U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

28–250 PDF 2018

S. HRG. 115–137 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF R.D. JAMES 

TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

FOR CIVIL WORKS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 6, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

DECEMBER 6, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 2 

Blunt, Hon. Roy, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 4 

WITNESS 

James, Rickey Dale ‘‘R.D.,’’ Engineer, Mississippi River Commission ................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 13 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 15 

Senator Booker .......................................................................................... 17 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 19 

Response to an additional question from Senator Duckworth ...................... 20 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Gillibrand ......................... 20 

Response to an additional question from Senator Markey ........................... 22 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 23 

Senator Sullivan ........................................................................................ 24 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 26 

Response to an additional question from Senator Wicker ............................ 30 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF R.D. 

JAMES TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman, 

Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Whitehouse, Merkley, 

Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today we will consider the nomination of R.D. James to serve as 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

The Assistant Secretary establishes policy direction and provides 

supervision over the Department of the Army functions relating to 

all aspects of the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. This Committee shares jurisdiction over Mr. James’ 

nomination with the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has 

already held a hearing and reported the nominee favorably by voice 

vote. 

The Assistant Secretary plays a central role in ensuring the navigability of America’s ports and inland waterways. The Assistant 

Secretary is tasked with overseeing the Army Corps’ Flood and 

Storm Risk Management, including responding to emergencies 

such as Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 

The Assistant Secretary also is charged with protecting and restoring aquatic ecosystems, while allowing infrastructure development. America’s water infrastructure faces numerous challenges, 

including those impacting rural States like Wyoming. Mr. James is 

well qualified to tackle those challenges. He has served as a civil 

engineer member of the Mississippi River Commission since 1981. 

That is 36 years. He was appointed to that position by both Republican and Democrat Administrations. Throughout his tenure, Mr. 

James has helped lead the Commission’s efforts to improve the conditions of the Mississippi River, foster navigation, promote commerce, and reduce destructive flooding. 

2 

He gained extensive experience collaborating with five presidential Administrations, State and local officials, and the public at 

large. Prior to joining the Mississippi River Commission, Mr. 

James worked at the Kentucky Department of Water Resources as 

a Water Resources Design Engineer for State water resources 

projects. 

Mr. James is also an accomplished farmer and businessman. I 

look forward to working with Mr. James, once he is confirmed, on 

projects and issues important to Wyoming, including challenges associated with providing long term water supply and storage to 

rural communities, and preventing flooding and modernizing levees. For example, it is past time to find a permanent solution to 

preventing ice jams such as those that caused the Big Horn River 

to flood in the city of Worland. 

I also look forward to working with Mr. James on major policy 

issues such as the Trump administration’s proposed withdrawal of 

the Waters of the U.S. rule and legislation to address our nation’s 

most critical infrastructure needs, which is a top priority of this 

Committee. 

Confirming Mr. James to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works will be an important step in empowering the Army 

Corps of Engineers to more effectively and efficiently address our 

nation’s infrastructure needs. 

I will now turn to the Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator Carper, for his statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. James, great to see you again. Thanks for stopping by yesterday. 

There is a lady sitting behind you, over your right shoulder. Do 

you know her? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, I do. 

Senator CARPER. How well? 

Mr. JAMES. Very well. 

Senator CARPER. Does she have a couple of Es in her name? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, she does. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, she does; got an extra one. 

Welcome. Is it Jennye? Welcome. We are happy you are here. 

Thank you for allowing your husband to do this, and a lot of the 

other things he has done with his life. I was the only one here on 

the Committee when he came in, and I told him I was the only one 

coming, and he said that’s a good thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Maybe yes; maybe no. 

We are glad you are here and grateful that you have been nominated. Look forward to this hearing. 

As we all know, this is a position that is real important to, I 

think, all of us in this room. I am going to ask John King, right 

behind me, just to hold up a map. We have all seen maps of the 

United States of America, but how many court districts are there? 

Thirty-seven? Thirty-eight in all. And they spread all the way from 

Alaska all the way to Hawaii, from Oregon and Washington up in 

3 

the northwest to Maine up in the northeast, Florida down in the 

southeast, and California; and a lot of them have water. A lot of 

them have water. A lot of them have coast. 

In fact, I think about 80 percent of the people in this country, 

maybe 75 percent of the people in this country live within about 

75 miles of one of our coasts. And one of the things I am going to 

mention in my comments is how much money we are spending to 

allow the Army Corps of Engineers to, frankly, address all these 

needs, all these needs around our country, across all this water, 

and it is huge. And sometimes I don’t think—and I think my colleagues agree—we probably don’t provide enough money. 

All right, but thanks for joining us today, for your willingness to 

serve, and Jennye for joining him and allowing him to do this. 

If you are confirmed, Mr. James, you are going to be overseeing, 

as you know, the Army’s Civil Works program. Through this important program, the Corps is responsible for responding to and reducing the likelihood of flood damage. 

The Civil Works program also includes the construction, the operation, and maintenance of our nation’s ports and inland waterways, which are the gateways of both domestic and international 

commerce. It also includes shoreline and coastal protections for the 

areas of the country that are dramatically affected by large bodies 

of water, such as my own home State of Delaware. And if confirmed, you will also oversee the Army Corps of Engineers’ activities for environmental regulations and permitting. 

Mr. James, the responsibilities of the position to which you have 

been nominated are daunting, and if confirmed, you will be leading 

efforts that dramatically affect just about every part of this big 

country of ours that we just took a look at. As such, we on this 

Committee should take your nomination very seriously, and we do. 

In your role as a member of the Mississippi River Commission for 

the last 36 years—how old were you when you started out, 12? 

Mr. JAMES. Six. 

Senator CARPER. Six. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. You have had a direct impact—I am tempted to 

ask if Jennye was a child bride. I won’t get into that. 

But you had a direct impact on a number of successful initiatives 

for that region, and it is a pretty big region, as I understand. The 

geographic scope, though, that the Commission manages, however, 

is narrow compared to what you are about to take on. When I met 

with you earlier this week, you committed to coming to visit us in 

the First State, in Delaware, expressed an interest in visiting other 

States as well. I think that is terrific, and I urge you to follow 

through on that. We will be sure to welcome you warmly. 

But if I were in your shoes, you have great expertise about certain parts of the country, but obviously you can’t know it all, and 

this is a good chance. There is nothing like being there, going 

there, so I am happy that you are doing that. 

This country, much like this Committee, has very diverse and 

broad geographic makeup, from the coastal communities such as 

those represented by Senators Booker, over here to my left, and 

Whitehouse, to rural communities such as those represented by 

Senator Ernst and Senator Rounds, to inland communities such as 

4 

those represented by Senator Barrasso and Senator Duckworth. All 

these regions have various water interests managed by the Corps 

of Engineers. 

In your new role, should you be confirmed, you will have to balance a wide range of competing interests. It is important that you 

visit these different types of communities to garner a broader understanding of the challenges that each face, and I am encouraged 

that you plan to do just that. 

As you know, the President has said that America’s aging infrastructure should be modernized and rebuilt. My guess is that just 

about every U.S. Senator has said the same thing, including those 

on this Committee. Democratic Senators released, in fact, a blueprint earlier this year that called for rebuilding our infrastructure 

for our country. Senators on both sides of the aisle are supportive 

of investing in infrastructure, and such an investment should include funding that would allow the Corps to address our country’s 

water infrastructure needs. 

While I am interested in learning how the Corps can be more efficient with the appropriated funds that you receive to get the most 

out of every taxpayer dollar, I also believe that the Corps has been 

considerably underfunded for a number of years, and I am not the 

only one here in the Senate who feels that way. 

Water infrastructure investment is a shared responsibility, as 

you know, with State and local governments, and I want to make 

sure that these jurisdictions get the help they need while they are 

doing their part, as partnered with the Federal Government. I also 

want to learn more about how we can make sure that we prioritize 

the most critical investments that need to be made in our nation’s 

aging infrastructure. 

With that being said, there is no one size fits all approach to 

solving this problem. Should you be confirmed, you will be a central figure for making sure that these bipartisan concerns are addressed. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these important matters. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for bringing us together. 

And to Mr. James, your wife, we are grateful. Anybody else in 

your family that is here, we are grateful that you are here. Welcome. Thanks. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

Senator Blunt wanted to be here as well to introduce you, Mr. 

James, in person. Unfortunately, his schedule would just not allow 

it, but he has submitted a statement in support of your nomination, which I am going to submit for the record. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Blunt follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

I would like to express my strong support for the confirmation of Mr. R.D. James 

to the role of Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Mr. James is from New Madrid, Missouri, and brings with him a deep understanding of our nation’s water resource needs. 

As a civil engineer, farmer, and small businessman he has the perspective of 

someone who knows first hand the importance of the role the Corps of Engineers 

plays. 

5 

For the past 36 years Mr. James has served as a member of the Mississippi River 

Commission providing advice to the Congress, several Administrations, and the 

Army Corps. 

His vast experience with our nation’s most significant waterway, and decades of 

leadership on flood control and navigation issues, have prepared him to effectively 

take on this role. 

I know Mr. James believes, as I do, that our nation finds itself at a pivotal point 

where we must decide to make smart investments in our nation’s critical infrastructure or else lose our competitive advantage in the world economy. 

As the Administration continues to develop its infrastructure proposal, it is vital 

that we have a strong voice for our nation’s ports, flood control, and maritime infrastructure so there is a comprehensive approach to our interconnected transportation 

system. 

As the events of the past couple of months show, the Corps plays an indispensable 

role in response and recovery from natural disasters as well as in the planning and 

construction of flood control projects to reduce future risks. 

I have full confidence that Mr. James has the knowledge and skills needed to provide leadership for the Corps to fulfill its vital missions, and I urge your support 

of his confirmation. 

Senator BARRASSO. Now I would like to turn to you to welcome 

you, our nominee, to the Committee. I remind you that your full 

testimony will be part of the record, so I would like to invite you 

to introduce family members who are here, if you would like, and 

then please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RICKEY DALE ‘‘R.D.’’ JAMES, 

ENGINEER, MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Barrasso, Senator Carper, and distinguished members 

of the Committee, I am truly honored to come before you today as 

the nominee to serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works. First and foremost, I want to thank President Trump 

and Secretary of Defense Mattis for placing their trust in me and 

providing me with this remarkable opportunity to serve the public 

in such a vital role. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and each and 

every member of this Committee for allowing me to testify before 

you today. I am very humbled to be here. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for your 

kindness in allowing me to first introduce my family, my wife, my 

love of 47 years, Virginia Jennye James, my son, Riley James, 

which, due to his hard work and education, will allow me to come 

up here if confirmed. It is a family business that we run and operate. I would also like to recognize our beloved daughter, Elizabeth 

James, who departed this life 22 years ago, at the tender age of 19 

years. 

I am R.D. James of New Madrid, Missouri. I’m a farmer, a businessman, a civil engineer, and for the past 36 years, a presidential 

appointee to the Mississippi River Commission. 

Our country enjoys the largest contiguous acreage of agricultural 

land in the world. This ‘‘bread basket’’ and abundant food provider 

also overlays the longest inland navigation system in the world, actually being longer than all other inland navigation systems combined. Our country is blessed with natural locations along all our 

coasts that have long served as ‘‘port of call’’ and which can, once 

deepened, serve and promote our continued participation in the 

global trade market. These ports are critical to our national deVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:43 Feb 08, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\_EPW\DOCS\28250.TXT SONYA
6 

fense, our agricultural industry, our international trade, and our 

economic superiority. 

As we know, none of these natural blessings came cheap or easy. 

Our forefathers’ blood and sweat built this great commercial infrastructure with shovels, picks, and axes. Suffering and sacrificing 

for years, our forefathers built this great nation into the world 

power it is today. We are now the benefactors of all this great infrastructure and must do everything possible to maintain and enhance it for future generations of Americans. 

In addition to locks and dams, water supply, navigation, ports, 

flood control, ecosystem and environmental stewardship, Congress 

directed the Corps to construct and operate a crucial source of renewable energy, that being hydropower. This renewable now produces more electricity than all other renewable generators combined. Flood control and hydropower facilities have significantly 

contributed to our world class status. As we restore past environmental damage and mitigate present impacts, our past investments 

in water resources infrastructure will benefit our children and their 

children for years on end. 

My 36 year tenure as a member of the Mississippi River Commission taught me valuable lessons which I would like to share 

with you. Civil works infrastructure directly supports national defense. Many regions would be out of fresh water without civil 

works projects. Silted-in rivers do not transport commerce or sustain jobs. Outdated and shallow ocean ports will not promote economic growth and continued dominance in world trade. 

Inaccessible small ports and harbors will halt the shipping of 

grain and goods from the interior of the country to the larger ports. 

Crumbling locks and dams will land-lock grain and other bulk commodities essential to our nation’s economic survival. Inadequate 

flood control does not protect lives or property, nor provides fresh 

water or stabilizes river alignment, and does not support navigation. If not neglected, the ecosystem restoration and environmental 

enhancement can be the icing on this civil works cake. 

Let me report to you that during the SAS Committee hearing I 

was asked to recuse myself on a project that has been ongoing in 

the Corps for many years; it is the St. Johns New Madrid Floodway 

Project. I and my family have land inside that project that would 

benefit from that project, and I have signed a recusal statement before I left the SAS Committee. And the other part of that is it is 

the same area of land, but it is a different thing; it is the New Madrid Floodway, and it is blown artificially by explosives to allow 

waters to flow through the floodway, thereby reducing elevations 

on the river during major flooding times. And I recused myself 

from that floodway operation to the point that it might affect or 

benefit my family. 

Finally, let me just say that I am firmly committed to cooperation and collaboration at all governing levels. I also deeply believe 

in being a catalyst for friendship and partnership, nurturing the 

existing ones and developing new friendships and partnerships 

based on mutual professional trust and respect. If confirmed as the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, I plan on immediately contacting OMB, EPA, Interior, Agriculture, and any other 

agency that has interest in civil works. I am profoundly committed 

7 

to working with all Federal, State and local agencies, this Congress, and the Administration to advance our water resources and 

infrastructure needs. 

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Senator Carper, and members 

of this Committee for your time and the opportunity to appear before you today, and I look forward to discussing any questions you 

might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:] 

8 


28250.001
9 


28250.002
10 


28250.003
11 


28250.004
12 


28250.005
13 


28250.006
14 


28250.007
15 


28250.008
16 


28250.009
17 


28250.010
18 


28250.011
19 


28250.012
20 


28250.013
21 


28250.014
22 


28250.015
23 


28250.016
24 


28250.017
25 


28250.018
26 


28250.019
27 


28250.020
28 


28250.021
29 


28250.022
30 


28250.023
31 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, and congratulations again, and welcome to your family. I will say we are going 

to enter a period of questioning now, and I would ask that throughout this hearing you please respond to the questions today, as well 

as those that members may submit afterwards for you to respond 

in writing for the record. 

Now, I have to ask the following questions that we ask all nominees on behalf of the Committee. 

First is do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee, or designated members of this Committee, and other appropriate committees of Congress and provide information subject to 

the appropriate and necessary security protection with respect to 

your responsibilities? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. And do you agree to ensure that testimony, 

briefings, documents, and electronic and other forms of information 

are provided to this Committee and its staff, and other appropriate 

committees, in a timely manner? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. And do you know of any other matters—you 

have raised a couple—that you may not have disclosed that might 

place you in a conflict of interest, if confirmed? 

Mr. JAMES. No, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. I am going to defer my questions because I 

know Senator Sullivan needs to go and preside, so I will give up 

my time to Senator Sullivan, and I will pick up my time in your 

available space. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. James, welcome. I think you are very qualified for this position and look forward to supporting you. As the Chairman mentioned, your position is actually kind of at the intersection of really 

some key issues; infrastructure, but also DOD strategy, and that 

is why you are here on two committees, both of which I served on. 

You and I had a very good meeting, but I am just going to be 

straightforward here. I am going to need some more definitive answers from the Department of Defense on some key issues that I 

am concerned about that I am not getting answers on before I am 

going to allow to move forward on a vote for you. They relate to 

an issue we have talked about, and it is the Arctic and its strategic 

importance to the United States, so I am going to talk a little bit 

about that. It is more on your SASC or your Armed Services role, 

versus the EPW, but there is an intersection here. 

In the last several years we have had a huge build up of Russia’s 

Arctic capabilities. A new Arctic command, four new Arctic combat 

brigades, 14 operational airfields by the end of this year, 16 deepwater ports, 50 airfields by 2020, a 30 percent increase in Russian 

special forces, 40 icebreakers; they are building 11 more, 3 of which 

are nuclear powered. 

And Mr. Chairman, if I could submit for the record this map that 

shows all the Russian Arctic build ups. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator SULLIVAN. And we have had U.S. leaders, Democrats 

and Republicans, from Ash Carter to John McCain. He wrote an 

32 

op-ed in the Wall Street Journal called The Real Arctic Threat. It 

is about the Russian build up. 

If I could submit this for the record as well. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

33 


28250.024
34 


28250.025
35 


28250.026
36 

Senator SULLIVAN. And the quotes from all Democratic and Republican senior leaders on the Arctic and what we need to do there. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator SULLIVAN. One of the quotes was from Secretary Mattis: 

‘‘The Arctic is key strategic terrain. Russia is taking aggressive 

steps to increase its presence there. I will prioritize the development of an integrated strategy for the Arctic. I believe that our interest and security of the Arctic would benefit from increasing the 

focus of the Department of Defense.’’ That is Secretary Mattis. 

Secretary Mabus: ‘‘As the ice melts on the Arctic, our responsibilities clearly are going up. We don’t have the capability we would 

like to have in the Arctic.’’ 

I mean, it is Democrat, Republican, leader after leader has been 

focused and recognized this issue. And we are acting, the Congress 

is acting. In the NDAA we required a new Arctic strategy. In last 

year’s NDAA we required a focus from the Secretary of Defense 

and Homeland Security on a strategic Arctic port. But what happens when this goes over the bureaucracies, of which you will be 

in charge, is the bureaucrats say, no, no, this isn’t a good idea, we 

know what we are doing, we are going to blow off Congress, we are 

going to blow off all these leaders. 

Some of us were at the Reagan Defense Forum. I met with Secretary Schultz, George Schultz, very, very smart man. First thing 

he said to me is, Senator, what are we doing in the Arctic? How 

come we are not doing anything? We are getting our lunch handed 

to us. Why aren’t we doing anything? 

So here is my concern, Mr. James. And again, you have had 

nothing to do with this, but I need answers from the Department 

of Defense on this strategic Arctic port concept that we put in the 

NDAA. It is supposed to be a report. It is already late from the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security. We have heard 

about a draft report saying, you know what, that is a bad idea; we 

don’t need any capabilities in the Arctic for the next 20 years. That 

is what the draft says. 

Well, I think it is ridiculous. You know what that would be like 

for an East Coast Senator? It would be like saying the Port of 

Miami can cover Rhode Island and Delaware and Boston, because 

the closest deepwater port to all the Arctic activity is Dutch Harbor, 1,000 miles away. 

And then as it relates to the Port of GNOME, this is a project 

we have been trying to get going, you and I talked about it, with 

the Corps of Engineers. They have been blowing us off, blowing us 

off, blowing us off. I finally had a good meeting with Lieutenant 

General Semonite yesterday, only because your hearing today, I 

think, where they are finally starting to get the message. 

But Mr. James, I know you have had nothing to do with this. I 

think you are well qualified, but I am going to need—no kidding— 

serious answers from the Department of Defense to get with the 

program that Congress and every other leader, Democrat and Republican, who has led the Department of Defense saying we need 

to do something here, quit delaying. Russia is eating our lunch, 

and we are doing nothing. 

37 

So, can I get your commitment to work with me? I am going to 

need commitments from the Department of Defense of Defense before you move forward on your confirmation, but you are going to 

get confirmed because we will get answers here. But can I get your 

commitment to work with me on these important issues that I 

think almost everybody here—bipartisan support for, and yet the 

bureaucrats over at the Pentagon, in their infinite wisdom, which 

isn’t always wise or infinite, believe that we shouldn’t do anything? 

Can I get your commitment on that, sir? 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to have a lot more questions for Mr. 

James for the record, but I appreciate you allowing me to go first 

here, and appreciate the Committee working with me on these 

issues, which don’t just benefit my State. These are national security issues for the United States of America, and we got people over 

at the Pentagon who have their head in the sand, and it needs to 

stop. 

Thank you. 

Mr. JAMES. I agree, sir, and I appreciated our meeting very 

much, and I have to say I was shocked when I discovered there was 

not a Defense site in the Arctic region. 

Senator SULLIVAN. There is nothing. Nothing. 

Mr. JAMES. I was shocked by that. So, I will, from whatever 

venue I can work, if I am confirmed, I will work with you and your 

State, the Congress, to see what we can do about that. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. JAMES. Also, one more thing. If I happen to come before this 

Committee again, if I am confirmed, after I am confirmed, if I get 

to come before this Committee again, I hope none of you put me 

in the definition of a bureaucrat. I don’t intend to be. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Good. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to yield to Senator Whitehouse. 

Go ahead. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

Welcome, Mr. James. Glad to see you. Thank you for stopping by 

yesterday. I understand from our conversation that, as a trained 

engineer, you will follow responsible climate science wherever it 

leads and that you bring no predisposition against climate science, 

or any science, for that matter. Is that a correct understanding of 

what we talked about? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, Senator, that is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Terrific. We also talked about something 

that you very clearly conceded, which is that your expertise is not 

in coastal matters. Your expertise is with respect to inland matters 

and rivers. So, I wanted to point out that the GAO has indicated 

that we are going to be facing multiple billions of dollars of coastal 

losses annually in the short run. The GAO has said that number 

goes above $50 billion annually before the end of the century in 

coastal losses, this mostly from sea level rise and worsening 

storms; that the GAO report cited a figure that the total harm, the 

total damage to America’s coasts between now and the end of the 

century is looking to be $5 trillion. 

38 

So, I know that coasts aren’t your area of expertise, but I sure 

as heck hope that they will be an area of focus for you. And a signal that the Army Corps has not really focused on this is the fiscal 

year 2018 budget, which has $1.3 billion for inland projects and 

$46 million for coastal projects. That is a 29 to 1 ratio of inland 

to coastal, at a time when we are looking at a $5 trillion hit to 

coastal economies. So, I hope very much that you will focus on this. 

Let me just show you, really quick, a map of Rhode Island. Our 

best data from our University of Rhode Island, from our Coastal 

Resources Management Council, and from NOAA, when you put 

that together, what you come up with is this is the map of Rhode 

Island, the northern part of Rhode Island, up near Providence. 

Here is Providence right up there at the top. This is Upper Narragansett Bay. Everything that you see in blue is now land, valuable 

land that has people’s homes on it, people’s businesses on it, critical infrastructure on it. Up here in Warren there is a sewage 

treatment plant in the flood zone. So, there is all sorts of stuff that 

is really at risk in my State. 

At 10 feet, we lose 36 square miles of valuable homes and property in my State. So, I really need to make sure that you will pay 

attention to this. 

Could you tell me a little bit about what you might do to make 

that in your office, given that you don’t have expertise in this area, 

there will be both expertise and attention to this area in your shop? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir, absolutely. And I might say that I may have 

misspoken when I said I didn’t have any coastal experience as a 

member of the Commission. The Commission has worked with 

south Louisiana, both river navigation and also trying to keep their 

coast from eroding as badly as it has been in the past. I have been 

a part of that. I will tell you I didn’t learn everything there is to 

know about that coastal erosion, but I have been in involved. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We are just worried that we don’t get the 

attention on coasts that the inland and river work does in the 

Corps, that that has been a longstanding problem. But that when 

you are looking at GAO saying, look, it could be $5 trillion in coastal damage in the decades ahead, and it is going to be $50 billion 

a year, that is something worth paying more attention to. 

Mr. JAMES. I will definitely look into that, if I am confirmed, and 

see why that is happening and try to make an informed judgment 

on it. And if there is not some scientific, or really, economic reason 

for that, then I will happily get back with you to discuss it further. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And I look forward to working with you to 

make sure that somewhere in your office there is somebody who 

really is expert and focused on our coasts and coastal infrastructure, because we are past, I think, being able to overlook that. And 

I appreciate it. We had a great meeting, and I wish you well. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

While you are taking care of Senator Whitehouse’s coastal areas, 

let’s don’t forget the most inland port that we have is in the Port 

of Catoosa in the State of Oklahoma. 

Mr. JAMES. I would never forget that. 

39 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Thank you very much. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. We have eight members on the Republican side 

that are also on Armed Services, and all eight were there during 

your hearing on that, so we appreciate the fact that we have that 

jurisdiction, too. 

I have one thing I want to actually specifically talk about, because it is probably my greatest single frustration with the Corps. 

The cities of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, are 

protected by a levee system that was built in the 1940s, and the 

infrastructure is beyond its useful life. The system is in desperate 

need of repair and protects $2.2 billion in homes and business infrastructure along the Arkansas River, including two large refineries. 

Tulsa citizens have provided $15 million in funding for the 

project, but were stalled in moving forward because the feasibility 

study needs a new start. I have it on good authority that the 

project was on the Corps’ list to receive one of the six new starts 

that Congress appropriated last fiscal year, but in the end, only one 

new start was awarded. So, the commitment I want to extract from 

you is that you will commit to ensure that this project remains a 

priority for the Corps as Congress finalizes their fiscal year 2018 

appropriations to include new starts for studies. Can I get that? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir, absolutely you will get it from me. If it was 

one of the proposed six this past year, I can’t see any reason that 

it wouldn’t remain on that list. It will become a priority to me. And 

another priority to me will be the shape our infrastructure is in in 

this country. Why are we limiting ourselves to six new starts proposed and one new start accepted? That is bothering me. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, that bothers me, too, and I appreciate 

that. 

Mr. James, several months ago I joined with Senator King in introducing legislation to improve the permitting process for natural 

gas pipelines. That process has become more protracted and contentious in recent years, and often the biggest delays are from the 

multitude of Federal and State agencies charged with permitting a 

proposed pipeline. The Corps and its State partners are key to permitting agencies in this process, and they need to be part of the 

solution. 

Will you work with us and with Senator King to improve the permitting process? This is a process you and I have talked about on 

critical infrastructure projects. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. You know, to me, a pipeline makes a very 

small footprint. I am sure there are permits that have to be obtained from an environmental standpoint, and if it goes through a 

wetland and so forth, but I can’t imagine that we don’t have the 

technology now to monitor those pipelines to the point where, if a 

leak or crack or something develops, it can’t be rectified immediately; therefore, with that in mind, I would think that would 

enter into the permitting process. 

Senator INHOFE. And with that answer, I will not call you a bureaucrat. 

[Laughter.] 

40 

Senator INHOFE. Last, we have a system of cooperative federalism. By the way, I have to say, on the pipelines, in the last Administration, you know and everybody around this table here 

knows the problems that we had with pipelines, so I think that is 

part of our history now. 

We have a system of cooperative federalism that has been largely 

absent under the last Administration. The Obama administration 

repeatedly tried to consolidate power in the Federal Government, 

taking away historically held jurisdiction, most notably— well, it 

has already been once talked about, and that is the WOTUS decision that was made, the rule put forth in the last Administration. 

By the way, I would remind you, and I think you already know 

this, that that rule was of the greatest significance to the farmers 

of America than any of the other regulations that they found. They 

have a system or list of about 75 regulations that are harmful to 

our farmers. That was No. 1. In my State of Oklahoma, I have no 

doubt in my mind if you change that jurisdiction from a State jurisdiction, you get out in the panhandle, a very arid area, the first 

rain that came along, that would be a wetland. 

Anyway, what is your view on the cooperative federalism and the 

State’s role in regulating our water resources? 

Mr. JAMES. I believe in the federalism aspect of it very positively, 

100 percent. I think that is the way it should be. I don’t think the 

Federal Government should be here to take away the rights of a 

State. 

As far as a rule like WOTUS, I will have to tell you that, as Assistant Secretary, if I am confirmed, I will be bound to the rules 

and the laws that Congress makes or administrative policy, regardless of my personal feeling about that rule or law or policy. That 

is what I will have to do. 

Senator INHOFE. That is very reasonable. Thank you very much. 

Look forward to working with you. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to yield to Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. I am deeply greatly for that. 

Senator CARPER. You are quite welcome. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. 

Hi, Mr. James. I am grateful for you being here and also for your 

willingness to come by my office really quick later on this afternoon; it means a lot to me. And your work will inevitably make a 

difference in the lives of millions of Americans, and I am grateful 

to have this chance to question you in an open hearing. 

I want to just start by just talking to you about a project that 

is extraordinarily high priority for the State of New Jersey, affecting tens and tens and tens of thousands of folks, and that is the 

Rahway River Flood Control Project, which you may be familiar 

with; I hope you are. 

We had horrible storms that we have seen, including a nor’easter 

in 2007, Hurricane Irene in 2011, that continues to damage hundreds and hundreds of homes, costing tens and tens of millions of 

dollars in damage due to these floodwaters. I know the Army 

Corps, headquartered here in Washington, they are working closely 

41 

with regional and district offices, together with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the DEP, and the Mayor’s 

Council, Rahway River Watershed Flood Control. 

There are a lot of folks who are involved in this, and I am grateful for the hard work people are putting in it, but right now they 

are just trying to find a way to work to move forward with the plan 

that they have selected, which is Alternative 4a, or some version, 

and to move as expeditiously as possible. 

There have been some concerns raised in New Jersey that we are 

not moving as expeditiously as possible. I am grateful for the efforts of the Army Corps; we have had a great relationship since the 

time I was mayor of Newark, New Jersey, including now that I am 

here, and I am just hoping we can find a way to provide my constituents in that region, and all those that are concerned in my 

State, with the protection from what is a devastating flood problem. There are a lot of risks to property, as well as to life, and it 

is something that we can prevent if we act expeditiously before the 

next floodwaters. 

So just a basic question would be do you know the latest that the 

Army Corps is thinking about how to proceed as quickly as possible 

with this project in a timeframe? 

Mr. JAMES. No, sir, I can’t answer that. I don’t know that. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. Well, then I would ask that maybe perhaps 

you can find out. We can have a discussion not in a hearing setting. And then I would just also ask would you commit to coming 

to New Jersey to look firsthand at the urgent need for this project. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir, I will make that commitment to you, and I 

will also commit to you that I will work with you and your State, 

and the Corps in this instance, to see what is holding it up and try 

to move forward. 

Senator BOOKER. I really appreciate that. That means a lot to 

me. And I can see the excitement in your eye when I mentioned 

coming to New Jersey, which gets most people very, very pumped. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. You might leave with a Bruce Springsteen 

sound track, sir, if you are nice. 

Mr. JAMES. OK. 

Senator BOOKER. In last year’s WRDA I was really excited to include language to expedite the completion of the reports for the 

Hudson Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Project. This was going to 

restore a lot of coastal resources and wetlands at 32 sites in the 

New York-New Jersey Harbor. This is just another thing I would 

love to see if you would commit to working with me, in particular, 

to advance that project. 

Mr. JAMES. Sir, that will be my job, is to look into and promote 

infrastructure in this country, and if that is part of it, I will definitely get with you on it. 

Senator BOOKER. You are a good man, and I appreciate that commitment. 

Then the last thing I just want to ask, which is a larger issue, 

not necessarily particular to New Jersey, but on August 15th, 2017, 

days before Hurricane Harvey devastated Texas and a few weeks 

before Hurricanes Irma and Maria decimated Florida, Puerto Rico, 

and of course, the U.S. Virgin Islands, President Trump made an 

42 

infrastructure announcement that repealed the 2015 Federal Flood 

Risk Management Standard. Raised a lot of concerns with me. The 

rule he repealed would simply ensure that federally funded projects 

in a floodplain, such as roads, bridges, hospitals, and infrastructure 

in general, are built to withstand extreme weather and flooding 

driven by the ravages we are seeing as the climate continues to 

change. 

As the Federal Government is allocating tens of billions of dollars 

to help communities rebuild, I believe it is essential that we make 

sound investments that will not just rebuild, but really withstand 

future weather events. And as the Army Corps continues its work 

to help these communities rebuild, such essential work, that is why 

you are unsung champions in the Federal Government, I would 

just like to know, in general, what is your opinion about the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, and do you have some reservations about the decision to revoke the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard? 

Mr. JAMES. No, sir, I have no opinion about that whatsoever. 

What I do have an opinion on, in an area where you know is going 

to flood in this United States, or where has been flooded by a hurricane, and now we are looking at building protection in the future, 

I do not believe in interim protection. I believe if we are going to 

spend the money, get the permits, and try to put something in 

place to protect people and the economy, we need to build it to the 

point where it should be built to begin with. 

Senator BOOKER. Sir, I am grateful for those words. 

And Senator Carper, I am really thankful for you allowing me to 

get before you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. James, it is good to see you once again. We go back into, 

what—I think 2009 or 2010, when you were in my home in South 

Dakota when I was working as Governor at that time, and we had 

a chance to visit about the relationship between the Missouri River 

and the Mississippi River, and the water flows and so forth. I 

would like to explore that just a little bit with you. I think that 

is an area in which you probably have a lot more expertise than 

a number of the other individuals that have been before this Committee in the past, and part of it is water flows on the Missouri 

flow into the Mississippi, and yet at the same time we have obligations to manage the two flows independently. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir, it is. 

Senator ROUNDS. And at the same time, the Missouri, as it flows 

into the Mississippi, provides for adequate flows during times in 

which there is less rainfall coming out of the rest of the Mississippi 

Basin and allows for the ongoing transportation industries, barge 

industries and so forth, to continue. But that seems to create conflicts once in a while between the Upper Basin and the Lower 

Basin. 

Even back in 2008, 2009, 2010, prior to the Corps flood of 2011, 

as I call it, we talked about the fact that there has to be a relationship between the two river systems, and yet during the time in 

43 

which we had huge snowfalls, snowpack, and rainfalls early in the 

year on the Upper Missouri River Basin, the Corps had a very difficult time in trying to manage between the two river systems. 

There was flooding going on in the Lower Basin; they were holding 

water in the Upper Basin, hoping that there would be time for the 

Mississippi to begin to drain out, and it didn’t happen. In doing so, 

we had a lot of water in the Upper Basin. 

The spring of 2011 came, and even as late in the year as March 

3rd I remember there was an Omaha Herald report where there 

was a statement by a Corps official that said we are going to be 

just fine; we are not going to have flooding on the Missouri River 

unless—and I will paraphrase—unless it rains. And it seemed to 

me that that was a very inappropriate way to manage an entire 

river system, recognizing that the water has got to flow through 

the Missouri and into the Mississippi. 

The amount of damage done in the Upper Missouri River Basin 

from North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, on down was 

significant, and to this day there is still damage on the actual dams 

on the Missouri River that have not yet been fully repaired. 

I would like to know—before we get into the specifics of assuring 

that we are going to get those repairs made in the Upper Basin, 

give me your thoughts. You have seen this. Isn’t it about time that 

we start recognizing the relationship between the Missouri River 

and the Mississippi River with regard to management and we start 

talking about the needs of both the Upper Basin States and the 

Lower Basin States, and finding some way to actually work together between these two systems? 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely, sir, I do. As you know, during major 

floods, not only does the Missouri River system come into play with 

the Mississippi, but the Ohio system comes in, and then the Red 

River in the south comes in to significant impact on the Mississippi. 

Yes, we need to work together. That is a system. Getting water 

from where you live to the Gulf of Mexico is a challenge, and if 

each river system tries to do that independently of the other, we 

all will lose on that. Now, I haven’t worked on this in the Missouri 

system, so I am just speaking from the cuff here, but I think one 

of the problems has been the Master Manual and the requirements 

in the existing Master Manual; it pretty well limits what the Corps 

can do in response to flood control. 

Senator ROUNDS. Sir, I agree with you, and I know that right 

now flood control is No. 1. We all agree on that. And yet, during 

this time in which the Corps had actually tried to manage the 

floodwaters that were accumulating, they didn’t even have the appropriate tools in place at that time to actually measure snowpack 

in those areas that are above the main stem dams of the Missouri 

River. 

That was directed, and it was supposed to be completed back as 

early as 2014. To this date, I don’t believe that has been completed. 

The equipment necessary, we have actually laid out that the Corps 

should be the lead agency in putting together the equipment and 

setting it up for snowpack measurements and so forth—and I am 

out of time, but would you commit to us today that you will see 

44 

that that equipment gets put in place, as directed by Congress and 

as it should have been done in the last couple of years? 

Since 2011, since that last major flood did literally hundreds of 

millions of damages along the Missouri and the Mississippi. Some 

of that could have been avoided if we would have had adequate 

tools to have forecasted and brought attention to the fact that we 

had a huge amount of water coming through there. They still tell 

us today those tools aren’t in place. Would you commit that the 

tools should be put in place and that you will help us get that done 

as soon as possible? 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely, Senator, I will commit to that. Let me tell 

you my short story on it, was that after the 2011 flood, I was quite 

disturbed to discover that those kinds of tools didn’t even exist on 

the Mississippi River, and when I pushed that situation, as why do 

not we have enough gauges along the Mississippi to scientifically 

know, instead of guessing, what is going to happen, the answer was 

lack of funding; we don’t have the money to buy and install the 

gauges. You know, we used to have the boards on the side of the 

bank that people would go down and read the elevations. Now they 

have the electronic ones that they can read in-office. But that was 

what I was told at the time. 

Be assured that, if confirmed, I will look further into this even 

into the snow areas. 

Senator ROUNDS. Just one last note, and then I will yield back. 

Last year, at a Subcommittee hearing, a Subcommittee of this 

hearing, in North Sioux City, South Dakota, representatives of the 

Corps of Engineers clearly told us—they said, you know, we just 

didn’t have the money, and yet it was never even requested in their 

appropriations request to Congress to actually get the money. 

Would you commit that you will assist in getting the appropriate 

requests in place so that it can be acted upon by Congress? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Rounds. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member. 

Mr. James, pleasure to see you. 

One of the things that we allocate each year is a Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, but we take in far more than we actually put 

out for infrastructure, infrastructure that you can tell by the questions raised here needs a lot of improvement. Do you support the 

idea of using all of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to actually 

do what the Trust Fund was set up for, that is, the infrastructure, 

improve the infrastructure of our harbors? 

Mr. JAMES. Sir, I am not sure I could answer that directly, not 

being entirely familiar with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

I can answer it this way, though, that I feel like we need to be 

using a lot more than it appears that we are using. Now, using it 

all per year, I can’t answer that; really, I am not that familiar with 

it. But we continue to accumulate funds in the Harbor MainteVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:43 Feb 08, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\_EPW\DOCS\28250.TXT SONYA
45 

nance Trust Fund that we are not using, and we have a lot of 

places that needs that money. 

Senator MERKLEY. Great. We will be glad to get you details on 

that. But there is a lot of infrastructure that is needed over here, 

and there is a lot of money unused over here gets diverted to other 

things, and I always find it fascinating, the word trust fund, and 

then it is raided for other things. 

One of the things that we fund is work on small ports, and that 

is very important to coastal communities in Oregon and throughout 

the nation, and it hasn’t been a set aside in the President’s budget, 

so we do it each year in appropriations to make sure that there is 

adequate dredging. But we don’t always get all the dredging needed. 

Do you support the idea of making sure our small ports get 

dredged so that those communities can maintain both their sport 

and their commercial fisheries? 

Mr. JAMES. With proper funding, absolutely, sir, and that is 

something that I do understand because, along the Mississippi 

River, from Lake Itasca all the way to the Gulf, we are having the 

same problem with small ports in this country. And you know, the 

debate is that they don’t do a million tons or more a year, and 

therefore, they can’t be dredged every year; they don’t qualify, they 

don’t qualify for the annual dredging. And I think the same would 

apply to ocean ports, and we need to relook at the guidelines, in 

my opinion, because if you have 10 small ports that you don’t ever 

dredge, what good is the big port going to be? So, yes, sir, I will 

definitely look into that with you and be glad to learn more about 

it. 

Senator MERKLEY. Those ports and jetties are just absolutely essential to those communities, and when they fill in and you get big 

breaker waves, you get some brave people saying, well, we are 

going to go out there, we have to go fishing, and then they end up 

rolling their boat and dying, and then everybody goes why didn’t 

we dredge this thing. Meanwhile, those are the ones who went out. 

Everyone else who didn’t go out is basically the economy is shut 

down. So, thank you. 

I wanted to turn to the issue of fishing villages along the Columbia River. We built these phenomenal dams, the Dallas Dam and 

the Bonneville Dam, the John Day Dam, and when we did it we 

promised that the native communities would be rebuilt, their villages would be rebuilt. There were also a community of, if you will, 

white Americans. That community was rebuilt. But the communities for the native Americans were not rebuilt, and that is a 

moral obligation that we haven’t fulfilled decade after decade. 

I visited some of the temporary makeshift fishing sites that are 

just horrific. Would you commit to visiting those with me so that 

we can get some national understanding of the challenge being 

faced there? 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you so much. We have worked with the 

Corps of Engineers, and they gave us language to include last 

year—well, this year, 2017. We included that language. Really, 

they have been helpful at every turn in this effort. However, now 

we have run into an obstacle called the Office of Management and 

46 

Budget, which has said, no, we don’t want to spend the money on 

rebuilding these villages, and I am very disturbed by that. But we 

are going to need a close partnership with the Corps of Engineers. 

There are Democrats and Republicans on the two sides of the river; 

it is House and Senate members. 

Will you be able to work with us to try to remedy this historic 

wrong? 

Mr. JAMES. Sir, I am a firm believer in cooperation and collaboration, and if that is where these lie, I definitely will. 

I ran into this on my own in the Missouri River system several 

years ago. We visited a dam there that tribes had been displaced 

in the 1940s, and they were promised housing. They were moved 

from the fertile valley, where they raised crops and had a very nice 

town—we saw videos of it—up to an arid plain. So, they were 

promised housing up there and irrigation in order to grow crops, 

and that was in 1944, and I was there, I think, 8 or 9 years ago. 

So, I am familiar with that problem in this country, and if asked, 

and if confirmed, I will look into it with you. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you so much. I appreciate that you 

have that personal understanding of the situation and a sense that 

we should honor these obligations that we made when we undertook these big projects. Thank you. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. You are welcome. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you, Mr. James, very much for being here today. I 

would like to echo the thoughts that were shared by Senator 

Rounds as well. That was a devastating flood up and down the 

Missouri River during 2011. In our State, of course, like all of the 

other States involved in that flooding situation, called up many of 

their National Guardsmen. I was one of those National Guardsmen 

that was called up. I spent a lot of time on the levee system up 

and down the Missouri River in that particular summer, and I just 

want to emphasize how devastating this was, because during that 

flood event we had people in southwest Iowa that were out of their 

homes 4 months; actually, much longer than that. 

The reason they were out of their homes for 4 months is because 

their homes were literally under water for 4 months. That is the 

significance of this flood event. This was not a quick pass through 

event. They were out of their homes for 4 months. Only after the 

waters had gone away were they able to come back to an absolutely 

devastating situation. 

Some of those folks are just now getting back into homes that 

have been rebuilt. So very devastating actions. We need to make 

sure that that doesn’t happen again, whether it is the rewrite of 

the Master Manual by the Corps of Engineers, whatever has to 

happen, the measurement tools in place, we need to do that. It is 

something that will never be forgotten up and down that river system. 

In 2008 I was also called up as a National Guardsman, this time 

in a different flood event in Cedar Rapids, and when we sat down 

in my office about a month ago I had told you about this, and I 

explained the challenges that are being faced by the city of Cedar 

47 

Rapids and its Flood Mitigation Project. So, in 2008 the city suffered a devastating flood as well, and that loss to that community 

was $5.4 billion. I am not talking hundreds of millions; $5.4 billion 

of losses to the city of Cedar Rapids. 

The city’s Flood Mitigation Project was first authorized in the 

2014 Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, and then mentioned for prioritization in WRDA 2016. However, due to the 

project’s low benefit to cost ratio, the BCR, Cedar Rapids has been 

unable to secure Federal funding for it, and the reason for that is 

because of the relatively low property values in the city. Iowa has 

very reasonable housing property values, so that keeps the BCR 

down, and it prevents Federal funding. 

This is not an issue that is unique to Iowa; I have talked to 

many other rural legislators that are suffering from the same low 

BCRs. 

The Corps has some discretion to fund projects with low BCRs 

if it deems there is a significant risk to human safety. In fiscal year 

2017, four of the five projects receiving funding under this human 

safety exception were in California. Four of five in California. 

Will you commit to ensuring that all areas of the country are 

treated equally in this aspect? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, ma’am, I most certainly will. 

Senator ERNST. I think that one life in California is equal to the 

value of a life in Iowa as well. Very significant. 

And do you believe that the BCR metric should be modified? 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely. 

Senator ERNST. And how do you think that we can modify that? 

Mr. JAMES. Senator, I really don’t want to presume how I would 

do that. I would want to get economists and the right people to get 

with me to look at that. But it is not right that there are people 

in this country who will never ever get any type of water infrastructure project under the current BCR analysis. 

Senator ERNST. I appreciate that point of view, and thank you 

for acknowledging that we do need to consider this. I think that is 

the first step for us moving forward with this because, of course, 

the coastline property values are much more than what you will 

find in rural South Carolina or rural Iowa or rural Wyoming, so we 

do need to take a look at that, and I would love to work with you 

on that. 

Will you commit to working with me and the OMB to modify 

those metrics and do that in a timely manner? Let’s work on that 

soon. Will you commit to that, assuming your confirmation? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, ma’am, I sure will. Just give me time to—the 

first thing I would want to do, if confirmed, is to visit with OMB 

and EPA and Fish and Wildlife and Department of Agriculture and 

try to establish a working relationship to the point where, if you 

have a problem, you can call or go over there. And I would like a 

little bit of time to do that. Then absolutely, yes, ma’am. I think 

this needs to be addressed for the benefit of the country. There are 

people even in live safety issues that are behind the lack of a 

project just because of the BC ratios. 

Senator ERNST. Well, thank you very much. And I think collaboration is important and a great working relationship between all 

48 

of those agencies is imperative to making sure that we get this 

issue resolved. So, thank you very much, Mr. James. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

Senator Duckworth, if you would like to go next, I will yield to 

you. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Ranking Member Carper. 

And thank you also, Chairman Barrasso, for this hearing. 

Mr. James, thank you for your time today and for your decades 

of service, including your 36 years on the Mississippi River Commission. I believe the Corps can benefit greatly from your experience and expertise. 

I really enjoyed our conversation yesterday. I was so happy to 

learn about your background as a farmer also, in addition to your 

extensive experience with the Corps. I think that you are just the 

right person to move forward in this position, especially if you stick 

with your recognition that building a better relationship between 

the Corps, EPA, the USDA will improve the Corps’ ability to advance its mission and benefit our farmers, especially those in Illinois. 

I would like to just quickly follow up on a couple questions from 

our conversation yesterday. 

As we discussed, our inland waterways system in the United 

States gives us a competitive advantage across several important 

industries. If we don’t invest in our waterways, we are going to lose 

that advantage, and markets will inevitably turn toward other systems, more efficient systems oftentimes in other countries. 

I also appreciate your interest and commitment to protecting the 

Great Lakes from aquatic invasive species like the Asian carp, 

while also maintaining sustainable and efficient commerce on the 

Illinois River. 

Do you agree that we must keep the Brandon Road Study on 

track, while signaling to businesses that rely on our waterways 

that they will remain efficient and cost effective? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, to both of those, ma’am. I think when the objective is to try to stop a fish from swimming upstream, you don’t 

have much time to do that, and from what I have read, I am not 

satisfied with the progress at this point, even not having been confirmed, just reading what is happening. And then as far as permanent structure in that area, I think it would devastate the navigation process and hurt a lot of people, both large and small businesses. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I would like to chat a little bit about the Navigation Ecosystem 

Sustainability Program, the NESP. I appreciate your recognition of 

the national significance of NESP to the Corps navigation and environmental missions. As you may know, the Illinois delegation, 

along with our colleagues in neighboring States, continue to advocate for the advancement of NESP. Unfortunately, we have been 

unsuccessful in both Republican and Democratic administrations, 

so this is a bipartisan frustration. 

49 

Will you work with me and other Senators who represent the 

Upper Mississippi region to identify a path forward with OMB and 

the White House that recognizes the importance of NESP, with the 

goal of including pre-construction engineering and design funding 

in the President’s budget request to Congress? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, ma’am, I will work with you on that. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I would also like to chat about the McCook Reservoir, which we 

talked about yesterday. It benefits Chicago and 36 suburban communities, and it protects approximately 150,000 structures from 

flooding and significantly reduces untreated sewage backflow into 

Lake Michigan. And you had mentioned the importance of these 

reservoirs. 

Under a pilot program established in WRDA 2014, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago is working with 

OMB and the Corps to finalize a project cooperation agreement 

amendment to transfer a lump sum of $34.7 million to MWRD for 

design and construction of Stage 2 at McCook. It is my hope and 

expectation that the Corps’ fiscal year 2018 workplan reflects this 

agreement. 

Will you commit to doing everything in your power to ensure this 

funding is provided and the arrangement is executed quickly to ensure timely and cost effective flood protection for the Chicagoland 

area? 

Mr. JAMES. I was amazed when I learned about that project, how 

innovative that it was being in the location, and yes, ma’am, I will 

work with you toward completion of that. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. And I am very appreciative of 

how open you have been and how willing you are to work with us, 

and I hope that I can count on you to continue with that openness 

and allow my office to work with your office well into the future 

so that we can safeguard the Upper Mississippi River and also the 

economic viability of our farms. 

Mr. JAMES. Senator, as I told you during our discussion, I plan 

to make the ASA office an open door office so that any member of 

the Congress that wants answers, needs answers, needs contact, 

wants discussion, it will be there. If I am called partially, if I can’t 

get back to that Congressman immediately, I will get back that 

afternoon, the next morning, as soon as possible, particularly the 

members of this Committee and subcommittees that oversee our 

policies. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. And thank you for your decades of service to our country. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We appreciate, Mr. James, your willingness to serve. I am very 

excited about the fact that you are willing to do this. I have had 

the opportunity to work with you, now, for several years, and as 

you mentioned earlier, you are not a bureaucrat in any sense of the 

word; you are a guy that has a lot of common sense and a kind 

of the get-to-it type guy, you know, let’s get this stuff done. 

The other thing is I know Senator Sullivan is very concerned 

about the Arctic, and I would echo that also. I am the AppropriaVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:43 Feb 08, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\_EPW\DOCS\28250.TXT SONYA
50 

tions Subcommittee Chairman that has to do with the icebreakers 

and things, and so we are committed to doing this; we just need 

to get the dollars to get it done, which is so, so difficult, and yet 

it is a national security interest. So, I look forward to working with 

you and working with him so that we can get some of these things 

accomplished. 

In an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing earlier 

this year, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao assured us the 

Administration’s infrastructure proposal will not just address the 

three Rs, a tradition associated with infrastructure—roads, rails, 

and runways. Secretary Chao explained energy, water, and 

broadband will also be included in the Administration’s infrastructure proposal. 

Can you explain the benefit in incorporating water into an infrastructure proposal? More specifically, how does investing in our nation’s ports and inland waterways affect the day to day lives of everyday Americans? 

Mr. JAMES. Well, it has been my experience, Senator, that without the inland waterway systems that we have, commerce would 

stop. We don’t have enough roads in this country to accommodate 

trailer trucks. The railroads are full now, so even if we were to 

have a major failure on one of our existing facilities on any inland 

waterway, the commerce would just be stopped, and I don’t think 

we can afford that at all. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. And then, you know, also from an 

environmental standpoint, the efficiency on the waterway, compared to the airways and the—— 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. There’s no question about that. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Public power and electric cooperatives have partnered with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Energy’s Power 

Market Administrations for over 80 years in the Federal Hydropower Program. Many view this as one of our longest standing and 

successful public-private partnerships. Do you support this continued partnership? 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely, sir. I think every lock and dam in the 

Corps portfolio should have a hydropower plant attached to it, either private or federally owned, according to who would want to 

own it, of course. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

The 2014 WRDA bill contained requirements for the Corps of Engineers to provide annual 5 year projections of reservoir operations 

and maintenance, O&M costs. O&M costs can vary greatly from 

year to year, making budgeting for this expense very difficult. Unfortunately, it is my understanding that many Corps districts 

across the country have yet to provide these O&M projections to 

their partners. If confirmed, will you make complying with these 

O&M projection requirements from WRDA 2014 a top priority? 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely. And I am shocked to hear that they 

haven’t been, sir. That is part of the problem; we have to quit focusing on the process and focus more on the results in the civil 

works of this country. And I am sorry to hear about that, but I will 

check into it, if confirmed. 

51 

Senator BOOZMAN. I appreciate that. That is music to my ears, 

and I think to the Committee as a whole. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

You are making a lot of friends here, and you are also making 

a lot of commitments. One of the things you may want to do is just 

find somebody who is really good to help you doing your schedule 

and sort of like keeping you going, pointing in the right direction. 

Make sure you have really good talented people, because your nature is to be very open and welcoming and inclusive, which is 

great. I wish other folks throughout this Administration and other 

administrations would follow that. But the idea, the question that 

the Chairman asked you at the beginning about being responsive 

to inquiries, questions, and stuff like that, you want to be very responsive, so that is good. Just make sure that you surround yourself with people who understand—— 

Mr. JAMES. Well, Senator, I noticed yesterday in your office a 

couple that I might like to bring over. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I am tempted to say I brought a couple of resumes I would like to give you, but I don’t have one. Not one. 

Just a couple of words of advice, not that you need it. One of the 

things, from time to time we have a new Administration, new people coming into these positions, and the person who held that position in the past might have been very good and has gone on to do 

other things. One of the things you may want to do, if you haven’t 

done already, is to seek out Jo-Ellen Darcy and just talk with her. 

She filled this role for a number of years. 

Just like I like to say we have something called new Senators, 

orientation for new Senators, something we borrowed from the National Governors Association. We used to have a National Governors Association orientation for new Governors and spouses right 

after the election, and the idea was for the grizzled veteran Governors to explain to the new guys and gals all the mistakes we 

made, and to learn from our mistakes. I think there is value in 

reaching out, in this case, to Jo-Ellen Darcy. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Go ahead. 

Mr. JAMES. I said, thank you, sir. 

Senator CARPER. You are welcome. 

Also, a couple people have mentioned the General Accountability 

Office. It is run by a guy named Gene Dodaro, a wonderful human 

being and a wonderful servant to the people of this country. But 

they put out something every 2 years called a High Risk List, high 

risk ways of wasting money, and a few years ago, for the first time, 

they put on their High Risk List something that I think Senator 

Whitehouse alluded to, and that is the sea level rises. And we have 

stronger storms. I don’t think we have had two Category 5 hurricanes in the same year, ever, and we have this year. We have had 

maybe 30 Category 5 hurricanes in the last 100 years; this year we 

had 2. So, something is going on. And in my little State of DelaVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:43 Feb 08, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\_EPW\DOCS\28250.TXT SONYA
52 

ware the sea level is rising and the State is sinking, which is not 

a very good combination, and we welcome you to come there. 

I have said to my colleagues before, in Delaware we can come up 

on I–95 out of Washington and pick up State Route 1, which is a 

north-south road that takes you right down parallel to the ocean, 

and we can go over and take a look at the Delaware Bay. When 

you drive out toward the Delaware Bay heading east in Delaware, 

in the southern part of our State, after a few miles you get to the 

Delaware Bay. You get out of your car and you look, well, there is 

the Delaware Bay. It used to be a parking lot where people parked 

their boats, their trailers, and their trucks, and so forth, and now 

it is the Bay. 

And you can look off to like about 1 o’clock off to the right and 

you see a concrete bunker just barely sticking out of the water in 

the Bay way out there. It used to be on dry land 500 feet behind 

you. So, something is going on. And it is not just Delaware; it is 

not just Maine; it is not just Florida; it is all of us, and it is a matter of great concern. 

We talked yesterday about replenishment beach nourishment. I 

think we have more five-star beaches in Delaware than maybe any 

other State in the country. We are proud of that. And the Army 

Corps is very helpful to us, State-Federal partnership, in re-nourishing the beaches and making sure that they are going to be 

there. 

The real key, though, is to make sure the dunes are there so 

when the storms come in; the dunes can be a shock absorber. And 

instead of you having—whether it is a Category 1 hurricane or 

nor’easter, whatever, the dunes are there to protect the towns, the 

communities, the infrastructure, businesses, and that is hugely important. We have had a great relationship with the Army Corps for 

years in Delaware, and we value that very, very much. 

But beach re-nourishment projects tend not to compete well, 

overall, in benefit-cost ratio analysis when compared to larger 

projects like ports, and I would just ask—and you may be able to 

answer this or you may want to take this question for the record— 

but just what other factors should be considered in identifying 

project benefits in order for initiatives to move forward, and how 

should the Corps prioritize those projects? Any ideas? 

Mr. JAMES. No, sir, none that would give you an answer that you 

would appreciate today. I have ideas, but they are convoluted and 

not down a direct line, and I would really like to look into that further. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe sometime when you come over to Delaware, we will get into my 2001 Chrysler Town & Country minivan 

with 465,000 miles on it, and we will drive down State Route 1 and 

head over to Prime Hook Beach, and I will show you where the 

beach used to be and where the parking lot used to be, and so 

forth, and it will make it real. 

Mr. JAMES. Sounds like a good place to think. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I have some more questions, but we 

will hold off for those right now. Thanks. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

53 

Thank you, Mr. James, for being here today and for your willingness to serve; also for your visit and the conversation that we had 

in my office last week. I appreciate your great knowledge in this 

area, but also for educating me on cotton farming, which I didn’t 

know much about until I got a chance to ask you. 

In our meeting, you kind of beat me to the punch because you 

put a bright line under the cost and slow progress of the feasibility 

studies in the Corps. We talked about this. You know, in a State 

like West Virginia, our lock and dam infrastructure is generally 

several decades old. Of the 614 West Virginia dams that the Corps 

has designated in the national inventory of dams, all but 72 of 

those were built before 1970. Some of them even date back to the 

1920s. 

So, as the Corps looks at replacement and rehabilitation, it will 

be required to conduct feasibility studies. At the same time, many 

of the water storage agreements between the Corps and these 

towns and companies have either lapsed or haven’t been updated 

for years. So, budgets being what they are, the Corps comes to 

these entities and asks them for cost sharing, and a lot of times, 

for these small communities and regional governing areas, these 

are cost prohibitive. In addition to looking at that, the studies are 

frequently used to revisit the terms of water storage agreements 

that have lapsed or gone out of date. 

So, for cash strapped communities, this is an impossible choice. 

They either can’t afford to fund the study or they don’t wish to be 

held liable twice, because they could be held liable because the 

Corps has said that if they don’t pony up to the studies, then they 

can be threatened with charges of trespassing. 

So, do you agree that this is an issue? And how would you go 

about balancing the needs and finances of local stakeholders, the 

Corps’ budget, and economic development and public safety implications around these feasibility studies? 

Mr. JAMES. Senator, I think that goes right back to the benefitcost ratios that we were talking about a little earlier. Communities 

such as you are speaking of, they can’t achieve the benefit side of 

that ratio to the point where the Corps can support it any longer, 

and that entire issue has got to be leveraged in some way downward to accommodate people that live in rural areas, lower income 

areas, or those people are going to be left out of the infrastructure 

formula. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. JAMES. And it is not right. As we can see, what we have enjoyed, everybody was included in the first round of infrastructure 

our country built, and here we are sitting, making up rules and 

policies that may exclude people, and I don’t feel that is right. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. JAMES. I know it exists in your part of the world—— 

Senator CAPITO. Definitely. 

Mr. JAMES [continuing]. And I will definitely, as I move forward 

on that, if confirmed, I will get back with you, and we will work 

on that. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, I think we are thinking along the same 

lines there, and I think the timelines in a lot of these situations, 

sometimes the timelines draw out so much, obviously, it becomes 

54 

more expensive, or communities and private entities just throw up 

their hands and say, I can’t do this, I don’t have the expertise. So, 

I hope we can work together on that for the smaller, more rural 

areas. 

One of the things—just briefly I would like to say, and this really 

isn’t a question, but we talked about this in my office as well. All 

the different entities, and you have mentioned several times that 

would be one of the first things you would do, would be to get Fish 

and Wildlife in the room, the EPA in the room, Department of Ag 

in the room, all the players at the Federal level that can sometimes 

either A, work across purposes, or B, make the process even more 

cumbersome than it really needs to be. And I would encourage you 

to move in that direction and be aggressive there, because I think 

a lot of times some of the reasons that things become much more 

complicated, because nobody is really in charge here. 

Maybe you have four agencies that are weighing in, but there is 

no principal that is willing to take the reins and kind of honcho the 

project to see it through the bailiwick of Federal agencies. So while 

I wouldn’t say the Corps needs to be in charge of everyone or you 

need to take responsibility of all of these, I do think there needs 

to be a recognition between agencies that somebody is going to 

have to be the principal steward of figuring out how to get these 

things either A, done, or even better, if they are impossible or not 

going to work, don’t drag through the process forever and a day 

without putting the yield or the stop sign in front of the community 

or the entity, or however you want to phrase that, and at least let 

them know, OK, this is what your major problems are; you are not 

going to get to where you want to be in the end unless you make 

some major changes. Don’t drag that out to the end. That is discouraging and also very counterproductive. 

So, I plan to vote for you. I know you will be a great nominee 

in this area, and I look forward to working with you. Thank you. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Cape Cod is an economic pillar and recreation oasis for Massachusetts, and the only accessible way to get on that island by land 

is by two bridges which span the Cape Cod Canal. Regrettably, 

these two 80 year old bridges, which are crucial evacuation routes, 

do not meet modern specifications. 

The Corps of Engineers, which maintains the bridges, is currently conducting a study to evaluate whether the bridges need to 

be replaced or substantially rehabilitated. The agency that you are 

seeking to run is charged with reducing risk from disaster, so my 

question to you is will you work with me to ensure that the Corps 

of Engineers has the resources and authorities it needs to rehabilitate or replace these bridges? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir, I sure will. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, sir. And many of our nation’s 

roads, ports, airports, railways not only serve as critical arteries of 

commerce and transportation, but also play an instrumental role in 

facilitating mass evacuations and expediting recovery and emergency response. But many of our nation’s evacuation routes may 

55 

not have the capacity or resilience they need to fully serve their 

critical role. That is why I am planning to introduce legislation 

that tie up Federal resources toward these critical evacuation 

routes to ensure that we can protect the public and better respond 

to disasters, and I think it is important for all of our colleagues to 

work on addressing this important issue. 

Plymouth Harbor, in 2020 we will be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the voyage of the Mayflower to the settlement in Plymouth, so that is just 3 years from now. But the celebration won’t 

be complete if ships cannot get into and out of the Harbor. Regrettably, Plymouth Harbor has filled up with so much sand that ships 

are having trouble navigating. 

Mr. James, if confirmed, will you work with me to ensure that 

we complete the Harbor deepening before the 400th anniversary of 

the settlement of Plymouth in the year 2020? 

Mr. JAMES. Senator, I will work with you toward that. I look forward to it and will get back with you. 

May I ask you a question? 

Senator MARKEY. Please. 

Mr. JAMES. Will there be a dredge disposal problem in that area? 

If it were to be, it would slow down that process. 

Senator MARKEY. That is a very good question that I am going 

to rely upon the Army Corps to determine. 

Mr. JAMES. OK, sir. I will ask them. Thank you. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

If we don’t maintain our nation’s rivers, channels, harbors, we 

will be effectively hitching an anchor to the U.S. economy. We have 

communities all across Massachusetts, New Bedford, Wellfleet, 

Essex, Gloucester, Newburyport, the waterways are filling up with 

so much sand, again, that vessels cannot reliably and safely pass, 

which harms commerce, recreation, and safety. Many of these waterways are federally owned, and it is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ responsibility to dredge these waterways. 

In Massachusetts we have had success in securing funding for 

these important projects. Over $18 million was awarded to Boston 

Harbor in fiscal year 2017; another $58 million in the President’s 

fiscal year 2018 budget. And I look forward to working with the 

Army Corps to maintain this strong level of Federal support. We 

still have a lot of work to do, this big backlog. 

And I thank you, Mr. James, for your willingness to put yourself 

up for this job. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. James, I want to first express my appreciation to the Army 

Corps for being a part of the conversation that led to the removal 

of a sandbar from the Big Horn River. Earlier this year the sandbar had caused ice jams and serious floods in the city of Worland, 

Wyoming, necessitating the evacuation of 80 of our citizens. While 

the sandbar’s removal is an important step toward protecting lives 

and property, I would note, as we talked yesterday, it is only a 

temporary solution. Eventually, sediment will redeposit, and the 

area could face the same threat. 

56 

So, will you commit to working with Wyoming and with me to 

find a long term solution to this problem? 

Mr. JAMES. I will, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. And Mr. James, in the Water Infrastructure 

Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, Congress passed a provision, that I authored, to establish a pilot program that will help develop effective technologies to reduce ice jams. It is important to 

communities in Wyoming, as ice jams are a primary driver for 

flooding in areas such as Worland and Grable. I understand the 

Corps is still working to identify projects for this program. 

If confirmed, would you commit to making the implementation of 

this pilot program a priority? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir, I will. 

Senator BARRASSO. And Mr. James, the EPA is currently in the 

process of considering a revised definition of waters of the United 

States. Many in my State have been concerned about expanding 

Federal control over State waters under the previous Administration, and requiring ranchers and farmers to get costly permits for 

simply putting a shovel in the ground on their property, their own 

property. 

So, for example, under the previous Administration, a constituent of mine, Mr. Andy Johnson of Fort Bridger, Wyoming, was 

threatened with a $75,000 fine per day for simply building a stock 

pond on his property. 

So, if confirmed, will you commit to use common sense and consider the best interest of the people of my State and the entire 

country when interpreting Federal laws? 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely, sir. As long as it is the law, I will follow 

it. 

Senator BARRASSO. And Mr. James, you have more than three 

decades of experience in the infrastructure field, including 36 years 

as a presidential appointee by Administrations of both parties on 

the Mississippi River Commission. How has this experience prepared you for the role of Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works? 

Mr. JAMES. Well, Senator, I do have that experience, and it has 

been my experience as a member of the River Commission to not 

only learn more about the infrastructure and how it should be addressed in this country, but also to understand some of the inadequacies inside the processes that we try to get things done, and 

I think that experience will help me as well in working with the 

Corps and other agencies in order to try to speed up the process 

and get to the results of what we are trying to do. I think that is 

one major thing I have learned. 

Senator BARRASSO. My final question is many individuals and organizations who work with the Corps have complained that the 

process that the Corps follows to get from identifying that water 

resources problem to actually implementing a solution can just 

take too long and cost too much money. So, I wondered if you had 

any thoughts on how to best improve the process, and will you 

make it a priority to develop and implement ways to improve the 

process? 

Mr. JAMES. I agree 100 percent to make it a priority of mine. To 

improve the process, I want to get with the leadership of the Corps, 

57 

because I am sure, if they are there, they recognize some of it 

themselves. So, hopefully we can address that. You know, a day 

saved is a dollar earned, and that is the way I look at the process. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Are there any questions you wish had been 

asked that you have not been asked? 

Mr. JAMES. No, sir. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

One of the issues that has been raised a couple of times during 

this hearing is money. There is an old line in the song not by the 

Beatles, but somebody, maybe the Isley Brothers before that, the 

best things in life are free, but you can give them to the birds and 

bees; I want money. That’s what I want. 

All this stuff costs money, and we are not allocating nearly 

enough to do the job, whether it is inland projects, port projects, 

rivers. I don’t know if it was the American Society of Civil Engineers, they put out an annual report card, and they evaluate our 

dams, levees, inland waterways, and so forth. Last year they 

awarded the grade of D, as in dog, and I think they mentioned 

there is an overall cumulative investment backlog of nearly $140 

billion and in authorized—projects that have been authorized but 

unconstructed, of about $60 billion. 

The Corps has a big problem because their annual budget hovers right around $4.5 billion. Think about that. And we have a reluctance in this country to pay for things, things that we need to have; 

whether it is roads, highways, bridges, airports, rail, ports, you 

name them. Just a reluctance. 

And not that you need my advice, but during the course of putting the budget together, we are still working this month on a final 

spending package for the current fiscal year, which started on October 1st, which is not the way we did business in Delaware when 

I was Governor; but it is the way we do business here, sadly. But 

the budget process starts by a proposal from the Administration, 

and you are going to be asked how much do you need and to make 

the case for that allocation. And the need here is huge. 

And I think it was Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator Whitehouse who 

mentioned the Harbor Trust Fund, where moneys are collected for 

one purpose and not spent entirely for that purpose. 

I think there is a request for an increase in fees for inland waterways. I think there is a fee for inland waterways. I think it is a 

fee on fuel, about $0.29 a gallon, and I think the Administration— 

it is kind of a 50-50 deal that half the money comes from those who 

use the waterways; the other half comes from the Treasury. But I 

think the Administration has asked for some extra money from 

those who use and increase the user fees, which I think is probably 

appropriate, and you are going to be asked from time to time where 

should the money come from, and we get into roads, highways, 

bridges here, too, that is part of our jurisdiction, but the part that 

really pertains to you is this Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

And I think, at the end of the day, if the Congress doesn’t want 

to appropriate the money or allow the fees to be collected, that is 

one thing, but I think you need to make the ask and then make 

the case to us. Make the case to us. So, I would leave that. 

58 

I think I think that is pretty much it. We once had a hearing, 

I don’t think it was this—no, it was this Committee, and Lisa Jackson had been nominated by President Obama to be the head of 

EPA. She had her husband and kids with her at the hearing, and 

I thought it went pretty well. And at the end of the hearing I was 

just joking, and I said to her children, well, take a good look at 

your mom, this is the last time you will see her until Christmas. 

Fortunately, they were old enough to know I was joking, but I 

would just say, Jennye, take a good look at him. You will hopefully 

see him before Christmas. 

To you, this is a sacrifice for everybody here, but thanks for your 

willingness to share him with us for a while. It looks like you have 

a pretty good job training him. It is a hard job, but we look forward 

to working with you. As Jennye may know and your son may know, 

we are not the committee of jurisdiction; we share jurisdiction over 

this agency that you will lead, so we don’t get to vote up or down 

here and report out the nomination, but we have a huge ongoing 

interest in what you do and want to be a good partner, and we look 

forward to that relationship, and we look forward to welcoming you 

to Delaware and I am sure to 49 other States in the months to 

come. 

All right, thanks so much. God bless. Merry Christmas to you 

and your family. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

No more questions for today. The members may submit follow up 

written questions for the record by the close of business tomorrow. 

We ask you please respond to the questions by noon on Monday. 

I want to thank the nominee and congratulate you again. Thank 

you for your time and your testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ