[Senate Hearing 106-963]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
. S. Hrg. 106-963
TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL
ROBERT B. FLOWERS, U.S. ARMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 14, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-524 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
second session
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Dave Conover, Staff Director
Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana.........18, 33
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 33
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 11
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 21
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire....12, 17
Letter, management reforms of the Corps of Engineers, three
Senate committee chairmen.................................. 15
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 28
Voinovich, George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio........19, 34
WITNESS
Flowers, Major General Robert, U.S. Army, nominated by the
President to be Chief of Engineers............................. 22
Biographical information..................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 37
Senator Thomas........................................... 38
Senator Wyden............................................ 39
Written questions submitted in advance of the hearing.... 1
(iii)
TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL
ROBERT B. FLOWERS, U.S. ARMY
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Robert C. Smith (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Smith, Crapo, Inhofe, Voinovich, Thomas,
Baucus, and Lautenberg.
Senator Smith. The hearing will come to order.
Good morning, General Flowers. Nice to have you here.
General Flowers. Good morning, sir.
Senator Smith. I am going to deviate just slightly from the
norm here for just a moment. Senator Inhofe has another
commitment and he had a question that he wanted to ask you, so
I am going to yield to Senator Inhofe, and after that I will
ask some questions.
Senator Inhofe. I do appreciate that. We had General
Flowers before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I had
asked you a couple questions concerning permitting. What I will
do, rather than get into that now, is just submit that for the
record.
General Flowers. Yes, sir.
[The questions and the answers thereto follow:]
Advance Questions for Major General Robert B. Flowers
defense reforms
Question 1. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of
the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986
and the Special Operations reforms. You have had an opportunity to
observe the implementation and impact of those reforms, particularly in
your joint assignment.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Response. Yes, I support full implementation of these reforms. The
objectives of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation are as important today
as when the Act passed. They promote the effectiveness of military
operations, strengthen civilian control, provide for more efficient and
effective use of defense resources, and improve the management and
administration of the Department of the Army and Department of Defense.
Question 2. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Response. I understand that the Goldwater-Nichols reforms have been
implemented fully within the Department of the Army. As the Chief of
Engineers, I will continue to support these reforms and be guided by
the objectives of this important legislation.
Question 3. What do you consider to be the most important aspects
of these defense reforms?
Response. The Goldwater-Nichols reforms further a number of
important objectives. Four that are particularly important are: (1)
enhancing the effectiveness of military operations; (2) strengthening
civilian control; (3) improving the management and administration of
the Department of Defense; and (4) providing for more efficient use of
defense resources.
Question 4. The goals of the Congress in enacting these defense
reforms, as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department
of Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening
civilian control; improving military advice; placing clear
responsibility on the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of
their missions; ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is
commensurate with their responsibility; increasing attention to the
formulation of strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more
efficient use of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of
military operations and improving the management and administration of
the Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Response. Yes, I fully support the goals of the Goldwaters-Nichols
Act. They are as important today as they were when the legislation was
enacted in 1986.
relationships
Question 1. Please describe your understanding of the relationship
of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army to the following offices:
Response. (a) Secretary of Defense.--As head of the Department of
Defense, the Secretary of Defense has full authority, direction and
control over all its elements. He exercises this power over the Corps
of Engineers through the Secretary of the Army, whose responsibility
for, and authority to conduct all affairs of the Army is subject to the
authority, direction and control of the Secretary of Defense. If
confirmed, I will cooperate fully with the Secretary of Defense in
fulfilling the Administration's national defense priorities and
efficiently administering the Corps of Engineers in accordance with the
policies established by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
(b) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.--The Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staffs the principal military adviser to the President,
the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. Subject to
the authority, direction, and control of the President and the
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman plans the strategic direction and
contingency operations of the armed forces; advises the Secretary of
Defense on requirements, programs and budgets identified by the
commanders of the unified and specified combatant commands; develops
doctrine for the joint employment of the armed forces; reports on
assignment of functions (or roles and missions) to the armed forces;
provides for representation of the United States on the Military Staff
Committee of the United Nations; and performs such other duties as may
be prescribed by law or by the President or Secretary of Defense. If
confirmed, I will cooperate fully with the Chairman in his performance
of these responsibilities. I will establish a close and professional
relationship with him, and will communicate directly and openly with
him.
(c) The Secretary of the Army.--As head of the Department of the
Army, the Secretary of the Army is responsible for, and has the
authority necessary to conduct, all affairs of the Department of the
Army. He may assign such of his functions, powers and duties as he
considers appropriate to the Under Secretary of the Army, as well as
the Assistant Secretaries of the Army, and require officers of the Army
to report to these officials on any matter. As the Chief of Engineers,
I will support the Secretary in the performance of his important
duties. I will strive to establish and maintain a close, professional
relationship with the Secretary of the Army, based on full and candid
communication with him on all matters assigned to me.
(d) The Under Secretary of the Army.--It is the prerogative of the
Secretary of the Army to specifically define the relationship between
the Under Secretary and the Chief of Engineers. The Under Secretary is
the Secretary of the Army's principal civilian assistant and senior
advisor on key Army issues. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
Under Secretary of the Army as I perform my responsibilities as Chief
of Engineers.
(e) The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.--The
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA(CW)) is
principally responsible for the overall supervision of the Army's civil
works functions, including programs for conservation and development of
the national water resources, flood control, navigation, and shore
protection. The complex issues that arise in this area demand a close,
professional relationship between the ASA(CW) and the Chief of
Engineers, based on mutual respect, trust, cooperation and full
communication. I am committed to establishing and maintaining such a
relationship with the ASA(CW), in order to respond effectively to the
President's priorities and the policy directives of the Congress.
(f) The Other Assistant Secretaries of the Army.--The Assistant
Secretaries of the Army perform such duties and exercise such powers as
the Secretary may prescribe. Each of the Assistant Secretaries of the
Army possesses clear duties and responsibilities. The Chief of
Engineers cannot properly exercise his authorities without working
closely with each Assistant Secretary on Corps of Engineers matters
that affect their respective areas of responsibility. I look forward to
establishing and maintaining close, professional relationships with
these officials.
(g) The General Counsel of the Army.--The General Counsel is the
chief legal officer of the Army and serves as counsel to the Secretary
and other Secretariat officials. If confirmed, I will establish a close
and professional relationship with the General Counsel and will
actively seek his guidance in order to ensure that Army Corps of
Engineers policies and practices are in strict accordance with the law
and the highest principles of ethical conduct.
(h) The Chief of Staff of the Army.--The Chief of Staff of the Army
performs his duties under the authority, direction and control of the
Secretary of the Army and is directly responsible to the Secretary. The
Chief of Staff also performs the duties prescribed for him by law as a
member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If confirmed, I will establish and
maintain a close, professional relationship with the Chief of Staff. I
will communicate with him directly and openly as he performs his
prescribed duties.
(i) The Army Staff.--The Army Staff assists the Secretary of the
Army in carrying out his responsibilities, by furnishing professional
advice and operational expertise to the Secretary, the Under Secretary,
and the Assistant Secretaries of the Army and to the Chief of Staff of
the Army. Under the authority, direction and control of the Secretary
of the Army, the Army Staff prepares for and assists in executing any
power, duty or function of the Secretary or the Chief of Staff;
investigates and reports on the Army's efficiency and preparedness to
support military operations; supervises the execution of approved
plans; and coordinates the actions of Army organizations, as directed
by the Secretary or Chief of Staff. As a member of the Army Staff, the
Chief of Engineers must develop close, professional relationships with
the Chief of Staff, the Vice Chief of Staff, the Deputy and Assistant
Chiefs of Staff, The Surgeon General, The Judge Advocate General, the
Chief of Chaplains and the Chief of Army Reserve, in order to ensure
that the Army Staff works harmoniously and effectively in assisting the
Army Secretariat. I am committed to establishing and maintaining such
relationships with the members of the Army Staff.
(j) The Chief Executive of the States, Territories and the District
of Columbia.--The Corps of Engineers must remain committed to working
cooperatively with State and local authorities for the mutual benefit
of local citizens and the protection of natural resources. These
cooperative efforts must be undertaken in the context of the Corps'
authorities and leg;al responsibilities. These responsibilities often
require a balancing of diverse interests. The proper reconciliation of
these interests demands open communication among all parties. I am
committed to establishing and maintaining a full dialog with the Chief
Executives of the States, Territories, and District of Columbia on all
issues that we must cooperatively address.
Question 2. Describe the chain of command for the Chief of
Engineers on:
Response. (a) Military Matters.--The Chief of Staff presides over
the Army Staff. The Vice Chief of Staff has such authority and duties
with respect to the Army Staff as the Chief of Staff, with the approval
of the Secretary of the Army, may prescribe for him. As a member of the
Army Staff, the Chief of Engineers reports to the Chief of Staff,
through the Vice Chief of Staff, with respect to military matters.
(b) Civil Works Matters.--The supervisory duties of the ASA(CW)
extend to all civil works functions of the Army, including those
relating to the conservation and development of water resources and the
support for others program. The Chief of Engineers reports to the
ASA(CW) on civil works functions.
(c) Operational Matters. The Chief of Engineers serves both as a
member of the Army Staff and a commander of 11 engineer divisions and
one engineer battalion. When employed in support of military
contingency operations, these engineer assets fall under the command
and control of the Combatant Commander designated for the particular
operation.
(d) Any Other Matters For Which The Chief of Engineers May Be
Responsible.--The functional responsibilities of the ASA(CW) also
include most other matters for which the Chief of Engineers may be
responsible, and the Chief of Engineers reports to the ASA(CW) with
respect to any such matter. In the areas of installation and real
estate management, the Chief of Engineers reports to the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Installations & Environment). Under the
direction and control of the Secretary of the Army, the ASA(I&E) has
principal responsibility for all DA matters related to installations
and the environment.
Question 3. Who is responsible for providing direction and
supervision to the Chief of Engineers in each of the four areas listed
above?
Response. In each of these areas, the Chief of Engineers acts under
the overall authority, direction and control of the Secretary of the
Army. With respect to military matters, the Secretary has assigned to
the Chief of Staff the authority to preside over and supervise the Army
Staff, including the Chief of Engineers. With respect to civil works
functions, the Chief of Engineers reports to the ASA(CW). In
operational contexts, command and control of engineer assets is
exercised by the Combatant Commanders designated for the particular
operation.
Question 4a. In your opinion, are there any areas of responsibility
where it would be inappropriate for the Chief of Engineers to provide
information to the Assistant Secretary of the Civil Works?
Response. No. Unless the information is protected from disclosure
for operational/security reasons or prohibited from disclosure by law,
as in the case of certain procurement sensitive information, all
information relating to the civil works program should be shared with
the ASA(CW). I note that even in these instances, the information may
be shared if appropriate steps are taken to protect sensitive or
proprietary aspects of the information. The relationship between the
ASA(CW) and the Chief of Engineers must be founded upon full, open and
candid communication about all civil works matters. If confirmed, I
will ensure that the ASA(CW)--and, with respect to installation and
real estate management matters, the ASA(I&E)--are timely informed about
any issue they specify and all significant matters arising within the
Corps of Engineers, in order to ensure effective civilian control over
the Corps' operations.
Question 4b. If so, what areas and why?
Response. Again, except in those narrow instances where the
disclosure of information is inappropriate for operational/security
reasons or prohibited by law, as in the case of procurement sensitive
matters, I can think of no area in which information relevant to Corps
of Engineers activities should not be provided freely, fully and
promptly to the ASA(CW).
major challenges
Question 1. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Chief of Engineers, United States Army?
Response. Historically, the Nation's rich and abundant water, and
related land resources provided the foundation for our successful
development and rapid achievement of preeminence within the
international community. Since the beginning of our Nation, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has been a great asset, providing engineering
support to the military, developing our nation's water resources, and
restoring and protecting our environment. The Corps has improved the
quality of our life by making America more prosperous, safe, and
secure. The Corps must be flexible and evolve if it is to continue to
make important contributions to the Nation and respond to today's
problems.
Communities across the country rely on water resources projects to
reduce flood damages, compete more efficiently in world trade, provide
needed water and power, and protect and restore our rich environmental
resources. Our programs provide a sound investment in our Nation's
security, economic future, and environmental stability. Our greatest
continuing water resources challenge is to find sustainable ways to
strengthen our Nation's economy while protecting and restoring our
unique water and related land resources for the benefit of future
generations.
There are many pressing needs for water resources development in
this country. Perhaps the two greatest challenges the Corps faces are
the need to maintain our existing infrastructure, and to repair our
damaged environment. We also face the need to have a ports and inland
waterway system that will enable us to both efficiently transport goods
and to do so in an environmentally acceptable manner. We need an
efficient water transportation system if we as a Nation are to remain
competitive in international trade. Flooding also continues to threaten
our communities. We must not only find ways to use our limited
resources to maintain the capability to respond to natural disasters
when floods and hurricanes occur, but to also be more creative and work
more with nature to prevent or reduce flood damages. Flood damages are
a growing drain on our economy, and we must find ways to reduce them.
There also is a need to help many communities, particularly poorer
communities, find adequate sources of potable water and ways to manage
wastewater disposal necessary for economic growth, prosperity, and the
quality of life that people deserve.
Question 2. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing
these challenges?
Response. We must all work together to define an appropriate
Federal role in addressing these problems given fiscal capabilities and
constraints, and economic and environmental requirements. The
challenges the Corps faces are complex, and there are many difficult
decisions to make. It is of paramount importance that we bring all
interests to the table and that they have a voice in the development of
solutions to our Nation's problems. The Corps must strive to be
responsive in developing solutions to the Nation's water resources
problems and needs, and must engage in an open and cooperative dialog
with Congress, other Federal agencies, States, Tribes and local
governments.
most serious problems
Question 1. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Chief of Engineers, United
States Army?
Response. The Chief of Engineers has wide-ranging responsibilities
arising from the varied missions of the Corps. Recognizing the diverse
nature of the Corps programs, the Chief of Engineers needs to set clear
leadership direction for the Corps as it performs its important Civil
Works and military missions. That direction must ensure that it
appropriately targets this Nation's critical needs and is supported by
the American people.
Question 2. What management actions and time lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Response. I have not developed a specific schedule for implementing
this vision of clear leadership. One of my first priorities will be to
meet with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and
others in the Administration and Congress to seek their input and to
develop a plan for how this challenge can be met. In addition, I will
work to maintain and improve the technical expertise of the Corps
workforce by ensuring that employees have opportunities to achieve
their career goals and to make contributions that are acknowledged and
appreciated.
qualifications
Question 1. Sections 3031, 3032, and 3036 of title 10, United
States Code prescribe some of the duties and responsibilities of the
Chief of Engineers, United States Army. Other civil works related
responsibilities are described in title 33, United States Code.
What background and experience do you have that you believe
qualifies you for this position?
Response. I have spent my entire career as an Army officer and
professional engineer working with and successfully managing difficult
engineering and construction-related issues. During the past 31 years,
I have had the privilege to serve in a variety of diverse and
challenging positions. My service in these positions has, I believe,
given me the experiences, skills, and vision necessary to step in and
fulfill the important duties of this position. I have worked with a
broad variety of officials within and without government, performed
mission requirements under stressful conditions, and found solutions to
difficult problems when there was no convenient roadmap to follow.
With respect to my educational background, I received my
undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Military
Institute. I was awarded a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering from the
University of Virginia. My military education includes the National War
College and Command General Staff College. I am a registered
professional engineer in Virginia.
I have held a number of military assignments that qualify me for
this position. I served as Theater Engineer in Desert Storm, Somalia,
and during the initial operations in the Balkans. My other critical
assignments include serving as the Commanding General, United States
Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Valley; serving as Assistant
Division Commander, 2d Infantry Division, Eighth United States Army,
Korea; and serving as the President of the Mississippi River Commission
from 1995-1997.
Question 2. Do you believe these multiple statutory references
provide clear guidance or are they in conflict?
Response. In my judgment, these statutes clearly describe the
duties and responsibilities of the Chief of Engineers. I am, however,
committed to working closely with Congress should a question arise
concerning my duties and responsibilities as the Chief of Engineers in
order to ensure that my actions are consistent with the authorities
that Congress has enacted into law.
political pressures
Question 1. Perhaps the most difficult part of the job of Chief of
Engineers is the tactful handling of the inevitable political pressures
that comes with overseeing major civil works projects.
If confirmed, how will you deal with these pressures and ensure the
integrity of the Corps of Engineers?
Response. I am committed to maintaining the integrity of the Corps
of Engineers. In this regard, if I am confirmed as the Chief of
Engineers, I will work cooperatively with all interests and thoroughly
consider all points of view. My discussions will be open and forthright
and intended to ensure that Corps decisions are broadly understood and
supported.
Question 2. A February 24, 2000 article in the Washington Post
reports that military officials in the Army Corps of Engineers
developed a ``Program Growth Initiative'' providing financial targets
for each of the agency's activities and divisions, without consulting
the Office of the Chief of Engineers.
Do you have any independent knowledge of these events?
Response. I have no first hand knowledge of the specific facts
related to the allegations made in that article.
Question 3. In your opinion, would it be appropriate for military
officials in the Corps of Engineers to develop plans for program growth
including the establishment of financial targets without consulting the
civilian leadership of the Army?
Response. Typically, the Chief of Engineers makes Civil Works
program recommendations to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), who in turn works with the Secretary of the Army and the Office
of Management and Budget in developing the Administration's final
position on program direction, consulting with Congress as appropriate.
Question 4. What is your view of the initiative described in the
article?
Response. I have not developed a position on the initiative at this
time. I am prepared to engage in discussions with the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Congress to determine whether there is consensus
support for broadening the Corps responsibilities to address certain
national needs.
Question 5. A second article in the same edition of the Washington
Post cites a memorandum in which Major General Hans Van Winkle is
reported to have told his top staff ``[W]e have to have support from
Users Board, MARK 2000, and DYNAMO.'' Do you have any independent
knowledge of the memorandum?
Response. I have no first hand knowledge of the statement by Major
General Hans Van Winkle or the facts behind that statement.
Question 6. What role should the approval or disapproval of
navigation industry groups play in decisions made by the Corps of
Engineers about specific projects?
Response. Decisions about Corps of Engineers projects are the
responsibility of officials in the Executive and legislative branches.
However, the Corps often is required by law, and invariably finds it
beneficial, to seek input from affected interests and the public during
the development of proposed Civil Works decisions. The Corps welcomes
input from as broad a constituency as possible. Concerns of the
affected stakeholders, and the public at large, are crucial in
validating needs and priorities and identifying impacts.
Question 7a. Does the Army Corps of Engineers currently have a
system in place to ensure the independent peer review of studies
supporting major projects by experts from outside the agency before
such projects are approved?
Response. No. Although the Corps does conduct both technical and
policy reviews of projects, they are not the type of formal peer review
practiced by the scientists and engineers in the research community.
The existing review process for major studies does, however, include
opportunities for comment by, and consultation with, stakeholders,
elected officials at all levels, other Federal agencies, technical
experts, and the general public before recommendations are submitted to
the Administration and to Congress.
Question 7b. If not, do you believe that it would be appropriate to
institute such an independent peer review program? Why or why not?
Response. I would be willing to consider looking at such a
proposal, however, there are a number of factors to be considered. An
independent peer review program would be overlaid upon the existing
system checks and balances to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of
study results. I would want to confirm that the benefits of such a
program justify the cost and time associated with it.
proposed management reforms of the corps of engineers
Question 1. On March 30, 2000, the Secretary of the Army issued a
memorandum entitled, ``Civil Works Management Reforms''.
What is your personal assessment of the proposal?
Response. I understand the need to ensure that the relationship
between the Chief of Engineers and the ASA(CW) is clear and that the
OASA (CW) and Corps of Engineers communicate fully on all issues. I
also understand the need to preserve the independent, professional
engineering judgment of the Chief of Engineers and to ensure that the
essential flow of information to Congress on civil works matters is not
interrupted. The Secretary has assured me that he expects me to
communicate fully with Congress on matters of concern to the Congress
and to continue to submit my personal recommendations to Congress
regarding the authorization of projects in Chief of Engineers reports.
Question 2. Do you believe that the management reforms should be
put on hold until you and/or the next Administration have a chance to
review them?
Response. The issue of whether the reforms should be put on hold
for the next Administration is essentially a political judgment that
others within the executive and legislative branches are better
qualified to make. I do understand, however, that the Secretary has
agreed to delay further implementation of the reforms pending
additional consultation with Congress.
district of columbia school construction
Question 1. There have been recent press reports about the
performance of the Corps of Engineers in dealing with the construction
project in the District of Columbia school system.
Please provide your view of the reports with regard to this project
and your assessment of the status of this program.
Response. I have not been personally involved with any matter
relating to the assistance that the Corps of Engineers is providing to
the District of Columbia school system. I am, however, generally
familiar with the important services the Corps of Engineers provides to
other Federal agencies, states, and political subdivisions of states in
connection with its ``Support for Others'' program. I plan to work
closely with the executive and legislative branches to ensure that the
services requested match up with the Corps capabilities, are not
reasonably and expeditiously available elsewhere in the private sector,
and ultimately can be provided by the Corps in an effective manner
consistent with its mission requirements.
use of emergency authority
Question 1. In the past, there may have been attempts to require
the Corps to accelerate construction projects by having the Corps of
Engineers declare the projects to be an emergency under the authority
of Public Law 8499.
What criteria would you use to determine which projects truly
constitute an emergency and require special funding?
Response. I am not personally familiar with the specific facts of
the situations to which you refer. I am however cognizant of the need
to carefully exercise this authority to ensure that the actions taken
are consistent with the various actions contemplated in the statute.
Those actions include flood emergency preparation; flood fighting and
rescue operations; repairing and restoring flood control works or
hurricane and shore protective structures when warranted by emergency
circumstances; and providing emergency supplies of clean drinking
water. Engineer Regulation 500-1-1 (1991), Natural Disaster Procedures,
provides guidance on decisionmaking under this authority.
environmental concerns
Question 1. If confirmed, you will take command of the largest
construction element in this country. In dealing with virtually every
civil and public works project of the Corps, there is the very real
concern for our environment.
What is your philosophy in balancing the missions and projects of
the Corps of Engineers with the provisions of the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)?
Response. I am committed to the precept that the Corps can and must
carry out its missions in an environmentally responsible manner. The
Corps has a long record of coordinating its missions and planning its
projects in compliance with the provisions of NEPA, which has led to
better and more environmentally sensitive projects. While Corps
missions and projects have potential to be environmentally damaging, I
am committed to ensuring that they are planned and constructed in such
a manner as to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. In those
instances where impacts to significant resources cannot be avoided, a
mitigation plan for the impacts will be developed.
upper mississippi river/illinois waterway project
Question 1. Recently there has been some controversy surrounding
the Upper Mississippi River/Illinois Waterway project. There has been
an allegation by a Corps of Engineers civilian employee that the Corps
of Engineers, ``intentionally and deliberately altered a portion'' of
the $50 million study of this navigation system, thus rendering this
entire study worthless.
What is your comment about the integrity of the study?
Response. The Army takes very seriously any allegation of
misconduct by senior Corps officials, and is thoroughly and impartially
investigating the allegations that have been made in this matter. The
Army also appreciates the importance of this navigation study and is
committed to an open and objective process in which the American people
can have full confidence. Accordingly, the Army has engaged the highly
respected National Academy of Sciences to undertake an independent
review of the economic aspects of this study.
Question 2. Do you believe anyone in the Corps direct that this
study be altered to assure a specific outcome?
Response. I have no first hand knowledge of the matters under
investigation. The Army is thoroughly investigating this matter under
the direction of the Special Counsel and the Secretary of Defense. I am
confident that this investigation will reveal all of the relevant
facts.
Question 3. If so, what is being done to ensure the quality and
integrity of this very expensive and important study?
Response. The National Academy of Sciences is conducting an
independent, objective review of the Corps' navigation study, to ensure
that it correctly incorporates scientifically sound, valid analyses.
The Academy's review is intended to ensure that valid data and study
methodologies have been employed and that the American public can have
full confidence in the objectivity of the ultimate study conclusions.
Question 4. Despite the outcome of the investigations in this
matter, how will you ensure the employee who made these allegations is
not subject to retaliation for making such allegations?
Response. Irrespective of whether the allegations are confirmed or
refuted, the Chief of Engineers will be responsible for ensuring that
the Corps of Engineers maintains a workplace free of reprisals, or the
threat of reprisals, against any employee. If confirmed, I will ensure
that all supervisors throughout the Corps understand, appreciate, and
fulfill their responsibility to safeguard subordinates from any
improper retaliatory measures.
Question 5. The Lead Economist for the project has stated in a
sworn affidavit that he was directed by his superiors to change the
``N'' value for grain in his economic analysis.
Do you have any independent knowledge of whether such direction was
given?
Response. I have no independent knowledge of whether such direction
was given.
Question 6. Do you believe that it would be appropriate for Army
Corps of Engineers officials to direct specific values to be included
in an economic analysis?
Response. The integrity of economic analyses performed by the Army
Corps of Engineers rests on the openness, objectivity and scientific
validity of the analytical processes employed in performing such
analyses. Any direction by Corps officials that undermines, or appears
to undermine such openness, objectivity or scientific validity would be
inappropriate. If confirmed, I will ensure that economic analyses
performed by the Corps of Engineers are worthy of the public's complete
confidence.
Question 7. Do you have any independent expertise in the area of
economic analysis?
Response. No.
most significant projects
Question 1. What do you see as the most significant projects
planned for the next 10 years by the Corps of Engineers?
Response. The Corps civil works and military construction missions
include many significant projects.
The work that is being done to support the Florida Everglades
Restoration is a major inter-governmental effort with national
implications. Similarly, the actions that are being taken to preserve
and restore endangered fish species in the Lower Snake and Columbia
Rivers involve another nationally prominent environmental restoration
effort.
The Corps navigation projects are designed to assure that the
nation's navigation system continues to be efficient and to support the
balance of trade. Particularly prominent navigation projects include
the Oakland Harbor, New York & New Jersey Harbor, and Olmstead Locks
and Dams.
Continued support to quality of life initiatives, such as the
Army's Barracks Upgrade/Renewal Programs and privatization of family
housing are some of the Corps of Engineers most prominent military
construction missions.
The construction in Israel associated with the Wye River Accord and
the support to contingency operations are two examples of prominent
missions involving other DOD elements.
Question 2. In your opinion, is the Corps of Engineers properly
resourced and staffed to complete these projects?
Response. While I have a general familiarity with the issues that
the organization faces, I cannot State at this time whether the Corps
is properly resourced and staffed to effectively execute all of its
mission requirements. If I am confirmed as the Chief of Engineers, I am
committed to examining this issue, and to working with the
Administration and Congress to ensure that the Corps of Engineers is
properly staffed and resourced to meet the Nation's critical and
important needs.
dredging projects
Question 1. The Corps of Engineers has many dredging projects with
an increasing need for suitable disposal sites. Not only does the need
for disposal sites increase the cost of the dredging, but the potential
contamination of the dredge spoils raises concern about adverse impact
on the environment near the disposal site.
How will the Corps deal with this issue?
Response. The Corps of Engineers has expended considerable effort
in attempting to address the challenge of proper disposal of dredge
material. I understand that substantial research is underway to
identify decontamination processes and consolidation procedures in
order to clean the material and prolong the capacity of disposal sites.
Extensive efforts also are underway to identify beneficial uses of
dredged material with very promising results. The Corps must continue
to focus on finding ways to apply dredged material to beneficial uses
and to identify ways to reduce the costs of channel deepening and
maintenance.
Question 2. What is the status of available disposal sites?
Response. I am not familiar with the status of available disposal
sites but if confirmed, I would be active in examining their status in
an effort to ensure that they were sufficient to meet national needs.
beach renourishment
Question 1. Beach renourishment projects have had mixed results.
What are your views on the effectiveness of these projects when
balanced against their tremendous cost?
Response. Like most water resources problems, there is no one
solution to the many challenges that coastal flooding presents. Beach
renourishment projects generally have less severe adverse impacts--
particularly to adjacent areas--and can accommodate recreational usage.
Yet, they are often expensive and should only be recommended where they
are economically justified. In general, however, beach renourishment
projects can be an effective solution to certain types of problems and
should continue to be considered by both Federal and non-Federal
interests when evaluating damages to coastal areas.
hydro-power projects
Question 1. The Corps of Engineers operates a number of hydro-power
projects, several of which have caused environmental concerns.
Do you plan to review these projects?
Response. I recognize there are environmental concerns associated
with these projects. These concerns need to be addressed along with all
the other authorized purposes of the project in order to optimize the
benefits consistent with our environmental stewardship
responsibilities. If confirmed, I will work closely with affected
local, state, regional, and Federal agencies to achieve a mutual
understanding and resolution of these complex issues.
Question 2. Do you support mitigation payments to states that are
adversely affected by such projects?
Response. Again, all the benefits and impacts of a project need to
be evaluated. If confirmed, I will work closely with those states in
question to determine if any type of mitigation is necessary and the
best way to provide it.
land management
Question 1. The Corps of Engineers' management of various lake
properties throughout the Nation has a direct economic impact on the
local communities. Many of these communities believe the Corps should
be more flexible with property owners and should allow more development
on the large tracts of land surrounding the Corps lakes to enhance the
tax base of the communities.
What are your views on this issue?
Response. In general, I believe that land use and development
decisions on private land should be left to appropriate local
governmental entities such as zoning boards. With respect to Federal
land, the Corps has a responsibility to protect the public investment
in the property and to ensure that the land is used for the
Congressionally authorized purposes for which it was acquired. In these
instances, it would not be appropriate to allow development on Federal
land unless Congress authorizes such development.
allegations of waste and abuse
Question 1. The Corps of Engineers has been the subject of
significant public attention in the past year, including allegations of
waste and abuse and a highly publicized clash with the Army
Secretariat. You are a career Corps officer who has been involved in
the sort of major civil works projects, which are the subject of these
disputes.
If confirmed, would you be able to deal with these problems?
Response. The fact that I have been a Corps of Engineers Division
Commander will serve me well, if I become the new Chief, in dealing
with disputes relating to the Corps of Engineers civil works
activities. I understand the need to cooperate and communicate openly
with all interested parties, in order to make sound decisions and to
avoid perceptions of bias. I also understand the complexity of the
issues involved in formulating recommendations for water resources
development and for environmental restoration.
Question 2. What would your plans be for dealing with them?
Response. I would emphasize the high professional standards to
which the officers and civilians of the Army Corps of Engineers strive.
I would expect all employees to perform their jobs consistently in
accordance with those standards. If, after a full and fair
investigation, I found that those standards were not being adhered to,
I would take steps to hold the parties accountable.
anthrax vaccination
Question 1. Have you received any of the series of anthrax
vaccinations?
Response. Yes.
Question 1. If not, why not? And would you be willing to begin the
vaccination protocol before you are confirmed?
Response. N/A
Question 1. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure the confidence
of the force in the safety and necessity of the anthrax vaccine?
Response. The anthrax vaccination program is a highly effective
method of countering the threat of biological weapons. I fully support
the Anthrax Immunization Vaccination Program and the Department of
Defense view that it is one of the cornerstones of Force Health
Protection. I recognize that anthrax protection is particularly
challenging because the vaccination protocol requires multiple doses to
achieve immunity, and thus involves significant administrative and
logistical issues. I will support the Army's efforts to provide up-to-
date information about the anthrax vaccine and the threat to our
personnel.
micro-management
Question 1. A survey of almost 2,500 young officers last fall found
that only about one-third intend to make a career of the military and
that those planning to leave are disgruntled about ``micro-
management'', heavy workloads while in port, and a ``zero defects
mentality'' among their superiors.
What is your assessment of these findings?
Response. In general, I have found our young officers to be highly
motivated, and enthusiastic about serving their country. I am aware,
however, that our high personnel tempo has resulted in lower morale
among some junior officers. I am concerned about this and other survey
findings. It is absolutely critical to our Army that we produce leaders
who are highly motivated, properly treated, and appropriately utilized.
I and other senior leaders of the Army must strive to avoid the
creation of a zero defect environment so that all of our subordinates
will exercise initiative and use their best judgment free from the fear
of making career-ending decisions. I will also continue to endeavor to
be fair in all of my dealings with my subordinates, in what I expect
from them, in providing them with opportunity for development, and when
needed, in imposing discipline.
We must learn as much as we can about the problems that our junior
officers have raised. In this regard, I support the initiatives of the
Secretary of the Army, and the Army Chief of Staff of the Army, in
forming two Blue Ribbon Panels to examine training and leader
development methods, as well as to assess how to better meet the
personal and professional expectations of leaders, soldiers, and
families.
Question 2. If you agree with the findings, what actions do you
plan to correct these concerns?
Response. I will closely study the results and recommendations of
the Blue Ribbon Panels to improve the Army's training and leader
development processes. I will take steps to maintain and improve the
quality of life for all of the Corp's soldiers and civilian employees
and their family members. I will frequently consult with my junior
officers and enlisted personnel to ensure that we are providing an
excellent work environment and affording them every opportunity to
develop and learn so they are ready to assume the leadership roles we
leave behind.
congressional oversight
Question 1. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of the Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress?
Response. Yes.
Question 2. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the Administration in power?
Response. Yes.
Question 3. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Chief of Engineers, United
States Army?
Response. Yes.
Question 4. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Response. Yes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. You already responded very satisfactorily,
but not quite as thoroughly as we need to have on that.
General Flowers. OK, sir.
Senator Inhofe. This is another, totally unrelated issue.
It is one that is creating a real serious problem for me, so
this is parochial, but it's one that you will be dealing with.
In northeastern Oklahoma we have--a lot of people aren't
aware, Senator Lautenberg, that Oklahoma has more miles of
fresh water shoreline than any of the 50 States. Did you know
that?
Senator Lautenberg. No.
Senator Inhofe, Well, we do, and most of them are Corps
lakes. The reason it is shoreline is that they are all dammed
up from the rivers, lots of shoreline.
Anyway, the largest one is called Grand Lake, and it was
established by the Corps in 1941, and a couple years before
that they established the Grand River Dam Authority to take
care of the generation of electricity.
Now, the problem that exists is that upstream from that, in
a place called Ottawa County, they have had serious flooding
problems. The GRDA, Grand River Dam Authority, has no control
because under the regulations it is still the Corps that
dictates the flow of the water. So they can't control this.
There are some lawsuits that are pending, that have been
filed, so we are in this dilemma where the GRDA is being sued,
and yet we don't have any control over what we do. So we have
asked for a study--I think it's in the WRDA bill--we have asked
for a study by the Secretary, and I have talked to the
Secretary about this; this is not a contentious thing, other
than that we just have to get it resolved at some point, to see
if in fact it is the Corps that is responsible for the damage,
in which case they should be involved in the lawsuit also.
One of the problems is venue. They talked about ``if the
Corps is involved in this thing,'' that it's going to have to
be in the Washington District, and for obvious reasons they'd
rather not have it there.
But I would only ask that if the study comes out and it
clearly says--or there is persuasive evidence--that it is not
the GRDA but it is the Corps that is responsible for these
problems up there, that you would help us in addressing these
things.
Now, I know I'm not asking the right person because you're
not going to be able to set the policy decisions. However, you
will be involved in this thing, and I just wanted to get this
out in the open right now and at least ask you if you would do
all you could to cooperate with us, and then after the study
comes out, if we determine that it is the Corps, to help us to
resolve the problem.
General Flowers. Yes, sir. If confirmed, I will do
everything I can to cooperate with you on that one.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I knew you would.
That's really the extent of what I wanted to bring out, Mr.
Chairman, and I appreciate Senator Baucus and Senator
Lautenberg and you for allowing me to do that.
Thank you, General Flowers. I look forward to enjoying my
service with you.
General Flowers. Thank you, sir.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Now we will proceed to some opening comments, and then
we'll hear from you, General Flowers.
As you know, the hearing is on the nomination of Major
General Robert B. Flowers to be the Chief of the Army Corps of
Engineers. The nomination, of course, is referred to the Armed
Services Committee, not to this one, so we will not be having a
vote on your nomination, of course, but we do have jurisdiction
over the Army Corps' Civil Works Program, which is why we've
invited you to be here this morning.
The Chief of Engineers has a lot of important
responsibilities. He is a member of the Army General Staff. He
reports to the Vice Chief of Staff on military matters for
engineers assigned to line combat units.
But the Chief also has important civil engineering
responsibilities. He reports to two different Assistant
Secretaries of the Army. He reports to the Assistant Secretary
for Installations and Environment for his installation and real
estate management responsibilities, and he reports to the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Works for the management of the
Corps' large Civil Works Programs. That's a lot of people to
report to.
Major General Flowers is currently dual-hatted, serving as
Commanding General, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center, and
Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School, both located at Fort
Leonard Wood, MO.
Before that, he previously served as the Commanding General
of the U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Valley,
and the Assistant Division Commander of the 2nd Infantry
Division, Eighth U.S. Army, Korea, and president of the
Mississippi River Commission from 1995 to 1997. He also served
as Theater Engineer in Desert Storm, in Somalia, and during the
initial operations in the Balkans. He has had a very
distinguished military career.
He received his B.S. from Virginia Military Institute and
M.S. from the University of Virginia. Both degrees are in civil
engineering.
I am pleased to report that General Flowers is very well
qualified for his position, and we certainly look forward to
your speedy confirmation, which I think will happen as soon as
we finish this hearing.
General you are going to assume your new duties in
interesting times. There are a few very prominent articles that
have been appearing in the local papers, and the challenges you
face are great. Some believe that the Corps is a rogue agency,
out of control; even the integrity of the Corps has been
disputed. Others have alleged that the Corps is a victim of
inappropriate political pressures, with various Federal
agencies meddling in the Corps' professional judgments. There
have also been well-documented and heavily reported
communications failures between the Chief's office and that of
the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works.
But whether you believe the Corps is a rogue or a victim,
or whether the charges are fair or unfair, I think it is
largely going to fall on you to restore the reputation, if you
can assume that the reputation needs to be restored. That
doesn't necessarily mean that every article we read is
accurate, obviously.
This committee is concerned, though, about the operation of
the Corps. A few months ago, along with Senator Warner, the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Senator Stevens
and myself, we initiated an investigation into some of the
allegations regarding the Corps' operations. As of this time we
have not announced anything publicly on that. I want to do that
right now, this morning.
There were two prongs to the inquiry. First, we examined
all the allegations that the executive branch officials brought
inappropriate political pressure that affected the Corps'
professional judgment. We looked into that.
Second, we examined the basis and need for the so-called
``Civil Works Program Management Reforms,'' announced by Army
Secretary Caldera last spring.
The Corps and the Army provided us with volumes of
documents in response to our questions. They were very
accommodating in that. After a careful evaluation of all the
material--I want to make it very clear--we did not find
evidence of illegality, nor did we find evidence of
inappropriate political influence on the Corps' professional
judgment. The material does raise some questions that may be
areas of future committee oversight in terms of, perhaps, some
e-mails and correspondence and things that perhaps might be a
bit embarrassing, but there's a big difference between
embarrassing memos and inappropriate or illegal activity. We
found none.
Similarly, the material provided to the committee does not
establish the need for any significant Civil Works management
reforms. The material did reveal that there was a systematic
communications and management breakdown between the Chief and
the Office of Assistant Secretary; many of these internal
communications, as I said, are embarrassing, and they do
demonstrate, perhaps, a lack of judgment, and probably never
anticipated that congressional investigators would be reading
through their e-mails.
General Flowers has provided written response to questions,
which will be made part of the record, that indicate that he
clearly understands the chain of command for his Civil Works
responsibility.
[The referenced response follows:]
Senator Smith. I don't want to get ahead of your testimony,
General, but I want to say that you state very clearly,
The supervisory duties of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works extend to all Civil Works functions of the
Army, including those relating to conservation and development
of water resources and support for other programs. The Chief of
Engineers reports to the Assistant Secretary on Civil Works
functions.
That's a very definitive statement. I think it should put
to rest any rush to judgment that anyone might make regarding
the chain of command. It is my view that we should let General
Flowers assume his duties for a time before beginning to
consider whether or not sweeping management reforms are
necessary. I made that very clear, directly to Secretary
Caldera. We should also wait to see if the new political
leadership that will come after the elections--whomever it is--
finds that the reforms are necessary.
I can already read the headlines: ``Kill Corps Cronies,
Stop the Reforms.'' The press can write that if they want to. I
have been the victim of adverse headlines before, but that's
not the message that I want the nominee to take away from this
hearing, which is why I am bringing it up right now.
You have the respect and support of this committee and the
Senate.
General there have been legitimate policy issues raised on
these topics, like the integrity of the Corps' economic
analyses and the future role of the Corps. The issues should be
examined and, if necessary, fixed, and the committee will be
working with you and watching closely to do that.
The committee also will not tolerate the gridlock that has
characterized the relationship between the Chief's office and
the Assistant Secretary's office. On the Civil Works Program it
is crystal clear, as you indicated, that you work for the
Assistant Secretary. It is also crystal clear that you
understand that. My charge to you is to make that relationship
work, which I know that you have the capability to do.
Later today Senators Warner, Stevens, and myself will send
a letter to Secretary Caldera. The letter is drafted and signed
by two of us; on the other, the content of the letter has been
approved and the signature will be received before the end of
the day. We will make that available once it is delivered. The
letter states four major principles:
First, based on our review of the documents provided and
additional discussions between committee staff and Corps of
Engineers personnel with respect to the allegations, we have
concluded that while some of the events described in the
documents reflect poor judgment on the part of a number of
officials at the Corps, in the Assistant Secretary's office,
and elsewhere in the executive branch, there is not sufficient
evidence of inappropriate or illegal conduct to warrant further
investigation by the committee.
Second, however, based on our evaluation of the documents,
we also believe that any significant management reforms are
unnecessary at this time.
Third, it is evident from the documents that individual
personalities significantly contributed to the tension and lack
of trust between the leadership of the Corps and the civilian
leadership of the Office of the Assistant Secretary. It is the
committee's hope that better communication and new leadership
will help address this tension and lack of trust.
And finally, we believe that further consideration of any
management reforms should be deferred, if any reforms take
place, until the new Chief is confirmed and other new key
personnel are in place.
I intend to include a copy of that letter in the record of
the hearing.
[A copy of the referenced letter follows:]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC., September 13, 2000.
Hon. William S. Cohen, Secretary,
Department of Defense,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Cohen: On April 5, 2000, we wrote to you expressing
our concerns regarding the management reforms for the civil works
function of the Army Corps of Engineers that were announced by
Secretary Caldera. At that time, we requested that you suspend any
implementation of the proposed reforms pending our investigation of the
reforms and the circumstances that led up to their issuance. We are
writing to inform you that we have completed our investigation and have
determined that no further Congressional action is warranted at this
time. However, we do not find that justification exists to warrant
implementation of these proposed reforms at this time.
As you know, our investigation was prompted by the announcement of
Secretary Caldera's proposed management reforms for the Corps of
Engineers. Our concerns stemmed, in part, from the fact that no
justification for the reforms was provided to the Congress before their
announcement on March 30. In addition to the substance of the proposed
reforms, we were concerned also about the timing of the announcement.
The proposed reforms were released on the heels of a series of articles
in the Washington Post raising serious concerns about the objectivity
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in recommending for authorization
water resources projects to the Congress. Allegations were also made
that executive branch officials had improperly interfered with Corps
activities on several significant projects. The most serious
allegations charged the Corps of Engineers with improperly calculating
the economic benefits of a proposal to justify the expansion of locks
on the Mississippi River to facilitate grain transportation. We
understand that this matter has been referred to the Inspector General
of the Department of Defense. The Inspector General's final report is
not yet available nor has the Inspector General made any
recommendations to date.
In order to evaluate the basis for Secretary Caldera's proposed
management
reforms and other allegations of inappropriate political interference
with Corps activities, the three Senate committees of jurisdiction--the
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, and the Committee on Appropriations--requested that Lieutenant
General Ballard, the former Chief of the Corps of Engineers, provide a
number of relevant documents and respond to a series of written
questions. In particular, the committees requested information that
would support, or refute, the assertion that there was a breakdown in
the execution of the Civil Works Program. The committees also requested
specific examples of circumstances where there was allegedly
inappropriate political interference by executive branch officials in
the professional judgments of the Corps of Engineers. General Ballard
provided a number of documents and responses to the committees'
questions in a timely manner, and we have now had an opportunity to
review those documents in detail. In addition, on August 31, Secretary
Caldera provided the committees with a set of documents setting forth
the legal basis for his proposed management reforms and explaining the
rationale behind them.
Based on our review of the documents provided, and additional
discussions between committee staff and Corps of Engineers personnel
with respect to the allegations, we have concluded that while some of
the events described in the documents reflect poor judgment by a number
of officials at the Corps, in the Assistant Secretary's office, and
elsewhere in the Executive branch, there is not sufficient evidence of
inappropriate or illegal conduct to warrant further investigation by
the committees at this time. However, based on our evaluation of the
documents, we also believe that it is unnecessary to implement any
significant management reforms at this time. It is evident from the
documents that individual personalities significantly contributed to
the tension and lack of trust between the military leadership of the
Army Corps of Engineers and the civilian leadership of the office of
the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works). It is the committees' hope that
better communication and new leadership will help address this tension
and lack of trust. At a minimum, we strongly believe that further
consideration of any management reforms should be deferred until the
new Chief of Engineers is confirmed and has an opportunity to fully
assess the situation.
In conclusion, this letter confirms that the committees' inquiry
into the basis and need for Secretary Caldera's proposed management
reforms is closed. The committees will not need any further information
from the Secretary of the Army. However, based on our review of the
materials provided, we also believe that there is no justification for
the proposed reforms at this time. It is our strongly held view, as
Chairmen of the committees of Jurisdiction, that the implementation of
any management reforms relating to the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Assistant Secretary (Civil Works) must be deferred until Congress can
receive the assessment of the new Chief of Engineers and can review the
findings and recommendations of the Department of Defense Inspector
General. We strongly urge you to consider these views seriously.
Thank you and your staff for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ted Stevens, Chairman,
Committee on
Appropriations.
John W. Warner, Chairman,
Committee on Armed
Services.
Bob Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
Senator Smith. I am proud of the Army Corps and a supporter
of the Army Corps. I respect what the Army Corps has done for
America over the years. Where mistakes have been made, they
were made because we directed you, for the most part, to do
something--such as the Everglades, which turned out to be
wrong.
I think you have a challenge ahead of you, but I think you
are ready, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Statement of Senator Robert Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Hampshire
Good morning. Today's hearing is on the nomination of Major General
Robert B. Flowers to be the Chief of Engineers, the Department of the
Army. This nomination was referred to the Armed Services Committee.
There will be no vote here in the Environment and Public Works
Committee to report Major General Flowers' nomination. This committee
does have jurisdiction over the Army Corp's Civil Works Program, that
is why we invited the General here today.
The Chief of Engineers has several important responsibilities. He
is a member of the Army General Staff, reporting to the Vice Chief of
Staff on military matters for engineers assigned to line combat units.
The Chief also has important civil engineering responsibilities. He
reports to two different Assistant Secretaries of the Army. He reports
to the Assistant Secretary (Installations and Environment) for his
installation and real estate management responsibilities. He reports to
the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works) for the management of the Corp's
large civil works program. Major General Flowers is currently ``dual
hatted,'' serving as Commanding General, United States Army Maneuver
Support Center and Commandant, United States Army Engineer School, both
located at Fort Leonard Wood. He previously served as the Commanding
General, United States Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi
Valley; Assistant Division Commander, 2d Infantry Division, Eighth
United States Army, Korea; and President of the Mississippi River
Commission from 1995-1997. He also served as Theater Engineer in Desert
Storm, in Somalia, and during the initial operations in the Balkans. He
received a received his B.S. from Virginia Military Institute and M.S.
from the University of Virginia. Both degrees are in Civil Engineering.
I am pleased to report that Major General Flowers is well qualified for
his position.
General Flowers, you will assume your new duties in interesting
times, and the challenges you face are great. Some believe that the
Corps is a rogue agency, out of control. The integrity of the Corps'
analyses has been disputed. Others have alleged that the Corps is a
victim of inappropriate political pressures, with various Federal
agencies meddling in the Corps' professional judgments. There also have
been well-documented, and heavily reported, communication failures
between the Chief's office and that of the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Works. Whether you believe the Corps is a rogue or a victim, and
whether the charges are fair or not, it will largely fall to you to
restore the reputation of the Army Corps of Engineers. This committee
is concerned about the operation of the Corps of Engineers. A few
months ago, along with Senator Warner, the Chairmen of the Armed
Services Committee, and Senator Stevens, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, I initiated an investigation into some of the
allegations regarding Corps operations.
There were two prongs to the inquiry. First, we examined
allegations that executive branch officials brought inappropriate
political pressure that affected the Corps' professional judgments.
Second, we examined the basis and need for the so-called Civil Works
Program Management Reforms announced by Army Secretary Caldera last
Spring. The Corps and Army provided us with volumes of documents in
response to our questions. After a careful evaluation of the material,
we did not find evidence of illegality, or of inappropriate political
influence on the Corps' professional judgments. The material does raise
some questions that may be areas of future committee oversight
activity. Similarly, the material provided to the committee does not
establish the need for any significant Civil Works Management reforms.
The material did reveal that there was a systemic communications and
management breakdown between the Chief of Engineers office, and the
Office of the Assistant Secretary. Many of these internal
communications are embarrassing and demonstrate a lack of judgment by
the participants, who probably never anticipated Congressional
investigators reading through their e-mails. Major General Flowers has
provided written responses to questions, which will be made part of the
record, that indicate that he clearly understands the chain of command
for his Civil Works responsibilities. General Flowers states that: The
Supervisory duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
extend to all civil works functions of the Army, including those
relating to conservation and development of water resources and the
support for others program. The Chief of Engineers reports to the
Assistant Secretary on Civil Works Functions.
That is a definitive statement, and I think it should put to rest
any rush to make administrative changes to ``strengthen'' civilian
control over the civil works program, at least until General Flowers is
well settled in his new job.
It is my view that we should let General Flowers assume his duties
for a time before again considering whether or not any sweeping
management reforms are necessary. We should also wait to see if the new
political leadership that will come after the elections, no matter who
wins, finds that reforms are necessary. I can already read the
headlines ``Hill Corps Cronies Stop The Reforms.'' The press can write
that if they want to, but that is not the message I want the nominee to
take away from the hearing.
General, there have been legitimate policy issues raised on topics
like the integrity of Corps' economic analyses, and the future role of
the Corps. The issues should be examined and, if necessary, fixed. The
committee will watch this closely. The committee also will not tolerate
the gridlock that has characterized the relationship between the
Chief's office and the Assistant Secretary's office. On the Civil Works
Program, it is crystal clear you work for Assistant Secretary. It is
also crystal clear you understand it. My charge to you is to make that
relationship work.
Later today, Senators Warner, Stevens and I will send a letter to
Secretary Caldera. We will make that available once it is delivered.
The letters states that:
1. Based on our review of the documents provided, and additional
discussions between committee staff and Corps of Engineers personnel
with respect to the allegations, we have concluded that while some of
the events described in the documents reflect poor judgment on the
parts of a number of officials at the Corps, in the Assistant
Secretary's office, and elsewhere in the Executive branch, there is not
sufficient evidence of inappropriate or illegal conduct to warrant
further investigation by the committees at this time.
2. However, based on our evaluation of the documents, we also
believe that any significant management reforms are unnecessary at this
time.
3. It is evident from the documents that individual personalities
significantly contributed to the tension and lack of trust between the
military leadership of the Army Corps of Engineers and the civilian
leadership of the office of the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works). It
is the committees' hope that better communication and new leadership
will help address this tension and lack of trust.
4. At a minimum, we strongly believe that further consideration of
any management reforms should be deferred until the new Chief of
Engineers is confirmed and other new key personnel are in place.
I will include a copy of that letter in the record of this hearing.
I am proud of the Army Corps and everything it has accomplished for the
nation. Fairly or not, the Corps' reputation has been tarnished lately.
I think you have quite a challenge ahead of you, but I know you are
ready for the task.''
Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Bowers, welcome.
General Flowers. Thank you, sir.
Senator Baucus. Good luck.
[Laughter.]
General Flowers. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
this nomination comes at a time, as you have indicated, Mr.
Chairman, when the Corps is facing a great deal of public
scrutiny. There has been criticism of the way some economic and
environmental analyses are being done, or in some cases, are
not being done. There are some who feel the time has come for
sweeping reforms in the Corps; others feel the status quo is
just fine.
My own view is that some changes need to be made in order
to justify the trust that this committee and the American
people must have in the work of the Corps. This committee
depends on the professionalism of the Corps, and particularly,
in the integrity of the Chief of Engineers' reports, when we
consider authorizing Corps projects.
Mr. Chairman, I will have some questions later for General
Flowers, but my main point is that the analyses that we are
relying on here in the Congress must be the best that can be.
General you have had a very distinguished 31-year career,
some of it in very challenging assignments. The position to
which the President has nominated you may well be your most
challenging. There will be numerous legal, technical, and
policy issues to confront, but I hope that you will also
address the morale of your employees, especially in light of
the ongoing controversies.
I know that Corps employees, both military and civilian,
want to do a good job, to take pride in their efforts. In my
State, for instance, you have some very fine staff; the manager
of the Fort Peck Lake is a perfect example. He's aces. He works
closely with everyone in the community. They trust him
implicitly. He does a great job at the facility. He is giving
the Corps a very good name.
In conclusion, General, I look forward to hearing from you,
and I also want you to know that you should feel free to call
upon this committee and its members if you need any
assistance--or if you need any free advice--as you assume your
new role. Good luck.
General Flowers. Thank you, sir.
Senator Smith. Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Good morning.
General Flowers. Good morning, sir.
Senator Voinovich. First of all, I want to thank you for
visiting with me last week. I enjoyed that. Hopefully we will
have a lot more opportunities to visit with each other.
Mr. Chairman, it is nice to know that we have someone
before us who has had some roots in Ohio. It makes me feel very
good.
I'd like to thank you, General Flowers, for participating
in this hearing in anticipation of receiving your third star
and command as Chief of Engineers for a 4-year period. It's a
long period of time. By the way, I think we ought to do that in
all the military, that you all ought to have 4 years and not 3,
as it is in some of the other branches.
This has been a difficult year, as you know, for the Corps
of Engineers. It is highlighted again this week in a second
series of articles in the Washington Post. Many aspects of the
Corps' programs are the center of controversy. I was talking to
my wife about it this morning and I told her you were coming
in, and she said, ``Anyone that read those articles has got to
be upset.'' We all realize sometimes that newspapers exaggerate
some things, but if you read all those articles, you know there
are some real serious problems that need to be addressed by the
Army Corps of Engineers.
There are concerns about the environmental impacts of
certain projects; charges the Corps' evaluations of projects
are not objective; very public and acrimonious arguments about
the respective roles of the Chief of Engineers and the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; debates about
the appropriate mission of the Corps and its growth; arguments
about the proper role of Congress versus the executive branch
in directing and overseeing the Corps' programs.
This is a watershed, in fact, as far as I am concerned, in
terms of the Army Corps of Engineers, and I don't believe that
at this stage of the game we can sweep some of this stuff under
the rug and say that we're just going to let it go by the
boards. We need to get at it. We need to take it on head-on,
and we need to use this as an opportunity to restore people's
confidence in the Corps of Engineers.
I am personally concerned about these allegations. As the
chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee,
which has oversight over the Civil Works Program of the Corps,
I have met with your predecessor and the Assistant Secretary
for Civil Works and the Secretary of the Army and extensively
discussed these concerns and listened to their assessment of
the challenges facing the Corps. I wish you had been privy to
those meetings; it would have been very interesting for your
background.
What is very clear to me through all of this is that
national water resource needs are real and growing. We need to
continue to develop and modernize our water transportation
system to compete in an increasingly global economy. Flooding
remains a threat to many communities. The Corps infrastructure
is aging and facing the need for critical maintenance,
rehabilitation and replacement, and the expertise of the Corps
is needed to help restore the environment.
While these needs grow, our national investment continues
to decline. In constant dollar terms, our Federal investment in
water resource development is less than one-half of its level
in 1960. We have one of these bills, the WRDA bill, kicking
around here that is $3 billion that some want Congress to pass.
When you think of the unmet needs that we have, just looking at
the WRDA bill, $38 billion in projects that have either
received design or some construction money that are sitting
there and nothing has been done about them. When you think
about the fact that you have $450 million in deferred critical
maintenance of existing projects--these are real, significant
challenges for the Corps of Engineers and for this country.
I would like to say this, that I think it's very important
that you first investigate and define the problems facing the
Corps, the challenges and the opportunities, and that would
include the ongoing investigation of the Upper Mississippi
River, as well as many of the problems highlighted in the
recent Washington Post series. We can't just discount those and
say, ``Well, that's just another newspaper article.'' They've
done a good job on this, they have, and there's some serious
stuff that needs to be addressed.
As I mentioned to you in my office this week, most of these
problems, I think, can be handled by you, by the current and
the future Administration, managerially. There a lot of people
who say, ``Well, we have to start having hearings.'' Most of
this stuff can be worked out with good management and good
interpersonal relationships between you and whoever it is that
you're going to be working with, and I certainly learned that
when I was Governor of Ohio and Commander in Chief of the Ohio
National Guard, and with General Alexander. He had his job to
do, but it was that relationship that made it either successful
or not successful.
I also think it's important that you develop a strategic
plan for addressing the many challenges facing the Corps as its
new Chief, that you start thinking about that now.
Last but not least, I look forward to working with you in
any way that I can on legislative matters that you might feel
would make it easier for you to get the job done for the Corps
and for our Nation, and I am pleased that you are interested in
taking this on at a difficult time.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Flowers, we are pleased to have someone of your
stature and your experience take this assignment, and you take
it to a Corps that is sometimes questioned, but essential to
our country's pursuance of its interests, its economy, its
quality of life. And let it not be forgotten.
We are concerned in the New York-New Jersey Harbor about
the dredging of the harbor. We want to get down to 50 feet. The
Corps, in my view, is not only the best but the only place that
we can really go to get this important job done.
When I look at dredging, to me it is no different than
highway construction. If the trucks get heavier, we change the
material, change the dimension, change the structure of the
highways. We can't say that ``Here, now, because they're
building bigger ships, we're going to just lose that
business.'' It's such an important part of the various port
economies around the country.
And the Corps has the assignment of keeping us up-to-date
in the 21st century, and I expect that you can do it very well.
So there are things--I have a formal text which I would ask
to be inserted in the record, Mr. Chairman, but we are pleased
to have you take this assignment, and I will fully support your
confirmation and look forward in the short time that I have
remaining in this organization to working with you. I will not.
I will not, however, refrain from calling upon you from either
the chairman or other friends that I have here, and I thank you
very much for taking on the responsibility.
General Flowers. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Statement of Senator Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Jersey
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the committee and General
Flowers. I am pleased to have someone of General Flowers experience and
stature take over as Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers, and I am
looking forward to hearing him present his vision for the Army Corps of
Engineers.
I was particularly pleased to read in the information provided to
the Senate Armed Services Committee that General Flowers believes the
Port of New York and New Jersey 50-foot deepening project to be one of
the most ``prominent'' projects for the nation's navigation system.
The Port of New York and New Jersey is extremely important to the
region and the nation. The 50-foot project for the Port of New York and
New Jersey is the largest project anticipated for our region in the
history of the Port. It is well worth the investment, Mr. Chairman.
Port projects can be compared with highway construction. When
trucks became larger and heavier, we improved the highway system to
accommodate the new truck standards. We need to do the same for
navigation. Now we need to deepen our channels to accommodate the new
ship standards.
Improving the nation's infrastructure also helps our economy. Up-
to-date infrastructure allows for easier movement of goods, helping
manufacturers get raw materials and to ship finished goods to market.
The Port of New York and New Jersey is not a local port, but the
Nation's Port. It is located in the center of the largest regional
market in the nation. It is the largest container port on the East
Coast and the third largest in the United States and serves 34 percent
of the population of this nation.
I was also pleased to learn that General Flowers supports so-called
``quality-of-life'' initiatives that make life better for our citizens.
Although General Flowers listed only military quality of life projects,
I would argue that shore protection and flood control projects are also
``quality of life'' initiatives.
Completed flood control and shore protection projects let property
owners in flood prone and coastal areas rest much easier. If designed
properly, they can significantly improve the overall quality of life in
many communities.
On the other hand, I hope that General Flowers will ensure that
structural solutions to flooding do not become the first ones we pull
off of the shelf simply because they are the ones with which the Army
Corps has the most experience.
We have seen how some of the traditional approaches to prevent
flooding take too heavy a toll on the environment or simply encourage
additional development. I'm pleased that this Administration is moving
toward non-structural alternatives through the Challenge 21 Initiative,
and I urge General Flowers to continue these efforts.
I would also argue that environmental restoration projects are
``quality of life'' projects for our environment as well as our
citizens. One of these projects, which the Corps has designed is the
restoration of Lower Cape May Meadows in New Jersey, which will improve
a vital resting area along the Atlantic flyway as well as protect fish
and wildlife habitat. The Corps planned projects in Barnegat Bay will
restore the habitat for many species of juvenile and harvestable fish
and shellfish. And the New York Harbor Estuary program will reduce
pollution and protect the natural ecosystem.
Finally, I hope that General Flowers will pay close attention to
improving the economic analyses that are prepared by the Corps to
justify projects before they can go forward. I believe that one of the
ways this can be done is to develop stronger civilian control over the
operations of this agency.
I am very interested in hearing how General Flowers hopes to work
more closely with the Secretary of the Army and the Assistant Secretary
for Civil Works to ensure that only projects that meet the most
stringent benefit-cost requirements are approved.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Senator Lautenberg's full statement will be
made a part of the record, and thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
General Flowers, the floor is yours to make any points that
you wish to make before the committee.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS, U.S. ARMY,
NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT
OF THE ARMY
General Flowers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am deeply honored to appear before you today as
the nominee to be Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps of
Engineers. I want to thank the President and the Secretary of
the Army for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to
continue to serve the men and women of this great Nation. If
confirmed, I will lead the Army Corps of Engineers into the
21st century with great pride.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a long and proud
tradition of providing invaluable engineering and construction
service to the Nation in peacetime and in war. Its military
mission includes providing for the defense of American soldiers
and furnishing needed housing and facilities for service
members and their families. Its civil works mission--fighting
floods and developing, preserving, and protecting critical
water resources--is equally vital to the Nation's welfare. The
Corps is a dynamic organization that has continually evolved to
meet the changing needs of the Nation. From building forts,
mapping the uncharted regions of developing America, and
constructing flood control and navigation projects to pursuing
environmental restoration projects, the Corps of Engineers has
responded to the changing needs of America.
If I am confirmed as the Chief of Engineers, I intend to
establish a clear direction of leadership for the Corps as it
performs its
important civil works and military missions. That direction
must target the Nation's critical needs and be fully supported
by the American people. It must also ensure that Corps
employees; have opportunities to achieve their career goals and
make contributions that are acknowledged and appreciated.
Historically, the Nation's rich and abundant water and
related land resources provided the foundation for the
successful development of America. Since the beginning of our
Nation, the Corps of Engineers has played a pivotal role in the
stewardship of these important resources, initially by
developing our Nation's water resources, and later by restoring
and protecting the environment. The Corps has improved the
quality of life by making America more prosperous, safe, and
secure. The Corps must remain flexible in order to continue to
make important contributions to the Nation and respond to
America's contemporary needs.
Communities nationwide rely on the Corps to reduce flood
damages, facilitate navigation, provide needed supplies of
water and power, and protect and restore our aquatic resources.
The projects approved by Congress represent a sound investment
in the Nation's security, economic future, and environmental
stability. The Corps' greatest challenge is to find sustainable
ways to strengthen the Nation's economy while protecting and
restoring our unique water and related land resources for the
benefit of future generations.
The Corps faces the demanding tasks of maintaining its vast
inventory of existing public improvements and pursuing new
projects that develop, conserve, preserve, and protect our
aquatic resources. It must provide for a system of ports and
inland waterways that will efficiently transport goods. It also
must find creative ways to prevent or reduce flood damages.
Finally, more and more communities are looking to the Corps to
provide adequate sources of potable water and to find new ways
to manage wastewater disposal in order to provide for the
economic growth and the quality of life that people deserve.
I believe that the Corps must carry out these varied
missions in an environmentally responsible manner. The Corps
has a long record of coordinating its missions and planning its
projects in compliance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws, which
has led to better and more environmentally sensitive projects.
If I am confirmed as the Chief of Engineers, I will ensure that
all projects are planned and constructed in a manner that
avoids or minimizes undesirable environmental impacts.
The challenges the Corps faces are complex and require
difficult decisions to be made. These decisions must take into
account the requirements of existing law and fiscal
constraints. They also involve a balancing of diverse
interests. The proper reconciliation of these interests demands
open communication. Therefore, I will engage in a cooperative
dialog with Congress, other Federal agencies, States, tribes,
local governments, and other interested parties in order to
find constructive solutions to our Nation's problems.
During the course of this dialog, I am committed to
maintaining the integrity of the Corps of Engineers and to
making decisions that deserve the full confidence of the
American public. If I am confirmed as the Chief of Engineers, I
will work cooperatively with all interests and thoroughly
consider all points of view. The openness of these discussions
will ensure that Corps decisions are objective and are broadly
understood and supported.
If I am confirmed as the Chief of Engineers, I expect to
work closely with the Administration and Congress as I
discharge my leadership duties. I am confident that working in
concert, we can marshal the great capabilities of the Corps in
a way that maximizes the benefits to the public because we
share the common goal of providing for the Nation's well-being.
Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with this
committee in addressing any issues that may arise during my
tenure.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today, and would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, General Flowers. Let me
just start with a couple questions.
General you heard the comments that I made in the opening
in reference to the letter. In your professional and personal
view, is there any ambiguity at all in the reporting
relationship between the Army Chief of Engineers and the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Works?
General Flowers. No, sir.
Senator Smith. Are there any conditions under which you
feel it would be appropriate to withhold information from your
superior, the Assistant Secretary?
General Flowers. Sir, I can't think of any.
Senator Smith. I don't want to put you on the spot, but you
know we are going to give you a third star for the job, so let
me ask you this. I met with the Secretary of the Army just the
other day. He told me that the reason civil works management
reforms are still necessary is because the relationship--the
reporting relationship--between the Chief of Engineers and the
Assistant Secretary may have been exploited somewhat, perhaps
on both sides. So he just said there is no ambiguity in your
reporting.
Is there really any need, then, to move forward on reforms
at this time, based on your understanding of that relationship?
General Flowers. Sir, there are people involved with this
in the Congress and in the Administration that could probably
answer that question a lot better than I can, who have had a
lot of experience with this.
I am prepared to work--it is very clear in my mind who I
work for. In military matters, I report through the Vice Chief
of Staff of the Army to the Chief of Staff, and then to the
Secretary of the Army. For Civil Works and Installations and
Environment, I report to the Assistant Secretaries of the Army,
through them to the Secretary of the Army. That's pretty clear
to me.
I think I would like the opportunity, before I give you a
great answer to that question, to work for a while and work at
these relationships. In my mind right now, I see no ambiguity.
Senator Smith. Assuming you are confirmed, how much time do
you anticipate it would take you to settle in to where you
could make recommendations, both to the Congress and to the
policy folks?
General Flowers. Sir, I think this is a very important
matter, and it's the first thing that I have to see to. I would
say probably within 30 to 60 days.
Senator Smith. All right. Thank you.
Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
General this committee has often received testimony that
the Corps often fails to fully mitigate environmental impacts
of their projects, or that the mitigation sometimes doesn't
produce the benefits expected. For example, there is a 30,000-
acre backlog of promised uncompleted mitigation within the
Vicksburg District alone. This backlog is about 66 percent of
the required mitigation within the District.
As follow-up testimony by Dr. Westphal before this
committee earlier this summer, I requested information on the
Corps-wide backlog of mitigation. I am still waiting for those
results.
What is your understanding of the Corps' performance when
it comes to mitigating the impacts of projects? For example,
our data available on the amount of mitigation required from
the Corps over, say, the last 10 years, and how much of this
has been successfully completed?
General Flowers. Sir, I would like to take the specifics of
the answer to your question for the record and provide that to
you. I don't have them at hand right now.
[Information supplied follows:]
For those projects that were completed or underway in the last 10
years, mitigation has to the greatest extent been completed. This is
due to Section 906 of WRDA 86 which enacted the requirement to mitigate
prior to or concurrent with construction of a project. Project and
mitigation completion, therefore, results from an orchestrated and
simultaneously implemented action.
General Flowers. I know as a Division Engineer, we worked
this problem very hard. If confirmed, you have my commitment
that I will look into this matter and I will work the
mitigation piece very hard.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that.
Also, assuming the Vicksburg figures are accurate, does
that indicate there is a problem? Or does that----
General Flowers. Sir, I think those figures are accurate.
It indicates something that we have to see to, yes, sir.
Senator Baucus. All right.
Have you thought of what changes, if any, are in order
related to how the Corps approaches mitigation obligations?
General Flowers. Sir, I would like to take that one for the
record as well.
[Information supplied follows:]
I believe the Corps needs to continue to ensure that the valuable
and significant resources its projects may affect are considered early
and throughout the planning process so that wherever possible,
avoidance of these resources can be accommodated through the planning
process. In those instances after the Corps has done everything
reasonable to avoid or minimize those impacts, compensatory mitigation
should be implemented in a timely and responsible manner.
In an effort to get a better handle on past and present mitigation
activities, the Corps is currently developing an environmental
database. With this database the Corps will be able to identify who has
worked on similar types of projects, what they did, how impacts were
avoided or minimized, and what, if any, compensatory mitigation are
needed. A remaining area that needs to be further explored is
``mitigation success.'' Follow-up studies to determine what worked and
what did not would be beneficial to the environment and also useful in
developing more cost-effective mitigation plans in the future.
General Flowers. One thing that I must do when I get on
board is to establish a strategic plan and a plan for the
organization, and I think that has to be a part of it.
Senator Baucus. There have been several proposals offered
before this committee with respect to mitigation. One is that
the Corps be held to the same mitigation standards as a private
developer; as you know, a private developer has to replace an
acre of habitat for each acre impacted by a project. That's the
private requirement. Should the Corps be held to the same
requirement?
General Flowers. Sir, I would also like to take that one
for the record. I have to give more thought to that before I am
able to give you a proper response.
[Information supplied follows:]
Acre for acre mitigation is not a good standard. Under this
scenario, you could replace an acre of high-quality wetland with an
acre of low-quality wetland. This would provide a net result of losses
of environmental outputs associated with our actions: a situation we
want to avoid wherever possible. What must be addressed is the
physical/chemical-biological value provided by the impacted wetland (or
riparian area, etc.), not just the physical boundaries of the area
impacted. Determination of impacts, by acreage dimensions alone, can be
deceiving. The Corps approach to looking at habitat value is consistent
with the policies of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (as described
in FR/vol. 46., No. 15/Friday, January 23, 1981). All of their
mitigation goals are stated with regard to habitat value. Accordingly,
from an environmental perspective, the Corps' approach of replacing
habitat value is more reflective of losses/impacts than an acre for
acre approach.
Senator Baucus. I can tell we're going to have a follow-up
hearing here pretty soon.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. Another question along the same line. The
proposal was offered to this committee that the Corps should
not recommend a project unless it can be shown that successful,
cost-
effective mitigation of the project's impacts will be
performed.
General Flowers. Sir, that sounds pretty good to me.
Senator Baucus. Do you think that's a good idea?
General Flowers. I do.
Senator Baucus. And your reaction to the proposal that
along with construction funding, project budgets should include
funding for mitigation in order to ensure that there will be
money to complete the required mitigation?
General Flowers. Sir, I will work to do that.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, at some point I do think it
makes sense for us to have some kind of a follow-up hearing,
because obviously General Flowers--he will be confirmed, or
should be--is in a position where he isn't able to know the
answers to a lot of these questions very directly, which, as he
indicated, can be expected in some reasonable time period, 30
to 60 days, for him to have some answers to all this. I
strongly suggest that we have a follow-up hearing at an
appropriate time and give the General a chance to expand upon
the conclusions to some of the questions that have been asked
of him.
Senator Smith. I agree with you. I think it would be
appropriate.
General Flowers. I would welcome that.
Senator Baucus. I thank the General.
Senator Smith. It would be a good opportunity for you to
share your views at that time.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. General, over the past year there have
been some very public and acrimonious arguments about the
respective roles of the Corps of Engineers and the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the supervision of
the Corps of Engineers. How do you intend to achieve a more
constructive role between the Assistant Secretary of the Army
and Civil Works?
General Flowers. Sir, I've already met with the Secretary
and the Assistant Secretaries, and I've begun the work of
establishing a relationship with them. I have prided myself
through my career in being able to always find a constructive
and positive way to work with my bosses. I don't have any
reason to think I couldn't do the same thing here.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, there has been increasing
criticism about the objectivity of the Corps' project
evaluation process, including the Upper Mississippi River
Navigation Project and the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal
Deepening Project.
How are you going to restore confidence in the integrity of
the Corps' project evaluation process? And have you reached any
conclusions about whether specific changes are needed in the
way projects are evaluated and reviewed?
General Flowers. Sir, I have not reached any specific
conclusions. We do have to address the issues that were
highlighted in the series of articles that were done, and I
commit to doing that.
Again, if confirmed, I would like the opportunity to come
back in 30 to 60 days and talk in greater depth, after I've had
a chance to take a look at where we're at on these projects.
Senator Voinovich. May I have some more time, Mr. Chairman?
The Corps' role in the restoration of the environment
continues to grow. We had some charts here several weeks ago
about the expanding scope of the Army Corps of Engineers and
the lack of resources. As a matter of fact, prior to this
Administration we almost had double the amount of money for
WRDA projects. So we have expanded the Corps' responsibilities,
and yet we have cut back about 50 percent on the money that's
been available.
The issue is, how do you deal with this expanding role and
the resources that are not there, and then look at the
continuing demands for environmental restoration projects? I
mean, all of us have got them. We have them on the Ohio River,
$120 million, and so on.
How are you going to handle that in terms of the next
Administration? It seems to me to be an almost impossible job.
What are you going to say to the next Assistant Secretary of
the Army, or if you get a shot at the President, about what you
are being asked to do?
General Flowers. I would probably say, ``Sir, you have a
tough job.'' But I think it is incumbent on the Corps of
Engineers and on the Chief to do our best to provide the
absolute best advice we can, and whenever you have a situation
like we're in now, I think it is incumbent on us, the Corps of
Engineers--and we're quite capable of doing it--of laying out
what the possibility is, recommending priorities, and then
taking our direction from the Administration and the Congress.
We're prepared to do that.
But we owe you our best advice on how to proceed to work
this.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I hope that you have the guts to
be courageous enough to speak your mind, because I think it's
important that people in your area of responsibility are
willing to do that and say, ``Look, you're asking me to do a
job and you're not giving me the money or the tools to get it
done.'' It's just like the O&M money. I mean, we have the
Everglades Restoration Project, where we're changing the
formula. It will be a 50/50 deal, and we have a backlog of $450
million worth of O&M. It seems to me that--you're talking about
something that's almost impossible to get done.
The other thing that I noted in your testimony that struck
a discordant note, and the only discordant note, was the fact
that you talked about ``water projects and wastewater.''
Getting into wastewater projects, which I think are
fundamentally the responsibility of State and local
governments, even the water projects, don't you think you've
got your hands full enough without taking on those
responsibilities? That will never end. You will be forever
behind if you get involved in that kind of thing.
General Flowers. Sir, I highlighted that because I think
it's a capability that the Corps has. Whether it is utilized
and how it is utilized is something that we could make
recommendations on, but it wouldn't be for us to say.
So I think that, as you say, the plate is very, very full,
and we owe you our best recommendation on how we can address
work for the future, and I assure you we will pass that through
the boss to you all, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Senator Thomas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I was a
little late. I was involved with the Joint Session, with the
Prime Minister of India.
Welcome, General. We're glad to have you here. Thank you
very much for taking time to come by and visit in the last day
or so.
Certainly, the Corps of Engineers is an important function,
one that has, in my view, some very clear responsibilities and
very clear authorities, and I am supportive of those. I do
think that there has been and continues to be a clear need for
a definition of roles, a definition of Corps activities, a
definition of what this Corps really ought to be doing, and I
think that's been very unclear, frankly. At least from what I
read and from what I've heard, the chain of command needs to be
cleared up and needs to be used more thoroughly. I think,
again, the things we've heard lately and the reports we've had
could cause one to think that this is sort of a self-
perpetuating bureaucracy. I don't think that we want to have
that be the case; I'm quite sure that you don't.
So I would hope that one of the first things that is done
is to--with the involvement of this committee, with the
involvement of the Congress, with the involvement, certainly,
of the Secretary and the Pentagon--there ought to be a clear
definition of the role of the Corps of Engineers. I happen to
be one who has worked and will continue to work on the idea
that the Government ought to do those things that are
inherently governmental, and those things that are not ought to
have an opportunity to be contracted to the private sector.
Certainly many of the things that you do are the kinds of
things that are indeed done in the private sector. I can't
define that, but we have asked--in fact, passed a law--that
each of the agencies define those things and talk about those
things that can only be done by Government and are inherently
governmental in nature, and those things that are not, and move
toward using more of the private sector in a contracting
arrangement. I feel very strongly about that; not only in this
agency, but in others.
Of course, if that indeed is implemented--and it frankly
hasn't been implemented as well as it should be--if it is
implemented, then the role, often, of the agency, and perhaps
in your agency, would be to very proficient at the oversight
and the management of contracts, which is something that I
think is very important.
So I think many of us are a little confused or a little
concerned about the so-called ``support for others'' idea, and
the school work in the District of Columbia, which seems fairly
inappropriate for a military function and a Corps function.
These are the kinds of things that I hope you would take a look
at.
Are you familiar with the obligation of an agency to define
the functions that they have with respect to whether or not
they are inherently governmental, or whether or not they could
indeed be contracted to the private sector?
General Flowers. Sir, I am familiar with the concept.
Senator Thomas. Then what do you propose to do about it?
General Flowers. Sir, I agree with you. I think those
things that can be contracted out reasonably should be, and if
I am confirmed I will work as best we can to determine those
functions that are inherently governmental that we need to be
competent in in order to accomplish the missions we have been
given; we will retain those, and the rest we will try to
contract.
Senator Thomas. I appreciate that. Like the chairman and
the Senator from Montana, I hope that you are able to come back
in several months after you've had a chance to take a look at
it. I know that it is a difficult task. Certainly, I think the
obligation of all of us is to work together to do what we
believe is the best thing for the Corps of Engineers and the
best thing for the country.
General Flowers. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. I know that's your commitment.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure you have covered most of the things
that I'm hitting on, so I won't take more of your time.
But I do welcome you and wish you well. I am sure everyone
has made it clear that we would certainly like to work with you
in achieving some of the goals that I hope are common to all of
us. Thank you, sir, for being here.
General Flowers. Thank you, sir.
Senator Smith. I have a couple final questions before we
close, but Senator Baucus, do you have any further questions?
Senator Baucus. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman.
General it just seems to me that the heart of the problem
is restoring integrity in the process. The next question is,
how do you do that?
It seems to me that part of the solution lies, perhaps, in
more of these decisions being decided in the open, so that both
the Corps professional staff, the public, and the Congress know
what the decisions are and why those decisions are reached.
This is what I mean.
Clearly, the Corps' professional staff is analyzing these
projects, using the criteria that have been prescribed. But we
are a democracy. The Corps should not make all the decisions,
only, without any congressional input.
On the other hand, Congress should not unduly,
inappropriately, or unfairly influence--in my judgment,
anyway--the professional judgment of the Corps. But it is not a
bright line between the two. It is a little blurry. There may
be some times when strict Corps criteria can come close to
recommending a positive result in a recommendation for a
project, but not quite. But because of other political
concerns--and I use politics with a small ``p''--I'm talking
about rural areas that need development of a project, or maybe
some emergency somewhere, that it might be appropriate to still
go ahead and have that project developed, so long as the public
understands why that decision was reached. That is, it's in the
open. I don't know how you get more of this in the open.
The Corps also wants to be able to appropriately resist
inappropriate political pressure. I would think you would want
to figure out some way to do that. One way to do that is
perhaps if more of these decisions were taken in the open; then
it would be harder for inappropriate political pressure to
push, and easier for appropriate professional decisions to the
contrary to stand.
I think that that's part of what's going on here, and I
urge you to be thinking about all this when you come back to
talk to us. You may have some private suggestions, too, about
how to do some of this. But I do think that with more public
awareness and scrutiny of what's going on with some of these
stories that are occurring, appropriately, they would not have
occurred.
There are members of the Senate and the House who will push
you--I won't say inappropriately, but they will raise some
questions in your mind. You shouldn't be in that spot. There
should be a process of some kind so that it makes it easier for
the Corps to stand up and say, ``Hey, wait a minute, this is
just totally nuts. I'm sorry, this is just totally
inappropriate,'' and be able to stick by that and not fear
retaliation, not fear adverse consequences.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Chairman, to follow on that, in the
Park Service we did a thing in our bill a couple years ago that
sort of required a study--and I don't mean to take forever--but
that instead of a decision just being made here in the
Congress--that that proposal would be set out there; it would
be a chance to take a look at it and come back and report on,
in this case, the Corps' feelings about a project that came
directly from here, because I agree with you. We're being a
little critical of the Corps, but part of this contribution
comes from members of Congress who go ahead and push through
projects that may or not be appropriate.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. We are working on that backlog, however.
General one of the issues that was raised--I think
appropriately--by the series of articles in the Post was the
issue of economic analysis and the potential for manipulating
that analysis for whatever reason. Maybe it's the political
pressures that Senator Baucus just referred to, or perhaps some
other reason. These are very subjective, as you know. There are
a lot of different variables and criteria and, as I say,
sometimes the objectives are vague, for sure. There is a
concern that somehow we cook the numbers or skew the results to
get the so-called ``right answer'' that is desired by someone,
whether it be a superior in the executive branch or a
Congressman or a Senator, which obviously is not what the Corps
should be about.
I am certainly not a fan of additional bureaucracy, but how
do you feel about an independent peer review on some of these
projects? I'm not asking you the question as an advocate, but
just as one who is looking for some way to perhaps dispel some
of that concern. I am sure some of it is justified, no
question.
As to how we might deal with that, would peer review work?
Or would that encroach too much on what the Corps needs to do?
What's your view on that?
General Flowers. Sir, I think----
Senator Smith. Independent. Not executive or legislative,
but some independent source.
General Flowers. Yes, sir. Philosophically, I think it may
be part of the solution to get at what Senator Baucus is
talking about, making things more open and making people have a
little more confidence in the decisions that are made.
I would say, though, that you would have to look at it on a
case-by-case basis. You're going to be overlaying a peer review
on top of a process which is already very lengthy and has
extensive public involvement. I commit to making sure that
those processes are as open as they possibly can be.
So I think you would have to evaluate whether the cost and
the time that it would take to do a peer review for a project
would be worth the bang for the buck. If it's deemed that it
is, I would certainly be in favor of it.
Senator Smith. A final question from me. You are about to
assume the helm here. Any specific priorities or vision that
you would like to share with us as far as--I'm not asking you
to get into the management reform issue; that's not the intent
here--but any vision, as you go into the 21st century as you
alluded to in your statement, that perhaps some priorities as
opposed to management changes? I'm not trying to drag you into
that at this point.
General Flowers. Sir, the first priority is for me to get
in and get very comfortable with the organization, and I think
I can do that, based on my experience, fairly quickly, to make
sure that I am seeing to the morale of the great people who
make up the Corps of Engineers, get them on board with me in
moving into the future, to find a way to reacquaint the
American people with the Corps of Engineers, who we are and
what we do, and to work hard to establish your confidence and
the confidence of the other stakeholders in what we do, so that
when we tell you something and make our recommendations, they
are based on absolutely the best science and engineering and
judgment that we can apply.
Having said that, my intent is to very quickly work with
all of the Administration, the Corps, the Congress, in
establishing a campaign plan for the future for the Corps that
will get us as quickly to work as we can on those things that
are important.
Senator Smith. Senator Voinovich, you had a couple more
questions? Go ahead.
Senator Voinovich. You probably don't have the answer to
this, but it's my understanding that the release of the Army
Inspector General report on the Upper Mississippi-Illinois
Waterway Project has been delayed for 60 days, and that this
delay was not requested by the Army. Do you have any
information on that?
General Flowers. No, sir, I don't.
Senator Voinovich. Could you find out?
General Flowers. Yes, sir.
[Information supplied follows:]
I have been told that on August 14, 2000, based on need to finalize
preparation and review of its report, the Department of the Army
Inspector General (DAIG) requested a 45-day extension of time for
submitting its report to the Special Counsel, until October 12, 2000.
With the Office of the Secretary of Defense's (OSD) concurrence, the
Army forwarded that request for extension to the Special Counsel, and
it was approved. I understand that the Army forwarded the DAIG report
to OSD on September 20, 2000.
Senator Voinovich. Is it incomplete, not ready to go? Or is
it ready to go and someone is just holding it back?
General Flowers. Sir, I have no knowledge of the results of
the IG report, and I don't know if it's been concluded or not,
quite frankly.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I'd like to know about it.
General Flowers. OK, sir, I'll see what I can do.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, General Flowers. We
appreciate your being here. We will pass the information from
the hearing on to Senator Warner, and I am sure Senator Warner
will move appropriately to move the nomination to the floor of
the Senate.
Let me just cover a couple housekeeping details. We will
leave the record open until Tuesday at 5 p.m. for members who
may wish to ask questions or for any responses for the record
that you had agreed to provide to other Senators.
For the benefit of the media, if the letter has been signed
by the other chairman--I am just told it has not been, so we
will make that letter available as soon as it is, and you can
contact the press department of the committee and we can
provide that letter to you. It should be shortly. I don't want
to give it out before the Senator has signed it.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Senator Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the State
of California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome Major General Flowers to the committee this
morning. It was my pleasure to meet with Major General Flowers earlier
this week to discuss the work of the Corps in California and the
Nation. I congratulate you on your appointment to this post.
The Corps has been a positive partner in many projects in
California. The Corps, for example, has worked closely with Napa
County, California, to provide flood protection not by taming the Napa
River, but by restoring the River's natural floodplain.
I think it's fair to say, though, that this and the other positive
work of the Corps in my State has been overshadowed today by the
constant reports of Corps mismanagement.
We've learned of the Corps military commanders lobbying Congress
for $2 billion more in appropriations without authorization from their
civilian leaders or this Administration. We've learned that Corps
military commanders have directed their civilian staffs to rig cost-
benefit analyses to justify otherwise unjustifiable billion dollar
projects. We've learned that the Corps sometimes flouts the very
environmental laws they are charged with enforcing against the private
sector.
I think that it is in this committee's strong interest and in the
Corps' strong interest to begin to seriously look at common sense
reforms.
I believe that meaningful reform is the only way to restore the
public trust and integrity that I know is so important to both the
civilian and military leaders of the Corps. Reforms like subjecting
Corps' projects to independent review and modernizing the environmental
rules that guide the Corps' work could go a long way to accomplishing
those goals.
And there are specific cases in California where the Corps can put
those reforms to work even before we formalize nationwide policy or
legislation to do so.
Independent review of the Corps' work, for example, is something
that is critically important to the local residents of San Bernardino,
California. There the Corps has studied and recommended the removal of
the Deer Creek levee. The Corps says removal of the levee will not
decrease the community's flood protection. The community funded their
own study which raised substantial questions about the Corps analysis.
Independent review in this case would ensure that mistakes are not
made that endanger the health and safety of the people or that lead to
flood damage. I hope that you will work with me by committing to
subjecting the Corps' study in this case to an independent review.
The Corps can also go a long way to restoring the public trust in
my State by removing the 2,200 tons of radioactive waste it dumped in
an unlicensed California dump. I have had countless meetings with the
Corps, co-chaired a hearing of this committee on this incident and
continued to press the Corps to remove this waste from California.
Much to my great disappointment and the disappointment of the
people I serve, that waste is still sitting in an unlicensed California
dump. I hope that you will work with me to put the Corps' reputation
right on this issue by removing that waste from my state.
I look forward to working with you on these issues. I think we can
make progress on them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
__________
Statement of Senator Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and I want to
join you in welcoming Major General Flowers here this morning.
General Flowers' nomination comes at a time when the Corps is
facing a great deal of public scrutiny for the way they do business.
There has been criticism of the way some economic and environmental
analyses are being done, or, in some cases, not being done at all.
There are some who feel the time has come for sweeping reforms at
the Corps. Others feel that the status quo is just fine.
My own view is that some changes need to be made in order to
justify the trust that this committee, and the American people, must
have in the work of the Corps of Engineers.
This committee depends on the professionalism of the Corps and, in
particular, on the integrity of the Chief of Engineers' reports when we
consider authorizing Corps projects. I will have some questions about
this later for General Flowers. My main point is that the analyses that
we are relying on must be the best that they can be.
General, you have a distinguished 31-year record of service to your
country, some of it in very challenging assignments.
Yet the position to which the President has nominated you may well
be your most challenging.
There will be numerous legal, technical, and policy issues to
confront. But I hope you will also address the moral of your employees,
especially in light of the ongoing controversies.
I know the Corps employees, both military and civilian, want to
being doing a good job. To take pride in their efforts. In my state,
for instance, you have some fine staff. The manager at Fort Peck Lake
is a perfect example. He works closely with everyone in the community
and does a great job at that facility. He is giving the Corps a good
name.
In conclusion, General Flowers, I look forward to hearing from you
this morning. I also want you to know that you should feel free to call
on this committee and it's members if you need any assistance--or even
free advice--as you assume your new role.
__________
Statement of Senator George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the
State of Ohio
Thank you General Flowers for participating in this informational
hearing in anticipation of receiving your third star and command as
Chief of Engineers for a 4-year period. This has been a difficult year
for the Corps of Engineers. As highlighted again this week in a second
series of articles in the Washington Post, many aspects of the Corps
program are in the center of controversy. There are concerns about the
environmental impacts of certain projects, charges that the Corps
evaluation of projects is not objective, very public and acrimonious
arguments about the respective roles of the Chief of Engineers and the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, debates about the
appropriate mission of the Corps and its growth, and arguments about
the proper role of the Congress versus the executive branch in
directing and overseeing the Corps program.
I am personally very concerned by these many allegations. As the
chairman of Transportation of Infrastructure Subcommittee, which has
oversight over the civil works program of the Corps, I have met with
your predecessor, and the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, and the
Secretary of the Army and extensively discussed these concerns and
listened to their assessment of the challenges facing the Corps.
What is very clear to me through all of this is that national water
resources needs are real and growing. We need to continue to develop
and modernize our water transportation system to compete in an
increasingly global economy; flooding remains a threat to many
communities; the Corps infrastructure is aging and facing the need for
critical maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement; and the expertise
of the Corps is needed to help restore the environment.
While these needs grow, our national investment continues to
decline. In constant dollar terms our Federal investment in water
resources development is less than one-half of its levels in the
1960's. At the same time we are asking the Corps to do more
particularly in the area of environmental restoration. The lack of
investment has created a backlog of $38 billion in projects awaiting
construction dollars and $450 million in deferred critical maintenance
of existing projects.
I think that it is very important that you first
investigate and define the problems facing the Corps.
These would include the ongoing investigation of the Upper
Mississippi River, as well as many of the problems highlighted in the
recent Washington Post series.
As I mentioned to you in my office this week, most of
these problems should be handled with an Administrative view.
As a former Mayor and Governor, it is my belief that many
of the problems can be addressed by strengthening the relationship
between yourself and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works and the Secretary of the Army.
I also think that it is important that you develop a
strategic plan for addressing the many challenges facing the Corps as
the new Chief.
I look forward to working with you in the future on
legislative solutions, where appropriate, for dealing with the many
challenges ahead.
Statement of Major General Robert B. Flowers, Nominee for
Chief of Engineers
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am deeply
honored to appear before you today as the nominee to be Chief of
Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers. I want to thank the President
and the Secretary of the Army for giving me this extraordinary
opportunity to continue to serve the men and women of this great
Nation. If confirmed, I will lead the Army Corps of Engineers into the
twenty-first century with great pride.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers has a long and proud
tradition of providing invaluable engineering and construction service
to the Nation in peacetime and in war. Its military mission includes
providing for the defense of American soldiers and furnishing needed
housing and facilities for service members and their families. Its
civil works mission--fighting floods and developing, preserving and
protecting critical water resources--is equally vital to the nation's
welfare. The Corps is a dynamic organization that has continually
evolved to meet the changing needs of the nation. From building forts,
mapping the uncharted regions of developing America, and constructing
flood control and navigation projects to pursuing environmental
restoration projects, the Corps of Engineers has responded to the
changing needs of America.
If I am confirmed as the Chief of Engineers, I intend to establish
a clear direction of leadership for the Corps as it performs its
important civil works and military missions. That direction must target
the nation's critical needs and be fully supported by the American
people. It also must ensure that Corps employees have opportunities to
achieve their career goals and make contributions that are acknowledged
and appreciated.
Historically, the Nation's rich and abundant water, and related
land resources provided the foundation for the successful development
of America. Since the beginning of our nation, the Corps of Engineers
has played a pivotal role in the stewardship of these important
resources, initially by developing our nation's water resources, and
later by restoring and protecting the environment. The Corps has
improved the quality of life by making America more prosperous, safe,
and secure. The Corps must remain flexible in order to continue to make
important contributions to the Nation and respond to America's
contemporary needs.
Communities nationwide rely on the Corps to reduce flood damages,
facilitate navigation, provide needed supplies of water and power, and
protect and restore our aquatic resources. The projects approved by
Congress represent a sound investment in the nation's security,
economic future, and environmental stability. The Corps' greatest
challenge is to find sustainable ways to strengthen the nation's
economy while protecting and restoring our unique water and related
land resources for the benefit of future generations.
The Corps faces the demanding tasks of maintaining its vast
inventory of existing public improvements and pursuing new projects
that develop, conserve, preserve and protect our aquatic resources. It
must provide for a system of ports and inland waterways that will
efficiently transport goods. It also must find creative ways to prevent
or reduce flood damages. Finally, more and more communities are looking
to the Corps to provide adequate sources of potable water and to find
new ways to manage wastewater disposal in order to provide for economic
growth and the quality of life that people deserve.
I believe that the Corps must carry out these varied missions in an
environmentally responsible manner. The Corps has a long record of
coordinating its missions and planning its projects in compliance with
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and other
environmental laws, which has led to better and more environmentally
sensitive projects. If I am confirmed as the Chief of Engineers, I will
ensure that all projects are planned and constructed in a manner that
avoids or minimizes undesirable environmental impacts.
The challenges the Corps faces are complex and require difficult
decisions to be made. These decisions must take into account the
requirements of existing law and fiscal constraints. They also involve
a balancing of diverse interests. The proper reconciliation of these
interests demands open communication. Therefore, I will engage in a
cooperative dialog with Congress, other Federal agencies, States,
Tribes, local governments, and other interested parties in order to
find constructive solutions to our nation's problems.
During the course of this dialog, I am committed to maintaining the
integrity of the Corps of Engineers and to making decisions that
deserve the full confidence of the American public. If I am confirmed
as the Chief of Engineers, I will work cooperatively with all interests
and thoroughly consider all points of view. The openness of these
discussions will ensure that Corps decisions are objective, and broadly
understood and supported.
If I am confirmed as the Chief of Engineers, I expect to work
closely with the Administration and Congress as I discharge my
leadership duties. I am confident that working in concert, we can
marshal the great capabilities of the Corps in a way that maximizes the
benefits to the public because we share the common goal of providing
for the nation's well-being.
Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with this
committee in addressing any issues that may arise during my tenure.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Major General Robert B. Flowers, U.S. Army
Source and Year of Commissioned Service
ROTC.
Military Schools Attended
Engineer Officer Basic and Advanced Courses
United States Army Command and General Staff College
National War College
Educational Degrees
Virginia Military Institute--BS Degree--Civil Engineering
University of Virginia--MS Degree--Civil Engineering
Foreign Languages
None recorded.
Promotions and Dates of Appointment
2LT--4 Jun 69
1LT--4 Jun 70
CPT--4 Jun 71
MAJ--5 Mar 80
LTC--1 Aug 85
COL--1 Jun 90
BG--1 Nov 94
MG--1 Sep 97
Major Duty Assignments
Jan 70-Jan 72: Construction Platoon Leader, later Commander, B
Company, 94th Engineer Battalion, United States Army Europe, Germany;
Jan 72-Oct 72: S-3 (Operations), 94th Engineer Battalion, United
States Army Europe, Germany;
Oct 72-Mar 73: Assistant Facilities Engineer, United States Army
Garrison, Fort Monroe, Virginia;
Apr 73-Mar 74: Facilities Engineer, United States Army Udorn
Detachment, United States Army Support Command, Thailand;
Mar 74-Jan 76: Student, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia;
Jan 76-Aug 76: Student, Engineer Officer Advanced Course, United
States Army Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia;
Aug 76- Jun 80: Assistant to the Area Engineer, later Civil
Engineer, and later Research Engineer, United States Army Engineer
District, Portland, Oregon;
Jun 80-June 81: S-1 (Adjutant), 20th Engineer Brigade, Fort Bragg,
North Carolina;
Jun 81-Jun 83: S-3 (Operations), later Executive Officer, 307th
Engineer Battalion, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina;
Jun 83-Jun 84: Student, United States Army Command and General
Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas;
Jun 84-May 85: Combat Developments Systems Manager, United States
Army Combined Arms Command for Combat Developments, Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas;
May 85-Jun 87: Commander, 307th Engineer Battalion, 82d Airborne
Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina;
Jun 87-Jun 88: Student, National War College, Fort McNair,
Washington, DC;
Jun 88-Apr 90: Operations Officer, later Chief, Host Nations
Operations Branch, J-3, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC;
May 90-Jun 92: Commander, 20th Engineer Brigade, XVIII Airborne
Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM,
Saudi Arabia;
Jun 92-Dec 92: Deputy Assistant Commandant, United States Army
Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri;
Dec 92-Mar 93: Unified Task Force Engineer, United Nations Task
Force, OPERATION RESTORE HOPE, Somalia;
Mar 93-Jul 94: Deputy Assistant Commandant, later Assistant
Commandant, United States Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri;
Jul 94-Aug 95: Assistant Division Commander, 2d Infantry Division,
Eighth United States Army, Korea;
Aug 95-Jul 97: Commanding General, United States Army Engineer
Division, Lower Mississippi Valley, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Summary of Joint Assignments
Operations Officer, and later Chief, Host Nation Operations Support
Branch, J-3, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC: Jun 88-Apr 90; Lieutenant
Colonel.
U.S. Decorations and Badges
Distinguished Service Medal
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Army Commendation Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
______
Responses by Major General Flowers to Additional Questions from Senator
Inhofe
Question 1a. Wetlands mitigation banks have proven to be very
successful in restoring and enhancing high quality wetlands across the
nation. One reason for that success is that the Federal guidance on
mitigation banking issued in November, 1995 sets standards that all
mitigation banks must meet before the Corps (with the consensus of
other Federal and State review agencies) approves a mitigation bank.
However, so-called ``fee-in-lieu payments,'' in which an applicant
pays a fee into an account ``in lieu'' of performing onsite mitigation,
are not subject to similar standards. In addition, it appears that some
fee in lieu programs have collected fees, but failed to restore or
enhance any wetlands. While I support the continued availability of
such programs, I want to ensure that wetlands mitigation is actually
performed.
Recently EPA circulated a draft guidance for fee in lieu payment
programs that established some standards. In addition, the draft
guidance established a preference for the use of mitigation banks over
fee in lieu payments where both are available to applicants. What is
the status of the draft guidance?
Response. The draft guidance is currently pending agency signature
approval.
Question 1b. What is the Corps' position on the draft guidance?
Response. The Corps supports a most recent version of the guidance
that would provide some technical and procedural information to support
better mitigation projects. The Corps' Institute for Water Resources
recently conducted an investigation of seven representative in-lieu-fee
arrangements. The initial findings from that study indicate that the
development of future in-lieu-fee arrangements could benefit from
guidance concerning, fee setting, cost accounting, transfer of
liability, and increased interagency involvement. All of these are
addressed in the most recent draft of the guidance under consideration.
Question 1c. How many dollars in fees have been collected under in
lieu fee mitigation program under the Section 404 program?
Response. The Corps' automated information systems for tracking
statistical information about regulatory actions does not store the
number of dollars collected by in-lieu-fee arrangements.
Question 1d. How many acres of wetlands have been restored,
enhanced, created or preserved under fee-in-lieu mitigation programs
under the Section 404 program?
Response. The Corps' automated information systems also do not
differentiate among the methods or types of mitigation projects. The
systems are designed to provide the aggregate number of acres of
mitigation required, irrespective of the production source or method.
Question 2. On FEMA's role on the new Nationwide Permits, you
seemed to imply that FEMA's only real role will be to supply the
floodplain maps. If permits are filed for activities within the
floodplain, will FEMA have any kind of decisionmaking authority?
Response. FEMA does not have any decisionmaking authority for
permit applications for activities requiring a Corps' permit within
floodplains.
Question 3. On pending regulations you noted that the Corps issued
proposed rules in April and August and that another proposed rule is
expected shortly on discharge of fill material into isolated wetlands.
We are getting awfully late in this Administration to be pushing three
major rulemakings like this. I am afraid that these regulations are
being rushed in order to appease a few special interest groups. I am
requesting that you pledge on behalf of the Corps to keep this
committee and in particular my subcommittee informed.
Response. If I am confirmed, I assure you that the Corps will keep
the committee and the subcommittee informed regarding these three
rulemakings. At this time the status of these rulemakings has not
changed from my previous response.
__________
Responses by Major General Flowers to Additional Questions from Senator
Craig Thomas
Question 1. What is the Corps' definition of inherently
governmental functions?
Response. I am aware of only two definitions of inherently
governmental functions.\1\ One is contained in the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circular Number A-76, Performance of Commercial
Activities, which establishes Federal policy regarding the performance
of commercial activities and implements the statutory requirements of
the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-270). The other is contained in the FAIR Act itself. The OMB
Circular Number A-76 definition provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is one other special statutory definition contained in
section 196 of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993
(Public Law 103-82 (42 U.S.C. sec. 12651g(a)(1)(C) (iii)). It provides
that volunteers may not perform inherently governmental functions
which, for purposes of that provision, are defined to mean ``any
activity that is so intimately related to the public interest as to
mandate performance by an officer or employee of the Federal
Government, including an activity that requires the exercise of
discretion in applying the authority of the Government or the use of
value judgment in making a decision for the Government.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An inherently governmental function is a function which is so
intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance by
Government employees.
The FAIR Act definition provides as follows:
The term ``inherently governmental function'' means a function that
is so intimately related to the public interest as to require
performance by Federal Government employees. (Pub. L. 105-270, sec.
5(2)(A)).
To my knowledge, there is no separate Corps definition of the term,
and the Corps would implement the definitions quoted above as
appropriate.
Question 2. It is my understanding that the Corps is reviewing its
policy regarding school construction and the support for others (SFO)
program. It is also my understanding the new policy is due November 1.
What policy changes will you propose to make sure that the local
districts are deferring commercial activities to the private sector? I
would appreciate you sharing the new policy with me when it is
implemented.
Response. With regard to providing assistance to schools, I
understand that Corps headquarters has already instructed its local
districts that headquarters approval is necessary before they agree to
provide any more support. This process is already functioning and has
already resulted in the Corps declining work.
I also understand that the Corps is developing a new SFO policy
that will be ready by the end of November. This policy will place
strict controls on accepting new work. It will contain criteria
outlining when approval of the Headquarters and the appropriate
Assistant Secretary is required. It will require that an exit strategy
for Corps withdrawal be developed initially for any new work for State
and local governments. This policy will also emphasize the Corps/
industry partnership necessary to accomplish the work with the actual
execution being accomplished primarily by the private sector. We will
be happy to share additional details with you after the new policy is
developed.
______
Responses by Major General Flowers to Additional Questions from Senator
Ron Wyden
Question 1. Legislation has recently been introduced to reform how
the Corps operates. One element of the legislation is a requirement
that major Corps projects undergo an independent review to ensure that
taxpayers will receive at least as much benefit from a project as it
costs and the project is environmentally sound. Corporations must
undergo independent financial audits of their operations. And
scientists must subject their work to independent peer review. Why
shouldn't the Corps' studies and analyses be subject to an independent
review?
Response. Studies and analyses undertaken by the Corps are subject
to independent review. While the independent review process extant at
the Corps is not a formalized peer review process such as is practiced
by the scientists and engineers in the research community, the process
in place for major studies includes many opportunities for comment by,
and consultation with, stakeholders, elected officials at all levels,
technical experts, and the general public before recommendations are
submitted to Congress.
I would be willing to consider the need for a formalized
independent peer review program. I note, however, that such a program
likely would be overlaid upon the current process with the existing
checks and balances, which already ensure the integrity of Corps of
Engineers project proposals. The Corps currently studies its potential
projects in accordance with Economic and Environmental Principles and
Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies)
set forth in Executive Order 12322. Environmental considerations,
including strict compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, are an integral part of the study and planning for every Corps
project. This study process requires extensive public involvement
opportunities and provides for multiple reviews to ensure objectivity,
including independent technical reviews, a minimum of two formal public
reviews, Washington-level policy review, State and agency coordination
requirements, and final review by the executive branch under Executive
Order 12322.
Thus, under its existing study process, the Corps thoroughly
assesses the economic justification and environmental suitability of
each potential Corps project before making a recommendation for
appropriate action through the Secretary of the Army to the Congress.
The Congress then decides whether to authorize implementation of a
project after conducting such congressional hearings and deliberations
as the Congress deems appropriate.
Only about 16 percent of all Corps studies lead to projects for
construction. In other words, the Corps study process weeds out 84
percent of the potential projects authorized for study by Congress.
Collectively, the projects that have survived the rigorous process and
that have been constructed have provided the Nation an average annual
return on investment of over 26 percent. This impressive result
strongly assures the authorizing and appropriations committees that the
Corps is doing a good job of recommending projects that are of great
benefit to the Nation.
Moreover, the Corps recently commissioned the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences to review and recommend how
to improve the Corps' planning processes. The Council's 1999 study
findings generally affirmed the Corps' process. Nevertheless, the
Council made some recommendations for improving the process, and I
understand the Corps is revising and clarifying the process to reflect
those recommendations. Notably, the National Research Council did not
recommend outside review as a means to further improve the process.
In addition, in recent years, project sponsors and the Congress
have implored the Corps to change the project delivery process to
address pressing needs more expeditiously. The Corps has responded to
such entreaties by streamlining the process to make it more efficient
and timely. Overlaying a requirement for the involvement of an outside
review agency would slow the process down, eroding any improvements
that have been made thus far. The costs of such a review, in lost time,
may far outweigh marginal benefits that might be gained over an
existing process which already eliminates 84 percent of the potential
projects authorized for study by Congress.
Clearly, the Corps' study process already ensures independent
technical review, as well as full and open public participation on
Corps of Engineers project proposals, that final recommendations are
unbiased, based on the best science available, and that the path chosen
is in the public interest. Again, while I am not opposed to considering
establishment of a formalized independent peer review program in
principle, I do believe that overlaying such a program over an already
existing process that accomplishes much the same may detract from the
Corps' efforts to be more responsive to the desires of both project
sponsors and the Congress for the Corps to streamline the process for
improved efficiencies and timeliness.
Question 2. Corps officials recently told my staff that the Corps
won't follow a directive concerning repair of the East Astoria Boat
Basin included in the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Report.
According to these officials, the Corps will only follow the directive
to repair the Astoria Boat Basin if it is included in the bill itself.
What is the Corps' position concerning its obligation to follow
Congressional directives concerning Astoria and other projects named in
report language?
Response. Considerable discussion occurred within the Corps over
the application of past laws and regulations to the Astoria East Boat
Basin project and the Senate committee report language. Upon further
legal review in Portland District, it has been recommended that the
Senate committee report language be followed. The Corps regrets any
confusion that resulted from the lengthy review of this matter.
Question 3. In 1988, the Port of Astoria entered into a local
cooperation agreement with the Corps of Engineers to restore the
deteriorating breakwater that protects the fishing fleet. The Port made
a number of improvements to its Boat Basin, including 30 new slips, a
new parking lot, and resurfaced the roadway. All these improvements
were done with the Corps' approval. To date, the Port has spent $1.3
million in improvements since the agreement with the Corps as the local
share of the project. Given that the Port has paid its local share
under its agreement with the Corps, how can the Corps now insist that
the Port pay the additional costs of removing these improvements as a
condition of having the breakwater fully restored?
Response. Please see the response to question number 2 above. The
Corps intends to comply with the Senate's direction in the committee
report.
Question 4. Can you explain how the Corps can justify to the
taxpayers a proposal to overhaul the Federal dredge McFarland so it can
sit idle most of the time? If you're spending taxpayer money to
modernize the McFarland, shouldn't it be allowed to work?
Response. The Corps hopper dredge McFarland was launched in 1967,
and is in need of major overhaul, rehabilitation and modernization. The
recommendation to place the McFarland in a ready reserve status does
not conclude that it will sit idle most of the time. Historical
dredging requirements indicate that there are periods when unforeseen
requirements and peak workload demands exceed the industry capabilities
and warrant the use of Corps' Federal hopper dredges. The Wheeler,
while in a ready reserve status during the first 2 years, worked an
average of 103 days per year.
Question 5. The proposal to place the dredge McFarland in reserve
is also directly contrary to what the Corps' New Orleans District
recommended based on their first-hand experience after the New Orleans-
based dredge Wheeler was place in reserve status. The District found
that keeping the Wheeler in reserve increased costs, delayed response
time and left the Wheeler with insufficient crew for staffing. The
District report states,
Based on the findings of this report, there is no other
logical recommendation, except for the Secretary to report to
Congress that the Wheeler should be returned to active status
and no other hopper dredge should be placed in reserve.
Despite these conclusions by the Corps officials closest to the
situation, Corps headquarters has proposed continuing this failed
experiment.
The findings and conclusions of the New Orleans District raise
serious questions whether the Corps is playing politics to manipulate
its studies and recommendations to Congress. How can you justify the
Corps recommendations for its hopper dredges contained in the Corps'
June 12 report to Congress?
Response. While I am aware of a draft document referencing data
from the New Orleans District, this is not an official report and has
not been approved by the Corps of Engineers. The references to data
concerning the unit price and comparison with the Government Estimate
for hopper dredging in the New Orleans District could suggest a
different conclusion than that recommended in the Report to Congress.
The Corps did not reach its conclusions based solely upon the unit
price of material removed by hopper dredge in one district; however,
from a national perspective the average unit price for all hopper
dredging contracts did not significantly change. The effectiveness of
using Corps hopper dredges in ready reserve can not be evaluated solely
on cost, but must take into account the variables of the dredging
requirements and capabilities of the combined industry and Corps fleet.
Each year has presented the Corps and industry with differing demands
on the hopper dredge capabilities, including high water shoaling in the
Mississippi River, rapid, unforeseen shoaling in the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet following a hurricane, coupled with South Atlantic dredging
requirements predicated by sea turtle dredging windows at the same
time. It is the very fact that there are different requirements every
year that confirms the need to have Federal hopper dredge capabilities
for peak workload demands, and the ability to place these resources in
ready reserve when conditions do not require a full fleet capability.
The hopper dredging contract experience this year is a good example of
the value to the Government of being able to place Federal dredges in
ready reserve. The Mississippi River remained in a low water State the
entire year, and only one hopper dredging contract was awarded in New
Orleans, as compared to a high water State when as many as 11 contracts
were awarded in a 4-month span. The net result to the national program
was a substantial decrease in the cost of hopper dredging contracts,
and only 50 percent of the average annual number of jobs awarded.
Competition was improved and three contracts had all five hopper dredge
owning contractors bidding. Yet, even with this minimum amount of work,
there was an unforeseen requirement that warranted the use of the
WHEELER in conjunction with three industry hopper dredges as a result
of a sunken drydock in the Calcasieu River. The availability of the
Corps ready reserve hopper dredge expedited the dredging of a diversion
channel around the drydock, rapidly responding to the needs of the
project. I am confident that the cost of hopper dredging can be
reasonable and the requirements to our ports and maritime users can be
met with the recommended ready reserve capabilities of the Federal
hopper dredges.