Page images
PDF
EPUB

Procedures for the rapid introduction of food rationing have been established in 14 States. We hope to extend these actions to all the States and to cover other critical items such as medical supplies and petroleum, as soon as the States develop the organizational capability to handle a rationing program in an emergency.

We have received full cooperation from the States on the comprehensive program as well as from leaders in business, labor, and the professions and from such groups as the Council of State Governments, the American Municipal Association, the National Association of Counties, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

As you know, this subcommittee and the Congress approved an appropriation of $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1964 to initiate this proposed 2-year program of State assistance. We have issued the necessary program and administrative guidance and most of the States have already indicated their intention to participate in this program. We expect to enter into contracts with approximately half the States with the funds appropriated for fiscal year 1964. The fiscal year 1965 budget requests $1.5 million to complete the funding of this program in the remaining States. This is not a continuing expense. Once a capability for emergency resource management has been developed by the States, Federal financial assistance will terminate and the States will maintain the program at their own expense. The States and the private sector of the economy will also bear the major portion of the cost of developing this capability. The States have estimated that they and private citizens will contribute approximately 73 percent of the total cost of this project. The $1.5 million of Federal funds appropriated in fiscal year 1964 and the balance of $1.5 million requested in fiscal year 1965 will finance 27 percent of the total expense.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

In addition to its emergency functions, OEP has been assigned important peacetime responsibilities in the field of telecommunications. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, places the responsibility upon the President for assigning radiofrequencies to stations operated by the Federal Government. In addition, the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 places major responsibilities upon the President to “Aid in the planning and development and foster the execution of a national program for the establishment and operation as expeditiously as possible of a commercial communications satellite system.” With these authorities, the President has assigned to the OEP, or to the Director of Telecommunications Management (DTM) who serves as Assistant Director of OEP, a number of important telecommunications responsibilities. Executive Orders 10995, 11084, and the President's memorandum of August 21, 1963, establishing the National Communications System delineate these responsibilities. Jnder Executive Order 10995, the DTM exercises the authority of the President for the assignment of radiofrequencies to Federal Government stations. The heaviest users of frequencies are the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Agency, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The assignment of frequencies requires a substantial staff which is part of the Office of the DTM. The DTM also has responsibility to develop data on Goyernment frequency requirements; to coordinate the telecommunications activities of the executive branch, and formulate overall policies therefor; and to give policy advice and assistance to the Department of State in the field of international communications policies and negotiations. - Under Executive Order 11084 the DTM has the responsibility for executing section 305(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. This section involves “authority to authorize a foreign government to construct and operate a radio station at the seat of government.” Under the terms of the President's memorandum of August 21, 1963, the DTM was designated as Special Assistant to the President and was given the responsibility of advising the President and coordinating the development of a National Communications System. The objective of the National Communications System is to integrate the various Federal systems operated by the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the General Services Administration, and other agencies into a single, overall system which will eliminate costly *__ while meeting the requirements of command and control in peace or war. The position of the Director of Telecommunications Management he vacant since the resignation of Dr. Irvin Stewart; however, President J has recently appointed Mr. James D. O'Connell as Special Assistant to ti dent for Telecommunications and is nominating him as Assistant Dir

[graphic]

OEP, and Director of Telecommunications Management subject to confirmation by the Senate. We expect to have Mr. O'Connell on board within a few weeks to begin an aggressive program to strengthen the President's role in the overall management of the telecommunications resources of the Federal Government.

RESEARCH AND DEVELopment

Our research program is specifically developed to improve the capability of this agency to discharge its mission. For example, in telecommunications we have the task of processing Government requests for frequency assignments and authorizing use when no serious interference with existing assignments is found. There has been a constant expansion in requests until today the workload has reached 30,000 actions annually. in fiscal year 1963, we began an investigation of those procedures which can be converted to an efficient man-machine system. This was carried out by an experienced private contractor—H. R. B. Singer, Inc. Their recommendations strongly favor moving to a system based on an electronic computer. Prudent judgment calls for testing their findings and this we propose to do. Specifically, we propose to put a portion of the existing assignments and the new requests into machine language and to contract for specific machine programs which will enable us to find out the o and problems involved in a full-scale move to machine methods. ter the transfer is accomplished, the spectrum will be used more efficiently, frequency assignments will be issued more promptly, and interference will be avoided. The National Resource Evaluation Center, to which I referred earlier, is a central, computer-based facility serving the total emergency preparedness community. Twenty-five Federal agencies provide statistical information concerning resources, which information is stored in the computer's “memory.” Twenty-five Federal agencies look to the Center for computer support in carrying out their emergency preparedness functions. For several years we have supported research and development to produce a mathematical model of a postnuclear attack o which will be operated by our computer and staff. The purpose of the model is to provide postattack resource managers with a quick appraisal of remaining resources, the essential demands for those resources, and the varied allocations which must be made to reach desired production goals. Here, as in telecommunications, research has created a product which opens new horizons. In fiscal year 1965 we propose to make a large number of computer “runs” using this model, with different assumptions concerning nuclear attack and resulting damage to the economy. In this way we will learn the boundaries and limitations of the model; should inconsistencies or inaccuracies show up, we will be able to correct them, and equally important we will learn how to operate the model under various conditions. By the close of fiscal year 1965, we will have a powerful new tool in resource management. These and the other projects described in our budget request are directed to specific OEP assignments. No other Government agency is doing them, or proosing to do them. To make sure there is no duplication, we have established an $. Preparedness Research Committee, including representatives of the Departments of Interior; Agriculture; Commerce; Health, Education, and Welfare; Labor; the Office of Civil Defense; and the Office of Science and Technology. Each project, described in our request, has been discussed with and endorsed by the members of this committee.

disaster RELIEF

Another current peacetime duty of our Agency is to administer the Federal Disaster Act, known as Public Law 81–875. his act authorizes Federal financial assistance to the States and their political subdivisions in order to protect life and property and to repair essential public facilities following the declaration of a major disaster by the President.

During fiscal year 1963 the President declared 23 major disasters in 17 States, Guam, and the trust territories with net allocations totaling $31.6 million.

During the first 9 months of fiscal year 1964, the President declared 15 major disasters in 12 States. These were for floods in the States of Wyoming, Nebraska, Arkansas, and New York; for Hurricane Cindy in Texas; for a drought in Vermont; for the collapse of a reservoir at Baldwin Hills, Calif.; for flooding in Vermont; for the recent Ohio Valley floods in Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, Qhio, and Arkansas; and for earthquake and tidal wave damage in Alaska and California.

Our appropriation request of $20 million for fiscal year 1965 assumes that virtually all of the funds in the President's account will be allocated or committed by the end of fiscal year 1964 which appears likely based on the information we have to date. Thus the $20 million for fiscal year 1965 would be used to meet disaster requirements in that year and is in line with the average annual allocation experienced over the last 13 years.

The recent disaster in Alaska has created problems which are without precedent in the history of disaster relief operations. For, in addition to the extensive property damage, a sizable portion of the State's productive facilities were destroyed, thereby raising the difficult problem of long-term economic rehabilitation. For this reason, the President has appointed the Federal Reconstruction and Development Planning Commission for Alaska under the chairmanship of Senator Clinton P. Anderson to consider these problems and recommend long-term solutions. The Commission has been directed to develop coordinated plans for the reconstruction and economic development in Alaska and to recommend the actions necessary to carry out such plans. The Commission will also work closely with representatives appointed by the Governor of Alaska to assure a coordinated Federal, State, and local approach to the problems. The Director of OEP has been designated by the President as a member of this Commission and I am working closely with Senator Anderson and making available to his Commission all of the facts and analyses developed by my staff not only on the extent of the physical damage, but on the long-term economic impact of this extraordinary disaster. This is a job which is closely related to our basic mission of emergency preparedness for the magnitude of the destruction wrought by the Alaskan quake is similar to the problems every State might have to face following a nuclear attack.

One of the primary aims of our nonmilitary defense program is to develop a capability for assessing the long-term economic consequences of a nuclear attack so that the President, or at the State level, the Governor, will have the facts and analyses he needs to make decisions affecting economic recovery. The capability which OEP has developed will make a substantial contribution to the Alaskan recovery effort and at the same time, the experience we acquire will strengthen our basic nonmilitary defense program.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, I think all would agree that the military strength of our Nation does not depend solely upon the military plans drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the hardware to support them. While military plans are important and necessary, they must be backed up by actual forces-forces which must be constantly maintained, trained, improved, and redeployed to meet the changing threat. This same relationship holds true for nonmilitary defense readiness. Emergency preparedness is far more than the development of paper plans which can be stored upon the shelf and forgotten until they are needed. Plans are important, but they must be tested by concrete actions and advance preparations. People must be informed of the plans; they must be given specific emergency assignments and trained to carry them out. Dispersed and protected operating centers need to be established, adequately stocked, and prepared for emergency operations. Transportation and communications facilities must be established in advance and maintained on a standby basis. Essential records and data must be stored at safe locations. Scarce industrial materials and items critical to survival must be stockpiled in advance of the immediate and urgent economic requirements.

All of these actions and related plans must be woven into a system capable of meeting a wide spectrum of possible emergencies from prolonged international crisis to limited war to nuclear attack. It is a system which must be continuously exercised, tested, adjusted, improved, and modified to meet the requrements imposed by military, technological, and international change. The system does not run by itself nor does it automatically adjust to new conditions. It must be actively maintained by a staff furnishing central coordination and leadership. This is the essential job of the Office of Emergency Planning. The funds we are requesting to support these important elements of our national security effort represent, in my judgment, a prudent and modest sum in relation to the billions annually appropriated for military defense.

CoMMITTEE RECEss

Senator MonroNEY. We will now stand in recess until 8:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 10 a.m. Tuesday, April 14, 1964, the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 Wednesday, April 15, 1964.)

INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1965

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1964

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 8:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room S-128, U.S. Capitol Building, Hon. Warren G. Magnuson (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Magnuson, Monroney, Saltonstall, Young of North Dakota, Hruska, and Allott.

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD

STATEMENT OF ALAN S. BOYD, CHAIRMAN, CIVIL AERONAUTICS

BOARD, ACCOMPANIED BY: EDWARD J. DRISCOLL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; JOHN B. RUSSELL, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION; IRVING ROTH, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ECONOMIC REGULATION; JOHN H. WANNER, GENERAL COUNSEL; WARNER H. HORD, CHIEF, OFFICE OF CARRIER ACCOUNTS AND STATISTICS; FRANCIS W. BROWN, CHIEF HEARING EXAMINER; JOSEPH C. WATSON, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS; LEON H. TANGUAY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SAFETY; JOHN G. ADAMS, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ENFORCEMENT; AND BOBBIE ALLEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SAFETY.

APPROPRIATIONS 1964, ESTIMATE 1965 Senator MAGNUSON. The committee will come to order.

We have this morning the Civil Aeronautics Board. The chairman, Mr. Boyd, is here with other members of the staff.

For the record, last year, 1964, for salaries and expenses, we allowed the Board $10,240,000. This year's budget is $10,800,000, or an increase of $560,000.

For payments to air carriers, $79 million last year, and this year they are asking $82,824,000, or a plus of $3,824,000. And they have a small amendment here. They are cutting out $25,000 somewhere. We will find out about that later. A summary of the fiscal 1965 budget estimate will be included at this point.

31-706—14—pt. 1-6

« PreviousContinue »