Date: Thursday, March 30, 2000 5:40 PM
Subject: Daschle speech re: Corps of Engineers
This is the statement made Tuesday by
Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) -- described by the
Washington Post as a "fiery floor speech" -- in which he said that Congress
should consider moving the Corps out of the Pentagon. Daschle also filed a
bill to establish an independent commission to investigate the Corps.
STATEMENT ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - March 28, 2000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW ACT
Mr. DASCHLE.
Mr. President, over the last couple of months the Washington
Post has published a number of very troubling articles about the
operations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
These stories expose the existence of independent agendas within the
Corps. They suggest cost-benefit analyses rigged to justify billion dollar
projects; disregard for environmental laws, and a pattern of catering to
special interests.
The actions described in the Post articles raise serious questions about
the accountability of the Corps. And they present a compelling case for a
thorough review of the agency's operations and management.
And it is not only the Post articles that cause me to believe this.
The Corps' current effort to update the Missouri River Master Control
Manual--the policy document that governs the Corps' management of the river
from Montana to Missouri--illustrates not only that the Corps can be
indifferent to the environment. Too often, it actually erects institutional
barriers that make achieving certain critical ecological goals difficult or
impossible.
This ought to be a concern to all Americans. It is a deep concern to South
Dakotans. The Missouri runs down the center of our state and is a major
source of income, recreation and pride for us.
More than 40 years ago, the Corps built dams up and down the Missouri River
in order to harness hydroelectric power. In return, it promised to manage
the river wisely and efficiently.
That promise has not been kept.
Silt has built up, choking the river in several spots.
In recent years, studies have been done to determine how to restore the
river to health. An overwhelming amount of scientific and technical data
all point to the same conclusion.
The flow of the river should more closely mimic nature. Flows should be
higher in the spring, and lower in the summer--just as they are in nature.
Yet the Corps proposes to continue doing largely what it has been doing all
these years--knowing the consequences, knowing exactly what the practices
have produced now for the last 50-plus years.
The agency's refusal to change will further jeopardize endangered species.
And, it will continue to erode the recreational value of the river, which
is 12 times more important to the economy than its navigational value.
Why does the Corps insist--despite all the evidence--on this course?
It does it to protect the barge industry--a $7 million-a-year industry that
American taxpayers already spend $8 million a year to support. $8 million.
That's how much American taxpayers pay each year for channel maintenance,
to accommodate the barge industry.
The Washington Post suggests that the Corps handling of the Missouri River
Master Manual is not an isolated case.
The Post articles contain allegations by a Corps whistleblower who says
that a study of proposed upper-Mississippi lock expansions was rigged to
provide an economic justification for that billion-dollar project.
In response to these allegations, the Corps' own Office of Special Counsel
concluded that the agency--quote-- `probably broke laws and engaged in a
gross waste of funds.'
In my own dealings with the Corps of Engineers, I too have experienced the
institutional problems recorded so starkly in the Post series.
In South Dakota, where the Corps operates four hydroelectric dams, we have
fought for more than 40 years to force the agency to meet its
responsibilities under the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and
mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from the construction of
those dams.
For 40 years, the Corps has failed to meet those responsibilities.
That is why I have worked closely with the Governor of my state, Bill
Janklow, and with many other South Dakotans, to come up with a plan to
transfer of Corps lands back to the state of South Dakota and two Indian
tribes.
Unfortunately, instead of attempting to work with us, the Corps is
fighting us.
The litany of excuses, scare tactics and misinformation the Corps employed
to try to defeat our proposal is outrageous. It appears Corps officials are
not
nearly as concerned with preserving the river as they are with preserving
their own bureaucracy.
After the legislation was enacted, the Chief of the Engineers, General
Joseph Ballard continued to resist its implementation. In fact, my own
experiences with the Corps, and the experiences of other members,
repeatedly demonstrates General Ballard's unwillingness to follow civilian
direction and ensure the faithful implementation of the law.
When considered in the context of the litany of problems that have come to
light in the Post series, Congress has no choice but to consider seriously
moving the responsibilities of the Corps from the Army and placing them
within the Department of the Interior. Too much power now is concentrated
in the hands of the Chief of the Engineers, and that power too often has
been
abused.
General Ballard's lack of responsiveness to the law, to meeting
environmental objectives and to civilian direction, has serious
consequences for individual projects.
Beyond that, it raises very troubling questions about the lack of
meaningful civilian control over this federal agency.
In a democracy, institutions of government must be held accountable. That
is the job of Congress--to hold them responsible.
The existence of separate agendas within the Corps bureaucracy cannot be
tolerated if our democracy is to succeed in representing the will of the
people. Its elected representatives and the civil servants appointed by
them must maintain control of the apparatus of government.
Moreover, contempt for environmental laws and self-serving economic
analyses simply cannot be tolerated if Congress is to make well-informed
decisions regarding the authorization of expensive projects, and if the
American taxpayer is to be assured that federal monies are being spent
wisely.
The Corps of Engineers provides a valuable national service. It constructs
and manages needed projects throughout the country.
The size and scope of the biannual Water Resources Development Act is
clear evidence of the importance of the Corps' civil works mission.
Because the Corps' work is so critical, it is essential that steps be taken
immediately to determine the extent of the problems within the agency--and
to design meaningful and lasting reforms to correct them.
Our nation needs a civil works program we can depend on. We need a Corps
of Engineers that conducts credible analysis.
We need a Corps that balances economic development and environmental
protection as required by its mandate--not one that ignores environmental
laws as it chooses.
History does not offer much room for confidence that the Army Corps of
Engineers can meet these standards under its current management structure.
Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to establish an independent
Corps of Engineers Investigation and Review Commission.
The commission will take a hard and systemic look at the agency and make
recommendations to Congress on needed reforms.
It will examine a number of issues, including:
The effectiveness of civilian control in the Corps, particularly the
effectiveness of the relationship between uniformed officers and the
Assistant Secretary for civil works with regard to responsiveness, lines
of authority, and coordination;
The Corps' compliance with environmental laws--including the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act and NEPA--in the
design and operation of projects;
The quality and objectivity of the agency's scientific and economic
analysis;
The extent to which the Corps coordinates and cooperates with other state
and federal agencies in designing and implementing projects;
The appropriateness of the agency's size, budget and personnel; and
[Page: S1824] GPO's PDF
Whether the civil works program should be transferred from the Corps to a
civilian agency, and whether certain responsibilities should be privatized.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to review this legislation.
It is my hope that all those who care about the integrity of the Army
Corps of Engineers and its mission will support this effort to identify and
implement whatever reforms are necessary to rebuild public support for its
work.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed
in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
snipped>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
|
