Page images
PDF
EPUB

REDESIGNATE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AS THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Abraham Ribicoff (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator Ribicoff.

Also present: Paul Danaceau, staff director; Robert Wager, general counsel; E. F. Behrens, minority consultant; and Esther Newberg, chief clerk.

Senator RIBICOFF. The subcommittee will be in order.

Our first witness is Secretary Resor.

STATEMENT OF HON. STANLEY R. RESOR, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, ACCOMPANIED BY ALFRED B. FITT, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

Secretary RESOR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as Secretary of the Army I am here this morning to testify on behalf of the Department of Defense concerning S. 886. This bill would place within the Department of the Interior programs and activities of several other Federal agencies and departments, and would redesignate the Interior Department as the Department of Natural Resources. Among activities transferred would be certain oceanographic functions of the Navy and the civil works program of the Department of the Army.

NAVY RECOMMENDS DELAY IN TRANSFER OF MARINE PROGRAMS PENDING COMMISSION REPORT

In regard to the former activity, the Department of the Navy suggests that any change in marine activities should be deferred pending completion of the report of the President's Commission on Marine Science and Engineering Resources, which was charged by the Congress in 1966 with recommending the optimum organization for the Federal Government's activities in marine affairs. Also the Navy believes that the National Oceanographic Data Center should remain under the Department of the Navy. Comdr. James E. Ayres of the Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy is present to participate in any discussion of this aspect of S. 886.

The balance of my remarks this morning go to that aspect of the bill which involves the Army's civil works program.

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROGRAM

This bill seeks to achieve a worthwhile goal; improving coordination and planning within the executive branch, and with local and State agencies, or programs involving natural resources, in order to achieve more efficient administration and more rational management of our limited natural resources.

Certainly that is a desirable end. The question is whether one of the means suggested-removing the civil works program from the Army Corps of Engineers-would contribute to the objective sought, and even if it did, whether that contribution would be worth the sacrifice of the benefits, national security and other, inherent in the present arrangement.

When it began in 1824 the civil works program was aimed only at improving navigability of the Nation's rivers. Over the intervening 143 years many functions have been added by Congress: flood protec tion, the development of water power; the provision of municipal and industrial water supplies; shore protection; pollution abatement: assistance to State and local governments in managing flood plain lands; and assistance to communities stricken by floods, earthquakes, and other disasters.

HOOVER COMMISSION COMMENDED CORPS CIVIL WORKS ACTIVITIES

There is general agreement that this program has been competently planned and carried out. The second Hoover Commission examined the civil works role of the Corps of Engineers in 1955 and concluded that the Army's civil works responsibilities should be increased. The Commission said:

The Corps of Engineers has an enviable record for safe and adequate engi neering design, *** it has demonstrated its ability to carry out very large engineering projects, and *** it has been signally free of any taint of fraud or dishonesty in the administration of the vast construction program with which it has been entrusted.

TRANSFER MAY HAVE NO INCREASED BENEFITS

I believe there is common agreement with that judgment today. It is not a supposed lack of efficiency or competence on the part of the Corps of Engineers which prompts the suggestion that civil works responsibilities be transferred to a new department. Instead, its proponents suggest that this transfer would mean an improvement in the coordination between the civil works program and the other programs and agencies engaged in water resource planning and development. However, there is substantial reason to doubt that the performance or coordination of a new agency entrusted with civil works responsibility would be significantly better. And in weighing any possible benefits, one must realize that removal of civil works activities from the Army will also eliminate considerable economies and incidental benefits which have accrued both to the civil works program and to the Department of Defense over the years.

COMPLEMENTARY NATURE OF TWO OPERATIONS

The Corps of Engineers at the present time carries on two interrelated programs: One for military construction, which has aggregated $11.5 billion in the past decade, and the other for civil works, which has involved $10.7 billion in the same period. This conjunction of responsibilities permits the two programs to be run on a complementary basis, with one overhead of technical and administrative personnel rather than two. Throughout the country the military construction activities of the Corps of Engineers, including the important work it does for the Air Force and NASA, are carried out through the same district and division offices that are responsible for the civil works program. Military construction requirements would demand that a substantial part of this organization continue even if civil works responsibilities were eliminated. Yet in such a case many of the same jobs and functions which now use one set of employees and one organization would have to be duplicated. There would be no savings in personnel and administration: The effect would be the opposite, and the efficiency of administration of both programs probably would be reduced.

Another advantage would be lost in the proposed transfer. Because of the dual aspect of the present corps program, and the complementary nature of its two parts, it is possible to shift personnel quickly and smoothly between the two. In time of war the magnitude of the civil works program decreases as the military construction program grows. In time of peace the shift of personnel and funds is in the other direction as the civil works program becomes the main activity. The overall program of the corps, therefore, is at the same time flexible and stable, with advantages in efficiency and economy which would be lost if the programs were to be separated.

CORPS' CIVIL PROGRAM STRENGTHENS MILITARY CAPABILITY

In addition, enactment of S. 886 in its present form could adversely affect the military capability of the Army. In part, the success of the Army Engineers in the military field may be credited to the fact that the corps has, for a period of 143 years, also been responsible for the civil works program. A trained organization in being and capable of taking immediate action has been of inestimable value in military as well as natural disaster emergencies. The 1965 report of the Army's Civil Works Study Board concluded that conduct of the civil program by the corps "strengthens the Army's competence to support national objectives in wartime by sustaining a broadly based engineering organization-in-being," and that participation in the civil works program "does much to develop in engineer officers a breadth of vision and capability to take on and discharge the mission requirements of military engineering during mobilization and combat."

COMPETING POLICIES ARE WELL CONSIDERED

It has been argued that the corps programs and those of other agencies have at times worked at cross purposes. Yet it is not surprising that the positions of agencies charged by Congress with disparate missions will conflict at times. Nor is it necessarily regrettable that

88-889-68- 4

they should. The goals of our society are many, and those which clash must be examined and balanced against each other in seeking to maximize the common good.

The decisions involved in resolving fundamental questions of competing policy with respect to the use and preservation of our natural resources will not be any easier if concentrated in the head of a single executive department. S. 886 raises the question of whether it is desirable to transfer to a single executive department the responsibility for making these basic judgments of natural resource policy. Up to now, unresolved interagency disagreements in matters involving natural resources have been brought before the Congress where they can be fully aired, instead of having alternatives rejected before presentation to the Congress. This does, of course, lengthen the decisionmaking process on difficult issues, but the additional step may be at a small price to pay for the assurance that full public consideration has been given to all viewpoints, objectives and alternatives, and that plans are truly comprehensive and balanced.

INTEGRATION OF WATER RESOURCES POLICIES

Finally, Congress already has moved to improve interagency coordination by enacting the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. This landmark legislation provided coordinating machinery by establishing as interdepartmental bodies the Water Resources Council and River Basin Commissions. These bodies have not yet had sufficient time to prove their effectiveness. In addition, useful recommendations as to future water resource policy can be expected from the National Water Commission, to be established in legislation already passed by both Houses of Congress. In these circumstances a sweeping alteration of civil works responsibilities within the executive branch appears at best premature.

For these reasons, the Department of Defense opposes the transfer of its functions as called for in S. 886.

Gen. Harold K. Johnson, Chief of Staff of the Army, will follow me. Since he is scheduled to attend another meeting within a few minutes, I request that he be permitted to make a brief statement at this time and that any questions the committee may have be deferred until he has concluded his statement.

Senator RIBICOFF. That will be perfectly all right.

General Johnson, if you feel you may be held up, your statement can go into the record as read. I have read it. There are no other members here, and if you have to get away, your statement will go in as read. However, I will be delighted to have you read the statement. As you wish.

General JOHNSON. I have made some slight alterations, Mr. Chairman. Iwould prefer to read it, if I may.

Senator RIBICOFF. Certainly.

STATEMENT OF GEN. HAROLD K. JOHNSON, CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY LT. GEN. WILLIAM CASSIDY, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, AND BRIG. GEN. HARRY G. WOODBURY, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

General JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, as Chief of Staff of the Army, I oppose enactment of that part of S. 886 that would transfer the civil works functions of the Army Engineers to a Department of Natural Resources. I believe the transfer would be detrimental to our national defense posture.

ENGINEERS' ACTIVITIES ARE ESSENTIAL TO MILITARY NEEDS

The Corps of Engineers is an essential part of our modern Army. Its essentiality derives not only from its combat and construction battalions and other elements engaged in direct military operations, but also from its engineering districts and divisions.

We have learned through experience that engineering and construction in the combat zones, in the communications areas, and in the mobilization support areas in the United States are critical to the Army's effective performance.

Our mobilization rate is dependent in part on qualified engineers, trained, organized and in being, with experience as a part of the mili tary team, who are prepared to expand our posts and training facilities, and to man our combat and combat-support units.

It is important that construction support be available when it is needed. It must be large enough and flexible enough to meet a wide range of conditions. It is upon the Corps of Engineers that the Army relies to provide that support. The Army Engineers are an essential part of the military team that is necessary to meet our needs in the United States and in those external areas where the United States has commitments.

ADVANTAGES OF ARMY'S CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM

The total Army Engineers capability in the United States is divided roughly into 75 percent civil activities and 25 percent military activities. The total organization operates under the control of the Army, is experienced in Army procedures, and is thus capable of quick response to meet critical requirements. Major advantages follow: It was available to construct ICBM sites.

It was available to construct support facilities for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

It was available to reactivate training bases needed for the Vietnam buildup.

It will be available to build sites for an antiballistic missile system. It will be available and ready to support a national civil defense effort should this country ever be attacked, even as it responded to the requirements of the Alaskan earthquake, Operation Noah in New England in 1955 and Hurricane Betsy in the gulf in 1965.

« PreviousContinue »