military defense, a much more comprehensive research base is required than has obtained in the past. The Office of Emergency Planning will not duplicate research being undertaken in other agencies, nor will it undertake research on hardware or components necessary to support functions which have been assigned to other agencies. It will, however

(a) Strengthen its policy-oriented research with particular emphasis on defining the parts and proper relationships of the total nonmilitary defense system;

(b) Intensify its economic research, both through contract and through the use of its inhouse capability at the National Resources Evaluation Center, to explore problems of balancing the supply and requirements of basic resources, and to generate feasible postattack economic recovery programs;

(c) Establish much closer liaison with the scientific and academic community through a system of scientific advisory committees, to enlist the assistance of scientists of all disciplines in this vital national task; and

(d) Establish more effective liaison with Government agencies conducting research on all aspects of our national security. In the past there has been inadequate staff devoted to this task and certain barriers have hampered the free flow of information between agencies. I intend to see that both of these deficiencies are corrected.

Informing the people of America

Certain public information functions will be retained in the OEP. In a democracy, the public must be informed. Without such information, there can be little understanding, hence little support for effort to improve our national security posture. The need is particularly acute in the field of nonmilitary defense. There is little precedent for such efforts in our history, and the basis for necessary understanding must be developed vigorously. As the President indicated in his address of July 25, the people simply do not know, in clear and simple terms, what needs to be done to cope with the threats in today's world. While public information is by no means the exclusive responsibility of the President, the people do properly and inevitably look to the President for guidance in matters of signal importance to the Nation and its security. Standing as he does, at the pinnacle of the governmental system in the United States, the President is in a unique position to answer questions which remain in people's minds about the nature and imminence of the threat, and the necessity for certain actions.

Coordination

Another major and continuing responsibility of the OEP is to advise and assist the President in the coordination of the activities of the Federal Government in the total nonmilitary defense field, which, of course, includes civil defense. This I do not envisage as a job of looking over the shoulders of the operating agencies on a day-to-day basis, because I believe that anyone given responsibility for a job must be given wide latitude in determining how that responsibility can best be discharged. It is inevitable, however, that problems will arise in this vast, new, and complex undertaking and that a staff unit is needed

within the Executive Office to assist the President in this matter. The OEP will also coordinate the actions taken by Federal and State officials to prepare to conduct emergency operations. It will have primary responsibility for stimulating and coordinating Federal civilian readiness measures.

Leadership

The civil defense program cannot succeed without the strong support and cooperation of the Governors of the several States and other State and local officials. The OEP will assist the President in stimulating civil defense participation by State and local governments and in providing a channel to assist in the flow of information from the President to the Governors. The OEP is also charged with helping the States arrange interstate civil defense compacts and with providing assistance to the States in arranging through the Department of State mutual civil defense aid agreements between States and neighboring countries.

Reporting evaluation

The President is responsible not only for a well-planned and wellorganized program, but also with the effective execution of the program in practice.

Unfortunately, evaluation and reporting is a field which requires considerable improvement. Let me be specific: As this committee discovered in 1959, in the important field of shelter construction the Government had no figures on the number of shelters which had been built in the United States. I intend to aid and support the Secretary of Defense in seeing that this gap is plugged and to assist the President in seeing that an adequate basis is established for reporting progress in the nonmilitary defense program as a whole.

These several program areas, plus the continuity-of-government function which I will discuss in more detail later, constitute, in general terms, the new role of the OEP.

III. THE UTILIZATION AND COORDINATION OF THE FEDERAL

ESTABLISHMENT

The third main topic upon which this committee requested my specific testimony is the utilization of the resources of the Federal establishment and the proper coordination of their activities.

Many agencies of Government have important nonmilitary defense functions to perform, both in civil defense and in strengthening, mobilizing, and managing our resources. The objective of organizing the Government in this area is clear. It is to assure the performance by the regular departments and agencies of the Government of nonmilitary defense functions which are most clearly related to their established roles and capabilities-a very important point.

As this committee knows, the problem of obtaining full utilization of Federal agencies has a long and troubled history. I believe that the assignment of responsibility to the Secretary of Defense for shelter and associated civil defense functions represents the largest step forward in this area in many years.

Similar actions with respect to civil defense functions are in preparation to strengthen the assignment of responsibilities to other

agencies-notably to the Departments of Agriculture and Health, Education, and Welfare. These assignments will be accompanied by the transfer of personnel and funds from OCDM.

Under consideration is a proposal to have the Department of Agriculture redistribute stockpiles of surplus commodities, especially wheat, to food deficit areas, such as New England and the west coast. This would contribute to our ability to sustain the population under severe attack conditions, since our studies show clearly that there will be plenty of food, but temporary transportation bottlenecks, following an attack.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will accelerate its program for the stockpiling of essential medical supplies and equipment. Our research indicates that as many as 10 percent of the attack casualties can be saved from subsequent death but medical supplies and equipment must be available. Plans for the emergency stockpiling of medical supplies are well developed, and actual procurement should be accelerated.

Both Agriculture and HEW will continue, as in the past, to have important resource mobilization and management responsibilities. Under the provisions of the Executive Order of July 20, 1961, the emergency preparedness orders previously issued, principally in the area of resources mobilization and management functions, continue in full force and effect. For the record, there are 15 such orders involving 14 Federal agencies.

The President has indicated a strong personal concern that the nonmilitary defense programs of the several departments and agencies be strengthened. To this end, the following additional steps will be

taken:

(1) Each agency will be asked to assume full responsibility for the job which it has been given, including the responsibility of obtaining in its budget the necessary funds to do the job, beginning, on a general basis, in fiscal year 1963. Too often in the past, agencies have taken the position that they were doing what they were being paid to do, in addition to their normal work. The concept which must become accepted is that nonmilitary defense preparation is a part of their normal responsibilities.

(2) The OEP, at the direction of the President, will undertake to see that agency working plans represent a total balanced nonmilitary defense program for the entire Government. It will also establish a sound basis for program evaluation and reporting.

(3) Attention to the coordination of Federal agency programs with plans and actions of State and local governments will be given in the field by a small OEP staff in each of the existing eight regions.

(4) The OEP will continue to control the civilian emergency operating site, which provides an operating center for the civilian Federal agencies.

Let me tell the committee, however, that we face major problems in this area. In the period of shorter and shorter tactical warning of enemy attack, which we are entering, the concept of relocating large numbers of Federal employees upon warning of enemy attack is simply outmoded. We must also decentralize responsibilities and devise suitable alternative methods for conducting emergency operations if the relocation sites themselves should be targeted.

(5) The OEP also maintains, and will continue to maintain, the National Resources Evaluation Center. As I think the committee knows, this constitutes a major tool for the analysts for nonmilitary defense problems and an important coordinating mechanism for bringing the Federal agencies' programs into a common working relationship in the research and planning stage. The NREC has developed an advanced computer technique for the calculation of the effects of hypothetical enemy attack and for the continuation of the resources which would be required in a postattack situation. This provides all of the 16 participating agencies with a common framework for the analysis of their problems. I plan to strengthen the capability of the NREC to estimate complex problems of the effect of enemy attack upon the entire economic system. OEP will also intensify its policyoriented contract research as a common service to the other Federal agencies.

IV, DEVELOPMENT OF ADEQUATE PREPARATIONS AT STATE AND LOCAL

LEVELS

The OEP role within the overall nonmilitary defense program we are discussing is to help the President establish a pattern and environment that will permit all levels of government-Federal, State, and local-to work together to accomplish the goal of maximum national security. For, in a nuclear attack situation, our States and localities will be the "theaters of operation."

The crucial importance of the role of the Governors of the 50 States in this operational survival effort must be recognized as unprecedented in our national history. Traditionally, it has been the Federal responsibility to provide for "the common defense against all enemies." Now, much of this responsibility unavoidably falls upon the State governments and their political subdivisions because the nature of nuclear warfare permits no "frontline."

Inherent in the police powers of the States is the duty to protect their own citizens. It must be recognized, in addition, that important elements of Federal responsibility for defense must be carried out by State and local governments. For example: If the human and material resources of California and New York are destroyed, this tragedy has national consequences. If a State squanders its resources, or fails to provide protection for its civilian population, a Federal military establishment stationed in that State simply cannot function. State and local governments also have responsibility to control and distribute retail stocks of food, fuel, and other essential resources. They are responsible as well for intrastate and local transportations; for rationing fuel, food, and clothing; and for control of rents and prices until such time as national controls can be reestablished.

State and local governments must, to a large extent, be self-sufficient; they cannot count on outside help because it may not be immediately available.

The survival function of the States is so important that it is the responsibility of the chief executives of the States and local governments to see that survival plans are effectively developed. In the past, there has been a tendency to leave too much of the burden to the civil defense director. State and local civil defense directors should serve

their chief executives in the same manner that the OEP, in a staff capacity, will serve the President.

The continuity of government program

The OEP also will assist in providing leadership on behalf of the National Government, in programs seeking to promote and assure the continuity of State and local governments. This was first established in the fall of 1957 in direct response to a resolution adopted by the Governors' conference. The basic premise of this program is that all levels of government must survive and operate effectively during and after a nuclear war in order that the United States may survive-not as a collection of isolated groups of people-but as a living nation, capable of controlling its own destiny and continuing a democratic way of life.

This has been one of the most successful and important programs carried on by the OCDM. It is one to which we will be able to devote even more time and attention in the future.

The present continuity of government program consists of four specific elements:

(1) The establishment of lines of emergency succession for key officials, to help insure that there will always be constitutionally qualified persons to direct and operate government. In most States this requires a constitutional amendment. Today, only 3 years after the amendment was proposed, 31 State legislatures have approved such amendments to their constitutions and in 18 of these States the amendments have already been ratified by overwhelming majorities. In no case where the amendment has been submitted to the people has it failed for want of ratification.

(2) Preservation of essential records goes hand in hand with emergency succession. Relatively few records are necessary for emergency operation, but they must be at the place where decisions will be made and must be in a form which makes them immediately useful.

(3) The third objective of the continuity of government program is the establishment of protected emergency operating centers for government. The Federal Government matches expenditures of the States on the establishment of protected emergency centers, and this phase of the operation will be administered by the Department of Defense in keeping with plans for the continuity of government. In this matter, as in others, of course, the OEP will work closely with the DOD.

(4) The last, and in many respects the most significant portion of the continuity of government program is preparation to assure the full use of personnel and equipment for emergency operations. This will often require advance enrollment, training and assignment of volunteer citizens as auxiliaries to the existing government departments. Although we believe that we have made some progress in this field, we also know that we have just made a beginning.

V. STRENGTHENING, MOBILIZATION, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF THE NATION'S RESOURCES

This is the last main topic on which the committee requested my testimony. The OEP will have a central responsibility for these functions, derived chiefly from the Defense Production Act of 1950,