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,

the Critical Materials Stockpile Act of 1946, and section 8 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act, but most importantly, by the National Security Act of 1947, as amended.

In a broad sense, these authorities involve the responsibility of the President as a final arbiter in the distribution of critical resources, measures to stabilize the economy, administer price, wage and rent controls, and advise on the adequacy of all national resources necessary for the national security.

Since there have been some misconceptions in the past with respect to these functions, there is need to be quite clear and specific as to what is involved:

(a) Emergency resources management functions

The mobilization and management of the Nation's resources basically involve all actions necessary to assure the most effective, balanced and unified development and use of all resources in the national interest. Emergency resources management is one element of this picture. It involves formulating plans for all the peacetime and emergency actions necessary to insure maximum use of our resources under emergency conditions.

All possible steps must be taken before and during an emergency to insure that the right things will be available for the right purpose, in the right places, in the right amount and at the right time in order to "squeeze" the greatest possible benefits out of the Nation's resources and to meet the emergency in as orderly a manner as possible. Among other things, these emergency management activities entail the development of an appropriate organizational structure and plans needed to mobilize and manage the Nation's resources; the development of appropriate allocations, priorities and other systems and procedures to insure the orderly flow of resources in the national interest; the preparation and issuance of policy statements, directives, and regulations needed to insure control and use of resources; and other plans and programs such as those dealing with stockpiling and strengthening the mobilization base.

OEP will emphasize the development of emergency resources management plans and studies as called for in the National Security Act of 1947.

NSRB and its successor agencies undertook a number of resource studies, particularly of the supply-requirement type, that had an influence upon judgments of Federal officials as to the Nation's resources capacity and readiness to meet emergency requirements.

Each of these studies, however, has been a separate analysis which generally has been limited in scope and has been made without relation to similar analyses of other resources. Each has been based on a different set of standards or assumptions. A new approach is needed.

Positive planning and directing of a new comprehensive interrelated pattern of supply-requirements studies by OEP will furnish the basis for

(a) Developing a complete pattern of emergency requirements in relation to specific national security needs;

(b) Estimating emergency requirements and determining how much of them are really essential;

(c) Identifying the potential resource weaknesses and resource deficiencies in relation to emergency requirements;

(d) Developing measures that can be taken in peacetime to correct those weaknesses and deficiencies, and thus put the country in a better position to meet an emergency;

(e) Determining what readiness measures are necessary to meet requirements; and

(ƒ) Determining the nature and extent of controls required in an emergency to overcome indicated deficits.

The peacetime conduct of such studies will also result in the identification of the roles of all concerned Government agencies and in the orderly and effective administration of this resources analysis function. This will affect many Federal agencies including DOD, nearly all other executive departments, and many independent agencies. The procedures and organizational relationships involved must be determined in peacetime as an important readiness measure. They must be in being early in an emergency and should not be left for development after the emergency has begun.

This point is worth dwelling on for a moment in the interest of full understanding. In an emergency, many essential activities must be carried on simultaneously by a number of organizations whose programs must be supported by drawing upon the available resources of the country. The military services must be supported; foreign_commitments must be met; food must be produced, processed, and distributed; fuel and energy (petroleum products, gas, coal, electric power) must be produced and distributed; a wide variety of goods and equipment must be produced by the industrial facilities of the country in order to meet military and essential civilian needs and to support the functioning of the economy; transportation and transportation facilities (land, air, water, highway) must be available; the Nation's telecommunications network must be supported; the country's manpower must be mobilized, trained, inducted into military service, and directed to a wide variety of essential civilian channels; and steps must be taken to stabilize the economy through such measures as price, wage, and rent control, consumer rationing, and appropriate fiscal and monetary policies.

Each of these activities is of major importance, in fact essential. Each must be carried out by an organization having primary responsibility for devoting attention and energies to it. In some cases, an existing Government agency is ready and equipped to pick up the responsibility immediately. In other cases, an existing agency may have to be rapidly expanded or scattered units may have to be brought together in a new organization. In some instances, new organizations will have to be established.

Each of the organizations responsible for these essential activities will begin "operating" from the outset of an emergency. Each, relying on previously prepared plans and on an analysis of the actual situation with which it is faced, will formulate a program and course of action to meet that aspect of the emergency for which it is responsible. It will estimate the resources required to carry out that program.

DOD will do this for the military services and for much of the civil defense program. The Department of State will do it in order to meet foreign requirements; the fuel and energy agency will do it to