[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 96 (Thursday, July 20, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8039-S8041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, during yesterday's debate on the Water
Resources Development Act, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Jeffords, and I
agreed to submit for the Record a colloquy clarifying the intent of a
provision authorizing the Poplar Island expansion project in Maryland.
Unfortunately, this colloquy was inadvertently left out. I ask
unanimous consent that the colloquy be printed in the Congressional
Record at this point and that the permanent Record be corrected so that
this colloquy appears with the rest of yesterday's debate on the bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the
distinguished chairman in a colloquy with respect to the
provisions in section 1001(a)(20), authorizing the Poplar
Island Expansion, Maryland.
Mr. INHOFE. I would be happy to respond to the Senator from
Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. I would simply like to clarify that it is the
intent of the committee that this provision authorizes
construction of a 575-acre addition to the existing 1,140-
acre Poplar Island, MD, beneficial use of dredged material
project which is presently under construction and authorizes
an additional $256.1 million for that expansion.
Mr. INHOFE. The Senator from Maryland is correct. Section
1001(a)(20) authorizes the Secretary to construct the
expansion of the Poplar Island, MD, project in accordance
with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31,
2006, at an additional total cost of $256,100,000. This will
increase the overall environmental restoration project at
Poplar Island from 1,140 acres to approximately 1,715 acres
and bring the total cost of the existing project and the
expansion project to $643.4 million, with an estimated
Federal cost of $482.4 million and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $161 million.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I concur that this is the committee's intent.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman and ranking member for
this clarification and for including this provision which is
vitally important for the Port of Baltimore and the
Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank you for having this important
debate
[[Page S8040]]
regarding our Nation's aging infrastructure and for allowing this body
to discuss the merits of Corps of Engineers reform.
As you know, I supported allowing this bill to come to the Senate
floor for consideration. Congress has not passed a water resources
authorization bill since 2000, and particularly in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina, this debate is long overdue. While many attempted to
derail consideration of this debate, I did not because I believed that
we must have this discussion in the open.
That being said, I have deep concerns regarding the legislation that
is before us today. Specifically, I am concerned that we are missing a
historic opportunity to incorporate the many lessons learned since the
last WRDA bill passed in 2000. Consider the following developments that
highlight the critical need for reform of the Corps of Engineers:
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in
March 2006 that ``the cost benefit analyses performed by the
Corps to support decisions on Civil Works projects . . . were
generally inadequate to provide a reasonable basis for
deciding whether to proceed with the project . . .'' GAO-06-
529T--Corps of Engineers: Observations on Planning and
Project Management Processes for the Civil Works Program
(March 15, 2006)
In remarking on the fact that the Corps reprogrammed over
$2.1 billion through 7,000 reprogramming actions in fiscal
years 2003 and 2004, the GAO noted that the Corps' practice
was often ``not necessary'' and is ``reflect[ive] of poor
planning and an absence of Corps-wide priorities for its
Civil Works priorities.'' GAO-06-529T--Corps of Engineers:
Observations on Planning and Project Management Processes for
the Civil Works Program (March 15, 2006)
In a report to Congress in 2003 regarding the Sacramento
flood protection project, the GAO found that the Corps used
``an inappropriate methodology to calculate the value of
protected properties'' and failed to properly report expected
cost increases. Consider the projected costs for the three
primary Sacramento projects: the Common Features Project
increased from $57 million in 1996 to $370 million in 2002;
the American Features project increased from $44 million in
1996 to $143 million in 2002; and the Natomis Basin component
has ballooned from an early estimated cost of $13 million, to
$212 million in 2002. GAO-04-30--Corps of Engineers: Improved
Analysis of Costs & Benefits Needed for the Sacramento Flood
Control Project.
Thanks to a Corps whistleblower and a subsequent
investigation by the Army inspector general, we know that the
Corps: ``manipulated the economic analyses of the feasibility
study being conducted on the Upper Mississippi lock expansion
project in order to steer the study to a specific outcome.''
Furthermore, the investigation revealed that a Corps official
knowingly directed that ``mathematically flawed'' data be
used to justify the project. High-ranking Corps officials
also were criticized for giving ``preferential treatment to
the barge industry . . .'' by allowing industry
representatives to become direct participants in the economic
analysis.'' U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Statement of
Elaine Kaplan. Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special
Counsel (December 2000).
I could add several more examples, including the many lessons we have
learned in the wake of Katrina, but my point is clear: the processes
used for project justification, for long-term planning, for cost
containment, and for project accountability are fundamentally flawed
and do not serve the best interests of American taxpayers. For too
long, we have allowed project costs to soar, routinely accepted
inaccurate studies to justify large projects, and rarely, if ever,
asked the tough questions of Corps officials.
Congress plays a central role in the oversight of all Federal
agencies, and with respect to the Corps, we have failed taxpayers
miserably. Why? Perhaps a better question would be to ask who benefits
most from lax congressional oversight. I would argue that Members
themselves are the real winners. We get the projects we want,
regardless of the cost or the overall impact on critical national
infrastructure, and the Corps is allowed to operate as it pleases. This
environment--with every incentive for construction and little or no
incentive for accountability--is a recipe for disasters of all sorts.
The only way to fix this problem in the long term is to bring fiscal
transparency and oversight to this process.
First and foremost, we have to develop our ability to prioritize
authorized Corps projects. The Corps currently faces a $58 billion
dollar project backlog that will take many decades to resolve, and this
bill will add over $10 billion more to that backlog. Many worthwhile
projects, already debated and authorized by previous Congresses,
languish in the annual competition for appropriations. Taking their
place in line are politically popular projects that rarely address
vital national infrastructure needs. Again, we are failing taxpayers.
I am pleased to see the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators
Feingold and McCain, that will squarely address this lack of
prioritization. The tools that will be provided by this amendment will
strengthen the ability of Members of Congress to analyze the hundreds
of authorized Corps projects and determine which are in the
best interests of our Nation. Congress maintains its discretion to fund
whichever projects it deems most appropriate, but we will do so with an
abundance of new data that will highlight critical national
infrastructural needs. Funds are increasingly limited, and we have a
responsibility to prioritize projects based on their impact.
Second, in our efforts to improve this important process, Congress
must consider ways to bring greater oversight to the Corps. The many
instances of wrongdoing in the Corps project justification process make
clear that we must do better. With billions of dollars at stake and
often thousands of lives hanging in the balance, we simply cannot allow
for manipulation and undue influence in the justification study
process.
Again, I am pleased to see the efforts of Senators McCain and
Feingold in addressing this void. The Corps has proven itself incapable
of mending these problems on its own, and nowhere is this more apparent
than in the project justification process. It is imperative that
outside experts, with no stake in large-scale construction proposals,
be allowed to review these types of Corps studies. While I may have
designed the amendment in a slightly different manner, I look forward
to supporting the McCain-Feingold approach that will allow for a truly
independent and time-sensitive review by a panel of experts. At the end
of the day, Congress still makes the final decision on which projects
to fund, and in no way will this amendment impact our constitutional
obligations or slow project construction. We can still fund wasteful
and inefficient spending if we so desire. If we pass this amendment, at
least we will ensure that the studies we cite are accurate. We owe that
to the American public.
I am grateful to my colleagues for the countless hours they have
spent in putting this bill together. I know the road that led to this
debate today was not an easy one, and it has been a long and difficult
journey. As we embark on this debate and in our legitimate desire to
pass this legislation, however, we must not overlook the critical need
for Corps reform. The many lessons we have learned since WRDA 2000 are
as numerous as they are pressing. The Corps of Engineers is staffed by
many dedicated and hard-working Americans, many of whom are in my
State. The agency itself, however, is ailing and demands our attention.
If the Corps is to continue to meet the mandate it has been given and
serve the needs of the American taxpayer, we must not move forward
without the incorporation of new oversight and transparency.
America's waterways and flood control projects have played an
important role in protecting our communities and in spurring
agricultural and industrial commerce. Unless we can reform the Corps,
though, their impact will increasingly diminish. As it stands today,
the Corps is not accountable to Congress, and ultimately, it is not
accountable to the American taxpayer. We have a historic opportunity to
change this environment, and we must seize it.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendment
No. 4684, the McCain-Feingold-Prioritization amendment, to the Water
Resources Development Act.
The city of New Orleans has been under a constant threat of flooding
from the ``big one'' ever since it was founded in 1718. Though the city
has survived, its flood control defenses have been tested and
occasionally overwhelmed. There was the great flood of 1927 when the
Mississippi River spilled into the city, and there was Hurricane Betsy
in 1965, which, according to Senator Russell Long of Louisiana,
``picked up ... [Lake Pontchartrain]
[[Page S8041]]
and put it inside New Orleans and Jefferson Parish.''
In the same year that Betsy inundated the city, Congress authorized a
hurricane protection project to protect the city. That project was
supposed to take 13 years, cost $85 million, and, according to the Army
Corps, protect greater New Orleans from the equivalent of a fast-moving
category 3 hurricane.
In the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's
investigation into the preparation for and response to Hurricane
Katrina, our committee learned that that project was still a decade or
more away from completion--close to 50 years after this body authorized
its construction--and the total cost of the project had ballooned to
more than $750 million. In addition, the project did not provide the
level of protection for New Orleans and the region that it was expected
to provide.
There were many reasons for the delay, including natural ones such as
the subsidence of the land in southeastern Louisiana. Building levees
in this part of the country required the Army Corps to return time and
time again to add additional layers to the levees, known as lifts, to
accommodate for the sinking soils.
But there were also manmade reasons for the delay, such as the
absence of Federal funding. In recent years, local Army Corps officials
have had to scramble to move these Louisiana hurricane protection
projects forward. Local Army Corps officials had to urge local levee
boards to contact their congressional delegation to ask for financial
help to restore levees to their original design height, and on two
recent occasions, the Army Corps had to rely on the local levee
districts, which share in the cost of these projects, to advance them
money so they could continue construction of segments of the hurricane
protection system.
As the Corps of Engineers' own Interagency Performance Evaluation
Taskforce, or IPET, investigators observed, if one part of the levee
system comes up short, it can compromise the entire protection system.
Yet this levee system, which was supposed to be protecting one of
America's most vulnerable cities, was never finished, and as a result,
when Katrina hit last August, dire consequences ensued.
We learned from Katrina that there is a need to focus limited Federal
resources on finishing flood control projects that are critical to our
Nation's health, safety, and welfare. The Army Corps' current process
to do this is inadequate. As the GAO testified before the House in
March, ``The Corps' planning and project management processes cannot
ensure that national priorities are appropriately established across
the hundreds of civil works projects that are competing for scarce
federal resources.''
The McCain-Feingold amendment on prioritization, which I am proud to
cosponsor, will address this problem by requiring the Water Resources
Planning Coordinating Committee, which the underlying WRDA Bill already
establishes for other purposes to evaluate the importance of Corps
projects in three different categories--storm damage reduction
projects, navigation projects, and environmental restoration projects.
The amendment also requires the committee to rank projects in each
category so that Congress, and the Corps itself, can determine what
projects are the most important to pursue and most worthy of funding.
The Coordinating Committee will then submit its report to Congress and
make the report available to the public.
With that information, Congress can make better decisions about how
to spend scarce Federal resources on critical infrastructure projects
across the country. We have to learn from Katrina and we should never
again allow a project that is so critical to the very livelihood of so
many to languish because we did not give it the priority it deserved.
I know many of my colleagues are concerned that this amendment will
remove authority from individual Members about how to spend Army Corps
dollars. I understand that concern, but the reality is that the Corps
has more work to do than funding to do it. This WRDA bill will add
another $10 to $12 billion in Army Corps projects on top of the
estimated $58 billion in backlogged Army Corps projects that are
authorized but not yet funded. Without some system of prioritizing
projects, as this amendment would require, we run the risk of another
Katrina-like situation where critical projects are not given the
priority they deserve. On the other hand, by requiring the Corps to
prioritize projects in each category--flood control, navigation, and
environmental restoration--we can ensure that there is a balance among
the types of projects that are funded and that the most important and
cost-effective projects in each category get the attention they
deserve.
Water resources projects are important to each and every State, but
we need to heed the lessons of Katrina and make sure that we spend our
tax dollars where they are most needed.
I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.
____________________