The comment is this: Certainly I think it is true from the intensified activity of OCDM in the last few months, and from the President's recent speech, and the international situation, there is now a greater public awareness of the danger, and a greater public interest in a civil defense program to offset that danger than probably at any other time in our history. I know my mail reflects an interest on the part of local school districts. I have had several inquiries within the last week or 10 days, showing an interest in the inclusion of some sort of adequate fallout shelter in new school construction. I had one telephone call in the wee hours of the morning, after the President's speech, from a constituent. He wanted to find out what I knew about home shelters. But the thing that concerns me is this: This is not the first time since the danger of substantial death and injury to the American population has become a possibility that this matter has been presented to the American public. In prior times, after the awareness of it was built up to some extent, no real solution was afforded, and I think probably we not only do no service to the American people to go into it again without directly and fully attacking the problem, but we probably do a disservice in the same manner as the kindergarten story of the boy who cried "wolf" too often. If we recite as was done yesterday by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as has been done today by members of the committee, as well as by you and your people, what might happen to the American people, and then do nothing about it, I think we lead them to conclude that, "Well, while that is a possibility, apparently those who have the responsibility are not sufficiently concerned to attack it directly." And we make it more difficult each time we postpone the eventual decision to do something about it, we make the accomplishment of adequate civil defense more difficult. So I would hope that certainly this committee would work with you, and that your organization would in this approach carry the matter to its final conclusion and let us take whatever leadership we can in affording to the American people whatever degree of shelter is actually needed under all the attendant circumstances. That is all. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Thank you. Mr. ELLIS. Congressman, you have made a very fine statement and one that I am completely in accord with. I did not come up here to enter a mortuary parlor or deliver a funeral oration. I came up here to dedicate myself and my time, and I know that Mr. McDermott and the other members of my staff, feel the same way. We want to carry out just what you have suggested. Mr. KILGORE. I am sure that is right. Mr. ELLIS. Which is a comprehensive program. Mr. KILGORE. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Thank you. Mr. Roback wants to get on the record answers to a series of questions at this time Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir. Mr. HOLIFIELD (continuing). For the benefit of the printed record. So, Mr. Roback, you take over. Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire first whether there is anybody from the Bureau of the Budget in the room? Mr. JASPER. I am Herbert Jasper of the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Jasper, you heard the request of the chairman for testimony from the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. JASPER. I did. Mr. ROBACK. You will advise your superiors accordingly? Mr. ROBACK. We will also advise you by letter. Mr. HOLIFIELD. We will advise you by letter. (See Appendix 5, p. 385.) STATUS OF BATTLE CREEK OFFICE Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Ellis, what is the situation now with regard to Battle Creek? There is a great deal of public interest in the issue, and certainly the people in Battle Creek are interested in the issue. What happens? Mr. ELLIS. It is planned that the Battle Creek office, which primarily deals with the field of civil defense functions and matters closely related thereto, and the complement of individuals who are engaged in those functions, will be transferred to the DOD. Mr. ROBACK. The transfer of functions is directed by the Executive Order, is it not? Mr. ELLIS. That is right, sir. Mr. ROBACK. How did you determine what functions were transferable under the order? Mr. ELLIS. We have been working harmoniously with the DOD to determine what functions were transferable, and then identify the individuals with those functions, and it was on an IBM basis that these transfers are being developed. Mr. ROBACK. You mean machine runs Mr. ELLIS. Yes. Mr. ROBACK (continuing). Of personnel, job descriptions, and so forth? Now, the Secretary testified, I believe, that a thousand persons were transferred as of yesterday. Mr. ELLIS. Well, they were transferred-it was agreed that as of August 1, which is the effective date of the order, that a transfer would take place, and that it involved 1,100-and-some-odd employees. Mr. ROBACK. 1,100. How many remain? Mr. ELLIS. There will be 535 or 536, I believe. Mr. ROBACK. Do these personnel who are transferred come in part from Battle Creek and part from Washington headquarters? Mr. ELLIS. Primarily from the Battle Creek area, which is the area primarily for civil defense operations, communications, warning, and allied functions. Mr. ROBACK. So that primarily the shift of civil defense functionaries, if I may use the term, is from Battle Creek? Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir. Mr. ROBACK. Do you have any understanding at this time as to whether the facility will be retained, whether the personnel, as such, will be retained? After transfer, will the personnel be screened as to whether they are going to be retained? Mr. ELLIS. As I read the Secretary's testimony— Mr. ROBACK. Yes. Mr. ELLIS (continuing). Of yesterday, he expected to take over this complement of individuals, and had taken it over effective as of August 1, and gradually would weed out, I believe, the chairman referred to them as chair sitters or those incompetents whom he would consider were not able to handle the program adequately. Mr. ROBACK. That would be on the basis of personal competency rather than on the need for the function? Mr. ELLIS. Well, of course, the need of the function is there. You would have to substitute some other personnel in their place. ADEQUACY OF CIVIL DEFENSE LEGISLATION Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Ellis, is it your responsibility or is it Mr. McNamara's responsibility to determine now the adequacy or inadequacy of legislation which supports the civil defense program? Mr. ELLIS. Well, I would say that we, of both agencies, obviously, would have a right to make an interpretation, and I think the matter ultimately would find its way for determination into the Budget, the Bureau of the Budget, and would undoubtedly be decided at that level. Mr. ROBACK. Has your agency given any consideration recently to the problem of the adequacy of legislation in the light of the President's program for civil defense? Mr. ELLIS. Very much so. Mr. ROBACK. Well, what have you concluded? Mr. ELLIS. We hope to develop a series of incentive measures which would be submitted to the Congress. In addition to that, I think the program on continuity of government should probably be changed to permit dual-usage construction, in order to permit more States to come into the picture, perhaps some escalation over and above the 50 percent which is permitted under existing law. I just give you those as examples. But there are many others. Mr. ROBACK. Let us talk a few minutes about the shelter program which has been announced. Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir. AUTHORITY TO BUILD GOVERNMENT-OWNED SHELTERS Mr. ROBACK. There have been references to shelter construction. What does that mean? Who would do the building and does the law enable the Federal Government, for example, to, if it so decided, build shelters? Mr. ELLIS. No, sir. Mr. ROBACK. It does not? Mr. ELLIS. No, sir. We have no funds for shelter construction. Mr. ROBACK. So that if we were talking about shelter construction, it would be an aid-grant program! Mr. ELLIS. At the present so far as underground control centers are concerned, the authority to build is there, and insofar as continuity of government program, there is authority for matching funds. But for the home fallout shelter there are no funds that can be made available for that. Mr. ROBACK. You do not construe the authority to procure materials, to acquire facilities, as set out in Public Law 920, as amended, to include Federal construction of federally financed shelters? Mr. ELLIS. We have the specific authority to go forward, as you know, with the prototype program under existing law. But our legal department has not construed that we have the right to use funds for the purpose of other fallout shelter construction. Mr. ROBACK. Review this portion of your testimony and submit for the record a legal statement as to the authority of the Federal Government to construct shelters? Will you do that?.. Mr. ELLIS. I think it is very important, I will be glad to do it. Mr. Kendall would be very happy-my legal counsel is hereMr. ROBACK. Can you enlarge on it? Mr. ELLIS (continuing). To expand on it right now if you would like it, sir. Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Roback, the difficulty has been in the availability of funds. The very section that you quoted a moment ago is broad enough, if funds were provided, for the Federal Government to build a shelter anywhere. There are other difficulties with the statute. The share, for instance, of Federal participation in State activity is 50-50, as you know, and no money has been provided for that. Mr. ROBACK. I am not asking, Mr. Kendall, about funds, and I am not asking questions about policy. I am asking a legal question: If the Federal Government, say the Corps of Engineers, decided that it was going to put shelters all over the country with Federal funds, what are the statutory limitations on that program? Mr. KENDALL. There would be no statutory limitation on that program. Mr. ROBACK. What about the inhibition on the acquisition of real estate? Mr. KENDALL. There is that inhibition. We must secure congressional consent to taking fee title. Mr. ROBACK. You will have to have congressional consent? Mr. KENDALL. To taking fee title. Mr. ROBACK. How would you get that? Mr. KENDALL. The law does not provide how we would get it. I assume we would have to have a statute to get it. Mr. ROBACK. In other words, the law at this stage of the game does not allow the Federal Government to procure real estate for the purpose of shelter construction; is that so? Mr. KENDALL. That is correct; not without further action by the Congress. Mr. ROBACK. But that limitation aside, it has authority to build shelters; is that your testimony? Mr. KENDALL. That is correct. Mr. ROBACK. Thank you. Mr. Ellis, with regard to the discussion with the Chairman about the funding, you made a statement as to how this funding was going to be prosecuted in the future. Will you, when these determinations are made, if they will be made soon, submit for the record a statement about funding under the delegations program and under-in fact, the whole civil defense program? (The following information subsequently was received:) FUNDING FOR NONMILITARY DEFENSE With the delegation by the President to the Secretary of Defense of major civil defense responsibilities, new procedures for the funding of nonmilitary defense functions will be adopted. They will be such, however, as to assure an executive budget which presents a nonmilitary defense program which is coordinated and balanced. The Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization will, in the normal course of its activity in assisting the President in coordinating and reporting on the total program, be in close touch with the several Federal departments and agencies performing delegated functions. These contacts will be both individual and collective. In the latter category, the Civil and Defense Mobilization Board will be a particularly useful forum in arriving at a consensus on a balanced interagency approach. Thus there will be ample discussion to serve as a basis for the initial preparation of budget requests for nonmilitary defense functions. In addition to discussions of initial agency budget preparation, additional opportunities for influencing the total budget will exist in the review process. As is the case with the Office of the Science Adviser on scientific programs, the Bureau of the Budget will look to OCDM for advice and counsel in the review of budget requests for nonmilitary defense programs. (It is worth noting that OCDM participated in the review of the civil defense items in the recent Department of Defense supplementary request.) The total budget for the executive branch is, of course, the President's budget, and it is clearly intended that OCDM will, as a part of the Executive Office of the President, have an important voice in the preparation of those portions of the budget which are in support of nonmilitary defense programs. Mr. ELLIS. We certainly will. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I might say this is a very important question. Mr. HOLIFIELD. We have to look into this matter, and we have to find out if this is going to be left up to the administrators of agencies whose main mission is other than that of civil defense or whether it is going to be directed, a directed funding from the President. Mr. ELLIS. Yes. EMERGENCY FOOD SUPPLIES Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Ellis, there appeared in the Wall Street Journal issue of July 25 an extended article on "Food for War." It discussed the proposed distribution of surplus wheat to serve a civil defense purpose. There has been some criticism about this; there is also a critical editorial in the Wall Street Journal of July 31 called "Bread Amid the Ruins." Now, can you enlighten the committee at this stage on what the wheat distribution plan is, whether decisions have been made, and if the decisions have been made, what will be done? Mr. ELLIS. Well, in the area of food we met last week with the Under Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Murphy, and his staff. We find that Agriculture has been doing a great deal of research on this program, and we discussed three areas. |