Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport on NASDDP Annual Conference 1976 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY WILSON E. SPEIR DIVISION OF DISASTER EMERGENCY SERVICES CD -12 Director M. P. BOWDEN State Coordinator Date April 5, 1976 TO: Civil Defense Director Addressed FROM: Marion P. Bowden, State Coordinator SUBJECT: DCPA Budget and Program for FY 1977 Reference is made to my memorandum, subject as above, dated February 4, 1976. In keeping with the policy of information on this subject, the attached report to the Division staff, dated March 26, 1976, subject "Report on NASDDP Annual Conference, March 22 -26, 1976 ", will bring you up to date as to the status of the FY '77 budget. To permit the Executive Committees of our State and local national associations to work more closely with DCPA, it would be appreciated if you would provide me with copies of correspondence, especially replies from Congressmen and national leaders, pertaining to the FY '77 budget for dual -use. Your continued efforts and support in the disaster preparedness program is appreciated. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY WILSON E. SPEIR DIVISION OF DISASTER EMERGENCY SERVICES CD-12 Director M. P. BOWDEN State Coordinator Date March 26, 1976 TO: All DES Staff FROM: Parks Bowden JJ SUBJECT: Report on NASDDP Annual Conference, March 22 -26, 1976 MONDAY, MARCH 22 Arrived in Washington, D. C. for meeting of Executive Committee at 4:00 p. m. A report was given by each Regional Vice - President as to the response by state and local officials in regard to the DCPA budget and nuclear response restrictions. It was evident by the reports that many contacts had been made with the respective state congressional delegations. The most interesting and positive report was on the Leggett Civil Defense Panel - George Jones of Virginia and George Rodericks of Washington, D. C. Rodericks had attended all the hearings and was most complimentary of the appearance of Hayden Haynes, Oklahoma, on his testimony. He said that all state and local officials impressed the Committee as to their role and actions for preparedness. The Panel came up with the conclusions that federal funds should be utilized for dual -use, natural and nuclear preparedness, an increase in the budget to $110 million, and that DCPA mission be reviewed by the House Armed Services Committee on an annual basis. We drew up a statement for presentation to the Senate and House Appropriations Sub - Committee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. We decided that the statement should be only one page and it would be presented to the Senate on Thursday, the 25th, and House on Friday, the 26th. Attachment 1. TUESDAY, MARCH 23 Our session opened with 33 states answering role call, with 10 written proxys given to the Secretary. The first vote was on the statement for presentation to the Appropriations Committee. Vote unanimous that George Jones and Hayden Haynes would represent the Association and that all members that could would attend. Our program was as follows: Flood and Flash Flood Preparedness Plan and Checklist - Herb Groper, National Weather Service. He presented a very good slide program on flash flood warning plan. The slide presentation will be available to all Weather Service stations. It is good even though it does boost the Weather Service more than it should. Memo Page Two March 26, 1976 We then had Governor Davis on Implementing Anticipated DCPA FY '77 Budget. I have to admit that this was the best presentation that I have ever heard him give. He complimented the state and local on the action that had been taken and he said he would do what he could to implement the program in accordance with OMB guidance and Congress' appropriation. He called on George Jett, his legal counsel, to give his observa- tion of what had happened since January on the Appropriations Bill. Jett is a very good speaker and he gave us his opinion of the activities. He stressed the point that state and local officials could not afford to let up on the contact with their Congressmen. The group appeared to be impressed with Jett and his ability. The next speaker was John McConnell, and it was apparent that he had not read what John Davis was to say and of a certainty that he did not listen when Davis spoke. He was the only speaker we had that state directors had to restrain themselves from speaking out or leaving the room. He gave the usual pitch of must keep up on our reports, P &A allocation will be on basis of work years, update CSP Plans, and RADEF Program will receive emphasis. He was as dictatorial as any DCPA representative could be. The impression was - here it is, take it or leave it. You can imagine the reaction in our business sessions later and discussions during breaks. We had a luncheon to honor Congressman Leggett of California. He is a fine speaker and he went into detail as to how his panel conducted the hearings and as a result of the hearings he had Section 710 added to HR 12438. Copy attached of the House Appropriations Bill introduced by Congressmen Price and Wilson. Attachment 2. The afternoon was devoted to committee meetings and different ones calling on their Congressmen. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24 Our business ses sion with committee reports. The Surplus and Excess Property Committee presented a resolution that stated in substance for the President of the Association to ask Governor Davis to extend the Surplus and Excess Property Program as it now exists until October 1, or until the new legislation is passed on surplus and excess and honor all approved excess applications. It is understood that the OMB Bill on excess and surplus has been given to the same Committee that has HR 9152. It is possible that a bill will come from the Committee combining the two bills. David Britt, North Carolina, was designated as President -Elect to take office July 1, 1977. Hayden Haynes, Oklahoma, was elected Vice - President for Region V to begin July 1, 1976. Memo Page Three March 26, 1976 We elected to keep our Fall Session date open to follow up with Congress if necessary. It sure hurt to cancel the Las Vegas Conference for September. Charles Manning and Hirst Sutton, Council of State Governments, gave an update on disaster legislation. Not much to report of interest to Texas. William Phillips, Red Cross Liaison to NASDDP, gave a report on the Red Cross reorganization and problems with funding. He reported on the role of the Red Cross for grants to individuals suffering from disaster. The afternoon was devoted to committee meetings and visits with Congres smen. In that I could not call on Congressmen, I made a visit to our State - Federal Relations Office - Harry McAdames. He is a very capable young man and has an efficient staff. I was impressed with his operation. He told me what action he had taken with the Texas delegation on behalf of Governor Briscoe's letter reference DCPA's budget for FY '77. He said that all were in accord with the dual -use and some for increase in budget, but the locals must continue the contacts with their Congressmen as this is the only way that things are changed in Congress. His opinion was that if the Sub - Committee on Appropriations comes out with the dual -use and increase in budget, all of Texas' Congressmen would support it in full committee voting. In the evening we met with some of the members that had visited their Congressmen and compared results. All were of the opinion that things were going great. We also received a report of Governor Davis' report to the Senate Sub - Committee on Appropriations - Senator Montoya. Senator Montoya was very cordial to Governor Davis, but Montoya was called out of the hearings and Senator Bellman, Oklahoma Vice - Chairman, took over. It is said that he walked up one side of Davis and down the other about the lack of a Federal DCPA Program. Gil Leonard, USCDC, said that he really felt sorry for Davis, but it was all on the Feds and no bad reports on state or local. It seems that someone on this Committee has worked Davis over each time he appears. In Davis' defense, he had to present the budget as announced by OMB and the President. THURSDAY, MARCH 25 We all met at the Senate Building to hear Seantor Montoya's Committee on Appropriations. Before DCPA's budget appeared on the Memo Page Four March 26, 1976 agenda, the Senate heard from Senator Goldwater on appropriations for the Postal Service, Senator Buckley of New York on Assistance to Local Police for protection of foreign visitors in areas like New York, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Next came a Congressman Beard from Rhode Island on funds for information gathering on foreigners and our visitors to other countries. Next was postal rates for second and third class rates for publishing companies. Then a delegation from New Hampshire on NAIAP Grants. Lobby for Air Transportation Customs Association to increase number of customs officials at airports. The Senator called for the NASDDP and USCDC representatives for their presentation on DCPA budget. Senator Montoya could not have been more gracious to the entire group. As was agreed, George Jones and Hayden Haynes represented our Association. Cecil Russell, President; Lea Kungle, President - Elect; and four local directors represented the USCDC. Russell made a statement and had a position paper for all locals that he was permitted to put in the record. His paper included the resolution of the Governor's Conference, American Legion and VFW. All six members of USCDC made statements. George Jones gave very few remarks including that there were 43 states represented. Senator Montoya wanted to know how this happened. Jones told him it was our Annual Conference. Montoya laughed and said, "You know how to schedule a conference ! " Montoya said that he had heard from many Congressmen including Senators and all seemed interested in the program. He said he was sure that the Committee would take everything into consideration including HR 12438 which was entered into the record. Montoya permitted Jones to enter into the record written statements from six states, ours and Louisiana's were included in the six. Hayden Haynes gave an outstanding statement. We all believed that something would come from the efforts put forth, especially the dual -use. As to how much the Senate Committee will recommend is anyone's guess, but I believe it will be at least as much as the '76 budget. At least Congress knows about disaster preparedness at the State and local level. The afternoon was taken up with a meeting of our Executive Committee with USCDC. Everyone was in agreement that the appearance with Montoya was great and something good would happen. It was agreed that we were not to let up in contacts with Congressmen as they need to be thanked for their interest and support. In that preparedness is a three -way partnership: Federal- State- Local, it is time for the other two partners to exercise their role. Therefore, the Presidents of each Association would appoint a Joint Policy and Program Committee to serve the two Executive Committees in working with the Federal agencies that have preparedness responsibilities. A copy of the appointments will be forwarded to Governor Davis and Directors of FDAA and FPA to advise Memo Page Five March 26, 1976 them that we want to be in a position to speak for our share of the budgets or programs rather than the states and locals having to follow a bureaucratic administrative decision as has been the past procedure. The USCDC sponsored a Congressional Award Banquet to honor the Congressman that had made the most contribution to local CD. All State Directors were invited to attend and it was an enjoyable occasion. Bill Brady of Galveston County and W. D. Berry of Big Spring- Howard County were the only directors from Texas, at least, I did not see any others. There were approximately 225 in attendance at the Mayflower Hotel. Senator Baker of Tennessee was given the CD Award and he was unable to attend, but his Legislative Assistant accepted the award. The acceptance speech was excellent and I am sure it was written by the Senator. Congressman Leggett was the banquet speaker and he really grows on you. His remarks were the best I have ever heard by a Congress- man. He told the group that he planned to meet with Congressman Steed's Committee the next day and recommend $110 million for DCPA budget for FY '77. He said that he was a dove, but if it affected his district he could be anything. He repeated the dual -use concept. There were some 20 state directors in attendance. Governor Davis, John McConnell, Bob Young and Bill McCampbell from DCPA, Georgiana Sheldon, Commission Person for Civil Service Commission were introduced. This is the first meeting of state directors and local directors that I have attended where everyone was talking Civil Defense or Preparedness. We did not have any junkets for pleasure. FRIDAY, MARCH 26 I had to depart Dulles Airport at 9:00 a.m. Eastern time, but Congressman Steed of the Sub- Committee on Appropriations was to meet at 10:00 a.m. Congressman Leggett was scheduled to appear first with his report, and then the two Associations, Jones and Haynes for State, and Russell and Kungle for locals. Each could enter statements for the record and the same ones that were submitted to the Senate would be entered in the House, including ours. CONCLUSIONS: I believe that the budget for DCPA will be at least equal to '76 or above and that dual -use will be authorized. It will be the last of April or later before the full Committees will vote, so if the local directors ask what they can do, tell them to keep their Congressman advised and most of all, thank them for their interest and support. It will help if future letters from local officials are sent to President Ford and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS FOR DISASTER PREPAREDNESS TESTIMONY FOR HOUSE AND SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 1976 We know that the programs to deliver a national capacity for civil defense and civil emergency preparedness are under debate. Presumably these issues have arisen from our national need for fiscal restraint and a decision by the Executive Branch to limit Federal financial involvement. A judgement, therefore, was recently made by the Executive Branch that the dual use (the general emergency preparedness) aspect of the DCPA programs should be eliminated in favor of total (single) emphasis on nuclear civil protection. Gentlemen, this uninformed reasoning is doomed to failure for several reasons: 1. At this time when they do not perceive the nearness of the nuclear threat our people would not and could not support State and Local programs that deal only with nuclear preparedness and ignore the many other natural and man -made hazards that constantly bring destruction to them. 2. State and Local governments will not be able to justify nor will they have any interest in committing manpower or scarce funds to a limited activity when it is much more efficient and economical to expend funds for a dual use program which also incorporates nuclear protection. 3. If the DCPA program is rer:ricted from dual use, the result would be the intolerable single purpose activity mentioned above. Since State and Local Government would have to assume all the expense of general preparedness, be assured that they could not feasibly divert part of these scarce dollars to match a separate nuclear preparedness program. 4. A Federal Program for Nuclear Civil Protection without viable operational capability at the State and Local level is valueless. If the dual use aspect is eliminated and if the funding level is maintained for nuclear attack purposes only and must be administered on a matching funds basis, then we say to the Appropriations Committee that the efficient use of the $71 million would shrink and the tax payer would be getting less for each dollar than he would if the dual use program were maintained. We commend to you the findings of the House Armed Services Committee, Civil Defense Panel which recommends that the dual use aspect of the DCPA Program be maintained. We urge you to consider the original budget prepared by DCPA in full cooperation with State and Local Governments which, as you are aware, amounts to $123.1 million. ? summary, we ask you to reject the budget proposal of the Executive Branch which limits Dc PA's program to nuclear attack. We ask you to consider accepting the dual use re. ,ommendations of the Armed Services Committee and funding the program appropriately. Attachment 1 94 rii SESSION rn s • • 12438 IN TIIE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 11, 1976 Air. PRICE (for himself and Mr. Boil WiLsoN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services A BILL To authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1977 for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, tracked com- bat vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons, and research, development, test, and evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to prescribe the authorized personnel strength for each active duty component and of the, Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the Armed Forces and of civilian personnel of the Department of Defense, and to authorize the military training student loads, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 titles of the United States of America in Congress assembled. 3 TITLE I— PROCITREMENT 4 SEC. 101. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropri- 5 ated during the fiscal year 1977 for the use of the Armed 6 Forces of the United States for procurement of aircraft, I Attachment 2 12 1 ent method of providing financial support for commissary 2 stores operated by agencies of the Department of Defense 3 through appropriations of funds to meet the payroll costs of 4 their civilian and military employees is a rational and appro 5 priate way of assuring to personnel of the armed services 6 the convenience and economic benefit which such stores 7 were established and are intended to provide. Any move to 8 eliminate this support, and to require instead (either on an 9 immediate or gradual basis) that the full costs of the payrolls 10 involved be borne by the commissary patrons themselves, is 11 neither justified nor desirable. 12 SEC. 709. (a) Effective December 31, 1976, section 13 138 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read 14 as follows: 15 "§138. Secretary of Defense: Annual authorization of 16 appropriations for military functions adminis- 17 tered by the Department of Defense 18 "No funds may be appropriated for any fiscal year or 19 obligated or expended, beginning with fiscal year 1978, for 20 military functions, administered by the Department of De- 21 fense unless funds have been specifically authorized by law. ". 22 (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing amendment, the re- 23 quirements of subsection 138 (a) of title 10, United States 24 Code, shall remain in effect until September 30, 1977. 13 1 (c) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 4 2 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by deleting the 3 item for section 138 and substituting in lieu thereof the 4 following: "138. Secretary of Defense : Annual authorization of appropriations for military functions administered by the Department of Defense ". 5 SEC. 710. (a) Section 2 of the Federal Civil Defense 6 Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C., App. 2251 et seq.) is further 7 amended by adding at the end thereof the following sentence: $ "Without in any way modifying the provisions of this Act 9 which require that assistance provided under this Act be 10 furnished basically for civil defense purposes, as herein 11 defined, it is the intent of Congress that the needs of the 12 States and their political subdivisions in preparing for other 13 than enemy - caused disasters be taken into account in pro - 14 viding the Federal assistance herein authorized ". 15 (b) Section 408 of the Federal Civil Defense Act, as 16 amended (50 U.S.C., App. 2260) is amended by striking 17 the period at the end of the first sentence and inserting the 18 following: ", and, for programs of the Defense Civil Pre - 19 paredness Agency such amounts as may be specified for 20 each fiscal year in an Act as required by Section 138 of title 21 10, United States Code, which provides annual authoriza- 22 tions of appropriations for the Armed Forces, or an equiva- 23 lent Act. ".