My concerns ranged from:
-- the new precedent which requires the federal government to pay for a portion of operations and maintenance costs; to
-- the violation of Committee on the Environment and Public Works' policy concerning the need for a Chief of the Army Corps of Engineer's report before project authorization; to
-- the basis of the restoration project on unproven technology; to
-- the strong possibility that the Restoring the Everglades, An American Legacy Act will not be considered as a stand alone bill; to
-- the open-ended nature of the costs of this project.
Today's GAO testimony goes to the heart of this concern. The total cost of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is estimated at $7.8 billion over 38 years. This is the current estimate. I have serious concerns about the potential for cost over runs associated with this project. As with almost all federal programs, this project will probably cost much more at the end of the day. For example, in 1967, when the Medicare program was passed by Congress, the program was estimated to cost $3.4 billion. In 2000, the costs of the program are estimated to $232 billion. No one could have foreseen this exponential growth! The future cost of projects of this magnitude must be taken into consideration by Congress before we pass legislation.
As the Everglades report states, "A project of this size is not without uncertainties." These projects and their costs will be a moving target for many, many years to come. I understand that the Corps has developed a process for incorporating project modifications and additions in its future reports to Congress. However, in addition to the current reporting requirements, I believe that the Corps should be required to incorporate GAO's recommendations into their reporting system, specifically providing Congress with information on: (1) cumulative changes in projects and costs for the Everglades plan as a whole and (2) the progress being made in implementing the Everglades plan. I also agree with GAO -- it would also be helpful to have this information every two years -- rather than the five year reporting cycle called for in the Everglades legislation -- so that as Congress considers authorization for future Everglades projects, Congress can make informed decisions concerning the expenditure of American tax dollars.
I would also like to reiterate my objection to the Committee's action to attach the Restoring the Everglades, An American Legacy Act to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I know many advocates of this plan argue that the Everglades should be a part of WRDA 2000. The Everglades plan is hardly a typical WRDA project. Because of the scale and departure from existing law and policy of the Everglades legislation, it should be considered as a stand alone bill -- not a provision in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This is a precedent setting bill. With Bayou Restoration and other plans in the works, the Everglades will be a model for how we handle these enormous ecological restoration projects in the future.
Again, I recognize the Everglades as a national treasure - as I do many treasures in Oklahoma. As Congress considers the Everglades restoration legislation, all I ask is that Congress play by the rules.