[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 145 (Monday, September 26, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6075-S6076]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 5325, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5325) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2017, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Cochran) amendment No. 5082, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       McConnell amendment No. 5083 (to amendment No. 5082), to 
     change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 5084 (to amendment No. 5083), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 5085 (to the language proposed to 
     be stricken by amendment No. 5082), to change the enactment 
     date.
       McConnell amendment No. 5086 (to amendment No. 5085), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell motion to commit the bill to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, with instructions, McConnell amendment No. 
     5087, to change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 5088 (to (the instructions) 
     amendment No. 5087), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 5089 (to amendment No. 5088), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.


                              Iowa Floods

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, natural disasters happen. Eight years 
ago, Senator Harkin and I had to deal with flooding in Eastern Iowa. 
Today Senator Ernst and I are called upon to observe--as we did this 
past weekend--a great amount of flooding in Eastern Iowa. Earlier this 
year, we also heard the Senators from West Virginia and the Senators 
from Louisiana speak about the natural disasters in their State. It was 
only 8 years ago that I was on the floor talking about the record 
devastation caused by severe storms and floods. Many of the same places 
are currently experiencing similar flooding as rivers are cresting at 
record or near-record levels.
  On Saturday, I toured several cities with the Governor, the 
Lieutenant Governor, and Members of the Iowa congressional delegation, 
including Senator Ernst. We saw debris and damage left by receding 
floodwaters, many homes underwater, and great flood fight preparations.
  Many businesses and individual volunteers have been working 
tirelessly to help prevent damage to both public and private property 
and to help clean up. Today I had a discussion with the mayor of 
Greene, IA, about the numbers of high schools that are closed in that 
area, but the kids are coming in to help clean up in the city of 
Greene, IA. This is the Iowa way. I thank those who have helped and 
will provide assistance in the future.
  Since the floods of 2008, many lessons have been learned. Plans and 
training to protect Iowa communities are in place. I am pleased to 
report that the mitigation through Federal, State, and local resources 
that has taken place throughout Iowa since the floods of 2008 has been 
beneficial. This has already proven effective and will lessen the 
impact of this year's floods. It is estimated that more than $50 
million of reduced impact will be experienced because of previous 
mitigation efforts. However, as we learned this weekend, so much 
remains to be done.
  Iowa's second largest city, Cedar Rapids, experienced massive 
devastation, with more than 1,300 city blocks covered in water and over 
$32 billion worth of damages from the floods of 2008. Today, as a 
result of massive amounts of rain upstream over the last few days, the 
city of Cedar Rapids is fighting to prepare for the high crest on the 
Cedar River, second only to 2008. Cedar Rapids is doing everything it 
can to protect its citizens by using HESCO barriers, earthen levees, 
and berms. However, a permanent solution through permanent flood 
control structures is still very much needed.
  Even prior to the 2008 floods, the protection of the Cedar River in 
Cedar Rapids was identified as needing evaluation. In 2006, Congress 
authorized a flood risk management feasibility study with the 
feasibility cost share arrangement being signed on May 30, 2008. Since 
then, the feasibility study was completed and alternatives were chosen, 
although this Federal project protects only a portion of Cedar Rapids. 
I worked to get the construction of the project authorized in the Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. That happened to be the 
first WRDA bill since 2007. However, funding has been difficult to 
obtain since the benefit-cost ratio is just over one from the point of 
view of the Corps of Engineers' scoring.
  I am pleased the Senate instructed the Army Corps of Engineers to 
expedite this and three other flood damage reduction and flood risk 
management projects in the recently passed Water Resources Development 
Act.
  Also in this year's act, the Senate passed an amendment to the bill 
that I was pleased to cosponsor with my colleague, Senator Ernst, 
requiring the Government Accountability Office to study the Army Corps 
of Engineers' methodology and performance metrics used to calculate 
benefit-cost ratios when evaluating construction projects.
  I have heard from Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and several other places 
in Iowa regarding their concerns about how the Corps calculates the 
benefit of structures and that mitigation and future savings is not a 
strong factor in determining flood risk management.
  Let me say that as I talk to people in Iowa--but particularly in 
Cedar Rapids, IA--about the cost-benefit ratio, mitigation, and future 
savings not being taken so much into consideration, it is something 
that they just do not understand. I recognize that this is a complex 
issue and that the Corps rarely gets enough funding to maintain and 
operate what it owns, let alone start numerous construction projects. I 
also recognize the need to have a rationale on how to prioritize 
projects when there are scarce resources, and I have been supportive of 
these efforts.
  However, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work when dealing with 
flood protection. This is the most difficult thing to explain to people 
in Cedar Rapids, IA. It is a necessity to more accurately quantify 
future benefits and the protection of citizens when making benefit-cost 
ratios. We also need to find a way to expedite these flood projects so 
it doesn't take 20 to 40

[[Page S6076]]

years to study, design, and build--and it seems as if it takes forever 
to get completed.
  Again, Iowans--especially the people of Cedar Rapids--when they are 
faced with severe, repeated flooding, don't understand why the Federal 
Government does not prioritize flood risk management and mitigation 
instead of spending emergency money to fight, recover, and then put 
them back in the same position as they were before. That money was 
spent in 2008--maybe not as much money, but still a great deal of money 
was spent this year--and still they are in the same position. That is 
what is not seemed to be understood. This money would be better spent 
actually mitigating the problem and protecting citizens and their 
property.
  I have heard of similar concerns all across the United States, not 
just in Iowa. My staff has surveyed articles from Louisiana, Texas, New 
Jersey, and Idaho, all stating similar concerns. I am sure that if we 
continued to look, we would find others as well.
  I call on the Army Corps of Engineers to carefully evaluate how they 
can improve their areas of flood control policy. Reforms have taken 
place to expedite the study, planning, and report process, but reforms 
are needed to how they make these determinations.
  I also call on the Office of Management and Budget and my colleagues 
on the Appropriations Committee to change the way the Army Corps of 
Engineers receives its funding. Every part of the Corps' budget could 
be considered an earmark under Senate rules. Therefore, it is very hard 
to advocate for the needs of the Corps' districts and projects within 
Congress without violating the earmark ban. As a result, the primary 
decision about what is included in the Corps' budget rests with the 
President's budget each year. I am not advocating to bring back 
earmarks for specific projects but to fund the Corps in a programmatic 
way or by district to allow Congress to exercise its oversight over 
funding decisions. All branches need to be held accountable for 
spending decisions, including the Federal bureaucracy. Congress should 
have the power of the purse for funding decisions of such importance to 
the people we represent, not just some bureaucrat.
  Retired MG Tom Sands, who was a commanding General of the Army Corps 
of Engineers' Lower Mississippi Valley Division and president of the 
Mississippi River Commission, in a blog for The Hill newspaper on 
September 7 of this year, wrote:

       No doubt the rationale for the current uniform approach [at 
     the Corps] is to foster ``fairness.'' But federal water 
     policy would be better focused on how to quantify and achieve 
     superior outcomes. This new approach needs to focus more on 
     common sense than on bureaucratic decisions.

  As I have based my work as a public servant on Iowa's common sense, 
not bureaucratic nonsense, I couldn't have said it better than General 
Sands, so I associate myself with his remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________