[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.
                                 ______