restore fuel and energy facilities, and to produce and distribute all forms of fuel and energy; and the other organizations, such as those dealing with food, industrial production, telecommunications, transportation, will do the same for their respective areas of concern.

It will be necessary at the earliest possible time and periodically thereafter, for the many organizations involved to present to a single control unit information about their proposed plans of action and about the resources required to carry out these plans. This must be done through a well understood system that must be developed and be made generally known before the emergency. The control unit must weigh the total resources required against the total resources available. The unit must then make a general determination of steps that might be taken to increase resources availabilities. It must also make a determination of what resources will be assigned or allocated to carry out each of the proposed operations. The organizations will have to modify their operations accordingly.

The development of this central supply-requirements analysis and claimancy and allocation role is the heart of national resources management, and is the unique responsibility of OCDM, soon to be OEP, as the President's principal staff arm in this area of preparation.

(b) Resources development function

National security requires that resource plans not be limited just to wartime or emergency situations as cited above, nor can they be limited to only domestic considerations. There is need to consider our basic resource posture and its developmental needs in relation to continuing and future considerations on the international scene.

Since the enactment of the National Security Act of 1947, the Defense Production Act of 1950, and other organic statutes which together constituted the charter of NSRB, the ODM, and now the OCDM, the evolution of world events has compelled a more global involvement in the security resources considerations.

The United States is irretrievably committed to a system of worldwide alliances and aid to newly developing countries in a long-term conflict with militant communism.

The role of resources development for the Nation's security in this struggle, as well as to meet a limited war or the results of general war involving nuclear attack, is obviously a major one. Unless the economics effects on our friends and allies are incorporated with our domestic planning for the development and management of our domestic resources, our actions might cause them economic damage, thus weakening our alliances and the free world strength.

It is obvious, therefore, that it would be shortsighted and inadequate for OCDM to limit its concern only to problems incident to meeting an attack. The term "mobilization" has taken on a broader and more long-range connotation in light of current and future world conditions.

Furthermore, the capability to manage resources effectively under nuclear attack conditions, in the final analysis, must be built on a foundation of capability and knowledge of the current and long-term resources needs for national security.

Under the President's direction, OCDM is accordingly concerning itself to a far greater extent than it has in the past with the basic resources strength of the Nation and with the further development of

that strength. A wider, more fundamental and a longer range view is required than has obtained in the past. We must be interested in knowing not only where the Nation stands today with respect to major resources areas, but where it will be 5, 10, and 20 years hence. We must be concerned about what steps should be taken to improve our posture in these regards to meet both peacetime and all types of emergency requirements since all are intimately related. We must, in short, concern ourselves not only with problems incident to meeting an attack but also with those matters involving long-range security.

(c) Participation in economic warfare and cold war matters

OCDM has an additional peacetime role in connection with the resources aspects of economic warfare and related cold war problems and with matters pertaining to resources development in, and future resources availabilities from, underdeveloped and other countries. These are resource matters to which the new OEP will need to address greater peacetime attention as a participant in the Federal Government's efforts on this front. Other Federal agencies are also involved. Planning in this regard is now splintered among a number of agencies. There is an urgent need for more effective coordination and direction of these activities. This general need has been recognized and stated in a recent report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

In addition to its general responsibilities in these economic warfare and cold war areas, OEP will continue to have specific obligations for making recommendations to the President and responsibilities for advising other agencies of the security effects on the country's economy under certain existing programs. Among these programs are the Trade Agreements Extension Act; the Buy American requirements; the program for disposition of surplus agricultural products overseas; and certain operations under the Helium Act and the Export Control Act.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement.

I am sorry that the phase of it that dealt with economic mobilization and the economic base and preparation was so lengthy, but it is such a vital thing which has not been accented by this agency in the past that I wanted to bring it home to the committee in this statement. Thank you for your patience and consideration.

BUDGETING FOR DELEGATED FUNCTIONS

Mr. HOLIFIELD. This is, as you say, a quite extensive statement, and it deals with a great many facets of what you conceive to be the function of the Office of Emergency Planning.

Now, there has been quite a bit of speculation that with the removing of the shelter function and certain other functions to the Department of Defense your office might have anything to do. But in looking over this wide sphere of planning which you are going to be charged with, it seems to me that you are going to have a tremendous function, and a very important function.

We were very much worried about the delegation of functions under previous orders. We followed through some of those delegations of functions to other agencies, and we found that they were com

pletely lost in the major and primary purposes of those different Government agencies.

One of the most ridiculous ones that came to our attention was the allocation of responsibility for reducing urban vulnerability to the Housing and Home Finance Agency with a $16,500 budget to take care of this, which gave employment to one man and one secretary. And of course, in the delegation of functions to the different agencies, unless they are properly supervised and coordinated and funded, you are going to have a lot of these functions dropped in the

cracks.

Now, on page 20, I noticed you said—

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.

Now, here is the area where I think we are going to have to scrutinize assigned functions very carefully. And I am somewhat at a loss at this time to understand who has the control of the funds which they will request to fulfill the function assigned to them. Will the Office of Emergency Planning in effect evaluate the function which they perform, and will OEP go to the extent of preparing a budget and recommending a budget for them to include in their normal budget?

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, as you recall, historically the request was made a number of years ago that each agency seek its own budget requirement from the Congress. And this was objected to, and thereafter the agency requirements were consolidated and included in the OCDM general budget. A similar request was made this year for the 15 departmental delegations that we have outstanding under Emergency Preparedness Orders to agencies, and was granted by the Congress to OCDM and is now before the conference committee for adjustment.

The future is what you are thinking in terms of rather than in the past.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is right, because I am afraid that in the delegation of functions there will develop independent planning and independent concepts as to the amount of funds needed for that planning. Now, I want to know-the question I asked directly is this, will the Office of Emergency Planning have such scrutiny of the overall plan that they will be able to say, let us say, to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which is assigned certain medical procurement and stockpiling functions, "your function this year should be to procure $50 million worth of supplies, and we recommend that you request in your budget $50 million worth of supplies."

Assume that, for reasons which are for the protection of the overall budget, they decide to cut that $50 million down to $25 or $30 million, and include it in their overall budget. Now, at that point what action does the Office of Emergency Planning take? What can they take under their designation of authority from the President?

Mr. ELLIS. Now, this year the Congress is making the appropriation direct to the OCDM. Now, in view of the Executive Order of the

President, the extent that it alters or changes that situation will be a matter for consultation between OCDM and the DOD and the Bureau of the Budget. And if you would like me to analyze my determination of the effect of the Executive Order on these delegations, I will do so, and it might shed some light on the appropriation matter.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Ellis, the chairman is inquiring about the statement, on page 20 of your presentation, a declarative statement that the practice of consolidated budgeting in OCDM for delegated civil defense functions will now revert to the former situation where each agency is responsible for its own budgeting. It is not clear in the statement whether they are going to absorb civil defense functions in their regular budgets, or do separate budgeting for civil defense. In either event, the chairman is inquiring as to your understanding and your arrangement and your anticipation of whether the Appropriations Committees will go for a situation which heretofore they were unwilling to go for; namely separate agency budgeting for civil defense.

Mr. ELLIS. I would be inclined to believe that to supply the budgetary needs of the various agencies, in order to adequately perform their delegations, the appropriations should be made to the agencies direct, or to the President of the United States, and that the distribution would be made by him. We would probably follow this up with a substitution of the delegate powers now outstanding from Emergency Preparedness Orders issued by the OCDM for directions issued by the Chief Executive himself. We feel that that would strengthen the delegate authority, and give a greater sense of responsibility to agencies, and it would be a part of their direct obligation to the President, and not a part of their direct obligation to the OCDM. Mr. ROBACK. It is your testimony that a civil defense budget would be requested by the President for allocation by him under such authority as he may have?

Mr. ELLIS. I would think that that would be a determination to be ultimately made by the Bureau of the Budget after consultation with the Congress, because whether it would go to the agencies direct or be an appropriation to the executive department would be a matter for determination. I think that something can be done to improve the situation as it presently exists. I think that vitality is needed if these agencies are to do a better job. As the chairman has pointed out, the committee has many misgivings about these delegations. However, I think they can be improved. Furthermore, we should expand them. There are 18 additional delegations that can be given to the agencies.

OVERALL AUTHORITY OF OCDM (OEP)

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The thing that alarms me is, I can see here an extensive delegation of authority which will result in a hodgepodge of contradictory planning and contradictory evaluation of programs which will bring on chaos in this whole plan. Somebody somewhere has to do the planning. And I would assume that the Office of Emergency Planning would plan an overall program and recommend it to the President. And I would assume that in that overall program

there would be definite delineation of areas of function based upon the funding, of course, which each agency would follow.

Now, if the Office of Emergency Planning does not have the authority to do overall planning for the complete program and make recommendations to the President for the whole program, subdivided into those areas of function which would go to the different departments, then the Office of Emergency Planning becomes merely a talking society and a reading society. But if the Office of Emergency Planning has the authority to develop a national plan, to subdivide the functions to the appropriate agency, to recommend the amount of budget which that agency should have to carry out its assigned tasks, to follow up that agency and find out if it does request in its overall budget the specific amount recommended by the Office of Emergency Planning, and if it does not, to go to the President and say to the President "Well, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is now asking the Budget Bureau for $25 million. In our opinion there should be $50 million requested, and we base that upon the analysis that we made"-and you can at that time present your supporting documents as to why it should be $50 million rather than $25 million-then at that point, if the President sustains the Office of Emergency Planning's overall plan, and that specific part of it, he would then immediately execute an Executive Order to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for them to raise their sights from $25 million to $50 million.

Now, of course, this would be done and the Budget Bureau would naturally scrutinize it, but they would scrutinize it on the basis of an overall plan which we make the assumption you had already cleared with the President and he had approved.

Well, let's carry this analysis one step forward. I am trying to find out what your Office of Emergency Planning is going to do, outside of talking and possibly complaining. Would you then, assuming that you had gone through that procedure, follow up the work of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and go into that agency and see how they had carried this function out, and if you found that although they had received the money they hadn't carried it out, or they were not storing the material properly, do you conceive it to be your duty to call to the attention of the President that this particular agency—and I am just taking Health, Education, and Welfare as an example-is not carrying out its function in an expeditious manner?

Now, if you do not have this complete power to plan, observe, supervise-I mean to supervise not from the standpoint of going in and doing their work for them, but at least scrutinizing-and then report back to the President, this whole thing is going to fall between the cracks of these 15 or 18 different agencies that you talk about. There has got to be somebody that supervises and coordinates this overall plan. And if it isn't your agency, then I want to know where that responsibility of supervision and reporting back to the Commander in Chief and the President is.

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I think you placed your hand on the pulse of a very critical matter. I have read the testimony of the Secretary of Defense before this committee, and I would agree that certainly the Secretary of Defense, as to those