Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, natural disasters happen. Eight years ago, Senator Harkin and I had to deal with flooding in Eastern Iowa.

Today Senator Ernst and I are called upon to observe--as we did this past weekend--a great amount of flooding in Eastern Iowa. Earlier this year, we also heard the Senators from West Virginia and the Senators from Louisiana speak about the natural disasters in their State. It was only 8 years ago that I was on the floor talking about the record devastation caused by severe storms and floods. Many of the same places are currently experiencing similar flooding as rivers are cresting at record or near-record levels.

On Saturday, I toured several cities with the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and Members of the Iowa congressional delegation, including Senator Ernst. We saw debris and damage left by receding floodwaters, many homes underwater, and great flood fight preparations.

Many businesses and individual volunteers have been working tirelessly to help prevent damage to both public and private property and to help clean up. Today I had a discussion with the mayor of Greene, IA, about the numbers of high schools that are closed in that area, but the kids are coming in to help clean up in the city of Greene, IA. This is the Iowa way. I thank those who have helped and will provide assistance in the future.

Since the floods of 2008, many lessons have been learned. Plans and training to protect Iowa communities are in place. I am pleased to report that the mitigation through Federal, State, and local resources that has taken place throughout Iowa since the floods of 2008 has been beneficial. This has already proven effective and will lessen the impact of this year's floods. It is estimated that more than $50 million of reduced impact will be experienced because of previous mitigation efforts. However, as we learned this weekend, so much remains to be done.

Iowa's second largest city, Cedar Rapids, experienced massive devastation, with more than 1,300 city blocks covered in water and over $32 billion worth of damages from the floods of 2008. Today, as a result of massive amounts of rain upstream over the last few days, the city of Cedar Rapids is fighting to prepare for the high crest on the Cedar River, second only to 2008. Cedar Rapids is doing everything it can to protect its citizens by using HESCO barriers, earthen levees, and berms. However, a permanent solution through permanent flood control structures is still very much needed.

Even prior to the 2008 floods, the protection of the Cedar River in Cedar Rapids was identified as needing evaluation. In 2006, Congress authorized a flood risk management feasibility study with the feasibility cost share arrangement being signed on May 30, 2008. Since then, the feasibility study was completed and alternatives were chosen, although this Federal project protects only a portion of Cedar Rapids.

I worked to get the construction of the project authorized in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. That happened to be the first WRDA bill since 2007. However, funding has been difficult to obtain since the benefit-cost ratio is just over one from the point of view of the Corps of Engineers' scoring.

I am pleased the Senate instructed the Army Corps of Engineers to expedite this and three other flood damage reduction and flood risk management projects in the recently passed Water Resources Development Act.
Also in this year's act, the Senate passed an amendment to the bill that I was pleased to cosponsor with my colleague, Senator Ernst, requiring the Government Accountability Office to study the Army Corps of Engineers' methodology and performance metrics used to calculate benefit-cost ratios when evaluating construction projects.

I have heard from Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and several other places in Iowa regarding their concerns about how the Corps calculates the benefit of structures and that mitigation and future savings is not a strong factor in determining flood risk management.

Let me say that as I talk to people in Iowa--but particularly in Cedar Rapids, IA--about the cost-benefit ratio, mitigation, and future savings not being taken so much into consideration, it is something that they just do not understand. I recognize that this is a complex issue and that the Corps rarely gets enough funding to maintain and operate what it owns, let alone start numerous construction projects. I also recognize the need to have a rationale on how to prioritize projects when there are scarce resources, and I have been supportive of these efforts.

However, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work when dealing with flood protection. This is the most difficult thing to explain to people in Cedar Rapids, IA. It is a necessity to more accurately quantify future benefits and the protection of citizens when making benefit-cost ratios. We also need to find a way to expedite these flood projects so it doesn't take 20 to 40 years to study, design, and build--and it seems as if it takes forever to get completed.

Again, Iowans--especially the people of Cedar Rapids--when they are faced with severe, repeated flooding, don't understand why the Federal Government does not prioritize flood risk management and mitigation instead of spending emergency money to fight, recover, and then put them back in the same position as they were before. That money was spent in 2008--maybe not as much money, but still a great deal of money was spent this year--and still they are in the same position. That is what is not seemed to be understood. This money would be better spent actually mitigating the problem and protecting citizens and their property.

I have heard of similar concerns all across the United States, not just in Iowa. My staff has surveyed articles from Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, and Idaho, all stating similar concerns. I am sure that if we continued to look, we would find others as well.

I call on the Army Corps of Engineers to carefully evaluate how they can improve their areas of flood control policy. Reforms have taken place to expedite the study, planning, and report process, but reforms are needed to how they make these determinations.

I also call on the Office of Management and Budget and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to change the way the Army Corps of Engineers receives its funding. Every part of the Corps' budget could be considered an earmark under Senate rules. Therefore, it is very hard to advocate for the needs of the Corps' districts and projects within Congress without violating the earmark ban. As a result, the primary decision about what is included in the Corps' budget rests with the President's budget each year. I am not advocating to bring back earmarks for specific projects but to fund the Corps in a programmatic way or by district to allow Congress to exercise its oversight over funding decisions. All branches need to be held accountable for spending decisions, including the Federal bureaucracy. Congress should have the power of the purse for funding decisions of such importance to the people we represent, not just some bureaucrat.

Retired MG Tom Sands, who was a commanding General of the Army Corps of Engineers' Lower Mississippi Valley Division and president of the Mississippi River Commission, in a blog for The Hill newspaper on September 7 of this year, wrote:

No doubt the rationale for the current uniform approach [at the Corps] is to foster ``fairness.'' But federal water policy would be better focused on how to quantify and achieve superior outcomes. This new approach needs to focus more on common sense than on bureaucratic decisions.

As I have based my work as a public servant on Iowa's common sense, not bureaucratic nonsense, I couldn't have said it better than General Sands, so I associate myself with his remarks.
I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source