INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS AND NUCLEAR WAR SURVIVAL WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1976 U.S. CONGRESS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 5302, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. William Proxmire (vice chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Proxmire and Tower and Representative Mitchell. Senator PROXMIRE. The committee will come to order. We expect to have Senator Tower here a little later. He is delayed, and when he comes in I am going to ask him to make a statement. He has a statement he would like to make at the beginning of the hearings, but because he is late and because we have a couple of witnesses, I think it is best for us to go ahead, and perhaps when you finish your statement Senator Tower can make his. Today the Joint Committee begins 3 days of hearings on the defense industrial base. They are part of the committee's year-long review of plans and programs that affect our preparedness for wartime contingencies or other national crises. In this week's hearings, we will be examining the current condition of the defense industry, its costs, and its mobilization potential. Next week we will look at a new program for the strategic stockpiles of critical materials. These are vital matters that have been neglected for some time. I am glad to say that this neglect appears to be ending. Over the last few months, studies have been completed on several aspects of the defense industrial base. The Defense Science Board has recently completed its study of industrial preparedness plans and programs. On its own initiative, the Boeing Aerospace Co. has been examining the feasibility of hardening industrial facilities against nuclear attack, and they have been kind enough to provide the Joint Committee with the first results of their tests. [See appendix II, p. 55]. And we will have a witness from the Boeing Co. testifying a little later this morning. This year the Defense Department finished its "Profit 76" study and promulgated a new investment-based profit policy, which will certainly influence the nature of defense industry. Also, the Federal Preparedness Agency has developed an entirely new method for managing the strategic stockpiles. Now, these initiatives are timely. The committee has expressed its concern in the 94th Congress that our mobilization and industrial JOINT COMMITTEE ON DEFENSE PRODUCTION LEONOR K. SULLIVAN, Missouri, Chairman WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey JOHN TOWER, Texas WILLIAM H. KINCADE, Staff Director ROBERT TERZIAN, Counsel LORY TRAPP, Secretary TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF WITNESSES WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1976 Materiel Acquisition -------- Boeing Aerospace Co. (accompanied by Mr. John R. Potter, director APPENDICES 26 I. Biographies of witnesses : Mr. Jacques S. Gansler-- Mr. T. K. Jones--- Industrial Survival and Recovery After Nuclear Attack. Mr. Jacques S. Gansler--- Mr. T. K. Jones------ Management and Budget study, J. Gansler, Chairman. U.S. Air- (III) 135 167 221 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS AND NUCLEAR WAR SURVIVAL WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1976 U.S. CONGRESS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 5302, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. William Proxmire (vice chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Proxmire and Tower and Representative Mitchell. Senator PROXMIRE. The committee will come to order. We expect to have Senator Tower here a little later. He is delayed, and when he comes in I am going to ask him to make a statement. He has a statement he would like to make at the beginning of the hearings, but because he is late and because we have a couple of witnesses, I think it is best for us to go ahead, and perhaps when you finish your statement Senator Tower can make his. . Today the Joint Committee begins 3 days of hearings on the defense industrial base. They are part of the committee's year-long review of plans and programs that affect our preparedness for wartime contingencies or other national crises. In this week's hearings, we will be examining the current condition of the defense industry, its costs, and its mobilization potential. Next week we will look at a new program for the strategic stockpiles of critical materials. These are vital matters that have been neglected for some time. I am glad to say that this neglect appears to be ending. Over the last few months, studies have been completed on several aspects of the defense industrial base. The Defense Science Board has recently completed its study of industrial preparedness plans and programs. On its own initiative, the Boeing Aerospace Co. has been examining the feasibility of hardening industrial facilities against nuclear attack, and they have been kind enough to provide the Joint Committee with the first results of their tests. [See appendix II, p. 55]. And we will have a witness from the Boeing Co. testifying a little later this morning. This year the Defense Department finished its “Profit 76" study and promulgated a new investment-based profit policy, which will certainly influence the nature of defense industry. Also, the Federal Preparedness Agency has developed an entirely new method for managing the strategic stockpiles. Now, these initiatives are timely. The committee has expressed its concern in the 94th Congress that our mobilization and industrial |