U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–115 PS 2004

AGENCY BUDGETS AND PRIORITIES

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

(108–52)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 26, 2004

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

JACK QUINN, New York

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MAX BURNS, Georgia

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana

VACANCY

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

MIKE THOMPSON, California

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

GARY G. MILLER, California

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico, Vice-Chair

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

MIKE THOMPSON, California

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Duran, Hon. Arturo Q., Commissioner, International Boundary and Water

Commission, El Paso, Texas ................................................................................ 60

Flowers, Lieutenant General Robert B., Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C. 6

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. ...................................... 6

Horinko, Hon. Marianne Lamont, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................................ 6

Jacquez, Hon. Albert S., Administrator, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development

Corporation, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................... 60

McCullough, Hon. Glenn L., Jr., Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority,

Knoxville, Tennessee ............................................................................................ 6

Spinrad, Richard W., Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. ............... 60

Weber, Thomas A., Associate Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 60

Woodley, Hon. John Paul, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works),

U.S. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. ............................................. 6

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Duran, Hon. Arturo Q. ............................................................................................ 72

Flowers, Lieutenant General Robert B .................................................................. 84

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H .................................................................................. 96

Horinko, Hon. Marianne Lamont ........................................................................... 106

Jacquez, Hon. Albert S ............................................................................................ 110

McCullough, Hon. Glenn L., Jr .............................................................................. 120

Spinrad, Richard W ................................................................................................. 126

Weber, Thomas A. .................................................................................................... 137

Woodley, Hon. John Paul, Jr .................................................................................. 177

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

Duran, Hon. Arturo Q., Commissioner, International Boundary and Water

Commission, El Paso, Texas, report, Recommendations for Secondary Treatment in Mexico of the Sewage Emanating from the Tijuana River Area

in Baja California, Mexico ................................................................................... 76

Flowers, Lieutenant General Robert B., Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C.:

Response to a question from Rep. Gary G. Miller of California concerning

construction backlog ......................................................................................... 15

Response to a question from Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida concerning

the Everglades alternative 6D ......................................................................... 40

Response to a question from Jerry F. Costello of Illinois concerning the

comprehensive Everglades restoration plan (CERP) ..................................... 56

Response to a question from Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. of Tennessee concerning the coastal Louisiana project .................................................................... 59

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., response to a question

from Rep. Vernon Ehlers of Michigan concerning site selection for Legacy

Act funding ........................................................................................................... 28
Page

VI

Horinko, Hon. Marianne Lamont, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.:

Response to a question from Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. of Tennessee concerning the status of a Superfund program budget audit .................................... 44

Response to a question from Jerry F. Costello of Illinois, Cost Recovery

Settlements, National Total in Millions by Fiscal Year FY95-FY03, chart . 51

Weber, Thomas A., Associate Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Washington, D.C., responses to questions ......................................................... 142

Woodley, Hon. John Paul, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works),

U.S. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.:

Response to a question fron Rep. Nick Lampson of Texas concerning the

new beach nourishment policy ........................................................................ 25

Response to a question from Rep. Timothy H. Bishop of New York concerning study suspension ........................................................................................ 34

Response to a question from Rep. Vernon Ehlers of Michigan concerning

the Great Lakes carp barrier ........................................................................... 37

ADDITION TO THE RECORD

List of Ongoing Studies/Projects not Budgeted in FY05 or Proposed for Cancellation, chart ...................................................................................................... 189
(1)

AGENCY BUDGETS AND PRIORITIES FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2005

Thursday, February 26, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:36 a.m. in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr.

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me first of all apologize to the Members and

staff and especially to the witnesses. I’m a little bit out of breath

from running over here. In six years of Chairing the Aviation Subcommittee and now the fourth year of Chairing this Subcommittee,

I think we’ve started every hearing jright on the minute, but the

Republican Members of this Committee had a meeting with the

Speaker and other leadership yesterday afternoon, primarily about

the highway bill, but also about things that tie into the hearing

here today, and the Speaker was so concerned that he set up an

immediate meeting with Andrew Card, Chief of Staff at the White

House, and Chairman Young requested very specifically that I

come to that meeting and make some expressions there, and so I’ve

just done that. That meeting is still going on, so other Republican

Members are still tied up.

I would like to welcome everyone to our annual budget hearing.

This hearing gives members of the Subcommittee the opportunity

to review the priorities and policies of the Agencies that fall under

the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. Today we will receive testimony

from officials representing the Environmental Protection Agency,

the Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the International Boundary and Water Commission, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the Natural Resources Conservation

Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

on their budgets and priorities for fiscal year 2005.

This is a long list of agencies with a lot of different constituencies

and issues. The common theme that links these groups is water.

The missions of all of these agencies include either the protection

or the management of our Nation’s water resources.

Our economic and social well-being relies upon our ability to

manage our water resources properly. We use water for drinking,

irrigation, transportation, electric power generation, and recreation. Water is critical for sustaining ecosystems and habitat. And

Water in the wrong places at the wrong times can destroy property

and result in loss of life.
2

To address all of these needs, we need to build and maintain

water-related infrastructure, and in many cases building and maintaining that infrastructure requires support from the Federal budget. The bottom line is that, with the exception of TVA, which is

self-financed, none of the agencies testifying today would receive

adequate funding to protect and manage water resources under the

Fiscal Year 2005 budget request.

I recently had the opportunity to review our reconstruction efforts in Iraq and oversee how we plan to spend and how we are

spending the $200 billion that we’ve spent thus far. People may not

understand that in Iraq most of our infrastructure reconstruction

is not to repair damage from the war. Most of the investment in

Iraq is to reverse the effects of 30 years of an evil administration.

I understand the commitment by the Administration to address

the priorities of defense and Homeland Security. I understand we

have made a commitment to help the Iraqi people. But in meeting

those needs we cannot neglect the infrastructure in our own country.

I support the President in his efforts to reduce Federal spending

where appropriate, but I do not support cutting investments in

America that have proven national economic benefits. As Administration officials, our witnesses today have the responsibility to

make sure that the White House Office of Management and Budget

understands how important these programs are to the Nation’s economic and social well being.

According to the President’s budget documents, OMB has been

evaluating Federal programs and making budget decisions based

on their performance. Several of the programs that fall under the

jurisdiction of the Subcommittee have been evaluated by OMB and

have received a rating of results not demonstrated. These programs

include the Clean Water Act SRF, the Superfund removal program,

and the Inland Waterways Navigation programs.

No one disputes the concept that Government programs must

demonstrate results; however, the implementing agencies should be

able to demonstrate the public health and environmental benefits

of the Clean Water Act SRF program or the Superfund Removal

Program and the economic benefits of our inland waterways. If

these programs are rated ′′Results Not Demonstrated′′ either the

assessment tool is flawed or the agencies charged with managing

these programs are not adequately defending them.

Under the constraints of budget deficits, it is more important

than ever to articulate and demonstrate the critical benefits that

the programs under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee bring to

the Nation. The Subcommittee stands ready to help, but I challenge the witnesses today to also do a better job of delivering that

message.

I have a lot of questions for the witnesses and I will get to those

later, but I do feel compelled to bring up just a couple of specific

issues in my opening statement.

First, we have a list of 492 on-going Corps of Engineers projects

and studies that would be shut down by this budget request—492

on-going Corps of Engineers projects that money has been spent on.

Some are in the middle of construction and so forth. These projects

all have signed cost-sharing agreements with local sponsors. Under
3

the budget request, the Corps of Engineers would walk away from

commitments it has made to communities all over America. Instead, the budget request would concentrate funding on only eight

projects that the OMB has decided are a high priority. These

projects and all other projects that are funded in the budget were

allegedly selected on objective criteria such as a benefit-cost analysis. I find it incredible that applying any objective criteria the Administration would choose to provide no funding none at all for replacing the Chickamauga Lock on the Tennessee River.

The Chickamauga Lock is crumbling. When it fails, waterborne

transportation on the Tennessee River above the lock will halt.

Without that lock, not only will my home town of Knoxville be cut

off, but so will Oak Ridge, which has serious national security implications. Anyone who goes there knows the importance of that

project to the environment, to our national security, and in every

other way to this Nation.

I won’t go into that further at this time, but I will say that that

is and has to be a high priority, and it is both of this Chairman

and of Senator Frist and many, many other Members that know

the importance of that particular situation.

I have more concerns. Administrative costs for the Superfund

program are too high. There are too many Federal employees in the

Brownfields program. TVA is paying excessive salaries and bonuses

to executives at the same time its talking about having to lay people off. And the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is under-funded

again. But I’m going to stop there and go into some of these things

on questions.

I would like to turn now to my good friend and Ranking Member

of the Subcommittee, Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, we all

recognize that you are very prompt and never late to a meeting.

I want you to know that I did resist efforts on the part of my side

to take the chair and reorganize the committee in your absence.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you.

[Laughter.]

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling the hearing

today. Today the subcommittee has the opportunity to discuss the

Administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2005 with representatives of agencies within the subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

This oversight is critical to ensure the effectiveness of the programs

we create and to meet the expectations of our constituents. The

witnesses before the subcommittee today will have a difficult time

convincing me that the Administration’s budget adequately meets

the Nation’s needs and expectations for investment in critical

water-related infrastructure and the environment.

For the Corps of Engineers, the budget reflects a reduction of

nearly 20 percent in capital investment. It also under-funds desperately needed operations and maintenance by close to 25 percent.

The budget also attempts to reconfigure the selection process by

which the Corps projects are chosen for funding—implementing the

newly announced Administration’s priority to focus on completing

projects that are already under construction, that will achieve the

maximum returns to the Nation while starting a few new projects

with potentially large net benefits compared to their cost.
4

Implicit in these priorities is a lack of support for the Congressional process of selecting and prioritizing projects for navigation,

flood control, and environmental restoration that fall outside the

Administration’s newly created analysis.

This new priority system, if implemented, will pre-determine

that certain project categories, such as lower user navigation

projects and ports, will never be funded, regardless of the importance of these facilities to the local economy. This budget appears

to sacrifice smaller rural areas whose less diverse economies depend on an effective Corps program.

As a result of declining budgets and new Administration priorities, over 500 Congressionally approved projects and studies will

either be suspended or canceled, ignoring real needs for flood control and storm protection, navigation, and environmental restoration in communities throughout this country.

The Environmental Protection Agency programs suffer, as well.

The Congressional Budget Office, the Water Infrastructure Network, the General Accounting Office, and even EPA, itself, have

each documented that State and local governments will require as

much as $11 billion annually over and above the current expenditures to meet wastewater infrastructure needs over the next 20

years, yet this budget process proposes to eliminate $500 million,

a 37 percent reduction in Federal grants to States for revolving

loan funds, and to eliminate 323 million in Federal funding for

high priority water, wastewater, and stormwater projects. These

reductions are unacceptable. Even as the Administration is applauding its commitment to wastewater infrastructure, its commitment is paltry when compared to the significant unfunded needs

that EPA has identified.

The Superfund program fares no better. For the fourth consecutive year, the budget process proposes to slow the pace for cleaning

up the Nation’s most toxic waste sites. After averaging 73 cleanup

completions per year during the previous Administration, this

budget proposes that only 40 Superfund cleanups would be completed in 2005. The same is proposed during the last three years.

The budget also proposes that virtually all Federal spending for

the Superfund program will be from the general taxpayers and continues the alarming trend of collecting fewer and fewer cost recoveries from responsible parties. Gone are the days when the Superfund was a polluter pays program. This budget calls for close to

$1.4 billion in general revenues from individual taxpayers and

nothing from oil and gas, chemical, or the general business community. Since the Superfund taxes expired in 1995, the oil, gas, chemical, and business community have enjoyed a $400 million a day tax

break. The trust fund is now empty, and individual taxpayers have

been asked to contribute nearly $4 billion to clean up toxic waste

sites of the Superfund program, all to support the tax breaks for

the business community.

In addition, the January 2004 report of EPA’s Inspector General’s office highlighted how limited funding for the Superfund program has significantly limited the program’s ability to clean up the

Nation’s most toxic sites, including the Jennison Wright site in my

Congressional District. I have heard the explanation from the

Agency that a major cause for the shortfall of the site-specific
5

cleanup fund comes from the fact that many of the larger, more

complex Superfund sites are reaching the construction phase, the

most expensive part of cleanup, and that as a result they are placing a greater burden on the total Superfund budget. Most, if not

all, of these sites have been in the Superfund pipeline for decades,

meaning that it should come as no surprise to any of us here today

that additional cleanup dollars would be required to address these

sites. We have known this for years. Yet, for at least the past four

years EPA’s Superfund budget has been declining, failing even to

keep up with the pace of inflation. It is inconceivable to blame a

lack of resources as the reason for slowing the pace of cleanup,

while at the same time the Administration has slowly starved the

Superfund trust fund due to a failure to adequately collect cost recoveries and a failure to call for reinstatement of the taxes to fund

the trust fund.

Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about the Administration’s

failure to adequately fund many of the programs that address

nonpoint sources of pollution. In particular, I am concerned that

the Administration’s budget proposes to dramatically cut funding

for EPA’s Section 319 program by 29.5 million, or a 12.3 percent

reduction, at the same time it proposes to zero out NOAA’s coastal

nonpoint pollution control program. I understand that the Administration’s decision is in part due to a renewed commitment to the

USDA’s environmental quality incentives program; however, this

increased emphasis will do little to assist efforts in addressing

nonpoint sources in many urban and suburban communities. It is

these sources that typically are responsible for increased levels of

water pollution.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, since we are fortunate to have the chief

for the Army Corps of Engineers before the subcommittee today,

General Flowers, I will take the opportunity to express my deep

concern with the recent allegations surrounding the selection and

performance of companies contracted to perform work for the U.S.

Government in Iraq. I am certain that many members of this subcommittee saw Tuesday’s news report that the Department of Defense’s Criminal Investigative Services has opened a criminal investigation of fraud allegations against the Haliburton Subsidiary,

Kellogg Brown and Root, KBR, for potentially over-charging the

U.S. Government $61 million for fuel oils brought into Iraq. This

is no longer a simple matter of audit that is being sought of

Haliburton’s books, but a criminal investigation brought by the Department of Defense. At the same time, we have all read stories

about other examples of Haliburton’s alleged questionable transactions, including overcharging for food that was never served,

bribes passed to win overseas contracts, and kickbacks paid to

Haliburton employees for work in support of U.S. troops.

Even more troubling is that last month, when the Corps reached

a decision to replace the existing sole source contract given to

Haliburton and KBR before hostilities began, the Corps awarded a

new $1.2 billion contract to Haliburton and KBR, the same company that is currently under a criminal investigation by DOD, the

Securities Exchange Commission, and numerous other domestic

and foreign governmental agencies.
6

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I am deeply concerned with

these allegations and the possibility that the U.S. taxpayers are

being grossly overcharged for services in support of our troops overseas.

I believe that it is appropriate for this subcommittee, in carrying

out its oversight responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers, that we

should further explore these issues to ensure that proper decisions

are being made in the management of Federal tax dollars and in

support of our efforts being made by our troops overseas.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Costello.

Because both Mr. Costello and I have given much more lengthy

opening statements than usual, we are going to defer our questions

until after all of the Members have had a chance to make any

statement or ask any questions that they have on the first round,

but we will, in consideration of the schedules of some of our witnesses, we will go ahead and proceed with the witnesses at this

time.

I am pleased to introduce the first panel. We have witnesses, all

of whom have been here before this Subcommittee before, and for

all of whom I have very, very great respect.

First we have, representing the U.S. Department of the Army,

The Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the

Army for Civil Works; representing the Army Corps of Engineers,

General Robert B. Flowers, the Chief of Engineers; representing

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Honorable

Marianne Lamont Horinko, who is the Assistant Administrator for

Solid Waste and Emergency Response; representing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also, The Honorable Benjamin H.

Grumbles, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water; and representing the Tennessee Valley Authority, a man who is a very

good friend of mine and for whom I have very great respect, the

Chairman, The Honorable Glenn McCullough.

We are pleased to have each of you with us. We will ask that you

try to limit your opening statements to five minutes. We will give

you six minutes, but then we will have to cut you off in respect to

the other witnesses.

Secretary Woodley, you may begin.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; HON. MARIANNE LAMONT HORINKO, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY

RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

WASHINGTON, D.C.; HON. BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ACTING

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND

HON. GLENN L. MC CULLOUGH, JR., CHAIRMAN, TENNESSEE

VALLEY AUTHORITY, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and

distinguished members of the subcommittee, I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on the
7

President’s fiscal year 2005 budget, the Civil Works function of the

Army Corps of Engineers.

I am accompanied this morning by Lieutenant General Robert

Flowers, the very distinguished 50th Chief of Engineers.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would ask to summarize

my statement and ask that the complete statement be included in

the record.

Mr. DUNCAN. All of the witnesses may summarize their statements, and their full statements will be placed in the record.

Mr. WOODLEY. You are very kind. The total fiscal year 2005 Civil Works budget is $4.2 billion,

about the same as last year’s total budget; however, to develop this

year’s budget we began the use of a performance-based approach

built around programmatic goals for our eight business programs.

This approach has enabled us to make effective use of the limited

funding available to us while the war on terror continues. A great

deal of hard work is in store as we improve on this approach in

the coming year, but we are fully committed to this effort.

For new projects, the budget focuses on commercial navigation,

flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget directs substantial funding to ongoing construction projects that have among the highest economic and environmental returns for the Nation, including 11 projects that are being

completed in fiscal year 2005, eight projects that are high priorities, and a number of dam safety and seepage correction projects.

The budget also funds three high-return construction new starts.

Funding to plan or design new projects this year is limited and

is targeted to the most productive study and design activities, including five new studies, twenty-three design efforts, and the current phases of ongoing studies, including the expanded Louisiana

coastal area study.

The budget does not, Mr. Chairman, include any funding this

year for beach renourishment. Our view is that non-Federal interests should carry out renourishment activities once the original initial nourishment has been completed, and similar to the manner in

which they operate and maintain other types of projects once our

installation is complete. This policy applies to all types of projects

involving beach renourishment, with one exception in fiscal year

2005 where we are obliged to perform renourishment to meet obligations under a court order.

To free up funding for higher priority needs, the budget proposes

to cancel the unobligated balances of projects that are not the best

investments or are not Civil Works responsibilities. These recommended cancellations, if approved, would take effect with the

enactment of fiscal year 2005 appropriations. The amount that

would be canceled is estimated at about $100 million.

The budget also includes a number of initiatives for the operation

and maintenance of our existing projects. We would finance up

front the operation and maintenance costs of hydropower facilities

with funds provided by three Federal power marketing administrations. Second, we would accomplish recreation modernization by

using new fees and by entering into planning and management

partnerships. Third, we will continue anti-terrorist protection at

key projects and facilities. Fourth, we would reserve funds, a stated
8

set of funds, to accomplish unforeseen and urgent maintenance and

repairs at key projects.

The budget provides substantial funding for the emergency management program and for the regulatory program, which have been

judged as moderately effective using performance metrics.

For the five initiatives in the President’s management agenda,

we started 2002 with red status ratings across the board. The status rating for the human capital initiative is now yellow. We have

green or yellow progress ratings for all five initiatives.

As I testified before, Mr. Chairman, I have three priorities in

mind for the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers. You

will see these priorities reflected in part in this budget, and to a

greater extent in the budget for the next fiscal year. One priority,

as I have mentioned, is to develop a Civil Works budget and manage the program based on objective performance measures. The

second priority is to improve the analytical tools that we use for

water resources planning and decision making. The third priority

is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory program.

Mr. Chairman, this is a frugal budget that reflects the priorities

of a Nation at war. Understandably, it does not fund all of the good

things that the Corps of Engineers is capable of doing, but it does

move ahead with many important investments that will yield enormous returns for the Nation in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

General Flowers?

General FLOWERS. Sir, I am honored again to be testifying before

you, along with the Secretary, on the President’s fiscal year 2005

budget for the Army civil works program. Today, thanks to this

subcommittee’s strong support, the civil works program is balanced, responsive, and highly productive. I look forward to your

continued partnership in this important program so broadly beneficial to the Nation.

I will summarize some of the points in my complete statement.

First, a word about the President’s budget and the value of the

civil works program to the Nation’s economy and the environment.

This budget funds the critical water resources infrastructure that

has improved the quality of our citizens’ lives and provided a foundation for the economic growth and development of this country.

Our projects for navigation, flood protection, ecosystem restoration,

hydropower generation, and recreation directly contribute to national economic well-being. The sum of benefits realized as reduced

transportation costs, avoided flood and storm damages, and improvements in environmental value is considerable.

I’d like to share some numbers with you that illustrate the direct

effect of the civil works mission. First, the navigation program you

fund enables 2.4 billion tons of commerce to move on navigable waterways. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that

these cargo movements have created jobs for 13 million people.

Second, Corps flood damage reduction structures have saved

lives and property loss. Taxpayers save $21 billion in damages

every year.
9

Third, almost all of our construction work and well over half of

our civil planning and engineering is completed by private industry

contractors funnelling money directly into the economy.

This budget also includes funding to support watershed studies.

These studies will allow us to work collaboratively with many

stakeholders. With the complexity of water problems today, we believe this is the direction we must take to develop the best, most

comprehensive solutions.

About our backlogs, we estimate it will cost approximately $11

billion to complete the construction projects funded in the fiscal

year 2005 construction general budget. Our maintenance backlog

continues to be a challenge. You can see from the numbers that I

just shared with you that the work the Corps is completing on our

infrastructure is a critical element in a strong economy. Sustaining

this level of service becomes more of a challenge as our infrastructure ages. The fiscal year 2005 budget includes $1.926 billion for

the operation and maintenance program. I can assure you that I

will continue to do all that I can to make these programs as cost

effective as possible.

I’d like to speak about Corps transformation. There are many interested in transforming the Corps inside and outside the organization. Some may have the larger goal of changes in current water

policy in mind. Others may want us to operate more efficiently and

effectively. What I’d like to make clear is that we in the Corps are

listening. I have met with individuals, industry groups, and interest groups to hear what they have to say. The Corps is undergoing

sweeping changes as a result of our customer and stakeholder

input. We are becoming a team of teams within the organization

focusing on eight regional business centers which will more efficiently deliver service to the public and the armed forces.

Let me assure you I am committed to working with you and all

who are interested and to doing all in my power to transform the

Corps to meet the Nation’s needs.

I am very proud of the civil works program and its support to

our national security strategy. Corps civil works experience is proving invaluable as soldiers and civilians of the Corps help to rebuild

Iraqi infrastructure. To date, over 1,000 civilian members have volunteered to serve in Iraq, sharing their knowledge and expertise

with Iraqi engineers and other professionals assisting the Coalition

Provisional Authorities and the Combined Joint Task Force in repairing and rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure.

The Corps is committed to staying at the leading edge in providing service to the Nation, and I truly appreciate your continued

support to this end.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. That

concludes my statement.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, General Flowers.

Ms. Horinko?

Ms. HORINKO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the

subcommittee. Thank you again for inviting me to speak before you

about the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget for Superfund,

brownfields, and the other programs that fall within EPA’s Office

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
10

The President’s budget provides the necessary funds for EPA to

carry out our mission efficiently and effectively to protect human

health and safeguard our natural environment. I have been particularly fortunate in the past three budget years. Cleanup programs in my office have enjoyed a nearly $300 million increase in

the President’s budget request, more than doubling brownfields

program funding from $90 million to $210 million, and asking for

$150 million targeted directly at Superfund cleanup construction. The $150 million targeted for Superfund cleanup construction

will allow EPA to start construction projects at up to 12 additional

Superfund sites over and above the projects that EPA would have

started in fiscal year 2005. This much needed $150 million increase

in the President’s budget will raise overall Superfund program

funding to $1.38 billion, a $124 million increase from fiscal year

2004 appropriations levels.

I am pleased to report that as of January, 2004, cleanup construction has been completed at 892 private and Federal Superfund

sites. Of Superfund sites, 93 percent either have cleanup construction underway or have completed cleanup construction.

The Superfund budget request will also fund EPA’s removal and

emergency response program. We have faced some unprecedented

challenges in the past three years, including the World Trade Center response, the Capitol Hill and Postal Service anthrax cleanups,

the aftermath of the Shuttle Columbia disaster, and, most recently,

Ricin contamination in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. EPA’s

on-scene coordinators have been instrumental in the Federal effort

to respond to these events.

To date, EPA has completed more than 7,000 emergency removal

actions at toxic waste sites to immediately reduce or eliminate

threats to human health and the environment.

The President’s budget request also provides an increase for the brownfields program, a total request of $210.7 million. This represents a $40 million increase from the 2004 appropriations level.

The increase in the budget request will enable EPA to further enhance State and tribal response programs that restore and reclaim

contaminated and blighted brownfields sites.

EPA estimates that the President’s budget request could fund up

to 1,000 brownfield site assessments and cleanups, leveraging

roughly $1 billion in cleanup and redevelopment.

The budget request also provides an increase to EPA’s oil response program, a total request of $16 million. EPA’s oil program

focuses on preventing oil spills, reducing the risk of hazardous exposure to people and the environment, and responding to oil spills

when needed. We evaluate as many as 13,000 oil spills each year

and take emergency actions to respond to oil spills at approximately 300 per year.

I want to take a moment also and mention our resource conservation challenge. This is a voluntary program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA—to improve resource conservation through partnerships with businesses, manufacturers, consumers, and non-governmental organizations. We are

focusing on product stewardship, priority chemical reduction, beneficial use of materials, energy conservation, and environmentally

friendly design. We set a goal to reduce by 50 percent the presence
11

of priority chemicals and hazardous waste by 2005. Using a baseline that was set in 1991, this goal has already been met with a

reduction of 53 percent. For 2008 we are developing a new goal

that will also reduce priority chemicals and hazardous waste and

expand the goal to all solid waste and releases in the environment.

Finally, our innovations initiative supports land revitalization,

recycling, waste minimization, energy recovery, and partnerships

through creative approaches. This pilot program funds innovative

ideas to solving environmental challenges. For example, EPA is

working with several agency regions, States, and local governments

to pilot test expanding the one-call system to institutional controls

so that developers can learn whether there are property restrictions due to cleanup of contaminated land.

In addition, the EPA, working with several States, have piloted

a process to take pallet wood waste and convert it into flooring

products, diverting many tons of waste from landfills.

We have selected 12 to 20 of these pilot projects every year, and,

for a very modest investment, we are learning new and better ways

of doing business.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to discuss

some of the important EPA programs entrusted to my office. We

look forward to working with you and the members of the subcommittee toward our mutual goal of protecting human health and

safeguarding the environment.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Administrator Horinko.

Mr. Grumbles?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can’t begin to tell

you how much I have looked forward to this. This is an honor to

be able to appear before you and Congressman Costello and members of the subcommittee. It is a bit of a homecoming, since I

worked on the committee staff for many years, but it is also a

chance to explain the priorities, the highlights of the budget request, and also respond to any questions or comments about the

water budget.

We are extremely proud of the proposed fiscal year 2005 budget

for EPA’s water programs. Some people don’t realize this, but it is

$2.9 billion, or 39 percent of the agency’s budget. It is a substantial

part of what EPA does to keep the Nation’s waters safe and clean

and secure.

What I would like to do, just mercifully summarize my statement

and give you a few of the major themes and priorities.

The first point to make is that we believe that this budget allows

us to continue to enhance our core missions and responsibilities to

continue the progress under the Clean Water Act over the last 31

years, as well as the Safe Drinking Water Act and Ocean Dumping

Act.

One of the key components of continuing the progress is to focus

on sustainable infrastructure, and the request includes $850 million for the clean water state revolving funds, and we anticipate

that and are committed to providing that amount through 2011 to

help ensure that the success of the State revolving funds continues

to be a real success story.

The other aspects that I want to focus on are the themes of monitoring, conservation, and restoration. We are very proud that this
12

budget focuses on water quality monitoring. You’ll find that the

Agency has included in its budget a $20 million national water

quality monitoring initiative.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened to your committee, we’ve listened to GAO, the National Academy of Sciences, the other agencies, the States, and it all points to the need for more investment,

more science, more water quality monitoring so that we can all as

a country make smarter decisions and wiser use of our scarce resources to get a true snapshot of the status of the water quality

and to mark the progress that we continue to make in terms of

water quality.

I’m talking about a couple different things. One is water con- servation. There’s $850,000 in the budget, but there’s far more

than that in terms of a priority for the Office of Water and the

Agency to, in a voluntary way, encourage water conservation, water

use efficiency. It is a key component of our approach to sustainable

infrastructure, to help look at the demand side to reduce infrastructure costs by following the success of energy star working on

a potential water star program for voluntary water efficient product labeling so people can make smart choices.

Conservation also means wetlands conservation, and we are very pleased that this budget request includes $20 million for the State

wetlands grants program. It is a $5 million increase, and that’s

specifically to help meet the needs of protecting wetlands, even

wetlands that aren’t jurisdictionally covered by the Clean Water

Act, but to help States have the tools to protect wetlands and sensitive aquatic ecosystems.

The third basic theme, restoration. When we look at areas that

are so important, such as the Great Lakes or the Chesapeake Bay

or across the country at impaired watersheds, what it means to us

is that there needs to be a collaborative effort to focus our resources and tools to develop partnerships with the 4,000-plus watershed organizations across the country, the States, localities, nonprofit, the NGO sector to work towards cleaning up impaired water

bodies. There’s $45 million in the budget request specifically for the

Great Lakes Legacy Act, which this committee, Congressman

Ehlers, Congressman Oberstar, and others were so integral to getting enacted. That’s real money. It is an important investment.

Chesapeake Bay also has a major budget initiative included in our

budget, as well as the targeted watershed grants program.

The last point is simply that we believe that by focusing on monitoring, conservation, and restoration, continuing to enhance our

core mission and looking for collaborations and innovation through

water quality trading, as well as through this water star program,

we think that we are on the right path, and we look forward to

working with you and all the other members of the committee, and

I look forward to responding to any questions or comments.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Administrator Grumbles.

Chairman McCullough?

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and members

of the subcommittee. On behalf of the TVA Board and our employees, thank you for this opportunity to review TVA’s programs and

priorities. My name is Glen McCullough, Jr. Director Sky
13

LaHarris, Bill Baxter, and I are committed to making TVA a more

competitive corporation as we prepare for the marketplace of the

future. TVA serves 158 local power distributors, 62 directly served

customers, and 8.5 million people in the Tennessee Valley. We

serve them each day by providing affordable, reliable electric

power, environmental stewardship, and leadership in sustainable

economic development.

A corporation of the Federal Government, TVA is entirely selffinanced. We receive no funding from Congress.

The year 2003 was a year of challenge and opportunity. TVA is

meeting the power needs of the Valley with its unique and flexible

mix of fossil, hydro, and nuclear generation, our portfolio of renewable energy sources, coupled with a strong transmission system.

For the fourth consecutive year, TVA’s transmission system operated at 99.999 percent reliability. That means the total outage time

experienced by people in the Tennessee Valley was about four minutes last year.

The TVA nuclear program continues its focus on excellence. The

Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit One restart project is performing to

plan and it is 41 percent completed, which puts it slightly ahead

of our 60-month baseline schedule.

Along with traditional forms of power generation, TVA is now in

the fourth year of offering green power to the people of the Tennessee Valley. In this program, TVA and local power companies

work together to provide electricity from clean, renewable sources

such as the sun, wind, and methane gas.

TVA remains focused on our environmental responsibility. By the

end of this decade, we will have invested over $5.6 billion. It’s one

of the most aggressive emission reduction programs in the Nation.

TVA’s environmental responsibility includes management of the

Tennessee River and its reservoir system. It is the fifth largest

river system in the Nation. In so doing, we balance the benefits of

navigation, of flood risk management, power generation, of recreation, water supply, water quality, along with public land management.

Part of TVA’s core mission is to promote economic prosperity in

the Valley. We do this by supporting community development

which attracts new investment and help existing business and industries grow and succeed. In January of this year, the Board approved the finalized TVA strategic plan. This plan provides a

framework for TVA to adapt to meet the changing market environment. Part of this plan is a debt reduction goal of at least $3 billion

to be achieved over the next ten to twelve years. TVA’s outstanding

balance of bonds and notes has been reduced by over $4 billion

since the beginning of 1997. As a result, debt service that once consumed $0.34 of every revenue dollar is today just $0.19. Our power

sales have increased on average of 3 percent during the past decade. To keep pace with this growth, TVA has added more than

4,600 megawatts of generating capacity over the past nine years.

We’ve also entered a power purchase agreement with independent

power generators.

With power demand in the Valley expected to grow about 2 percent annually during this decade, the TVA, I want to ensure you,
14

will continue to explore a full range of options available to meet

this need.

TVA is preparing for the future in a number of ways. We are delivering affordable, reliable electric power. TVA is meeting our environmental stewardship mission. We are supporting sustainable

economic development throughout the Valley. We are doing all of

this while reducing debt.

TVA continues to set and achieve performance goals. We are continuing to improve operations. We look forward to continuing to

work with Congress, with this subcommittee and full committee,

with the Administration and stakeholders on issues that will shape

the future of the Tennessee Valley.

It is an honor to be before you, Mr. Chairman, and the members

of the subcommittee, and I look forward to your questions.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

All the witnesses have made very fine statements. We will go

now for any statements or questions that he has to Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, it is good to have you here, and General Flowers,

once again I am glad to be in your presence. You’ve done a wonderful job in California and have always been of great assistance. And

Colonel Thompson deserves a promotion, but if you can promote

him and keep him in California it is the best of both worlds as far

as I am concerned.

I just can’t praise the Army Corps for being responsive. I know

you have had difficulty in recent years with budget problems based

on the demand you have. One question, Mr. Secretary is, I am disturbed by the fact that the budget proposal seems to suggest that

many studies and projects that are currently ongoing will be halted

and stalled for an indefinite period of time based on this current

budget, and such projects that are out there, the majority have

non-Federal funding. It’s private dollars put out there that they are

looking to, they got to do their portion. What do you suggest we tell

these people when we’re not holding up our end of the agreement

on these issues?

Mr. WOODLEY. The budget we produced is a frugal budget that

makes hard choices, and the work that we’re having to suspend are

those hard choices. There’s certainly no question, as I said, that we

are funding all the things and able to fund all the good things that

the Corps of Engineers can accomplish, and the point you raise is

very salient and very much a part of this budget. We have to explain that we have a Nation at war in a time where our civil works

budget is going to have to be very frugal.

Mr. MILLER. I appreciate the fact that we are at war, and we do

need to prioritize that. The problem we face in California—and,

General Flowers, you know this—I spend more time on the phone

with the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife because

of the problems we have in California. One problem we’re trying to

deal with is making sure we provide jobs in this country. You’re an

integral part of that, especially in the procedural part.

General Flowers, what is your current backlog in construction

projects, and how do you think this current budget is going to impact that? I know that’s an off-the-wall question that’s a difficult

one, but I know you have a tremendous burden out there and we’re
15

continually calling on you, and you have never refused assistance

when you could do that. Do you have any idea where we are at on

these issues?

General FLOWERS. Sir, I do. I’d like to provide specifics for the

record on the backlog.

[The information received follows:]

The FY 2005 budget includes about $1.3 billion for specifically

authorized projects supported by the Administration for construction. The balance of funding needed to complete these

projects after FY 2005 is slightly less than $11 billion. This is

a significant reduction from last year’s figure of $23 billion,

largely because this year’s figure is expressed in constant-value

dollars rather than inflated dollars and does not include the

Federal share of beach renourishment costs.

General FLOWERS. You are absolutely right. We have a tremendous amount of work that has been appropriated, a lot of construction work that has been begun that we are, under the current

budget, going to have to take a very hard look at and a new approach on how we stretch the dollars that we are given, and backlog in maintenance and repair now is, I think, well over $1 billion

of critical maintenance that needs to be done, and we are going to

do the absolute best job we can with the resources we are given to

maintain the projects and the system that we are given to maintain, and at the same time take care of the public that we serve.

Mr. MILLER. Well, Mr. Chairman, we just completed a hearing

with the Administration on transportation projects and transportation needs in this country, and we both have a high concern

about what we are doing there. I have a tremendous concern on

this budget. I know the demands we place on the Army Corps and

I know what they try to deliver for this Nation and for California

and your State also, and I think we need to do what we can to look

to other sources to see if there is any way of shifting some additional funds to help them, because they do need the help and we

do need their help. So I would encourage you to do everything we

can in that vein.

Thank you all very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much.

Mr. Taylor?

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of

our panelists.

Secretary Woodley and General Flowers, I had the opportunity to

speak with you before the meeting, and I was amazed when you

said that you had 600 civil works employees either uniform or nonuniform over in Iraq. I voted for the use of force, and therefore I

share in the responsibility for the cost in human lives and for the

cost in dollars. My question is: are those billets being billed to the

Iraq fund or does that come out of the normal Corps operating

fund? I think for the sake of being honest with the citizens, I am

asking this question. Is this fund coming at the expense of things

that aren’t being done in the States?

General FLOWERS. Sir, it is a great question. All of the work that

is being performed over in Iraq and Afghanistan is being funded

by funds that are earmarked for the efforts in those theaters.
16

Mr. TAYLOR. OK.

General FLOWERS. We are not taking any of this money out of

civil works appropriations of any sort.

Mr. TAYLOR. I know your deputy commander for the Mobile

Corps, Colonel Corrigan, is over there now, so when you lose any

key people it has got to affect your organization. To what extent

in reality do you think it might be slowing down projects here at

home?

General FLOWERS. Sir, we are taking a very hard look at that.

What we are doing is rotating personnel through for about 120-day

tour with a very carefully concocted plan of taking work that is required forward in Iraq or Afghanistan and performing what we

can, leveraging technology here in the United States at our stateside districts and divisions, and then shipping a product back over

to be delivered by a very strong footprint forward.

In some cases, funding from supplementals and military programs enable us to hire personnel specifically for those projects.

What we are doing in our civil works program, our employees have

done yeoman’s work at covering for their fellow employees that go

for 120 days. We are keeping a very close watch on what effect this

has on our other programs.

To date, it has not been significant. Whether that will continue

in the future, we’ll work this very hard. But it is clear that the Nation’s priority is winning the global war on terror, and we are

working very hard to do our part.

Mr. TAYLOR. Secretary Woodley, I would direct this towards you.

I have become a big fan of the way the Corps has been trying to

kill two birds at one time in some of their dredging projects, to tie

that in with environmental restoration, to take that dredged material and, in places like Louisiana and parts of Mississippi that are

washing away through natural erosion, try to build beaches with

that or to build marshes or whatever. What I have been frustrated

with is the notion that the local entity has to come up with a cost

share. I really have failed to see the wisdom of that. As a former

city councilman of a fairly small town and as a former State Senator I think most everybody here has been in that boat—it is just

unrealistic to expect cities that have problems with potholes and

old police cars and States that are having trouble finding enough

money to keep criminals behind bars to come up with the extra

funds to do something that they would have a hard time explaining

to their constituents. I really don’t see where it costs us more

money to do that in the first place, and I really fail to see the wisdom of requiring the local share on something that just should

make abundant sense.

I mean, as someone who ran a boat for the Coast Guard on the

Mississippi River, I can’t tell you how many tons of material I used

to see moved from one place in the Mississippi only to be dumped

in another as the marshes on either side are washing away, and

questioning, ‘‘Gee, why didn’t they just run that discharge over the

levee and do some good with it?’’ And so again I will ask. And I

have asked this question in years past. What would be the possibility of working with you to change that language to allow us to do

beneficial use without having the trouble of going and literally tincupping to the local communities to come up with some money, be-
17

cause more often than not the good thing is not happening and it

ought to be happening.

Mr. WOODLEY. Mr. Taylor, I think we definitely should explore

that possibility. In general, the cost sharing policy across the board

throughout the program, is a very strong policy and one that has

a great deal of underpinning, so whenever we try to make changes

around the edges, it’s something that’s very carefully considered on

all levels. But the idea that you mentioned in terms of beneficial

reuse is certainly something that is coming to the forefront across

the program in the dredging arena. We’d like to do that whenever,

certainly, we can put it forward as the low cost alternative. It is

always brought forward to the forefront, and I think that I would

like to see us do more and more of it, so I certainly think the concept you raise is one well worth exploration.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have been told that historically the reluctance to do this has been raised by OMB, and

there is a place for everybody in this town. I’m not so sure that

they really understand that they are being penny wise and pound

foolish on this. And as someone who does have a good grasp of the

issue, I would ask that you would weigh in on your side as heavily

as they have been weighing in, because I think we are missing

some golden opportunities. As we know, the State of Louisiana is

getting ready to rightfully ask for billions of dollars to try to start

rebuilding these marshes. If we can find low-cost ways of doing

this, then I think in the long term we’re all going to be better off.

And, quite frankly, a heck of a lot of the seafood that is processed

in my Congressional District is caught over in Louisiana, so my

District has got a vested interest in this, as well.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Baker is next.

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Mississippi for his kind observation, as we need help everywhere we can get it.

I’m just going to make a couple of statements, General Flowers.

I don’t expect a response this morning, but just to get on the record

a couple of areas of concern.

First, my deep appreciation to the Corps for the good work they

do in south Louisiana. It is extremely valuable to us, and we are,

indeed, appreciative.

I’ve got two relatively I hope minor points. One is relative to section ten of the River and Harbors Act. Is has been around for about

100 years, and just recently for the first time in that 100-year life

span of that act the Corps has issued, pursuant to that authority,

a cease and desist order on a site 14 miles away from the nearest

waterway on the basis that the activities on the site were threatening the waterway’s navigability by result of siltation. It was a troublesome conclusion reached.

The reason why I bring it to this forum is that we wrote back

in September from Congressman Tauzin and myself a request for

clarification on the matter. To date we have not received a response and have extended an invitation for a site visit by the appropriate person, and both Congressman Tauzin and I would welcome them down to better understand the reasons for and perhaps
18

find a way to solve this program just in one landowners instance.

There is now over $2 million in timber cut on the ground, which

the owner of is not being allowed to enter the site and collect his

property.

The second issue goes to what is known as the Swank Decision

of the Supreme Court on the migratory bird rule of the Corps. It

was expected in 2001 that the Corps and the EPA would join together and issue regulations to help clarify the implementation

pursuant to the Court finding. It has just been recently announced

that we do not expect those regulatory guidelines to be issued now

until 2005. The difficulty is landowners who happen to have isolated wetlands are not sure whether they will be designated as jurisdictional if they are connected to a navigable waterway even

through a manmade ditch. We are not trying to dictate outcomes,

we just need a decision. If it is possible to have that clarity provided, it would be most helpful.

Mr. Chairman, both of these issues point out the frustration, particularly those in States like Louisiana, with the uncertainties

about wetlands regulation. I want to announce my intention to introduce legislation to help clarify some of this issue, Mr. Chairman,

and look forward to working closely with you to provide the leadership to get us some relief from regulatory difficulty.

I’m going to quickly turn to Mr. McCullough because I know my

time is limited, and express to you, Mr. McCullough, my appreciation for your past meetings and work at the TVA, now having been

there just two years. My comments are not so much directed to the

activities of the immediate past but the long-term problem and my

stated concerns to you relative to the Authority’s financial condition.

A recent development was the preparation of a strategic plan

that I took great interest in, noting that we were moving forward,

but in laying the strategic plan goals alongside budget information

provided in the President’s budget and other documents, I have

concerns. Recent statements by an official of the TVA indicated

debt last year was reduced by $1.6 billion. When you get into the

particulars, it is clear that there was a pre-sale of power to Memphis Light and Gas for $1.4 billion, and, pursuant to the terms of

the sale, it appears that $1.4 billion was applied to statutory debt

reduction.

The trouble is the pre-sale of power that is similar to a

telecomm’s indefeasible right of use, meaning there was a

telecomm that recorded in a current revenues quarter estimate revenue reports the sale of broad band capacity to another party for

a telecomm system that had not yet been built. That was troubling,

and that was gap compliant, I was surprised to find out. In this

case, we are pre-selling power to another utility over a ten-year

term and taking the $1.4 billion to reduce statutory debt to stay

under the $30 billion Congressional cap, and shifting it over into

another pot called ‘‘alternative financing.’’

Now, if I have a car note and I pay it off with my credit card,

I’m really not that much better off. What I’m worried about here

is the appearance that the financial condition has improved when

you really get down to the numbers, as best I could do it—and I

don’t have the claim to understanding all of this, but it looks like
19

there is a real world reduction in debt from 2003 to 2004 of about

$10 million.

What is even more troubling is that, looking to actual past budget numbers and projected budget numbers for 2003, 2004, and

2005, if you lump together alternative financing debts and statutory debt categories, the enterprise is in excess, Mr. Chairman, of

the $30 billion cap established by Congress. And it is not a debatable question. The only debate is whether alternative financing is

debt or not.

Now, if I owe my next door neighbor some money, it may not be

a mortgage on my house, but I feel like I’ve got a debt, and I think

we need to have some of this clarified.

Secondly, with regard to the three idle nuclear facilities along

the point of my attention, I was worried that we never had a plan

to amortize the debt if the facilities were not to be made operational. In fact, site one at Brown’s Ferry now has been made operational, but at a cost in excess of $2 billion. We have two other

units at Brown’s Ferry, then we have Sequoia and then we have

Watt’s Bar.

We need to have, Mr. Chairman, I think, a clear understanding,

if these facilities are to be made operational, the total cost represented by that investment, the time necessary to recoup that investment, and how that affects the long-term debt reduction plan

that the Authority is attempting to implement.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that your continued leadership on this matter—and I am very appreciative to the gentleman

for calling hearings and working with us on this concern—is that

we might come to some arbitrary agreement as to the standard for

debt reduction that would be appropriate, and maybe have the

committee review it at least semi-annually or on some regular

basis to assure ourselves that when that day comes, when the TVA

has to face a competitive world, that they are in a posture and financial condition capable of meeting those challenges, and today I

am very concerned.

Mr. DUNCAN. Certainly we can hold a hearing and get further

into that, but I think, Chairman McCullough, we’ll let you respond

at this time to the extent that you wish.

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Mr.

Baker. I, too, have enjoyed several dialogues we have had. Let me

assure you that TVA is committed to reducing our debt. We are

committed to reducing our debt, and we are committed to reducing

all liabilities, which will give us financial strength for the future.

We have made some progress.

The TVA has to do more than just reduce our debt. We’ve got to

make sure the lights stay on in the Valley. We have to do our part

for cleaner air. And we’ve got to keep the economy growing in the

Tennessee Valley, so we’ve got to balance those sometimes competing demands on our business. But I will be happy to work with you

in the future and be responsive in any possible way to give you

greater confidence in the actions that are called for in our strategic

plan.

I can assure you we want to be financially stronger in the future

and to continue to keep the lights on for the people of the Ten-
20

nessee Valley and not to impose any threat to the $30 billion debt

ceiling that Congress has established.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I just want to commend

the gentleman and express my appreciation for his willingness to

work with us. I’m not critical of the operations, the value of the enterprise, the need of the Authority to be in the Valley doing what

it is doing. We’ve just got to work through this one little problem.

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. Thank you, Mr. Baker. We’re certainly willing

to engage in that with you.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. Costello tells me Ms. Johnson is next on this side. Ms. Johnson?

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and our

ranking member. I’m pleased that you’ve called this hearing.

Let me say to our witnesses, while I’m not surprised I am disappointed again that the President’s budget does not include funding for the Dallas floodway extension. This is part of a larger Trinity River corridor project that will address a number of regional

challenges, as you know, and most importantly flood control. It is

estimated that $68 billion worth of physical damage would occur if

we had a significant flood of the magnitude that hit Houston or on

the Guadalupe River over the past several years. For the people

that get their homes flooded out every time, it probably feels that

way to them.

The Dallas floodway extension will protect 2,500 structures in

the minority neighborhoods of Rochester Park, Cadillac Heights,

and Lamar. The project would also create critically important community and economic opportunities for the neighborhoods bordering

the Trinity River, for downtown Dallas, and as a centerpiece of a

major urban area, and hopefully the home of a new stadium on the

river.

I have appreciated the Corps of Engineers’ support of this

project. Long before I came to Congress I was pleading about this

same location for flooding when I was in the State Legislature. The

Dallas flood extension has broad bipartisan support from the north

Texas Congressional delegation, and I will continue to lead efforts

to fund this critical project. I would hope that you would continue

to work with me.

I hope that all of our help is not so much over in Iraq that we

have been abandoned in the area. I met a lot of them in Iraq when

I was there from that office. You know, Texas is a big State, but

I’m just from Dallas, and I see this flooding and I see the signs

where the water comes up to the roof of the houses and people

have to sweep out each time they have one of those. At some point

I would hope that we could address that issue.

I’d like to hear your feedback.

Mr. WOODLEY. Ms. Johnson, I want you to know as proud as we

are of our people, especially those from Dallas and the Southwest

Division that have served in southwest Asia, we are also delighted

to have them back. General Creer has recently returned, and——

Ms. JOHNSON. I saw that in the papers.

Mr. WOODLEY.—he will turn his full attention to the matters

that you have raised. I have been to that office and am deeply impressed with their professionalism and their commitment to work-
21

ing with you and with my office and the Corps headquarters to continue the progress on the projects that you mentioned. I am a

strong advocate for the flood damage reduction mission of the

Corps in general, and I am aware of the project that you describe,

and I agree that it is a very important infrastructure and flood

damage reduction project that deserves our full attention.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I have appreciated the efforts and cooperation from the Corps in the past.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Brown is

next on our side.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, lady and

gentlemen for being with us today. I represent the area in South

Carolina that runs from the coast of North Carolina down to

Seabrook, so we have a tremendous amount of needs. One of my

major concerns is that it seems to me that the intracoastal waterway is forgotten in the budget this year. We have some areas just

north in North Carolina that you cannot get through now, and we

have got some areas along our coast where there is maybe two or

three feet of draft. We recognize that this is not only just for recreational purposes, but we do have barges and other commerce that

uses this channel. I understand in this year’s budget that there are

no funds requested.

Tell me how we can proceed without deepening that channel.

General FLOWERS. Sir, the intercoastal waterway is important.

We recognize that. We will do everything we can do to stretch the

available maintenance dollars that we have to keep as much of the

system as we possibly can. Given the frugal budget, priorities had

to be established based on usage and economic return, and, unfortunately, that area fell below the cut line in this budget.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I am pretty disappointed to hear that, because

I feel it is a top priority for our region, and I think certainly as we

try to debate all the issues, trying to maintain the infrastructure

in our Nation is a tough task, and I think, in order for us to continue to be productive and to be competitive with other countries,

we have to maintain a base here at home.

Another concern that we have is beach renourishment. I understand that we have got some funds in South Carolina that were

made available to match down in Huntington Island, which is not

in my District but down into Beaufort County, that has been washing away and nothing has been done to restore that beach. I do not

think there is any funding in this budget proposal to deal with

periodic beach renourishment. I know that studies out there indicates that if a beach is renourished and if there is a tropical storm

that comes in, there is considerably less damage on those beaches

than on the beaches that have not been renourished, so I don’t understand the cost justification by eliminating that program.

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. That is a change that is directed not at

the initial project to do storm damage reduction, but at the followon maintenance for renourishment. The concept is to bring that

category of project into the same management operational scheme

as we have with other flood damage reduction projects nationwide.

But I agree, it is a change and it is something that is a move away
22

from established expectations, and it is a product of the extraordinary frugality of our budget this year.

Mr. BROWN. To be quite honest, I see it as a cost shift, just like

my good friend from Mississippi was speaking of earlier. The need

is going to be there. It must be met or places like Myrtle Beach

will suffer. Nobody wants to just go and see Myrtle, but they want

to see the beach. If we do not have the beach, we are not going to

be able to entertain the tourists when they come. I will not quote

Representative Taylor, but we are certainly being penny wise and

pound foolish along those lines. I know FEMA, themselves, have

proven that beach renourishment really does lessen the impact of

a storm, and why we would have these facts and just overlook

them, I do not understand that concept. But, you know, these small

municipalities, they just do not have the resources. They have

enough trouble trying to find the 35 percent match in the 65/35

scheme, and for them to have to do 100 percent, it just cannot be

done. So I certainly would hope that you all would go back and look

over the budgets to try to find some resolve to not allow the intracoastal waterway system to go away.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Costello has asked that I go to Mr. Lampson next.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I almost don’t know

where to begin.

One comment that Secretary Woodley made that the budget for the Corps is about what it was last year, $4.215 million is $300

million less. I tell my folks at home that ‘‘about the same,’’ they’re

going to laugh at me.

I spend a lot of time at the Galveston District in Texas. I represent that area. I can tell you that there is concern along the

Sabine Natureship Channel, the Houston/Galveston Ship Channel,

all across southeast Texas that the Corps doesn’t have the ability

to maintain the navigability of the intercoastal waterway and other

deep draft and shallow draft channels along the Texas coastline.

Companies who operate along the channel have publicly said that

if the shoaling along the channels continues and they have to continue to lighter their barges and their ships to get through the waterways, business will no longer be profitable and they will be

forced to relocate their facilities, most likely abroad.

This is of pretty grave importance to the guy that earns his

$28,000 a year working for the company that tries to make its living there. And it is not just for those people who are trying to earn

their living, but it ought to be important to the people who live all

across this country who receive the goods and services that are

brought into and taken out of our country through those waterways.

The Galveston District is looking at an operations and maintenance budget shortfall of $66.6 million for fiscal year 2005. The

ASA office’s reserve fund for emergency needs amounts to $35 million. I believe this is a paltry sum that cannot possibly address the

emergency needs of communities, given the lack of operations and

maintenance funding, especially in the Galveston District.

Galveston in 2004 had its O&M budget under-funded by 50 percent. Now the proposed budget for 2005 under-funds O&M by $66-
23

plus million. So what can I tell the businesses in my community?

And we asked that before. You don’t have to answer it right now.

I’ll make my redundant question. What do I say to those businesses

in my community that say that they can no longer operate if they

have to continue to lighter their ships? These businesses are increasingly saying that without appropriate funding spent on keeping the waterways in southeast Texas viable, jobs will leave that

area. It increasingly sounds like under-funding the Corps’ operation and maintenance budget is a continuation of the President’s

out-sourcing of jobs initiative. We’ve got to do something, ladies

and gentlemen. The Galveston District has notified businesses on

some of those channels there that they should not expect emergency assistance. So do I go back and tell them to start saving their

money so that they can hire the dredging themselves, and cities of

Beaumont and Port Arthur and Texas City and Galveston and

Houston are going to have to raise those dollars, themselves, or

lose the businesses? You can answer that one.

Mr. WOODLEY. I have not had the opportunity to discuss this

with Colonel Waterworth, although I have been to that channel. I

am not in doubt about the significance of that harbor gulf coast to

our national economy, and I believe that I can speak for the whole

organization when I say that we are going to do everything we can

within the constraints that we have in our budget to maintain

navigation in that critical region.

Mr. LAMPSON. But if you can’t do it, then they must if they expect to do business in the United States of America?

Mr. WOODLEY. I would say that I will work with anyone down

there that is able to bring resources to bear on this, but I think

we have the primary responsibility, Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Secretary, that’s not adequate. That is not

adequate for the constituents of the 9th Congressional District of

Texas, and it is not adequate for the people of the United States

of America.

Let me switch subjects for a second. Again, I sound like a broken

record because Mr. Brown spoke of the same thing, the same two

issues, but this proposed policy change that would shift the $2 billion of beach project costs from the Federal Government to State

and local governments, this represents the estimated Federal share

of periodic renourishments for existing shore protection projects. It

doesn’t include projects scheduled to undergo initial construction in

2005 to 2008. Each of the non-Federal sponsors of the existing and

near-term projects has made fiscal plans to raise the money for the

non-Federal share, as mandated through the authorization legislation, yet I’m unaware of any comprehensive study that has been

completed on this issue. You’ll have to submit these, but let me just

ask them for the record and if you don’t mind getting them to me

I’d appreciate it.

Will you provide this committee an analysis of the fiscal impact

the proposed policy change will have on each of the affected nonFederal sponsors, a legal analysis of the authority of the Federal

Government to drop its commitments for periodic renourishment

and mitigation of damages caused to shorelines by Federal navigation projects, an analysis of the impact the proposed change will

have on the Federal tax revenues, and an analysis of the impact
24

it will have on the environment? Again, I’ll let you submit those

for the record and I’ll put a letter to you for that so that you’ll have

it the way that I asked it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

[The information received follows:]
25
26

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ehlers?

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Grumbles and also for the Corps.

First of all, Mr. Grumbles, congratulations on your new appointment. I hope the ‘‘acting’’ is soon removed. I have had the greatest

admiration for your work. You worked on this committee, and I am

delighted to see you in that position, even though I’d like to have

you back in the House, as well. You’ve accumulated a wealth of experience on these issues over the years, and I’ve always appreciated both your insight and your responsiveness to our interests

as priorities and requests. I wish you the best of luck and look forward to continuing to work with you.

Now that I’ve given all the compliments, let’s get down to what

I want.

As you know, the Great Lakes comprises the largest source of

fresh water in the world—in fact, 95 percent of the U.S. surface

fresh water. It provides drinking water to millions upon millions in

the U.S. and Canada. However, the Great Lakes are plagued by

contaminants from years of industrial pollution that have settled

into the sediments of the tributaries to the lakes. These pollutants

degrade the health of both humans and wildlife. The longer we

wait to clean up the sediment contamination, the longer those individuals who eat Great Lakes fish will remain at risk of experiencing health impairments. But even more importantly, the longer we

wait the more difficult it becomes to clean because the sediment

would be transported into the open waters of the Great Lakes

where cleanup is virtually impossible. So the cleanup of areas of

concern has been extremely slow and additional resources are

needed. As you know, I sponsored the Great Lakes Legacy Act,

which you helped work on some years ago. It is now in effect. It

was enacted in 2002. I want to thank you and Administrator

Leavitt for the 2004 request of $45 million for the Legacy Act. I

really appreciate that. It is certainly an increase from last year’s

level of $15 million. You have, therefore, demonstrated your responsiveness to this great need.

Now, we all know this is going to be a very tight budget year,

particularly for this domestic discretionary spending. As the Congress and Administration look forward to the budget appropriations

process and as decisions are made about programs and priorities,

will full funding for the Legacy Act remain a top priority for you

and the Administration? I might add this is a good deal, because

35 percent of the money comes from non-Federal agencies, and so

you get a lot of extra money for the buck.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, thank you for the kind words and

the question. I remember at a hearing about two years ago or a

year ago where you specifically asked the EPA to take back the

message that you wanted the 2005 budget request to be for full

funding, or at least more than $15 million. We feel very proud of

that increased funding and recognize that the needs are enormous

in terms of the areas of concern and other aspects that challenge

the Great Lakes.

Carrying out that $45 million, getting to real work towards

whether it is four to six actual cleanup projects, continuing on, and
27

making more progress, it will continue to be a high priority of the

Administration. Administrator Leavitt is extremely focused on the

Great Lakes, knowing the Legacy Act and the course it lays out,

and also the challenges ranging from sediment to invasive species

and the need to collaborate among the various agencies and organizations in the Great Lakes. So Great Lakes restoration and cleanup

will continue to be a high priority.

Mr. EHLERS. I appreciate your willingness to put that on the

record. Let me ask a follow up. Assuming the final budget for the

Legacy Act is full or close to the full funding of $50 million, how

will the EPA determine the areas of concern which will receive

funding assistance for cleanup? What is the process going to be and

how will you set the priorities?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Two things. One is to say that I would like to

talk to Tom Skinner, the director of the Great Lakes National Program Office, about that issue because he is very engaged and involved in a strategy towards making more progress. The second

thing is that I personally don’t know how that is going to play out.

I know that we’re going to take a serious look at the sites that pose

the most significant risk and follow through. I think there is a lot

of good descriptive and directive language in the statute that this

committee worked on about priorities and how to move forward.

We look forward to working with you and the committee and others

on that.

Mr. EHLERS. Could you just provide for the record a letter indicating your current thinking on what process you will use?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Certainly. We would be pleased to do that.

Mr. EHLERS. I appreciate that.

[The information received follows:]
28
29

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Is my time expired?

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes. In fact, it is a minute over. I’m sorry. I’ll come

back to you in just a second.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. I’m supposed to go now to Mr. Blumenauer.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. General

Flowers, I have been impressed with the work that your people

have been doing across the country in terms of trying to deal with

the issue of transformation of the Corps in terms of how it does

business and how it relates to the community and how the community relates to the Corps. I am still trying to piece through exactly

what this budget means. I suspect, from what I heard from my colleagues and my own research, that there may be some modest attempts at adjustment. One of the things I’m concerned about is

that what we come out with at the other end provides the resources

to make sure that the ground work can be done, particularly in

areas of environmental restoration. It’s going to solve these problems in the long run. I would hope that as we go along that we

could have a dialogue with the Department, with the Corps to

make sure that we are hitting those very high standards you articulated two years ago, I think, that I personally made a commitment to try to work with you to make sure the Corps had the resources and the backing from Congress to do. Feedback as we go

along would be useful as we are involved with an interactive process.

I share some of the deep concerns that have been articulated already in the committee about the priorities that this budget reflects. It seems to me that in the total scheme of things we have

lots of money for things that are much lower priority, including giving more tax relief to people who need it least and cutting off at

the pockets some communities that may not appear to be high

value but have relied upon the services that come through this

budget for years. It will cost jobs. It will cause disruption. And

there are communities that have few resources.

We have perennial issues in the Pacific northwest with the comprehensive view of how we are going to provide dredging services

for the various ports that rely upon it, and I just want to note that

this is one area that we are going to be focusing heavily on in the

northwest and it has nothing to do with a lack of concern about reform. I think there are many things in this budget that are very

positive. I mean, there are some projects here that, frankly, have

never received careful Congressional scrutiny. They wouldn’t pass

tests today. The Yazoo pumps—there are a whole range of things

that are expensive, of questionable environmental value and don’t

measure up in terms of the priorities. But I do think that we’ve got

to work together with this committee, with the Administration,

with the Corps so that we can do this in a thoughtful fashion.

I am in sympathy with much of what you are trying to do with

beach nourishment, but here again it is a 180-degree turn with

some communities that are going to be left scrambling. I hope that

Congress does its part by no longer dropping projects out of the sky

that haven’t been vetted by this community that are making a Federal commitment that is hundreds of millions of dollars. So I admit
30

that I am pleased that the Administration has zeroed in on some

of these and zeroed them out. I think there are great questions

about some of the efficacy of beach nourishment, who it benefits,

and how the long-term costs should be managed. But I am hopeful

that what this does is that we have a process so that it isn’t a political pinball machine that veers from one end to the other, that you

vigorously resist projects dropping in out of the sky, that we have

a long-term funding mechanism that makes sense, that we have

higher environmental standards, that we protect the opportunities

to really give a big picture in terms of the costs and benefits and

come up with something that makes sense over time.

So I am two-thirds sympathetic to what the Administration has

done, and every chance I get, particularly when it has been areas

that are a little controversial, to say the least, I have been trying

to give the benefit of a doubt, but we’ve got to work this out—the

political process, the environmental work, and an overall conceptual framework that will allow it to be successful.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy and I appreciate what

you and Mr. Costello have done to try and provide the framework

for what is going on here, what you did with WRDA for a bipartisan effort, but these are things here that I think we can be fiscally

conservative while we can invest in communities, and that we can

give the certainty that people need to see that the Corps doesn’t

get caught in the middle.

I will conclude by just saying that in one of the areas that people

criticize the Corps—as I have seen, there have been problems in

the past, but oftentimes it is where Congress hasn’t done its job or

where Congress is trying to get ahead of the process, trying to

jump things ahead of line, not have it authorized, not have it vetted. And with your leadership and working with these folks, I think

we can take what is in this budget and make something that is

constructive for the environment, for the taxpayers, and for the

communities who want to serve.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Blumenauer, for

your kind comments. You’ve made many, many good points.

Dr. Boozman?

Mr. BOOZMAN. I want to thank you all for being here. I have had

the opportunity of working very closely with the Corps on a number of issues, and I want to thank you. I’ve always found that you

all have been very professional, very helpful and also the EPA. We

had a difficult situation between Arkansas and Oklahoma concerning a river issue, and the EPA was very useful in mediating that

and really did a tremendous job.

I have got a question for Secretary Woodley and General Flowers. Being on the Transportation Committee—in fact, I just got out

of a meeting where we were discussing reauthorization of the highway bill. One of our concerns has been the fact that we have so

much congestion. It is estimated that by 2020 the truck traffic will

increase by 60 percent in Arkansas. One of the things that we have

been trying to do is go from a nine-foot channel to a twelve-foot

channel on the Arkansas River. With this change you can carry 40

percent more product on a barge, and as a result, this help take

congestion off the highways. We are concerned about helping our

manufacturers, and this also is a way to lessen the cost of the ex-
31

pense of the transportation and help make our industries more

competitive. We have been working on that, as you all know. One

of the hangups has been the study. There is a study that has been

going on for quite a while and lots of money has been spent, but

the study doesn’t seem to be reaching any conclusion. I would like

for you all, to give it the study your attention to see if we can move

that forward as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. Pascrell is next, and then we’ll go to Mr. Bishop, who has

to leave.

Mr. PASCRELL. I want to support the words of the Chair and the

ranking member and other members of this committee. This budget

that the Secretary and the General and others are here to defend

is indefensible. It is indefensible for many reasons. This Administration has stood back from helping States and localities in dire

need over the past three years. State after State has indicated a

very, very dire economic scene. Who helps the States and who

helps the localities when they are in trouble? Why don’t we ask

this question. Who helps the Federal Government? These things

are all connected, and the folks out there are connecting the dots.

Of the $7 trillion debt that we’ve accumulated over the past three

years, 21 percent is owned by foreign countries, approximately $1.5

trillion, so no one is kidding anybody about this budget. We know

how we got here. We’re not going to get into that today because you

are here as messengers. But I respect the Corps, and ever since I

have been here since 1997 I have always stood in support, as everyone else on this panel has for the most part, in support of what

the good men and women of the Corps do. I mean that sincerely.

The record will show that.

This is serious business. What the Corps did in New Jersey was

to come and look at a small river, the Peckman River. It flows

through four or five towns. Nobody ever looked at it really. Twentyfive years ago they did, maybe. But because the Corps had the

courage to come back and looked at that river and looked at the

flood maps for that river, New Jersey discovered something—that

all of its flood maps were inadequate. Therefore, development decisions had been based upon maps that were outdated. Thanks to the

Corps, we woke the bureaucrats up who stay there from one Administration to the next Administration. It doesn’t matter. Immaterial. So we have to formulate new flood maps.

In terms of the Peckman River—because this is what precipitated this—the Corps looked at and started the study. We got

some money. The State of New Jersey put in some money. Lo and

behold, it came to an agreement with the State of New Jersey for

a $4.6 million project, half by the Corps, half by the State of New

Jersey, and now you’re telling me you’re going to stop that study?

That does not make sense. Tell that to the family who lost some

dear member three or four years ago in that great, great storm.

Tell that to the residents along the Peckman River who lost their

homes, had to rebuild.

So, Mr. Secretary, you tell me that you are going to look at priority missions, focus on high return of investments, performance

based budgeting. I know that you are trying your best to deal with
32

what you have. Well, if you are cutting out all of these projects—

in fact, I was shocked this morning when I came and found another

dagger, because in the blue book of your projects you reduced the

study money for the Peckman River—and I’m just using this as an

example. We’ve got several examples. That will mean that that

study would be completed in 18 years rather than in three or four

years if we took that approach. You tell that to the folks along the

Peckman River.

But today I arrived and looked at your chart of projects and

you’ve zeroed it out altogether. So your blue book says one thing,

this says another. Again, just an example.

I think this committee does not accept your mathematics, the

mathematics of the Administration. We are going to fight this. I

think it makes no sense. This is part of the greatest job stimulus

that the country could have, including, as the good doctor just mentioned, transportation. You can’t be a part of this. You can’t partner what those above you are telling you to tell us here. It doesn’t

fly. It will not stand up to scrutiny. This is not pork. These are

projects that are needed to save people’s lives and protect those

lives.

In the debt that we have accumulated, the countries that we

owe, whether it is Japan or Hong Kong, wherever, that debt is

going to help them improve their infrastructures. I’m worried about

our infrastructures. I am worried about our environment in this

country. So this is not a pleasant subcommittee meeting today as

far as I am concerned. And I’m the eternal optimist and very cheerful. This is an insult to our intelligence and it is indefensible.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Pascrell, thank you very much.

Mr. Bishop?

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just say at the outset that I find the budgets that we are

looking at today to be deeply disturbing. I think taken in the aggregate the budget for both the Army Corps and the EPA are budgets

that sacrifice the long-term health of our environment and sacrifice

our ability to protect our coastal communities, and they do so for

what I think amount to insignificant reductions in the deficit. Secretary Woodley has described these budgets as budgets that reflect

the priorities and the choices that a Nation at war needs to make.

That may be so, but I would have an easier time accepting that as

a justification or as a rationale if this budget, the fiscal year 2005

budget that the President has given us, included money to prosecute the war. We know that the budget does not include money

to continue our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan after September

30th. So I think that this reflects perhaps other priorities and other

constraints, as well, and we’ve heard them talked about earlier

today.

One more comment and then a couple of questions. I represent

a coastal community. One of the focal points of that coastal community is the Montauk Point Lighthouse commissioned by President

Washington. I am concerned that the very good work that the

Corps has done to protect that lighthouse could be lost through an

administrative glitch related to the cost sharing arrangements for

this project, and I just want to urge you to do everything that you
33

possibly can to see to it that the Montauk Lighthouse project is

quickly completed. I would hope that you would be able to carry

that forward.

With respect to other issues that affect the communities that I

represent, I am very concerned about the Fire Island to Montauk

Point reformulation study. That is a study that has been going on

now for several years at the cost of some $23 million. It is a study

that is slated to be completed in December of 2004. It requires $1.7

million to complete, and it has been zeroed out in the current budget or the budget proposal. This is a study that will protect $1.5 billion a year of economic activity and almost $3 billion of property

value.

What do I tell the residents of my coastal communities? How do

I explain to them the logic of this judgment that this seems to be—

pardon the pedestrian nature of this analogy, but it seems to be the

equivalent of a marathon runner pulling out of a race about 500

yards from the finish line. So how would I explain this?

Mr. WOODLEY. I’m sorry. Is that your question?

Mr. BISHOP. It was a question, yes.

Mr. WOODLEY. I would have to get back to you on that. I have

an indication in my material that we are funding the project, so I

have to check on my information. Right now I apparently don’t

have good information for you. May I do that and check back?

Mr. BISHOP. Please do, but just know that there is not funding

in the budget for that project.

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you, sir. I do appreciate that and I will

look into that and get back to you.

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. It is an important project.

[The information follows:]
34
35

Mr. BISHOP. Lest the EPA feel neglected, the other project that

is of great importance to our District is Long Island Sound. The

Long Island Sound restoration project has never been funded at

anything approaching the $40 million authorized by the Congress,

but this budget cuts funding by 80 percent, cuts it from $2.3 million to $477,000. I would be interested in knowing what the logic

or the rationale for that cut is.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, I understand your position on

that. I know that over several years the Administration—and I believe the previous Administration—would provide a funding level of

about a million or less than that, and then there would be discussions and coordination. The appropriators and authorizers would be

involved, and there would be a funding amount that would be a

couple million dollars.

I can tell you that as part of the overall context of EPA’s request

for the water programs, we are putting a lot of emphasis on coastal

estuaries. We’ve got a targeted—a new grants program that is for

State and tribal performance grants, a $23 million program. The

criteria are being worked out for that, but that is one area where

nonpoint source pollution, estuary, coastal challenges, nutrient

loadings could be addressed.

I can tell you personally that as we move forward with the water

quality trading initiative, we are very much aware of the success

that can be attained in the Long Island Sound, saving $200 million

or more on infrastructure costs by having smarter, more collaborative approaches under the Clean Water Act to help reduce the

cost of sewage treatment plants, to help reduce the loadings, the

nutrient loadings, and we are going to continue to put a priority

on that.

Our region one and region two offices devote FTEs and a lot of

effort towards the Long Island Sound, and I just want you to know

that Long Island Sound is an important part of the EPA program,

the budget, and we look forward to working with you and other authorizers and appropriators on the overall water budget, including

the Long Island Sound Program.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.

Professor Ehlers?

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question about some Corps decisions, and either General

Flowers or Secretary Woodley can respond. This is not the classic

case that you hear all the time that I’m angry because you stopped

a project in my District. This is not in my District. It’s not even

that close to my District, but extremely important to the area and,

frankly, to the Nation.

We’ve all heard the old saw that an ounce of prevention is worth

a pound of cure. I would maintain that’s outdated. Today an ounce

of prevention is worth several tons of cure. The 16-to–1 ratio is no

longer valid. What I’m referring to is the Asian carp coming up the

Mississippi and its tributaries and threatening to get into the

Great Lakes ecosystem. If that gets in, the cost will not be small.

I would estimate it would be billions of dollars of damage to the

Great Lakes ecosystem, to its fisheries, to its use. It would be an

unmitigated environmental and financial disaster.
36

In reviewing your list, I see that putting up the second barrier

has been cut from it, and that one barrier you have now is a very

thin line of defense. I would actually prefer to see three barriers,

but just to avoid the incredible cost we are faced with if the carp

get into the Great Lakes.

What is the reason for not building it, aside from lack of money?

I mean, how did it get lower on the priority list to the point where

it could be cut? I think that’s a very, very bad decision.

While I’m at it, let me ask a second question. If you are wondering which project it is, it is on here as the Chicago Sanitary Ship

Channel dispersal barrier. I assume that’s the project. But the second question is: would it be better, instead of continuing these barriers which have to be maintained all the time, would it be better

perhaps to simply cut off the direct route between Lake Michigan

and the river and instead provide some sort of pumping mechanism

to get the water they need to flow down there, to make sure that

no fish, or any organisms, for that matter, could come up from the

Mississippi into the Great Lakes. So a double-pronged question.

Mr. WOODLEY. Mr. Ehlers, I have been to Chicago, discussed this

issue and this problem with our staff there. They are not in doubt

about the significance and seriousness of it, and neither am I. As

far as what our program is and how we are funding the necessary

work the make sure that we have a robust barrier, I will have to

get back to you on that, sir, because I have the same question you

have as I sit here today.

[The information follows:]
37
38

Mr. WOODLEY. I certainly agree with you that the study needs

to be made to address that question of making a total interruption

in that, there are two great issues I deal with in natural resources.

One is the issue of invasive species and the other is the issue of

endangered species. It seems that I am indifferent to almost no

species. I’m either trying to spend everything I can to eradicate

them or trying to spend everything I can to foster the preservation

of each individual of the species. But there’s no question in this

case that that Asian carp in the Great Lakes would be a problem.

To expand it and allow it into the Great Lakes is not acceptable,

and that is—our people on the ground are not in doubt about that

and share your urgency. I will have to let you know what the program is now, because I am concerned that the documents before

you do not reflect that urgency.

Mr. EHLERS. I would appreciate that very much. And I’d just say

if the Asian carp ever get in, your head is going to be on the platter

as far as everyone in the Great Lakes is concerned. That’s not a

threat. It’s just a statement of how great the disaster would be.

There would be huge questions raised. So I urge you to deal with

that, and I’m willing to help in any way I can. I’m sure I can organize the entire delegation of the States around the Great Lakes to

assist you in any way we can.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, could I just——

Mr. EHLERS. Quickly.

Mr. GRUMBLES. I just want to add about the statement about

head on a platter. EPA has been increasing its activities with respect to Asian carp and other invasive species. We’ve worked in collaboration with the Corps, provided some additional funding. Our

Office of Research and Development would be providing in the

President’s budget funding for research for invasive species in the

Great Lakes, including Asian carp. We also understand the importance of barriers and preventing the spread of invasive species.

Mr. EHLERS. And let me just mention that on this score I’ve introduced a bill to try to prevent aquatic invasive species from getting into the country in the first place, which is the cheapest thing

to do. That bill has passed the Science Committee and is under

consideration in this particular subcommittee. I hope we can get

that in action soon and help out both of you with your problems.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Diaz-Balart?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want

to thank both Mr. Woodley and General Flowers. I can have some

disagreements on specific budget issues, but I think there is no disagreement of your commitment, for example, to the Everglades restoration project, which is key to the country. I also want to commend you about what I’ve heard today about your process of going

towards performance based budgeting and towards accountability,

which is so essential, whether it is for the Army Corps or whether

it is for EPA or any other agency, and I look forward to continuing

to see how you progress there, and I think that’s one of the most

important things that we can do is make sure that the money that

we do receive, that agencies like yours receive, go to where it is

supposed to go, and to issues that perform, not just say that they’re

good.
39

But I have a more specific question, and I don’t expect you right

now to have the specific answers, but if I may, last year in the

2003 omnibus appropriations bill there was a part that dealt with

Everglades restoration specifically. I was able to put an amendment in there dealing with the 8.5 square mile area in the Everglades restoration project. A group of my constituents are currently

being relocated to accommodate what is known as Alternative

Sakes D. I know you are well aware of that, because it has been

an issues for many, many years.

Some have raised, however, concerns that the legislation passed

is not being followed by the Corps of Engineers. Some contend that

residents are being relocated within the unprotected area and that

others are being burdened by unfair property assessments and

other such issues, so what I would like from you gentlemen is if

you can get back to me as to making sure that that amendment

is being followed to the T, making sure that the residents in that

area who have been extremely cooperative are being treated according to the law, and if you could get back to me I would be very

appreciative.

General FLOWERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The information follows:]
40
41

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you.

Mr. Baird and then Mr. Costello, and I will conclude with this

panel.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the chairman and I thank the panel for their

good work on behalf of our citizens. Your agencies do hard work on

difficult subjects.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Ehlers on

invasive species. They are devastating, and should the zebra mussel, for example, get to the west coast and invade the Columbia

River system, we’d have technical assistance nightmare on our

hands.

I also want to thank the Corps for its work on permit streamlining. You’ve made progress. We have a ways to go, but I appreciate

that regional help on that.

Let me talk to you if I may about a couple of local issues, and

then raise a broader question. I looked through the list of proposed

studies that may be canceled or suspended, and I see possible suspension of the Columbia River Channel improvement project, I see

apparently suspension of the flood control project in Centralia,

Washington, and on both of these projects these are projects that

actually have a positive cost/benefit ratio to the consumers. I’m also

concerned about a potential shortfall in the O&M budget for the

Columbia River this year. If we have these major ships running

aground in the Columbia River, that’s going to have substantial

cost.

Finally, if I may, just two other issues. One, I’m concerned about

the reduction of small harbor maintenance funds. We have a number of small harbors which are the primary ports through which

our fishermen bring in their catch. These are usually areas—and

I’m sure this is true in much of the country—with high unemployment. Oftentimes the fish processor and the fishermen are the only

major employers in the area, and they don’t have the local resources to maintain these harbors. If we lose the Corps help, we

lose the last remaining economic activity in these areas, and that

seems shortsighted.

Finally, one other parochial issue is we are going to be discussing

the issue of summer spill levels on the Columbia River, and I hope

the Corps will be supportive of cost beneficial ways to protect the

salmon, but at the same time preserve the ratepayers’ benefits in

this region.

With those local issues on the ground, let me ask a question

about the process that led to this. I am not in any way a fan of

the model that we pat ourselves on the back and throw money at

problems and then walk away and say, ‘‘Look how much we spent;

therefore, we saved things.’’ But it is equally false to say that we

cut money and therefore solved the problem. What is a cost benefit

ratio study in terms of how much is it going to cost our local communities if we cut, in the name of short-term savings, the budget

for harbor maintenance, flood control, etc.? Was that done on these

projects, or did we just say we’re arbitrarily going to set some level

of financing, you have to cut projects until you hit that level, and

to heck with the cost to the local communities? Secretary Woodley,

could you address that?
42

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. I believe that we have tried to minimize

arbitrariness in the way that we have set these priorities, but I

think that you have to say that our analytical capabilities are not

absolutely able to do the kind of ranking within and across categories that would be necessary for us to be able to satisfy all of

your concerns.

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate it, and I know there are some constraints

and it is a long list, and you would be here all day if we all just

picked project after project. But process-wise, when the Administration comes and says, ‘‘We want you to cut this much money,’’ do

you say back to them, ‘‘Please be aware, Mr. President or Mr.

Bolten, that if you cut this, this highway could flood again; and if

it floods again it costs $40 million a day. It was closed six days over

the last decade, that’s $240 million of cost that we could save if we

spend a few million dollars now up front’’? Do you say that to

them?

Mr. WOODLEY. I would say typically yes, we would be having exactly that kind of discussion with the people that are building the

priorities in the budget, it is not uncommon that we are able in the

course of that to bring those concerns to the forefront and to have

them addressed and to have changes made and adjustments made

within our program and across other programs. We’ve tried to do

that, sir.

Mr. BAIRD. We appreciate your doing that. I know it is tough. I

guess I would just close with this. One of my frustrations with this

Administration—and there are many—is that the Administration

likes to pretend to the American people that they are the stalwart

protectors of the public dollars. Well, each and every one of us

cares deeply about our taxpayers’ dollars and that expenditures be

wise. But it is disingenuous and misleading to tell the people the

Administration is somehow trying to save the people money and

only that pesky Congress won’t let them make the cuts. The reason

we stand up for funding for our local communities is when I see

a small harbor maintenance fund cut I see the fishermen and the

processors lose their jobs. When I see a flood control project cut, I

see commerce on the main arterial of the north/south I–5 corridor

come to a dead stop at $40 million a day expenditure. When I see

cuts to the Columbia River channel deepening or the O&M budget,

I see my workers at my ports that already in a region have 8 percent unemployment stymied, and I see shipping companies possibly

going north to Vancouver Canada instead of to America’s Vancouver U.S.A., and that’s why we stand up for this spending. And

it is deceptive to say to the American people that we are going to

save you money in the short run, but in the long run you suffer

the cost, but that’s what this Administration does. And you’re

caught in the middle, and I’m sorry for that, but we respect the

work you do. And I personally am not at all ashamed to say that

these projects that are on this list that are going to be cut are actually worthwhile projects, and the cuts will cost us in the long run,

and they are a grave mistake.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Baird. I’m sorry we

couldn’t get to you sooner.
43

Administrator Grumbles, would you just tell us for the record a

little about the Clean Water SRF Program and some of the things

that have been done under that with that funding and what you

think of that program and the work that has been done?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to. It is a

true success story that the Congress and the Administration have

worked on over the years, and it is one that gives States flexibility

to target their resources through Federal seed money, the grants

from the EPA, to establish and operate these State revolving funds,

which actually do revolve and then provide loans to communities.

One of the things EPA has been striving towards is to increase

the flexibility in terms of the eligibility so that States can target

those funds, not just oppressing infrastructure needs, concrete infrastructure, but also to nonpoint source pollution. I think one of

the sometimes untold stories is how the State revolving funds have

evolved, I think EPA and the States are also evolving and broadening the uses of the State revolving funds to meet nonpoint source,

to meet a variety of other water quality challenges. There is no

doubt it is a smart investment. When we propose $850 million a

year through 2011, the signal we are sending is that we are committed to the State revolving funds and to keeping that and making sure that it revolves at a sustainable level for the States.

Mr. DUNCAN. You have described it as a success, as a great success, and as a smart program. I’m sure that it is a very popular

program with the States and with the people in your field at the

State level, and yet last year and again this year the budget recommended a $500 million reduction in that program. You have

been very complimentary of the budget and have supported it in,

I think every way that you possibly could. Did you or anybody in

your office recommend that type of cut from the roughly $1.35 billion that was appropriated last year to the 850?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Mr. Chairman, what we have done is, in collaboration with OMB, we have reached an understanding over a year

ago that the most important thing was to continue to provide funding. I mean, we all recognize that the statute has not been

reathorized and that technically the State revolving fund program

expired, but the Congressional, the public support, and the success

stories indicate that it should be continued.

What we’ve worked out with the OMB and the Administration

was that we commit to a substantial investment and commit to a

long timeframe to show that it is here to stay, at least through

2011, so that we can reach a sustainable funding level.

I recognize that there are aspects of the budget request that particularly folks in this room feel as though it could have been more.

We believe that that funding level coupled with the increase in the

grants to the States that we are providing, $20 million increase so

that it is $222 million, coupled with additional programs like the

targeted watershed grants program, coupled with additional funding for meeting permitting needs, plus the monitoring initiative, in

totality what that adds up to is a variety of tools for the States who

really do carry the tool boxes to meet the water quality requirements and the goals of the Clean Water Act. We can rely on not

just the SRF, but on targeted grants programs and smarter regulatory decision making.
44

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.

Administrator Horinko, in the past, the Superfund has been

roundly criticized for spending such a high percentage and so much

of its funding on studies, on lawyers, on administrative and bureaucratic costs, and a very low percentage on the actual cleanup

work that people want done. Now the Brownfields Program has received some of those same criticisms. I’m told that the Brownfields

Program now has 154 full time equivalent employees for the $210

million in that program, which comes out to, I think, $1.4 million

per FTE. Would you tell us what you are doing to try to bring down

those administrative or paperwork or bureaucratic type costs?

Ms. HORINKO. A couple things, Mr. Chairman. First of all, we actually at the moment only have 123 FTE on the ground in the

brownfields program. Although we certainly support the President’s

request, we want to make sure we have enough people to manage

all those contract dollars responsibly. But I share your concern that

we keep management costs to the minimum needed to manage our

dollars responsibly, so in both Superfund and brownfields we are

taking a look at how our dollars are deployed around the agency

to make sure that we’ve got the appropriate mix of skills and level

of skills to manage our dollars. We are conducting an internal review, and also Congress has requested that our Inspector General

do an external audit.

Secondly, the President has, of course, requested $150 million

purely in external dollars. Those are monies targeted directly to

cleanup. No overhead will be spent from that $150 million. We feel

it is important to shore up that part of the program directed at construction.

Mr. DUNCAN. The fiscal year 2004 consolidated appropriations

bill required our director of the EPA to conduct an audit of Superfund expenditures and to try to direct money away from the administrative costs and management costs more toward cleanup, the

very thing I was just talking about. Where do you stand in regard

to that audit? Has that audit been started yet?

Ms. HORINKO. I am not aware that that has commenced, but I

will look into it with our Inspector General’s office and see where

they stand. We, as you know, just got the budget and are putting

our operating plan together right now, so if it has not commenced,

I expect it to commence within weeks.

[The information follows:]

In response to Chairman Duncan’s question concerning the status of a Superfund program budget audit required by the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Bill, the EPA Inspector General’s Office met with management and

staff of the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation

(OSRTI) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 to discuss scope and process issues associated with the start of the Inspector General’s audit of the Superfund program budget.

Mr. DUNCAN. That, of course, was contained in the appropriations bill, and it certainly is something that I think needs to be

done.

Mr. Costello has asked me to interrupt my questions at this

point and go back. Mr. Baird has one question that he needs to ask

at this point.

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate that.

Mr. DUNCAN. That’s all right.
45

Mr. BAIRD. That’s very gracious, Mr. Chairman. I’m really asking

a question that I think will be on the minds of many of us, frankly.

Many of my local communities have already invested quite a bit

of money into these projects as joint projects shared between Corps

and local communities and the State legislature—the flood control

project I alluded to earlier. If the Corps pulls out, what do we tell

our local communities in terms of the sunk costs that they already

have into these projects? Do the projects just stop, and is that

money therefore essentially wasted? And who do we tell them is responsible for that decision?

Mr. WOODLEY. I think, Mr. Baird, we will make every effort in

every case to ensure that for projects that are in the categories you

described, the waste, if any, is minimized if we have to stretch out

schedules. It is not uncommon in times like we have now that

projects are stretched out and time frames have to slip. It is not

something I’m happy about, by any means, but I know that the

Corps and the district engineers across the Nation will do everything possible and work with you and your staff and all the members of the committee and every other member to ensure that the

work that we have on this cost share is brought to a productive

conclusion, if not this year then as soon as possible.

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate your commitment, Mr. Secretary. I guess

the only question I would ask is I look at the list, it says ‘‘suspended or canceled.’’ If it is canceled, then it seems to me that the

Corps is walking away from it, and if that is the case, then aren’t

the communities kind of left holding the bag, having spent in literal cases millions of dollars on studies, etc., anticipating in a good

faith agreement, and isn’t that good faith agreement being

breached by the Executive Branch?

Mr. WOODLEY. In any case in which that happens it is extremely

unfortunate, and we will do our best to manage that in ways that

make sure that we are not wasting people’s funds. There’s no question that there are things that expectations have arisen over time,

that we are suggesting in the course of this budget that our resources do not extend to in fiscal year 2005.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the Chair. You have a tough job telling us

this. We have a sometimes more difficult job trying to explain it to

our constituents.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Baird.

Chairman McCullough, you know this is my 16th year in the

Congress, and almost from my first day in this job I started raising

questions about the tremendous debt that TVA had incurred and

was incurring. As you note in your statement, it later reached a

point where you were spending $0.34 of every dollar on servicing

that debt. I have always been horrified by huge debt. I applaud

your efforts in bringing down that debt and the efforts that you’ve

made to the $0.19 and so forth.

You know that I’ve said publicly that I think you are one of the

finest, if not the finest, Chairmen TVA has ever had, and I’ve

praised you in many ways. But I am concerned about a couple of

things, and one of them is that just two days ago, in spite of my

concerns about the debt, I read in the ‘‘Knoxville News Sentinel’’

something I had never heard of before, and that was that TVA was

out-sourcing some jobs to India.
46

I’m going to tell you I don’t know what the details are on that,

but surely you’re not doing that. Tell me you are not doing that.

And if you are, I hope you will look for every way to stop that and

get that work back into this country. I mean, here we are, you

know, you’re laying off some people or talking about layoffs, and I

can’t believe we’re sending work to India or China or any place

else.

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know the specifics of

any potential contract with India. I do know that in our information systems organization there had been some discussion about

the possibility of some cost savings that could be achieved. What

I’d like to do with your consent is look into the details of this and

report back to you promptly——

Mr. DUNCAN. All right.

Mr. MCCULLOUGH.—because it is a specific situation that I don’t

know if any offshore contract has been consummated, but I will

look into it and I will report back to you.

Mr. DUNCAN. I believe you are a good man and I don’t believe

that you would be in favor of things like that, but if that is going

on, directly or indirectly, through any type of contract or anything

else, then I think that you and I should work together to do everything possible to stop that. There’s other ways to save money than

to lay off American workers and send work to India or China or

any other foreign country, and so I really want to know if that’s

going on, not just to India but to any country. The story mentioned

India.

Secondly, you and I have had discussions before, but you know

we have a respectful disagreement about these bonuses. Now,

you’ve given bonuses in the past, some of them—you call it different things, bonuses, deferred compensation, retirement plans,

and everything else. Some of them have gone up to a million or

over a million dollars.

Now, I will say once again I don’t believe anybody who works for

a Federal agency of this government should make more than the

President of the United States, and I don’t believe that you have

to pay excessive bonuses and salaries, even in the nuclear program,

to people to get them to come to the Tennessee Valley because

every article, ‘‘Fortune Magazine’’ said the Knoxville metropolitan

area was the most popular place to move to in the whole country,

based on the number moving in in relation to the fewest moving

out.

It said Las Vegas and a lot of other cities had a lot more people

moving in, but they had large numbers leaving. But we have large

numbers moving in and almost nobody leaving. People want to live

there. They’ll come there for good salaries without paying million

dollar bonuses to people, and especially at a time—you know, you

held the rates down for years, and I applaud that, but then you

came down with raising the rates three months ago and then the

bonuses. This year it was $7.8 million to 138 employees. It has

been more than that at times in the past. The chief operating officer got his $130,000 salary enhanced with bonuses that add up to

a little over $1.4 million. Anyway, you know how I feel about that,

so I won’t go into that further.
47

But now let me ask you this: I understand there’s a proposal in

the President’s budget to appropriate money out of the Tennessee

Valley fund. Is that correct? And do you agree that that violates

the TVA Act?

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. We have worked with our Inspector General

and the Board is willing certainly to sit down with Mr. Moore and

provide an adequate budget to meet the needs of his office. We’ve

done that this year. We’ve offered to do that going forward. The

Board’s position is that power revenues should be used to fulfill the

mission of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and we don’t ask for

any appropriated dollars from the Congress, and so we prefer to

work with our Inspector General in a way that we always have to

ensure his independence and the independence of that office, and

we believe we can reconcile any budgetary needs that are reasonable. That’s how we’d like to approach that issue.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, in spite of my great concern about those two

points I raised, I do say again I think you have done and are doing

a great job, and I appreciate that very much.

I have to move very quickly. I’ve got just two or three other questions, and then we’ll get to Mr. Costello, and we’ve got a second

panel to go to.

General Flowers, the budget proposes 492 ongoing Corps of Engineers projects and studies that would be shut down. I mentioned

that in my opening statement. That’s 41 construction projects that

would be canceled, 10 beach nourishment projects would be terminated, engineering and design work at 69 projects would be suspended, 131 feasibility studies would be suspended, 60 reconnaissance studies would be suspended, and 181 contract projects would

be suspended.

Now, did those recommendations come from your technical and

scientific people at the Corps?

General FLOWERS. No, sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. have you ever seen anything of this or heard anything of this magnitude being contemplated to stop or cancel 492

ongoing projects in the history of the Corps?

General FLOWERS. Sir, we’ve, as I know you are aware, have

been working our way through fiscal year 2004——

Mr. DUNCAN. Right.

General FLOWERS.—trying to make what funds we have been

given stretched to meet the needs. It is very difficult. We tried to

look back in our history for some times that were similar, and we

had to go back too long before any of us were in the organization

to find those. So no, we’ve not seen anything like this before.

Mr. DUNCAN. What was the reaction within the top staffers at

the Corps when they looked over this list of these 492 cancellations?

General FLOWERS. Sir, it hurts. There are, as have been acknowledged by many of the Members, several great projects there and

studies that the Corps would love to do and participate in. Given

the amount of funds that are available, some very, very tough calls

had to be made.

Mr. DUNCAN. Secretary Woodley, let me get specific. You heard

me mention to some extent the Chickamauga Lock project, and a

few people in here have heard me tell this story before, but several
48

years ago I received a call from a very prominent, successful businessman in Knoxville on Thursday who asked me to have lunch

with him and talk about the Chickamauga Lock. I said, ‘‘Well, I

happen to be flying back to Washington at 1:50 on Monday.’’ I don’t

know why I remember the time, but I do, on that particular day.

So I show up at this restaurant near the airport thinking I’m going

to have lunch with one or two people about this project. There were

over 100 businessmen there. I didn’t get to eat, which I should skip

lunch a little more often than I do, but I had to sit there and listen

to, just on the spur of the moment, over 100 people, just one right

after another, stand up—maybe not all 100 of them spoke, but a

great many of them got up and did one-and two-minute presentations about how much that would affect east Tennessee.

You’re talking about hundreds of more tractor trailer trucks

being put on an already heavily traveled interstate between Chattanooga and Knoxville if you have to shut that lock down. We’ve

already spent $10.4 million, is that right, $10.4 million. Everybody

who has been there—have you been down there to see that lock?

Have you walked out there along that lock?

Mr. WOODLEY. Not yet, sir. No, I have not.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I want you to do me a favor. I want you to

go down there and see that and see how some of that has crumbled. One staffer mentioned to me about how you can walk along

it and actually see part of the lock crumble, some of the concrete

crumble beneath your feet. And I would like you to go down there,

and then I would be very interested in you coming to see me and

tell me that that is not a justified or extremely necessary project

for the economy, for the national security of this country. I’m not

sure you could find a more necessary project in the country.

They say some of this has been done on a cost benefit analysis.

That project has a benefit-to-cost ratio—I’m so used to saying costbenefit, but a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.1-to–1, and that’s a higher

benefit-to-cost ratio than 44 flood control projects and 18 navigation projects that are funded in your budget request. So I’m going

to ask you here now on the record, will you promise me that you’ll

go down there and talk to the people there on the scene and all

the people involved in that and walk along that lock and check it

out in person?

Mr. WOODLEY. Mr. Chairman, I will promise you right now that

I will do that at my earliest opportunity.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right.

Mr. WOODLEY. And if we could schedule it together to be there,

that would be ideal.

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes. I’ll be glad to.

Mr. WOODLEY. I will tell you further that I have been consulting

with some of the able members of your staff who are here today.

I have learned a great deal about the details of that project in recent days. My strong impression is that as an Administration we

are not where we need to be in our analysis of that project and of

its benefits, and that a lot of work is necessary and needs to be

done very quickly to get us to where we need to be on that project.

I am an advocate for and a proponent of inland waterway navigation in this Nation. I believe that it contributes enormously to our

national welfare and prosperity and that it has enormous benefits
49

to our environment as a means of transporting goods and getting

goods to market and getting not only our goods to markets domestic and foreign, but also imports into the country that are needed

for our consumers on our side. So I am a proponent of that kind

of navigation, as well as the blue water projects we have been discussing, and I will be deeply involved as I go forward——

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you.

Mr. WOODLEY.—in getting our work on the Chickamauga Lock

completed to where our position vis-a-vis the committee and vis-avis your delegation can be reconciled, and to where we can proceed

with that important project.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much. As you know—most

people in here wouldn’t know—it’s not in my District. It’s in Congressman Wamp’s District. But it is very, very important not only

to him but to me, as well, and to our two Senators.

I’ve gone far over my time. Mr. Costello?

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Administrator Horinko, let me ask you about the Superfund cost

recovery program. I mentioned in my opening statement it seems

to me that in the Administration’s EPA budget projection that you

are indicating that you’ll collect about $125 million from responsible parties this year, and as I look at previous years and look at

what the Administration projected that it would collect in this year,

$175 million, it seems to me—and I won’t go through all of the details of the last several years, but it seems to me that we are

going—there is a pattern here in cost recovery from responsible

parties from about a 50 percent reduction actually cut in half in

the last five years from 231 million a year to 125 million, and I’m

wondering if you can explain why responsible parties will be paying

far less this year than in previous years.

Ms. HORINKO. Thank you, Congressman Costello. I’m looking at

my staff for the particular cost recovery numbers because, as you

know, there are two types of money that we collect from PRPs.

There’s cost recovery, where we have gone out and done the work

and then we sue them afterwards to recover costs, and then there’s

also cleanup commitments where we sign agreements with them to

either perform the work or put the money into a site-specific special account that we can then access. Cleanup commitments and

cost recovery was in each year in excess of a billion dollars annually, so we’ve had very robust enforcement numbers in Superfund,

near record-setting numbers in Superfund the last couple of years,

and we continue to have the vast majority of sites paid for by polluters. Last year was 8 percent of new projects that we started

were funded by polluters. So I will have to get with our enforcement office and give you the specific cost recovery numbers in

terms of numbers, money that we did the work and went back and

sued the polluter and the money went back into the trust fund. But

I know our overall enforcement numbers in Superfund have been

very robust the last couple of years.

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, the reason I asked the question is we have

charts that show the cost recovery here over the past several years,

and you can see even from that distance that we have gone from

a very high here of somewhere around 1999 to the lowest point projected in 2005, so I will be taking that up with you at a later date.
50

I’m interested to know why the cost recoveries are down and to

compare our numbers with you.

Ms. HORINKO. Congressman Costello, one reason why that may

be the case is two years ago I signed on a policy with my then colleague, the Assistant Administrator for the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Office, saying no site could qualify for Federal

fund, lead funding, without EPA doing a search for the responsible

parties, the polluters, and then either signing an agreement or

issuing an order to make them do the work, so we have made a

strong enforcement first policy which would then preclude the need

for us to do cost recovery. But we will get with the enforcement office and get you more analysis behind these numbers.

Mr. COSTELLO. We would appreciate that.

[The information follows:]
51
52

Mr. COSTELLO. A second question very quickly, I think you indicate in your written statement that the budget provides the necessary funds for EPA to carry out its missions effectively and efficiently, and as you know the Inspector General has said that there

are sites ready to proceed to cleanup but there’s not enough money

to proceed. I could cite other examples, but let me say that that’s

very difficult to—if I go home to the neighbors in the Jennison

Wright site just in my Congressional District, let alone all of the

other projects that have been started and then stopped—Jennison

Wright, of course, I am the most familiar with because we have

spent about $28 million on that project and then have walked away

from it. There’s only about $12 million needed I think is the projected cost by the Agency. So we’ve spent $28 million, $12 million

to go, we have walked away from it. I would be hard-pressed to go

home and tell the people in the Granite City area of my District

that you have testified or the Administration says that we have

enough money to carry the program out in an efficient and an effective manner. I’m just wondering, how do you reconcile that? How

can you say that the Agency has enough money to proceed in an

efficient manner and to address the needs when, in fact, the Inspector General says there are a number of projects ready to go,

let alone the projects that we have started but haven’t completed?

If you’ll comment, please.

Ms. HORINKO. Sure. Congressman, let me first recognize that you

have been a tireless champion for the Jennison Wright site. I have

met with you, my staff has met with you, and your staff, regional

staff, and you have really helped to advance the cause of that site

in an impressive way.

The other thing I would notice, I said that the President’s budget

would allow us to have enough money to allow us to do our job efficiently and effectively, and if we got that additional $150 million

that we requested last year and are requesting again this year, we

would be able to fully fund the 12 new starts that we were not able

to fund the last two years running, so I appreciate this committee’s

support in getting us part of the way this year in 2004. Thank you

very much. We will keep pressing again in 2005. In the meantime,

we will continue to work with you, Congressman Costello, to see if

we can try and advance the ball even further at the Jennison

Wright site.

Mr. COSTELLO. It is interesting that you use the words ‘‘advance

the ball,’’ because you and I had a conversation before this hearing

and a person who lives in the neighborhood of this site said, you

know, ‘‘I can’t understand. We went from one goal line five yards

short of the other goal line and the Federal Government walked

away from us.’’ So it is hard for us to explain to people that this

Administration is beginning to do new sites without completing the

old sites.

I will be getting together with you not only on the Jennison

Wright site, but the other sites that have been started and it would

take relatively few dollars in comparison to the other projects to

complete.

Thank you.

General Flowers, it is always good to have you before the committee. I admire your work. We’ve worked closely together. and the
53

Corps of Engineers gets kicked around a lot at the local level and

some in the Congress, but I think you all do an excellent job with

the limited resources that you have.

The chairman and I had an opportunity to visit with General

Johnson and your men and women in Iraq recently, and I want to

compliment him and you. You all are doing a superb job in carrying

out your duties in Iraq, and General Johnson gave us just a great

briefing, and I think we had a better feeling or understanding of

the magnitude of your responsibility and role in rebuilding the

country.

Let me ask quickly—the bells just went off, and I’m sure the

chairman is going to want to finish this panel. I will have questions

for other members of the panel that we will submit in writing and

ask that you respond.

Just a couple of things quickly. The inland waterway system

has—I don’t think there is any question, everyone knows that it is

vital to the economy and to our national security. I’m wondering,

by at least my count there’s at least 13 separate studies or projects

on the inland waterway system that are scheduled to be either discontinued, including some that are already under construction. I

wonder, realizing that if just one single failure occurred to this

aging system that it would cause a complete shutdown, why either

the Administration or the Corps would discontinue or stop any one

of these 13 projects.

General FLOWERS. Sir, there isn’t a good answer to your question

without basically reiterating what I said earlier. Not being able to

complete or continue some of these worthwhile projects, studies,

programs hurts. They have some tremendous benefits. But, given

the frugality of the budget, we are having to make some very, very

hard calls on what to carry forward and what not to carry forward.

As hard as that is and as much as it hurts, we’ll do the absolutely

best job we can with the resources we have been given.

Mr. COSTELLO. So I read between the lines that the bureaucrats

at OMB were very effective with their pencils in making recommendations to the Administration. I realize you can’t comment

on that, but that’s my observation.

General, I have to ask you the question because we are asked in

our Districts at home about Haliburton, and it is your responsibility, so I’m asking you the question now to explain to us the criminal investigation that apparently is going forward according to

news reports. At what point in time did your agency determine

that it was necessary to involve a criminal investigation of the subsidiary of Haliburton?

General FLOWERS. Sir, first of all, let me state that when we are

dealing in the contract environment such as the one we are dealing

with with Haliburton, we contracted—and you had asked me a

question the last time I testified on this—we had no choice, given

the nature of the mission that we had been given, the timeframe

to get it accomplished in, than to go with the contractor that was

already there and working, and that just happened to be the Kellogg Brown and Root company. When you are operating under a

cost-plus contract in that environment, every cost that’s charged to

that contract is subject to audit. There is an award fee paid to a

contractor based on their performance. Several factors go in. That
54

amount of profit that they make is based on the way they perform,

etc., and so the results of the audit and everything become very important.

The allegations that the contractor overcharged on fuel are made.

The auditors have been investigating. Prior to awarding the followon contracts for that initial contract, we had extensive contacts

with our counterparts in DCAA. We reviewed the contractor’s performance and the contracting authority, with input as we executed

the process from other agencies, made a decision to award.

Now, that decision to award was made before the announcement

of any criminal investigation of Haliburton, and so that was not anticipated at the time that contract was awarded.

Mr. COSTELLO. So we have an understanding here and I’m clear

about this, the allegations that were made that Haliburton, the

subsidiary, that they were overcharging by $61 million, those allegations came to light or were made somewhere between March and

September of 2003; is that correct?

General FLOWERS. That’s correct.

Mr. COSTELLO. And then on December 3rd there was a waiver

given to KBR exempting them from cost competitive requirements

for delivery of fuel oil. My question is: knowing that there were allegations that they overcharged by $61 million, why would you or

anyone within the agency sign a waiver exempting them from a

cost competitive practice knowing that allegations had already been

made that they overcharged by $61 million?

General FLOWERS. Sir, I knew that the allegations of overcharging were being investigated and audited, as is the case with all

charges under a contract of that nature, so a lot of that would be

ferreted out as that investigation and the audit went forward. The

decision to provide a waiver to the subcontractor for Brown and

Root, Altimea, a deliverer from Kuwait, was made based on the

fact that operationally in Iraq early in December lines at gas stations were getting much longer. The people were getting extremely

upset and there was a danger of riots and attacks on our soldiers

who were, at that point, guarding those dispensing facilities.

The contractor was very concerned about the demands for cost

and pricing data from Altimea and said, ‘‘I don’t want to go forward

and get things from Altimea if they won’t provide cost and pricing

data.’’ Well, typically contractors in Kuwait do not provide cost and

pricing data. To meet the mission, I had the authority to provide

a waiver to that company, and in order to prevent possible attacks

on American soldiers, I exercised that option.

Mr. COSTELLO. General, a final question, and then if you answer

this briefly you won’t have to come back. We’ll do our votes. Otherwise, we’ll have to come back. When you made that decision, was

that an independent decision made on your part or was it recommended by Ambassador Bremmer or anyone in the Administration?

General FLOWERS. Sir, it was absolutely my own decision. I had

my personnel come to me with the situation. They laid out my options and I made the decision.

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, general.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.
55

General Flowers, Mr. Costello just returned a couple weeks ago

from touring the Everglades project, and I did that a couple of

years ago. You know that I have great concern about the potential

cost of that. I would like for you to send us a brief updated report

telling us that there are no big cost overruns and what the current

status of all that work is, because that’s such a huge project.

[The information follows:]
56
57
58

Mr. DUNCAN. Also, we have concerns about the coastal Louisiana

project. That’s another potentially really big one, so maybe we’ll

have to get into that. Maybe you could send us an update on that,

as well.

General FLOWERS. Sure.

[The information follows:]
59
60

Mr. DUNCAN. Finally, Secretary Woodley, TVA purchases power

from the Southeast Power Administration, including power generated on Corps dams on the Cumberland River. I want you to

know that I support the President’s proposal to allow the Power

Marketing Administration to directly finance operation and maintenance of Corps of Engineers’ hydropower facilities because those

ratepayers are paying those costs and they should get something

in return.

With that, I want to thank each of you. You have been a wonderful panel. Sorry it took this long. We will be in recess for these

votes and then start with the second panel.

[Recess.]

Mr. PEARCE [ASSUMING CHAIR]. The committee will come to order.

The second panel is already in place. It looks like we have The

Honorable Arturo Duran with us, the Honorable Albert Jacquez,

Mr. Thomas A. Weber, and Dr. Richard Spinrad. I think, Richard,

you wanted to go first.

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD W. SPINRAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.;

HON. ARTURO Q. DURAN, COMMISSIONER, INTERNATIONAL

BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION, EL PASO, TEXAS;

HON. ALBERT S. JACQUEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND THOMAS A. WEBER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

Mr. SPINRAD. I appreciate the opportunity, chairman, on behalf

of NOAA and in light of the fact that I am expected to testify at

2:30 down at Longworth, so I do appreciate that opportunity.

Mr. PEARCE. And you can be excused after your testimony.

Mr. SPINRAD. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Richard

Spinrad, the Assistant Administrator of NOAA for Ocean Services

and Coastal Zone Management. On behalf of NOAA Administrator

Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacker, thank you for inviting NOAA

to testify today on our fiscal year 2005 budget request and priorities.

First I will speak to NOAA’s responsibilities under both the

Superfund Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Under these directives, NOAA, as one of the natural resource trustees, is responsible for ensuring that cleanup actions protect resources from further injury and assessing and recovering natural resources damages to restore and compensate for the loss of services. NOAA responds to approximately 100 significant oil or chemical spills a year

as scientific advisors to the U.S. Coast Guard, and provides solutions to cleanup agencies at more than 200 hazardous waste sites

each year. NOAA’s plans for fiscal year 2004 include working with

the U.S. Coast Guard to plan and conduct a spill of national significance exercise in California this April; expanding partnerships to

address contamination, restoration, and economic redevelopment

issues related to port development, dredging, and brownfields redevelopment; and beginning on a limited basis to initiate damage as-
61

sessments when NOAA trust resources are significantly affected in

the Great Lakes.

In fiscal year 2005 the President is requesting $16.9 million for

response and restoration activities for NOAA to continue to protect

the integrity of coastal ecosystems through its natural resource

protection and restoration efforts.

The second area I’d like to focus on today is the coastal nonpoint

pollution control program. Polluted runoff remains a threat to

coastal waters, and NOAA has worked closely with EPA to ensure

that coastal States have the tools necessary to effectively manage

nonpoint sources of pollution. Thirty-three of the thirty-four States

and territories that participate in the coastal zone management

program now have either conditionally or fully approved coastal

nonpoint programs.

We are confident that existing and incrementally improved State

coastal nonpoint programs will yield coastal water quality benefits,

and NOAA looks forward to recommendations for new directions

from the United States Commission on Ocean Policy on this issue.

NOAA, however, is not seeking additional funding for State implementation of these programs for two reasons: one, other agencies

in the Federal Government, especially EPA and USDA, invest

heavily in this area, and; two, States can continue to rely on assistance from NOAA, including funding from section 306 of the Coastal

Zone Management Act, and NOAA’s development and dissemination of management tools and scientific research on nonpoint

source pollution problems and responses.

NOAA will maintain a leading role in nonpoint pollution research, science, and education, and we will continue our work to

ensure that the public is served effectively by other Federal investments in this area.

The next two areas I’d like to focus on today are the NOAA programs and activities related to harmful algal blooms, HABs, and

hypoxia. Virtually every coastal State has reported recurring major

blooms, and a recent national assessment revealed that over half

of our Nation’s estuaries experience hypoxic conditions at some

time each year. NOAA, working closely with our partners, has

made considerable progress in the ability to detect, monitor, assess,

and predict HABs and hypoxia in coastal ecosystems. These advances are helping coastal managers undertake efforts to reduce

and ultimately prevent the detrimental effects of these phenomena

on human health and on valuable coastal resources.

The President’s fiscal year 2005 budget request includes a restoration of $8.9 million in funding for research in these areas.

NOAA intends to build upon our recent successes and will produce

a revised national plan for algal toxins and HABs this summer.

NOAA will also continue its efforts towards an operational forecast

system for HABs.

The last area I will speak to today is NOAA’s request for aquatic

nuisance species activities. The President’s budget includes

$500,000 for implementation of Section 1202 of the Non-Indigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. In addition,

the base funding request for the national sea grant college program

assumes that the national research competition will be continued,

but at a reduced level from the 2004 estimate of $3 million. Simi-
62

larly, approximately $1.7 million of base funding for the Great

Lakes environmental research laboratory will continue to support

invasive species activities.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting NOAA to participate

in today’s hearing, and thank you again for your indulgence with

respect to my schedule this afternoon.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you.

Before you do take off, we have Mr. Costello with a question.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate your accommodating me and the doctor’s schedule.

Doctor, let me just ask you one question. I realize that you have

to be elsewhere in a minute. In your written testimony you remind

the subcommittee of the threats from nonpoint sources of pollution

to the water quality in the United States and of the important role

that NOAA plays in the efforts to address those sources. Unfortunately, as you know, the Administration budget walks away from

the Federal commitment to address nonpoint source pollution, and

for NOAA the budget zeroes out funding for the section 6217 program, and for EPA the budget cuts $28 million from its Section 319

program. I’m wondering, can you tell us what NOAA recommended

to OMB for funding the 6217 program?

Mr. SPINRAD. The budget as presented recommends the recommendations that we have put forward regarding support for

6217. The expectation of the Administration in part is based on

what we hope to see from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

with respect to coastal zone management activities in nonpoint

source pollution. The specifics with regard to the budget submission can be provided in follow-on material to the subcommittee. As

I indicated in my testimony, our intent is to try to work both our

research activities towards increased capabilities for supporting

nonpoint source pollution.

Mr. COSTELLO. I understand that. My question is, we’re trying to

figure out, NOAA did request a specific dollar amount for the 6217

program from OMB; is that correct?

Mr. SPINRAD. I would have to get back to the committee to find

the specifics of where the request was developed in the internal deliberations, sir.

Mr. COSTELLO. We would be interested in receiving that and the

dollar amount that was requested.

Mr. SPINRAD. Yes, sir.

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Spinrad.

Mr. Duran?

Mr. DURAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you

today. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share with you the

U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission

fiscal year 2005 budget request and priorities.

I was honored to be appointed United States commissioner to the

International Boundary and Water Commission for United States

and Mexico by President Bush in December, 2003. I look forward

to this exciting opportunity to strengthen the relationship between
63

this country and Mexico and to represent our interests in this

international setting.

Prior to my appointment I served as general manager of the

Lower Valley Water District located in El Paso area, an organization responsible for providing potable water, sewer services, and

solid waste services to several communities. I have also worked

previously for the United States Environmental Protection Agency

managing environmental restoration and waste management programs, and also as a private consultant along the U.S. and Mexico

border. Based upon these experiences, I have gained a working understanding of trans-boundary environmental issues such as those

presented in southern California and in other areas along the

2,000-mile boundary that impact the health and safety of citizens

on both sides of the border.

I’m going to share with you just an overview of our budget. With

respect to our budget request, the salary and expense account requests $30.3 million for engineering, operation, and maintenance,

as well as administration to ensure compliance with U.S. Government rights and obligations under the treaties and agreements between the United States and Mexico that are delegated under those

agreements to be exercised by the International Boundary and

Water Commission. The Commission not only has field offices that

span the border from San Diego to Brownsville, but also several

projects that span along the border between United States and MX.

Continuing salary and expenses funding supports activities that include the operation and maintenance of three international wastewater treatment plants, two international dams and power plants,

five diversion dams, six flood control projects, joint water quality

programs, and the studies and designs for boundary and capacity

preservation. Of the $30.3 million, $18.5 million would be allocated

for the ongoing operations and maintenance of wastewater treatment and flood control projects, $5.8 million for engineering designs and studies for environmental compliance, water conveyance,

and border sanitation projects, and $6.0 million for administration.

The fiscal year 2005 construction budget request is $8.5 million

for boundary wide water quantity and water quality program activities. These funds are used to conduct investigations, planning,

project development, design, and construction for joint projects that

address border sanitation, trans-boundary groundwater, flood control problems, and boundary demarcation. Of the $8.5 million request, $2.8 million would be allocated for engineering studies, environmental documentation and designs directly linked to construction requirements, $500,000 for required ocean monitoring, $2 million for actual construction, and $1.2 million for the purchase of

construction equipment. Less than $200,000 of the $8.5 million request would be used for direct labor.

There are some activities that are related to the interest of this

committee, and we have one project that has to provide secondary

treatment level for sewer emanating from the Tijuana River area

in Mexico. I know that this is of particular interest to this committee, so I would like to address that specifically.

In 1990, the United States and Mexican sections of the Commission concluded an international agreement, Minute 283, that provided for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an inter-
64

national wastewater treatment facility on the U.S. side of the border near San Diego. This facility treats to the advanced primary

level up to 25 million gallons per day of wastewater arriving from

Tijuana at a cost that is shared by the United States and Mexican

governments. That treated effluent from that facility is discharged

through an ocean outfall 3.5 miles offshore in the Pacific Ocean.

In November of 2000 Congress passed and the President signed

into law the Tijuana River Valley Estuary and Beach Cleanup Act

of 2000, which requested the Secretary of State to negotiate a new

agreement with Mexico to provide for the secondary treatment of

that effluent, as well as treatment for additional sewage flows up

to a maximum total capacity of 75 million gallons per day under

a public-private partnership agreement.

Since December, 2001, the Commission has been actively engaged in formal ongoing negotiations with Mexico to achieve agreement on a new Minute that achieves the objectives of the public

law, as reported periodically to this subcommittee.

I am pleased to inform the subcommittee that the United States

has reached agreement with Mexico on a new Minute, Minute 311,

which we signed on February 20, 2004, that we believe achieves

the objectives of the public law. A copy of the Minute is submitted

with my testimony for the information of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as the new

commissioner I am committed in addressing those public health

issues along the border, especially this project. You know that we

are facing some public health issues for southern California.

Minute 311 is an essential step in moving towards the goal. I am

committed to advance this project forward. The citizens of southern

California deserve no less. The Commission needs to be proactive

and meet its mission as a Commission.

As you know, this is a highly technical and complicated project

that breaks new ground for the CMM in which it will include a private/public partnership. I want to say that at least for 2005 we have included $2 million

of request, and that $2 million will allow the Commission, both sections, the United States and Mexico, to bring together the resources and pay for the necessary cost to move this project forward.

This $2 million will assist us in moving the implementation of this

Minute 311 which we just signed.

I intend to continue to provide this subcommittee periodic reports

on our progress toward implementation of Minute 311 and will be

very happy to return to Washington to brief the subcommittee on

our ongoing efforts and progress on this project.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the

opportunity to testify today. I will be pleased to respond to any

questions you and your subcommittee members may have.

Thank you.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Duran.

Mr. Jacquez?

Mr. JACQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costello, and the

other Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for

the opportunity to present the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation’s budget priorities and programs. The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is a wholly-owned govern-
65

ment corporation and an operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. St. Lawrence Seaway, which the corporation operates, maintains, and promotes binationally with Canada, is a vital economic link between the heartland of North America and our trading partners throughout the world. Since its opening in 1959, more than $400 billion worth of cargo has been transported through the Seaway System.

My written statement details how the President’s budget request

supports our mission to ensure seaway safety, reliability, efficiency,

and security by providing the resources necessary to implement our

priority projects and programs.

First, our budget request ensures Seaway reliability through

proper maintenance. An important measure for success of our

maintenance program is system availability. During the 2003 navigation season, the availability of the U.S. sector of the Seaway was

98.9 percent. Our goal was 99 percent.

Proper maintenance is important because the Seaway is a

singlelock system consisting of 15 U.S. and Canadian locks. Consequently, a delay or shutdown to any one of those locks would

close the entire Seaway until that lock was repaired and the Seaway was opened or reopened. The largest increase in our budget is

for necessary maintenance and costly concrete replacement projects

at the two U.S. Seaway locks. Concrete replacement has historically been one of the most expensive maintenance projects, dating

back to the Seaway’s opening. As the cement deteriorates, pieces of

concrete dislodge and fall into the lock chambers. This obviously

poses a risk to commercial vessels, pleasure boats, and the crews

on board.

Second, our budget request ensures Seaway efficiency by providing for the Seaway Automatic Identification System, or AIS, and

the agency’s financial management system, both of which support

the President’s Management Agenda.

The AIS system utilizes global positioning technology to allow

the Corporation to efficiently manage its vessel traffic control and

vessel transits through the Seaway locks. Implemented in 2003,

the Seaway was the first inland waterway in the western hemisphere to implement an operational AIS vessel traffic control system. The Corporation’s independent financial management system

allows officials to track all financial related information and to

meet all independent audit reporting requirements. In fact, the

Corporation has received 40 consecutive clean financial audits since

its creation, a major achievement under the President’s Management Agenda to improve financial performance.

Third, since the events of September 11th, Seaway security has

become paramount. A major security milestone for the Corporation

was the expansion of the Seaway’s mandatory notice of arrival requirement for all foreign commercial vessels. Since the start of the

2002 navigation season, all foreign ships entering the St. Lawrence

Seaway have been required to give 96-hour advance notification

prior to arrival in Montreal, Canada. Ships that fail to give complete notice are barred from entering the Seaway.

It should be noted that the Seaway security procedures have

been developed in full consultation with all relevant U.S. and Ca-
66

nadian law enforcement agencies to enhance security while minimizing any decrease in Seaway efficiency.

In conclusion, the Corporation’s budget reflects our commitment

to providing a reliable, efficient, and secure waterway for the movement of commercial goods through the Great Lakes region of North

America. We believe it is in our country’s economic and security interests that the necessary resources are provided to carry out the

Seaway Corporation’s mission.

Thank you.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you.

Mr. Weber?

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to discuss water resource program activities of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In my remarks today, I would

like to describe our ongoing work in this area and discuss our

budget priorities for 2005. I will specifically address three major accounts—the watershed surveys and planning, watershed and flood

prevention operations, and watershed rehabilitation programs.

The Natural Resources Conservation Services water resource

programs provide communities and landowners site-specific technical expertise for watershed planning and financial assistance for

watershed project implementation. They provide a process to solve

local natural resource problems, including flood damage mitigation,

water quality improvement, ensuring an adequate rural water supply, water conservation, soil erosion control, and fish and wildlife

habitat improvement. Local governments and other sponsors initiate these projects with the help of NRCS and local conservation

districts.

The 2002 farm bill represents an unprecedented commitment to

conservation in this country, and the President’s 2005 budget for

NRCS will continue to focus on implementing the important conservation programs authorized by this historic legislation. These

priorities will have an impact on the budget levels being proposed

in the watershed programs area. The budget proposes reductions in

funding for watershed implementation, planning, and rehabilitation. This will enable NRCS to redirect limited resources to address

the more pressing farm bill implementation work while still funding the most critical watershed projects that have a strong local

level of support.

With emergency spending being so difficult to predict, the budget

proposes to not seek appropriated funding for emergency work, and

instead to address disaster funding as emergencies arise.

The watershed surveys and planning account helps communities

and local sponsors assess their resource issues and develop a coordinated watershed plan. The President’s budget for fiscal year

2005 proposes to focus new watershed surveys and planning efforts

on improving the environmental and economic benefits of new programs. The budget request is $5,083,000 to help 20 to 30 communities complete their watershed planning efforts.

The watershed and flood mitigation component for fiscal year

2005 will focus on non-structural flood measures that will solve the

identified natural resource and economic problems in that particular project area.
67

The Administration’s budget proposal requests $40,173,000 for

projects authorized under Public Law 83–566. For the 11 projects

authorized by the Flood Control Act, Public Law 78–534, no funding is proposed.

The President’s budget funding request includes funding for the

watershed rehabilitation activities which involve the rehabilitation

of aging dams. These projects involve dams with a high risk for

loss of life or property. Forty-one dams have rehabilitation plans

authorized, and implementation of the plans is underway. The remaining 59 projects are in the planning stage. The Administration

requests $10,091,000 to complete the plans in progress and the ten

projects currently underway.

In summary, it is our priority to address the needs of communities for the most critical water resource concerns, to effectively

utilize Federal, State, and local programs to meet these immediate

needs. We’re going to continue to work with local communities to

help prioritize and evaluate our activities so that the financial and

technical resources that are available can be placed where they are

most needed.

I thank the subcommittee and would be happy to take any questions you might have.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you for your presentation.

Any questions, Mr. Costello?

Mr. COSTELLO. I have no questions at this time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN [RESUMING CHAIR]. Well, let me first of all apologize

for having to leave the hearing. Mr. Pearce, I appreciate your doing

that.

I’ve heard particularly of the work, Mr. Weber, that you do and

your agency and so forth, and I appreciate the great work that you

do for this country. We need to see what we can do to get some

of these projects that haven’t been funded or under-funded that we

do as well as we can by them.

And also I am learning more about the work that your agency

does, Mr. Duran, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Jacquez, I want to come up there and see your operations.

I’ve heard of the St. Lawrence Seaway all my life, but I’ve never

really been up there to see exactly what you do.

Mr. JACQUEZ. You tell me the date and I will meet you.

Mr. DUNCAN. I would like to come up there and take a tour some

day and have you show me the operations, because I need to learn

a little bit more about it.

I appreciate your all being here today and I appreciate the testimony you’ve given and what you’re doing for this country. Since

we’ve kept you here so long, I’ll just leave it at that for right now

and go back to Chairman Pearce.

Mr. PEARCE [ASSUMING CHAIR]. Mr. Costello?

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, just two quick questions. As

Chairman Duncan indicated, you’ve been here a long time. We

won’t keep you here much longer. But I am interested, Mr. Weber,

in knowing the watershed protection program is a critical component to responding to natural disasters such as fires and floods and

things of that nature, and has an average funding level of about

$110 million. We noticed in going through the budget that the
68

budget requests no funds for this program. I’m just wondering, is

that the position of the Administration that we will no longer be

available to respond to assist rural communities if there are not

funds in the budget for that purpose?

Mr. WEBER. Thank you for that question, Congressman Costello.

The normal way that we have been receiving our emergency watershed program money to address disasters has been through the

supplemental appropriation process for a number of years, so as

these emergencies arise the needs are made known and Congress

does provide those funds as needed.

Mr. COSTELLO. And has that been the case in previous years? In

other words, at this point last year would we have observed the

same thing, that you requested no money, that it has always come

through supplementals?

Mr. WEBER. I believe that is true, sir.

Mr. COSTELLO. Very good.

Mr. Chairman, I really have no further questions. I just want to

thank the panel for being here today.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you.

Mr. Weber, I have a question. In your testimony you talk about

the $5 million for the 20 to 30 communities. How are those communities selected? I can imagine that there are just a desperate number of communities that are lacking in planning.

Mr. WEBER. The process that we have, it really begins at the

State level where these communities submit their applications.

Those applications are reviewed and ranked and we do provide the

funds to the States to address those high priority applications that

they have. In many cases, these planning efforts are ongoing, so

this would be a continuation of those plans that are already underway.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Weber, that raises the next question, that they

are ongoing. I know that in New Mexico I sat on one of the water

planning boards for a small region, and pretty soon you understand

that you can’t plan if the people around you don’t plan, that we

ended up having to divide New Mexico into 17 different planning

regions, and they all have to plan together, and then the plans

have to merge at some point. I guess my question is: why would

we select 20 communities nationwide and have ongoing plans if we

don’t have a coordinated plan to go with it, because we can declare

what a community’s needs are, but if we do not take into account

what the next-door community is saying, then we end up spending

a lot of money that to me does not have any effectual outcome.

Mr. WEBER. Congressman Pearce, the process that we use does

look at watershed levels of planning, so it is a broader area than

the community, itself. It does bring in all of the players in that watershed area to the table to coordinate the water resource needs

and related resource needs of that area. In addition, we do have

our conservation technical assistance program where we have a

presence at the local level almost everywhere in this country and

our folks do assist local communities, as well, in that process in

helping to plan their needs. It would not necessarily be under this

watershed program that they would do that, but if the community

asks for their assistance we would certainly try to provide that assistance to them.
69

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Weber, on the issue of the watersheds, again,

are you dealing with any of the areas that have been ravaged by

forest fires? And, again, how do you decide which ones get the attention and who actually has the cleanup cost on those?

Mr. WEBER. The current situation is the major fire areas that

we’ve had most recently are in southern California, and the funding that did come through our emergency watershed program last

year did come in the amount of $150 million, did come specifically

to work on those fire-damaged areas in southern California, erosion

control methods, and also in that program legislation authorization

to do tree mortality work, to remove the dead and dying trees there

that are causing fire problems.

In other cases where we have fire damages—we have assisted

New Mexico, for example, about two years ago, I think. We did

quite a bit of work there. We do use the emergency watershed program to assist those local communities. The cost share typically is

75 percent Federal, 25 percent other, which can be matched by inkind services, by the way, rather than cash. So this program has

been very useful to those communities and States to assist them.

Mr. PEARCE. When I look at the problem of our watersheds and

the fact that they are just basically overgrown, overcrowded, too

much fuel in the forest, and in my District there are a tremendous

number of forests, and we hear different comments from the Forest

Service that they’re not going to implement any part of the healthy

forest initiative, that they’re not going to do some cleanups, does

your agency ever get involved in those discussions? I mean, you all

absolutely have an understanding of watersheds and the need for

a healthy watershed. If we have a forest district that is not implementing the cleanup, the balanced thinning throughout the watershed, does your agency get involved if I make a request for you all

to give us an evaluation?

Mr. WEBER. We would certainly work with the Forest Service.

On Federal lands, obviously, they would have the jurisdiction, but

we do work with the Forest Service in providing technical assistance in those areas we have expertise. Certainly soils information

is a major area of expertise in the agency, hydrology, and those

kinds of things. But we would certainly assist them if they desired

that.

Mr. PEARCE. Well, thank you very much.

Finally, Mr. Duran, I have been to Mexico. As you know, we’ve

got a border that shares with Mexico and the border health issues

are significant there. In the solution that’s suggested for the sewage problem along the Tijuana/San Diego border, how do you see

that playing out, and what is your exact position in the department

on that?

Mr. DURAN. As you know, I’m just barely coming up to speed and

getting educated with this project. I look very seriously at the public law that was passed in November of 2000 by Congress, and I

feel it is my job to advance this project forward and comply with

your direction. What we need to do now, we signed the international agreement with Mexico and that kind of sets the framework for us to work within that framework to implement this

project.
70

Some of the steps that need to take place in the next few months

is really moving forward in establishing a private/public partnership through a contract arrangement where there is some specific

obligations on our behalf and also in the private sector, and this

is really something that I think is going to be, in my opinion, a

model for private/public partnership where we are leveraging private resources up front to allow us to advance these priorities forward at the same time that we’re working with our government to

seek the appropriations and the funding necessary for this project.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Duran.

Mr. Jacquez, I understand that you have a commitment and you

are excused at this time if you’d like to go, but Mr. Filner has a

couple of questions of Mr. Duran. If you don’t mind hanging

around, we’d appreciate it.

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to give some context to the issue you just raised. I’m sorry Chairman Duncan is not

here, because he has provided steadfast support to the project in

the very southwest corner of the Nation to eliminate sewage that

has been plaguing us for 50 years, and I wanted to thank Mr. Duncan for helping us keep the pressure on for a solution to that.

You may not have been here, but with previous commissioners

who have been here before Mr. Duran, they kept telling us why

they couldn’t do something. We passed a law three-and-a-half years

ago that said, ‘‘Do something to clean up this sewage.’’ In fact, as

Mr. Duran just stated so eloquently, with a private/public partnership that, in fact, would get the job done quicker, would do a far

more environmentally sensitive project, not only cleaning up the

sewage but reclaiming the water and giving it back to Mexico—I

should say selling it back to Mexico—that they need to desperately.

We thought it was a wonderful program. It went through enormous

traps to get past. As you know, a bill to get passed in this House

unanimously has to go through a tremendous number of people and

issues. We cleared it with lawyers in the Executive Branch and in

the Legislative Branch people had questions from all sides. We

worked through those. We passed a law. For three-and-a-half years

nothing has happened.

Within a few weeks of Mr. Duran’s taking office, the treaty was

signed. I mean, clearly work was done before that, but, as you can

tell, he has enthusiasm. We haven’t heard that before. He has direction. We haven’t had that before. He is giving people in his

agency, I think, a sense of, ‘‘We can do something, and not only for

California but also for New Mexico, for Arizona, and for Texas.’’ I

was quoted in the paper this morning, Mr. Duran—I don’t know if

you saw the ‘‘San Diego Union Tribune’’ or they gave it to you.

They asked me what about the signing of this treaty, this Minute

that will lead to a contract that will be negotiated. I said I was ecstatic, and I said this was the beginning of the end of a 50-year

problem. So I want to thank you for giving new energy and new

enthusiasm, new momentum. I think you are going to feel this all

along the border. I think New Mexico will be helped. I know his

beloved State of Texas will be helped. We’re going to introduce into

the community in San Diego in a few weeks that will say, ‘‘Hey,

we have someone who is actually working on our job.’’ So I want

to thank you, Commissioner Duran, for bringing this. This is just
71

our first introduction to you, but it has been a very positive and

wonderful introduction. We have been trying to get things done for

a long time, and we were—I’ll use the word ‘‘ecstatic’’—to see someone who wants to get the job done also. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Mr. DURAN. Thank you. I look forward to working with all of you,

as well.

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Pearce.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you very much. We thank the Committee

Members for being here and the panel members for staying. I

apologize for the long delays. We welcome you all.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202

Æ