________________________________________________________________________Richard S. Kem
A:
It was worth a try.
Q:
Was this testimony an occasion for opponents of the TennTom to get a forum, or was the
committee sympathetic enough until it didn't come up so much?
A:
It wasn't a debate before the committee during the testimony. Basically the committee set
aside times for people to testify, and so we were scheduled--the Secretary of the Army, the
Chief of Engineers, and the Director of Civil Works would lead off the series of hearings and
then each of the division engineers would follow with their testimony, two or three a session,
morning and afternoon.
There was no interspersing of other folks during that particular period. Later, they would hear
from waterway association interests, other interests, and so there were opportunities for
people to come up and talk, but it was not a debate. For us it was reporting of status on
programs and projects, and then addressing issues that we knew about concerning division
programs and budget.
In addition to calling on the congressmen, I had made a point of going over to meet Hunter
Spillan beforehand. I got to know him and basically began an interaction with him as the
staff Director for the Energy and Water Resources Committee. I asked him what kind of
questions to anticipate, what did he see as issues, and that sort of thing. It was plain that
stewardship on the TennTom would be an item that they would be looking at, not only in
testimony but in times to come.
I think the testimony went pretty well. I didn't get too many questions, and I think we
handled them all right.
Q:
Getting back to your selection, was there something about the Ohio River Division and its
projects, or politics, or whatever, that was part of that or not, that you know of? You
mentioned that it was a vacancy and you were a person to be put in there, but maybe
sometimes that is a consideration. Was it, in this case, that you know of?
A:
I think that Chiefs of Engineers, when they go about making their selection of who goes
where, think about people's backgrounds and experience and put them in different places
based on their anticipation of the kind of work being done and experience and background of
the individual. Certainly, if a person has been a district engineer in both a military and civil
works kind of district, that might prepare them better for divisions that have both missions.
However, in this particular instance, the assignments had already been made for the year.
Then Harry Griffith was selected for promotion to lieutenant general and to take over the
Defense Nuclear Agency, so, a vacancy in the Ohio River Division existed. I thought I'd be
going to a division the following summer, so I was probably next up and certainly available
from the standpoint that I was on the USACE staff. I was replaced by George Robertson,
then a colonel, who filled in as the deputy director for the rest of that year. I think that
probably, in this case, it was an issue of availability.
287
Previous Page
