[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET:
ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR THE
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
=======================================================================
(113-12)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 24, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-576 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
VACANCY
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia JOHN GARAMENDI, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
Arkansas, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
JEFF DENHAM, California ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
STEVE DAINES, Montana JANICE HAHN, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina (Ex Officio)
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
VACANCY
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works)......................................................... 7
Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, Chief of Engineers, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers........................................ 7
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy.............................................. 33
Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick............................. 41
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Questions from Hon. Thomas Massie, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Kentucky, for Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............................ 40
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2014
BUDGET: ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES
FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Gibbs. Good afternoon. At this time, the Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment will come to order.
Today we have a hearing on the administration's budget. We
have the Honorable Secretary Darcy, Army Civil Works, and
General Bostick, head of the Army Corps of Engineers.
I will start here with an opening statement and then I will
turn it over to my ranking member.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget is the
administration's priorities for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
I am a strong supporter of the efforts by Congress to
control Federal spending. However, I feel like this is a
belated Groundhog Day for most of us on the subcommittee. Many
of the Army Corps of Engineers activities that we are examining
today are true investments in America because they provide jobs
and economic return.
For nearly two centuries, the Civil Works mission of the
Corps has contributed to the economic vitality of the Nation
and improved our quality of life.
Once again, like Groundhog Day, this administration has
misprioritized the projects and programs of the Army Corps of
Engineers. I believe we must be supportive of programs that
have a proven record of providing economic benefits.
The fiscal year 2014 budget request by the administration
for the Corps of Engineers is $4.7 billion. This request is
almost the exact same as was requested in previous budgets.
In 2011, we had some of the worst flooding on record in
this country. In 2012, we were struck by several major natural
disasters. In either 2013 or 2015, it is likely the expanded
Panama Canal will become operational.
Yet the President has learned little by the recent
experience of Superstorm Sandy, since his budget proposes
investing only a little over $25 million for construction of
shore protection projects nationwide.
In addition, he sends to Congress a budget that has an
ecosystem restoration construction budget that is four times
larger than its coastal navigation construction budget.
The fiscal year 2014 budget is where we expected to find
the funds to match the administration's rhetoric on initiatives
like the President's export initiative or the President's ``We
Can't Wait'' initiative.
Instead, while the President is proposing $834 million out
of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for operation and
maintenance activities in fiscal year 2014, just last year in
fiscal year 2013, it is estimated the administration collected
$1.85 billion in harbor maintenance taxes, paid by businesses
for the purpose of maintaining America's ports.
This will not keep up with the growing demand on our ports
to accommodate more and larger ships that will leave the Trust
Fund with almost $9 billion in IOUs to the Nation's ports at
the end of the next fiscal year.
This administration is not the first to shortchange
America's water transportation system. I find it irresponsible
for any administration or for Congress itself to not fully
spend the tax dollars collected for their intended purpose.
I know we have to find savings, but savings can be found by
slowing down work on some environmental restoration projects
until the economy turns around.
Instead, the President's budget prioritizes these
activities above navigation. The largest navigation expansion
in the construction general account is less than $50 million.
By comparison, the three largest ecosystem project
expenditures in the construction general account are one
project for more than $100 million and one project for almost
$90 million, and one project for more than $70 million.
Two of these multimillion-dollar ecosystem restoration
activities are at the behest of other Federal agencies like the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
While we in Congress understand the Corps of Engineers has
to comply with the Endangered Species Act and other laws, every
year the agency has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on
so-called environmental compliance activities at the whim of
other Federal agencies with no end in sight.
I think the Corps of Engineers needs to know when to say
no.
Budgets are about priorities. A priority of any
administration should be to put the United States at a
competitive advantage in world markets, but not one single
coastal navigation project in the President's budget will be
completed construction in the next fiscal year.
According to this budget, the coastal navigation system the
Nation has today, which is the same coastal navigation system
we had when the President took office, will be enough to keep
the United States competitive when the Panama Canal expansion
is complete.
Many of us in Congress disagree. While the President's
export initiative and the ``We Can't Wait'' initiative made
some promises to the public, unfortunately, many of us in
Congress believe that the President's budget does not deliver
on these initiatives.
Like Groundhog Day once again the President's budget over
promises and over delivers.
I look forward to the testimony from our two witnesses
today, and I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for any
statement he might have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing.
This budget hearing is very timely. We are considering a
new water bill. We are dealing with issues that are being
presented to us by stakeholders in a series of roundtables that
Chairman Gibbs and Chairman Shuster have arranged.
By the way, let me commend Chairman Shuster and Chairman
Gibbs for hosting these roundtables. They have been very
helpful and very informative.
I have four slides that I just want to show. I think they
really summarize the challenge that is before us.
The first slide up, basically, this is a summary of what we
have heard most frequently from the stakeholders, that the
project is taking too long, it has been authorized for
construction, but it is not being built. The other is the
project is authorized for study but we are not moving it to the
construction phase.
We have a $60 billion backlog in authorized but
unconstructed projects. We need to fully spend down the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund collections for their intended purposes,
make sure the Fund addresses the needs of all ports, the inland
waterways.
The Trust Fund is broken and needs to be fixed, and the
Olmsted Locks and Dam project is taking all of the money out of
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
That represents--at the risk of providing you with a
CliffsNotes version of what has been a really good and
extensive process--that represents a summary of what we hear
most often.
If we can go to the second slide. The second slide shows
the line moving slightly up and to the right, inflation
adjusted approps starting with fiscal year 2009. If we took
fiscal year 2009 and simply adjusted it for inflation, in other
words, whatever level of activity we had in fiscal year 2009,
we would be able to continue that level of activity through
fiscal year 2013 and beyond, simply by adjusting for inflation.
The line going down to the right is actual enacted
appropriations that this Congress has enacted.
As the chairman said, President Obama is not the first
President to request funding for the Army Corps that is
inadequate. I would point out that the President's request for
fiscal year 2014 is higher than any request that President Bush
put forward for the Army Corps.
This is a problem, and the Congress, we are the ones that
make the judgment with respect to what it is we are going to
enact. We have consistently over those 4 fiscal years following
fiscal year 2009 provided the Corps with less than what they
had in fiscal year 2009.
Let's move to the third. This represents a pictorial
summary of what would happen if we were to enact into law the
budget resolution that passed the House of Representatives.
The first bar is fiscal year 2013 approps. The second bar
is fiscal year 2014 President's request. The bars following the
second bar are what the appropriation would be if we were to
enact the House passed budget resolution as the 302(b)
allocation level for the Corps.
You will see that there is approximately a $600 million
difference in fiscal year 2014 between what the President
requested and what the House budget resolution would set as
maximum Corps expenditures, and you will also see that it is
not until fiscal year 2020 or even fiscal year 2021 that Corps
expenditures, if we were to follow that, would reach what the
President has requested in fiscal year 2014.
I think I just heard Chairman Gibbs say he considers the
President's request for fiscal year 2014 to be inadequate. I
certainly consider it to be inadequate.
If we were to follow the House budget resolution, we would
not even get to that level until fiscal year 2021.
The last slide. We have had several proposals made that we
should, for example, spend down the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. The blue bar on the left represents the fiscal year 2014
construction request for Corps accounts.
If we were to enact the RAMP Act, that is to say fully
spend down proceeds of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
without increasing the 302(b) allocation for the Corps, that
would eat up some $850 million of Corps spending, presumably
taken out of construction, because I am not quite sure where
else you would take it from if you did not take it out of
construction.
If we were to then enact on top of that the Inland Waterway
User Board proposal for how to fully fund the needs of the
inland waterways system, which by the way, are serious needs
that we can no longer ignore, then we would further erode the
construction account, and then if we were to Federalize the
Olmsted project, which is something that has been proposed, in
other words, take Olmsted out of the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund, put it fully on the General Fund's budget.
If we were to do all those things, it would leave us with a
construction account of around $250 million for the country.
My point here is that all of these ``solutions,'' and I
will put the word in quotes, are simply pushing around the
problem unless we increase the total amount of funding that is
available, and that is our job. That is the job that all of us
in the Congress have to do.
If we think these are important things to do, if we think
operation and maintenance is important, if we think we have to
make our ports Panamax ready, if we think it is unacceptable
that we have locks and dams that have lived beyond their useful
life span, if we think shore line protection is important, all
the things we all say to one another, all the things we all do,
we cannot keep going to the Corps and saying do more with less.
Every Corps person I have ever asked what do you do with
less, the response is you do less with less. That is just the
reality.
I want to put those numbers out there so we all have them.
I want to put the implications of these policy choices out
there so we all have them. I hope that what we can engage in is
a constructive discussion on how do we prioritize the Corps
within the larger picture of the General Fund's budget.
I agree with the chairman, we have needs that we simply
must address, but we are not going to address them if we keep
driving down the 302(b) allocation for the Corps.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence
and I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. At this time, I recognize the chairman of the
Full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman
Shuster, for any remarks he might have.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Chairman Gibbs. Thank you
for holding this hearing today. It is an important hearing. It
is always important to hear the priorities and the views of the
agency that carries out an extremely important role in the
water resource activities of our Nation.
General Bostick and Secretary Darcy, thanks for being here
today.
You do play an important role when it comes to our water
infrastructure, and this transportation system we have, as
everybody knows, is the least expensive and the safest way to
move cargo throughout our country.
When operating efficiently, the infrastructure can
significantly lower the transportation costs, which can go up
as much as 10 percent of the total cost of a product.
I look at the cost to ships things around, and I have an
example that I have been talking about for the last couple of
months, or the last month, I should say, and it is the cost to
U.S. soybean growers. To move 1 ton of soybeans from Davenport,
Iowa, to Shanghai, China, costs in our system $85. When you
move that same ton of soybeans, same distance, from Brazil, it
costs $141.
We have a significant competitive advantage, but when you
look at what the Brazilians and the Chinese are doing in
Brazil, they are investing upwards of $26 billion into their
water infrastructure to be able to better compete against us.
I think that sends a clear message that if we do not
properly invest in maintenance and modernization of the most
efficient means of transportation, we are going to lose that
economic advantage.
It is going to cost us jobs. It is going to cost us more to
buy goods at the stores and markets. It is going to cost us in
the world economy when the products we manufacture cost them
more money to get into that world economy.
This is an important subject. The President's budget, as
has been pointed out, previous Presidents, Republicans and
Democrats alike, are proposing to not spend the full amount of
the ``user fee,'' I call it, that you pay to use the ports of
this country.
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has only allocated $834
million out of $1.8 billion that has been collected. Again,
this practice continues to grow.
On the last surface transportation bill, many colleagues on
my side with my support tried to pass the RAMP Act, to try to
make sure that money is dedicated to the purpose for which
those folks are paying into that Fund.
One thing that was disconcerting is for months/years, we
have been asking the question exactly where does that money go,
that other $1 billion.
Recently, the Senate Appropriations Committee sent a letter
to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. We found
out that if that money were to go 100 percent to its intended
purpose, it would require a significant cut at the Department
of Energy. It is the old Washington shell game of we collect
here, we are not going to spend it there, then we fund
something else.
It is very disconcerting to me and I know the folks that
operate in those ports and harbors around this country.
As the chart my colleague from New York showed, that would
make a significant improvement. If we could spend that money,
there would be significant improvements to our harbors and
ports.
Again, it is bad enough when the Corps puts hurdles up to
projects, but in many instances, we found the White House and
OMB are requiring studies and information that they really do
not need to make informed decisions. They continue to throw
those hurdles up.
It is one of the things I have consistently heard in our
series of roundtables we have had, that the endless studying
and studying and studying and never actually getting finished
to accomplish a project is really hurting us. It takes too
long. It costs too much.
We were at a roundtable about 2 weeks ago. If I did not
know who was a Democrat and who was a Republican in the room, I
would have thought we were all in the same party.
We all were saying the same thing about the need to reform
the Corps, look at new innovative ways to make it more
efficient, and as we move forward, I am dedicated to trying to
help the Corps improve what it does, look at things like bring
in the private sector to help, whether it is funding or other
innovative ideas they may bring to the table.
Again, I really appreciate Chairman Gibbs and Ranking
Member Bishop for their hard work on this issue. As we move
forward in this Congress, again, as I said, I am dedicated to
passing a water bill that I think is extremely important to the
economy of the United States.
Again, thank you very much.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman. One housekeeping business.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing.
Any objection?
[No response.]
Mr. Gibbs. Hearing no objection, so ordered. At this time,
I welcome our witnesses. The first witness is the Honorable
Secretary Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works.
Welcome. The floor is yours.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY (CIVIL WORKS); AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS P. BOSTICK,
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity today to present the President's budget for the
Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal
year 2014.
I would like to summarize my statement and ask that my
complete written statement be included in the record.
The President's 2014 budget provides $4.826 billion in
gross discretionary appropriations for the Army Civil Works
Program, offset by $100 million rescission of unobligated
carryover from appropriations prior to fiscal year 2013.
This is $95 million higher than the President's 2013 budget
for Civil Works.
The budget also supports the restoration of certain sites
contaminated as a result of the Nation's early Atomic Weapons
Development Program, emergency preparedness and training to
respond to natural disasters, and recreation, environmental
stewardship and water supply storage at existing projects owned
or operated by the Corps.
These investments will contribute to a stronger economy,
improve reliability of waterborne transportation, reduce flood
risks to businesses and homes, and support American jobs.
The budget funds the completion of 3 flood risk management
projects, 1 navigation project, 1 hydropower project, and 21
studies and designs.
The Civil Works budget includes funding for 4 high-
performing construction new starts, 10 new study starts in the
investigations account, and 1 new activity in the operation and
maintenance account.
The budget includes the highest amount ever budgeted for
use of receipts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to
maintain coastal channels and harbors.
Inland waterway capital and investments in the construction
account are funded at the maximum amount that is affordable
within the projected Trust Fund revenue under existing law.
The administration will continue to work with Congress and
stakeholders to enact a mechanism to increase revenue for the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
The 2014 budget provides $392 million for dam and levee
safety activities, which includes $41 million to continue the
levee safety initiative.
The budget provides $75 million for additional measures to
support navigation on the Mississippi River in the current
drought, which has been affecting the water levels on the
river, if it continues into 2014.
The budget provides continued funding for restoration of
five of the Nation's significant aquatic ecosystems, the
California Bay Delta, the Chesapeake Bay, Everglades, the Great
Lakes, and the gulf coast.
The Army continues to work to modernize the Civil Works
Planning Program. Proposed changes are aimed at dramatically
shortening the time as well as the costs for completion of
preauthorization studies while retaining the quality of our
analyses.
The budget again this year includes $3 million for the
Veterans Curation Program, which provides vocational
rehabilitation and innovative training for wounded and disabled
veterans while achieving historical preservation
responsibilities for our ecological collections that are
administered by the Corps of Engineers.
In summary, the 2014 budget for the Army Corps Civil Works
is a performance-based budget that supports continued progress
on important water resources investments that will contribute
to a stronger economy and continue progress on important water
resources investments that will yield long-term returns for the
Nation and its citizens.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I look
forward to working with you in support of the President's
budget, and if I could take a few seconds, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to recognize the woman who is sitting behind me, who
probably has the biggest smile on her face.
She is my Deputy for Management and Budget, Claudia
Tornblom, she is retiring from Federal service this Friday
after 34 years.
This is her last visit to Capitol Hill in that capacity.
She has been an incredible asset to the Army Civil Works
Program. I want to thank her for her service.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Secretary Darcy. Thank you for your
service and good luck in your retirement.
At this time I would like to welcome Lieutenant General
Thomas Bostick. He is the Chief of Engineers at U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
Welcome, General. The floor is yours.
General Bostick. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, members of the
subcommittee. I am honored to testify before the committee
today along with the Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy on the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget for the Civil Works Program
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This is my first time to testify before this subcommittee,
and I look forward to working with each of you.
I have been in command for nearly a year, and I want to
touch briefly on the four campaign goals that we set for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers starting last August.
First, we must support the war fighter with our work in
areas of operations of the combatant commands and on U.S.
installations around the world.
Second, we must transform Civil Works. We do this by
modernizing our project planning process, enhancing the budget
development process, and by using a smart infrastructure
strategy to evaluate our portfolio of water resource projects,
and finally, by improving our methods of delivery.
Third, we must reduce disaster risks and continue to
respond to natural disasters under the national response
framework, as well as our ongoing efforts with flood risk
mitigation.
Fourth, we must prepare for tomorrow, positioning our
workforce and our processes for future challenges and focusing
on research and development efforts that will help solve the
greatest challenges that this Nation and our Army will face.
In 2012, the Corps responded to several weather related
events, including Hurricane Sandy, under the national response
framework in support of FEMA. Drought was a significant
challenge as we experienced extraordinarily low water on the
middle Mississippi River. The great men and women of the Corps
of Engineers worked tirelessly together with our State, local
and industry partners to ensure that we could deliver on our
many commitments.
This country is experiencing even today some challenges as
we face significant flooding in many parts of the Nation. It is
through the efforts of our people and our partners at every
level that we will continue to carry out the projects and
programs included in the 2014 budget.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that you and other Members refer to my
complete written testimony submitted to the committee for the
specifics on the following areas: the summary of the budget,
much of which Ms. Darcy outlined earlier.
The investigation program, our construction program,
operations and maintenance program, program for planning
modernization efficiency and effectiveness of Corps operations,
the value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's economy,
research and development, and our support to the national
defense.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, General. I will start off with
questions. Secretary Darcy, on July 19, 2012, the President
released part of his ``We Can't Wait'' initiative calling for
the expedited actions at the Ports of New York, New Jersey,
Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville and Miami.
As for the Port of New York and New Jersey project,
according to the press release from the White House last
Summer, it states that ``The Corps expects to complete this
$1.6 billion project in 2014.''
The President's budget devotes approximately $49 million to
this project in 2014. The President's budget shows the Corps
completing five construction projects in 2014, the Port of New
York and New Jersey is not one of the projects forecasted to be
completed.
Can you explain why this project and others in the
President's ``We Can't Wait'' initiative will not be completed
in 2014?
Ms. Darcy. Chairman, I believe the schedule for completion
has always been 2015. It is part of the ``We Can't Wait''
initiative because it is being looked at with a number of other
Federal agencies, which is one of the requirements for being
part of that initiative.
I believe the completion date is 2015.
Mr. Gibbs. 2015? That is not what the press release said.
They must have changed it, I guess.
Ms. Darcy. I believe that we had it budgeted and scheduled
for 2015. I can go back and check that.
Mr. Gibbs. I have the release here and it says the Corps
expects to complete the $1.6 billion project in 2014. For the
record, I guess.
Kind of a followup, the Port of Miami is another project
included in the initiative. The same press release says the
Corps expects to complete the deepening of the navigation
channel by late 2012.
Has the Corps carried out the deepening of the Miami
channel? We were told the Port would be carrying out the
project.
What does the President's fiscal year 2014 budget do for
the Port of Miami?
Ms. Darcy. The Port of Miami is in the President's 2014
budget for an adjustment to the 902 limit.
The State of Florida, who is our local sponsor and partner
in this project, is going to be contributing $77 million of
their own money in contributed funds to help meet the deepening
of this Port.
Mr. Gibbs. My understanding is it has been approved on the
902 issue, but I think the Corps could have moved ahead up to
the 902 limit, could they not?
Ms. Darcy. Chairman, we have to have the 902 limit enacted
before we can enter into a project partnership agreement with a
local sponsor.
Mr. Gibbs. Can you also give the committee a status on the
funding levels of work needed to finish the study of the Port
of Charleston deepening project?
Ms. Darcy. I will check the numbers but the Port of
Charleston again is one of the ``We Can't Wait'' initiatives;
it has been part of our smart planning or 333
initiatives, where we were trying to get a handle on the
studies that are out there. The Port of Charleston is in the
President's budget. I will check for what it is in 2014.
As part of our smart planning effort, we have reduced 4
years off the study, and we have also found a way to save $8.2
million on this study through our smart planning initiative.
Mr. Gibbs. Also, in the President's budget that is
concerning to me is he is budgeting $108 million for
construction of coastal port projects, which is about a quarter
of what is supposed to be spent on ecosystem restoration
projects.
Of the 11 navigation projects funded in the budget, how
many of these will be completed in 2014? For instance, I see
the Port of Oakland in the President's budget is for $100,000.
Will that $100,000 complete the project at the Port of Oakland?
Can you comment on the massive discrepancy between
investing on our infrastructure assets $108 million or 25
percent compared to the ecosystem restoration projects?
Ms. Darcy. Chairman, if you look at the budget overall and
if you look at the breakdown, about 39 percent of the
President's 2014 budget is going to be for navigation, another
33 percent will be for flood risk reduction, and the remaining
30 percent is a combination of ecosystem restoration and
regulatory programs.
Mr. Gibbs. Excuse me. You are referring to the overall
budget. We are just talking about the general construction
budget. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. That was your question, on the construction
budget. We have budgeted one navigation project to completion
in the 2014 budget. I would have to ask staff which one that
is.
I am sorry, the rest of your question was about the
comparison between ecosystem and navigation?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. In putting the budget together, we look at all
of the missions within the Corps of Engineers and priorities
and the value to the Nation. Within ecosystem restoration, we
have several projects that not only will help restore
ecosystems but can also be job producers.
Mr. Gibbs. When you look at funding priorities, first,
invest in construction on tangible assets, whether it be locks
and dams or ports versus eco restoration.
Do you look at the economic benefits to compare what is the
smartest investment?
Ms. Darcy. We do performance-based budgeting. We look at
what the return will be on the Federal investment on each of
those projects.
Within the ecosystem restoration program, there is not the
same comparable cost-benefit analysis as is done for other
kinds of projects because of the value----
Mr. Gibbs. I am out of time. Quickly, do you also factor in
tangible assets, the age and possible failure, especially in
the inland waterway system? Maybe we should be investing more
there. The average age is 60-plus years, and we have likely, by
the Corps' own admission, failures that could be catastrophic.
Ms. Darcy. Within each of those accounts, Chairman, we do
that kind of analysis, what is the most urgent need, especially
as it relates to safety and the economy.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Representative Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank both
of our panelists for their testimony.
I want to stay on the issue of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund and to some extent the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
The expected collections in the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund this year are $1.758 billion. The President proposes
transferring $890 million of that to the operation and
maintenance account.
This is roughly the historical average, a little over 50
percent of proceeds become expenditures. The last budget that
President Bush submitted was a little over 50 percent, although
I will point out that the last budget that President Clinton
submitted spent down 96 percent of the annual proceeds, or at
least requested that 96 percent be spent down.
If we were to pass the RAMP Act, that does not give you
$868 million more to spend unless we increase the overall
budget of the Corps. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. If we were to pass the RAMP Act thereby
mandating that the Corps spend $868 million more than it is
contemplating spending in O&M, unless we increase the Corp
budget, you will take that from some other place in the Corps?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, we would have to.
Mr. Bishop. The chart that I put up presumed that you would
take it out of construction since that is the next largest
account. Is that a reasonable presumption?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. What we are dealing with here is we are
proposing a solution that not only does not solve the problem,
it exacerbates the problem. Am I right about that?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. The same can be said if we were to
Federalize Olmsted or if we were to have more General Fund
expense come out of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. The answer is that either we increase the Corps
budget or we cannibalize other elements of the energy and water
appropriations bill by we either increase the 302(b) allocation
for the Corps or we increase the 302(b) allocation for the
energy and water budget. Right?
Ms. Darcy. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. At least we all understand the problem. Again,
I will say to my colleagues, we have to figure out how
important it is to us to spend the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund proceeds for Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund related
activities. Right? That is our job, not yours.
Ms. Darcy. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. Let me move to another subject. It is my
understanding that there are approximately 30 projects, and
please correct me if I am wrong, for which known costs are
either approaching or have exceeded their 902 limit. Is that
about right?
Ms. Darcy. I think it is about right; yes.
Mr. Bishop. Can you (a) give us a brief explanation of what
is happening that caused this 30 projects to exceed their
originally budgeted expectation?
Ms. Darcy. There are several reasons, also depending upon
the projects. Sometimes it is because it is an older project
and over time, the prices have escalated from the originally
authorized project authorization. As you know, 902(b) means the
authorized project costs have escalated to more than 20 percent
of the originally authorized costs, and 902(b) requires us to
come back to Congress and ask for an increase in that
authorization.
Thirty is too many. We need to be taking a look at our own
way of doing our cost estimating. We have established a center
of expertise in one of our districts out in Walla Walla,
Washington, and they are going to be looking at all cost
estimates for our projects in the future.
We are also committed to notifying Congress well in advance
of knowing we have a 902(b) allocation problem because it would
need to be authorized and take an act of Congress to increase
that authorization.
We are also going to be doing what we call agency technical
reviews earlier on in our 902(b) calculations. We are looking
throughout the agency, both at the district level all the way
up to headquarters, as to what the implication is going to be
of this cost increase.
Mr. Bishop. Secretary Darcy, I am going to have to cut you
off because we have 4 minutes left in a vote.
I want to just ask--are we coming back.
Mr. Gibbs. We are going to come back. Go ahead and ask.
Mr. Bishop. Real quick. The existence of the earmark ban
complicates the process by which the Corps would return to us
to ask for an increase in funding for these 30 some projects.
Am I right about that?
If Congress were to authorize them, additional spending,
that would be considered an earmark. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. We would be left in the unenviable position of
having spent a considerable amount of Federal money to
undertake a project but because of the earmark ban, which was
designed allegedly to save money, we would wind up wasting
money because we would not be able to complete the projects
that had previously been authorized. Am I right about that?
Ms. Darcy. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I have no more questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Votes have been called. We have three votes. The
first vote, there is 3\1/2\ minutes still to go, 19 people have
not voted yet. It will be about 3:00. There are two more 5-
minute votes.
We can try to reconvene here about 3:15 or 3:20, if you can
indulge us. Thank you.
We stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gibbs. We will call the subcommittee hearing back to
order on the President's priorities for the Corps of Engineers
budget.
We will probably have more Members straggling in here from
the vote, but we will go to Mr. Hanna for questions he may
have.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you both. I want to
preface this by saying that I have had a very good experience
with Commander Bale in Buffalo, while not productive, I
regarded him as a honest player in this rather complicated
process.
I would like to talk about something that is not directly
related to the issue at hand, the budget. I would like to raise
an issue that I have. I represent Marcy, New York, and in my
district, the Corps placed special conditions and subsequently
denied a section 404 permit for Mohawk Valley Economic
Development Growth Enterprises, also known as EDGE, to
construct a pad for a potential nano technology company, a
multibillion-dollar company, to come in and build a
manufacturing plant on several acres of marginal wetlands.
The Corps denied the permit primarily on the grounds that
the applicant could not specify with precise detail what the
end footprint of the plant would be, although the applicant
offered numerous, numerous times to mitigate those marginal
wetlands, a few acres, four or five acres, some place else in
the community, offered to do anything possible to get this
permit for this potential nano technology plant in a very
starved community in upstate New York, where I live, very
economically deprived and in trouble.
Quite naturally, this is a Catch 22, because without a
shovel ready pad, the applicant could not compete with foreign
companies to attract a manufacturer. Without a manufacturer in
hand, the applicant could not give the details for the
specifications of the final plant design to the Corps of
Engineers.
What we seem to have and what I am told is spreading to
other districts, I have talked to other congressmen, is the
Corps is halting economic development and holding up good
paying jobs and growth and opportunity and transfer of jobs
back into this country over a brand new, new, I emphasize
``new'' interpretation of the Clean Water Act.
You may be aware that Chairman Gibbs and this subcommittee
has taken an interest in this case, and on April 12, requested
that the Corps provide us with a complete administrative record
for this project, as well as all communications between the
Corps and the EPA on this matter.
I trust the Corps will cooperate in this regard.
The main question is section 404 does not require that the
Corps cannot give a permit for speculative purposes, for growth
purposes, for potential customers that we know are there and
want to build, it does not require that they deny a permit
without an end user or defined end user.
The community was willing to and offered to define a
maximum footprint to allow the Corps to analyze this with
regard to the few acres of what I think are widely accepted as
marginal wetlands.
How does the Corps of Engineers expect to be a good servant
to this country and to its constituents, to allow growth and
opportunity, and speculation is part of what all that requires,
if they are going to change their interpretation of this law to
make it so very, very severe and difficult for a community that
has spent tens of millions of dollars and 10 years of hard work
and many, many trips abroad, how does the Corps view that?
Frankly, I am happy to hear that I am wrong in my
interpretation.
Ms. Darcy?
General Bostick. Congressman, I will start. The Corps of
Engineers wants to work with all of our partners, both Federal
and non-Federal, and certainly with the local communities, to
try to help support them in their efforts.
Under the Clean Water Act, our interpretation of the
guidelines is we have to have a committed tenant.
Mr. Hanna. This is a new interpretation. We have been able
to find examples previously with other administrations that
allowed this to happen.
This is a severe crime against this community. I believe
Commander Bale would have liked to see this problem go away and
offer us a permit, this community a permit, but his hands were
tied and I respect that, because of the interpretation that we
cannot find in the Code that supports the allegation that we
are speaking to.
General Bostick. I think the guidelines provide that we
review alternative sites and we look at what type of mitigation
needs to occur.
You brought up a point that you would be willing to show
the maximum footprint that might be able to offset the designs.
I did not realize that. I think the final design could in fact
show you need less of a footprint.
If we did look at a maximum footprint, I would have to go
back to see if that is something allowable for us to grant the
permit under those conditions.
Mr. Hanna. What we believe is that the most Draconian and
harsh approach was taken in this process. It has been appealed.
As I said, tens of millions of dollars from an otherwise very
economically challenged community has gone into this.
We still have no resolution. We have watched plants being
built in other communities around the State and around the
country.
The idea that there is so little latitude, let's say I am
completely wrong and there is no latitude in the law, I just
suggest to you that is also wrong, that the Corps of Engineers
should broaden its horizons and its perspective, that if it is
a very rigid set of rules and regulations that it is only
allowed to follow, then following those does not further the
benefit certainly for the community I am in and did not.
General Bostick. I would be happy to take a look at it and
we can follow up with you on whether from a legal perspective
we have any ability to work outside the bounds that we have in
this case.
Mr. Hanna. Can I expect from you your full cooperation with
the request for the administrative record?
General Bostick. Yes.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you very much. No further questions.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Johnson?
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. Let me thank our
witnesses for being here. My question is to Assistant Secretary
Darcy.
I really am interested to know why the Dallas Floodway
Extension Project is included in the rescission list when the
project is ready to move forward.
It seems unfair and unwarranted to include the Dallas
Floodway Extension Project on the rescission list, especially
since any delay with obligating the funds were due to lead
contamination, not mismanagement, and certainly not because the
funds are unneeded.
It seems especially inappropriate to rescind these funds
since they will be used to complete the wetlands portion of the
project, which is a critical component of improving the flood
protection to downtown Dallas, and providing safety for many of
my constituents, and something that the administration claims
is its priority.
I am really having a difficult time reconciling what the
administration says about its commitment to infrastructure and
what the budget reflects.
Could you please respond to that? I have a second question.
Ms. Darcy. The project you are referring to, the Dallas
Floodway Extension Project, is a project that we have not
budgeted for, which is one of the reasons it is included on the
rescission list in the budget.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. I am sorry?
Ms. Darcy. We have never budgeted for that project, which
is one of the reasons it is included on the general provisions
rescission list in the President's budget.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Could you give me a reason why?
Ms. Darcy. Why it has never been budgeted? It has not
competed well with the other projects within our entire
portfolio.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. The other question is Joe Pool Lake
sits partially within my district and the Trinity River
Authority of Texas entered into a contract with the Corps in
1976 for 100 percent of the water supply.
Under the terms of the contract, the city of Cedar Hill
elected not to activate that portion of the water supply and
instead opted to defer the interest payments. The interest rate
was set in 1976. It is very high in today's standards.
By this June, the accrued interest and principal due from
the city of Cedar Hill is $68.9 million. In Texas, we have a
desperate need for water, but when the city is being forced to
pay such exorbitant rates, it makes the use of this water and
probably others untenable.
They visited me just recently and said they would never be
able to come up with that money.
I want to know with this population and the Ft. Worth/
Dallas Metroplex, it is going to double in 50 years, it is the
fastest growing area in the country now, so it makes the need
for water more crucial, what authority does the Corps currently
have to renegotiate these water supply contracts?
I know it is not just this one. There are others. What
other option may be available to communities in this situation?
Can you provide a list of communities throughout the U.S.
that are in similar situations where they have deferred
payments with costs nearing millions?
From what I am hearing, there are many communities that are
similarly situated and would like to make payments to the
Treasury but are unable under these present terms.
If nothing happens here to renegotiate, they will never be
able to use that water.
Ms. Darcy. Congresswoman, the Secretary of the Army does
not have the authority to reduce the balance, lower the
interest rate, or allow return to the storage of the Government
without payment or a penalty.
The Secretary of the Army and the Corps of Engineers does
not currently have the authority to do so, and I would be happy
to provide a list to you about other communities who are
finding themselves in a similar situation as yours.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. You need the authority given by
Congress to do that? You have many locations that will never be
able to pay this money. They are very small communities. Nobody
is getting the money at this point.
Ms. Darcy. If it was back in 1976, you are correct, the
interest rate would be a lot higher than they could get today.
It is unfortunate but currently we do not have the authority to
do that renegotiation to lower the interest rate.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. You are aware there are a number of
small municipalities around the country in that shape?
Ms. Darcy. That are in the same situation; yes.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Mullin?
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for coming in
today. I have some type of sympathy for you just for the simple
fact that your hands are tied to a certain degree, and you have
a tremendous responsibility ahead of you.
There are still a lot of questions that I feel like the
Corps could address without having to ask permission to do so.
I am from Oklahoma. We have one of the busiest if not the
busiest and biggest inland water ports on the national waterway
system. Yet for 4 hours every day, the locks to bring up our
barges are being locked because they are saying less than 1,000
lockages are being used in our waterways.
Back 2 or 3 years ago, I guess, there was a study done. A
recommendation by the Corps was to save money, we are going to
start closing these locks. If a lockage on inland waterways,
which in the current system has fewer than 1,000, we are going
to lock it.
As of 2012 when this started, when you started the locks,
the numbers were sufficiently higher than 1,000, because the
data you are using is from 3 years ago, when the economy
obviously was in bad shape.
My question to you, ma'am, is when are you going to fix
this problem? When are you going to look at the new data that
is out and quit allowing a backlog that is setting at these
lockages waiting to get through for 4 hours because you are
using old data?
Ms. Darcy. Congressman, you are correct, the data is from
that long ago, and we just instituted this reduced levels of
service this past year.
What we are going to do every year, beginning this summer,
is look at what the impact has been for this calendar year, or
once the levels of service were reduced, looking at both the
data from that year and as close as we can come to the most
current data to evaluate whether the levels of service should
be changed.
You are correct that we are looking at 1,000 commercial
lockages or more would get the increased levels of service.
We were operating all of our locks and dams 24/7.
Mr. Mullin. The data is already in support of these 3,
there are 5 on the McClellan-Kerr waterway, but there are 3 in
Oklahoma, and data is already there that all 5 are locking more
than 1,000 already.
My question is why do we need more data? You already have
it there. There is no more study that has to be done. The rule
was fewer than 1,000 lockages, commercial lockages, and we are
well over that number now.
Ms. Darcy. We will reexamine those numbers. We were basing
it on 1,000 or more commercial lockages. If it is demonstrated
that 1,000 or more commercial lockages are being locked on that
facility, then they would be raised back to the initial level
of service one.
Mr. Mullin. We can provide that information. My office can
provide that information for you. What is the turn around time
on this?
Ms. Darcy. I would have to check with our district
commander. We would be happy to look at it.
Mr. Mullin. Are you saying we could get this accomplished
fairly quickly? This is directly a decision that you can make.
This is not something that has to come through Congress. This
is not something you have to ask permission for.
Ms. Darcy. That is correct.
General Bostick. This is something we can decide on. Our
plan was to use the data we had and then come back a year after
that, make an assessment, and then with the new data at the end
of the year, make the proper adjustments.
I think the bigger issue is we have a lot of infrastructure
out there and a lot of it is failing or is about to fail. We
just do not have the money for O&M in order to maintain it.
Mr. Mullin. General, with that being said, that brings me
to another question. We have three locks on the McClellan-Kerr
system, like I said, and by your own admission, there is a 50/
50 chance these could fail at any time, and we are talking
about $100 million of backlog, of repairs needed to be done.
Underneath the new budget, $98 million is going to just one
project. Why are we not spreading that out? Why are we focusing
on just one project when there are so many inland water ports
that are so dependent on the infrastructure, that we are
focusing on just one area?
General Bostick. Again, we have talked about the projects.
What we try to do is make sure that life safety comes first and
then we focus on navigation, aquatic ecosystem restoration and
flood risk management. Those are the three areas we look at.
When you look inside the inland waterways, the top six
rivers carry about 95 percent of the commercial cargo. They
receive about 70 percent plus of the funding. We have to take
that remainder of the money and spread it out based on the
priorities that we can see. The bottom line is there are much
more requirements that we have than we have funding.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you. Ma'am, we will get that information
to your office and I look forward to hearing from you.
Ms. Darcy. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Mullin. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Frankel?
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want
to just give a shout out, Madam Secretary, to our district
commander in Florida out of Jacksonville, Colonel Dodd. He and
his staff have been very, very cooperative to work with. I want
to thank you for that.
First question is if this committee does not authorize
specific projects in the upcoming water bill, what will drive
the Army Corps work agenda in the future?
Ms. Darcy. Congresswoman, we will continue to construct and
operate and maintain the existing projects that we are
responsible for now. If there are not any additional projects
authorized, there are about 23 Chief's Reports before Congress
right now awaiting authorization, but if those projects do not
get authorized, we will continue to hopefully complete and
operate and maintain the projects that we have authorization to
do.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. I want to talk a little bit about
Everglades restoration, which is very important to Floridians,
and has always enjoyed bipartisan support.
The comprehensive Everglades restoration plan, as you know,
provides a framework and a guide to restore, protect and
preserve the water resources in southern Florida, including the
Everglades, and was approved in a water bill in 2000.
I want to sort of answer a question that was asked about
economic impact of these types of projects. A recent study by
the Everglades Foundation shows a 4:1 return of an investment,
because it is not just about making the environment look
pretty, restoring the Everglades, it is improving our water
quality, our fishing opportunities, our habitat, hunting,
increasing real estate values, park visitation.
There are a lot of economic factors of why we need to
continue with these projects as well as life sustaining. It is
our drinking water and natural habitat that live in the
Everglades.
My question to you is in doing this water bill, in order to
continue the work of the Everglades restoration, do you need
specific authorizations?
Ms. Darcy. Congresswoman, there are, I believe, four
projects awaiting authorization that impact the Everglades
restoration. I would have to check my notes to see what they
are. Four of them would need to be authorized soon in order to
be able to complete, not complete, in order to continue the
restoration efforts. Most of what is being proposed in the
entire south Florida system is a system's approach to the
restoration so each of them are connected, and the four that
are currently pending need to be authorized as soon as we can.
Ms. Frankel. Does there have to be specific language
identifying those particular projects?
Ms. Darcy. In the authorization bill in 2000 that
authorized the entire program, there was language that required
a project implementation report for each of these projects, and
that is what we have submitted through the Chief of Engineers
and through the administration to the Congress. Yes, they need
to be authorized.
Ms. Frankel. Another quick--I do not know if this quick,
but, first of all, thank you. I know we met last week if you
remember because we were trying to get a Chief's Report for
Port Everglades. And one of the issues that we talked about was
the economic model that is being used in order to do the
evaluation. And I am wondering whether you have given any more
thought to how you can share information so that--in a
transparent way?
Ms. Darcy. The district met with the local sponsor for the
Port of Everglades study that you are referring to in order to
try to do just that. The Harvard simulation model, which is
what we are using to do the economic modeling for this project,
has various inputs, both from Corps of Engineers data and also
the local sponsors' data input to help run the model. So we are
trying to be able to share as much as we can, barring any legal
or proprietary arrangements that we have with those who have
provided that data to us in a way that we can be transparent,
as well as share that information with the local sponsor so
that we can get this economic model in sync and ready to go to
support this Chief's Report.
Ms. Frankel. And very quickly, many of our local
governments in south Florida have been waiting to receive
millions of dollars owed to them for beach renourishment, how
are we going to get our money?
Ms. Darcy. I do not know if I have an answer to that one.
You and I also spoke about the Sand Report. Is this related to
the domestic sand burst?
Ms. Frankel. Well, this has to do with the federally
authorized cost share program.
Ms. Darcy. I am not quite sure which projects you are
referring to unless they are all part of the beach
renourishment projects on the coast?
Ms. Frankel. There are many of them along the coast in
south Florida.
Ms. Darcy. Right, well, all of our beach renourishment
projects are on a renourishment schedule because they are
authorized. Most beach renourishment projects are authorized
for a 50-year project life, and within that authorization,
there is a renourishment cycle. Where the project sits, the
tides and the little drift determines what the renourishment
cycle will be. And each project can be renourished every year
or every 10 years, depending again on the project's location
and its authorized purposes.
We have been budgeting for renourishment projects so they
should be able to continue hopefully at the rate that they had
been authorized.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for
Ms. Darcy. In the decision, National Mining Association v.
Jackson, the court ruled that the enhanced coordination
procedures developed by the EPA to dictate or influence the
terms of section 404 permits under the guise of coordinating
with the Corps unlawfully changed the permitting process for
section 404 coal mine permits under the Clean Water Act. And
these unlawful policies, adopted more than 3 years ago, created
a permit moratorium, if you will, resulting in almost as many
section 404 permit applications being withdrawn by applicants
as issued by the Corps. How is the Corps ensuring that these
permits are going to be issued in a timely manner and
consistent with the court's ruling?
Ms. Darcy. I think the enhanced coordination procedure is
what you are referring to, which was overruled by the courts.
Since that ruling, we have been doing all that we can to do
timely reviews of our 404 permits in compliance with the law. I
do not, off the top of my head, have our current rate of
review, but, again, it is all dependent upon whether we get all
the information that we need upfront for that timely review. I
will have to check with my staff, but I think it is between a
30- and 60-day review period depending upon the complexity of
the permit.
Mr. Massie. Since the ruling, have any permits been issued?
Ms. Darcy. Since then? Yes. I can get you the number for
the record if you would like.
Mr. Massie. OK, thank you very much. Now, switching gears a
little bit. Recognizing the desperate need for upkeep and
investment in our inland waterways, the commercial carriers and
users of these waterways have pretty much volunteered to help
make a contribution to this, but the question is how will this
user fee, if you will, be collected. So, there has been some
discussion as to whether this would be collected as a lock fee
or, as is currently the case, as a fuel tax, if you will. Can
you talk to that?
Ms. Darcy. Sure. Currently, there is the tax on diesel for
the inland waterway users. The lockage fee that has been
proposed by the President would be established. We have not
elaborated on all the details of the fee, but we would like to
be able to work with our stakeholders, as well as this
committee, to determine how that lockage fee would be assessed
and collected.
I think part of it is just what exactly would the mechanism
be for the collection? Would it be at each lockage site? Would
it be some cumulative accounting that would be collected at the
end of a year? Those details have not been established.
Mr. Massie. Let me ask this then, wouldn't that create--
creating another fee when there already is a mechanism for
collecting a user fee, creating that new fee, wouldn't that
create another level of bureaucracy and some inefficiency and
also a disproportionate burden on users on one portion of the
inland waterway versus another?
Ms. Darcy. Well, again, those are the kinds of questions
that we need to work out and get some input on because we don't
want to create additional bureaucracy or an additional
administrative expense. So maybe it would make sense to collect
the lockage fee in the same way that we currently collect the
tax, although the tax is, as I say, on the fuel that each barge
owner and each transporter pays.
Mr. Massie. In your opinion or professional opinion, do you
think it could affect users disproportionately on the inland
waterways if it were collected as a lock fee versus a fuel tax?
Ms. Darcy. Well, again, it would not be in the same
proportion as the tax because the tax is on the amount of fuel
you use. This would be on the numbers of times you lock into a
lock. So those users who lock in more would be paying a larger
fee than those who use different portions of the inland
waterway system. Where you don't have as many locks or as many
lockages per trip, would be paying less.
Mr. Massie. Would it be easier just to use the existing
structure than to create a new bureaucracy, if you will?
Ms. Darcy. Well, the existing structure is the diesel tax,
and this would be a different fee. It would not be a tax on the
commodity that they are purchasing. So, it would be a different
structure but maybe there is a way that we could develop it so
that it would not create the duplication that you might be
considering would be as a result of this.
Mr. Massie. OK, thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Just for a point of clarification, Secretary
Darcy. You referred to it as a ``lockage fee,'' I believe in
the President's budget request, he refers to it as a ``vessel
fee,'' which I think could be a different animal because, you
know, a lockage fee would be a charge every time a vessel goes
through the lock. A vessel fee could be something different
where you charge a license to be on the system.
Ms. Darcy. Right, or you could charge per barge or as you
say per vessel as opposed to per lockage--per barge as opposed
to each time you go into the lockage fee.
Mr. Gibbs. So, what is the administration requesting, a
vessel fee or a lockage fee?
Ms. Darcy. I think we are open to either.
Mr. Gibbs. Open?
Ms. Darcy. We are open to finding out which would be the
best use and create the best revenue source for it.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
Ms. Darcy. We are not locked in, no pun intended.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Kirkpatrick?
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assistant
Secretary Darcy, you know I represent the city of Flagstaff. I
sent you a letter in February of this year about the Rio de
Flag project. For the past 20 years, that has been a major
priority of the city of Flagstaff. We have had 15 major floods,
large floods, since 1888. And another flood would affect half
the population of a town of 65,000.
I just want to quantify some of the economic damages and
have that in the record. Another single flood would cause
damage to approximately 1,500 structures valued at $450
million. A single large flood event would cause an estimated
$93 million in economic damages to the area. On the other hand,
completion of the Rio de Flag project would result in an
estimated $100 million in economic development to the
community. This project really is the lifeblood of the
community.
The Federal Government has spent more than $24 million to
date. The city of Flagstaff has kicked in more than $14
million. At this rate, it will take us 20 years to complete
this project. So my question is when will the Corps commit
significant resources to this project to ensure that this city
and its citizens and businesses will not be at risk for another
catastrophic flood?
Ms. Darcy. Congresswoman, I do not believe that this
project was budgeted for in the President's 2014 budget, so at
this time I cannot make a commitment as to when it would be
budgeted.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. That is very disappointing. In my letter
to you, I asked--I requested $3.9 million just to keep the
project going. And I think it is so important not only to the
community, but we do not want to waste taxpayer dollars that
have already been spent on this project. So I hope that it will
continue to be a top priority of the Corps and the
administration.
My second question goes to another project in my district,
the lower Santa Cruz. The lower Santa Cruz River has a long
history of severe floods that can destroy everything in its
path during heavy rains. The Army Corps' own report states,
``Today, with the area's rapid growth and river flow changes,
damage from a major flood could devastate the entire region and
cost billions of dollars in damage. Before the Army Corps can
move on this project, a reconnaissance study must be completed
at the cost of $100,000 in Federal funds.'' Can you use fiscal
year 2013 work plan funds? And, if not, can you use fiscal year
2014 monies in your budget to fund the reconnaissance study?
Ms. Darcy. We cannot use 2013 work plan money because it
was not in the 2012 budget; we cannot budget for anything in
the 2013 that was not funded in 2012.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Well, what about 2014? Using the work plan
funds for that in the 2014 budget?
Ms. Darcy. Well, the President's budget for 2014 does not
include funding this project. We will have to decide whether we
get a 2014 work plan or not. If we are operating under a
continuing resolution, which we have done for the past 3 years,
then we would develop a work plan for spending in 2014. But in
the past, we have been directed not to fund anything in that
work plan that was not funded in the previous work plan.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. So, basically, I have to report back to
this community there is not going to be any funding for several
years for this very important major project?
Ms. Darcy. Unfortunately, it is not in the 2014 budget.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. OK, thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I am going to rotate back and forth a
little bit with myself, me and myself some time. Secretary
Darcy, I want to--in light of yesterday's U.S. Court of
Appeals, District of Columbia, court decision on the revocation
of the 404 permit that was done 3 years after the Army Corps
issued the permit, and my understanding is on that permit that
the Army Corps issued, there was no violations of the permit.
There wasn't a problem. I believe last Congress in our
testimony we heard--we had reports from the State of West
Virginia, the EPA did not support the U.S. EPA's actions. The
Army Corps admitted there were no issues with the permit in
violations or anything like that.
Questions come to mind that is really concerning to me is a
business entity goes through the long process, in this case it
was a number of years, and get their permit and start the
operation. And 3 years later, the U.S. EPA revoked the permit,
which I believe really is the first time in American history
that ever happened. What is the value of getting a permit from
the Corps with that threat?
And then, secondly, what did the Corps do in your capacity
to stand up, you know, to uphold the Corps decision to grant
the permit? Did the Corps make any arguments in support of the
actions of the Corps?
Ms. Darcy. I am familiar with the court case, Chairman. And
because the Corps of Engineers is, in the State of West
Virginia, currently under litigation on this same permit. I
cannot comment.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. OK, so I guess I will see if I can rephrase
that question. So there wasn't--I guess I am at a loss here
what to say. The question would be during--was there
consultation before the permit was revoked in 2010 between the
Corps and the EPA? Can you comment on what consultation might
have happened when I assume the Corps got word that the EPA was
considering doing the revocation, was there any consultation
previous to revocation?
Ms. Darcy. Congressman, unfortunately because----
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
Ms. Darcy [continuing]. Of the situation, and because this
case has been remanded, it means it is still ongoing--it has
been remanded back to the circuit court, and then our ongoing
litigation.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, OK, let me ask--let us forget about that
then. Let's ask more of a hypothetical in the future. What
would your role as assistant secretary of Army Civil Works do
if an issue where you issued a permit, and things were going
along fine in the operation of the entity that has the permit,
what would be your role as the Corps to argue the case or not
argue the case to defend the actions of the Corps, what would
be your response to the EPA?
Ms. Darcy. We would defend the issuance of a Department of
the Army permit. A Department of the Army permit goes through
any number of consultations from the beginning to the end, and
once it is issued, I think that we would defend it. It is under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act, I think it is section T
that is the veto authority for the EPA.
Mr. Gibbs. Is there any thoughts of--or maybe you have
already done it, having some guidelines set up, some kind of a
framework that the Corps and the EPA would work instead of just
an ad hoc policy?
Ms. Darcy. If we issue a permit and EPA has issue with that
permit, and wants to use their veto authority, the Department
of Justice is sort of the arbitrator in that situation for us.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, would you concur with me that we should do
everything possible because of the value of the permit, these
companies, these entities, expend a lot of dollars to go
through the environment studies and all the things they need to
do, create a lot of jobs, to make sure that the value of that
permit really has something behind it. So you would go on
record saying that the Corps would defend that permit,
especially if there is no violation of the permit?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, want to make that clear. Mr. Garamendi, go
ahead.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Thank
you for your appearance here. I think we have heard virtually
all of us that we want more. We want something done. I am going
to join in that, but I want to thank you for the work that has
been done. I want to thank you for the work that you have done
on saving these people's lives in floods and responding to
those floods. You and the men and women of the Army Corps of
Engineers have done an exceptional job over the years.
I suspect that a lot of the problem that we have heard from
various--from us and others comes not so much from the Corps
but rather from us, from the appropriations, or lack of them,
from our desire not to do earmarks puts the Corps in a very,
very difficult situation.
Ranking Member Bishop laid out very well the conundrum that
we all face. It is a conundrum that you are being held
accountable for but it is really our responsibility. We have
not made the appropriate--we have not made the appropriations.
We have not analyzed projects that should be discontinued and
put them aside. We have let projects continue on. So I think
the problem really lays here, but you are being held
accountable. And I do not think that is right.
I do want to thank the Corps for what you are proposing,
and what you have done in my district and the surrounding
areas. You are moving very quickly on the Sutter Buttes levee
project, a 40-mile critical levee project in Sutter County. We
thank you for getting that done and moving it expeditiously.
You have provided in the President's budget, and I hope
that we keep it in, money for the Yuba River fish passage, a
critical issue, as well as money for the Yuba River Basin. I
thank you for that. Even the children's center at Beale Air
Force built ahead of time and below cost by the Corps of
Engineers, we thank you for that. We know you are going to do
some drudging at the Port of Stockton. We thank you for that
continuing. On the American River, a huge project that is going
to protect the second most at-risk city in the Nation,
Sacramento. And I know you are moving forward on the Chief's
Report for the Natomas. We thank you for that. And little
Hamilton City, which is clearly going to be flooded the next
time the Sacramento River rises, you have proposed money for
that. And we thank you for that.
And I would simply say that for the rest of the issues, I
suspect that if we gave the Corps the money it needed for all
that we have asked, you would get it done on time.
I want to also bring to your attention something you are
doing already, and I would like you to continue to do this, it
is your 333 program. I think it can work. I
think if there is a flaw in it such that you do not have the
money to complete the third 3, and once again that comes back
to us. We will talk about other things along the way. We have
got the Bay Delta, a huge issue, and I know that you are
engaged there with the Bay Delta studies and the levees,
thousands of miles of levees in my district.
I look forward to working with you on this. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Hahn, do you have a question?
Ms. Hahn. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop.
There is certainly more attention now than ever has been I
think on the idea of spending the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
fully for the purpose that it was intended. And I know in my
bipartisan PORTS Caucus, this issue is really, really coming to
the forefront. So, ports are now coming to the forefront of
our--of the dialogue here. The President even mentioned the
need to modernize and keep our ports competitive.
I mean when we really talk about the economy and the jobs,
it really does come down to our ports being dredged, maintained
and modernized, and yet we do know that we are spending so
little of the HMT. We are glad to see that the administration
is proposing to increase the spending to I guess the highest
level yet at $890 million, but that is still only half of what
the Harbor Maintenance Tax is collecting. And it is collecting
it for the express purpose of maintaining our harbors. The
American Association of Port Authorities suggests that full
channel dimensions are available less than 35 percent of the
time. So, I think that is a real problem as we move forward
with the Panama Canal coming online, keeping our ports in this
country competitive.
So, every time I suggest that we spend the Harbor
Maintenance, which by the way has a $9 billion surplus right
now, every time I suggest spending it for the intended purposes
for which it is collected or returning the tax to the ports
where it was collected, I get pushed back. And what I usually
hear is, ``Well, if you actually spend that money for dredging
our harbors, maintaining our harbors, actually spend it on what
it is intended to be used for, all these other projects that
the Corps has will have to be suspended, put aside, not done.''
Can you explain to me why that is?
Ms. Darcy. Congresswoman, because there is a cap to our
budget, I mean the President's request is $4.8 billion for this
fiscal year. If we take the $890 million in the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, which is appropriated out of that Trust
Fund by the Congress, and if we were to say we are going to
double that, we are going to use it all, then we are still only
at $4.8 billion. So that money has to come from someplace else.
So that additional $890 million would have to come from other
projects.
Earlier, Congressman Bishop was talking about the fact that
that would delete our construction budget probably only down
$200 million that we could spend on construction. We are capped
at $4.8 billion for our overall budget.
Ms. Hahn. So if that--if your budget, if the cap was
lifted?
Ms. Darcy. If 302B allocations, both within the energy and
water appropriations bill were changed or within the Army Corps
of Engineers, that would be a way to increase the spending from
the Trust Fund.
Ms. Hahn. And say that we--that happened, and we lifted the
cap, and we actually--Congress agreed to spend the entire
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund back where it is meant to be
spent in its ports and harbors, could the Corps actually--or
maybe I should ask how long would it take for the Corps to
bring up all of our Nation's ports to their authorized
deepening level?
Ms. Darcy. Oh, I would just be speculating. I might defer
to the Chief on this, but it depends again if we are talking $2
billion a year.
Ms. Hahn. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. Let us say $2 billion a year; I think it would
take us, at a $2 billion a year expenditure rate, at least 5
years to get to that authorized level.
Ms. Hahn. And how many jobs do you think would be created
if we actually got all of our harbors up to speed?
Ms. Darcy. I do not know. I would have to do a calculation
as to the increased numbers and the availability of dredges and
what per----
Ms. Hahn. I would like you to get that back.
Ms. Darcy. OK.
Ms. Hahn. I would like to see it. I think that is really
how we should talk more in this country when we talk about
these kinds of appropriations, what it actually means to job
creation, as well as global competitiveness. So, I do think
that this is an issue that we are probably--we are pushing I
think probably more than any Congress ever has before, so get
ready.
Ms. Darcy. OK.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Napolitano. I struggle with your
name, sorry.
Mrs. Napolitano. Just try Grace. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It
is good to see you, Secretary Darcy and General Bostick. Look
forward to working with you. I have got to tell you both that
both your former directors in the area, my area, we worked with
them for years, Colonel Mangus and Colonel Troy. And they are
both excellent. Not only my staff but all my entities and
others are really very much in agreement that they are very
easy to work with and very responsive to the needs of the
communities that we all serve. So I wanted to thank you for
them.
As you are aware, Santa Fe Dam is in my area, and it is a
very, very critical part of the flood control and water
conservation. One of the biggest problems is sediment buildup
because you get all the sediment coming off the mountain range.
And the ability to remove that requires the Corps to look at
its policy to market the sediment instead of giving it away,
like many of the other flood control agencies do, and they get
rid of it real easily, very quickly to be able to be ready for
the next storm. It is a major bureaucratic burden, and we want
to be able to work with you. How can we speed up the process?
Does it require an act of Congress? Is it something we can put
into WRDA? What can we do to be able to effectively speed up
the process to be able to capture more rainwater since we are
in a drought condition? Yes?
General Bostick. I am not sure I am tracking with the
question, Congresswoman. I thought you were talking about the
sediment and whether we can dredge more.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right, the Santa Fe Dam is in my area, and
they have apparently looked to the Corps to request the ability
to move that. And apparently the Corps policy requires you to
market the sediment instead of giving it away. Well, it is a
major bureaucratic burden for them to act quickly and
efficiently, value the sediment and get rid of it, while other
local control agencies are able to give it away without having
to go through a bureaucratic maze. How can we expedite that?
Does it require us to be able to include it in WRDA or what can
we do so that we can effectively dredge those areas, remove
that sediment and allow for more capture of storm water?
General Bostick. I think I am going to have to follow up,
Congresswoman. I really do not have the answer to that specific
issue.
Ms. Darcy. But I agree with the Chief. I think that kind of
valuing in the market of sediment would have to compete with
some of the other missions that we have similar to that in the
area. But I think we do need to follow up because I am not
aware of the marketing component that you are referring to.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, this was brought up to me by some of
the L.A. County folks. And then there was an issue--and I
understand this is taken care of, but I am not quite sure. The
Water Replenishment District offered to help pay for the
Whittier Narrows Study to upgrade the leak study in the dam.
And they offered to help pay for the study, and we could not
get the Corps or anybody to accept the money to be able to get
it done. And it was listed as a top priority, yet to this day I
do not think the study has been finished because of the money.
And we were able to get some funding, but they were willing to
help pay for the study. And we could not find anybody to accept
the money.
Ms. Darcy. We do have authority to accept contributed
funds, but I believe we have to have a project partnership
agreement with a local sponsor before we can accept those
contributed funds. But in this particular case, Congresswoman,
I will look into it because it just seems as though that makes
sense.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, it would have expedited the ability
for them to be able to work, and the Replenishment District
would have had more potential of putting recharge.
With EP's direction to pursue an integrated watershed
approach for water resource planning, local agencies are
looking for using a multibenefit regional water resource
project, projects, plural. They would integrate a variety of
water management objectives, including storm water quality
improvement, increased storm water capture to enhance local
supplies and increased recreation with enhancing habitat.
Because there is such a value in water, we have the North and
South fights over water, and the drought situation, we are
looking to see how we can help get the Corps' help to
contribute to such projects?
Ms. Darcy. Congresswoman, we are currently looking at doing
something just like that; we are doing our watershed budgeting.
Actually, we have got a couple of pilots right now that
hopefully we are going to be able to include and propose in the
2015 budget that would do watershed budgeting, which would
incorporate many of those concepts and how we would budget for
our future project.
Mrs. Napolitano. I look forward to working with you, and
being able to clarify and expedite any of these that we may. If
it requires congressional approval, then we need to know so we
can begin the process.
One last question, Mr. Chair. It requires the new fees that
are being imposed on the county parks department, the Los
Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation has an 836 acre
facility, and apparently there is a concession agreement with
the Corps. And they are requesting based on a letter of January
11th of 2012 to be able to pay for analyzing concession--review
and analyzing concession agreements. Is that something new?
When was that put into effect, and can we get more information?
I do not need your answer now, but I will talk to you about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gibbs. I will yield to myself a couple more questions.
General Bostick, first of all, I would like to thank you and
General Walsh for expediting the rock pillar destruction and
the dredging there on Cairo, Illinois, on the Mississippi to
keep that openness pass several months. And I know in my local
farm elevator in my local community was paying attention to
that, so I know the agricultural community and other shippers
are really appreciative of that, to get that expedited and get
that job--keeping that part of the river open.
General Bostick. Thank you, Chairman. I will pass that on
to the troops. They reacted fairly well when we got support
from throughout Washington down to the local level, so we
appreciate it.
Mr. Gibbs. That is great. I know you are able to expedite
the contracts, and do all that you needed to do, so things
cannot happen until we determine to get them to go, I think.
General Bostick, the President's budget requests a change
in the cost of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project. It increases
it approximately $3.1 billion. How much of that cost increase
can be spent--will be spent on salaries and administrative
costs at the district level? Do you have any idea?
General Bostick. Chairman, could you say the specific
project again?
Mr. Gibbs. The Olmsted Locks and Dam project that the
President--it has been, you know, there has been a lot of cost
overruns there. It has been a project that has gone on now for
nearly 30 years, and it has been up to $3.1 billion, which is
several times the original appropriation. My question is how
much of that cost and the overruns in the future is being
allocated to salaries and administrative costs at the district
level, which would be the Louisville District?
General Bostick. I do not have the specific number, Mr.
Chairman, but I could follow up with you on that.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, appreciate that. Also, due to schedule and
cost overruns I mentioned at the Olmsted lock, the Olmsted
Locks and Dam project is being built to replace the very aging
locks, 52 and 53. How much of this funding increase for Olmsted
is going to rehabilitate locks 52 and 53? And when do you think
those--the major rehabilitations will occur?
General Bostick. What I would say, Mr. Chairman, for
Olmsted to move forward, we need a 902 fix. If it does not move
forward, then we will continue to do the work that we are doing
to maintain locks 52 and 53.
Mr. Gibbs. I fully understand that. I am going to get to
the 902 in a second, but my question is what are we allocating
towards locks 52 and 53 because my understanding is they need
to stay operational? We are going to invest money because we
are probably what, 8 or so years away of completing the Olmsted
Project? And so I am wondering is the $3.1 billion, is that
part of the allocation for Olmsted to facilitate the
rehabilitation of locks 52 and 53 or is that in addition?
General Bostick. That cost is just for Olmsted. The
maintenance of locks 52 and 53 is separate, and I would have to
get that figure for you.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, OK, I appreciate that. Also, the 902 fixes
that will be needed in 2013, how many 902 fixes are there for
this fiscal year 2013 and also for fiscal year 2014?
General Bostick. I think the total is about 30, but I would
have to follow up. It is roughly about 30.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, we would like to have a list of that, and
then also I think the amount, the dollar amount since we are
working on the WRDA bill. I think in order to put all this
together, we have to get a handle on that.
Also, in WRDA 2007, Congress authorized the Corps to
utilize independent peer review for some of its projects. How
long do these reviews typically take, and how much do they
typically cost on these peer reviews? Any idea on that?
General Bostick. It really depends on the size of the
project, the magnitude and the level of difficulty. I really
cannot put a number on it that would be a typical number or a
cost. We try to work these as rapidly as we can, and it just
varies between projects.
Mr. Gibbs. Secretary Darcy, I think you want to comment?
Ms. Darcy. Well, I believe our report to Congress last year
was on how we had implemented since 2007. We had spent about
$8.2 million on I believe it was 29 independent external peer
reviews. And, as the General said, it varies from project to
project but that is just a broad brush look at what has
happened since 2007.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. General, also the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund for fiscal year 2013, salaries and administrative costs
and overhead, you probably will not be able to answer this
today but hopefully you can get back to us about the money that
is generated in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, how much of
it is allocated for administrative costs and overhead and also
for fiscal year 2014?
General Bostick. I will follow up with you on that.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Another question, Secretary Darcy, the
Inland Waterways Users Board, those appointments have not been
made by Secretary Hagel, Department of Defense. Can you give us
an update of when we could expect those appointments?
Ms. Darcy. Sure. The charter has been renewed. We got that
word at the beginning of this week, and we are awaiting the
selection of the members. We have been in contact with the
Secretary of Defense's office, and I am hoping that within the
next couple of weeks, we will be able to get those appointments
made.
Mr. Gibbs. I think it is important that we have that in
place, at least it is a good sounding board, communications
back and forth in the Corps and the stakeholders, and hopefully
we can make things work a little better.
Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate very
much this hearing, and I appreciate very much the testimony of
our witnesses. And I want to echo what Mr. Garamendi says. I
want to thank the Corps for the work you do under--at times in
pretty trying circumstances. So, thank you very much.
At the risk of being irreverent, my summary of both this
hearing and the current state of affairs with respect to the
Corps is we have met the enemy and it is us. And the ``us'' in
this case is the Congress. We are constantly asking you to do
more, constantly wringing our hands that you are not doing more
or doing the things we want you to do, and yet we are giving
you less. We are proposing phantom solutions to real world
problems. The earmark ban prevents you from going forward on
the 23 Chief's Reports that are completed for which we have
expended taxpayer money. The earmark ban prevents you from
acting on the 30-some projects for which we have hit the $902
cap for which we have spent a great deal of taxpayer money. So,
I just very much hope we now have a very clear understanding of
what we need to do.
And, again, I want to thank Chairman Gibbs and Chairman
Shuster for these listening sessions, and these stakeholder
sessions. I think they have been enormously valuable. We know
what we need to do in terms of the work that needs to get done,
but we also now know what we need to do as a Congress if we
really want to see it get done.
So, I very much hope that--this committee has always had a
very clear, bipartisan problem-solving approach, and I hope we
can summon that approach in this circumstance to see to it that
we give the Corps the resources that it needs to have in order
to get the work done that we all agree has to get done.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, Mr. Garamendi, you have another question?
Mr. Garamendi. In my earlier comments, I had intended not
only to thank Secretary Darcy but also General Bostick and the
men and women in your organization, particularly Colonel Leedy
out in California and Sacramento. It is a pleasure to work with
him and his staff there.
I would like to hear from you, perhaps in writing on a
subsequent meeting, how we could change the systems, some of
which are law, some of which are procedures that have been
practiced for some time by the Corps, to be more quick,
eliminating unnecessary steps and other elements that slow down
the process. I know that much of that is, again, here. It is
our authorization and our appropriation process, and the lack
of continuity that I talked about before.
But I think we--I would like to engage in a discussion with
the Corps about how we could change, perhaps the 3 by 3 effort
is a way of accomplishing that. If so, further detail on how to
make that more than just an experiment but make it a reality.
And your perspectives on our work, on how our processes make it
difficult, and in some cases impossible, for you to carry out
your tasks. So, I will put that out there, and then look
forward to a detailed discussion about that.
Ms. Darcy. I think that would be a great conversation to
have, Congressman.
General Bostick. And thank you for the compliment on
Colonel Leedy, he and his team are doing a great job and many
other commanders and civilians at all levels answering the call
to duty. But we look forward to having that discussion as well.
Mr. Garamendi. In that regard, I recall the flood of 1986
in California. And the colonel at the time, who I despair I
cannot recall his name, came to the community of Walnut Grove
where I lived where we had a flood underway, and we said,
``Well, if we could build this short levee, about a quarter-
mile levee, we could save the city,''--``the town,'' not hardly
a city. And he said, ``Let me see.'' He went back, took out his
book and said, ``Here is the section, what do we need to do?''
And he had called two contractors who happened to be nearby. He
said, ``Gentlemen, I want to bid. I want to raise this levee 5
feet, and I want it done in 1 week. Give me a bid.'' And so the
two contractors went off to one side. ``No, no, you over there
and you over there.'' They came back with a bid on the back of
an envelope. He took the low bid. Then the two contractors got
together, and they did it. And they saved this small town.
I appreciate the Corps. Thank you.
General Bostick. Thank you.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I just wanted to make a couple of
closing remarks. As we work on the Water Resources Development
Act, as we have kindly referred to as WRDA, as this committee
and the full committee with Chairman Shuster, as was referenced
to earlier today, we have held a lot of listening sessions with
the stakeholders and roundtables. And the common theme, and I
think Ranking Member Bishop mentioned some of it, we know there
needs to be more additional resources, but we also know there
are some things we can do on the cost side. And one thing that
has come up a lot is all the studies that you are required to
do. And then study and study and study it some more.
So, hopefully, I think this WRDA bill, it will be heavy on
the policy side where we can hopefully do some reforms to lower
the cost, to streamline the projects, to be a little more
efficient, and improve the process so we do not have so many
cost delays. Because when you have delays, it adds to the cost,
as we all know. And also things that we can do, working with
local sponsors, how we can do it better.
It just amazes me. I have had the mayor of the city of
Miami, Florida, in my office here a few weeks ago, and they are
ready to do their project down there. They are getting ready
for the--the bigger ships coming through the Panama Canal, but
they cannot move forward without the authorization. So things
we can do.
Also, a frustration I think to a lot of us is we look at
the President's budget, and I mentioned it in my opening
statement, his export initiative, it is a great initiative; we
can't wait initiative, great initiative. But we need to make
sure that we are making those capital investments in those
assets that due to the economic return, to grow our economy,
keep us competitive in the global economy.
And I know we have environment issues, and we have to
address them, but when we are looking at more than four times
on the construction budget for equal restoration projects and
not going to grow those aging assets, that is concerning
because if we fall behind--continue to fall behind and lose
this battle with our foreign competition, there will be less
dollars in the big picture for everything. And it is so
important that we make these investments in our physical assets
and our ports.
So, I just want to leave it at that, and we look forward to
working for you--working with you, and also give my thanks to
all the people at the Army Corps for all the work that they do.
Sometimes it is very technical work, and can be dangerous work
at some times. But they are dedicated. I meet with the colonels
from the districts and the other generals of the regions, and
we all got the same thing we want to get done, make sure that
we get the economy growing and create the jobs. And our
maritime transportation system and flood control is where it
needs to be, and that is what the American people expect.
Thanks for being here today, Secretary and General. And
this concludes this hearing of the subcommittee.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]