Like Senator Voinovich, I am concerned about the number of projects that have been authorized, but have not received funding. I was equally disturbed to see that the Administration, once again, requested inadequate funds in the President's Fiscal Year 2001 budget proposal to meet the nation's continuing demand for Corps services.
In order to address the problem, I believe it is important for us to get a sense of how many projects on the backlog list are still viable. Projects should be deauthorized if a local sponsor no longer exists, the project is environmentally unacceptable or economically unjustified, or the needs of the area have changed. For example, it is my understanding that there is $1 billion worth of projects in Florida alone that could be deauthorized once the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is enacted. If this is the case, the Committee needs to see the list of these projects and also know if this scenario exists with other Corps projects.
Although the Administration includes a provision to amend the deauthorization process in its Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 proposal, I believe the process can and should be more stringent. I look forward to working with Senator Voinovich to rectify this problem.
Another issue that we need to take a close look at is the type of projects we authorize. So far this year, I have received 150 WRDA project requests. Since 1986, the Committee has authorized only those projects that are consistent with cost-sharing requirements established in WRDA '86. In addition, there must an identified local sponsor for the non-federal share of the costs, the project must have a completed reconnaissance and feasibility study, and the Chief's Report must find the project technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified. Although this criteria has served us well, over the next few weeks we should carefully reconsider Committee policy and determine if revisions need to be made.
I know there are going to be some questions raised today about whether the Corps' mission should include environmental restoration projects, or if this is outside the agency's scope of responsibility. I am not sure how many of you here today know this, but the Army Corps has long been involved in protecting our environment. The Corps was instrumental in creating Yellowstone National Park in 1874, and operated and protected the park for many years thereafter. Later, when buffalo herds across America were severely threatened from over hunting, the Corps built a four-mile fence around the few remaining buffalo in Yellowstone. A herd that once numbered 25 now numbers 3,500.
Since then, the Corps has been a key player in restoring the Chesapeake Bay, engineering a plan that would allow water to flow once again unimpeded through the Everglades, protecting our nation's watersheds, and working to design more effective fish ladders. Over the years the Corps has developed an expertise in mitigating environmental damage, and I, for one, welcome their knowledge and expertise.