The above answers No. 6 and, I believe that No. 7 is referred to in several of the previous answers. Again, if I can be of further help or assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, WILLIAM F. MAY, Chairman. Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, AMERICAN CYANAMID CO., Wayne, N.J., September 10, 1969. Chairman, Subcommitteee on Executive Reorganization, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: I have received your letter of August 26 with copy of S. 1285, a bill to create a National Economic Conversion Commission. Our company has not been a prime contractor in the military or areospace fields although we are frequently a secondary supplier, and many of our products are used in both fields. We have also carried out a small amount of research work under contract with the Government. In view of the lack of a direct contractual relationship between our company and the Government, I do not believe that I can be very helpful in replying to the questions you enumerated in your letter. However, it is very important that industry and Government increasingly cooperate in providing solutions to the urgent problems facing our people and our economy. I am confident that business and industry has the know-how and the ability to provide these solutions, particularly with Government cooperation and incentives, as was shown clearly by the extraordinary success of our space programs. Sincerely, C. D. SIVERD, President. Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP., New York, N.Y., September 8, 1969. Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: Mr. Laporte, our chairman and president, has given me your letter of August 26 and its enclosed copy of S. 1285 for attention and reply. As you have requested, here are our answers to your questions as presented: 1 (1) Our view is that the purpose of S. 1285 is very advisable and essential for the country to achieve a planned and orderly conversion from a substantial defense economy to, we hope, a prospering peace economy. e questions that were asked by the subcommittee staff can be found in letter dated August 26, 1969, his committee print. (2) Our company has not been engaged in any spinoff or conversion effort primarily because our business is not defense oriented. (3) Not applicable. (4) We are not aware of any products, systems, or techniques within private industry insofar as we are concerned that could be applied to the solution of urban problems. (5) Not applicable. (6) Not applicable. (7) International commerce, education, and communication facilities. We hope this response will be helpful to you. With warmest wishes, Very truly yours, Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, GILBERT S. McINERNY, Vice President. THE ANACONDA CO., New York, N.Y., September 8, 1969. Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: I am most grateful for your invitation to submit comments and answer questions relevant to your consideration of S. 1285, a bill to create a National Economic Conversion Commission. The Anaconda Co. is primarily concerned with the production and fabrication of nonferrous metals. While our products have been required in both the defense and space programs, we would anticipate no problem in accommodating the skills, products, and technology to uses exclusively civilian in nature. Going beyond our own operations, I regret that I have not had an opportunity to study the full significance of S. 1285 in sufficient detail to permit my offering a considered opinion, However, in this connection I have been impressed by a report published last year entitled "After Vietnam" which was prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Economic Impact of Peace After Vietnam appointed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. For your files and information, I am enclosing a copy of this report.1 Yours sincerely, Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, C. JAY PARKINSON, ARMCO STEEL CORP., Middletown, Ohio, October 14, 1969. Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: Your letter addressed to L. T. Johnston, chairman of the board of directors, has been referred to me since this is my area of responsibility. 1 A copy of this report is on file with the subcommittee. Your questions have been discussed with the market development and commercial research groups here at Armco and hopefully the comments will be of some value to you and the Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization when you consider S. 1285. We will, of course, be glad to provide additional information and answer specific questions. 1. What is your view with regard to S. 1285? Based on my somewhat limited understanding of it, the ultimate objectives of S. 1285 appear commendable; that is, to smooth the path for conversion of industries' defense- and space-oriented technology and products to civilian problems. Certainly, all of us would agree that we must take advantage of any and all know-how in the solution of our present-day problems-total environment of the Nation-physical, social, educational, housing, research, and technology. It seems reasonable to assume, however, that companies having developed products or techniques through their defense-oriented efforts will naturally attempt to apply these capabilities to civilian problems without Government stimulation-if it appears that such efforts will bring financial rewards. On the other hand, firms will will not and cannot be expected to pursue such conversions without some profit incentive. Furthermore, there is little doubt that substantial progress could be made toward the solution of our civilian problems if the same posture were assumed that has proved successful in our space and military endeavor. Our business firms have demonstrated their ability to come up with excellent answers to rather difficult problems by mustering all the talent available to them toward a common goal. It is true that this approach resulted in placing man on the moon and it seems reasonable to expect that Government supported research and development contracts directed to the various urban and other civilian problems would bring us closer to solutions. However, we are not sure that the proposed Commission, as described in the S. 1285 bill, would bring about these admittedly desirable objectives. We are concerned with the creation of another Federal agency with apparently rather far-reaching powers in its relationship with industry. Also, it would seem that there may be danger that such a Commission will result in substantial Government expenditures with very little real accomplishment. Are there not now established agencies under which these many civilian responsibilities fall? 2. Has your organization been engaged in any "spin-off" or conversion effort? If so, what has been your experience? Yes, Armco has been involved in such effort from the standpoint of direct application of defense-created materials to new civilian uses, as well as in applying technology gained from military and space efforts to other applications. Actually, as mentioned in question No. 1 above, it is just good logic to be looking for opportunities to utilize materials and know-how in profitable ways to broaden the market base and to more fully utilize facilities. In some of these cases the conversion is relatively easy since the product or technology has direct application to new uses, for example, Armco's special pre cipitation hardening stainless steels created for the jet and space age are finding civilian applications in sporting goods, motorboats, automobiles, and fasteners. 3. What financial or governmental obstacles have you encountered in "spin-off" of conversion? The main problem we have encountered in taking full advantage of conversion is that of determining which markets offer opportunities for the materials and know-how-then finding out the size and nature of these markets. 4. Are there products, systems, or techniques on the drawing boards of private industry that could be applied to the solution of urban problems? so, what is holding them back? One good example of an industry that is in the process of utilizing its technical know-how in the solution of urban problems is that of the mobile home industry. They are devoting considerable attention to the modular housing concept attempting to arrive at workable solutions to urban renewal and other low-cost housing problems. In a similar way, firms in many businesses (including Armco) are in one way or another investigating the application of their materials and/or concepts to the housing problem. At Armco, a task force has been set up at a high level of management to consider the adaptation of steel or other materials to housing. It is our observation that restrictive building codes and trade union procedures restrict significant progress in adapting new materials and methods in the construction industry. 5. Would a guaranteed market—or any other Federal action-improve this situation? 6. How would the guaranteed market work? What financial arrangements would be necessary and for how long a period of time? Naturally, a guaranteed market would be beneficial since one of the big question marks in new product or market development deals with success in the marketplace. We are aware of instances where the application of particular new products or concepts in the solution of specific problems would seem to be almost ideal. But from a practical standpoint, such roadblocks as inadequate financial resources, union restrictions, city or other government codes, out-dated attitudes, and so forth, have tended to stymie progress. For example, we understand that the adaptation of present day visual aids in the solution of educational problems has been somewhat slower than might be expected. This has been due to lack of financial resources as well as unfavorable attitudes and lack of knowledge on the part of teachers and school administrators about these new teaching tools. 7. Which areas of public need do you feel can best be met by Government? This is a rather broad question, so comments will be limited in line with the immediate discussion. It would seem that the Government's role might best be that of a clearinghouse for information about the needs and requirements. Local governments might also be encouraged to relax standards. Also practical solutions might more easily come about if various companies and competitors were permitted to work together freely on certain types of projects without coming under the scrutiny of the Department of Justice. Sincerely, Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, R. W. SLAGLE, Director, Public Affairs. ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC., Cambridge, Mass., September 5, 1969. Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: Thank you for your letter of August 26 and the accompanying copy of S. 1285. I have had your letter now for several days and I have given it considerable thought. It came as a surprise to me to learn that legislation establishing a National Economic Conversion Act was under consideration. I am sure, too, that the proposed Commission was given careful consideration before the legislation was put into draft form. The proposing of such a Commisison raises the question, at once, why such a Commission is considered necessary. I assume that it stems from the growing widespread concern in this country that we are spending far too much on defense and space projects and far too little on improving our social condition. If this assumption is correct then I believe that we are not approaching the problem properly. For quite a number of years I have been concerned with the strategic posture of the United States in relationship to other nations in the global community. The essentials of strategy have changed considerably in the last decade. It is clear now that we have a capability of delivering a tactical weapon from any point on the globe to any other point. We have also the capability of keeping any point on the globe under surveillance. I am convinced, therefore, that the conventional thinking that allocates certain weapons to strategic categories and others to tactical is no longer valid. Strategy today begins with the strength of our domestic condition, a viable economy that should be based upon an extensive national research program. All spending for defense weapons is, in effect, tactical. If these views are valid, then the NSC should now include among its members: The Secretary. of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of HEW, the Secretary of HUD, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Agriculture, etc. The allocation of our national resources to the country's needs should be considered in the light of the total needs. of all aspects of our society. Only thus will we maintain an adequate strategic posture. The transfer of technology has been studied quite a bit during the past 10 years. Currently, the State technical service program being carried out under the responsibliity of the Secretary of Commerce is accomplishing a great deal. If the executive branch of the Government seeks to give different direction or impetus to this program, it can certainly do so without additional legislation. |