erally, and from a current lack of positive leadership in this important field. I hope we will hear some remedies for this situation when we reconvene again Wednesday. They are long overdue.

Thank you all for assisting the committee in this undertaking.

These hearings are recessed until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning, when we will meet in room 5302 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. That is the hearing room of the Senate Banking Committee on the 5th floor of this building.

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearings were recessed, to be reconvened at 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 30, 1976.]

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL EMERGENCY

PREPAREDNESS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1976

U.S. CONGRESS,

JOINT COMMITTEE ON DEFENSE PRODUCTION,

Washington, D.C.

The Joint Committee met at 10:05 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 5302, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. David Evans presiding. Present: Congressman David Evans and Senator William Proxmire. Also present: Bill Kincade, staff director, and Rhett Dawson, minority counsel.

Mr. EVANS. This meeting will come to order. Chairman Sullivan and Vice Chairman Proxmire have other committee assignments this morning that will detain them, so I have been asked to reconvene the Joint Committee's hearing this morning. Also, the House of Representatives has a very heavy workload this morning. There will be a number of very important conference votes out, so we will probably be interrupted a number of times. If that does occur, if you are reading your opening statement or making your remarks, please continue doing so and I will either have one of the other members of the committee carry on the meeting until I can return or else I will have one of the staff members, Mr. Kincade or Mr. Dawson, proceed with the hearing.

I think we are all aware that civil emergency preparedness is basically a simple issue in concept. But it involves a variety of agencies and programs that interact in a complex fashion. Furthermore, it has been complicated recently by a variety of developments, not the least of which is the growth in the number of emergencies where Government action is appropriate or required.

I believe it will be helpful, therefore, to review some of the issues and the questions which the Joint Committee is trying to address in its review of civil emergency preparedness. This will set the scene for this morning's continuing discussion of preparedness efforts at the Federal, State, and local levels. .

It is important to remember that the emergency preparedness effort had its beginnings in civil defense against enemy attack. Over the years, however, a broad range of other, nondefense emergency situations has arisen to which basic civil defense techniques, plans, personnel, and programs could usefully be applied. The most familiar, of course, are natural disaster emergencies but we also have to deal with possible nuclear power plant accidents, terrorist and sabotage activities, resource interruptions and a variety of other events that could have widespread impact on the lives and welfare of citizens in a highly complex industrial society.

This growth in the range of emergency or crisis situations has led to similar growth in the services expected of emergency preparedness

79-953 O - 77 - 7

organizations at the Federal, State and local levels. To some degree, however, the organizational system has not kept pace with the demands made on it and this is part of the problem we are seeing today. At the same time, there has been a growth in the partnership that was originally worked out among Federal, State and local governments. Yet here again there seems to be evidence that the partnership is under real strain.

So we find that the civil emergency preparedness structure and the governmental partnership that cements it together are endangered. Several of our witnesses have expressed real alarm over the future of the national preparedness effort. The causes cited for this declining state of preparedness are many. I will cite a few of the major ones the committee has heard about.

Civil emergency preparedness is an easy target for budget cuts at all levels of government because it is not a service for which there is consistent public demand. When funds are scarce, preparedness is first to be cut.

Civil emergency preparedness currently lacks the kind of positive and visible support from senior officials at all levels of government that it has enjoyed at times in the past.

Furthermore, there is widespread disagreement over preparedness priorities. Different officials and agencies favor different programs. And there is no forum or mechanism for establishing uniform program priorities.

At the same time, civil emergency preparedness does not seem to have strong public support, except possibly during and just after an emergency, though we have heard testimony that it could have public support if it got official support.

We have also heard that program priorities have become disconnected from real-life probabilities, so that we may be spending relatively more of our scarce resources on preparing for the less frequent or less probable disasters.

The organizational picture, which seemed to stabilize for a time in the late 1950's and the early 1960's, has become confused. State and local agencies are consolidated functionally but Federal organs are not. This seems to create problems for the State and local agencies in carrying out their missions.

Concurrently, Federal officials and agencies have been reduced in status, at least in apparent status, and they lack the real authority in the Government to carry out their responsibilities effectively.

The partnership of which I spoke earlier seems to be disintegrating. Federal officials are reminding State and local governments that nondefense emergency preparedness is basically a State or local responsibility. They add that the State and local governments are not always adequately supporting national emergency programs, as for nuclear attack.

State and local officials, on the other hand, point out that civil defense measures are compatible with other emergency preparedness programs and cannot be sold to their governments except as a package. They note, too, that the whole State and local structure, which is the heart of emergency operations, has grown up with considerable Federal help and the Federal Government can't just walk away from it all or it will collapse.

In this morning's hearings we will be looking for a better understanding of some of these problems. But we will also be looking for recommendations for ways to improve the situation. Some have suggested that there is a need for a complete overhaul of the basic legislation, primarily the Federal Civil Defense Act. That implies a complete rethinking of the whole civil emergency preparedness picture. Perhaps the solutions that worked in the past are just not adequate to altered circumstances and new demands. The committee hopes the experts from whom we will be hearing this morning will give us the benefit of their experience and thinking on the problem.

Our first witness this morning is Hon. John E. Davis, Director of the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency.

Governor Davis, we appreciate your very extensive written statement which we will publish in full in the hearing record and I would appreciate it if you could keep your oral summary to 15 minutes at the maximum in the interest of a longer give-and-take session. Perhaps you would care to address some of the points I have raised. Certainly, in any case, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, CIVIL PREPAREDNESS AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN E. HUNT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR; JACK RASKIN, COMPTROLLER; JOHN W. McCONNELL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PLANS AND OPERATIONS; JAMES 0. BUCHANAN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING; GEORGE W. JETT, GENERAL COUNSEL; AND OLIVER WILLIFORD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Evans.

I should like first to introduce some of the staff who are with me. Mr. John Hunt, former Member of the Congress who is Deputy Director; Mr. George Jett, to my left, legal counsel; Mr. John McConnell, who is Assistant Director of Plans and Operations; Mr. Jack Raskin, who's our Comptroller; and to the rear of me is Mr. James Buchanan, who is head of our research department, and Mr. Oliver Williford, who is an assistant to the director.

I am honored to appear today before the Joint Committee on Defense Production. As Director of the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, I will outline briefly our role as it relates to overall U.S. preparedness. I will state major DCPA objectives and contrast U.S. civil defense with that of the Soviet Union. A more detailed presentation, together with supporting documentation, is being submitted for the record. Following this short statement, I will be pleased to answer any questions.

The Defense Civil Preparedness Agency-DCPA-operates under the basic authority of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended. An Executive order assigned civil defense responsibilities to the Secretary of Defense and others; and a Department of Defense Directive established our "charter" within the Department of Defense. Although DCPA is part of the Defense Department, it is civilian in nature.