On Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) questioned U.S. Army Corps Engineers on the FY2025 budget request during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 Thank you. Senator Murkowski.
00:02 Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for being here this morning.
00:07 We have had an opportunity over the past year to engage on a couple of different issues in my state,
00:14 certainly Homer, the Barrow coastal erosion, and I want to thank you for a pretty pragmatic approach
00:22 to working with me and my team and your focus on the Alaska projects and the partnership going forward.
00:29 I think the more we can be open and communicating well with one another, the better off we're going to be.
00:36 I am pleased to see funding for the Port of Nome construction and the Homer GI,
00:42 both included in the '24 work plan as well as the FY '25 budget request.
00:47 As you know, these are very high priorities, particularly the Port of Nome, due to its national security significance.
00:55 But that being said, there's been a lot of advocacy to ensure that both of these projects stay on track.
01:00 So I'm a little bit concerned going into the '25 process and beyond that we're going to appropriately prioritize
01:08 these in the budget process. Concerning Nome particularly, this kind of seems to be a case study
01:15 in rhetoric versus reality with our nation's challenge to match the projects of national security
01:22 and economic significance with the processes that we have at our disposal and how to fund them.
01:28 We know that Port of Nome is a civil works project.
01:32 Senator Sullivan and I have been talking to a lot of our national security officials and flag officers,
01:40 both directly and in person and off the record, as we underscore the strategic and national security imperative
01:51 into the Arctic region. A lot of dual-use benefits for both commercial and national security interests in the Arctic,
01:59 where we've seen investment really lacking, and I think both of you would agree with that.
02:04 And yet, while we've got some unanimity on the value of the project, we can't seem to get the same level of enthusiasm
02:11 or gusto when it comes to funding it. This year's budget request of $25 million is the first regular order
02:18 construction request for the project, notwithstanding Nome's previous award of $250 million for construction,
02:25 which was due, of course, to IJA. So that $25 million, it's absolutely essential.
02:31 I think we all know it's far from the cost to complete.
02:35 So we're looking at a project that's going to be in the range of $500 million,
02:41 and so I look at the $25 million request and don't see this as adequate to meet the project's requirement.
02:49 Maybe it's because the project is not a great fit for the National Economic Development funding formula
02:55 under which it was authorized. So I'm using my time here to suggest that it's time that the Corps work with Congress
03:06 to figure out some creative ways to adequately fund this project and perhaps some others
03:11 that recognizes the national security benefits as well as the economic benefits.
03:16 So I'm hoping that we're going to see future budget requests that will make very meaningful progress
03:21 on fully funding the project's construction costs.
03:25 So I'm hoping that maybe you can give me a little more optimism here with a budget request number in FY26
03:34 that reflects the cost to complete the project.
03:37 But also, I'd like to have your assurance that for future budget requests,
03:45 you'll treat the projects authorized under this authority like NOM,
03:52 consistent with the provision in Title 33, Section 2242(c) of the U.S. Code.
04:00 So in other words, making sure that it is given equivalent budget consideration and priority
04:06 as projects recommended solely by National Economic Development benefits.
04:11 A long statement there, but you know where I'm going with this.
04:14 We've got to figure out what the funding plan is going to be for a port like NOM,
04:20 given the national security imperative.
04:23 Because if we're going to do $25 million every funding cycle, the Arctic is never going to be addressed.
04:32 We need a deepwater Arctic port.
04:38 Yes, Senator. So I think I'll try to give you some assurance here.
04:41 I think this is more sequencing in terms of a budget issue.
04:46 So with the $250 million that came to us in the bipartisan infrastructure law
04:50 and $25 million in this budget, that's going to allow us to award what we're calling the Phase 1,
04:55 the West Breakwater Extension.
04:57 We need to get that in place before we can start the work on the actual harbor deepening.
05:01 We can express that capability as early as '25.
05:04 That's about a $95 million job.
05:06 And then the final phase of this is the new East Causeway.
05:10 We estimate about $151 million.
05:12 But we have what we need to get this first work done.
05:14 Then we're going to work on the budget for the deepening and then the remaining work to complete the project.
05:20 Secretary Conner.
05:21 Yeah, if I could just add on the bigger picture question that you raised in your comment, I would agree.
05:27 This is not a great NED fit in our traditional analyses, but yet we did get it in the budget,
05:32 which I think represents progress, and it's for a lot of the reasons that you've just identified.
05:37 And we are working on expanding the range of what we view the benefits of our projects are.
05:43 My predecessor put in place something called comprehensive benefits,
05:47 asked the Corps to look at comprehensive benefits as we're planning projects and integrate that
05:51 and assess that as part of our chiefs' reports that we're putting together.
05:54 We're trying to take that to the next step now and to look at institutionalizing that approach through our principles,
06:02 requirements, and guidelines that maximize our look at benefits.
06:08 This is net public benefits.
06:09 It doesn't specifically address national security.
06:12 But we're moving in this direction to recognize that we can't purely just look at NED benefit costs
06:19 and assessing the value of these projects.
06:21 So we want to continue.
06:22 I think there's appetite for that from all quarters of people invested in the Corps projects,
06:28 and we will continue to work in the way that you suggested here.
06:31 Well, let's keep--again, we've got to have open lines of communication here,
06:35 and we can't have everybody holding their breath, waiting for the next funding cycle,
06:39 hoping that we're going to get enough for that next phase.
06:43 So I'd really like to keep close on this project as well as some of the others we're working on.
06:47 Thank you.
06:48 Thank you, Madam Chairman.
06:49 Thank you.
06:50 That will end our hearing today, and I want to thank our witnesses
06:53 and all of my colleagues for participating in today's hearing.