[Senate Hearing 117-67]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-67
HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF MICHAEL CONNOR TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 14, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-499 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont Virginia,
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JONI ERNST, Iowa
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 14, 2021
OPENING STATEMENT
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 1
Padilla, Hon. Alex, U.S. Senator from the State of California,
prepared statement............................................. 47
WITNESS
Connor, Michael, nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, Department of Defense......................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Kelly............................................ 8
Senator Capito........................................... 11
Senator Cramer........................................... 18
Senator Wicker........................................... 20
Senator Sullivan......................................... 22
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter to:
Senator Carper from former Senator Jeff Bingaman, July 9,
2021....................................................... 56
Senator Capito from former Senator Jeff Bingaman, July 9,
2021....................................................... 57
Senators Carper and Capito from the Association of California
Water Agencies, May 12, 2021............................... 58
Senators Carper and Capito from the National Parks
Conservation Association, July 13, 2021.................... 59
Senators Carper and Capito from Sally Jewell, former U.S.
Secretary of the Interior, July 11, 2021................... 61
Senator Jack Reed et al. from the National Wildlife
Federation, July 13, 2021.................................. 63
President Joe Biden from the National Congress of American
Indians, February 19, 2021................................. 65
HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF MICHAEL CONNOR TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m., in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Markey, Duckworth, Stabenow, Padilla, Inhofe, Cramer, Boozman,
Sullivan, and Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. I just want to thank everyone for being
here and allowing us to get off to a good start today.
I would just say to our guests, if some of our colleagues
get up and leave, it is not because they are not interested in
what you have to say, nor the importance of your job for which
you have been nominated. But we all serve on three, four, five
committees, and they are trying to cover a lot of bases all at
once. We will let them.
Now, unless there is an objection, I am going to turn the
page and move on to our hearing.
I would like to invite our witness, Michael Connor, to the
table, please.
Mr. Connor has been joined by his wife of how many years?
This is your first question.
Mr. Connor. Thirty-two and counting, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thirty-five right here, and my wife says it
is the happiest 5 years of her life.
We thank your wife for joining you today. Thank you for
sharing your husband with us, and I want to especially thank
your daughter. You may want to introduce her as well.
As I mentioned earlier, President Biden has nominated Mr.
Connor to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works. If confirmed to this office, Mr. Connor's duties will
include overseeing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Among its
many areas of responsibility, the Corps is responsible for
responding to and reducing the likelihood of flood damage and
restoring our degraded ecosystems.
The Corps' Civil Works Program includes the construction,
operation, and maintenance of our Nation's ports and inland
waterways, which are the gateway to both domestic and
international commerce. It also includes shoreline and coastal
protections for the areas of our country dramatically affected
by large bodies of water.
Mr. Connor comes to this nomination with years of public
service experience, having served as staff to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, our sister
committee, and as Senior Leader at the Department of the
Interior.
Who was the Secretary? Was Ken Salazar the Secretary when
you were there?
Mr. Connor. Ken Salazar was the Secretary, then Sally
Jewell.
Senator Carper. Old colleague and friend.
From 2009 to 2014, Mr. Connor led the Bureau of Reclamation
as its commissioner, and from 2014 to 2017, he served as the
Deputy Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Connor is now a partner
at WilmerHale Law Firm.
Mr. Connor, we welcome you, and we invite you to please
proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CONNOR, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Connor. Thank you.
Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, distinguished
members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you
today as President Biden's nominee to be the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I am grateful and
appreciative of your consideration of my nomination.
Mr. Chairman, I think I missed my cue earlier, so I will
take care of that now. Thank you for the opportunity to
recognize my wife Shari and my daughter, Gabriela.
Senator Carper. Gabriela, I love that name. That is such a
beautiful name.
Mr. Connor. They, along with my son Matthew, who couldn't
be here today, have made sacrifices that have allowed me the
opportunity to engage in public service for many years, so I
continue to deeply appreciate their support.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is an
important position under any circumstances, given the
responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers for infrastructure,
ecosystem health, maintaining waterways, managing flood risks,
and protecting wetlands. These are incredibly important
functions for communities across the Nation.
Today, these responsibilities take on new significance amid
the backdrop of a pandemic impacted economy. We must also build
resiliency in the face of climate change, while also ensuring
equity amongst the communities being served.
I am humbled to be nominated to work with the military
leadership of the Corps and the talented civilian work force to
carry out these important responsibilities. I also believe I am
well prepared to address the challenges ahead, given my
extensive experience both inside and outside of Government.
As a former Deputy Secretary of the Interior and
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, I directed strategy
and managed a large Federal waterway resources agency
responsible for programs and facilities similar to those of the
Corps. These positions also provided significant management
experience.
As the Chief Operating Officer at Interior, I was
responsible for 70,000 employees and an annual budget in excess
of $13 billion. At Reclamation, I managed over 5,000 employees
with an annual budget in excess of $1 billion.
My prior positions also provided extensive experience
working directly with the Corps of Engineers. At Reclamation,
we collaborated in developing climate resilience strategies,
coordinating flood control and water management operations,
protecting endangered species and engaging in river
restoration, and advancing dam safety risk management efforts.
As Deputy Secretary, I worked with the Corps in its role as
a regulator, and even collaborated on an international issue
involving some poorly maintained infrastructure that was
impacting the United States' interests in the Middle East.
As council to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, I didn't stay in my lane, and I worked on numerous
initiatives regulated to the Corps.
I believe this experience, coupled with my background as
both an engineer and a lawyer, provide a unique set of
qualifications to be an effective Assistant Secretary of the
Army.
If confirmed, my personal background will also inform my
views, as I oversee the vast responsibilities associated with
the Corps. I grew up in New Mexico, a State rich in natural
resources, with the exception of water. I am proud of my Native
American heritage and the fact that my grandfather was a leader
within Taos Pueblo working to protect the Tribe's water rights
and its cultural resources.
My childhood home in Las Cruces, New Mexico, is located
across the street from a major irrigation canal that was
constructed with Federal assistance, and it serves a large
agricultural area. I grew up witnessing the important role the
Federal Government plays in supporting and protecting the
economic foundation of many communities while also providing
access to the recreational resources that enhance the quality
of life for our citizens.
If confirmed, I will be focused and committed to the work
necessary to fulfill my responsibilities and challenges facing
the Corps and its stakeholders, your constituents.
Of course, the Corps cannot be successful on its own, and
my years in public service have reinforced the importance of
collaboration. I commit to this task with a sense of humility
and a keen understanding of the need to work with State and
local leaders, the public, affected stakeholders, and Members
of Congress to most effectively carry out the Corps' mission.
I am equally committed to increasing coordination within
the Federal Government, a whole of government approach that is
more effective and efficient in addressing the effects of a
changing landscape across the country.
Finally, with your support, I will be proud to join a
department led by Secretary Austin, Deputy Secretary Hicks, and
Secretary Wormuth, who have made clear their intent to lead
with transparency, integrity, and the highest ethical standards
in carrying out the Defense Department's and the Army's vital
missions. I am equally committed to these principles.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee, and
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Again, welcome.
I want to begin the questioning of our witness today by
noting that Senator Capito and I have agreed to 5 minute rounds
of questions, with additional rounds at the discretion of the
Chair, with her concurrence.
To begin, this Committee has three, as you may know, has
three standing yes or no questions that we ask of all nominees
who appear before us. I will ask those questions of you now. If
you screw these up, we will just call it an early morning. I
don't think you will.
First question: Do you agree that, if confirmed to appear
before this Committee or designated members of this Committee
and other appropriate committees of the Congress and provide
information subject to appropriate and necessary security
protections with respect to your responsibilities? Do you
agree?
Mr. Connor. Yes.
Senator Carper. So far, so good. Second question: Do you
agree to ensure that testimony briefings, documents, and
electronic and other forms of communication with information
are provided to this Committee and its staff and other
appropriate committees in a timely manner? Do you agree?
Mr. Connor. Yes, I do.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Do you know of any matters which
you may or may not have disclosed that might place you in a
conflict of interest if you are confirmed? Do you?
Mr. Connor. No.
Senator Carper. Good. OK, my first questions would be
dealing a little with your experience with the Department of
Interior. Your experience with the Department of Interior,
including the Bureau of Reclamation, was largely focused on
issues that affect the western U.S., including energy
conservation and climate change.
The question is this: Please tell us about your experience
with coastal programs, and what would be your approach in
prioritizing water infrastructure projects to address coastal
needs as well as the rural and inland needs of our country.
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly have
experience dealing with coastal issues as it related to
Reclamations programs and water resources issues. That is
probably one of the biggest differences, though, between
Reclamations' mission and the Corps of Engineers' mission, is
the amount of coastal work.
So most of my experience in the coastal arena has to do
with work I did as Deputy Secretary related to our facilities
and national parks, other initiatives related to coastal
issues, dealing with erosion, coastal surge issues, and my work
as a member of the Restore Council in the aftermath of
Deepwater Horizon.
Looking at the number of projects and the funding that was
available to do just that, restore areas of the coast which was
protecting our coastal facilities, building up wetlands,
addressing coastal surge issues, making the investments
necessary to fortify our coast in face of the issues associated
with climate change, long term resilience, as well as the
restoration efforts out in the Gulf of Mexico that were
necessary.
I feel I have a general and fairly good understanding and
some good history in dealing with those coastal issues,
recognizing that the Corps' mission, in particular, is founded
in great part on those ports and those waterways and now,
coastal protection issues in the face of a changing climate and
the resiliency needed as we protect beaches, as we look at
erosion issues, as we try, and once again, deal with and adapt
to the changes that are occurring in our environment.
Senator Carper. I am told that you are a quick study, and
we are counting on that to be the case, especially as you come
up to speed on coastal issues, which a number of us, looking to
my left, and even over here on my far left, with the Great
Lakes, a lot of interest in both sides on these issues. Thank
you.
Second question. Recently, there has been a lot of
discussion regarding the method used to calculate the benefit
to cost ratio. We talked a little bit about this when we were
together on the phone, but a lot of discussion regarding the
method used to calculate the benefit to cost ratio and the
omission of benefits that are hard to quantify.
For example, a benefit to cost ratio does not account for
savings associated with not having to provide emergency
response when proposed project functions as intended. The
benefit to cost ratio also fails to really capture long term
environmental benefits and tertiary economic benefits.
Here is my question: What other factors should be
considered in identifying project benefits in order for
initiatives to move forward, and how should the Corps better
prioritize projects to reflect all of the benefits?
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Senator. That is a question that
folks have been wrestling with for quite a while, now, how to
assess the full range of benefits associated with any projects.
We understand the costs with most projects, not that we always
estimate them accurately up front.
But with respect to evaluating benefits, I think it is
important to keep in front of us the economic returns that we
expect, but there are, particularly in multifaceted projects,
and all of our projects should be looking at multiple purposes
these days, there are ecosystems benefits.
There are communities of need, and the protection of those
communities that, in valuing the land associated with the
protections that are going to be in place with this specific
project, it is not equitable to consider just the pure value
ascribed through some appraisal process that doesn't recognize
the need.
I think all of these factors need to be assessed. We need
to better understand, and really, there is huge economic value
to ecosystem services that I don't think we have properly
valued to date. Then there is the local, regional benefits
associated with communities of need that need to be integrated
into that benefit-cost formula.
I see, based on the direction where this Administration is
going, based on the direction Congress has currently gone in
the last Water Resources Development Act, that there is
direction for the Corps to better account for the value of
those benefits. I am fully supportive of those efforts in
working on that, if I am confirmed.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Connor. Thank you for your willingness to
serve. I certainly appreciate that.
My first question was going to be very similar to what the
Chairman asked in that your prior experience has been at the
Bureau of Reclamation. There are certain areas, obviously, that
the Corps of Navigation and Flight Risk Management, that are
areas of Corps responsibility that you didn't really actually
deal with over at Reclamation. I didn't know if you wanted to
address that issue more deeply, how you are going to get up to
speed on that. Obviously, you have already done a lot of
research in that area.
Mr. Connor. Sure, Senator, thank you. There was an overlap.
Certainly, the Bureau of Reclamations' mission with respect to
water supply, in particular, is fairly unique, although the
Corps does have water supply responsibilities. I talked to
Senator Cramer about that.
Also, there is lots of overlap, and I do think where that
experience will pay off, particularly in flood risk management.
Part of the fundamental mission of the Bureau of Reclamation
was also flood control. I worked very closely in the Central
Valley of California, with respect to Folsom Dam on a
coordinated flood management program, and fortification of that
dam and its spillway, with the Corps jointly managing the
construction project, and the river restoration, the aquatic
ecosystem restoration program that the Corps has.
In partnership, we did work with the Corps at the Bureau of
Reclamation and on its own, Reclamation had also said that
similar significant river restoration opportunity, so I think
there is a lot of parallels and experience that will directly
apply. As I mentioned, there are areas where I need to get up
to speed. I will just mention one of the--hydropower,
obviously, was very, very similar in the approach that we had
to take to manage that resource, deal with changing effects of
a fluctuating water supply these days, and that will be similar
with the Corps.
Senator Capito. Right. That is going to be critical now. On
the flood risk management, we had a terrible flood in 2016. I
might have mentioned this on the phone with you--that took 23
lives and destroyed more than a thousand homes in West
Virginia. The Corps has been very active to try to help up
prevent such things as happen.
I did put initial funding into the Canal River Basin
Feasibility Study to determine what additional projects might
be needed to improve this flood risk management, so I am going
to ask you today, will you continue to work with me on that to
initiate this study?
Mr. Connor. Absolutely.
Senator Capito. Thank you. We did talk on the phone about
the length of time it takes for certain permitting. By the time
you get all the different agencies and different coordinations
between State and local and Federal, I guess my question is not
so much the length of time, but in your experience, do you
think that States are capable of protecting environmental
resources such as water resources within their own borders? How
do you see that interplay of cooperative federalism playing
out?
Mr. Connor. I think the easiest answer is yes, States are
fully capable of protecting their water resources. At the same
time, we obviously have a system where there are State laws
that apply, there are State responsibilities under Federal law,
and there are Federal responsibilities, so we have to improve
that cooperative federalism. It is absolutely critical.
I am a very strong proponent of making our permitting
processes as efficient as possible. Given the challenges that
we face, we need to make decisions. We need to work
collaboratively with State and local communities, and we need
to sync up, particularly amongst Federal agencies.
I was a member of the Fast 41 Task Force that worked on
permitting efficiencies. We need to keep the thoroughness of
the reviews, but there is lost time, and the lack of
coordination. We need to improve upon that at the Federal
level, and then take that to the next step, work in partnership
with the States.
Senator Capito. I certainly agree with that. When you look
at the different agencies that weigh in on whatever project,
that might be Fish and Wildlife, EPA, the Corps, by the time
you go through the permitting process of all that, you are into
years, and years not only don't solve the problem, but they
also cost a lot of money at the same time, and a lot of people
walk away from projects at certain periods of time because they
just obviously can't afford to stay in the process, so however
we can help you with that, we'd certainly like to see the
thoroughness there, but also the timeliness at the same time.
My last question for right now is on the WOTUS rule. I
mentioned it in my opening statement. I know you are not at the
Corps yet, but the rationale for taking the WOTUS regulation,
we obviously saw it in court all over the country, with sort of
mixed results in terms of who is acting under it, who isn't. A
lot of confusion for a lot of different range, whether it is
personal golf courses, agriculture, whatever it might be.
So, what challenges do you think the Corps will face,
including related to obtaining permits for Corps projects if a
new WOTUS definition is finalized that is more expansive than
the 2015 rule?
Mr. Connor. Well, the rule, Senator, has changed so many
times over the years that I am not sure the challenges are
going to be any different. We need to have a clear definition
of waters of the U.S., one that is protective, as it should be,
under the Clean Water Act, but one that provides clarity, and I
think, the goal, from what I understand in embarking upon a new
rule is to work very closely with the affected parties under
that rule, and so my goal would be to have a clear rule that
has enough level of input that hopefully we can get out of this
litigation cycle and that we can move on with a rule that is
going to be in place for a number of years. That should be the
goal.
That will do the most, I think, to help the Corps in its
permitting ability and its responsibilities for making
jurisdictional determinations if we have some clarity, and we
have some longevity to the next rule, and that is going to
require some collaboration, working with stakeholders, and I
believe that is the game plan.
Senator Capito. Thank you. We will be watching that, and I
appreciate your input on that.
Thank you.
Mr. Connor. Yes.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Capito.
Now, I want to turn to Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Connor. It is good to have you with us, and I
appreciate very much the dedication and the skill that you have
shown in your service. You and I don't have any problems, but I
have a big problem with the organization that you are going to
come into.
I apologize for loading this onto you, but did you ever see
the movie ``Groundhog Day''?
Mr. Connor. Yes, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. So, every morning, Bill Murray wakes
up, and it is the same damn morning, over and over and over
again. I have been on the Army Corps on this issue for years,
back to the Obama administration, through the Trump
administration, and we get some happy talk from people when
they are at the table here, and then after that, complete blow
off. Complete disinterest.
The two issues that concern me, one is quite a simple one,
and that is getting answers and getting congressional mandates
paid attention to. The Army Corps seems to believe that when we
pass a law that instructs the Army Corps to do something, that
is an optional, faint suggestion, maybe to be listened to, if
it is convenient and consistent with other internal
bureaucratic goals of the Army Corps.
I think that has got to stop.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have got to work out some kind of
an operating protocol between this Committee and the Army Corps
so that the things that we instruct as elected representatives
the Army Corps to do actually get done. That is point A.
Point B, as a coastal State Senator, all right? Our
Chairman-- I will just go down my side. Our Chairman is a
coastal State Senator. Senator Cardin is a coastal State
Senator. I am a coastal State Senator. Senator Merkley is a
coastal State Senator, Senator Markey is a coastal State
Senator, Senator Padilla is a coastal State Senator. If you
throw in the Great Lakes, you pick up Senator Stabenow, and you
pick up Senator Duckworth.
I have been hollering at the Army Corps for years about
your flood and coastal damage reduction fund. Flood and coastal
damage reduction fund. Do you know how much of the flood and
coastal damage reduction fund actually goes to coastal?
Mr. Connor. A very small amount, from my understanding.
Senator Whitehouse. A very small amount. In a bad year, it
is $120 for inland for every $1 for coastal, so less than 1
percent in a bad year. We are operating right now under a
proposal where it would be 45 to 1.
Help me with the math here: 45 to 1 on a percentage basis,
I think that translates to about 97-plus percent to inland, and
2 percent and some change to coastal.
In your answer to Senator Carper, you talked about your
awareness of all these coastal issues that we are facing. We
are looking at 9 feet of sea level rise in Rhode Island by the
end of the century. We are looking at having to redraw the maps
of my State because of sea level rise. We are looking at
dramatic changes in the fisheries, dramatic changes in storm
risk, our coasts are in dire distress, and the Army Corps
blunders on, just completely obtuse to that risk.
Year after year after year, treating coastal--it is not
even a stepchild. It is like, you can root in the garbage and
see if you can find something, but we are going to feed
everything, all of our interest goes to inland.
I have to tell you, Mr. Connor, this is too many Groundhog
Days. I am sorry that this is you at this moment, but I need
some resolution of this with your organization. I cannot go
forward with this enormous fund that is so important to coastal
health, the Flood and Coastal Damage Reduction Fund, getting 1
or 2 percent of its funding for all of America's coasts.
Our Pacific coasts, our Gulf coasts, our Mid-Atlantic
coasts, all of Florida, our northeastern coasts, all of them
share 1 to 2 percent of this fund, while inland soaks up 97
percent, 98 percent. Is that not indefensible, in this day and
age, knowing the risks that our coasts face?
Mr. Connor. Well, Senator, I hear your concern. I have read
your letter. It sounds like step one is the answer as to why.
Why is the funding allocated in the way it is?
Senator Whitehouse. I actually don't care very much about
why. I want finito. I want it stopped. I want some balance. If
``why'' helps us get to balance, then I would be interested in
why, but I don't want a lot of ``why'' that gives us year after
year after year after year of coasts getting essentially frozen
out of the Coastal Damage Reduction Fund. I think that is a
reasonable request.
I am sorry that this is my, like, umpteenth Groundhog Day
and that you have to be here on this particular groundhog
morning, but I am done with putting up with this, and I am done
with the non-responsiveness of the Army Corps to this flagrant
misallocation of resources.
Mr. Connor. Senator, I will understand the why so that I
can get to you to the how, which is how we make those changes
that you are requesting, and I am fully committed to the idea
of resiliency cuts across every program of the Corps of
Engineers, and we have got to address it on all levels and all
threats, as you have mentioned.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, and I know the Chairman
shares my concern, because his State actually has shallower
coasts than mine. The same sea level rise that is going to rise
9 feet on my shores and do immense damage to my State is going
to be even worse for Delaware, which not only is Chairman
Carper's State, but there is also somebody you report to comes
from that State.
Senator Carper. And it is not Chris Kennings. Could be,
someday.
Senator Whitehouse, Delaware is the lowest lying State in
America. The highest point of land in Delaware is a bridge, and
so we have grave concerns about these issues.
Maybe the best thing we can do it, once you have had a
chance to settle--if confirmed--into your new job, just to have
an oversight hearing and come back and drill down on this,
along with some other subjects, too. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. One with answers would be great,
thanks.
Senator Carper. There you go.
And now, Senator Inhofe.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Well, first of all, let me talk a little bit to Shari and
Gabby. Don't worry about things today. This guy received a 100
percent vote in confirmation in the past. Not many people can
say that. It is one that we have worked with very close
together.
There are three issues, actually. Two of them are going to
be asking for commitments, which I think should come, but I
just want to make sure that is on record. The first one has to
do with the WOTUS rule. Senator Capito had some concerns. I
share those concerns.
I was very disappointed but not surprised that the EPA and
the Army Corps have decided to repeal and replace the Trump era
Navigation Waters Protection Rule, but this isn't bad. That is
not the end of it. We know what happens when we change
administrations. We know that it is going to happen again.
The Obama era WOTUS rule, which was the No. 1 regulatory
concern of my State, we are a farm State in Oklahoma, and their
No. 1 concern. Essentially, what the WOTUS rule did was take
away from the States and give to the Federal Government that
jurisdiction.
My people in Oklahoma, my farmers in Oklahoma, didn't think
that was a good idea, and so that is still something that will
be taking place. We are not sure how it is going to end up, and
if so, it won't be a lasting end, in my opinion.
In June, the EPA released a statement saying the EPA and
the Army Corps determined the Trump era rule is leading to
significant environmental degradation. Significant
environmental degradation.
I know you are not currently at the Corps. Are you aware of
any specific and significant degradation, environmental
degradation, that would be tied to the Trump rule?
Mr. Connor. Senator, I am not aware of any specific
circumstances right now.
Senator Inhofe. I am not, either. If you feel one coming
on, will you let me know?
Second, we have a levee system in my home city of Tulsa. It
was built in the 1940s. It has survived. We had a real close
call 2 years ago, and I think you probably heard from me about
that. It did get attention all over the Nation, and we are
concerned about that.
The WRDA, 2020, authorized this project, and this was built
in the 1940s. It is got to be modernized to fully protect $2.2
billion in homes and businesses along the Arkansas River,
including two refineries. I showed you and your staffs these
refineries.
This was authorized by the WRDA bill in 2020. You are all
familiar with that. It had joint jurisdiction between two
committees. It authorized this project, and I submitted a
congressional direct spending request to expedite design
awards, so this project remains on the fast track.
My first ask of you is will you commit to ensuring this
project remains a priority for the Corps?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Senator. You have my commitment. My
understanding is that we have a significant amount of resources
in the fiscal year 2022 budget, so I would like to continue the
efforts working with you.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that, and I anticipated that
would be the case.
The last thing I want to mention is the MKARNS. Recently,
the Assistant Secretary of the Army Civil Works recently made
the decision that the MKARNS 12 foot deepening project does not
require new investment decision for the purpose of dedicating
funds for construction. That was a major thing.
It was a very meaningful thing to Senator Boozman, to
myself, and to a number of others, but deepening the MKARNS to
the 12 foot, keeping in mind the entire channel would be 9
foot, but now changing it a very small amount would change it
to a 12 foot channel. That will increase the load, the capacity
by some 40 percent.
It is a huge thing there, and deepening that is now pretty
much accepted to everyone. I just want to make sure that you
don't have any plans or any knowledge of anything that would
come along and change that at this time, so I ask of you to
commit to following this decision. This decision does not
require a new investment decision for the purpose of dedicating
funds for construction, so will you commit to following this
decision?
Mr. Connor. I am committed to following the decision. I am
not aware of anything that would change that approach.
Senator Inhofe. That is fine. I look forward to working
with you.
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. You bet.
Senator Carper. Senator Stabenow is next. She will be
followed by Senator Cramer and Senator Boozman.
Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow
up supporting comments of Senator Whitehouse's, but I do want
to make one correction. Actually, the Great Lakes have more
shoreline than the East Coast and West Coast combined. We have
4,530 miles; 3,458 miles on the East and West Coasts. So, we
refer to ourselves as the ocean without the salt.
What you do is incredibly important and impactful. The Army
Corps of Engineers, particularly right now, at the University
of Michigan has put out a study saying that the Great Lakes are
warming faster than the coasts, and I understand the incredible
urgency on the coasts, but we are feeling it. I could go on and
on about what is happening right now.
But I want to talk specifically about two important Army
Corps projects that we really need to have even more of a sense
of urgency on. One relates to one of our biggest threats on
invasive species, which is Asian carp, a great big fish. I
never thought fish would keep me up at night.
This big fish that has no functioning stomach gets to a
hundred pounds, and in the water, kind of destroys everything
else when it gets into the Great Lakes. It is very close to the
Great Lakes.
We have been operating for a number of years, working with
Illinois and the Army Corps to stop these fish coming up the
Mississippi River through a project that has been identified
and is in the works, but needs to move faster, called the
Brandon Road Lock and Dam. Senator Portman and I have led a
bipartisan effort now for years to identify and create the
technology that would be able to stop the fish, but allow the
barges to continue to move up the rivers into Chicago.
So I appreciate the expertise of the Army Corps, but we
have to have an incredible sense of urgency about--the fish
aren't waiting for us. They don't wait for an appropriation
cycle, and the economic damage, as you were talking about, sort
of how we put all this together and the economic damage of
these fish destroying $7 billion fishing industry in the Great
Lakes and $16 billion boating industry is very serious, so that
is one.
The other that is in process, but I am also concerned about
how fast it is moving is something called the Soo Locks, which
allows major ships to come down the St. Lawrence Seaway from
the oceans into the Great Lakes, and we built it in World War
II. They actually did it pretty fast during World War II. They
were able to start to finish, do it in a couple of years.
We are now looking at, it has been 20 years just to get to
a point we are now funding the engineering of it in another 10,
but we have one lock that will allow the big barges to get into
the Great Lakes. This is all of our raw materials from
manufacturing, for agriculture. If something happens to that
lock, you shut down a major part of the economy, actually for
the country.
As the head of the Corps, can I count on you to work with
us and to support in every way we can expediting these two
projects that are critical for the economy of the Great Lakes?
Mr. Connor. Senator Stabenow, you absolutely have my
commitment on that front. With respect to the Asian carp, I
have seen that and have been watching the situation unfold for
many, many years now. This, to me, not only the urgency of this
situation, the work the Corps needs to do, but the whole of
Government approach and the USGS has done a lot of the
scientific work in support of this effort. It is an area where
we need to bring folks together, and with respect to the lock
system, we have seen just in the Suez Canal most recently what
a few days means to international commerce, so we need to take
care of this infrastructure.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. You are exactly right; what
happened in the Suez Canal can happen in our country through
the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Soo Locks. We are holding our
breath at this point in time that it doesn't happen.
Let me just ask one other question in conclusion.
Resiliency. The Great Lakes Basin, as our other coasts, very
concerned. We are seeing high water levels, and literally
shorelines falling in the water, houses falling in the water
because of erosion, damage to agriculture. All kinds of serious
issues.
But we have, for a number of years now, again, my partisan
initiative to have the Army Corps do a Great Lakes resiliency
study. We have had it in the budget. We have passed the
authorization for it a number of years ago. Never been funded.
It is now in President Biden's budget. It is critical that
this move as quickly as possible to assist our Great Lakes
coast in being able to deal with what we need to do on
infrastructure resiliency, and so I would ask for your support
and any comments on that.
Mr. Connor. Yes, absolutely my support. Obviously, because
it is in the President's budget, and because given the urgency
of the situation. There is obviously the impact of climate on
water out west, which I am very familiar with, but I will
become more familiar with later.
I am not sure there are any bodies of water more impacted
than the Great Lakes with the fluctuations that are happening
now, and the storm surges at high levels. So that resiliency
study, I view that consistent with your views. It is incredibly
important to move forward expeditiously.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. I look forward to working with
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Senator Stabenow, thanks for joining us.
I think Senator Cramer is next, then followed by Senator
Cardin, and then Senator Boozman.
Senator Cramer.
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Connor. It was good to see you yesterday,
and now in this Committee. Today you don't have all those other
military guys around you; you are on your own. But you are
doing just fine.
Shari and Gabriela, welcome, and congratulations.
I enjoyed very much our conversation on this. It was hard
not to nerd out a little bit on a couple of things. Sometimes I
think there are only a couple of us that know what we are
talking about, then I find out, no, there is just one, and it
is not me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. But I enjoyed it.
I want to start by asking a fundamental policy question,
and really drilling down on some of those things that you just
talked about with Senator Moore Capito. That is, of course,
States' rights. You and I talked about it.
It is an area, I think for a lot of us, we in many cases,
particularly out in the middle of the country, maybe, feel a
little bit isolated from things. Sometimes not just forgotten,
but maybe getting too much attention from time to time. I know
it is an issue that you dealt with, you grappled with obviously
when you were the Commissioner for Reclamation, that was
important.
Two of the most fundamental statutes that govern the Corps,
the Flood Control Act of 1944, then of course the Water Supply
Act of 1958, which expressly reinforced States' rights and
reinforced historic policy of deferring to State water rights.
The Flood Control Act's declaration policy specifically
states, ``It is hereby declared to be the policy of the
Congress to recognize the interests and rights of the States in
determining the development of the watersheds within their
borders and likewise their interests and rights in water
utilization and control.''
Similarly, the Water Supply Act reinforces, ``It is
declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the
primary responsibilities of the States and local interests in
developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial,
and other purposes.''
So at the end of the Obama administration, you and I talked
about this, the Corps proposed what became known as the Water
Supply Rule, which both Republican and Democratic western
States adamantly opposed. I mean, adamantly, I mean
unanimously, opposed. And it is not very often that Oregon and
North Dakota are on the exact same page, or the attorneys
general of those two States and the Governors of those two
States will sign on paper their opposition to something. So
when it comes, though, to messing with States' water rights, we
in the West get pretty serious and pretty united.
Thankfully, the rule was formally withdrawn under the Trump
administration, after this bipartisan blowback. With that in
mind, I want to ask, do you believe that the Corps was right to
withdraw the rule? If so, can you commit that it will not be
proposed again, at least under your leadership?
Mr. Connor. Well, Senator, thank you. I greatly enjoyed our
conversation. At the risk of being even wonkier, I will say the
acts you just referenced are the same as Section 8 of the
Reclamation Act. So I am used to working under that regime.
I am not familiar with the specifics of the regulation that
was proposed. I am very sensitive, though, to the concerns that
you just raised, given the opposition, there can't be progress
moving forward with something that has been rejected
previously. So you have my commitment to look into that issue
and making sure that we work on something productive together.
I think coming up with something that is, I understand in
our conversation, that is close to getting support necessary so
that water resources can be allocated from those Corps
facilities is incredibly important. We see it in the West-wide
drought. It is no longer a regional drought; it is a West-wide
drought. We need to, getting back to my overall objective,
ensuring that these facilities have the maximum multiple
beneficial purposes. I am happy to work with you on your
approach.
Senator Cramer. Thank you. I appreciated your elaborating a
little bit on cooperative federalism with Senator Moore Capito.
It was refreshing to hear. So I won't dig into that.
But I want to go quickly to the Dakota Access Pipeline,
which as you know originates in North Dakota, runs 358 miles
through North Dakota, .21 miles of the 358 miles are being
contested, as you know. You of course were the Deputy Secretary
at the time of the protests when it was built.
I won't relitigate the whole thing. You know it very well.
A lot of people know it very well. The issue at hand now of
course while the pipeline continues to function safely, move
about, a little over half a million barrels of oil per day, 60
percent of the oil from the Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Nation
flows on that pipeline. As you know, a judge here in DC ordered
the EA to be replaced with an EIS. That is of course where the
challenges come, from whether we shut the pipeline down while
the EIS is done. It is not going to be shut down, as you know.
It is legally sustainable now.
My question, though, is if you are confirmed, with this EIS
continuing, and it is expected to be done in March of next
year, that will determine a couple of things. One, whether the
pipeline was sited properly, mostly sited by the State of North
Dakota, other than this .21 miles under the Missouri River.
But do I have your commitment that you will do everything
you can to keep politics out of the EIS process? Because I
firmly believe the EIS will confirm the EA which was done by
the Obama administration.
Mr. Connor. Senator Cramer, yes. We need to move forward
consistent with law and the very clear direction that the Corps
has given to move forward with the EIS to do a thorough
analysis, addressing the deficiencies that the Corps found.
Those are legal questions, and they are technical questions
that need to be followed up. The district office is moving
forward on a very firm schedule for completing that, I think in
the spring of next year. I want to oversee that, and understand
it, given the visibility of the issue and the importance of
tribal consultation in moving forward.
So that is going to be the process. It is not going to be a
political one.
Senator Cramer. Thank you.
By the way, you might have noticed just this week or late
last week the first consultation with a Tribe took place with
the EIS.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You are welcome, and thank you.
Senator Cardin, thanks for rejoining us.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connor, I enjoyed our conversation. Thank you for your
willingness to take on this important responsibility, and thank
you to your family for sharing in the public service.
I want to start with what I think is one of the core
functions of the Corps, and that is to keep our shipping
channels safe and navigable. When I first started in politics,
the location of dredged material was an extremely political and
difficult subject. Careers were won and lost by location of
dredged materials.
That is no longer the case, at least for the shipping
channel into the Baltimore Harbor. We have been able to find
locations that have used the dredged material for beneficial
use. We have gone over Poplar Island, which is a restored
island, an environmental success. The communities that are
closest to it cheered the restoration of this island. The
wildlife there is now fantastic.
We have our second location at Mid-Bay that is a priority
for the Maryland congressional delegation, and we will be
seeking construction money in this budget cycle with the
support of the Army Corps.
I mention that because you and I had a positive
conversation. I just really want to get your input as to
helping us move forward with projects such as Mid-Bay that will
allow us to have a site for the dredged materials to keep our
channels open and safe, but also restore the environmental
community which helps us with the Chesapeake Bay and our
environment.
Mr. Connor. Senator Cardin, thank you. I very much enjoyed
our conversation, particularly about this set of projects with
the beneficial use of dredged material.
I am going to express huge enthusiasm for the approach that
you have taken for Poplar Island, and the other projects that
are planned. I want to pause and say, given my enthusiasm, I am
quite aware of the backlog in the Corps' budget for authorized
projects and the need for funding. I am certainly hopeful that
through the jobs package and the other work going on that there
will be additional resources.
Because getting to the point, that project is fantastic.
That concept is fantastic. The idea that we are going to
enhance long term commerce through the effective dredging
program through the Port of Baltimore and other ports, and then
use that material to build resiliency and to restore and
address problems with the vigorous action, the surges, the
erosion taking place because of climate change is just a win-
win-win all around.
We need to do more of that. So you have my strong
commitment that we will look forward to those opportunities and
developing those win-win-wins.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. That is exactly what the
leadership will need.
We talked also about Blackwater, where we used dredged
materials to restore wetlands, which worked much more
effectively than I think our engineers originally thought or
expected, with success in a relatively short period of time.
There is a cost issue, but when you weigh the environmental
benefits, it really is the right investment and deals with
resiliency and protection against erosion.
Let me go on to an issue that the Chairman mentioned in his
original questioning, and that is the economic analysis when
doing projects. Commercial activity tied to small channels does
not necessarily rise to the same level of funding priority
among the Army Corps, because of the way the analysis is done.
But these small channels, we had huge backlogs in dealing
with this, are incredibly important to local communities in
dealing with their way of life, in dealing with the safety of
their activities, recreational issues, et cetera, that again
don't rise to the same level on your analysis.
We know there is a funding issue. We are going to do
everything we can to give you the resources you need to make
significant progress on the backlog. I would just like to get
your help in working with the local communities, so that they
have a realistic expectation as to when their projects can be
funded and how we can best line them up for participation with
the Army Corps.
Mr. Connor. Yes, Senator, you have my commitment on that
front. I think we have focused on national benefits for quite a
long time, whether it is the Bureau of Reclamation, whether it
is the Corps of Engineers. And we have seen inequities as a
result of that focus.
So now is the time, and I think once again this is an area
that Congress has given pretty good direction in the last Water
Resources Development Act, through authorization of pilot
projects for economically disadvantaged communities, through
direction on re-looking at the benefit-cost determinations and
taking into local and regional benefits a lot more.
So you have my commitment; that is one of the challenges
now is to expand the protections and the work the Corps does
for the benefit of those economically disadvantaged communities
that have been left behind.
Senator Cardin. I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, in
closing, that is the livelihoods, the tourism, the recreational
use in small communities are very much impacted by the work
done by the Army Corps. So I just think as we always look at
the major projects, and I am strongly in support of those, we
shouldn't ignore the underserved, smaller communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Thank you for being with us, Mr. Connor. We do appreciate
your willingness to serve in such an important position.
I want to talk to you about a couple of projects that are
really important to Arkansas, in an effort to use our water
resources as best we can. We are blessed with good water
resources for the most part, but we have got two projects going
on, the Grand Prairie Irrigation Project, and also the Bayou
Meto Project.
What they do is they take surface water and use the surface
water versus using our aquifers. We have got two huge aquifers,
the Alluvial and Sparta, and they cover that entire region of
the country spreading up into Tennessee. They are the water
supply for Memphis, areas like that, besides hundreds of
thousands of acres for agriculture.
What they do is divert water from the White River and the
Arkansas River that have an excess of surface water, divert
that and use that as the irrigation water, versus taking it
from the aquifers. We have spent hundreds of millions of
dollars on these projects. The Corps has been very supportive
through the years.
But in the last several years, things have languished. We
are very close to completion. Really what I would like is
really simple: Just to get a commitment from you to come out in
the not too distant future, look at the projects, and give us
some advice as to how we can move things forward. Visit with
us, visit with the stakeholders.
The Corps likes the projects. Again, it is just a matter of
us kind of rolling up our sleeves and figuring out exactly how
we can just put the last touches on so that we can go forward
and get them completed.
Mr. Connor. Senator, I would be happy to come out. This
conjunctive use of surface groundwater and trying to find the
right match to provide firm supplies but also protect the
environment surrounding the area is incredibly interesting to
me. I am happy; it sounds like a project that is well on its
way. I would be happy to look at that.
Senator Boozman. Great projects. And again, protecting
water, less energy use, the whole bit. Then again, our
groundwater is so very important, trying to get those things
recharged.
Mr. Connor. Yes.
Senator Boozman. I want to second what Senator Inhofe said
regarding the Arkansas River and the 9 to 12 foot channel.
Arkansas and Oklahoma are joined at the hip in those projects,
for all four of the reasons that you said, when you can
increase a barge by 40 percent, what does that do as far as
saving energy, efficiencies, things like that. So it is really
important, lowering costs.
The other thing I would like to talk to you about, and I
know you are getting bombarded with this, but it is so
important. I am Ranking on Agriculture. WOTUS has been a huge
burden to my State in the past, with the agriculture community.
For years, it created so much uncertainty, it was difficult for
farmers to plan.
The Farm Bureau, a grassroots organization, went through a
Herculean effort to ensure farmers' and ranchers' voices were
heard during the Obama administration.
If confirmed, will you work with our cities, agriculture,
State governments, and stakeholders, to create a rule that
won't get held up for years in the courts, and not creating
this uncertainty that we have seen in the past with the farm
community and so many others?
Mr. Connor. Senator, if confirmed, you have my commitment
to doing that. Durability and longevity of a new rule will be a
very high priority.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much. And a huge challenge.
Mr. Connor. Yes.
Senator Boozman. But I hope we can work together to thread
that needle, which is so, so very important for so many
different reasons.
Again, I just want to--I agree with Senator Whitehouse in
his concern for the Outer Banks, but also there is a lot of
resources going into the inland waterways. When you count up
all the streams and lakes and rivers and all that, it is a
humongous amount of shoreline. So you have got all kinds of
problems regarding erosion there.
The way I see it is, there is lots of don't do this, don't
do that with our streams. There is lots of management from the
State and Federal Government. That is not a bad thing, in the
sense of, if it is done in the right way.
The problem is, there is no one that is really managing,
taking care of it in the sense of providing resources that we
need to prevent the erosion and things like that. So that is
something else that we would like to work with you on.
Mr. Connor. Yes, absolutely. Those are important issues.
Senator Boozman. Good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Boozman. Great to see
you.
We have joining us by Webex Senator Duckworth. We have also
been joined in person by Senator Padilla.
Welcome. Glad you could be here.
If no one else shows up, you will be the last, Senator,
unless a Senator may come up with some questions. We might do
that.
Senator Duckworth, are you there?
Senator Duckworth. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
today's hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Connor, for your participation today.
In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, our
inland waterways are absolutely critical to the economic well
being of Illinois farmers, as well as other Midwest industries.
Waterways are so important to our competitiveness that a
handful of years ago, industry stakeholders banded together to
secure from Congress a tax increase. Can you imagine? They
asked for a tax increase on their own operations in support of
investments to keep our locks and dams in good repair. That is
something you just don't see every day.
The Corps of Engineers recently updated its capital
investment strategy that prioritizes lock construction projects
with industry stakeholders based on their importance and
benefit to the Nation. In fact, in its 2020 report, the Corps
and the Inland Waterways User Board rated Lock and Dam 25 and
LaGrange Lock and Dam on the Mississippi River as part of the
navigation and ecosystem sustainability program, known as NESP,
as a Tier Alpha project, meaning they are among the Corps' top
priorities for construction.
Mr. Connor, these projects are critical and must get
underway as soon as possible. Will you commit to working with
me to ensure that these projects receive a new start?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Senator, you have my commitment. I
understand the importance and the work that has been done
recently on inland waterways, the trust fund, and the plans
under that. I am happy to make the commitment to continue to
work with you in that effort.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
As to urban flooding, WRDA 2018 directed the Corps to
furnish a report to Congress on the Corps' ability to address
urban flooding, an issue of increasing importance given global
climate change and sea level rise. This report was due to
Congress not later than 1 year after enactment.
But 2 and a half years later, I still do not have my
report. If confirmed, will you commit to updating me on this
effort within your first month as Assistant Secretary?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Senator, if I am confirmed, I commit to
updating you on that report.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Given your previous work on western water issues, you no
doubt can appreciate a bureaucratic pickle when you see one.
And I love pickles, but not this kind. Unfortunately I have
another one for you. The Chicago District's Bubbly Creek
project on the South Branch of the Chicago River. At question
is whether or not the Corps can secure the liability
protections needed to advance a cleanup of this contaminated
area.
In the interest of time I won't delve into the specifics of
this case. But the two Federal agencies with a role in this
matter, the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. EPA, clearly do not
see eye to eye on the problem, and therefore have not
identified a workable solution.
One agency believes this is a policy issue; the other
agency believes this is a statutory issue. Will you commit to
picking up the phone in the first 2 weeks following your
confirmation and calling EPA Administrator Regan to address
this impasse?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Senator, you have my commitment, if I am
confirmed, to move forward with that. Removing bureaucratic
hurdles to make progress is something I share a strong concern
and appreciation for.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. That is the aim, is to remove
the hurdle. I don't want to have any finger pointing; I just
want to find a solution to this.
And very quickly, I have just a little over a minute, just
under 2 minutes left. Mr. Connor, I have a series of rapid fire
questions. If confirmed, will you commit to reinforcing the
importance of the Inland Waterways User Board with Secretary
Austin and help to expedite his review so that the board can be
reactivated as quickly as possible?
Mr. Connor. Yes, definitely. I will work with you on that,
yes.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. And WRDA 2020 includes
several provisions reinforcing the Corps' support for Chicago's
shorelines. If confirmed, will you commit to updating me on
these efforts within the first month on the job?
Mr. Connor. Yes, I will, Senator.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Section 133 of WRDA 2020
authorizes the Corps to repair and rehabilitate Federal pump
stations that are in disrepair. If you are confirmed, I would
like the list of pump stations on the Upper Mississippi that
the Corps plans to prioritize. Will you commit to providing me
with this list within a month of your confirmation?
Mr. Connor. Senator, yes. If confirmed, I will provide you
with that list.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. And finally, will you commit
to visiting Illinois soon and touring some of our critical
infrastructure projects?
Mr. Connor. I am sorry, I missed the commitment.
Senator Duckworth. Will you commit to coming out to
Illinois and touring some of our infrastructure projects? I
promise to get you some sweet corn while you are out there.
Mr. Connor. Yes, Senator, I commit to doing that.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I look forward to speaking
with you again tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I yield back.
Senator Carper. Will that sweet corn extend to the rest of
us, Senator?
Senator Duckworth. It is a deal, Mr. Chairman. You gave me
extra time.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. OK, we have been joined by Senator Padilla
and Senator Markey, in that order.
Senator Padilla, you are recognized.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Connor, good morning. I want to start by saying how
grateful I am that someone with your experience with water and
drought issues in California specifically is being nominated
for this position. As I mentioned to you by phone yesterday,
your reputation precedes you. I want to point out what an
accomplishment it is to be so widely respected in California
water worlds across a variety of stakeholders. If that is an
indicator for how you will do in this position, we have a high,
high expectation.
The Army Corps has been a great partner, not just to the
State of California as a whole but specifically to my home town
of Los Angeles. A devastating flood event in the 1930s prompted
the Federal Government to assist Los Angeles County
specifically in developing and expanding flood control
infrastructure.
The Sepulveda Dam, for example, along with Hanson Dam and
Lopez Dams in the San Fernando Valley, which is literally my
back yard, provide vital risk management of portions of the Los
Angeles River. I look forward to continuing to work with you on
these projects, particularly as there is this re-envisioning
and recreation of what the Los Angeles River should be capable
of while it continues its flood control purposes.
I enjoyed our discussion yesterday by phone. I was also
pleased to hear that climate resiliency is a top priority for
you. With California facing an unprecedented drought and heat
wave combined, literally as we speak, the increased resiliency
of our water infrastructure will be a top priority of mine. I
look forward to having someone who has the familiarity and
experience with California in the Assistant Secretary's office.
There are other issues that I wanted to raise that have
been asked already, so I will just add one specific topic. As
you know, and as we discussed yesterday, the Scripps Institute
of Oceanography has been working for years, together with the
Corps, with the State of California, with a coalition of water
districts particularly in Southern California, as well as
researchers to better integrate storm monitoring into how the
Army Corps regulates water releases from dams throughout the
State. It simply makes no sense that rigid water control
manuals require dam operators to release water during a drought
simply because a decades old water control manual says so.
There is now wide support amongst the California delegation
for the Corps to take into account modern hydrology and
precipitation forecasts into its dam operations, especially as
we face increased variability in rainfall. We have already
started seeing the benefits of this, both at Lake Mendocino in
Northern California as well as the Prado Dam in Southern
California.
So with the time remaining, I would ask if you can speak to
the importance of the forecast informed reservoir operations
program, and the need to update our water control manuals in
the face of increasing variability in precipitation and the
cycle of drought and flooding that are facing in California.
Mr. Connor. Senator, thank you for that question. I very
much enjoyed the discussion yesterday. I absolutely agree that
looking at resiliency, looking at a changing environment, that
improved forecasting, monitoring, operations, is absolutely
critical. We have been operating under rules that were
developed in a time where the environment no longer reflects
the assumptions that were made in putting together those rules.
This was a discussion that we had with the Corps when I was
at the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior. It is
obviously continuing. I think this is a great place to get the
most bang for the buck, making the investments in those
technologies, forecasting and monitoring, so that we can
integrate those in operations, improve water supply or
protection of communities, if we can better forecast those
extreme events, and make progress while we are looking through
the whole array of solutions that have to be in place. Some of
those are infrastructure; a lot of them are natural
infrastructure. But we can't forget technology and our ability
to manage water using information.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Padilla follows:]
Statement of Hon. Alex Padilla,
U.S. Senator from the State of California
I want to start by saying how grateful I am that someone
with your experience with water and drought issues in
California is being nominated for this position. Your
reputation precedes you, and I want to point out what an
accomplishment it is to be so widely respected in the
California water world.
The Army Corps has been a great partner to my hometown of
Los Angeles since damaging flood events in the 1930s prompted
the Federal Government to assist L.A. County in developing and
expanding flood control infrastructure.
The Sepulveda Dam, together with the Hansen and Lopez Dams,
provide vital flood risk management of portions of the San
Fernando Valley along the river, and I look forward to continue
working with you on these projects.
I also enjoyed our discussion yesterday, and I was pleased
to hear that climate resiliency will be a top priority for you.
With California facing an unprecedented drought and heatwave,
increasing the resiliency of our water infrastructure is a top
priority of mine.
I look forward to California having a strong ally in the
Assistant Secretary's office.
atmospheric rivers
As you know, Scripps Institute of Oceanography has been
working for years with the Corps, the State of California, and
with a coalition of water districts and researchers to better
integrate storm monitoring into how the Army Corps regulates
water releases from dams.
It simply makes no sense that rigid water control manuals
requires dam operators to release water during a drought simply
because a decades old water control manual says so.
There is wide support among the California delegation for
the Corps to take into account modern hydrology and
precipitation forecasts into its dam operations, especially as
we face increased variability in rainfall.
We've already started seeing the benefits at Lake Mendocino
in Northern California and Prado Dam in Southern California.
* Can you speak to the importance of the Forecast Informed
Reservoir Operations program and the need to update Water
Control Manuals in the face of increasing variability in
precipitation and the cycle of drought and flooding that we
face in California?
Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, thanks so much for joining
us.
Senator Markey, good to see you.
Senator Markey. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Connor, for your willingness to serve.
So we have a big issue up in Massachusetts. On Cape Cod,
the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges were built in the 1930s as part
of a Franklin Delano Roosevelt Works Progress Administration
plan. They have aged out. We need to replace these two bridges.
It is very important, because 250,000 people who live on Cape
Cod are dependent upon those bridges. During the summer, that
number can double, triple, or quadruple in the number of people
who use those bridges.
The Army Corps of Engineers operates these bridges. They
are the ones who are responsible for them. So we need to
replace them, and they are absolutely critical to the long term
well being of our Commonwealth.
The Army Corps specifically signed a memorandum of
understanding with the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation back in July 2020 formalizing a Federal-State
partnership to deliver two new bridges for the people of Cape
Cod. Implementing this agreement will fall now to the Biden
administration and to the Army Corps. Every year which we delay
is going to lead to more traffic, more costs, more danger when
inevitable storms strike the region.
Mr. Connor, are you willing to work with us, the Army
Corps, in order to make sure that we are able to replace the
Bourne and the Sagamore, and to create for the 21st century a
guaranteed capacity for people to get access on and off of Cape
Cod?
Mr. Connor. Senator Markey, I am not previously familiar
with this project, but given its importance, as you have
outlined, I am happy to work with you in moving forward and
seeing what we can do to ensure that that project is taken care
of.
Senator Markey. Thank you. And again, it is something that
requires the Chairman and the other Members of Congress here to
provide additional Federal funding, and we are working hard on
that in order to make sure that for that project and for so
many other projects in the country that we have the capacity to
work on it.
Just following up on what Senator Carper and Senator
Whitehouse talked to you about, coastal protection, Delaware,
Rhode Island, Massachusetts, but all of us are seeing rising
tides; we are seeing massive erosion; we are seeing
intensification of the storms which are impacting us. In New
England, we have the second fastest warming body of water on
the planet. After the Arctic, we are second, in the Gulf of
Maine. And that is Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island. So that warming is causing tremendous danger being
created.
We want to work with you in order to make sure that we deal
with these issues. For example, under a business as usual
scenario over the course of this century, for the city of
Boston, the sea rise could go as high as 7 additional feet if
we don't take action.
So from our perspective, we need help, and in light of
those concerns, could you explain how, again, following up on
Senator Carper and Senator Whitehouse, how you are going to
enhance comprehensively and expand the capacity of the Army
Corps to combat these threats to coastal communities in the
United States?
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Senator. Overall, my approach in
thinking through how, if confirmed, I would want to approach
the huge number of needs versus the resources, one, I discussed
this earlier a little bit, given that backlog of need out there
I am certainly hopeful and appreciative of the fact that
Congress, in working with the President, is looking at the
infrastructure investments that can be made.
But assessing the risks out there, the vulnerabilities that
exist are going to be a high priority in assessing how to
prioritize the resources we do have. So understanding the risks
associated with the body of water that you talked about, the
energy involved in a warming body of water and the storm surges
that that is going to cause, that is going to be a very high
priority. Because I think that is fundamental to being
effective in allocating resources and addressing resiliency, is
to best understand the risks involved.
So I am very happy to delve more deeply into the issues
that you are talking about, as others, in assessing the coastal
risks versus inland risks, et cetera, and trying to make good
judgments about where to invest resources.
Senator Markey. One of the concerns, obviously, that we
have, and I have been working with the Army Corps on developing
a comprehensive study for addressing Boston's climate
resiliency, we are right in the crosshairs of this climate
crisis. It is coming right for us. Again, we are going to need
to work with the Army Corps to put in place the protections
which we need.
The same thing is true, by the way, for Newburyport.
Newburyport, Plum Island, it is just so vulnerable right now.
The numbers are scary. Twenty percent of Newburyport falls
within FEMA's 100 year flood zone with the risk exacerbated
even further for the oceanfront residents.
So that is why I have been pushing the Army Corps to
urgently address worsening shoreline erosion in that vulnerable
community as well. And I want to work with you on the
Newburyport issue. Because again, it is not their fault that
the ocean is warming right off their coastline. Any one of
these storms could have absolutely catastrophic consequences.
If Hurricane Sandy had just moved a few more degrees, we would
still be digging out Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket and the
city of Boston and Newburyport. We would still be recovering
from it. It would be catastrophic.
So we want to make sure that we undertake additionally
critical work to shore up the sea walls that can prevent these
surging tides. This Committee also has a concomitant
responsibility to ensure that we are funding the solutions to
this climate crisis. Under the leadership of the Chairman, we
are going to be doing that this year.
But we are going to need to partner with you at the Army
Corps. We are totally dependent upon you in the State of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Connor. Absolutely, Senator. I look forward to working
with you on these issues if I am confirmed.
Senator Markey. Thank you so much. We are looking forward
to working with you as well.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for giving me that
opportunity.
Senator Carper. I should thank you, and I do.
All right, I am not sure if we will have any of our other
colleagues to join us. Senator Capito has gone off to the
Appropriations Committee, I believe, and Senator Sullivan is
trying to get here. We will see if he makes it.
In the meantime, I have about 14 more questions.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Not really. I have several more, though.
Are you doing all right?
Mr. Connor. I am doing all right, Senator. My time is your
time, Senator.
Senator Carper. I want to give great credit to your wife
and daughter for sitting here and supporting you through this
grueling examination. This is friendly, as you can tell, a
friendly hearing. We have some that aren't quite as friendly.
But this is an encouraging thing.
A couple more questions, if I may, one of them dealing with
the relationship with OMB. Very often on this Committee we hear
from multiple sources, as you might imagine, about the
sometimes tense relationship between the Corps and the Office
of Management and Budget.
There is a lack of transparency about how the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and Corps recommendations
for a proposed budget are considered by OMB. Many times
Senators, you heard a little of this today, many times Senators
feel that these recommendations are ignored or even overridden
by OMB. This is what happens time and time again, inequity
between coastal and inland funding.
My question is this: How might you as Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works improve the relationship with OMB
and bring a bit more transparency to the budget process?
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Senator. I think it is a huge, an
important question, and it is a huge issue. I say that because
it is one I am very experienced in during my tenure at both
running the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of
Interior, as its CEO.
Working with OMB and trying to have my priorities be its
priorities involved a lot of patient dialogue. It wasn't always
successful, but I will say that through that process of
engagement and not challenging, but wanting to go back and have
discussions when decisions were made that were not reflecting
the priorities that I thought should be in place, I found was
very productive with folks at OMB, having the staff that worked
for me engaged with staff at OMB and then taking it up and
having the discussions at the leadership level when things were
teed up.
It is a process that sometimes you can make immediate
progress on certain issues. I am happy to say that some of the
things that we worked on in 2014, 2015, 2016, didn't see the
light of day until this most recent budget. But clearly they
got internalized at some point, some of the Indian Water Rights
initiatives at Interior, et cetera, so we could make progress
in the short term through engagement, and we can maintain
progress and hopefully build on that in the future. That is
what we need to do.
If I am confirmed, you have my commitment to engage in that
process. I think it is critical for the Army Corps of
Engineers. It is critical for Members of Congress to understand
how decisions are being made. I think at the end of the day it
leads to better decisions with the allocation of budget
resources.
Senator Carper. I think you are right.
Second question. Stakeholders and sponsor collaboration
with the Army Corps of Engineers is a critical component in
solving today's water resources challenges. It helps to limit
the cost of missed opportunities; it promotes better planning;
it provides better transparency and results and more fiscally
and environmentally sound projects.
The Corps unfortunately has been limited in its outreach
methods to promote stakeholder development in a number of
disadvantaged communities. My question is what more could or
should the Corps be doing in terms of collaboration with non-
Federal stakeholders, including those in disadvantaged
communities?
Mr. Connor. Senator, it is a huge challenge for the Corps,
not because I think there is not a commitment there, but just
given the over-subscribed nature of the projects and the works
that are already in place. And quite frankly, I have had these
discussions with General Spellman at a very high level at this
point in time about the challenges to the work force itself in
doing the work that it is expected to do.
So notwithstanding all of those demands, I see, and I think
the Corps in my discussions so far certainly sees, the
direction that has been given by Congress to do the outreach to
disadvantaged communities to look at cost-benefit differently,
to carry out pilot projects that will allow them to engage in
those projects and bring the talents and the expertise and the
protections and the value of the projects that the Corps can
work on with those communities.
They see it, I see it, and it will be a high priority in
this next Administration. My sense is that there will be
resources allocated specifically in this area and with that,
there is no excuse for not moving forward and trying to engage
with these communities.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
We talked a bit in a conversation earlier this week about
natural infrastructure, using natural infrastructure, where can
nature based infrastructure as opposed to manmade
infrastructure as an integral part of the Corps' project
delivery process. Congress has been very clear about moving
these concepts forward. But the incorporation of these features
into water resources projects is still the exception rather
than the rule.
How might you as Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works ensure that Corps planning and engineering standards are
updated to incorporate these principles into the normal project
delivery process?
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Senator. I think what I can do from
my position, if I am confirmed, is to prioritize the need to
integrate nature based solutions, natural infrastructure,
wherever we can and wherever it makes sense. There is a
direction that needs to be in place to always look at that
option. Two, to ensure that we understand all the options
available. Once again, this is a discussion that I have had in
preparation for these hearings, is the need for more research
and development in this area.
We know in some cases where we can move forward. The
beneficial use of dredged material I think is one of those
opportunities. The integration and coastal protections of
natural materials as well as traditional concrete and brick and
mortar type infrastructure I think has been used.
But clearly, from a cost efficiency standpoint and an
opportunity standpoint, we need to do more of that. In looking
at flood risk management and looking at trying to slow down
water in various ways, how do we build more backwaters, how do
we build more access to floodplains, not only to get the
benefits of the protections but to infiltrate groundwater,
depleted groundwater aquifers that are necessary for water
supply, that are necessary for their cooling effects later on
in the year, in the summer when waterflows dip.
There are just so many opportunities to integrate these
natural solutions and get multiple benefits that it will be a
high priority to ensure we are always looking at it, and a high
priority to better understand the research and development and
pilot projects, how we can move forward with that type of
integration.
Senator Carper. Thank you for your response. That is an
important issue to us, not only to the First State, but to a
lot of other States as well, as you know.
Probably my last question of this morning will deal with
the Corps budget. This is a subject others have raised already,
and you have commented on it, too. Once I have asked that
question and you have answered it, if no one else joins us,
Senator Sullivan is trying to; we will see if he can make it.
But if he doesn't, then I will ask you if there is anything you
want to say.
There he is, good, all right.
Colonel, welcome aboard. If you are ready, I can yield to
you now.
We are joined by Senator Sullivan, from the great State of
Alaska.
Senator Sullivan. I am ready; thank you.
Mr. Connor, thank you. Thanks for waiting. I am sorry about
my late arrival here. We had an opportunity to ask some
questions yesterday in front of the Armed Services Committee.
So you get two rounds.
Senator Carper. That is what we call a double shot, with
apologies to Junior Walker and the All Stars.
Senator Sullivan. Again, I appreciated our discussion the
other day.
Let me go into this one topic that I think is actually a
very important one. The budget that the President put forward
for the Corps of Engineers effectively prohibits funding for
Army Corps projects that ``facilitate the transportation of
fossil fuel products.'' Now, you and I kind of did a quick
little back of the envelope estimate. That is probably at least
50 percent of all Corps of Engineers projects.
Let me give one example. I know that in the Boston area,
they import a lot of LNG from Russia. Very bad policy, by the
way, the State of Massachusetts. They would rather import gas
from Russia, our adversary, than Americans who produce gas in
Pennsylvania.
As far as I can tell, this reading wouldn't allow you to
dredge Boston Harbor or do any work there. Do you agree with
this? And what do you think the implications are of a policy
that prohibits the Corps from any, any project that transports
fossil fuels?
Mr. Connor. Senator Sullivan, I appreciated the discussion,
the heads up on this particular matter when we talked the other
night. I don't believe that is a policy. I did go and find the
language that I think you are referring to. I am not 100
percent sure.
My understanding was that in the budget there was language
talking about considerations made in the development of the
budget of which one of those was to limit subsidies that the
Corps would provide for oil and gas, facilitating oil and gas
operations. So first of all, I understand it was a discussion
about the consideration. It was essentially directed toward
subsidies. Moreover, it is a policy document in which there was
this language trying to explain how the overall budget was
developed.
So from that standpoint, I don't believe that is the
policy, that it has the breadth of issues that we, you and I,
were discussing the other night.
Second of all, I can just assure you that in making
decisions about how to allocate resources, I am going to be
focused on the applicable statutes, laws that apply, the
appropriations provided by Congress, and the direction on how
to use those appropriations. That is going to, as I see it, and
I did go through the budget after we talked, it is directing
that a lot of these activities related to commerce and ports
and waterways and transportation needs are going to continue in
full force.
Senator Sullivan. So let me just read some of the language.
It says, ``No funding for work that directly subsidizes fossil
fuels including work that lowers the cost of production, lowers
the cost of consumption, or raises revenues retained by
producers of fossil fuels.'' So do you agree with that?
Mr. Connor. That is a little bit different language than I
have seen.
Senator Sullivan. I am reading the budget.
Mr. Connor. Right. I understand. I need to go back and look
at that specifically.
Senator Sullivan. Look, I am a huge believer in what the
Corps does. Their mission is to build things. A lot of what
they do is transportation. A lot of what they do is pipelines.
A lot of what they do--we still need energy in America. There
is a far left element of the Biden administration that thinks
we can get rid of fossil fuels. We can't. OK? We can't. You
will crush the economy.
By the way, there is a lot of discussion of union jobs in
here. You will kill millions of union jobs. The President is
already pretty good at that.
So I just need your commitment that this kind of policy
makes no sense, and it is a huge, huge component of the work
that the Corps of Engineers does. Right now, the President's
budget is telling and directing you, you can't do a lot of the
work that you traditionally do.
I just think it is a really big issue, Mr. Chairman, that
we need to look at in detail. A number of us are going to be
writing the head of OMB, in the next day or two, to ask direct
questions about this topic.
But can I get your commitment to work with me and others on
this Committee who care about the delivery of energy and the
men and women who produce it, many of whom are union members,
and not discriminate, particularly with regard to the Corps'
mission on projects that help us deliver energy to Americans,
particularly when gasoline prices right now are skyrocketing,
hurting working families?
This is all going to contribute to that. I would like your
commitment to work with me and this Committee on this topic. It
is a really, really important topic. I don't think it is a
partisan topic. I don't think EPW members want to have a policy
that says, you cannot help with the transportation or
consumption of energy. We need energy in America. I know some
of the far left Green New Dealers don't think we do, but we do.
Can I get your commitment on that?
Mr. Connor. You have my commitment to work with you, this
Committee as a whole, to carry out the Corps' mission, to
continue to do those projects and maintain waterways and to
continue to rehabilitate----
Senator Sullivan. How about pipelines?
Mr. Connor. And pipelines, we will move forward with our
permitting responsibilities consistent with the Clean Water
Act, be transparent and do the full analysis. I am happy to
continue to work with you in those areas and to continue that
work in the way it is directed under the existing laws.
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one final
question?
Senator Carper. Yes. I would ask you to be brief. I think
we are about to start voting. Then I want to ask one more
question myself.
Senator Sullivan. We had a really good discussion the other
day, and again, I appreciated all the time that you had in my
office, as it relates to permitting. Again, I think that this
is pretty much a bipartisan issue. We had some good language on
permitting reform here in this Committee when we marked up the
Highway Bill. The Corps has a can do, mission oriented focus on
building things.
But when it takes 9 years to permit a bridge, or 9 to 19
years to permit and build a highway in America, those are
averages, it really, really undermines our ability to put
people to work and build the infrastructure you need, we need
as a country.
Can I get your commitment to work with this Committee--you
and I had a good discussion about this--on permitting reform,
not to cut corners, but to get to projects in an efficient,
timely manner?
As you know, and Mr. Chairman, we have talked about it in
this Committee, if we have efficient, timely permitting, we are
also going to be able to get millions, billions of dollars off
the sidelines from the private sector that will invest in these
kinds of infrastructure projects. But they won't invest if it
is a 10 year permitting timeline.
Can I get your commitment to work with us, this Committee
and me, on those important issues?
Mr. Connor. Senator, yes, absolutely. This will be a high
priority to do our part, if I am confirmed, to make our
permitting system more efficient. That means collaborating,
coordinating with other agencies that are involved, and getting
even to another place that you and I talked about, mitigation
banking and other opportunities. When you bring those in, and
you create more opportunities to deal with the impacts of
projects, I think that also helps to address, creates at least
the opportunity to do permitting more efficiently and move it
forward.
So I am a big fan of the Federal Government working with
others to be more efficient in this process. That is a
longwinded answer to your question; yes, you have my
commitment.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you for joining us. You are worth
waiting for.
Mr. Connor, one last question if I could. Have you ever
heard of a comic strip, Pogo?
Mr. Connor. Yes, sir, I have.
Senator Carper. I think one of the strips was, Pogo would
say, we have met the enemy, and it is us. We have met the
enemy, and it is us. When I hear my colleagues and I ask
questions about the level of funding for the Army Corps to do
its many, many different works across the country, I am
reminded of Pogo.
But as you know, the Congress typically funds the Army
Corps of Engineers at levels actually above the President's
request. I think in the fiscal year 2021 request, the last
Administration, their request was something just under $6
billion. A lot of money. Congress ended up providing--it was
not nearly enough. And Congress ended up providing close to $8
billion for the current fiscal year.
And while those numbers appear to be large, they are large,
the Corps has not made a significant dent in the project
backlog. I estimate it to be nearly $109 billion. Some
observers have said the Corps needs an even larger investment
of up to $140 billion, when the full scope of project needs is
considered.
Will you, if confirmed, will you advocate in this work with
us, work with this Committee to see if we can't convince this
new Administration to help us increase the Corps' budget to
support Corps missions and local needs? As you know, this
budget process, President's request, and the Congress debates
and appropriates moneys. It would be helpful to have an
Administration which actually is aware of this need and to make
sure that when they prepare for their budgets in the future it
is reflective of those needs.
You have made a lot of commitments today, but I am asking
if you would commit to advocate and work with us to increase
the Army Corps' budget to support the needs, the many needs and
missions the Corps' expected to meet. Would you?
Mr. Connor. Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed, you have my
full commitment to elevate these issues, discuss them
rigorously within the Administration and to work with you and
the Committee members in that effort. I am happy to do that.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
I indicated a bit earlier that I would give you a little
bit of time here at the end. Anything else you would like to
say, just in summarizing?
Mr. Connor. No, sir, I think I have said enough today.
Senator Carper. My thanks to you for your willingness.
Let me see if I have anything else.
Thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you for your
willingness to serve our Nation. And my thanks again to your
family, to your wife and to your daughter, because you serve,
too. It is not just your husband, not just your dad.
We are proud on this Committee of our record of
bipartisanship. I like to say that we are work horses here on
this Committee, not show horses. I am delighted that the record
has been demonstrated by our consideration of the President's
nominees for this Congress, and today's hearing continues that
effort. We look forward to hearing more from you in the days
and weeks ahead.
Senator Capito has had to leave. She sends her best, and
joins me in thanking you for coming today and for all your
responses.
Before we adjourn, a little bit of housekeeping. I want to
ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a variety of
materials that include letters from stakeholders, and other
materials that relate to today's nomination hearing.
Senators will be allowed to submit questions for the record
through close of business on Friday, July 16th; that is this
Friday. We will compile those questions and send them to our
witness, and ask that you reply to them by next Wednesday, July
21st.
With that, this hearing is mercifully adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]