[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[House]
[Page 18236]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO CONGRESS AND THE 
                              ENVIRONMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the week-long series in the Washington 
Post about the Corps of Engineers and its relationship to Congress and, 
more importantly, to the environment, raises key questions about the 
Corps' future direction.
  The immediate challenge is for the Corps and Congress to respond 
carefully, thoughtfully, and in the right context to the real issues 
surrounding the Corps' important mission.
  In its very name, the Army Corps of Engineers combines the two 
professions that are perhaps most results-oriented, focused, precise 
and committed to following orders: engineering and the military. It 
imposes upon those of us in Congress a special responsibility. We must 
be sure that we are asking the right questions and looking at the big 
picture. For if the Corps' assignment is to stop flooding in a 
particular area, that is precisely what they will do, but that may be 
all that they do.
  As much as I agree with some of the concerns and criticisms of the 
Corps, it is wrong to single them out alone. The behavior of the Corps 
is just the most obvious example of our country's 2-century long 
certainty that we can conquer and bend to our will the force of nature. 
The Corps has simply been responding to the orders and expectations of 
Congress and the citizens.
  Unfortunately, when it comes to the Corps' responsibility to deal 
with waterways and flooding, the policies that Congress has directed 
and funded often appear to be doing more damage than good. Our flood 
insurance program continues to subsidize people to live in harm's way. 
Combined with our tendency to engineer rivers, to channelize them, to 
raise levees ever higher, along with failure to insist on careful land 
use and wetlands protection, we have produced a situation that is 
dangerous and self-perpetuating. We are subsidizing people to stay in 
harm's way, and at the same time we are engineering rivers to produce 
more frequent and dangerous flooding.
  Obviously, part of the message is to stop treating our rivers, 
wetlands and beaches like machines to be channeled, repaved and 
recontoured without regard for long-term costs to the environment or, 
frankly, to the Federal Treasury. The $8 billion we are prepared to 
spend now to repair part of the damage that we inflicted on the 
Everglades through miscalculation and poor planning and engineering is 
an example of why reform is needed.
  Madam Speaker, there are, indeed, serious efforts with real potential 
for reform right now. I have been pleased during my tenure in Congress 
with the Corps' efforts to reposition itself. Its Challenge 21 proposal 
would allow the Corps to enter into an agreement with local partners to 
provide passive flood mitigation and river restoration projects and do 
so more quickly and cheaply. Congress can help speed this on its way 
with adequate funding right now.
  In WRDA 99, we made it easier for local communities to choose 
nonstructural approaches to flood control, giving them more freedom to 
choose more environmentally and economical approaches.
  The Corps of Engineers' shoreline protection program is in serious 
need of reassessment to avoid a parade of costly and expensive projects 
that in the long run are environmentally destructive and put people 
again in harm's way. This is especially critical at a time when it is 
estimated that the average shoreline will retreat 500 feet over the 
next 60 years, and that in the next decade alone, 10,000 structures 
will fall into the ocean. We cannot afford a blank check from the 
taxpayer and another losing fight with irresistible environmental 
forces.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 4879, introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Kind), of which I am a proud cosponsor, is another important piece 
of reform that would go a long way in addressing some of the problems 
that have been exposed. This bill would reform the project overview and 
authorization process, establish an objective outside review panel for 
controversial projects. To increase transparency and accountability, it 
would guarantee more citizen participation and lead to a better balance 
between economic and environmental considerations.
  At the end of the day, we need more dramatic steps. When Congress 
found military base closing too polarized and politicized to tackle 
itself, we established a separate commission to handle it. Through 
that, we have been able to do the right thing for the military, while 
helping communities and the Federal taxpayers. Perhaps it is time for 
such a stronger mechanism to depolarize and depoliticize the Corps 
operation here in Congress and to help everybody look at the big 
picture.
  In the meantime, we can use the new public attention and new 
leadership at the Corps to promote change and reform within the Corps 
itself so that they can be a critical ally in protecting the 
environment, making our communities more livable and our families safe, 
healthy and economically secure.

                          ____________________