Washington, March 26, 2014 -

Washington, D.C. – During today’s House Appropriations’ Energy and Water Subcommittee hearing on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ budget, U.S. Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA-14) questioned Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy about the Obama Administration’s surprise delay of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP) and the Army Corps’ refusal to sign the Project Partnership Agreement that would allow the state of Georgia to proceed on its own with SHEP.

Click here to watch.

For more information about SHEP and the Obama Administration’s failure to support the project, please click here for a letter signed by the entire Georgia Congressional Delegation.

Video Transcript:
 
Rep. Tom Graves: As y’all are well aware, the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP) was authorized in 1999.  Very, very unique. I mean that was last century that it was authorized.

It required a six-way agreement between four federal agencies and two states prior to the start of the project. 

Even with this high level of mandated coordination that was required, it has enjoyed long-term, bipartisan support from the local, state and federal levels. 

The Administration has not been shy in supporting the project with words.

The President included SHEP as a 2012 “We Can’t Wait” project. The Vice President has visited the Port and he has said we will complete this project, in his words, quote, “Come hell or high water.” 

However, in this case, words have not translated into actions, and it’s hard for my state to understand why.

After jumping through so many hoops, the Delegation was in the home stretch. We were about there.

Congress was explicit in the FY14 Omnibus. 

We included a two year Section 902 waiver, as discussed about a previous question, continuing the practice we have engaged in since 2009 of shifting funds to the construction side.

We included explicit report language instructing the Corps to treat SHEP as under construction for the FY15 budget.

And yet, here we are, at the first significant opportunity for action, OMB [Office of Management and Budget] tells us all that they’ve had a change of heart. 

OMB tells us that they have to follow long standing practice, but by my reasoning, law trumps practice and the law is unambiguous here.

All of the work we have done - and by ‘we’ I mean a lot of folks, a lot of individuals including yourself, that’s included and culminates with – that would require us to get to this one point where all we have to do is have the signature of a PPA document, the Project Partnership Agreement. 

It seems clear to me, you have no reason not to sign the PPA.

So I guess my question goes to, after you have been specifically told to get this project underway – Congress has not left any question about this – OMB, maybe they’ve made a decision not to fund it, and it’s somehow impacting your decision.

Can you give us an explanation as to why you will not sign the PPA and requested and appropriated, the funding that we have so unambiguously put forward as far as it goes for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project?

Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works: Congressman Graves, as you say in the budget it’s reflected that the Administration believes that the entire scope of the project needs to be authorized before we can appropriate money for construction, and that authorization, as you know, is included in the Water Resources Development Act, and, for the full scope of the new project. And, we would need to have that authorized before we could fund it for construction.

TG: Some would say the Administration’s playing politics with this project. Congress has been very clear, the law is very clear, the president signed it into law. And, I would say that the state of Georgia is really wondering what’s going on here. And, you’re saying now it has to be – the full project has to be funded. Do you not believe you have the legal capacity as required by law to sign the PPA?

JD: Sir, we believe that the full scope of the project needs to be authorized before we could do that.

TG: Have you been advised by your legal counsel not to sign the PPA?

JD: No, sir, I haven’t sought legal counsel on this issue.

TG: So, there’s nothing restricting you from signing the PPA as Congress has instructed you to do and the president has signed into law?

JD: I would just need to say again that unless – until the full scope of the new project is authorized by the Congress, we at this point would not be funding it for construction.

TG: What portion of the project is outside the scope that you’re referencing has not been…

JD: A lot of the mitigation that was required as result, as you referenced, the authorization that needed the concurrence of all the other four agencies as well as the states. A large portion of that is mitigation. I think it’s over 300 million dollars, is the mitigation portion.

TG: Are you aware that the state of Georgia has set aside, the governor as well as the general assembly, over 200 million dollars put forward toward this project, and your lack of signature of the PPA prohibits the state of Georgia from moving forward on this?

JD: Yes, I’m aware of that.

TG: My understanding is the agency is always looking for partnerships on the local level and state level. The state of Georgia has been very committed to this, and tell us, what would it take – what does Congress need to do – besides passing a law and have it signed by the president, for the Corps to move forward and sign the PPA?

JD: We would need to have the additional scope of it authorized.



###