[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[House]
[Page H5640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CHANCE TO KEEP FAITH WITH AMERICAN TAXPAYERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week, Members of the House of 
Representatives will have a chance to keep faith with the American 
taxpayers and the interests of our each and every district. The 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I will offer an amendment to 
assure that the most expensive project in the history of the Corps of 
Engineers, the Upper Mississippi River Navigation expansion, is in fact 
justified.
  This $1.8 billion project will take up 10 to 15 percent of the entire 
Corps construction budget for years, perhaps decades to come, impacting 
projects in every congressional district. That is because the Corps' 
current backlog of construction is about $58 billion and the 
construction budget is less than $2 billion a year. We need to make 
sure that we are using our limited funding for worthwhile projects.
  Now, while I have deep reservations about this project, I respect the 
hard work of our chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), 
of the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson), and particularly of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Costello), who, for years has worked hard in the committee and behind 
the scenes to make this a better project.
  Out of respect for their hard work, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) and I have come up with a compromise, not to eliminate the 
project, but simply to make sure that we are preserving the integrity 
of the Corps' project and the fiscal responsibility of Congress.
  The amendment we will offer will authorize the project to proceed if 
the minimum economic justification that has been offered for the 
project is met. The planning is such that this project is going to be 
in a planning stage for the next 5 years. So our amendment will not in 
any way interfere with the planning process itself. It will simply 
require that over the course of the next 3 years that the projections 
for barge traffic at the minimum level are met.
  Now, this is the key justification because barge traffic is cited in 
scenarios put forward by the Corps to show the need for this massive 
project because they claim that barge traffic on the Mississippi River 
system is going up. But according to the Corps' own data, barge traffic 
has declined 23 percent from 1992 to 2003. Last year it dropped by 19 
percent.
  While it seems the Corps' traffic scenarios are wildly 
overoptimistic, and that barge traffic is likely to continue its 
decline, our amendment will allow the Corps to go forward with its 
planning project if, over the next 3 years, they meet the lowest 
scenario that makes this project economically justified.
  Why is this special attention so important? Well, I have already 
pointed out it is the largest project in the history of the Corps and 
is going to impact projects all across the country that are worthy and 
much more important. But we ought to consider the troubled history of 
this project, for this project is, for many people, the project that 
launched the Corps Reform movement. In 2000, the Corps economist, 
Donald Sweeney, claimed that the Corps officials ordered him to cook 
the books in order to economically justify this project. After a 
whistle blower investigation, the Army Inspector General agreed, and 
two generals and a colonel lost their jobs.
  This project epitomizes the need for reform and modernization of the 
Corps of Engineers. It is an example of how the Corps' planning system 
has a bias towards large structural projects. The National Association 
of Science has concluded that the Corps has ignored nonstructural 
alternatives such as congestion fees, scheduling and switch boats, that 
will enable the system to work better. And we do not yet have a good 
system of independent review, which, if it had been required of this 
project, we would not be arguing about it today.
  Several National Academy of Science reports have examined the 
project. In 2001, the panel concluded the Corps had relied on over 
optimistic projections. In December of 2003 a second panel renewed 
their objections, concluding it was not possible to evaluate the 
benefits of lock expansion until an efficient system for managing the 
waterway was implemented. Last year an additional report concluded that 
despite the Corps' efforts, ``the study contains flaws serious enough 
to limit its credibility and value in the policymaking program.''
  While I believe we have gone a long way in modernizing many of the 
Corps activities, I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Duncan) and the committee for the work that WRDA has done. It is a 
step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to look at this 
amendment, and I urge its approval.

                          ____________________