in. And I am concerned that there does 
not seem to be a sufficient interest coming from the hierarchy 
of the Corps about the importance of these beach erosion 
programs.
    So we do not have to get into specific programs today, but 
I just want to let you know that this is beginning to be a very 
serious concern. And I know that you have come up with this new 
theory of participation by the communities that you are 
restoring the beaches for. But in many, many cases, this is a 
cost savings factor for the Corps, and we ought to be doing it 
based on economic reasons, if nothing else. The very fact that 
it does good and you can do it more cheaply than the way we are 
doing it is something that you should really concentrate on.
    Just comment briefly on that, and tell me where we are on 
these things.
    General Flowers. Sir, I had an opportunity a month or so 
ago to go down and visit with 50 community mayors and city 
managers in coastal communities in North Carolina and get their 
take on how successful this program had been. And as you 
suggest, they were very high on it and were able to cite 
several examples of where beach renourishment has saved their 
communities in times of storm, et cetera.
    And so I think it is an exceptional tool to apply when it 
is the right thing to do. And I believe we over time have tried 
to do exactly that.
    Unfortunately, with the size of this budget, I think to 
hold out some hope that we would be able to continue these 
projects--and I guess I am guessing at this because no one had 
told me directly why the change. But to hold out hope for 
communities, there was a policy decision made to try and 
reverse the beach renourishment for ongoing projects from 35 
local to 65 local. What effect that will have on the 
communities I can only speculate, but it will not be pleasant.
    Mr. Callahan. Well, it would destroy the program, is the 
answer. And in addition to that, regarding the manner in which 
they calculate the sponsoring community's position, it ought to 
include what the Corps of Engineers is saving, what the United 
States of America is saving in some areas because they are not 
having to take this material miles out into the Gulf. They are 
just pumping clean white sand up on the beaches in Alabama, and 
the same in New Jersey and North Carolina. And there is a cost 
savings factor there that ought to be calculated into this. If 
you are going to come up with a new percentage, then we ought 
to calculate somehow or another in there the savings to the 
United States Government.
    Ms. Tornblom. We do have some programs, Mr. Chairman, where 
we do that. One is called ``Beneficial Uses of Dredged 
Material.'' Whenever possible, when the material is appropriate 
and there is a location that is not so far away as to make the 
cost prohibitive, we do place the dredged material on beaches 
for two purposes: to reduce erosion and to in some cases create 
better environmental habitat.
    General Van Winkle. Mr. Chairman, I might add to that. I 
think it is important to note, given your emphasis on this, 
that I do believe we have a good research program in that 
regard. And as you know from your own district, the Regional 
Sediment Management Program is--we are discovering some very, 
very good lessons learned in that. Understanding how sand 
moves, sediment loads move, will allow us to do our job much 
more efficiently. Then as we enter into these budgetary 
problems and more money or the same amount of money will go 
further toward restoring these beaches.
    So I am very optimistic about that. We have money in the 
budget to continue that. We have some demonstration projects 
that work, and I think our research efforts are starting to pay 
some big dividends.
    General Flowers. I think we can make some difference there, 
sir, but your point is one very well taken. Were I to go back 
and face those mayors again, I am sure they would look at me a 
little differently, because without anything, we have turned 
around and more than doubled their costs to replenish their 
beaches.
    Mr. Callahan. If indeed, General, we are seriously going to 
be looking at this reversal of 65-35 from 35 to 65, I imagine 
you are going to get some instructions from the Congress, 
probably in the appropriations bill. It is not going to allow 
you to do that, especially for projects underway, we are not 
going to let you reverse that.
    Now, I would rather you do it on your own, and I am sure 
the authorizers would rather we did not authorize in our 
appropriation bill. But I am sure somewhere during this process 
someone is going to suggest an amendment, probably Mr. 
Frelinghuysen, which I am going to support----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Callahan. That is going to deny you that opportunity. 
But we are going to try to provide you with adequate resources 
where that will not be necessary, maybe. As I said, my past 
experience chairing Appropriation Committees has been almost 
completely opposite of what I am doing here now, fighting for 
more money instead of less. There is one big difference. With 
foreign aid, I really did not give a damn if we passed that 
bill or not.
    No one would come up to me on the street and say, ``Sonny, 
we are going to throw you out of office because you did not 
give more money to some foreign country.'' But if I do not pass 
a responsible bill here, somebody in Mobile, Alabama, is going 
to walk up to me and say, ``Sonny, we are going to throw you 
out of office because you are irresponsible and you were 
inadequate in your endeavors to try to adequately fund the 
Corps of Engineers,'' and we are not going to let that happen. 
So we need to work together, and I am sure that we will. I 
think we all have common goals and we want what is best. We 
want the money spent responsibly, and we want all taxpayer 
dollars spent responsibly. But we are not going to be able to 
do that responsibly with the suggestion that the OMB people 
have suggested. And we are going to do everything we can to 
make sure you have what is necessary.
    But let me thank you all, the three of you especially, for 
coming. Madam Secretary, General, General, thanks for coming 
and for bringing direct division heads in. I hope you are all 
meeting with your respective Members of Congress while you are 
here today. I hope you are conveying to them, regardless of 
what your Commander-In-Chief said, that you heard the testimony 
in the committee giving indication that the $3.9 billion is 
inadequate, that the real world, according to you, is really $6 
billion. That is the request that was passed back, $6 billion. 
So the 14 percent is a reduction from last year's level.
    Now, when you include the $6 billion that your leaders have 
told OMB that they really needed, then you are looking at 
nearly a 50 percent request. So that is a huge, huge deficit 
that we have got to somehow or another reach some agreement 
upon.
    So while you are visiting with your members, briefing them 
on local projects, tell them the real world. The real world is 
that your leadership asked for $6 billion, the President came 
back with less than $4 billion, and that last year we had, 
what, $3.4 billion?
    Ms. Tornblom. $4.5 billion.
    Mr. Callahan. $4.5 billion, that they came back at $3.9 
from $4.5 billion. That is the real world.
    We look forward to working with you and seeing that youhave 
adequate resources to continue the professionalism that you have 
displayed for a great number of decades.
    Thank you very much.
    Ms. Tornblom. Thank you.
    [Questions submitted for the record follow:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.033
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.034
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.035
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.036
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.037
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.038
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.039
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.040
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.041
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.042
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.043
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.044
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.045
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.046
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.047
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.048
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.049
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.050
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.051
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.052
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.053
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.054
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.055
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.056
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.057
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.058
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.059
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.060
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.061
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.062
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.063
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.064
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.065
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.066
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.067
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.068
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.069
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.070
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.071
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.072
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.073
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.074
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.075
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.076
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.077
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.078
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.079
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.080
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.081
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.082
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.083
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.084
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.085
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.086
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.087
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.088
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.089
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.090
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.091
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.092
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.093
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.094
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.095
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.096
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.097
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.098
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.099
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.100
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.101
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.102
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.103
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.104
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.105
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.106
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.107
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.108
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.109
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.110
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.111
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.112
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.113
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.114
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.115
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.116
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.117
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.118
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.119
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.120
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.121
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.122
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.123
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.124
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.125
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.126
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.127
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.128
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.129
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.130
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.131
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.132
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.133
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.134
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.135
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.136
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.137
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.138
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.139
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.140
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.141
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.142
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.143
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.144
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.145
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.146
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.147
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.148
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.149
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.150
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.151
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.152
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.153
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.154
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.155
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.156
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.157
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.158
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.159
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.160
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.161
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.162
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.163
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.164
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.165
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.166
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.167
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.168
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.169
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.170
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.171
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.172
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.173
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.174
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.175
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.176
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.177
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.178
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.179
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.180
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.181
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.182
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.183
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.184
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.185
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.186
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.187
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.188
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.189
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.190
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.191
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.192
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.193
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.194
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.195
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.196
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.197
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.198
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.199
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.200
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.201
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.202
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.203
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.204
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.205
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.206
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.207
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.208
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.209
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.210
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.211
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.212
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.213
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.214
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.215
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.216
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.217
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.218
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.219
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.220
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.221
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.222
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.223
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.224
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.225
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.226
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.227
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.228
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.229
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.230
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.231
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.232
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.233
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.234
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.235
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.236
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.237
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.238
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.239
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.240
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.241
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.242
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.243
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.244
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.245
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.246
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.247
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.248
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.249
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.250
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.251
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.252
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.253
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.254
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.255
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.256
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.257
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.258
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.259
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.260
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.261
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.262
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.263
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.264
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.265
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.266
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.267
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.268
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.269
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.270
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.271
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.272
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.273
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.274
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.275
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.276
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.277
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.278
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.279
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.280
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.281
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.282
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.283
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.284
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.285
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.286
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.287
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.288
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.289
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.290
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.291
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.292
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.293
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.294
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.295
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.296
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.297
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.298
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.299
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.300
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.301
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.302
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.303
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.304
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.305
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.306
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.307
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.308
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.309
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.310
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.311
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.312
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.313
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5198A.314
    


                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                           CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                         Secretary of the Army

                                                                   Page
American Society of Civil Engineers..............................    18
Beach Nourishment................................................     3
Capability Statement.............................................    59
Complete Statement of LTG Robert B. Flowers...................... 19-26
    Assessing the Nation's Needs for Water and Related Land 
      Resources Management.......................................    22
    Challenges Based on Listening Sessions.......................    25
    Conclusion...................................................    25
    Direct Program...............................................    21
    FY02 Direct Program..........................................    26
    Initial Assessment of Circumstances.......................... 22-23
    Introduction.................................................    20
    Reimbursed Program...........................................    22
    Summary of Civil Works Program Budget........................    21
Complete Statement of Ms. Claudia L. Tornblom....................  5-15
    Conclusion...................................................    14
    Construction Backlog.........................................     8
    Construction, General........................................    10
    Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies........................    12
    Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.............    11
    Formerly Utilized Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)...........    12
    FY 2002 Army Civil Works Program.............................     7
    FY 2002 Direct Program-President's Program Funding, by 
      Account and Source.........................................    15
    General Expenses.............................................    13
    General Investigations.......................................     9
    Government Performance and Results Act.......................    13
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund................................    13
    Highlights of the FY 2002 Army Civil Works Program...........     8
    Introduction.................................................     7
    Operation and Maintenance, General...........................    11
    Project Planning and Review..................................    13
    Recreation User Fees.........................................     9
    Regulatory Program...........................................    12
    Shore Protection Policy......................................     9
Construction, General FY2001 Congressional Adds.................. 66-67
Construction, General FY2001 Congressional Adds--FY 2002 Budget 
  Status......................................................... 69-70
Critical Maintenance Backlog...........................34, 57-58, 71-72
Emergency Supplemental...........................................    60
Environmental Protection Agency..................................    32
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund....................................    29
Inland Waterways Trust Fund......................................    29
Low Commercial Use Waterways.....................................    30
Mississippi River and Tributaries..............................3, 58-59
Operation and Maintenance Program................................     3
Nationwide Permit 26.............................................    71
New Starts.................................................60-62, 73-74
OMB Budget Request...............................................    28
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Chet Edwards..329-353
    Atlantic Hurricanes and Drought.............................350-351
    Hydropower Production........................................   352
    Ice Storms...................................................   350
    Impacts of Reduced Funding for Operations and Maintenance...347-349
    Maintenance Backlog.........................................331-343
    Midwest Flood................................................   350
    Natural Disasters Affecting Corps Projects...................   349
    Pacific Coast Earthquake, Power and Environmental Crisis.....   351
    Recreation Fees Increases....................................   352
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman David R. Obey.359-361
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Ed Pastor.....353-354
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Harold Rogers.267-276
    Construction, General.......................................267-268
    Corps Request to OMB for Overall Civil Works Budget..........   268
    Request for Ongoing Construction............................268-269
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman John T.

  Doolittle.....................................................303-304
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Peter J.

  Visclosky.....................................................305-328
    COE Policy..................................................309-312
    Elimination of Maintenance Backlog...........................   307
    Funding Needs................................................   306
    General Budget..............................................305-306
    Hydropower Improvements.....................................318-320
    Mississippi River Flooding..................................321-323
    Public Relations............................................308-309
    Recreation..................................................323-325
    Regulatory Program..........................................307-308
    Western States Power Crisis.................................313-317
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Rodney

  Frelinghuysen.................................................277-289
    FY 2002 New Start Budget Request............................285-286
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Sonny Callahan.    80
    Being Determined Completions................................123-124
    Budget Levels for Increased Maintenance......................    89
    Budgeted FY 2001 Studies, With Additional Outyear 
      Requirements, Unbudge118, 131-132, 164-165, 184, 194-196, 206-207
    Construction, General FY 2002 Project Completions............   123
    Construction, General Projects Completed with Fiscal Year 
      2002 Funds...........................................156, 200-201
    Corps/BOR Coordination.......................................    82
    Critical Maintenance Backlog.................................    89
    Des Plaines River, Illinois and Wisconsin....................   120
    Ecosystem Restoration--Preconstruction Engineering and Design 
      Projects...................................................   155
    Feasibility Studies and Preconstruction Engineering and 
      Design Projects Completing with FY 2002 Funds.............196-197
    FY 2002 Budget............................................... 80-82
    FY 2002 Construction Program................................. 83-86
    FY02 Budget Request by Business Program......................   103
    FY02 Project Modifications for Improvements of the 
      Environment Projects......................................239-255
    FY02 Sections 14, 107, 111, 103, 205, and 208 projects......215-238
    General Investigations...............................92-93, 104-108
    Justification for Waterway Maintenance.......................93-101
    Listening Sessions...........................................    83
    Low Commercial-Use Inland Waterways.........................110-111
    Navigation Project Maintenance Criteria......................    90
    Non-Structural Projects......................................   127
    Ohio River Ecosystem.........................................   120
    Ohio River Mainstream Study.................................119-120
    Operation and Maintenance.................................... 91-92
    Policy Oversight.............................................   112
    Project Listings.............................................   112
    Questions from Chairman Callahan for BG Carl A. Strock......159-174
    Questions from Chairman Callahan for BG David F. Melcher....205-212
    Questions from Chairman Callahan for BG Edwin J. Arnold, Jr.128-144
    Questions from Chairman Callahan for BG Peter Madsen........191-204
    Questions from Chairman Callahan for BG Randal R. Castro....175-179
    Questions from Chairman Callahan for BG Robert H. Griffin...114-127
    Questions from Chairman Callahan for MG Hans Van Winkle.....212-266
    Questions from Chairman Callahan for MG Phillip R. Anderson.180-190
    Questions from Chairman Callahan for MG M. Stephen Rhoades..145-158
    Regulatory Program...........................................   113
    Shallow Draft Harbors.......................................110-111
    Shallow Draft Harbors/Low Commercial-Use Inland Waterways....   110
    Shore Protection.....................................86-88, 109-110
    Shore Protection-Preconstruction Engineering and Design 
      Projects Cost Sharing.....................................155-156
    Structural Projects..........................................   127
    Studies Wi114-117, 128-130, 145-152, 159-164, 180-184, 191-193, 205
    Study Completions...........................................118-119
    Study Schedules and Funding.................................114-118
    Trust Fund Balances..........................................   103
    Unobligated Balances.........................................   102
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Tom Latham....290-292
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman Zach Wamp......   293
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congresswoman Jo Ann 
  Emerson.......................................................294-302
    Corps Reforms...............................................297-209
    Environmental Safeguards.....................................   301
    Flood Protection.............................................   302
    Mississippi River and Tributaries............................   297
    Navigation Project Maintenance..............................296-297
    Navigation Projects in Rural Areas..........................294-296
Questions for the Record Submitted by Congresswoman Lucille 
  Roybal-Allard.................................................355-358
Recreation user fees.............................................     3
Shallow Draft Harbors............................................30, 56
Tulloch Rule.....................................................    71
Water Resources Development Act of 1999..........................    75

                          Projects and Studies

Agriculture Drainage Wells......................................291-292
Alexander and Pulaski Counties, Illinois.........................   135
American River Watershed (Common Features), California...........   325
American River Watershed, Folsom Dam Modifications, California...   325
Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska................................   167
Arecibo River, Puerto Rico.......................................   188
Arkabutla Lake, MS...............................................    49
Arlington Channel, Mobile Harbor, Alabama.......................260-261
Arthur Kill Channel, Howland Hook, Marine Terminal, New York and 
  New Jersey.....................................................   281
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.....................................   142
Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, Louisiana..132-133
Atchafalaya River Basin..........................................     3
Atlantic Coast of New York City, Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, 
  Coney Island, NY...............................................   158
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, South Carolina...................   186
Auburn Dam, CA...................................................    52
Auburn Dam, California..........................................327-328
Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.......................................   140
Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana.....................................   136
Bayport Ship Channel, TX.........................................    42
Beaver Lake, Rogers, AR..........................................    39
Bell County, Kentucky and Pike County Tug Fork Tributaries, 
  Kentucky......................................................275-276
Belton, Eufaula, Texoma, and Lewisville Lakes, TX................    36
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material...............................    78
Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama........................   185
Bodega Bay, California..........................................326-327
Bois d'Arc Creek, Bonham, Texas..................................   208
Bonneville Lock and Dam, OR......................................    76
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts....................................152-153
Brevard County, Florida..........................................   187
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet (Absecon Island), NJ..   157
Buffao Bayou and Tributaries (White Oak Bayou), Texas............   209
Bull Shoals Lake, Mountain Home, AR..............................39, 41
Camp Pendleton Harbor, California...............................357-358
Canton Lake, TX..................................................    36
Cedar Bayou, TX..................................................    42
Channel Improvement, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
  Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee...........................   141
Channel to Victoria, Texas.......................................   211
Charleston Harbor, NC............................................    48
Cherry Creek Reservoir, Colorado................................166-176
Chickamauga Lock, TN.............................................    51
City of Cumberland, Kentucky.....................................   275
Clover Pike, Pike County and Martin County, Kentucky.............   274
Coastal Inlets Research.........................................256-258
Coastal Protection..............................................284-285
Colonias Along the Texas-Mexico Border...........................   330
Colonias Along the US/Mexico Border, Arizona and Texas..........210-211
Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project..........................171-173
Columbia River Navigation Channel Deepening......................   173
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan........................   190
Corps Parks in Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma Within Ft. Worth, 
  Little Rock, and Tulsa Districts...............................    37
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas...............   207
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, La Quinta Channel, Texas...........207-208
Coyote and Berryessa Creeks, California..........................   201
Craig Harbor, Alaska.............................................   175
Craney Island Confined Disposal Facility (Norfolk), VA...........   260
Critical Backlog O&M Projects for the Southwestern Division.....344-347
Dallas Floodway Extension, Trinity River, Texas..................   212
Delaware River Main Channel, NJ, PA, and DE......................   156
Delaware Coast, Rehoboth Beach to Dewey Beach, DE................   157
Demonstration Erosion Control Program............................    49
Denison, TX......................................................    40
De Soto County, MS...............................................    49
Detroit District Environmental Windows...........................   261
Devils Lake, North Dakota........................................   137
Double Bayou, TX.................................................    43
Dredge Wheeler Ready Reserve.....................................   258
Dredged Materials Disposal Facilities Program....................   256
Dredging Operations and Environmental Research..................259-262
Ecosystem Restoration Project...................................286-287
Electro-Osmotic-Pulse Technology................................265-266
Enid Lake, MS....................................................    49
Environmental Restoration.......................................153-154
Estuary Habitat Restoration Program..............................   214
Eufaula, OK......................................................    40
Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Florida......   189
Everglades, Florida.............................................189-190
Fall River Lake, Southeast Kansas................................    40
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies...........................264-265
Floyd County, Levisa Fork, Kentucky..............................   275
Folsom Dam Modification, CA......................................    53
Fort Dodge, IA...................................................   291
Fort Gibson Lake, Northeast Oklahoma.............................    39
Freeport Harbor, TX..............................................    43
Ft. Gibson, OK...................................................    40
Galveston Ship Channel, TX.......................................    43
Garrows Bend Project, Mobile Bay, Alabama........................   261
GIWW, TX.........................................................    42
Grand Forks, North Dakota--East Grand Forks, Minnesota..........139-140
Grand Prairie Region, Arkansas...................................   143
Grays Harbor, Washington.........................................   258
Great Lakes Dredging............................................359-361
Greens Bayou, Houston Ship Channel, Texas........................   261
Greens Bayou, TX.................................................    43
Greers Ferry Lake, Heber Springs, AR.............................    38
Grenada Lake, MS.................................................    49
Guadalupe River, California......................................   202
Haines and Ketchikan Harbors, Alaska.............................   175
Haines Harbor, Alaska............................................   175
Hillsborough River Basin, Florida................................   185
Horn Lake Creek, MS..............................................    49
Houston Ship Channel, TX.........................................    42
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas.....................   211
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas.....................   329
Hulah Lake, Northeast Oklahoma...................................    40
Hurricane Protection, Louisiana..................................   133
Iao Stream, Hawaii...............................................   179
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, Louisiana...................138-139
Innovative Bank Stabilization Techniques.........................   293
Inspector General Report.........................................    17
Island Creek at Logan, West Virginia PED.........................   123
Jamaica Bay, Marine Park and Plumb Beach, New York...............   153
Johns Pass, Florida..............................................   258
Kawaihae Deep Draft Harbor, Hawaii...............................   177
Keystone Lake, Northeast Oklahoma................................    39
Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels............................    33
Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels, New York and New Jersey..280-281
Kootenai River at Bonners Ferry, Idaho...........................   165
Lake Dardanelle, McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, 
  North Central, AR..............................................    38
Lake O' The Pines, TX............................................    37
Lake Texoma, Southcentral Oklahoma and Northcentral Texas........    39
Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland 
  River, WV, VA & KY (Section 202)..............................270-273
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland 
  River, WV, VA, and KY..........................................   126
Lewis and Clark Commemoration....................................   168
Little Diomede Island, Alaska....................................   176
Little Wood River at Goodling, Idaho.............................   165
Llagas Creek, California.........................................   200
Lock and Dam 13, Mississippi River...............................    34
Lock and Dam 2 and 3, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania............   125
Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California....................356-357
Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel Deepening, California..........199, 355
Loves Park, Illinois.............................................   139
Lower Mission Creek, California..................................   200
Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction, California...........   202
Lower St. Anthony Falls, Minnesota..............................135-136
Maalaea Harbor, Hawaii...........................................   178
Management of Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs) by Solids 
  Separation.....................................................   262
Manatee Harbor, Florida..........................................   186
Matagorda Ship Channel, TX.......................................    43
Matilija Dam, California.........................................   198
May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas.................................   210
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, AR..............    41
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Locks and Dams, 
  Arkansas and Oklahoma.........................................211-212
McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, AR.............................    41
Merrimack River Basin, New Hampshire and Massachusetts..........154-155
Metropolitan Louisville, Beargrass Creek, Kentucky...............   126
Metropolitan Region of Cincinnati, Duck Creek, Ohio..............   126
Miami Harbor Channel, Florida....................................   187
Millwood Lake, Ashdown, AR.......................................    38
Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine Areas, Louisiana and 
  Mississippi....................................................   142
Mississippi River and Tributaries................................   297
Mississippi River Between the Ohio and the Missouri Rivers 
  (Regulating Works), Missouri and Illinois......................   138
Mississippi River Head-of-Passes Flexible Dustpan Dredging 
  Demonstration, LA.............................................261-262
Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
  Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee...............141-144
Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana...   138
Mississippi River, Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.......................137-138
Missouri National Recreational River Project.....................   168
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation.....................169-171
Missouri River Master Manual.....................................    45
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual.......................   174
Morganza, Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico........................   140
Mouth of the Colorado, TX........................................    43
National Lewis and Clark Commemoration..........................263-264
Navigation Improvements, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana...177-178
New England District Dredging Projects...........................   262
New Instrumentation..............................................   260
New Madrid County Port, MS.......................................    57
New York and New Jersey Harbor--HARS Placement..................277-279
New York and New Jersey Harbor Study 50 Foot Deepening..........279-280
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, New York and New Jersey, 
  Port Jersey, New Jersey........................................   282
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel, NJ...   156
New York, New Jersey Harbor 50-foot deepening....................    33
New York, New Jersey Harbor Study................................    33
New York, New Jersey HARS........................................    32
Newport Bay Harbor, California..................................199-200
Nogales Wash, Arizona...........................................353-354
Nome Harbor, Alaska..............................................   178
Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Deepening, VA.......................   157
Norfolk Lake, Mountain Home, AR..................................    39
Oakland Harbor, California.......................................   201
Ocean City, Maryland.............................................   258
Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina.................................   188
Ohio River Greenway Corridor, Indiana...........................125-126
Olmsted Locks and Dam, Illinois and Kentucky....................124-125
Onondaga Lake, NY, Partnership Program...........................   121
Other Coordination Programs.....................................213-214
Palm Beach County, Florida.......................................   188
Palm Valley Bridge, Florida......................................   186
Paseo De Las Iglesias, Arizona...................................   354
Passaic River Preservation of Natural Storage, New Jersey.......282-283
Pemiscot County Harbor, MS.......................................    57
Perry Creek, IA..................................................   290
Perry Creek, Iowa................................................   168
Petaluma River, California.......................................   326
Pierre, South Dakota.............................................   169
Port Everglades Harbor, Florida..................................   186
Port Lions Harbor, Alaska........................................   176
Poso Creek, California..........................................197-198
Princeville, NC..................................................    47
Providence River, Rhode Island...................................   260
Puget Sound Confined Disposal Site...............................   165
Ramapo and Mahwah Rivers, Mahwah, NJ and Suffern, NY.............   158
Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey...........   284
Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas...............   132
Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee and Kentucky...........................140-141
Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program...............   264
Rhode Island Ecosystem Restoration, Rhode Island.................   154
Rio De La Plata, Puerto Rico....................................188-189
Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico.....................................   199
Rio Grande Floodway, San Acacia to Bosque Del Apache, New Mexico.   203
Rio Salado, Arizona..............................................   353
Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas..............................   210
Sacramento River Bank Protection, California.....................   202
Sacramento River Flood Control Project (Glenn-Coulsa Irrigation 
  District), California..........................................   303
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study, 
  California.....................................................   198
Saginaw Bay Remediation Project, Michigan........................   261
Saint Paul Harbor, Alaska........................................   178
Sam Rayburn, TX..................................................    40
San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, Texas...................   212
San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy, California......   204
San Francisco Bay, California....................................   197
San Gabriel Basin Project, California...........................355-356
San Joaquin River Basin, Frazier Creek, California...............   198
San Rafael, California...........................................   327
Santa Ana River Mainstem San Timoteo Creek, California...........   202
Santa Barbara Harbor, California.................................   201
Santa Paula Creek, California....................................   203
Sardis Lake, MS..................................................    49
Sault Ste. Marie Lock, Michigan PED..............................   122
Saxon Harbor, Wisconsin..........................................   361
Shinnecock Inlet, New York......................................257-258
Shoreline Erosion Along the Texas Gulf Coast....................330-331
Sillaguamish River Basin.........................................   167
Small Boat Harbors, Alaska......................................175-176
SNWW, TX.........................................................    44
South Sacramento County Streams, California......................   326
Southeast Oklahoma Water Resources Study, Oklahoma..............209-210
St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri................   143
Stillhouse Hollow, Canyon, Whitney, Belton, Proctor, and Granger 
  Lakes, TX (Forth Worth District)...............................    38
Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, California.....................   198
Success Dam and Reservoir, California............................   203
Surface Runoff Water Quality Pathway Tests.......................   262
Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach, California....................   201
Table Rock Lake, Branson, MO.....................................    38
Tampa Harbor, Florida............................................   187
Tenkiller Ferry Lake, Northeast Oklahoma.........................    39
Terminus Dam (Lake Kaweah), California...........................   303
Texas City, TX...................................................    44
The Bradley Factor...............................................   293
Toronto Lake, Southeast Kansas...................................    40
Town of Martin, Kentucky.........................................   275
Treatment of Contaminated Sediments Dredged From New York and New 
  Jersey Channel................................................287-289
Tres Rios, Arizona...............................................   354
Trinity River, TX................................................    44
Truckee Meadows, Nevada.........................................303-304
Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas.......................................   167
Unalakleet Harbor, Alaska........................................   176
Upper Big Darby Creek, Ohio......................................   122
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Navigation Study, Illinois, 
  Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin................................299-301
Upper Mississippi Navigation Study............................17, 63-65
Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency, Illinois, Iowa, 
  Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin............................134-135
Upper Mississippi River/Illinois Waterway Study..................   214
Upper Newport Bay, California....................................   357
Upper Passiac River and Tributaries, New Jersey..................   283
Upper Rockaway River, New Jersey................................283-284
Va Shl-Ay Akimel, Arizona........................................   354
Valdez Harbor, Alaska............................................   178
Ventura Harbor, California.......................................   258
Virginia Beach, Virginia (Hurricane Protection)..................   158
Waco Pool Raise, Waco Lake, Texas................................   329
Walnut and Whitewater River Watersheds, Kansas...................   209
Warr Acres, Oklahoma.............................................   208
Waukegan Harbor, Illinois........................................   122
Webster County, IA..............................................290-291
West Shore--Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.......................133-134
White River Basin Comprehensive Study, Arkansas and Missouri.....   135
Whittier Breakwater, Alaska......................................   177
Whittier Narrows Dam, CA.........................................    34
Willamette River Environmental Dredging..........................   166
Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina................................   260
Withlacoochee River, Florida.....................................   185
Witney, Texas....................................................    34
Wolf Creek Dam and Lake Cumberland, Kentucky-Trash Rack..........   276
Woodbridge River Basin, New Jersey...............................   153
Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pump, Mississippi.........................   143
Yellowstone River Corridor Study.................................   166
Zuni and Sun Valley Reaches, South Platte River, Colorado........   166

                                

