Images de page
PDF
ePub

FISCAL YEAR 1986 TRANSFER BUDGET REQUEST

BEVILL. At this point, we will insert the appropriation lauguage and justificaaterial for the Fiscal Year 1986 Transfer Budget Request. appropriation language and justification follow:]

DEPARTMENT OF THE Army, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CIVIL

APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE

ropriation Title: General Expenses.

an additional amount of $3,000,000 for "General Expenses" to remain availntil expended, and to be derived from "Operation and Maintenance, General."

IFICATION FOR TRANSFER BUDGET REQUEST UNDER CIVIL WORKS APPROPRIATION TITLE-FISCAL YEAR 1986

ropriation Title: General Expenses.

additional $3,000,000 is required in Fiscal Year 1986 under the General Exappropriation title to restore the 5 percent pay cut proposed in the Fiscal 986 budget. The Corps of Engineers did not have the pay cut funds restored Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1986, as proposed by the ent, because of the timing of Congressional action on the bill. After the House nate passed the Act, but before conference committee action, the President the Congress a Budget Amendment reinstating funds for the 5 percent pay cause the General Expenses appropriation in both the House and Senate bills e amount requested in the original budget, the amendment was not considthe conference committee.

ddition to the pay cut, this appropriation title was frozen at the Fiscal Year udget authority and was further reduced by 10 percent of administrative exThe effect was to reduce the budget request from $118,000,000 to 10,000, which is $8,000,000 less than Fiscal Year 1985. This funding level is impacted by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of '.L. 99-177) in the amount of $4,601,000.

purpose of the General Expenses appropriation is to cover civilian and miliivil Works personnel salaries and related costs for executive direction and ement of the entire Civil Works program. This function involves the staffing civilian and 80 military officer positions in the Office, Chief of Engineers, division offices and four support activities to provide guidance and direction execution of the Civil Works program in the 36 districts. As a result, the 9,000 reduction in the budget request has a significant adverse impact on the ive direction and management of the Civil Works program execution, equivaa 15 percent reduction in its staffing. Equally significant, such a reduction ave the effect of retaining the Civil Works program while forcing dispropor› reductions in its executive oversight. A manpower reduction of this size not be taken through attrition alone; a reduction in General Expenses funded ns would be necessary.

$3,000,000 amount requested for restoration of the pay cut can not be abon top of the other reductions noted above, without severe impacts on execuirection and management staffing and the efficient execution of the Civil program. Accordingly, to mitigate this effect, it is critical that the $3,000,000 tored by a transfer from the Operation and Maintenance, General appropria

GENERAL EXPENSES FY 1986 TRANSFER REQUEST

BEVILL Explain the budget request for a transfer of $3 million from "Operand Maintenance, General" to "General Expenses" in FY 1986.

eral HATCH. An additional $3,000,000 is required in Fiscal Year 1986 under eneral Expenses appropriation title to restore the five percent pay cut proin the original Fiscal Year 1986 budget. The Corps of Engineers did not have y cut funds restored in the Energy and Water Development Appropriation 986, as proposed by the President, because of the timing of Congressional on the Bill. After the House and Senate passed the Bill, but before conference ttee action, the President sent to the Congress a Budget Amendment reinstatads for the five percent pay cut. Because the General Expenses appropriation h the House and the Senate bills was the amount requested in the original , the amendment was not considered by the conference committee.

In addition to the pay cut, this appropriation title was frozen at the Fiscal Yea 1985 budget authority, reduced by 10 percent of administrative expenses, and fin ther impacted by a reduction of $4,601,000 pursuant to the Balanced Budget 20 Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, Public Law 99-177. The net effect is a redit tion of $12,601,000 from the Fiscal Year 1985 appropriation and a reduction $15,601,000 from the Fiscal Year 1986 budget request.

The purpose of the General Expenses appropriation is to cover civilian and tary Civil Works personnel salaries and related costs for executive direction management of the entire Civil Works program. This function involves 1750 civilis and 80 military officers positions in the Office, Chief of Engineers, the 11 divis offices, and four support activities that provide guidance and direction for the exec tion of the Civil Works program in the 36 districts. As a result, the $15,601,000 duction in the budget request has a significant adverse impact on the executive rection and management of the Civil Works program execution. The staffing red tion of the size necessary to realize a funding reduction of this magnitude could be taken through attrition along; a reduction in General Expenses funded positi would be necessary.

The $3,000,000 amount requested for restoration of the pay cut cannot be sorbed, on top of the other reductions noted above, without severe impacts on exe tive direction and management staffing and the efficient execution of the C Works program. Accordingly, to mitigate this effect, it is critical that the $3,000,|| be restored to General Expenses by a transfer from the Operation and Maintenan General apppropriation.

Mr. BEVILL. The justifications indicate a budget request to restore the deleted 1986 pay reduction. Are these amounts in addition to the $3 million referred above?

General HATCH. No sir, the $3 million requested to be transferred from “Op ation and Maintenance, General" to "General Expenses" is to restore the dele FY 1986 pay reduction.

Additional Questions Submitted by Congressman Watkins

COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES, SECTION 22

Mr. WATKINS. For Fiscal 1986, $200,000 was earmarked for Oklahoma under tion 22, Coordination Studies With Other Agencies under your General Invest tions funding. Have all of these funds been allocated? If so, how? If not, why General HATCH. We have allocated all of the $200,000 to the Tulsa District for work.

Mr. WATKINS. How are these funds being utilized?

General HATCH. They will be used to develop hydrologic basin reports for select stream and river basins within the State, to continue providing technical assistant to the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, or OWRB, on water issues of mutual cern, and to prepare regional water treatment conveyance system analyses southwest and northeast Oklahoma.

Mr. WATKINS. How much of your Fiscal 1987 budgeted funds for Coordinat Studies with Other Agencies are earmarked for Oklahoma?

General HATCH. Our request includes $100,000 for the State of Oklahoma.

Mr. WATKINS. How do you plan to utilize these funds? Are you working with ở Oklahoma Water Resources Board with these funds?

General HATCH. Yes, at the request of the OWRB, we will continue to work furthering the concepts of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan.

Mr. WATKINS. Are you working with anyone else within the State on these fund General HATCH. No we work only with OWRB.

Mr. WATKINS. Who else has legitimate access to these funds?

General HATCH. No one but the Corps of Engineers. Section 22 funds are used by the Corps of Engineers to provide or analyze existing data. These funds are to be used to finance contractor or non-Federal efforts.

Mr. WATKINS. Can these funds be obligated for a study at the request of ancthé entity of State government, such as a public trust for whom the State of Oklah is the beneficiary?

General HATCH. Not based on a direct request to the Corps. Other entities of State may request that the OWRB include the study in its annual request for items to be accomplished under the Section 22 Program. In addition, the study further the development of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan and must be used to supplement studies under other ongoing or pending Corps programs.

WATER-RESOURCES-BASED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPUTER MODEL

fr. WATKINS. You were directed in the Fiscal 1986 appropriations bill for the ps of Engineers to allocate $150,000 under General Investigations, Research and elopment "to continue the demonstration of economic development planning nology in Southeastern Oklahoma" through continued design and testing of the er-resources-based economic development computer model. Have you allocated of these funds? If so, how? If not, why not?

eneral HATCH. The FY 1985 R&D budget was reprogrammed to allot $130,000 on tember 15, 1985 for the purpose of continued design and testing of the waterjurces-based economic computer model. The funds were obligated in January 6 and the work schedule is estimated to be nine months. Therefore, there is no ctical need to program more funds in Fiscal Year 1986.

fr. WATKINS. What is the Corps capability on this project?

eneral HATCH. Although project and study capabilities reflect the readiness of work for accomplishment, they are in competition for available funds and maner Army-wide. In this context, the Fiscal Year 1987 capability amount of 0,000 for the Water-Resources-Based Economic Development Computer Model D work unit considers this work unit by itself without reference to the rest of gram. However, it is emphasized that the total amount proposed for the Army's il Works Program in the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 1987 is the appropriamount consistent with the Administration's assessment of national priorities Federal investments and the objectives of avoiding large budget deficits and the ous adverse effect that Government borrowing is having on the national econoTherefore, while we could utilize additional funds on individual projects and lies, offsetting reductions would be required in order to maintain our overall getary objectives.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

fr. WATKINS. You were directed in the Fiscal 1986 appropriation for the Corps of gineers under the General Investigations Research and Development account to end $250,000 "for technology transfer to allow the Corps of Engineers to continand extend its existing demonstration program on how to pursue an active inds-on" approach to execution of effective technology transfer." Have all of se funds been allocated? If so, how? If not, why not?

leneral HATCH. Phase I of this contract effort was completed April 30, 1985. ase II began May 1, 1985 and was originally scheduled to be completed March 31, 6. However, the contractor, Rural Enterprises, Inc., requested a 2-month, no-cost ension on Phase II until May 19, 1986. All Phase II efforts during Fiscal Year 6 are supported by unexpended funds carried over from Fiscal Year 1985.

Approximately $75,000 in Fiscal Year 1986 funds are programmed for the Techogy Transfer Demonstration work unit to conduct Phase III work between June 1 1 September 30, 1986.

Ar. WATKINS. Within your Fiscal 1987 budget request, how much is requested for continuation of this technology transfer demonstration project?

General HATCH. We have not requested any Fiscal Year 1987 funds for the demstration project.

fr. WATKINS. What is the Corps capability on this project?

General HATCH. Subject to our standard language and caveats in expressing capaities, as previously indicated for another R&D work unit, we estimate that our sability in Fiscal Year 1987 on the Technology Transfer Demonstration work unit $250,000.

Mr. BEVILL. This committee will now stand adjourned until 10:00 the morning.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1986.

SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION

WITNESSES

IG. GEN. JEROME B. HILMES, DIVISION ENGINEER

ARLES P. RINGENBERG, JR., P.E., CHIEF, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

ORGE T. CARLSON, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

RRY W. DONOVAN, P.E., PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

THUR D. DENYS, P.E., CHIEF, ENGINEERING DIVISION

RRY G. ROUGHT, P.E., CHIEF, PLANNING DIVISION

P. HUTCHISON, P.E., CHIEF, CONSTRUCTION-OPERATIONS DIVISION

INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES

Mr. BEVILL. The committee will come to order.

General Hilmes, we are delighted to have you with us. You may nt to introduce those you have with you and proceed as you

sh.

General HILMES. Sir, I replaced Bob Dacey, as you might know, the Division Engineer in the Southwestern Division in August of 85. With me I have Charles Ringenberg to my right, the Chief of ograms; and George Carlson, also in the Programs Office. To my t, Barry Rought, my Chief Planner; Art Denys, my Chief Engier; and Al Hutchison, my Chief of Construction-Operations. Mr. BEVILL. Glad to have each of you with us today.

General HILMES. Sir, with your permission, I will submit my atus report for the record and briefly summarize that report ing a few slides.

AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY

The Division embraces all or parts of eight States, an area that s sixteen percent of the land and ten percent of the population of e U.S.

The terrain varies from the arid regions of New Mexico, to the poded areas of Arkansas.

We have five engineer districts, with offices in Fort Worth and alveston, Texas; Little Rock, Arkansas; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Alquerque, New Mexico.

FISCAL YEAR 1987 PROGRAM

The fiscal year 1987 budget request is about $331 million. About ur percent will be used for general investigations; 37 percent for nstruction activities; and 59 percent for operation and mainte

ince.

« PrécédentContinuer »