Ar 

7% „A\

--Th i3NOMINATIONS OF SECRETARIES HORWITZ, 4 c).)' "1Z

VANO, MORSE, AND MARKS AND CONTINUING

CIVIL DEFENSE AUTHORITIES

GOVERNMENT

Storage KSU LIBRARIES A11900 477051 

HEARING fib

BEFORE THE :4 AUG 10

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE 1444rrAN,

EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

NOMINATIONS

SOLIS HORWITZ, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

DANIEL M. LUEVANO, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

ROBERT WARREN MORSE, OF RHODE ISLAND, TO BE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

LEONARD MARKS, JR., OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

H.R. 10314

EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE OF CERTAIN CIVIL

DEFENSE AUTHORITIES

JUNE 25, 1964

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIC

35-548 WASHINGTON : 1964

Clot

4'4.3

AUG

Not,

ter.e

71'4,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

RICHARD B.

JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi

HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Virginia

STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

CLAIR ENGLE, California

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

II

RUSSELL, Georgia, Chairman

LEVERETT SALT ONSTALL, Massachusetts

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine

J. GLENN BEALL, Maryland

BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona

CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey
CONTENTS

STATEMENTS

Page

Durkee, William P., Director of Civil Defense, Office of Secretary of the

Army 17

Horwitz, Solis, nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense 2

Luevano, Daniel M., nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the Army_ 5

Marks, Leonard, Jr., nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of the

Air Force 14

Morse, Robert Warren, nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy__ 10

Wakelin, Hon. James H., former Assistant Secretary of the Navy 10

NOMINATIONS OF SECRETARIES SOLIS HORWITZ,

DANIEL M. LUEVANO, ROBERT W. MORSE, AND

LEONARD MARKS, JR., AND H.R. 10314, EXTENSION

OF CERTAIN CIVIL DEFENSE AUTHORITIES

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1964

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 212,

Old Senate Office Building.

Present: Senators Russell (chairman), Stennis, Symington, Jackson,

Thurmond, Cannon, Young of Ohio, Inouye, Saltonstall, and Smith.

Also present: William H. Darden and T. Edward Braswell, of the

committee staff and Herbert S. Atkinson, assistant chief clerk.

Chairman RussEIAL. The committee has before it several nominations that require personal appearances by the nominees under the

precedents of the committee. The nominees are present this morning, and we will take them up in accordance with the rules of precedence

used in the Department of Defense.

The first nomination is that of Mr. Solis Horwitz, of Pennsylvania,

to be Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Horwitz is no stranger to the committee. He served for a time

on the staff of the Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee and the

Majority Policy Committee.

We welcome you here Mr. Horwitz and congratulate you on your

nomination. We will be glad to have you make a brief statement

as to your background for the record, including whether or not you

own any securities in any companies doing business with the Department of Defense.

(The nomination reference and biographical sketch of Solis Horwitz

follow:)

1
2 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

2091 NOMINATION REFERENCE AND REPORT

IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

June 18 (legislative day, March 30), 1964.

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on

Armed Services:

Solis Horwitz, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Secretary of

Defense.

Name: Solis Horwitz.

Present position: Director, Organizational and Management Planning, Office

of the Secretary of Defense.

Background:

Schools: 1930, University of Pittsburgh, A.B., 1932, University of Pittsburgh, A.M.; 1936, Harvard Law School, L.L.B.

Bar admissions: Pennsylvania 1937; District of Columbia, 1953; Supreme

Court of the United States, 1953.

Positions:

1937-42: Private practice, Pittsburgh, Pa.

1942-45: U.S. Army.

1945-48: Deputy chief counsel, International Prosecution Section,

SCAP, for the trial of major war criminals before the International

Tribunal for the Far East, Tokyo.

1949: Counsel, House Armed Services Committee for B-36 Investigation and Strategy and Unification Hearings.

1950-51: Counsel to the Chairman, National Security Resources

Board, Executive Office of the President.

1951-53: General Counsel, Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

1954: Counsel to Senate Committee on Government Operations.

1954-57: Private practice, Pittsburgh, Pa., and Washington, D.C.

1957-60: Counsel to Senate Democratic Policy Committee, Senate

Special Committee on Astronautics and Space, and Preparedness

Investigating Subcommittee of Senate Armed Services Committee for

Missiles and Satellites Investigation.

1960: Private practice, Washington, D.C.

1961 to present: Director, Organizational and Management Planning,

Office of the Secretary of Defense.

1963 to present: Assigned additional responsibilities as Assistant to

the Secretary of Defense for the National Communications System

(NCS), effective August 6,1963.

Publication: Author of "Tokyo War Crimes Trial," International Conciliation Series, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

NOMINATION OF SOLIS HORWITZ TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (ADMINSTRATION)

Mr. HORWITZ. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I was born in

Pittsburgh, Pa., November 2, 1910. I was educated in the public

schools of Pittsburgh and received my bachelor of arts degree from the

University of Pittsburgh in 1930. In 1932 I received my master of

arts degree from the same university. I then went on to the Harvard

Graduate School and the Harvard Law School and received my

bachelor's degree in law in 1936.

I was admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

in early 1937. I practiced law in the city of Pittsburgh, Pa., and

engaged in general practice until the end of 1942 when I entered the

Army and served in the Army until November 1945.

At that time I went over to Japan to participate in the major war

crimes trials which were conducted in Tokyo. I was there from the

end of 1945 to the end of 1948, becoming acting chief counsel in the

latter stages of those proceedings.
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 3

On my return to the United States at the end of 1948, I went back

to the private practice of the law, but shortly thereafter was asked to

join the staff of the special investigation being conducted by the

House Armed Services Committee on the B-36 procurement. I

worked with that committee on the B-36 during the hearings on

"Unification and Strategy" in the amendments of 1949 to the National

Security Act.

In 1950 I went to Harvard University on a grant from the Carnegie

Endowment and remained there until September of that year. I

then came down to the National Security Resources Board, where I

became the assistant to the Chairman in connection with the new

responsibilities under the Defense Production Act, which had been

passed in connection with the Korean war. When the Chairman of

the National Security Resources Board moved over to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, I went with him and became General

Counsel. I remained there until July of 1953 when I returned to

private practice. However, before fully returning to private practice,

I participated in another investigation, this time on the Senate side,

when I became part of the counsel to the Committee on Government

Operations in connection with the dispute between Senator McCarthy

and the Army.

At the conclusion of those hearings I returned to private practice

in Pittsburgh and in Washington, where I remained from early 1954

until 1957, when I joined the staff of the then majority leader, and at

that time served as counsel to the majority policy committee, counsel

to the Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee, and also with the

Special Committee on Astronautics and Space which was set up to

deal with that problem following sputnik. During the course of that

service, I participated in the missiles and satellites hearings which

were conducted by this committee.

I remained with the majority leader until the end of 1959 when I

returned to private practice in Washington. I remained in private

practice until President Kennedy took office when I went over to the

Department of Defense as the Director of the Office of Organization

and Management Planning.

I have held that position since that time. In August of last year

when President Kennedy created the National Communications

System, I received the additional assignment of assistant to the

Secretary for the National Communications System.

I have discussed my financial holdings with the General Counsel of

the Department, and I can assure the committee that I have no

holdings which will effect any of the work which I am to undertake.

Chairman RUSSELL. You have a very rich and varied experience,

Mr. Horwitz, and you have rendered valuable service. Senator

Saltonstall, do you have any questions?

Senator SALTONSTALL. I have no questions.

I just supplement what the chairman has said.

Mr. HORWITZ. Thank you.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Symington.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

It has been my privilege to know Mr. Horwitz for a good many

years. In my opinion he is one of the ablest men in Washington, and

I think the Department of Defense is fortunate in getting him to take

this job.
4 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Cannon.

Senator CANN ON. I have no questions. I am quite familiar with

Mr. Horwitz' background and abilities and I want to compliment

him on accepting this type of service. He has been very active in.

Government service up to the present time and has done an outstanding job in my opinion.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I join my colleagues in congratulating Mr. Horwitz on his nomination, and I am impressed by his most distinguished background.

Mr. HORWITZ. Thank you very much, Senator.

Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Horwitz.

Mr. HORWITZ. Thank you.

(The nomination of Solis Horwitz to be an Assistant Secretary of

Defense was subsequently approved by the committee in executive

session, and confirmed by the Senate on June 26, 1964.)

Chairman RUSSELL. The next nomination is that of Mr. Daniel

M. Luevano, of California, to be Assistant Secretary of the Army,

to succeed Paul R. Ignatius, who is now serving as Under Secretaryof the Army. We welcome you here, sir, and we extend congratulations on your nomination.

We will be glad to hear from you.

(The nomination reference and biographical sketch of Daniel M.

Luevano follow:)

88] NOMINATION REFERENCE AND REPORT

IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

March 2 (legislative day, February 26), 1964.

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on

Armed Services:

Daniel M. Luevano, of California, to be Assistant Secretary of

the Army, vice Paul R. Ignatius.

DANIEL M. LUEVANO

Daniel M. Luevano was born in Los Angeles, Calif., July 26, 1923, the son of

Arcadio and Cresencia Luevano.

He was graduated from Alexander Hamilton High School, Los Angeles, in 1940.

He received a bachelor of arts degree in political science from the University of

California in Los Angeles in 1948 and an LL.B. degree from the San Francisco

Law School in 1959.

He enlisted in the Navy on March 2, 1942. He served in South and North

Atlantic areas on an antisubmarine warfare vessel from January 1943, to June

1944, when he transferred to the naval officers training program, UCLA. While

at UCLA, he received an honorable discharge on December 21, 1945.

After graduation from the University of California in 1948, he worked as

technical instructor for the Department of Commerce until April 1950 and as

an elections examiner for the National Labor Relations Board until May 1951.

He then served a year on the magazine staff of Labor-Management Forum, a

publication of the CIO-California Industrial Union Council in Los Angeles.

Beginning in June 1952, he was an editorial consultant for industrial clients.

During this period he covered the Republican and Democratic National Conventions of 1952 for 14 California weekly newspapers.

In June 1954, he began a period of about 5 years' service with the University

of California, first in the office of the chancellor (Berkeley campus), and then in

the office of the president (statewide administration). He also was associated

with the project to develop a comprehensive program for foreign students at

International House on the university campus.
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 5

From June 1959, to August 1960, he was consultant to the Assembly Interim

Committee on Ways and Means, California State Legislature. From August

1960, to February 1964, he was chief deputy director, with general administration

responsibility in the Department of Finance, State of California, Sacramento.

The main responsibility of the department of finance was that of formulating and

executing the budget of the State of California. He also represented the depart--

ment of finance on various policymaking boards and commissions.

Mr. Luevano is an attorney and a member of the State Bar of California.

He married Shirley Ann Margolis of Los Angeles in March 1951 and has one

child, Mark Evan, age 8.

NOMINATION OF DANIEL M. LUEVANO TO BE ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

Mr. LUEVANO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I previously submitted a statement which I believe each of you has

received. I thought I might summarize that statement. I have some

notes to assist me. I was born and raised in Los Angeles, Calif., and

attended the public schools of that State including the University of

California. During World War II I served in the U.S. Navy for

about 4 years.

After preliminary training and special schooling I spent nearly a

year and a half on sea duty in antisubmarine warfare in both the

South and North Atlantic. During this period I was an enlisted

man. In 1944 I was selected for naval officers training and spent 18

months in both the V-12 and the ROTC programs.

Following my discharge I completed work at the University of

California, and in 1948 received a bachelor of arts degree in political

science. Upon graduation I worked briefly for the National Labor

Relations Board and the Department of Commerce. From 1953 to

1958 I served at the University of California, first as an assistant to

the chancellor of the Berkeley campus, and later as an assistant to the

president.

During this period I earned a law degree at San Francisco Law

School and was admitted to practice in the State in 1959. From the

university I went to the State capital as the consultant to the assembly

ways and means committee, and this committee in California is concerned principally with the expenditure program of the State of

California as described in the State's budget. In the fall of 1960 I

was appointed by Governor Brown as chief deputy director of the

department of finance. The main responsibility of this department

is the formulation and execution of that budget.

As part of my duties in the department of finance, I also served as

chairman or member of various policymaking boards and commissions.

As I stated before, I am an attorney and a member of the State Bar of

California.

I believe you have also received a statement on my financial holdings and I don't believe that there is anything that would in any way

interfere with the carrying out of my duties in this assignment.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a copy of that. Senator Saltonstall.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Your experience has been in the government of the State of California, is that correct?

Mr. LUEVANO. Yes, sir; it has.

Senator SALTONSTALL. How long have you been in Washington?

Mr. LUEVANO. I have been in Washington 5 weeks. I arrived 5

weeks ago in preparation for this assignment.

35-548-64--a
6 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Senator SALTONSTALL. All,d so this is your first experience in the

service of the U.S. Government?

Mr. LUEVANO. I had served both with the National Labor Relations Board and Department of Commerce immediately after graduation, but that was a period of about 4 years, not in Washington,

but in California.

Senator SALTONSTALL. You are going to be Assistant Secretary of

the Army for Installations and Logistics. That, I would assume,

would give you the responsibility in large part of new construction

for the Army?

Mr. LUEVANO. Yes.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Now what experience have you had with

building industries and that sort of thing?

Mr. LUEVANO. The experience I have had has been, of course, in

the State of California, specifically as chief, deputy director of the

department of finance. That department has responsibility for,

among other programs, the State allocation program which is a

school construction program, approximately $125 million annually.

That is direct construction grants to individual school districts.

In addition, the department of finance is responsible for land acquisition in preparation for construction, and is responsible for reviewing

contracts that have been let or proposed to be let for the State's

building program, and that involves university and the usual functional office construction.

Senator SALTONSTALL. What do you consider your responsibility,

Mr. Luevano, with a contractor, we will say, in building a new building and reviewing the terms of that contract? Is it your responsibility to see that all the terms are in that contract or do you turn it

over to a lawyer in the Department of the Army?

Mr. LUEVANO. At the moment I am not familiar with all of the

resources of the Department of the Army, but I assume that the

General Counsel's staff is at least one of the reviewing agencies for

contract terms and conditions, and that the questions of policy respecting contracting and construction are basically the function of

my office. .

Senator SALTONSTALL. What do you consider as your responsibility, we will say, if a military officer puts it up to you to say that

they need, for example, a new dining hall, or a new recreation hall,

or a new swimming pool, or a new barracks in any fort or camp?

What do you consider your responsibility as to whether that is necessary and what are you going to do about it before you approve it?

Mr. LUEVANO. The procedure, it seems to me, would be to examine

several levels of program planning, and certainly among those the

question of the inclusion of particular kinds of space. This is authorized space or not. Secondly, whether it has any priority standing

within the individual commands building program, and more specifically, whether it has any standing in a priority system within a

post construction program.

It is always, it seems to me, a question of allocating resources, and

there are other spaces competing for the same funds and I would

imagine it is a question of deciding that first.

Senator SALTONSTALL. We have a great many requests for military

construction of new roads, improvement of highways, access roads,
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 7

and so on. Have you had any experience in California in roadbuilding? 

Mr. LUEVANO. Not as a functional responsibility, but it is difficult

to deal with companies of financing without also including highway

and road systems. There is a small program in California which I

did have direct contact with. It is quite small, and it did have road

construction and road systems in it, but it was not the major highway

program, not the freeway program, or the parkway program.

I have had some knowledge of the highway programs in the State

of California.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Symington.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Luevano, you are taking the place of Secretary Ignatius, is

that correct?

MT. LUEVANO. Yes; that is correct.

Senator SYMINGTON. Then you will be in charge of all logistics

for the Army.

Mr. LUEVANO. That is correct.

Senator SYMINGTON. Most of your experience has been fiscal, has

it not?

Mr. LUEVANO. That is true.

Senator SYMINGTON. Have you had experience in making contracts with firms with respect to equipment?

Mr. LUEVANO. I have not dealt with firms directly as one of the

negotiators, though the department of finance I should describe

perhaps a bit more fully. Up until a year ago the department of

finance in the State of California had included with it in addition to

its budgetmaking functions, which is what I was calling attention

to, all of the general service functions of the State of California as

well, and that includes such things as procurement of the ordinarykind of supplies and equipment for the conduct of business, automobiles, computers, things of that kind, some portion of the land

acquisition program of the State of California, a minor portion, but

part of it, and a printing plant, management of buildings and grounds

after those units have been constructed. As part of my job I had

direct responsibility for policy control and some general supervision

over these programs, though there were specific division chiefs that

were assigned to the direct negotiation question.

Senator SYMINGTON. Do you feel your business knowledge is adequate for you to determine that contracts are made properly in

accordance with the best interests of the Government?

Mr. LUEVANO. I believe SO.

Senator SYMINGTON. You have been involved quite heavily in the

business of the State of California; is that correct?

Mr. LUEVANO. Yes; I have.

Senator SYMINGTON. I noticed in the record yesterday somebody

said that almost half of the business of space went into California.

I think over 21 percent of defense business goes into California.

Frequently we have talks on the Senate floor about this problem from

the standpoint of the other 49 States.

Do you feel that in this position, you would look at it on a national

basis, or do you feel you would be unduly influenced by your previous

connections?
8 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Mr. LUEVANO. I have no question that I would look at it in the

national interest.

Senator SYMINGTON. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Thurmond.

Senator THURMOND. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

You have been with the University of California I notice?

Mr. LUEVANO. Yes, I was.

Senator THURMOND. Your main work has been in administration?

Mr. LUEVANO. Yes. It was in administration at the university.

Senator THURMOND. Did you ever run for an office?

Mr. LUEVANO. No; I haven't.

Senator THURMOND. Who recommended you for this position?

Mr. LUEVANO. I don't have any information on that. The White

House would have to answer that. I have no knowledge.

Senator THURMOND. Do you feel qualified to fill this position, since

you have looked into it and you have learned your responsibilities

and what it embraces?

Mr. LUEVANO. Yes; I do.

Senator THURMOND. I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Cannon.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Luevano, as you know, there is a considerable discussion concerning the reduction of military installations. Would it be your

responsibility in making a determination, if you were approved for

this position, as to any cutback in establishments maintained by the

Army?

Mr. LUEVANO. I would expect—as I say I have only been here

5 weeks and I have no direct contact with the operations of the

Department.

I have been engaged in briefings basically at this point, and I assume

at least one of the functions is to examine the question of base availability and base placement.

Senator CANNON. You are not certain what that actually involves.

Mr. LUEVANO. I am not sure what the scope of the responsibilities

for that particular problem is.

Senator CANNON. Do you think that your background is such that

you would be able to form an independent judgment rather than just

accepting the recommendations of those who were employed by you

in your Department if decisions like this were to be made in the

location of installations, the termination of installations, and so on?

Mr. LUEVANO. Yes; I think I can exercise independent judgment

on this question.

Senator CANNON. As you know, there is a considerable amount of

discussion as to who runs the establishment over there, whether it is

run by the civilians or whether it is run by the military, and that is a

concern that many people have when people go into positions that

they have had no experience in, where they are going to get the advice

from on which to act. You feel you would be able to exercise independent judgment in that regard?

Mr. LUEVANO. I think I could. I think I would.

Senator CANNON. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Young.

Senator YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Luevano, I was going to ask a question or

so along the same line. You will go in there as a civilian. You have
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 9

served in the Navy I see from your biographical sketch. I served in

the Army, but I also regarded myself as a civilian in uniform. Perhaps you do likewise. But my question would be almost precisely

the same. In this country civilian authority should always be superior

over the military. You know that, do you not.

Mr. LUEVANO. Yes; I do.

Senator YOUNG. The Founding Fathers provided that and now,

more than ever, you agree to that?

Mr. LUEVANO. I do; yes.

Senator YOUNG. As I understand it, in answer to Senator Cannon's

question, you would keep that in mind and try not to be persuaded

otherwise. You would exercise independent judgment id your civilian

capacity.

Mr. LUEVANO. I intend to exercise that judgment.

Senator YOUNG. I believe you will. No other questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, all of the questions I wanted to

ask have been asked by my colleagues, but I would like to state that I

am impressed by the alert and precise answers that he has given to

all the probing questions asked by my colleagues, and although this

is his first venture into Federal administration, I am confident he will

do a good job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LUEVANO. Thank you very much.

Chairman RUSSELL. Any further questions? Thank you, Mr.

Luevano.

Mr. LUEVANO. Thank you very much.

(The nominagion of Daniel M. Luevano to be Assistant Secretary

of the Army was subsequently approved by the committee in executive session and confirmed by the Senate on June 26, 1964.)

Chairman RUSSELL. Dr. Robert Warren Morse, of Rhode Island,

has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy to succeed

vice Dr. James H. Wakelin, Jr. resigned. Dr. Wakelin is here with

Dr. Morse, and I understand he desires to present him to the committee. We will be glad to hear anything you have to say, Dr. Wakelin.

(The nomination reference and biographical sketch of Robert W.

Morse follow:)

190] NOMINATION REFERENCE AND REPORT

IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

June 1 (legislative day, March 30), 1964.

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed Services:

Robert Warren Morse, of Rhode Island, to be Assistant Secretary

of the Navy, vice James H. Wakelin, Junior, resigned.

ROBERT WARREN MORSE

Dr. Robert W. Morse, of 144 Meeting Street, Providence, has been dean of the college at Brown University since July 1, 1962. For the preceding 2 years he had been chairman of the physics department.

Dr. Morse has been at Brown since 1946, when he arrived as a first-year graduate student and as a research assistant in physics. He won his doctorate

there in 1949, when he was appointed assistant professor. He became a full professor in 1958.
10 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Dr. Morse has done research in the fields of ultrasonics and low-temperature

physics, having published widely in these fields. In 1954-55 he devoted a year to

research at Cambridge University as a Howard Foundation fellow. The summer

of 1962 he did research at the University of Oslo.

Dr. Morse has been associated with the Navy since he was commissioned an

ensign in the Naval Reserve in 1942. Upon graduation from Bowdoin College in

January of 1943, he went on active duty as a compass adjuster in naval shipyards

at Boston, New York, and Baltimore. He later taught small-boat handling at

amphibious training schools at Fort Pierce, Fla., and at Little Creek, Va. He was

discharged a lieutenant in 1946.

As a civilian physicist, Dr. Morse has served many times as a Navy consultant

in underwater acoustics and antisubmarine warfare.

He has been a member of the Undersea Warfare Committee of the National

Academy of Sciences since 1957, and Chairman of the Committee since 1962.

Since 1963 he has been chairman of the Division of Solid State Physics of the

American Physical Society, and he is president-elect of the Acoustical Society

of America.

He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Dr. Morse was born in Boston on May 25, 1921, and spent most of his boyhood

in Abington, Mass. He is married to the former Alice M. Cooper, of Brunswick,

Maine.

The couple has three children: Robert, Jr., a senior at Providence Country Day

School, who will be a freshman at Harvard next year; Pamela, an eighth grader

at the Lincoln School in Providence; and James, a sixth grader at Moses Brown

School, Providence.

Before he became dean, Dr. Morse resided in Barrington, where he was active

in the Citizens League, the PTA, a science study committee for Barrington High

School, and a commission to hire a new school superintendent in 1959.

Dr. Morse is skipper of a 33-foot power cruiser, the Blue Star, which is

moored in the Barrington River.

STATEMENT OF JAMES H. WAKELTN, JR.. FORMER

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

Dr. WAKELIN. It is a great honor for me to present Dr. Robert W.

Morse, dean of the college of Brown University whom President

Johnson has nominated as Assistant Secretary of the Navy with

particular responsibilities in the field of research and development.

Dr. Morse is a physicist of international reputation. His particular

forte in this area is acoustics and antisubmarine warfare problems,

connected primarily with those of the Department of the Navy.

He is chairman of the National Academy's Committee on Undersea

Warfare, is a member of the Antisubmarine Warfare Panel of the

Presider t's Science Advisory Committee, is a member of many

learned societies. I have every confidence that because of his trainir g

and background in administrative experience, he will do an outstanding

job in this assignment. Thank you, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you, Dr. Wakelin. Dr. Morse, would

you care to make a brief biographical statement in order that the

record may be clear as to your background and experience.

NOMINATION OF ROBERT W. MORSE TO BE ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT)

Dr. MORSE. Yes, sir. It is a pleasure to appear before this committee. I think perhaps Mr. Wakelin exaggerated my position here.

I was born in Boston, Mass., grew up in towns around Boston, went

to Bowdoin College in Maine where I have majored in mathematics.

I joined the ROTC at that time, just as we got into World War II.

I served about three and a half years in the Navy as compass adjuster,
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 11

and then went into the amphibious forces. After the war I went to

Brown University in Providence, R.I., and studied for my Ph. D. in

physics, received that in 1949, and was appointed assistant professor

there at that time and stayed ever since until this p )int.

I have done research in acoustics, low-temperature physics and

solid-state physics. During those years I have been associated with

various committees and projects for the armed services in mine warfare, in torpedoes for the Army in land mine location, the Air Force

in solid-state physics, and as Dr. Wakelin pointed out, for several

years now I have been on the Committee on Undersea Warfare which

is a standing committee of the National Academy of Sciences, which

advises the Navy.

During my last few years I have moved into administration at the

university. I have been department chairman for 2 years, and then

the last 2 years I have been dean of the college, which is the chief

administrator for the undergraduate curriculum and the men's

college in general.

will be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Chairman RUSSELL. Do you have a Reserve commission in the

Navy at the present time.

Dr. MORSE. I gave it up some years ago. After the war I was so

involved in my own research that I resigned a few years after the war,

since I did not have to participate.

Chairman RUSSELL. Have you had any actual experience in direction of research and development projects.

Dr. MORSE. Since I have never worked for an industrial laboratory,

I haven't in that sense. In the university, of course, as department

chairman I have had responsibility for a physics department of 25

professors, and a budget of perhaps a million and a half dollars, which

is not very substantial in terms of the Government itself.

In the past 2 or 3 years I have also been or was the director of the

materials science program of the university, which is an interdepartmental combination of research and materials sciences that has a total

budget of perhaps $2 million.

Chairman RUSSELL. I notice that you have served as consultant,

apparently, in our research and development in antisubmarine

warfare.

Dr. MORSE. Yes; I have, but this is not quite the same as governing

the money.

Chairman RUSSELL. I understand. That is one of the important

phases of the research carried on by the Navy and the Department of

the Navy. I am just a little intrigued, Dr. Morse, by this statement

"Dean of the College of Brown University."

Dr. MORSE. Well, the university is divided into three colleges or

branches. One is the college, the other is Pembroke College which

is a women's college, and a graduate school, and for some reason it

is called the college.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Saltonstall.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Morse,

are you on leave of absence from Brown or did you resign?

Dr. MORSE. Yes, sir; I resigned my position as dean. I am on

leave of absence as a professor.

Senator SALTONSTALL. You are on leave of absence.

Dr. MORSE. As a professor.
12 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Senator SALTONSTALL. But you resigned as dean.

Dr. MORSE. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I would be very interested to know or understand or have you give the motives which influenced you to take

this responsibility and leave Brown.

Dr. MORSE. I am not sure I can answer that exactly, because from

the very beginning I don't think I had any doubt about taking the

job. I think the interest and the challenge of it presented an opportunity that I could not turn down. I enjoy the university very

much. I have been there a long time. But I felt that this was an

opportunity that I had to participate in. It is very hard for me to

say any more than that.

Senator SALTONSTALL. How long does your professorship leave of

absence last?

Dr. MORSE. At the moment it is from year to year.

Senator SALTONSTALL. From year to year?

Dr. MORSE. Yes.

Senator SALTONSTALL. But you intend to stay on this job for

several years?

Dr. MORSE. I would stay on as long as I am productive, and if

the university would not renew the leave I would be quite willing

to let it drop.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, sir.

(Discussion off the record.)

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Symington.

Senator SYMINGTON. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Thurmond.

Senator THURMOND. I have no questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Cannon.

Senator CANNON. Dr. Morse, you of course are aware of the problem that we have constantly before us of the competition in the

research and development field between the respective services and

the respective agencies that are engaged in that. I am anxious to

know whether or not you would approach your position with the

thought of doing 'everything possible to eliminate duplication insofar

as it can be done other than planned duplication in the areas of

research and development.

Dr. MORSE. Yes, sir, I would, and I would expect that one of

my chief functions in my liaison with Dr. Bown is to do just that,

that this area of the avoidance of duplication is of great importance

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Young.

Senator YOUNG. I have no questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. I just wish to invite Dr. Morse's attention as the

availability of Hawaii as a great site for his investigations, and I am

certain he will make a fine member of the defense team.

Chairman RUSSELL. Dr. Morse, have you cleared any securities

you might hold with counsel for the Secretary of Defense?

Mr. MORSE. I hold no securities.

Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you very much, Dr. Morse. I am sure

you will be a fine successor for Dr. Wakelin. I think he has done an

excellent job.

(The nomination of Dr. Robert Warren Morse to be Assistant

Secretary of the Navy was subsequently approved by the committee

in executive session and confirmed by the Senate on June 26, 1964.)
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 13

The next nominee is Mr. Leonard Marks, Jr., of California. He

has been nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force to

succeed Neil E. Harlan, resigned.

Mr. Marks, we are glad to have you before the committee. We congratulate you on your nomination.

Please give us a brief statement as to your background and experience.

(The nomination reference and biographical sketch of Mr. Marks

follow:)

195] NOMINATION REFERENCE AND REPORT

IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

June 8 (legislative day, March 30), 1964.

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed

Services:

Leonard Marks, Junior, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary

of the Air Force, vice Neil E. Harlan, resigned.

LEONARD MARKS, JR.

Personal data:

Born: May 22, 1921, New York, N.Y.

Father: Leonard Marks (naturalized U.S. citizen born in Hull, England).

Mother: Laura Colegrove Rose born in Passaic, N.J.

Youth spent in West Orange, N.J.

Married: Edna Rodgers Woods, June 6, 1946.

Children: Linda Jo, 15; Patricia Anne, 13; Peter Kellog, 10.

Religious affiliation: Methodist.

Education:

West Orange High School, diploma, 1938.

Drew University, Madison, N.J., B.A., economics, cum laude.

Harvard University, Boston, Mass., M.B.A. and D.B.A.

Career:

American Smelting & Refining New York, assistant credit manager,

treasury division; February 1948 to Co.,ay 1949.

Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration

'

research

associate, instructor, assistant professor of finance in charge of first-year

finance course, May 1949 to September 1955 (on assignment as member of

Harvard MAC group, 1951-52 to develop financial management plan for

U.S. Air 

Force, 

and consultant to commanding general, Wright-Patterson

Air Force Base).

Stanford University, Graduate School of Business, Palo Alto, assistant

professor, associate professor of finance, assistant dean and associate director

of International Center for Advancement of Management Education, September 1955 to present. (On leave, 1957-58 as professor of finance, Imede,

Lausanne, Switzerland.)

Former consulting assignments:

Continental Oil Co., internal executive development, organization and

policies, credit department.

Credit research foundation, director of research.

General Petroleum Corp., internal executive development.

General Telephone Corp., internal executive development.

Harbridge House, teaching material for Army Command Management

School.

Internal Revenue Service, expert witness in court on tax case.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, internal executive development.

International Finance Corp. internal executive development.

Logistics Management Institute, study on incremental funding of cost

type R. & D. contracts.

Pacific Telephone, internal executive development.

Stanford Research Institute, financial analytical research.

35-548 64-3
14 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Current consulting assignments:

Bank of California, total bank organization and policies.

Community National Bank, Kern County, bank strategy and policies.

Ford Foundation, Committee for Selection of Doctoral Fellows in Business.

Independent Bankers Association, 12th Federal Reserve District, organization of annual senior officer seminars.

San Diego Trust Sz, - Savings Bank, total bank organization and policies.

Publications:

"Case Problems in Commercial Bank Management," coauthor, McGrawHill.

Credit Management Handbook, contributing editor, R. D. Irwin.

Miscellaneous articles in Credit and Financial Management.

Manuscript now in process, "Top Management Organization and Decisionmaking in Large Japanese Business Firms."

Military service:

Inducted October 1942, private to sergeant, antiaircraft.

March 1943 to July 1943, OCS, antiaircraft.

July 1943 to August 1946, second lieutenant-captain, antiaircraft in

CONUS, Southwest and South Pacific.

August 1946 to present, captain-lieutenant colonel, U.S. Army Reserve,

mobilization assignment, Office Comptroller of the Army.

Directorships, former:

Fisher Research Laboratories, Palo Alto, Calif.

Holden-Day, San Francisco, Calif.

Homesmith, Inc., Redwood City, Calif.

Directorships, present: Therms, test labs, Sunnyvale, Calif.

NOMINATION OF LEONARD MARKS, JR., TO BE ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT)

Mr. MARKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am happy to be here, too. I was born in New York in 1921,

spent my youth in West Orange, N.J., attended public schools there,

and then attended Drew University in Madison, N.J., where I

graduated in 1942 with a bachelor of arts degree in economics.

Immediately I went to Harvard Graduate School of Business that

slimmer and stayed until the autumn when I entered the military

service of the Army.

I remained in this country for about a year, attended officer candidate school, and then went overseas to the South and Southwest

Pacific with an antiaricraft unit, remained until the middle of 1946,

returned and continued my Reserve activity, and have just recently

asked to be shifted to Inactive Reserve in view of the nomination to

this position.

My particular activity recently in the Reserves has been a mobilization assignment in the Office of the Comptroller of the Army. In 1946,

when I returned to Harvard, I continued my work toward a master's

degree which I completed in February of 1948. I then moved to

New York and went to work for the American Smelting & Refining

Co., in the Treasury Division, rising to the position of assistant credit

manager in about a year and a half. At the end of that time I returned to Harvard as a research associate and instructor. I remained

at Harvard until the fall of 1955, and during that period became an

assistant professor of finance. At the conclusion of my tour of duty

at Harvard, I was head of the first-year finance course. During that

period of time, I, together with four other members of the Harvard

faculty, spent about a year and a half with the Air Force, working on

problems of financial management with the then Assistant Secretary
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 15

of the Air Force for Financial Management, the Comptroller of the Air

Force, and the commander of the Air Materiel Command at WrightPatterson Field.

I left Harvard in the fall of 1955 to join Stanford Graduate School

of Business, where I have been since that time, and have served as

assistant professor of finance associate and now full professor of

finance.

In addition I have been an assistant dean in the school, and associate

director of the International Center for the Advance of Management

Education. The latter is a Ford Foundation-sponsored activity

which has as its purpose aid in the development of teaching talent for

universities and higher educational institutions in he underdeveloped

countries.

In 1957 I took a leave of absence from Stanford and spent a year

in Switzerland helping to develop and teach in the first middle management program in a new institute of management. The only securities

I hold I have reviewed with the General Counsel of the Air Force, and

I am disposing this week of the two which have been called to my

attention as contractors with the Air Force. I have requested a leave

which will be effective by the first of July from Stanford. This leave

is an annual affair which is reviewed annually. If the university

desires not to give that leave, then I am prepared to resign my position.

I have also served as a consultant to a number of organizations and

director of a few small industrial and research-type companies in the

California area.

I resigned all these positions. The one which the committee might

be most interested in was a consulting assignment which I headed for

the Logistics Management Institute.

This was a study of the problems of incremental financing of Defense Department cost-type research contracts. This was undertaken

in 1961 and early 1962. The bulk of the work involved the Air Force

research contracts.

Chairman RUSSELL. Mr. Marks, there has been quite a large

turnover in the Department of Defense. How long do you intend

to stay there? Do you intend to stay longer than a year?

Mr. MARKS. Yes, sir I do. I have informed the faculty and the

administration of the university that I would serve at the pleasure

of the President, and I intend to stay as long as I am able to serve.

Chairman RUSSELL. You seem to have a very fine background and

experience and are well qualified for this position.

Mr. MARKS. Thank you, Senator.

Chairman RUSSELL. I am delighted to hear you say that you intend to serve. Senator Saltonstall.

Senator SALTONSTALL. You are going to be the controller?

Mr. MARKS. Yes, sir; financial management is the specific responsibility, that and programing.

Senator SALTONSTALL. What is your understanding of the responsibilities of the civilian controller as opposed to the military in

the matters of finance and so on?

Mr. MARKS. In the Air Force the Controller of the Air Force is the

military officer and reports to the Assistant Secretary for Financial

Management. Therefore the relationship is one of a very close

working relationship, but the military is subordinate to the civilian

position.
16 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Senator SALTONSTALL. Do you consider it your responsibility to

disagree with the military, with the Air Force Controller if you feel

he is wrong, and if so, what steps do you take?

Mr. MARKS. If I in my own opinion disagree, I would so inform

the Controller, and would implement the line of activity that I thought

was most appropriate. It would be within my authority to do so.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And to take that up with the Secretary of

the Air Force?

Mr. MARKS. Yes, if I felt that he needed to be informed of this

disagreement.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no

other questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Thurmond?

Senator THURMOND. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Cannon.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Marks, I note

you say you are giving up your Active Army Reserve activities

because you are accepting a position with the Air Force. Is that

because you feel that unification of the services is not that far along

at the present time?

Mr. MARKS. No, sir. I didn't think I could serve two masters

well at the same time actively.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Young.

Senator YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am much impressed by the statement of Mr. Marks. I have no questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Inouye?

Senator INOUYE. I have no questions, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you very much.

Mr. MARKS. Thank you, sir.

(The nomination of Leonard Marks, Jr., to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force was subsequently approved by the committee

in executive session and confirmed by the Senate on June 26, 1964.)

H.R. 10314, TO EXTEND THREE CIVIL DEFENSE AUTHORITIES FOR A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS

Chairman RUSSELL. The committee will consider H.R. 10314 this

morning. This is the bill extending for 4 years three civil defense

authorities that otherwise would expire on June 30, 1964.

(The bill referred to, H.R. 10314, follows:)
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 17

[H.R. 10314, 88th Cong., 2d sess.]

AN ACT To further amend the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, to extend the expiration

date of certain authorities, thereunder, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as

amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2251 et seq.), is further amended by striking the date

June 30, 1964, where such appears in the second proviso of subsection 201(e), the

fourth proviso of subsection 201(h), and subsection 205(h), and substituting in

lieu thereof the date June 30, 1968.

Passed the House of Representatives June 22, 1964.

Attest: RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk.

Chairman RUSSELL. These authorities, which were approved by

this committee in 1958, were limited in their duration to June 30,

1964. They are the basis for (1) Federal contributions of 50 percent

to States and local governments toward the cost of personnel and

administrative expenses of federally approved civil defense programs,

(2) payments for travel and per diem expenses of trainees at civil

defense schools, and (3) procurement of radiological equipment and

the granting and lending of this equipment to the States.

The witness to explain the bill is Mr. William P. Durkee, who is

the Director of Civil Defense in the Department of the Army.

Mr. Durkee, I understand you have a detailed statement covering

the bill, but if it is satisfactory to the committee I suggest that you

submit your statement for the record, and give us an oral summation

ofithe reasons for asking for the extension of these authorities.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. DURKEE, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE; ACCOMPANIED BY HUBERT SCHON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR

OF CIVIL DEFENSE; CHARLES MANNING, GENERAL COUNSEL;

WILLIAM CROCKETT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR

OPERATIONS; AND ROBERT YOUNG, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

Mr. DURKEE. I would be very pleased to do so, Mr. Chairman.

PREPARED STATEMENT, WILLIAM P. DURKEE, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

Mr. Chairman, my purpose here today is to request extension by the Congress

of three existing authorities in the Federal Civil Defense Act as contained in

H.R. 10314. These authorities are scheduled to expire on the 30th of June this

year. These are—

(1) The program to provide financial assistance to States for necessary

and essential State and local civil defense personnel and administrative

expenses;

(2) The program to make payments for travel and per diem expenses of

trainees at civil defense schools; and

(3) The program to procure and maintain radiological equipment and

to donate it to States by loan or grant.

The three authorities which we seek to continue are indispensible if we intend

to keep the momentum and the progress that has been gained throughout the

country in the civil defense program. For example, we have located over 116,-

189,000 shelter spaces and have obtained licenses from the building owners for

the use of 58,827,000 spaces. Over 62 million of the spaces located have been

marked as shelters. Approximately 24 million spaces have been stocked with

shelter supplies to assure survival during the stay in shelters.

In addition we have now in use approximately 47,000 radiological monitoring

stations throughout the country. There are 319 State and local emergency

operating centers in actual operation. By the end of this fiscal year we will

have over 300 emergency broadcasting stations protected against fallout, with

a total of 982 stations to which the Federal Communications Commission has
18 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

issued national defense emergency authorizations. Over 52 State universities

are participating in the civil defense training effort. There are over 4,000 political

subdivisions actually participating in the civil defense program, and we have

been informed that an additional 237 political subdivisions intend to join the

program in fiscal year 1965.

Incidentally, there is a fourth expiring authority in the Federal Civil Defense

Act. This permits contributions for uniforms and other items of personal equipment for civil defense workers. We have not provided this sort of assistance

in the past and we have no plans to make use of it in the immediate future.

Therefore, we are not requesting its extension.

The three authorities which we request be extended were added to the Federal

Civil Defense Act by amendments in 1958. We are asking that the authorities

be extended for another 4-year period.

All programs involve some form of assistance for State and local civil defense

organizations.

The principal program involved is the personnel and administrative expense,

which I will term "P. & A. program." This is the program which permits us to

match funds for the costs of State and local civil defense staffs provided they

quality under a merit system and have programs consistent with national civil

defense policies.

Also, we wish to continue paying one-half of the travel expenses of students

who attend our three schools at Alameda, Calif.; Battle Creek, Mich.; and Brooklyn, N.Y. The other half of these travel costs are in some instances paid by the

State but in many other instances are paid for by the trainee himself or his

employer.

Finally, we seek extension of the authority to donate radiological survey meters

and dosimeters to the States for use in training and equipping the radiological

monitoring teams and for stocking shelters.

I would like to discuss each of these programs in detail, telling you what we

have done with the authorities to date and how we plan to use them in the immediate future pending the decisions on how we go forward with the shelter program

and how we will use them when a decision is made to go forward.

Cost and budget data

The following tables project over the next 5 years the cost of the financial

assistance programs extended by this measure.

[Dollars in millions]

Appropriations:

Student travel expenses 

Radiological equipment 

State and local civil defense personnel and administrative

expenses 

Total 

Man-years and personnel services expenditures 

All other expenditures:

Student travel expenses 

Radiological equipment 

State and local civil defense personnel and administrative

expenses 

Total 

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Total

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.5

5.4 6.5 8.5 7.5 7.5 35.4

18.7 20.6 22. 5 24.4 25.0 111.2

24.4 27.4 31.3 32.2 32.8 148. 1

(9 (0 (9 (9 (1) (9

.2 .3 .3 .3 .3 1.4

3.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 32.0

16. 5 20. 1 22.3 24.5 25. 0 108.4

19.7 25.4 30.6 32.8 33.3 141.8

1 Negative; no additional Federal employment is anticipated.

The program to provide financial assistance to the States for personnel and

administrative expenses constitutes more than 75 percent of the dollars involved

in this extension. For 1965, $18.7 million of the $24.4 million involved will go to

this program. Also, more than the others, it is a positive indicator of Federal

willingness to invest dollars in the development of a capability for operations at

the State and local level.

The President has requested an appropriation of $18.7 million for fiscal year

1965. We anticipate that the need will gradually increase to about $25 million

annually by 1969. This act does contain in section 408 a $25 million limit on the

amount which can be appropriated annually. We are not asking that this amount

be increased. The 5-year total for this program is estimated at $111.2 million.
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 19

HEARINGS, 1958

As originally enacted, the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 provided that

responsibility for civil defense was to be vested primarily in the several States and

their political subdivisions, the Federal contribution being limited basically to

"coordination and guidance."

It soon became apparent that if civil defense were to become an effective part

of the total national defense, a much larger responsibility for its operations would

have to be assumed by the Federal Government.

In 1958, therefore, there were submitted to the Congress a number of proposed

amendments to the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950. The principal changes

were (1) to make the responsibility for civil defense a joint responsibility of the

Federal Government and the several States and their political subdivisions, and

(2) to provide the means whereby the Federal Government could carry out its

new responsibility, one of the principal means being the new section 205 providing

for Federal contributions for State and local government personnel and administrative expenses.

These proposals received the active support of the Governors' conference, the

American Municipal Association, the U.S. Civil Defense Council, the National

Association of State Civil Defense Directors, the American Legion, the AFL—

CIO, the National Association of County Officials, and the Council of State

Governments.

In the statements before the Senate and House committees, the general theme

in support of the proposals was that this authority for contribution was required

if the Federal Government were to carry out its joint responsibility for civil

defense, that only in this way could the Federal, State and local governments,

combine in the development of a truly national civil defense capability.

By this time-1958—it had become apparent that the task of developing an

adequate civil defense capability at the local level would require a staff of experienced, trained, full-time specialists, at least in the top echelons of each civil

defense organization. At this time it also was apparent that, with but few exceptions, the States and their political subdivisions had found it impossible to

support and maintain, by themselves, such a civil defense staff.

The proposed amendments received favorable consideration by the Congress

and were enacted into law as Public Law 85-606 dated August 8, 1958.

The Congress in granting the authority for Federal contributions for personnel

and administrative expenses very wisely provided for a number of restrictions

on the use of such funds.

First, it provided that contributions should be made only on the basis of approved plans which were consistent with the national plan, and that the financial

contributions should not exceed one-half of the total cost of such necessary and

essential State and local civil defense personnel and administrative expenses.

Statistical summary of the personnel and administrative expenses program

1. Fifty-seven percent of the U.S. population or 102 million people are covered by the personnel and administrative expenses program.

2. Number of employees:

Fiscal year 1961 3,638

Fiscal year 1962 4,116

Fiscal year 1963 5,012

Fiscal year 1964 actual as of June 1 5,350

Estimated fiscal year 1965 6,769

Number of participants:

Fiscal year 1961 703

Fiscal year 1962 916

Fiscal year 1963 

Fiscal year 1961 actual as of June 1 1,327508

Estimated fiscal year 1965 1,959

Average number of employees per participant:

Fiscal year 1961 5. 0

Fiscal year 1962 4. 0

Fiscal year 1963 3. 9

Fiscal year 1964 actual as of June 1 3. 9

Estimated fiscal year 1965 3. 4
20 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

3. Personnel and administrative expenditures by cost categories

Percent

Personnel 85. 0

Travel 5. 0

All other 10. 0

Rent, communications, and utilities 4. 4

Transportation of things . 2

Printing and ieproduction . 4

Other services 1. 0

Supplies and materials 2. 0

Equipment 2. 0

4. The average salaiy of employees under the peisonnel and administrative

program in fiscal year 1964 is $4,534 (Federal share $2,267).

The amendments also provided, among other things:

1. That the plans should be in effect in all political subdivisions of the

State and mandatory on them;

2. For the employment of a full-time civil defense director, or deputy

director, by the State and for a merit system for civil defense employees.

Although the authority for contributions for personnel and administrative

expenses was enacted in 1958, funds for its implementation were not appropriated

until fiscal year 1961.

EXERCISE OF FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FROM FISCAL YEAR 1961 ON

The appropriation of funds for personnel and administrative expenses in fiscal

year 1961 gave the Federal Government its first opportunity to exercise its

responsibility for joint direction of national civil defense efforts.

In order to provide national guidance, OCD issued definitive direction for the

preparation of annual "program papers." -Under this system the Federal Government forwards to State and local governments a detailed listing of programs

which we consider should receive emphasis at State and local levels in order to

develop a balanced national civil defense program, oriented around fallout

shelter.

The content of this guidance and the priority areas within this guidance vary

from year to year as tasks are completed, research results become available and

new programs are defined and can be supported.

These program papers are completed at State and local levels; the local submissions are reviewed and approved at the State level; and all submissions must

be approved by the Office of Civil Defense as a condition precedent to participation in the P. & A. program.

The system has many benefits. It permits the development of a national

program with all the States and political subdivisions working to accomplish

the same objectives. It also has the States and local governments think through

their budgets. As a result, they not only receive Federal support but they are

better able to obtain support from State legislatures and local city councils.

As a direct result of this program there has been a marked increase in State

and local civil defense capabilities. I quote from the House report of last Year:

"It is especially important to have effective State and local civil defense staffs.

Since the end of fiscal year 1961, the first year in which the personnel and administrative matching funds program was in operation, participation by State and

political subdivisions has almost doubled. All States are covered and 55 percent

of the population at the county and municipal levels have some degree of organized

civil defense leadership."
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 21

1500

1400 

1300

1200

1100

1000

900

800 

700

600

703

FY 1961

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS /N P & A PROGRAM

916

FY 1962

1258

FY 1963

1492

FY 1964

Estimated

1370 as of

June I, 1964

In fiscal year 1961, 703 counties and municipalities participated. The fiscal

year 1964 participation is 1,370 localities with a total personnel of 5,350:

$3,482,757 was obligated by June 30, 1961; $10,514,284 was obligated during

fiscal year 1962; and $12,940,247 was obligated for fiscal year 1963—$15 million

has been appropriated for fiscal year 1964.

States voluntarily reporting on professional level examinations

Number of States reporting 1 20

Number of people taking exams 626

Number of failing exams 336

Percent of failures 54

1 All States gave professional and clerical examinations but only 20 reported to HEW.

Separations

Resignations 527

Dismissals 49

Layoffs 40

Expiration of appointments 159

Retirements 37

Total separations 812

Gross turnover, percent 1 27

1 These figures are comparable with those of employees of other State and local agencies receiving Federal

grants-in-aid.
22 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Another benefit of this program has resulted from the requirement for a merit

system for employees in order for the local civil defense units to be eligible to

receive Federal financial assistance.

Prior to this requirement, local civil defense offices were too often staffed

without regard to necessary qualifications. Although many excellent civil

defense employees were appointed during these early days, there were also many

who were not knowledgeable in civil defense matters, and others who were clearly

incompetent. There was a rapid turnover in personnel and very little continity

of civil defense knowledge and skill.

With the establishment of the merit system, civil defense organization at the

local level has been stabilized, continuity of Staff improved, equality of opportunity

assured, and the level of competence of civil defense employees substantially

increased.

As an indication of the worth of this requirement for a merit system, when the

provision first went into effect, 95 out of 641, or 15 percent of the incumbent

civil defense employees who took the tests to be included in the merit program

failed the test. In 20 States, a reasonable sample, 54 percent of the individuals

seeking civil defense employment at the professional level failed to pass the

merit system examinations.

6600 

6300 

6000 

5700 

5400

5100

4800

;ism

4200

3900

3600

Parttime

899

2739

FY 1961

GROWTH OF P & A PERSONNEL

Parttime

794

Full-time

3591.

FY 1962

Parttime

895

Full-time

4117

FY 1963

Present

Parttime

1138

Present

Full-time

4212.*

FY 1964
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 23

In addition to the increase in quality of personnel, there also has been an

increase in quantity of paid civil defense personnel directly attributable to this

program.

In testimony before the House in 1958, the U.S. Civil Defense Council mentioned

a study it had conducted on the number of full-time salaried civil defense workers

in the United States in 1956. It found that there were 1,298 full-time employees

in country governments and less than 1,500 in municipal governments, a total of

approximately 2,700. Of these, New York State alone accounted for 218 in the

counties and 452 in the municipalities. In fiscal year 1963, in the P. & A. program

alone there were 4,117 full-time civil defense workers. Overall, there were 5,920

full-time and 8,164 part-time civil defense employees in the Nation, not including

Federal employees.

SHELTER SPACE LOCATED, LICENSED AND STOCKED

Millions

32

- 88%

31,381,000

Cities Over 25,000 Population

30

Licensed

25 0

21,952,000

A

20

Licensed - 82%

0

15

A

10 Stocked -30% D

0

5 Stocked - 20%

P & A CITIES NON-P & A CITIES
24 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

In order to obtain an indication of the relative benefits of the P. & A. program,

we have made a study of all cities of 25,000 population or over, comparing the

jobs the P. & A. cities have done against the work of the non-P. & A. cities.

These cities account for 44 percent of the Nation's population, or approximately

80,500,000 people.

The 365 P. & A. cities had licensed 88 percent of the shelter spaces located in

the national shelter survey, as compared to 82 percent for the 400 non-P. & A.

cities, an advantage to the P. & A. cities of 7.2 percent.

Of the shelter spaces located or required, the P. & A. cities have stocked 30

percent compared to 20 percent for non-P. & A. cities, a difference in favor of

the P. & A. cities of 50 percent.

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE OF LOCAL FUNDS

FOR CIVIL DEFENSE

FISCAL YEAR 1963

Cities Over 25,000 Population

Cents

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

FY 1960 National Average - 12.2

12

1.1

10

9

8

7

6

18.2 95

5

4

3

2

1

P&A CITIES NON-P&A CITIES
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 25

The P. & A. cities have trained 1.16 shelter managers per 10,000 population,

compared to 0.65 per 10,000 population for non-P. & A. cities, or about 2 to 1.

While some Federal and State funds may be available to local governments for

civil defense activities, one measure of local interest and activity is the amount

of money the local government puts into the program out of its own pocket. In

fiscal year 1963, the cities participating in the P. & A. program spent, out of

local funds, 18.2 cents per capita for civil defense as compared with 9.5 cents

per capita for non-P. & A. cities, again an almost 2-to-1 ratio.

The national per capita amount spent in local funds for civil defense in fiscal

year 1960 was 12.2 cents. Thus P. & A. cities in 1963 show a growth of almost

50 percent over the 1960 average, while non-P. & A. cities are about 25 percent

below the 1960 average.

9

6

3

2

CIVIL DEFENSE PERSONNEL

(Per 10,000 Population)

Cities Over 25,000 Population

6.3

. 289

3.8

I

.128 1

P&A NON-P&A P&A NON-P&A

FULL TIME CITY EMPLOYEES WITH C/D

C/D PERSONNEL EMERGENCY ASSIGNMENTS

8.9

6.2

P&A NON- P &A

NON-GOVERNMENT PEOPLE

WITH EMERGENCY CIVIL

DEFENSE ASSIGNMENTS

At the end of fiscal year 1963 the P. & A. cities had substantially more full-time

civil defense employees, in proportion to population, than non-P. & A. cities0.289 employees per 10,000 population as compared with 0.128 employees in

non-P. & A. cities. Stating this another way, P. & A. cities average 1 full-time

employee for each 35,000 population, while non-P. & A. cities have 1 full-time

employee for each 78,000 population.

P. & A. cities have 6.3 city government employees per 1,000 population who

have civil defense emergency assignments and have recieved some training for

their civil defense duties as compared with 3.8 per 1,000 in non-P. & A. cities.

In some instances these employees are currently doing part-time civil defense work.
26 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

An important activity in local civil defense is the enlistment and training of

auxiliary help for emergency shelter management, police, fire, rescue, radiological,

and other civil defense duties. As of June 30, 1963, P. & A. cities had such people

assigned to the extent of 8.9 per 1,000 population as compared with 6.2 per 1,000

population in non-P. & A. cities.

In specific areas, such as attendance at OCD schools and the establishment of

fixed monitoring stations, non-P. & A. cities have equaled or in some cases exceeded the participation of P. & A. units. These programs are supported by a

greater direct Federal participation in both funds and/or direction. In addition,

the non-P. & A. cities and counties generally receive much more direct assistance

from their States than do the better organized P. & A. communities.

The ability of State governments to meet this demand of the non-P. & A. cities

is possible because of Federal assistance to the State agency through the P. & A.

program.

All of this, [ think, is clear evidence that this program is an effective stimulant

to the State and local civil defense effort.

The program has been in effect long enough for the States and localities to come

to rely on it. They have staffed based upon the expectation that the Federal

Government will shoulder its share of the load. Failure to continue it would be

considered positive proof that the Federal Government had abandoned the civil

defense program, and the States and localities would act rapidly to dismantle

their organizations and rid themselves of a function which they have reluctantly

but responsibly assumed.

Student expense program

Fiscal year

Number

students

reimbursed

Federal

amount

Average

reimbursement

per student

1960 423 $30, 000 $70.94

1961 2,038 i25,480 6i.57

1962 2, 997 181, 130 60. 44

1963 2,249 125, 199 55.67

1964 851 56,327 66. 19

(July through January) 

Total 8,558 518, 136 60. 54

We also seek continuation of the authority to pay one-half the travel expenses

and per diem allowances for trainees in attendance at the OCD schools. Training

has always been a principal civil defense activity.

This assistance program was initiated in September 1960. Through May

1964, 8,908 people from all States had been assisted at a total cost to the Federal

Government of $540,881. The average amount paid for each student is $60.72.

Since the Department of Defense assumed the civil defense program, the students

assisted have been those trained at the three OCD training centers located in

Brooklyn, N.Y.; Battle Creek, Mich.; and Alameda, Calif. These students are

instructors who will then conduct the local training courses for management and

operation of the shelter and radiological monitoring systems and State and local

civil defense directors and their principal staff officers. Six courses are given at

these schools.

Eligibility for reimbursement requires that a student meet certain criteria.

He must be certified by the State civil defense director, must agree to remain

active in civil defense after graduation, must maintain satisfactory attendance at

the OCD school, and must take a loyalty oath .as prescribed in the Federal Civil

Defense Act.

There is a $300,000 limitation on the amount which can be appropriated for

these travel expenses. We anticipate spending up to that amount next year and

at that rate over the next 5 years for a total of $1.5 million. We are not, however,

asking at this time for an increase in the ceiling.

The payment of these expenses is a necessary stimulant to the success of the

civil defense training program. The present training structure is part of an evolving system. Future evolution of this structure will include longer courses for

civil defense leaders with the goal of establishing a professional career course

comparable to War College level in the military training system. The complexities

of the civil defense program and the growing requirements for trained career

professional civil defense leaders at State and local levels will place an increasing

demand on the national OCD school system. The degrees of professional training
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 27

that will be required cannot be obtained through training at the lower levels or by

guidance materials and manuals alone. We will need to maintain the national

schools. If we do so, it is only fair that we assist the students who must travel

long distances and spend weeks away from home at considerable personal cost.

The assistance is provided in accordance with the austere standards of the Travel

Expenses Act and the standardized Federal travel regulations.

The third authority which we ask that you continue is the authority to procure

and maintain radiation measuring and detection instruments and to donate these

to the States.

These instruments are the only known means for obtaining reasonably accurate

information of the fallout radiation levels at any one time at a geographic location.

They are an indispensable part, not only of the shelter system, but also for other

emergency operations.

Since radiation levels postattack will vary geographically even within small

areas, we need a nationwide organized capability of detection, measuring, rnonitonng and reporting levels to give a basis for decisions affecting the period of

shelter occupancy, restoration of vital facilities, emergency operations such as

firefighting, rescue, law enforcement, medical and welfare operations, decontamination and other postattack activities.

These special instruments cannot be in the warehouses but must be located in

the shelters, emergency operating centers, and other places such as fire and police

stations and health, sanitation, and maintenance facilities which will be used as

bases for emergency operations.

Through May 1964, we have distributed 1,764,653 instruments.

by categories, they have been used for the following purposes:

Separated

To high schools 159,599

For training 211,592

For public shelters 265,000

For monitoring stations 227,322

Dosimeters for emergency workers 901, 140

Total granted to States 1, 764,653

The objective is to establish 150,000 monitoring stations with 2 sets of 6 instruments each per station. Over 47,000 of these stations have been established and

are now operating.

We are requesting $5.4 million for radiological equipment for the next fiscal

year. The 5-year projection is $35.4 million.

I would like to submit for the record a supplemental statement describing this

program in detail.

In summary, then, Mr. Chairman, we are requesting authority to continue three

present programs. No new authority is involved. There is no change in the

dollar ceilings. We need these authorities in order to maintain the current

program.

Mr. DURKEE. This bill simply extends for 4 additional years current authority in being. They are intended to and have achieved

the results of professionalism in civil defense by creating a way for

the Federal Government to provide funds conditioned on the acceptance of the program run by a merit system which produces professionalism in civil r defense. Also, one of the authorities provides help

for us in creating professional training and education. The other

authority allows the Federal Government to make grants for radiological equipment.

I might just say a word about the current program so that you

will know what the dimensions are. The Secretary of Defense and

General Wheeler and others have testified about the need of this program. As you are aware, the central heart of it is built around the

identification of community fallout shelters in existing buildings, structures which have already been created.

One hundred and sixteen million spaces have been located; 62

million of these spaces have been marked; that is, the buildings have

been marked, and 24 million of these spaces have been stocked with
28 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

austere supplies. We are also creating an emergency broadcasting

system, and we have 47,000 radiological monitoring stations around

the country.

The magnitude of this program calls for a professional civil defense

staff. We think these authorities do that kind of job. Let me deal

very specifically with each of them in a little more detail. The personnel and administrative expense program is a grant from the Federal Government-50 percent matching funds to State and local governments. This grant of funds has to be accompanied by the acceptance by the Federal Government of a specific program paper; that is,

what those people are going to do in that year.

They are covered by a merit system which has to be accepted by

the Federal Government, regular qualifying exams, regular merit,

system procedures. There are at the present time 5,350 such employees in State and local Governments, and they cover 1,370 political

subdivisions. The average salary of these employees is $4,534,

roughly that of a Federal GS-5. So the purpose of this program is

to create professionalism, and it is doing so.

The second authority is that which allows us to give radiological

equipment instruments to State and local governments to create a

radiological monitoring system which is compatible throughout the

Nation and which would be used in the event of a nuclear disaster or

a nuclear accident in this country.

The third authority is that which allows us to pay half of the cost

of bringing people to federally supported and run schools for the

purpose of giving professional civil defense instruction. Over the

period of years since 1960 that this program has been in effect, 8,908

people have been assisted in this fashion at an average cost of $60

per student for at least a week's course.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very brief summary of the purpose

of these bills. Let me emphasize again that it simply continues

current authority. There is no new extension or no new acceleration

of the program. It is an extension of that which already exists.

Chairman RUSSELL. On page 8 of your filed statement you have a

statistical summary of the personnel and administrative expense

program. Would the "number of employees" indicate those in the

Federal Government and the States, or is that only those in the

States?

Mr. DURKEE. Only those in the States.

Chairman RUSSELL. Why do you anticipate an increase of 1,400

there in the next fiscal year, Mr. Durkee?

Mr. DURKEE. Mr. Chairman, as the civil defense program is developed, more and more communities are turning to the Federal

Government for this aid in professionalizing their civil defense.

When this program started, for example, in 1961, there were 703

political subdivisions in the program at that time, so that it has

extended throughout the country to other political subdivisions, city

by city, political subdivision by subdivision, creating a professional

civil defense structure.

Chairman RUSSELL. IS that what you mean by "participant," that

that is a unit.?

Mr. DURKEE. A unit of government that comes in to participate

in the program, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. And so you anticipate that there will be some

609 more participating units in fiscal 1965?
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 29

Mr. DURKEE. That is right. For example, in Boston, Mass., they

are coming into the program, and they have given us a nrogram paper.

Los Angeles, Calif., has, Cleveland has, and Cincinnati, Ohio has.

This is the kind of development that is taking place throughout the

country.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Saltonstall.

Senator SALTONSTALL. The only question I have, and perhaps

following up right along the line of what the chairman has said, in

the House report and also in your little brief you show that the contribution to the States is constantly going to increase from 1965 to

1969. In other words, from $18.7 million up to $25 million. Now

even if your units increase, isn't it possible to keep down your contribution to the States?

Mr. DURKEE. Yes.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I would hope that it would be less expensive.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir; the current level of the funding is $15 million, and we anticipate that we will have applications sufficient in

the next fiscal year to spend $18.7 million. We would in actual fact,

of course, only make available those contributions for which funds

are actually appropriated.

Senator SALTONSTALL. So that if you get an applicant you have to

approve the applicant before you give him anything?

Mr. DURKEE. That is correct.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And so you anticipate it is going to approve

a number of more applicants in the next few years.

Mr. DURKEE. That is correct.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you.

Mr. DURKEE. For example, the State and local governments

actually spend a good deal more funds than we actually match.

Senator SALTONSTALL. One of the criticisms that we get in the

Appropriations Committee sometimes is that the Federal Government doesn't contribute what the States expect they are going to

contribute, and the pressure is put on us to appropriate more money

for these things. But do you feel that we have just got to do it? Is

it a must? Is there any discretion left to the Congress?

Mr. DURKEE. This matching funds program for administrative

purposes for personnel is an absolute must in my judgment if civil

defense is to be a professional operation around the country and there

is to be any coherent Federal, State, and local program.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. This program has a limitation in the statute

which I believe is left in by this bill.

Mr. DURKEE. $25 million.

Chairman RUSSELL. Of $25 million.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. You can't exceed that.

Mr. DURKEE. No, sir; we cannot, nor do we propose to do so.

Chairman RUSSELL. Is there anything here in your statement, min the report of the House committee, indicating the number of employees who are engaged in the civilian defense activities in the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies without Federal

funds?

Mr. DURKEE. I don't know whether it is here. I have the figures

in my head.
30 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Chairman RUSSELL. I would like to have that.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir. There are presently in the Department of

Defense 1,042 people engaged in civil defense operations.

Chairman RUSSELL. Do you have any in HEW and other agencies?

Mr. DURKEE. HEW and some of the other agencies have civil

defense assignments made to them by Executive order, Mr. Chairman,

by the President, and have some people assigned. This is largely in

the Public Health Service. The Public Health Service has the responsibility for medical operations in civil defense.

Chairman RUSSELL. Now these travel expenses and per diem payments, I believe the State has to pay half of those?

Mr. DURKEE. They have to pay half of those; yes sir. There are

State and local funds, or personal funds of students, involved in

every one of these transactions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Thurmond?

Senator THURMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have you been

coordinating with the civil affairs section of the Department of the

Army in the planning of civil defense?

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Those units are well trained and they are in a

position to be very helpful I take it to the civil devense organization.

I believe with the 2d Army they have drawn a number of plans for

cities in an emergency. The probability is if we had an emergency

the military might have to take over and those would be ideal units,

because they have specialists in every facet of the operation of the

cities.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. I just wondered how close you have worked

with them.

Mr. DURKEE. Not only have we worked very closely, Senator

Thurmond, but there is now in the hands of all 50 State Governors a

letter from Secretary of the Army Ailes which proposes the creation

of a new command structure for the purpose of providing a coherent

way of giving military—support to civil defense.

Included in that concept is the use of civil affairs units on a basis

going from Styles right down to localities. I want to emphasize that

our concept in terms of civil defense is to create a small professional

staff of qualified people, not to build a bureaucracy. It would be

their job to coordinate the activities of all assets which are available,

whether military assets or governmental assets or private assets.

The plans for military support of civil defense are moving along very

rapidly and I think very explicitly.

Senator THURMOND. You think you are making progress then?

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir; I have no question about it. In fact,

during the recent disaster in Alaska, we had a test operation of this

kind of structure. The civil defense staff, which we had trained—

this is training for nuclear disaster, but there they were acting in a

national disaster which I think we always have to keep in the back

of our mind—took over. They provided the Governor with communications using our warning system which was established there.

They had a regular procedure worked out to get information to

the Governor about what was going on, and the military commander

in the area went right straight to the Governor and said, "I have

these military assets available, Mr. Governor. Where would you

like them placed within your State?"
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 31

Martial law was never declared, so that we had civil defense in operation and military supporting operations. It was very effective and Governor Egan has so testified.

Senator THURMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Cannon.

Senator CANNON. Who exercises the control over these supplies?

Are these under your professional people here?

Mr. DURKEE. The title passes to local government, Senator. They have the full responsibility for the placement and the financing of those supplies into the shelters, for the inspection of those supplies within the shelters, for the operation of the radiological monitoring stations in relationship to the shelters so that you can see you need professionalism of the kind we are speaking about.

Senator CANNON. Do you exercise any control to determine if those supplies are properly handled and properly maintained?

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir. Of the thousand people that we have in the Defense Department, by far the largest bulk of them are actually in the field in our regional offices, and they work directly with State and local government, and one of their responsibilities is to make checks and see to it that this is being done properly. This is in addition to a regular audit, fiscal audit, which takes place.

• Senator CANNON. Assuming that it isn't being done properly, what authority do you have then, if any?

Mr. DURKEE. Our authority then would be complete authority

to withhold Federal funds of any kind for support of civil defense in that city.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH. I have no questions, thank you.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Young.

Senator YOUNG. I have a few questions. Now you stated that you proposed a small professional staff, not to be a bureaucracy.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir.

Senator YOUNG. And that is 1,042 in the Department of Defense?

Is that the number you propose?

Mr. DURKEE. No, sir, Mr. Senator. I was responding to a question

of the chairman asking what the present staff of the Office of Civil Defense at the Federal level is.

Senator YOUNG. What is that?

Mr. DURKEE. 1,042.

Senator YOUNG. And do you term that a "small professional staff," 1,042?

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir; for these purposes.

Senator YOUNG. When, then, do you consider the bureaucracy

commences if 1,042 is a small staff?

Mr. DURKEE. I suppose, Mr. Senator, it is a question of judgment,

but it is also a question of the functions that they are performing.

This Office has the entire responsibility for the national civil defense

program, and the bulk of these people, as I indicated, are located

in what we call the field offices. These are places where field command

is exercised and these people are working directly with State and local

governments in a very complicated program.

Senator YOUNG. They are the Federal employees.

Mr. DURKEE. That is right.
32 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Senator YOUNG. Now you propose how many for next year?

Mr. DURKEE. I am not proposing here any for next year.

Senator YOUNG. It is 1,042 at the present time?

Mr. DURKEE. It is 1,042 at the present time.

Senator YOUNG. And isn't it a fact that the average salary approximates $10,592 for those 1,042?

Mr. DURKEE. The average salary of the State and local government employees which we match funds 

Senator YOUNG. I am not talking about that. I am asking about

the 1,042.

Mr. DURKEE. The average salary of the Federal employees in the

Office of Civil Defense is GS-10.3 and it has been that for the past

3 years.

Senator YOUNG. It is approximately $10,592.

Mr. DURKEE. It is 10.3, sir.

Senator YOUNG. $10,592 is approximately correct you say?

Mr. DURKEE. I believe SO.

Senator YOUNG. By comparison, the salaries of FBI officials and

employees in the Federal Government approximate only $9,200, do

they not?

Mr. DURKEE. I understand so. I am sure your figures are correct.

Senator YOUNG. And then we come to the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, and that includes

'

of course, hundreds of

high-salaried scientists. Now, that is also a difference of more than

$1,000. That is $9,576 approximately, is that right?

Mr. DURKEE. I accept your figures.

Senator YOUNG. It is approaching the noon hour so I want to be

very brief if I can. The purpose, the main purpose of the civil defense

setup in the Department of Defense, to be frank about it, is the possibility that the Soviet Union would unleash an atomic attack on us.

That is what we are building to defend against, is it not?

Mr. DURKEE. That is one of the purposes.

Senator YOUNG. That is the main purpose, isn't it? And of course

it is admitted, is it not, that if such an emergency would arise of an

atomic attack Rich as the attempt at Pearl Harbor, with atomic

weapons from any nation, and, of course the Soviet Union is the only

one with the capability of doing that, you would agree, would you not,

that the military would immediately take over in such a national

emergency.

Mr. DURKEE. Would I agree that the military would take over?

Senator YOUNG. Yes.

Mr. DURKEE. NO, sir.

Senator YOUNG. Well, it has always been the history of our country,

has it not, even in the War Between the States, the Civil War, that

while it was a terrible thing at that time it wouldn't be anything like

a nuclear attack. President Lincoln immediately suspended the writ

of habeas corpus and immediately the military took over, isn't that

a fact historically?

Mr. DURKEE. If you say it is a historical fact, I can't dispute it.

Senator YOUNG. Now conferences are going on at this time in

Geneva and elsewhere to relieve the whole war tension, that is correct,

is it not?

Mr. DURKEE. That is correct.

Senator YOUNG. And sometimes we begin to feel a ray of hope

that the tensions are being relieved.
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 33

Mr. DURKEE. Surely.

Senator YOUNG. And those conferences will continue. Why is it

advisable to have this request for extension made for 4 years?

Why wouldn't an extension for 2 years be more realistic if it has to

be extended at all?

Mr. DURKEE. There is one specific reason, and it is this. Many

of the States and localities are on a 2-year budget cycle, and unless

we give them enough leadtime in order to finance themselves properly,

2 years simply in not enough time, and that is really the only reason

that we are asking for 4 years.

Senator YOUNG. But the States do it on a 2-year basis, of course.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes many States do.

Senator YOUNG. Many State administrations are simply for 2

years. The Governor is elected for a 2-year term.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, so I understand.

Senator YOUNG. Now it is contemplated that in the matching between the State and the Nation, you will add how many employees,

some 8,000 or more?

Mr. DURKEE. Well, there are now 5,350 State and local employees

that we match funds with. This is growing on a regular progression

and we have to anticipate the work of State and local governments—to

anticipate what that will be.

Senator YOUNG. It becomes higher every year. The number

has increased.

Mr. DURKEE. Let me say, Senator, it certainly has increased. Let

me say a word about the increase. The increase is not in terms

of adding more people to existing staff. The increase in personnel

is adding more communities to civil defense. The average size of

the unit is still four people, so that this is being held down. What we

are getting is the spread of professionalism, not the buildup of a

bureaucracy.

Senator YOUNG. There is a difference of opinion. I consider 1,042

as a bureaucracy already built up, and you don't consider it as such.

Mr. DURKEE. I understand. You are talking about the Federal

structure. I am talking about the State and local structure.

Senator YOUNG. Now another question along this line. As a

matter of fact the shelter program and all that is to advise as to

poisonous fallout from nuclear explosions, is it not?

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir.

Senator YOUNG. Now isn't it a fact that sicentists have testified

that the nuclear fallout, the poisonous fallout from the explosion of a

nuclear warhead, if that explosion occurs in the atmosphere, as ours

did over Japan, that there is very little if any fallout from that.

Mr. DURKEE. There is none.

Senator YOUNG. There is none from that. The fallout would come

if the Soviet Union, say in attacking an airbase or the Pentagon, set

an explosion, exploding the warhead in the atmosphere would accidentally or purposely hit the ground or hit the buildings.

Mr. DURKEE. That is correct.

Senator YOUNG. And it is well known that nuclear warheads are

far more devastating in their terrible effects if the explosion is in the

atmosphere rather than striking buildings on the ground.

Mr. DURKEE. I believe that General Wheeler testified directly to

the opposite.
34 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

• Senator YOUNG, But scientists have testified to the opposite of

General Wheeler.

Mr. DURKEE. General Wheeler has testified just the opposite in

answer to your question.

Senator YOUNG. Without taking further time in question, Mr.

Chairman, I am certainly expressing opposition to this program, and

I think that I would want to discuss later that if we have to waste

taxpayer's money, we should do it only with negotiations going on,

we should do it for only a period of 2 years, to see what the situation

will be 2 years from now.

Chairman RUSSELL. The committee will discuss that in executive

session.

Senator YOUNG. I will express my views later on that. You spoke

of just one other thing. It is a fact, isn't it, that in all periods of

natural disasters in this country, every year you might say and have

over the years from colonial times with fires, earthquakes, and all that,

that neighbors always come to the rescue of those afflicted in the past.

And also isn't it a fact that in various States we have law enforcement

bodies. We have sheriffs, deputy sheriffs. We don't have to depend

on civil defense officials.

We never did in the past, isn't that true?

Mr. DURKEE. It is a fact, Mr. Senator, that all 50 States have

assigned natural disaster functions to their civil defense operations.

It is the judgment of States as to how best to do it.

Senator YOUNG. And it is a fact that in the recent disaster in

Alaska I believe the civil defense functioned very well there.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, and recently also during the IVIontana floods.

Senator YOUNG. And in Oregon 

Mr. DURKEE. In Oregon they did very badly.

Senator YOUNG. They failed so miserably.

Mr. DURKEE., They did extremely well in San Francisco in a fire

recently, and in Boston in a fire. We are trying to create a professionalism that will operate effectively under any disaster.

Senator YOUNG. The fact is that these 1,042 Federal civil defense

employees receive higher salaries, higher by far than the FBI, higher

than even the Aeronautics and Space Administration, and I will

refer to one other agency, the Small Business Administration, and that

is an important agency in the operation of our Government, to make

loans to small businesses throughout the country, and to try to relieve

unemployment and at the same time not squander Federal money.

The average salary of small business Officials and employees is

$8,015 as against your average of your Federal, what I would call

bureaucracy, which you say is not a bureaucracy, of $10,592.

Now does that not indicate to you that there should be a reexaminaI ion of salaries 'paid to civil defense employees and officials?

Mr. DURKEE. Mr. Senator, we are always examining that question

both in terms of salaries and number of people. As a matter of fact,

we have reduced by some 250 people since the responsibilities were

transferred to us when this program has increased in size at least

fourfold to fivefold.

Senator YOUNG. But with that present disparity far exceeding the

Small Business Administration, and exceeding even the FBI and the

Space Agency, don't you think it would be a good idea to make a

further reexamination?
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 35

Mr. DURKEE. We try to have as professional a staff as we can,

Mr. Senator, with as little clerical help as possible.

Senator YOUNG. I will not take further time. I am opposed to this

bill, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an appropriate

time to thank Mr. Durkee and his staff and his predecessors in behalf

of the people of Hawaii for the effective leadership his agency has

given us for these many years, As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have

had an active civil defense organization in Hawaii since December 7,

1941, up to this date, and I can't say enough to give our gratitude for

the number of lives that this organization has saved in Hawaii. In

the recent Alaskan disaster if we did not have a civil defense organization, I suppose we too would have suffered losses in lives. But we

came through with flying colors without a single loss, although we

suffered property damages. We consider the civil defense so important that the Governor of Hawaii has for the past several administrations appointed the adjutant general of the National Guard to

serve at the same time as the director of civil defense in Hawaii.

We have coordinated our facilities superbly with the military. It

is an integral part of Hawaiian living I would say.

I hate to disagree with my very distinguished and friendly colleague, but Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I am wholeheartedly in favor of this bill. And if I may, I have just one question.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Of your 1,042 Federal employees, wouldn't you

say that the vast majority of them are actually in the administrative

category.

Mr. DURKEE. They are professionals and not secretaries and clerks.

This is the nature of our work. We send professionals to give professional advice and guidance, and that is the nature of the personnel.

Senator INOUYE. Therefore, it is understandable that the pay level

would be slightly higher than the FBI, which includes secretaries,

mail clerks, messenger boys.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir; exactly.

Senator INOUYE. So I think we should make this part of the record.

Senator THURMOND. Are the secretaries in a different category?

Are they paid separately?

Senator INOUYE. The secretaries are usually paid by the States;

aren't they?

Mr. DURKEE. What the Senator is saying is that in the nature of

the work that we do our staff is composed largely of professional

people who give professional advice. We have many fewer routine

administrative things to do so that we can have a much smaller secretarial and clerical force than is usual. This particularly so in the 

Senator YOUNG. If I may ask of the 1,042 employees, that includes

all of the employees.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, indeed.

Senator YOUNG. That includes every one.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir.

Senator YOUNG. From secretary and file clerk right up to the top?

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir, right up to the top.

Senator Y OUNG. So they are no more professionals than are the

FBI or NASA, are they? As a matter of fact you say that the 1,042
36 NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

are all professionals. Well, from the bottom to the top of the FBI

they are all professionals, are they not?

Mr. DURKEE. I was simply agreeing with the Senator from Hawaii's

statement that in the nature of our operation it is a higher caliber of

professional staff in terms of numbers. We need more professional

staff at a higher grade than we do in other agencies because of the

nature of our work.

They need more secretarial and administrative help so they have to

have more 

Senator YOUNG. Would you say that was the situation of the National Aeronautics and Space Agency?

Mr. DURKEE. I think so, sir.

Senator YOUNG. You haven't studied that though, have you?

Mr. DURKEE. I have studied this question. I haven't studied it

in detailed relations to other agencies to give you an answer of that

kind.

Senator YOUNG. Are you able to break down and give us for the

record, not this morning, but give us for the record, a detailed statewent of the salaries of these 1,042?

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir.

Senator YOUNG. In a different category?

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir.

Senator YOUNG. Would you furnish that?

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, sir.

Senator YOUNG. Within a few days?

Mr. DURKEE. Today.

Senator YOUNG. I would like to have a copy.

(The following information was subsequently supplied:)

OFFICE OF CIVIL DEFENSE

Breakdown of average salaries (permanent GS positions) actual as of fiscal year 1964

Grade Number Average

salary

Grade Number Average

salary

GS-18 2 $20,010 GS-9 37 $7,638

GS-17 6 19, 094 GS-8 10 7,217

GS-16 18 16, 959 GS-7 .58 6,442

GS-15 98 16,929 GS-6 76 5,940

GS-14 189 14,668 GS-5 146 5,218

GS-13 170 12,694 GS-4 71 4,631

GS-12 99 10, 636 GS-3 24 4,273

GS-11 36 9, 025

GS-10 2 8, 590 Total 1,042 

Average GS grade as compared with FBI and NASA

Fiscal year

1963

Fiscal year

1964

Fiscal year

1965

Office of Civil Defense 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

National Aeronautical and Space Administration 

10. 2

8.0

10.0

10. 2

7. 9

10. 0

10.2

7.9

10.0
NOMINATIONS AND EXTENSION OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES 37

Distribution of professional versus other personnel I

[In percent]

Professional 1 Other

personnel 1

Office of Civil Defense, Office of the Secretary of the Army 56 44

Federal Bureau of Investigation 2 35 65 National Aeronautical and Space Administration 2 37 63

1 Professional personnel are defined as GS-12 and above; other personnel as GS-11 and below.

2 Source: President's budget 1965.

The mission of the Office of Civil Defense is constituted by law as one of technical guidance and direction to the States. Therefore, the bulk of the more

routine operations are carried out by the States and localities. As a result, a

Federal civil defense organization was constituted under OCD as a staff of specialized personnel such as architects and engineers, scientists in all fields, radiation

experts, lawyers, communications experts, educators, statistical analysts, logistics

experts, and contract negotiators necessitating a higher pay scale than other

Government agencies whose functions include a larger proportion of routine clerical

operations.

It is important to note that since the civil defense program became a part of the

Department of Defense in 1961 that the Office of Civil Defense has reduced its

overall personnel strength by 18 percent from 1,300 to 1,042.

The supergrade strength of the Office of Civil Defense for which each position

has been certified and approved by the Civil Service Commission and the Department ot Defense Evaluation Board represents less than 3 percent of the total

Office of Civil Defense civilian strength as compared to 7 percent within the

Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Chairman RUSSELL. Mr. Durkee, do you know in my State they

have had a severe drought in the last 2 or 3 years, and the State civil

defense agency supplied pumps and pipelines that enable a small

community to change its source of water supply. I suppose they got

that through excess or surplus property channels.

Mr. DURKEE. They got that, sir, from engineering stockpiles which

the Federal Government holds and makes available for that purpose.

It came directly from our regional office in Thomasville, Ga.

Chairman RUSSELL. The State I believe has custody of this.

Mr. DURKEE. Yes, we gave custody to the State to use for those

purposes, and then the State administers it down to the local community.

Chairman RUSSELL. Any further questions of Mr. Durkee? If

not, we thank you, Mr. Durkee.

The committee will now go into executive session.

Mr. DURKEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee went into executive

session.)

(Subsequently, in executive session, the committee voted to report

H.R. 10314, without amendment, as covered by S. Rept. 1120.)
III