THE PRESIDENT, The White House: AUGUSTA, MAINE, August 19, 1965. My State civil defense director has just fully informed me of the independent office appropriation bill, H.R. 7997, passed by Congress and now awaiting your signature. This bill grants $1 million more to the overall civil defense program than was authorized last year. Unfortunately, however, the personnel and administrative allocation is reduced by $334 million. As chairman of the Governors' conference and Governor of the State of Maine, I vigorously protest this cut and respectfully ask that you take every action possible to restore these funds. Public Law 606 of the 85th Congress vested the civil defense responsibility equally between the Federal Government, the State and its political subdivisions. The personnel and administrative program provides matching funds on a 50-50 basis to include personnel and administrative costs to State and local governments employing qualified civil defense personnel and carrying out an adequate program. Cutting this program will most assuredly damage the civil defense program at the operational level of government. Many political subdivisions will drop the program entirely because of insufficient funds, and once discontinued, the programs will be nearly impossible to reestablish. As you know, State and county appropriations are set every 2 years by the legislatures. Municipal appropriations reset in March. Therefore, no funds are available to offset the cuts. To reduce the funds of civil defense at the operational level during these critical times, seems to me, to be shortsighted and dangerous to our national defense. The recent Governors' conference at Minneapolis reaffirmed the conviction that a realistic and meaningful civil defense program is essential and the conference further unanimously endorsed the committee's report calling for increased civil defense effort at all levels of government. It has been our understanding that the Federal Government attached great importance to the continuing Federal-State-local partnership in this vital area of our national security. If this reduction is allowed to stand, it will raise the question of validity in the existing national policy which heretofore has advocated establishment of a professional civil defense corps at all levels of government. It is my sincere hope that you may find some way to restore these funds and thereby safeguard this important part of our national defense program. Very respectfully, JOHN H. REED, Chairman, National Governors' Conference. BALTIMORE, MD., August 20, 1965. THE PRESIDENT, The White House: I should like to endorse heartily the request of the honorable Nelson A. Rocke feller, Governor of New York, that you institute actions necessary to restore Federal civil defense personnel and administrative expense grants for fiscal year 1966 to at least the level of last year. Maryland has always been a strong sup porter of the Nation's civil defense program, and we pride ourselves on the accomplishment so far of State and local civil defense organizations. In accordance with the aims of the Department of Defense we have expanded our State organi zation and have encouraged our local jurisdictions to utilize Federal matching funds to strengthen this vital defense activity. At present. 20 of the 24 jurisdic tions in Maryland are participating in the Federal civil defense personnel ard administrative contributions program. Curtailment of Federal funds will present serious financial problems at the local level. In fiscal year 1965 Maryland's total expenditure of Federal personnel and administrative funds was $314.000. Maryland's plans for fiscal year 1966 called for utilization of $361.000 in Federal grants. Budgetary actions of the Maryland General Assembly and various local governing bodies has already taken into con sideration allotment of these funds. The Office of Civil Defense has now advises us that because of congressional budgetary action, Maryland's actual allotment can only be $29,000 for fiscal year 1966. I urge that you request the Congress to reconsider its actions in this important responsibility of Government. J. MILLARD TAWES. THE PRESIDENT, BOSTON, MASS., August 20, 1965. As Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I am deeply distressed by congressional action of August 5, 1965, reducing the Federal appropriation for matching grants to the States for civil defense personnel and administrative expenses to $12,625,000 for the fiscal year 1966, as compared to $16 million authorized in fiscal 1965 and $18 million requested in the President's budget. While I am vitally concerned with the necessity for economy at all levels of government, I nevertheless feel strongly that this particular action in reducing Federal matching grants to the States for civil defense is destructive to our efforts to build up a professional career civil defense corps under the civil service system, destructive to Federal-State relationships, destructive to our national security, and destructive to our civil defense effort itself. I urge you to make every possible effort to see that these cuts in Federal matching funds to State and local governments for civil defense personnel and administrative expenses for fiscal 1966 are restored, so that at least the level of fiscal year 1965 authorizations is maintained, so career civil defense personnel under the civil service system in Massachusetts will not have their positions eliminated for lack of funds and so that our efforts to build a professional civil defense corps will not be undermined. Sincerely, THE PRESIDENT, The White House: JOHN A. VOLPE, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. LANSING, MICH., August 25, 1965. I have been advised that Congress has significantly reduced 21 percent the amount of funds available to the Department of Defense for matching personnel and administrative expenses of State and local civil defense organizations. State civil defense in Michigan was advised August 18 that the fiscal year 1966 allocation would amount to $357,910, a 34-percent reduction from fiscal year 1965 allocation of $541,100. In view of the policies and recommendations of Department of Defense, Office of Civil Defense toward increasing State and local civil defense capabilities which have been strongly relied on by State and local organizations and recalling the recommendations of the Governors' conference committee on civil defense and broad attack recovery, it is disturbing to see reductions by Congress rather than increases that were requested in your proposed budget. I therefore sincerely urge that you take such actions as are necessary to insure that Congress provides sufficient funds to match those available in fiscal year 1965 to avoid the necessity of reduction in established programs and also to permit limited expansion where desirable. THE PRESIDENT, The White House: GEORGE ROMNEY, Governor of Michigan. HELENA, MONT., Auguset 19, 1965. The recent action by Congress which substantially reduced civil defense funds formerly allotted for administrative expense on a matching basis to State and local organization is a most serious setback to our civil defense program. Over the past years we have concentrated on developing efficient operations at local civil defense level. To reach this objective we are largely dependent on providing fiscal assistance to the counties on a maching basis. Reduction of funds means a reduction of 75 percent of our effectiveness at the county level, it further means that we cannot expand our operational capability by including additional counties which now indicated the desire and ability to participate in the matching fund program. It is most difficult to understand the thinking of Congress which permits it to reduce the Nation's survival capability at such a critical time. It appears to me that the congressional action is not consistent with announced policy and dire need to improve our national defense posture. I respectfully urge you to take necessary action to insure that by 1966 Federal funds are made available to permit the States and local governments to maintain and expand their civil defense operational capability. TIM BABCOCK, Governor, State of Montana. TELEGRAM FROM GOVERNOR ROLVAAG, MINNESOTA, TO VICE PRESIDENT HUMPHREY RE PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS H.R. 7997 as approved by the Congress and awaiting the President's signature will adversely affect civil defense programs of our State and its political subdivisions participating in Federal matching personnel and administrative expenses. This reduction of Federal assistance for fiscal year 1966 will do much to cancel out the excellent progress we have made with our counties and munici palities in developing and expanding civil defense in Minnesota. I have become increasingly aware of the State's responsibility to meet disaster and realize that professional staffs and personnel of State, county, and municipal governments are essential. Your assistance is requested in restoring the reduced Federal financial assistance to State and local governments for personnel and administrative expenses for civil defense. THE PRESIDENT, The White House: JACKSON, MISS., August 23, 1965. I am deeply disturbed by the reported action of the Congress on August 5 which very significantly reduces the amount of civil defense funds for matching State and local funds for personnel and administrative expenses. Under the guidance and advice of Federal authorities over the past several years, Mississippi and her political subdivisions have constantly endeavored to improve the civil defense posture by inducing career employees to come into our civil defense organizations under a civil service system made possible by Federal matching funds. Experience has clearly shown that the objectives of the civil defense program cannot be accomplished if we must depend upon volunteer personnel to fill positions requiring the competence of trained career personnel. The reduc tion of Federal personnel and administrative funds allocated to this program not only stops the progress of the civil defense program, but also sets it back by making it necessary to eliminate a considerable number of career personnel under our civil service system. At best the progress in developing a worthwhile civil defense program has been slow and laboring due to an insufficiency of funds allocated for the purpose at all levels of government. With the Federal Government taking the lead in cutting funds for the development of the program, it may be expected that the States and political subdivisions will take similar action. The reduction, if allowed to stand raises serious questions as to the validity of Federal policy on civil defense generally and upon the importance of civil defense readiness in the national security defense posture of the Nation. I urge that you at once set in motion the action necessary to restore the Federal contributions available in fiscal year 1965 and to allow for expansion of the program where it can be fully justified. THE PRESIDENT, The White House: PAUL B. JOHNSON, Governor of Mississippi. LINCOLN, NEBR., August 24, 1965. The reduction of Federal civil defense personnel and administrative funding support which was recently imposed on all of the States as a result of congressional action causes me to reduce programs in Nebraska which I consider minimal at the present time. In addition to causing a reduction in this vital survival area further development of the civil defense programs of several counties which have made the necessary provisions to qualify for Federal personnel and administrative assistance in July of this year must be abandoned. I consider this retrograde action to be sufficient concern to Nebraska to respectfully encourage you to do everything possible to restore the necessary funds so that this essential program for the defense of our civil population can be continued. FRANK B. MORRISON, THE STATE OF NEVADA, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, Carson City, Nev., August 27, 1965. Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: At the National Governors' Conference in Minneapolis on July 29, the Governors passed a resolution approving in principle the support of more active civil defense programs. On February 18, Secretary of Defense McNamara stated to the House Armed Services Committee on the fiscal year 1966-70 defense program and 1966 defense budget : "This year for the first time we are including in a single chapter the discussion of the three major programs which constitute our general nuclear war forces; the Strategic Offensive Forces, the Continental Air and Missile Defense Forces, and civil defense. "I have made this change not as a matter of style, but, rather to facilitate our analysis of the general nuclear war problem. It was clear last year that because of the close interrelationship and, indeed, the interaction of the three major components of our general nuclear war posture, the only practical way to deal with this problem is to incorporate all three components into a single analytical framework. Only then can the true character of the general nuclear war problem in all its dimensions be fully grasped and the relative merits of available alternatives be properly evaluated." This statement of Secretary McNamara, and his known strong feeling of the need for civil defense, was undoubtedly influential in the passage of the civil defense resolution by the National Governors' Conference. All Governors have recognized that civil defense is a partnership with Federal, State, and local officials sharing repsonsibilities. Our State and local organizations are based on this premise as are our plans for expanded activities. The action of the joint committee of Congress resolving the differences between the Senate and House versions of the required funding support for civil defense programs not only precludes increased activity but forces a reduction in the activities of the past few years. For 1966, the Office of Civil Defense has allocated to the State of Nevada only 3 percent of our fiscal year 1965 allocation. This is far short of meeting our need. Within our State we have had for a number of years an aggressive civil defense program. We are able to care for a larger portion of our total population in providing shelters than can any other State. The reduction in funds available will mean a reduction in all civil defense activities, a regrettable backward step from which it will take many years to recover. It is requested that you support additional assistance to the States in their civil defense programs so their vital work can continue unimpaired. Cordially yours, GRANT SAWYER, Governor. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, THE PRESIDENT. Washington, D.C. DEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON: As a member of the Committee on Civil Defense and Postattack Recovery of the National Governors' Conference, I was distressed learn that the current appropriation for civil defense includes a cut of $34 million for the P. & A. program. This drastic cut in the funds available for personnel and administrative costs to State and local governments will have a disastrous effect on the entire civil defense program. In many localities it has only marginal acceptance, and a further decrease in the funds available would be ample justification for complete discontinuance of a local program in such cases. Knowing that you have made a strong commitment to the need for an effective civil defense program, I hope that you may be able in some way to restore this cut before irreparable damage is done. Sincerely, THE PRESIDENT, The White House. JOHN W. KING. ALBANY, N.Y., August 18, 1965. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Both as chairman of the Governors' Conference Committee on Civil Defense and Postattack Recovery and as Governor of the State of New York, I am deeply disturbed by the reported action of the Congress on August 5, very significantly reducing the civil defense funds authorized the De partment of Defense for matching grants for personnel and administrative expenses of State and local civil defense organizations. I understand that this action sets a limit of $12,625,000 in funds for these purposes for the fiscal year 1966 as compared with $18 million requested in the President's budget and $16 million authorized last year. Over the past several years, with the guidance and advice of the Federal authorities, State and local civil defense jurisdictions have integrated a large majority of their personnel into career civil service systems, thus becoming eligible for Federal matching grants. I am informed that under the cut imposed by Congress on August 5 these matching grants will be reduced by at least 16 percent below last year's level. Where, as in most cases, State and local governments are not able to make up the deficit, this will mean that considerable numbers of employees, with their professional careers only just begun, will find their positions eliminated, and that all further planned expansion must be abandoned. In the case of New York State, we are advised that our Federal fiscal year 1966 matching fund allocation will be $1.976 million, as against a planned need of $3.226 million, and an fiscal year 1965 allocation of $2.674 million. At their meeting in Minneapolis last month, the Governor's conference re affirmed their conviction as to the essentiality of a realistic and meaningful civil defense program, and unanimously endorsed their committee's report calling for increased civil defense effort at all levels of government. Following close on the heels of this action, reduction by the Congress in the level of matching funds support is thus disheartening and confusing to Gover nors, particularly in the light of our understanding of the importance attached by the Federal Government to a continuing Federal-State-local partnership in this vital area of our national security. The reduction if allowed to stand will impair our civil defense readiness and will raise serious questions as to the validity of existing Federal policy which advocates establishment at all level of a professional civil defense corps. I therefore urge that you set in motion a once the actions necessary to insure that fiscal year 1966 Federal matching funds for personnel and administrative civil defense expenses in State and local juris dictions, are made available in amounts sufficient to insure maintenance o Federal contributions at last year's level and to provide for modest expansion where this can be justified. I am advising all Governors, and all Members of the Senate and the Hous of Representatives from New York State of this action. THE PRESIDENT, NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER. RALEIGH, N.C., August 24, 1965. As a member of the National Governor's Conference Committee on Civil Defens and as the Governor of the State of North Carolina, the actual and implied effect of the action of the Congress concerning the civil defense budget on August 5 ar extremely distressing. The effect of the reduction in the amount of personne and administrative funds authorized to match costs of State and local civi defense organizations cannot be overstated. Local civil defense agencies ar |