NATIONAL CAPITAL HOUSING AUTHORITY STATEMENT OF WALTER E. WASHINGTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; ACCOMPANIED BY HERMAN EDWARDS, BUDGET OFFICER FISCAL SITUATION Senator MAGNUSON. Now, we have the National Capital Housing. Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, sir. Senator MAGNUSON. You sent us a letter on June 15 in which you are in the same situation? Mr. WASHINGTON. I am in the same situation that I have been for over these many years. Senator MAGNUSON. Now, you are in, you are back in now again, the House put you in. Mr. WASHINGTON. That is right. The House keeps doing it and you keep asking questions about it. Senator MAGNUSON. All right. Then your testimony, previous testimony, of course, sets forth all of the details of the program? Is there anything further you want to add now? Mr. WASHINGTON. No, sir; other than the letter itself which indicates that the House has passed the $37,000 without asking for anything more. Senator MAGNUSON. We can't have the benefit of your presence any longer than this? Mr. WASHINGTON. We are delighted to be here. Senator MAGNUSON. We have another little matter upstairs that I think we ought to attend to. Mr. WASHINGTON. I would be very happy to defer it. Senator MAGNUSON. You would be very happy to yield to that one. Mr. WASHINGTON. I would be. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, NATIONAL CAPITAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Washington D.C., June 15, 1964. Chairman, Subcommittee in Charge of the Independent Offices, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1965, passed by the House of Representatives on May 21, 1964, provides $37,000 for the operation and maintenance of properties under title I of the District of Columbia Alley Dwelling Act. The sum provided by the House is the amount requested in our budget estimate for 1965. Therefore, the National Capital Housing Authority is not requesting the Senate to make any changes in the amount of appropriaiton passed by the House. Sincerely yours, WALTER E. WASHINGTON, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. MCDERMOTT, DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING; ACCOMPANIED BY G. LYLE BELSLEY, DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC AFFAIRS OFFICE; EUGENE J. QUINDLEN, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM EVALUATION OFFICE; WILLIAM B. RICE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION; KENNETH A. McLEAN, CHIEF, BUDGET BRANCH; GORDON B. GILLIS, CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON OFFICER HOUSE ACTION ON REQUEST Senator MAGNUSON. All right. The Executive Office of the President, the Office of Emergency Planning, and Mr. McDermott, the Director is here with his aids, Mr. Belsley, Mr. Green, Mr. Quindlen, Mr. Rice, Mr. McLean, and Mr. Gillis. You have a statement you would like to read. We will put it in the record in full if you would like to highlight it. (The statement referred to follows:) BUDGET ESTIMATES, FISCAL YEAR 1965 I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to support the items we are appealing from the House recommendations in our "Salaries and expenses" appropriation for fiscal year 1965. We have prepared a summary of the House actions and our requested amendments which, at this point, I would like to insert in the record. "SALARIES AND EXPENSES," OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING Page 2, line 22, strike out "$4,285,000" and insert "$5,100,000"; strike out "$250,000" and insert "$700,000". Page 3, line 2, insert the words "emergency preparedness" following the word "for". HOUSE REPORT NO. 1413 "An appropriation of $4,285,000 is recommended for salaries and expenses of the Office of Emergency Planning, of $1,415,000 less than the budget estimate. This provides for a staff of 275, or 25 fewer jobs than in 1964. The committee has allowed the full request of $250,000 for telecommunications research. The $1,050,000 purposed for other research and development projects is specifically disallowed. Only 10 of the 19 positions now engaged in reviewing and establishing stockpile objects for strategic materials are recommended for next year as this activity clearly appears to be overstaffed." The House reduction of $1,415,000 in our "Salaries and expenses" appropriation is composed of 2 items: First, the House eliminated $365,000 with the recommendation that we reduce our staff by 25 positions below our present ceiling of 300; second, the House eliminated our entire request of $1,050,000 for emergency preparedness research. We are requesting restoration of the $365,000 reduction for 25 positions and restoration of $450,000 for emergency preparedness research for a total requested restoration of $815,000. A. OEP staffing With respect to employment, we are requesting the Senate to restore the House cut of $365,000 and 25 positions from our current ceiling of 300. We have already undergone a considerable reduction in employment since OEP was established less than 3 years ago with an initial employment level of 551 positions. Our current ceiling during fiscal year 1964 is 300, or a reduction of 46 percent, and we proposed to continue this same low level in fiscal year 1965. Our most recent reduction in force was taken last December and January, when at the direction of Congress, we reduced the size of the agency from 390 to 300 or a reduction of 23 percent in 2 months. Six supergrade jobs were included in the 90 positions eliminated. I feel strongly that reductions in personnel below 300 will seriously endanger essential nonmilitary defense functions. The House recommendation to reduce our present employment by 25 would have a serious effect upon our ability to coordinate and achieve a desirable level of nonmilitary preparedness. 1. Stockpiling.-For example, 9 of the 25 jobs eliminated by the House were specified for our Stockpile and Requirements Division. To quote the House committee report, it said "Only 10 of the 19 positions now engaged in reviewing and establishing stockpile objectives for strategic materials are recommended for next year as this activity clearly appears to be overstaffed." We believe this recommendation was based upon a misunderstanding since we may have erroneously indicated at the House hearing that all of the 19 people in the Stockpile and Requirements Division spent full time determining stockpile objectives. If this were the case, we would agree with the House that such activity was overstaffed. However, this is not the case. The Stockpile and Requirements Division has many other important duties in addition to determining strategic stockpile objectives. These other duties include the direction of stockpile disposal plans; the development of stockpiling storage criteria; the analysis of conventional war and nuclear war supply requirements for all resources including manpower, production, construction, transportation, fuels and energy, etc.; the determination of essential survival items; the management of borrowing authority and the defense materials systems under the Defense Production Act; and participation in the agricultural barter program. A careful study of the 19 positions assigned to the Stockpile and Requirements Division reveals that only 8.3 man-years are spent on determining the stockpile objectives, compared to the House recommendation of 10, while the balance of 10.7 manyears are spent on the additional functions listed above. If we were to thus follow the House recommendation and cut the Division from 19 to 10, we would virtually destroy these programs. We would not be able to press for an expeditious program to dispose of the $4.2 billion of strategic materials excess to current objectives or to carry out the other important programs in this Division. Such a personnel reduction would be a false economy, particularly in view of the additional disposal authority recommended by the Symington committee, and in our opinion, would not have been the intent of the House had we fully outlined all of the above facts at the House hearing. Restoration of funds for these nine jobs is therefore requested. 2. Other employment.-The House report did not specify the remaining 16 of 25 positions to be cut but wherever taken, it would have an equally serious effect upon our ability to discharge our most essential functions. For example, if the reduction were levied upon our regional offices it would break the momentum we have already achieved in encouraging and assisting the States to develop an emergency preparedness capability, it would deny effective management of the funds Congress has already appropriated for such purposes, and it would weaken our ability to rapidly respond to natural disasters such as the recent Alaskan earthquake. If the cut were taken in headquarters, it could impair progress on the President's telecommunications program; it could retard our ability to reorganize the Government's relocation program to meet the clurrent threat; and it could hamper our ability to see that the Government's emergency planning program assigned to 30 Federal departments and agencies is proceeding on an even and consistent basis. In short, it is not an exaggeration to say that OEP has already been pared to the bone. As was indicated earlier, employment was cut 46 percent in 3 years. The President has kept continuing pressure on every agency including OEP to hold employment to the absolute minimum and this we have done as an element of the Executive Office of the President. The President's policy has been vigorously implemented by the Bureau of the Budget which has given our staffing request a thorough and searching review. We do not believe, therefore, that the House cut should stand and strongly urge you to restore the entire cut of 25 positions and $365,000. B. Research and development The House eliminated all funds for emergnecy preparedness research in the amount of $1,050,000 which included five projcets. As a result of the House action, we have carefully reviewed our research requirements and are appealing two of the most urgent projects which total $450,000. A description of these projects follows. 1. Computer models for managing resources in a postattack economy ($350,000). One of the principal reasons for OEP's existence is to develop a permanent capability for the Government to manage resources in an emergency. A future war will not afford us the opportunity of a gradual buildup in our resource management machinery characteristic of World War II. The problem faced by the Government following the devastation of a nuclear war would, of course, be totally unlike the problems confronting us in World War II. Resources would be much scarcer, demands would be far more urgent and considerably less time would be available for decision. Fortunately, the recent strides made in computer technology have made it possible to keep our ability to manage resources from being completely overshadowed by the destructive power of modern war. During the past 4 years we have developed, through a contract with the National Planning Association, a complex computer assisted model to assess the effects of an attack upon the U.S. economy. This system would provide the President and other top decisionmakers with the timely facts and analyses they would need to direct the economic recovery of our Nation. In particular, it will be able to estimate the amount of resources that have survived an attack, correlate such resources with essential requirements, design feasible production programs, and predict critical bottlenecks and shortages before they occur. It has been carefully reviewed and strongly supported by some of the top economists in the country including such men as Dr. James Tobin of Yale University, Dr. Harold J. Barnett of Washington University in St. Louis, and Dr. James Henderson of the University of Minnesota. The Federal Government has invested nearly $900,000 to bring this system carefully through successive stages of research and development with the objective of achieving an operational tool by the end of fiscal year 1965. During fiscal year 1965 the contractor and OEP jointly will be engaged in a series of extensive tests designed to uncover any "bugs," to remedy them and to make final modifications in the national system. This "shakedown" period requires the contractor to operate the system using a wide variety of hypothetical problems; where errors are found they must be corrected, and where significant new data has become available it must be inserted. This final phase of the project is analogous also to a turnkey operation in industry since it includes complete, detailed training of selected OEP personnel to operate the system without further guidance nad the provision of written instructions covering all essential features. Failure to complete the last step in this important program would be wasteful of the large investment we have already made. We therefore urgently request that $200,000 be restored to complete the national system. As this work goes forward, it will be possible to extend it to the regional level. Thus all of the information on supplies and requirements, production potential and likely bottlenecks which would be summarized on a national basis can be broken down for any specific region or local area. This breakdown will meet two important needs. First of all, it will help national decisionmakers to obtain a truer picture on the geographical dispersion of available resources and requirements. There may be a rough balance of supply and demand at the national level, but there also may be considerable variation at the regional level which would affect the feasibility of a national program. Second, it will pro vide regional officials with valuable information to help them meet their important resource management responsibilities. Such a capability will make it possible to decentralize the administration of the resource management system to the maximum extent possible consistent within the overall national recovery program. We are requesting that $150,000 be restored for this purpose. The total request for the system which includes $200,000 to complete the national phase is thus $350,000. 2. National Academy of Sciences ($100,000).-The Office of Emergency Planning must develop programs to meet the problems this country would face in a postattack period. Since there are virtually no precedents we face a real danger of designing solutions for a dimly seen future, which solutions are reflections of current experience and of the past. Equally important, the technological changes which are exerting strong influences on all sectors of our society will have a profound impact on emergency preparedness measures as well. Keeping alert to new knowledge concerning the postattack environment and assessing the significance of technological innovations to existing programs demands the best thinking, insights, and objectivity in the Nation. The Federal Government has much of the talent and information needed, but there are many experts outside of Government where original ideas, special knowledge and indepedent approaches can supplement and invigorate our efforts. Fortunately, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences was created to build a bridge between the Government and the scientific community. Therefore, we wish to contract with the National Research Council to obtain the talent and information available through that organization. The first year's program with the National Research Council would emphasize resource management, economic recovery and appraisal of current readiness measures. Questions for which we would ask the Council to provide answers would include: What new materials will be critical to national security by 1970? What substitutes loom on the horizon as possible replacements for items in the stockpile? What construction techniques can be employed to speed emergency repairs in a postattack period? Are there technological changes ahead which will render current programs ineffective or obsolete? How realistic are plans for economic recovery in the light of the stresses and dislocations to be faced in a postattack world? The answers suplied by the National Research Council will be integrated into our current preparedness program. This will insure that our planning and programs reflect the best thinking and experience in and out of Government. We are requesting that the Senate restore $100,000 for this purpose. The pattern of cooperation contemplated is similar to that approved and used successfully by numerous Government agencies. To summarize our appeal, we are requesting restoration of $365,000 and 25 positions in order to maintain our current employment level, and we are requesting restoration of $450,000 for emergency preparedness research in order to complete the computer system for resource management and to obtain the assistance of the National Research Council. I earnestly recommend your favorable consideration of these two items since they are important elements of our emergency preparedness program. Mr. MCDERMOTT. Yes. SALARIES AND EXPENSES Senator MAGNUSON. We will place in the record the House language and start with your salaries and expenses. Appropriation of $4,285,000 recommended for salaries and expenses, which is $1,415,000 less than the budget, and provides for a staff of 275, or 25 fewer jobs than in 1964. The committee allowed the full request for the $250,000 for telecommunications research. The $1,050,000 for research and development was disallowed, and only 10 of the 19 positions now engaged in reviewing and establishing |