Conference Report on H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1585, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 -- (House of Representatives - December 12, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, for his leadership in bringing the Conference Report on H.R. 1585, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,'' expeditiously to the House floor. This legislation includes critical program and funding authorizations for the men and women in our Nation's armed forces.

This Conference Report contains several provisions that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, including provisions that affect the Federal Aviation Administration, the United States Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the General Services Administration. I have no objection to the inclusion of most of these provisions.

I rise today in opposition to one provision in the final Conference Report that significantly affects the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ``Corps.'' Section 2875 rewards the city of Woonsocket, RI, for failing its statutory obligation to operate and maintain its local levee by shifting responsibility for this now-failing levee to the Federal government. Current law provides that operation and maintenance responsibility for flood control projects is a non-Federal responsibility. However, this section requires the Corps to conduct any repairs or rehabilitation of the existing structure, including its replacement.

This provision is bad policy, because it establishes the precedent that the Federal government will assume responsibility for failing flood control systems, which according to the Corps, may include an inventory of roughly 15,000 miles of levees and other flood control structures, nationwide.

This provision also creates the false impression that communities that sign contractual obligations with the United States, through the Corps, can have these contracts overturned by congressional action if the community can convince one Member of Congress that the community lacks sufficient resources to meet their operation and maintenance responsibilities.

The Corps is often called upon to construct flood control projects, in partnership with a non-Federal interest under a normal cost-sharing agreement. Once the project is completed, the responsibility for long-term operation and maintenance is transferred to the non-Federal interest. With the exception of the projects along the Mississippi River that are part of the Mississippi River and Tributaries project (MRT), the Corps is typically not responsible for operation and maintenance of flood control projects.

The Corps currently has responsibility for operation and maintenance of navigation projects. For these projects, the backlog for operation and maintenance of existing Federal responsibilities is roughly $4 billion annually, but appropriations for operation and maintenance have hovered around $2 billion. The result is that roughly 50 percent of vitally needed operation and maintenance responsibilities of the Corps are not being met, and are deferred to future appropriations. To shift additional operation and maintenance responsibilities to the Corps is unwise and is likely to impair the ability of the Corps to carry out its existing obligations for operation and maintenance.

During pre-conference negotiations, I proposed to provide the city of Woonsocket with some flexibility related to the cost of operation and maintenance of this project, but not a permanent blanket waiver of operation and maintenance.

I proposed two solutions, which I believe would have addressed the concerns of the city of Woonsocket. Unfortunately, the Senate was unwilling to compromise, and both proposals were rejected.

Both proposals would have authorized the Corps of Engineers to assume greater responsibility for the reconstruction of the failing levee system, but would have continued the long-term operation and maintenance responsibilities for the city of Woonsocket. I believe that both offers were made in the spirit of compromise without violating fundamental statutory and contractual responsibilities of the non-Federal sponsor. Both offers would have allowed the city of Woonsocket to start fresh with a structurally sound flood control system, provided that the city retained its obligation to operate and maintain the levee system.

I continue to believe that this shift of operation and maintenance responsibility is bad policy that will worsen the backlog of deferred operation and maintenance responsibility for the Corps and set a poor precedent of shifting responsibilities for other projects in the future.

I opposed a similar provision in last year's Defense Authorization bill that changed operation and maintenance responsibility from the local sponsor to the Federal government for another project in Rhode Island.

As chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I will continue to explore the implications of these changes in operation and maintenance responsibilities in the formulation of the Water Resources Development Act of 2008.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source