So I am in favor of the bill, although I say so with reluctance because I don't think we ought to cede any jurisdiction.

The CHAIRMAN. As far as I am concerned, we could get rid of the entire defense production, but there might be a need for a stockpile for a nuclear war, but nobody has ever told us what kind of a stockpile we need for a nuclear war.

Senator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. It is true, isn't it, that a lot of manganese that we had purchased was purchased through the bartering of grain to India?

Senator SYMINGTON. That is correct. A great deal of it has come through bartering.

Senator WILLIAMS. Does this bill affect in any way that method of purchase of manganese?

Senator SYMINGTON. No. I would make this comment, if I may. Failure of the Congress to act in this field, with a $5 billion surplus, is costing the U.S. Government on a minimum basis not less than a quarter of a million dollars a week. That would be a minimum.

If I may give one illustration. I was discussing with Mr. Jesse Jones at one time the question of building or making artificial rubber from a petroleum base. At first it was very poor rubber and very expensive. Before I left the RFC, which handled the rubber program, it was clear we could make synthetic rubber just as well as natural rubber and also for less money.

Then it became a political problem, rather a diplomatic problem, you might say, primarily because of British dependence on Malaya, the Straits, and so forth. There once was one use for natural rubber for which no synthetic rubber could substitute; namely, heavy-duty truck tires.

We have fooled around not selling this three quarters of a billion dollar rubber stockpile for so long that now we are producing a synthetic rubber which is better for heavy-duty truck tires than natural rubber.

Right there the American taxpayer has lost certainly a quarter of a billion dollars, maybe considerably more, because of the delay in moving the natural rubber stockpile.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Chairman, I will say simply that I am sympathetic also to the bill. I think its approach is a commonsense one. I reserve some judgment on the details of the bill, which I have not had an opportunity to study. But I think it is a good bill and undoubtedly merits passing by the Senate. And I would think it is more important than the question of committee jurisdiction. But at the same time I think that the point made by the Senator from Utah on the question of jurisdiction is a valid one and that it ought to be explored by the chairman of the two committees. I suspect what I would have to say about the jurisdiction of either committee would not be much, but I think it is a point that ought to be explored by the chairman of this committee and Senator Russell. I gather that is your point also.

But I think the bill is so important that it ought to get priority much higher than the point of jurisdiction, if that point cannot be resolved.

Senator SYMINGTON. I thank the Senator for his observations. This bill would in no way affect the question of control of this committee. If the Chair would allow, I would ask Mr. Buzhardt to speak to that briefly. He is a lawyer and an expert on this bill.

Mr. BUZHARDT. The bill would only affect the Defense Production Act inventory to the extent the materials had already been acquired under the Defense Production Act. It would not affect in any way any contracts under the Defense Production Act or any programs operating under it until after the materials were acquired, put in the inventory, and then it would change the inventory into which they went, so they would be under consolidated management and not under separate management as they are now. It would not affect the programs for acquisition of these materials, nor the amount of materials acquired.

Senator SYMINGTON. In other words, it wouldn't in any way affect the Defense Production Act authority and its relationship to this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Senator from Oregon wish to inquire?

Senator NEUBERGER. I echo the thoughts about the importance of this bill, and I don't have any feeling of pride in its jurisdiction, because but for the grace of God some of us might have been on some other committee. I don't think being here gives us any special talent necessarily.

But I am interested in one thing about the aluminum, and that is about the sale of it affecting the world price. We are assuming there that we are the only people that have aluminum to let out on the world market.

I sort of recall about 1960 or 1961 when Russia just opened the floodgates and aluminum went out and affected the world, that dumping. And I think we must be concerned, but after all it is important to us to get rid of some of this and Russia can do it any time she wants.

Senator SPARKMAN. I don't think there is any particular problem, so far as disposal of aluminum is concerned, because as Senator Symington pointed out, the aluminum companies are cooperating quite well.

By the way, I find from the report from OEP in May 1964 the contract with Harvey has been completed. It was completed in September

1963.

That is what this says. I will read it to you:

The General Services Administration reports that the Defense Production Act contract with Harvey Aluminum, Inc., was completed in September 1963.

Senator SYMINGTON. Yes, and deliveries have been completed under the contract.

The CHAIRMAN. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I want to thank you for being here. I think the hearings have, to me, been very interesting. I hope they have been helpful to the committee. I hope they will be helpful to the Senate when they are printed and distributed.

I am sorry I didn't have all of the details on how many times the committee met after our distinguished colleague from Illinois was appointed as a member. The record shows that I appointed him a member of the committee in February 1961.

In 1958, in December, I got a letter from a Republican appointed administrator, saying in effect he wasn't going to give me any material information. I can't recall that after that we had many, and I don't believe after the distinguished Senator from Illinois came on we had any meetings.

We continued to get all of the information we could, we published annual reports, all they would give us. We tried to influence a little sale of rubber from the national stockpile, and Congress passed that, because the rubber was going bad.

Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, do you plan to publish these hearings?

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely.

I want to say the distinguished Senator from Missouri will have. the privilege, when he reads the transcript, of supplementing his statement with such statistics and materials as he thinks will illuminate the subject for us.

And I ask the same privilege for our members and staff to insert materials to supplement the record.

The committee is adjourned until Tuesday at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, July 28, 1964.)

(The following material was submitted for inclusion in the record :)

Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

FEBRUARY 3, 1962.

DEAR DICK: I understand that Mr. Edward A. McDermott's name has been sent to the Senate as Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, replacing Mr. Frank Ellis. I also understand that the executive clerk is thinking of sending the nomination to the Armed Services Committee.

I have some question whether this nomination should go to your committee, or to the Banking and Currency Committee, by virtue of our jurisdiction over the Defense Production Act. As you may recall, the Banking and Currency Committee handled the nominations of Charles E. Wilson, Arthur S. Flemming, and Gordon Gray as Directors of the Office of Defense Mobilization, one of the two agenices which were combined to form OCDM in 1958. Now that the civil defense functions of OCDM have been transferred to the Defense Department, the Office of Emergency Planning is left with virtually the same functions as the ODM had had.

I enclose a memorandum which the committee staff prepared on the subject last summer in connection with the bill which changed the name of the new agency to Office of Emergency Planning.

I should be glad of a chance to talk with you about this before the nomination is referred.

With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely yours,

A. WILLIS ROBERTSON,

Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency.

H.R. 8406 (PUBLIC LAW 87-296), RENAMING OF THE OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION AS THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING. CALENDAR No. 830 Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958 combined the Office of Defense Mobilization (ODM) and the Federal Civil Defense Administration (FCDA) into one agency (originally Office of Defense and Civilian Mobilization; name changed to OCDM, August 26, 1958).

Executive Order 10952, effective August 1, 1961, transferred to the Department of Defense the bulk of the OCDM functions acquired from FCDA. OCDM retained the other functions received from ODM and FCDA, including functions under the Defense Production Act, the National Security Act, the Stockpiling Act, and the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1958.

Since the new office would no longer have the operating functions formerly in FCDA, H.R. 8406 would appropriately change the name of the agency to the Office of Emergency Planning (OEP).

The removal of most civil defense functions from OCDM-OEP, and its reversion to substantially the functions formerly exercised by ODM, raises the question whether the Banking and Currency Committee should again have jurisdiction over the new agency, particularly as to confirmation of its directors and other officials, as it had over ODM before the 1958 reorganization.

ODM was originally created by Executive Order 10193 of December 16, 1950. Its Director's principal duties were to direct, control, and coordinate all mobilization activities of the executive branch of the Government. These activities consisted largely, though by no means exclusively, of the allocation and priorities powers, the price, wage, rent and credit controls, and the financial aids to increase production, contained in the Defense Production Act. Other powers were specifically vested in the Director of Defense Mobilization by the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1951 and the Defense Housing and Community Facilities and Services Act of 1951 and other acts.

ODM was reestablished by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1953. In addition to the powers in the former ODM, the new ODM was given, by this reorganization plan and by Executive Orders 10461 of June 17, 1953, and 10480 of August 14, 1953, the powers formerly in NSRB and the stockpiling functions of the Munitions Board.

During its entire existence, from its creation in 1950 up to the time of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958, the ODM was under the jurisdiction of the Banking and Currency Committee, and all its directors and their nominations were referred to and reported by this committee: Charles E. Wilson, confirmed December 20, 1950; Arthur S. Flemming, confirmed April 9, 1953, and June 23, 1953; Gordon Gray, confirmed March 14, 1957. However, nominations of the Directors of ODCM and OCDM were referred to the Committee on Armed Services, which had jurisdiction over the FCDA, presumably because the importance of operating functions inherited from FCDA outweighed the importance of the functions inherited from ODM.

Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON,

Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

FEBRUARY 10, 1962.

DEAR WILLIS: At the meeting of the Committee on Armed Services last Thursday I presented your letter about reference of nominations to fill statutory positions in the Office of Emergency Planning.

After considerable discussion, the consensus of the committee was that it would like to retain jurisdiction over these nominations. As you know, the Subcommittee on the National Stockpile is preparing for an investigation of the stockpiling program. In addition, the committee apparently is of the view that a preponderance of the OEP functions, such as stockpiling, mobilization planning, and determinations of whether imports adversely affect the national security are of primary interest to this committee.

There is no question that some of the OEP functions, such as wage and price controls in an emergency, are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency.

I hope you and your committee will understand the reasons for the position taken by this committee.

With cordial regards, I am,

Sincerely,

RICHARD B. RUSSELL.

Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

FEBRUARY 13, 1962.

DEAR DICK: Thank you for your letter of February 10 in which you report that you presented my letter of February 3 concerning nominations to positions in the Office of Emergency Planning at the meeting of the Committee on Armed Services last Thursday, and that the consensus of the committee was that it would like to retain jurisdiction over these nominations.

I can, of course, appreciate the view of your committee that, since the Office of Emergency Planning exercises functions under the Strategic and

Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, the National Security Act, and other acts under your committee's jurisdiction, your committee is deeply concerned with the activities of the agency and feels that nominations to positions in the agency should be referred to it. I recognize, too, that the agency exercises functions under other statutes under the jurisdiction of other committees, for example section 8 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1958, the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949.

In view of the Banking and Currency Committee's responsibility for the Defense Production Act of 1950, which has been under the jurisdiction of this committee since its enactment, and which contained the statutory authorization for the original Office of Defense Mobilization and the provisions establishing the Joint Committee on Defense Production composed of members of the House and Senate Banking and Currency Committees, I feel I must advise the members of the Banking and Currency Committee of your committee's views on this matter before commenting further. With kind personal regards, I am, Sincerely yours,

A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Chairman.

FEBRUARY 20, 1962.

Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR DICK: Supplementing my letter of February 13, 1962, I have now had an opportunity to consult with the members of this committee and to learn their views.

It is their general view that the Committee on Armed Services may well still have a preponderance of interest in the current functions of the Office of Emergency Planning, particularly in the light of the current study of the stockpiling program. Accordingly, this committee does not wish to raise a question as to the appropriateness of the reference to your committee of nominations to statutory positions in the Office of Emergency Planning.

It would seem appropriate, of course, to reopen this matter if at some time in the future it should appear that the preponderance of the functions of the Office of Emergency Planning has shifted to functions under the jurisdiction of this committee, for example, functions under the Defense Production Act.

As you will recall, the Defense Production Act provided the statutory framework for a system of closely interrelated controls over the civilian economyincluding price, wage, rent, priority, allocation, and credit controls-and also provided authority to give financial aid to industry to expand productive capacity and supply-all designed to make possible the maximum support to the defense effort with the minimum adverse effect upon our economic situation and our domestic economy. This act has been under the jurisdiction of this committee ever since introduction of the original bill in 1950. The Joint Committee on Defense Production, comprised of members of the Senate and House Banking and Currency Committees, has been charged with the responsibility of supervising activities under the Defense Production Act since its enactment. No change, of course, is contemplated in this regard. With kind personal regards,

Sincerely,

A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Chairman.

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

February 21, 1962.

Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON,

Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR WILLIS: Permit me to acknowledge and thank you for your letter with further reference to the jurisdiction over nominations to statutory positions in the Office of Emergency Planning.

I know the Committee on Armed Services will appreciate the understanding and cooperation of the Committee on Banking and Currency in this respect.