[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 22 (Tuesday, March 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1539-S1541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
McCain):
S. 1987. A bill to provide for reform of the Corps of Engineers, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, together with my friend
from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, I
am introducing the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act
of 2002. ``Corps Reform'', as it is frequently billed, has been the
subject of much heated debate over the last two years. In fact, the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 included a provision on
independent peer review, requested by Senator Feingold.
Since that time, it has become clear to me that we need to
aggressively address a broad range of issue endemic in the Corps. That
is why I am before you today, introducing this bill. The Corps has been
the subject of ``the Fleecing of America'' too many times. My primary
goal is to ensure that Federal taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, on
sound investments that are in the national interest. Our bill achieves
this goal by addressing the mammoth backlog of projects that plagues
the Corps; changing the cost-benefit ratio that a project must meet in
order to be economically justified; updating of the Principles and
Guidelines; instituting independent review of certain projects;
amending some of the cost-share requirements; and limiting the waivers
of non-Federal cost-shares often granted to communities.
It has been projected that there is currently a construction backlog
of well over $40 billion in authorized projects, with annual
appropriations for the construction account of the civil works mission
averaging around $1.8 billion. As such, the majority of the projects in
the backlog will never see a Federal dime. While a great number of
these projects are meritorious and deserve funding, others are not in
the Corps mission, are no longer economically justified, or violate
non-Federal cost-share requirements.
Our bill would require the Corps to provide a list of projects in the
backlog, categorizing each project as ``active,'' ``deferred,''
``inactive.'' There would be a deauthorization mechanism, more
stringent than current law, for projects that have never received
construction funds, for projects that have been suspended, and for
those that don't pass economic muster.
In addition, there are projects ``on the books'' that are more than
25 years old, which have never received construction funds. These
projects should be deauthorized immediately. The Environment and Public
Works Committee can authorize a restudy if any of these projects are
thought to have modern benefits and meet the requisite standards.
Currently, projects are only required to meet a 1:1 cost-benefit
ratio. I find this appalling. No one would invest in the stock market
at such a return. According to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, 36
percent of the 310 major projects authorized since 1986 have been
authorized with a benefit-to-cost ratio of less than 1.5. Construction
of these projects would cost more than $7 billion. Especially in these
times of war and deficit spending, taxpayers cannot afford, nor should
be asked to fund such projects. My bill would require that projects
return benefits that are one and a half times the project costs, a vast
improvement over current practice.
My friends, do not fear deauthorization. It is a cleansing process,
getting the inactive projects off the books will only serve to better
the chances of completed funding for those projects that remain.
I would also like to highlight the independent review provision in my
bill. WRDA 2000 required the National Academy of Sciences to issue a
report making recommendations on the effectiveness of independent peer
review. Many will ask, why not wait until the Academy's report is
issued before addressing this issue in legislation. I would like to
explain to my colleagues, if the Academy makes recommendations that
differ from what I have included in this bill, I am open to making
refinements as this bill moves through the legislative process. But I
wanted to include a provision on independent review to highlight the
importance of the issue, as well as my belief that such review will
help restore integrity to the Corps and its study processes.
Let me say a word about cost-shares. I think it is important that a
non-Federal sponsor partner with the Federal Government in the
advancement of Corps of Engineers projects. The landmark WRDA 1986
established most of the modern cost-share formulas. But some of these
cost share arrangements could be stronger. For example, the benefits
realized by beach replenishment projects are highly localized. The non-
Federal interests should thus be responsible for a larger portion of
the replenishment costs. I also believe that there should be a
financial incentive, in the form of a better cost share, for non-
structural flood damage reduction projects. This only seems logical
from a financial sense, as well as an environmental standpoint. And as
for the costs associated with the Inland Waterways system, IWS, there
should be a distinction between those segments of the System that carry
most of the traffic and those that are underutilized. Approximately 30
percent of the Operations and Maintenance funds are devoted to segments
of the IWS that realize a mere 3 percent of the traffic. My bill
attempts to address this issue by reformulating how O&M costs are paid.
I say to my friends, my intention here is not to beat up on the Corps
of Engineers. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, I have a great deal of respect for the Chief of
Engineers and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. This
bill should not be interpreted as a statement on their effectiveness. I
merely want to implement mechanisms to make the Agency more fiscally
responsible. The taxpayers deserve our attention to this matter.
I realize that many of my distinguished colleagues will oppose our
efforts to improve and modernize the Corps of Engineers. I daresay,
part of the problem is that any meaningful reform of the Corps will
require a reform of the practices of Congress, as well. If your project
is meritorious, if it has local support and adheres to cost-sharing
requirements and cost-benefit ratio, if your project is in the Corps
mission, you need not worry. This bill is about clearing the way for
projects that warrant the taxpayers' investment.
As for where we go from here, the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee will hold a hearing on the issue of Corps Reform in the
upcoming months. I expect this bill to be part of the debate of the
hearing.
Average Americans toil all day long, and some, all night, trying to
make meager ends meet. How can I look these Americans in the eye and
say, your tax dollars pay to maintain a waterway that sees two barges a
year or to replenish the sand on a beach where the median home price is
$1.5 million? Taxpayers' hard-earned money should not be devoted to
pouring sand on the beaches of the wealthy. Taxpayer dollars should be
spent more wisely than to maintain deadbeat waterways. Particularly
during this time of belt-cinching, we should show more fiscal
restraint!
I would like to quote another Mr. Smith, that is, Mr. Smith of Maine,
who served on the House Committee of Ways and Means in the days before
this country was embroiled in Civil War. Mr. Smith, in a Report of the
Ways and Means Committee dated February 10, 1836 wisely counseled:
``Heedless and useless or unavailable expenditure of the public
treasury are alike to be avoided in all legislation.'' He further
noted: ``Every Government . . . is susceptible of acquiring habits of
lavish expenditure and extravagance in its operations.'' Every
Government ``requires constant watching to preserve its own purity.''
Well, folks, I am here to say, our government's practices are not pure.
But there is something that we can do about it.
Corps Reform. It's going to be an uphill battle, but it's a start. I
challenge, not just my fiscally conservative friends, but all my
colleagues, to put aside their parochial interests for the general good
of the taxpayers' hard-earned money.
As we move forward, please understand that I am open to suggestions
as to how to improve upon the ideas embodied in this bill. I want to
work together with my colleagues to make
[[Page S1540]]
this bill as meaningful, responsive, and responsible as possible.
Please join me in advancing this fiscally responsible legislation.
Our bill is supported by taxpayer advocacy groups such as the
Taxpayers for Common Sense, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against
Government Waste, as well as environmental groups, for example,
National Wildlife Federation and Environmental Defense. I have some
letters of support and ask unanimous consent that they be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Environmental Defense,
March 5, 2002.
Senator Bob Smith,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: Environmental Defense strongly supports
the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of
2002 and applauds your efforts to restore trust in the Corps'
planning process and to focus scarce federal funds on
economically and environmentally sound civil works projects.
The Corps has an important role to play in the management
of the nation's water resources, including the restoration of
ecosystems like the Everglades, Coastal Louisiana, and the
Columbia, Snake, Mississippi and Missouri rivers.
Unfortunately, scarce federal funds are frequently wasted on
projects with few economic benefits and high environmental
costs.
We believe the Corps of Engineers Modernization and
Improvement Act of 2002 will move to accelerate the
construction of nationally critical projects by prioritizing
and shrinking the Corps' $52 million backlog, subjecting
questionable projects to greater review, and by asking cost-
sharing partners to share a larger portion of project costs.
Too many Corps projects have failed to generate predicted
benefits--including many segments of the inland waterway
system--and too many projects with questionable economic
benefits continue to be constructed.
We are aware that powerful special interests will oppose
these changes to bring basic fiscal sense to federal funding
for water projects. It takes an exceptional degree of
principal and courage to take on these interests. We are
confident, however, that your leadership on this issue can
make a big difference.
We applaud your efforts to restore trust in the Corps'
planning process and to focus scarce federal funds on
economically and environmentally sound projects.
Sincerely,
Scott Faber,
Water Resources Specialist.
Timothy Searchinger,
Senior Attorney.
____
March 5, 2002.
Senator Robert Smith,
Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Russell Feingold,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Senator John McCain,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith, Feingold, and McCain: Taxpayers for
Common Sense commends you for introducing the Corps of
Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2002.
This legislation could stop more than $15 billion of
wasteful spending at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by
deauthorizing wasteful and outdated projects, limiting the
Corps to only building projects within its mission, requiring
greater accountability in its project planning process, and
increasing the non-Federal contributions to project costs.
With the return of budget deficits the timing and need for
this legislation could not be greater.
As early as 1836, Members of Congress started raising
questions about cost overruns and mismanagement by the Corps
in constructing water projects. Back then, Congressman
Francis O. Smith from Maine, Chairman of the House Ways and
Means Committee, rebuked the Corps for a host of problems in
constructing 25 wasteful projects in the committee report on
the Harbors and Rivers Act.
More than 160 years later, Taxpayers for Common Sense and
National Wildlife Federation published a report criticizing
the Corps for pursuing 25 other projects that would waste
more than $6 billion of federal taxpayer money.
A steady stream of Congressional authorizations of new
projects over the last two decades has swelled the Corps'
construction backlog to $52 billion. However, despite a 50%
increase in the Crops' construction backlog over the last six
years, it would still take the agency more than 25 years to
construct all of those projects at current funding levels
assuming no new projects were authorized.
The reluctance of many Members of Congress to criticize
wasteful spending has created this enormous backlog, leading
to a situation where everyone loses because no projects are
getting built. A Taxpayers for Common Sense analysis of the
backlog found that the typical Corps project was only 24%
completed, based upon the median rate of completion.
Legitimate projects, like operation and maintenance of
high-volume waterways, are suffering at the hands of
``mission creep'' projects like the $311 million Grand
Prairie Irrigation project in east Arkansas, a project
that even the farmers who the Corps identified as the
beneficiaries oppose.
Unfortunately, the Corps has not taken measures to
alleviate these problems. Instead, last week at Senate Budget
Committee hearings, Assistant Secretary of the Army Mike
Parker and Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers half-heartedly defended
President Bush's FY03 budget request while testifying that
the way to reduce the backlog was to give the Corps a raise
this year from $4 billion to $6.4 billion, a 60% increase
over the President's request.
The Corps has become embroiled in several scandals over the
manipulated and shoddy evaluation of project studies. In the
most infamous case, the Army Inspector General reprimanded
three senior Corps officials for ``cooking the books'' to
bias a study of lock expansions on the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers so that the results favored a $1.2 billion
project alternative. In the last two years, five other major
Corps projects have been found through independent economic
analyses to be unjustified: the $360 million Delaware River
deepening project, the $188 million Columbia River deepening
project, the $127 million Dallas Floodway Extension project,
the $108 million Oregon Inlet Jetties project, and the $40
million Chesapeake and Delaware Canal deepening project.
Clearly, the Corps is incapable of producing objective
analyses of projects. This is why the independent peer review
provisions of your bill are so critical. Taxpayers deserve
better accountability for how their hard earned tax dollars
are being spent.
The Corps doesn't need a raise, it just needs a good dose
of common sense. Like all taxpayers faced with a tight
budget, the Corps must be forced to prioritize and focus on
the projects it does best within its mission.
With pursuit of the reforms in this bill, you will be
building upon a notable legacy left by President Reagan in
1986. That year, Congress agreed to his landmark cost sharing
rules that required local beneficiaries to pay a share of
each project. Not only will you be following in Reagan's
footsteps, but you are charting a new course for the further
of water resources development in America. On behalf of
taxpayers, thank you for your leadership on this important
matter.
Sincerely,
Joe Theissen,
Executive Director.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from
New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, in introducing the Corps of Engineers
Modernization and Improvement Act of 2002. I am very pleased to be
working with him on this issue, and admire his dedication to fiscal
responsibility as embodied in this measure.
As the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and I introduce this
bill, we realize that Corps Reform is a work in progress. Reforming the
Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress. It involves
restoring credibility and accountability to a Federal agency rocked by
scandals and constrained by endlessly growing authorizations and a
gloomy Federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency that Wisconsin, and
many other States across the country, have come to rely upon. From the
Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in
providing aids to navigation, environmental remediation, water control
and a variety of other services to my state. My office has strong
working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul
District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the fiscal and
management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can
continue to contribute to our environment and our economy.
This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an
amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create
independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to
my initiative, the bill's managers, which included the Senator from New
Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and the then Chairman, the Senator from Montana,
Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their Manager's Package
which should help get the Authorizing Committee, the Environment and
Public Works Committee, the additional information it needs to develop
and refine legislation on this issue through a study by the National
Academy of Sciences, NAS, on peer review.
Earlier this Congress, I introduced the Corps of Engineers Reform Act
of 2001, S. 646. The measure the Senator from New Hampshire and I
introduce
[[Page S1541]]
today includes many provisions that were included in my original bill,
and codifies the idea of independent review of the Corps about which we
agreed in the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism
to speed up completion of construction for good Corps projects with
large public benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically
wasteful projects. The bill put forward bold concepts. It streamlines
the existing automatic deauthorization process. Under the bill a
project authorized for construction but never started is deauthorized
if it is denied appropriations funds towards completion of construction
for five straight years. In addition, a project that has begun
construction but denied appropriations funds towards completion for
three straight years. The bill also preserves Congressional prerogative
over setting the Corps' construction priorities by allowing Congress a
chance to reauthorize any of these projects before they are
automatically deauthorized. This process will be transparently to all
interests, because the bill requires the Corps to make an annual list
of projects in the construction backlog available to Congress and the
public at large via the Internet. The bill also allows a point of order
to be raised in the Senate against projects included in legislation for
which the Corps has not completed necessary studies determining that a
project is economically justified and in the federal interest.
The Senator from New Hampshire and I came to a meeting of the minds
on the issue of independent review of Corps projects. But the bill we
introduce today is much more than that. It is a comprehensive revision
of the project review and authorization procedures at the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Our joint goal is to have the Corps to increase
transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, and
to allow greater stakeholder involvement in their projects. We are
committed to that goal, and to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of
this year's Water Resources bill.
I also look forward, to the upcoming hearing process, and stand ready
to work with the Senator from New Hampshire in merging the bill we
introduce today with S. 646, my bill from earlier this Congress. My
bill, S. 646, which is sponsored in the other body by my colleague from
Wisconsin, Representative Kind, includes a number of important concepts
that are central to environmental protection and that should be part of
Corps Reform.
The Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its
projects in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands
in the first place and either holding other lands or constructing
wetlands elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps
requires private developers to meet this standard when they construct
projects as a condition of receiving a federal permit, and I think the
federal government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the
Corps does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental
risks. I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the
true costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and
that the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation
projects. In addition, the concurrent mitigation requirements of S. 646
would actually reduce the total mitigation costs by ensuring the
purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible. I look forward to
exploring these ideas with the Senator from New Hampshire as we work to
produce a final product.
I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a
reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch
mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps
officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified
projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the
never ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters, include
Congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to
champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork
and no substance.
I wish it were the case, that I could argue that the changes we are
proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that there is
need for this bill. I want to make sure that future Corps projects no
longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers
more than the Corps estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental
impacts, and are built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill
will help the Corps do a better job which is what the taxpayers and the
environment deserve.
______