SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S.
BOND
Mr. Chairman,
Secretary Brownlee, General Flowers, without taking the matter lightly, the
last time I saw you we had a good man resign from office so I say from the
outset that I think very highly of the Office of Management and Budget and I am
sure that no one other than Senator Reid could write a better budget for the
Corps.
Mr. Chairman, a
letter was sent to the Committee several weeks ago signed by Senators Lott,
Cochran, Warner, Lincoln, Carnahan and myself.
Mr. Chairman I ask UC to enter the letter into the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I
think I can see where this political process is going and I predict that if the
WRDA bill includes legislation to make it harder and more expensive and
problematic for communities to get flood protection, then we will not have a
WRDA bill this year. I believe I will
have bipartisan support from many regions to resolve this on the floor, if
necessary. I didn’t pick this fight but
I am ready, respectfully and enthusiastically, to join it.
Secretary Brownlee
and General Flowers, every year there is a referendum on the Corps and it is
reflected in the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. There, as you know, on a
bicameral and bipartisan basis, the Congress rejects inadequate budgets sent up
by Democrat and Republican Presidents.
This current fiscal year, there are hundreds of “adds.”
I see adds for
projects in Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, New York, California,
Montana, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Virginia and Missouri - just to name
some random states. Washington, DC and
New York, City and St. Louis, MO filled in their abundant wetlands over the
previous centuries so it is no surprise that their newspapers want to pull up
the ladder now that their regions are developed and their economies are
prosperous and people protected, but your job is to bear in mind that some
people have been left behind such as Mr. Robinson who we will hear from
later.
We are at war and
experiencing an economic slow down and facing more trade competition and
looking for more opportunities to increase family incomes and improve our
communities. That is why Congress
authorizes then funds studies; authorizes then funds design; authorizes then funds construction and then
funds O&M. I know that some don’t
like the way the Benefit/Cost Ratio is calculated. I don’t either because it is far too stingy and it is rigged to
protect the haves and leave the have-nots behind. The day that Congress doesn’t want projects is the day we don’t
do an Energy and Water bill and if someone would like me to take that
suggestion to Chairman Byrd, I can do so.
On behalf of
mayors and farmers and shippers and communities, I will continue to press the
bipartisan support for modernizing our water infrastructure.
ATTACHMENT
May
13, 2002
The
Honorable James M. Jeffords
Chairman
Committee
on Environment and Public Works
SD‑410
Washington,
DC 20510
The
Honorable Bob Smith
Ranking
Member
Committee
on Environment and Public Works
SD‑456
Washington,
DC 20510
Dear
Chairman Jeffords and Senator Smith
Legislation was introduced recently
for the “modernization and improvement” of critical programs administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. While we do not question the intentions of
the bill sponsors, we believe this legislation would make a costly, lengthy,
and bureaucratic process more costly, more lengthy, and more bureaucratic. Our constituents cannot tolerate this event.
As the Subcommittee and Committee begin to formulate a Water Resources
Development Act, we alert you that we will object to any water resources bill
that includes provisions that make it more difficult for our citizens, particularly
poor citizens, to get flood control, navigation, recreation and environmental
projects approved.
As you know, projects administered
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are critical to the safety, economic health
and environmental protection of many regions of the country. Water transportation is low cost, safe,
relieves highway congestion, requires less fuel, and causes less air pollution
than alternatives. Flood control
projects have prevented nearly $500 billion in flood damage since 1959 returning
$6 for every $1 invested which does not factor in the value generated by
economic activity such projects permit.
For many rural and urban communities, flood protection is essential to
their safety and economic opportunity.
As citizens who live in states that
rely on Corps projects understand firsthand, the existing process is immensely
cumbersome. Multi agency review,
analysis and consultation takes not days or months but years and in some cases,
decades. There are extensive and
repeated opportunities for review and extended public comment as well as
increasingly difficult environmental and local cost share requirements. Benefit cost and local cost share
requirements, in effect, typically mean that the federal government may help
provide flood protection to wealthy communities but will rarely, if ever,
protect poor communities no matter the personal risk and economic hardship they
face. After all these hurdles are met,
there must be specific Congressional authorization and multi‑year
appropriations and oversight. The
effect of so‑called “reform”
legislation is to make an excruciatingly difficult process more difficult.
Additionally, Section 216 of the
P.L. 106‑541 requires the National Academy of Sciences to make
recommendations regarding independent peer review of feasibility reports and a
review of methods of project analysis.
Prior to recommendations from the Administration and completion of the
NAS recommendations, it would be premature to legislate prescriptive mandates.
We understand that many members of
the Senate desire projects in WRDA, but the cost of raising the bar for the
most needy in our regions compels us to use all the tools of the Senate to prevent
it from becoming law. We believe it is
important that you understand the extent of our opposition at this early
opportunity.
Sincerely,
___________________________ _____________________________
Christopher
S. Bond Thad
Cochran
___________________________ _____________________________
Trent
Lott John
W. Warner
___________________________ _____________________________
Blanche L. Lincoln Jean Carnahan
cc: The Honorable Harry Reid
The Honorable James M. Inhofe