One dealt with the dispersal of wheat throughout the Nation, which is being requested by many Governors on the west coast. For instance, Governor Brown of California has made several requests that something be done about that, and the same situation has existed in the eastern coastal areas.

Then we discussed the question of grains, feed grains, and then the matter of ready-to-eat foods and their distribution. After a further discussion with the Bureau of the Budget, it was decided to submit a supplemental appropriation request to call for the expenditure of approximately $60 million for the dispersal of a 6-month supply of wheat adequately throughout the Nation, so that it would be available. In addition, studies have been made for the conversion of a long-lasting shelf item to be made from wheat that would give permanent nutrition to anyone who was confined in a shelter.

And, as a second proposition, Agriculture is considering recommending a pilot program for the ready-to-eat foods in an effort to try to establish some basis upon which the distribution can be made in that area.

Mr. ROBACK. Wheat-based food?

Mr. ELLIS. Not necessarily.

Mr. ROBACK. The Department of Agriculture has developed or is working on a development program, is it not, for certain kinds of prepared food?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBACK. Will you undertake to make available to the committee such reports and memorandums as have been issued in final form about it? (See Appendix 10, p. 401.)

Mr. ELLIS. I will, sir.

There are many types, you know, of survival foods manufactured on the market today.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Ellis, the Secretary yesterday testified about a certain kind of austerity ration.

Mr. ELLIS. Yes.

Mr. ROBACK. And some question was raised by interested persons in the press and elsewhere as to what he was talking about, whether this was a Department of Agriculture proposal, whether this was a particular item that has been developed by the Government.

Yesterday we did not have an opportunity to expand on the testimony. Can you throw any light on the Secretary's testimony?

Mr. ELLIS. I think it probably arose from the Presidential declaration that we would expect to have placed in these shelter areas austerity rations, such as water, and perhaps, the shelf items that would be long lasting, and they would be austerity rations.

Mr. ROBACK. But he did not have any particular rations in mind so far as you know?

Mr. ELLIS. Not any specific substance.

Governor Rockefeller has in mind, and has tested in New York very extensively, a certain type of survival ration which has a longevity of some 18 months, as a shelf item.

Mr. ROBACK. We requested you to submit the reports of the Department of Agriculture bearing on the question of civil defense rations and also, when it is available, please submit to the committee the report on the redistribution of the wheat inventories.

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir.
(See Appendix 7, p. 390.)

Mr. ROBACK. Now, there has been some general discussion about the wheat inventories that I have heard, to this effect: that whereas we sometimes try to get important commodities out of the attack area, target area, this proposal really would bring them into a target area, and there is no reason to suppose that wheat could survive any better than people.

Can you enlighten the committee with respect to the hazard situation so far as the agricultural commodities are concerned?

Mr. ELLIS. You are thinking of contamination, is that it?

Mr. ROBACK. Contamination and outright destruction. In other words, what are the premises of the redistribution of the wheat as related to the premises of your shelter program, which some have pointed to as being concentrated in the target areas?

Mr. ELLIS. Certainly the study has been made. It has not been made available to me, but I would be glad to make the study available to the committee and file a written statement for the record if you will permit it to be done.

(The information referred to was not received in time for printing.)

FALLOUT SHELTER AT NEW YORK STATE CAPITOL

Mr. ROBACK. Are you familiar, Mr. Ellis, with a little folder or pamphlet that is put out by the New York State Civil Defense Commission, and which shows a picture of the New York State Capitol at Albany? It purports to tell about a fallout shelter which uses the shielding properties of an existing structure to protect against radiation. Have you seen that?

Mr. ELLIS. I have seen several of those bulletins, yes.

Mr. ROBACK. Do you have any information yourself or among your staff here as to what the costs of this program were and how many people it could shelter?

Mr. ELLIS. I do not specifically know; no, sir. However, Mr. Quindlen of my staff may know.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE QUINDLEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIREC-
TOR FOR FEDERAL-STATE LOCAL PLANS, OFFICE OF CIVIL
AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION

Mr. QUINDLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am Eugene Quindlen.
The overall cost is in the general area of $100,000.

Mr. ROBACK. And the number of persons, the occupancy capacity?
Mr. QUINDLEN. I think about 1,200 but we can submit that.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Garmatz calls my attention to the fact that the folder says it has 14,000 pounds of emergency food supply of this biscuit, this calorie biscuit, that Mr. Ellis mentioned.

Mr. QUINDLEN. 1,100 people.

Mr. ROBACK. And 1,100 people for 2 weeks.

TOTAL COST OF NATIONAL SHELTER PROGRAM

Now, using that figure, cost figure of $100,000, what is the dimension of the habitability or civil defense improvement program for the Nation, assuming that the people are to be protected in an existing shelter as good as this one is. What does the total cost look like? What is, as the technicians say, the order of magnitude?

Mr. QUINDLEN. There is no overall approved program figure since no statement of the long-term program has yet been made. There have been many estimates. One of these is in the order of magnitude, counting private and governmental costs, of about $20 billion. Mr. ROBACK. $20 billion?

Mr. QUINDLEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBACK. For improvement of existing structures?

Mr. QUINDLEN. No. This would include upgrading of shelters in addition, and construction where necessary. This is a total program figure.

Mr. ROBACK. But in any event when we are talking about a $20 billion figure, that is for a civil defense program which does not entail new construction or specially designed construction?

Mr. QUINDLEN. No, that includes new construction.

Mr. ROBACK. New construction of what kind, Federal buildings that are modified?

Mr. QUINDLEN. This is the cost of a program required to protect the population of the United States by fallout shelters which are properly equipped with the necessary communications, with necessary radiation monitoring devices, and with stocks of food. But this is not just a Federal cost. This is a total cost in terms of the resources of the Nation.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Quindlen, how do you spell your name?
Mr. QUINDLEN. Q-u-i-n-d-l-e-n.

Mr. ROBACK. What is your position?

Mr. QUINDLEN. My position is Deputy Assistant Director for Federal-State Local Plans. I have among my responsibilities the matching fund capacity, and in this capacity I was familiar with the New York State Center.

COST OF IDENTIFICATION AND MARKING PROGRAM

Mr. ROBACK. May I ask the Director whether Mr. Quindlen or whoever else is qualified, to discuss for a moment the question of the cost of a shelter program? We have some of the figures, but I want to examine rather closely the estimated costs of this identification program, costs involved in improvement, if any, and the costs involved in new construction.

Mr. ELLIS. The estimated costs that we originally had in the area of the survey marking and identification program which was recommended by us to the President, and which has been adopted by the Department of Defense, was in the area of $50 million, and we felt that that amount of money would probably make available from the pilot surveys that we have conducted, would locate in the area of 40 million shelter spaces in America.

Mr. ROBACK. Now, that $50 million to identify and mark shelters, just roughly, that is two bits per person in the country, right? We note that the Secretary of Defense has asked for twice the amount. Mr. ELLIS. No, sir. That does not include upgrading; it does not include stocking.

Mr. ROBACK. Does the Secretary's program include upgrading? Mr. ELLIS. He, I understand, plans limited upgrading in this

program.

Mr. ROBACK. $93 million.

Mr. ELLIS. Out of the $207 million.

Mr. ROBACK. Let us take it easy, one step at a time here, so that the record is clear.

Mr. ELLIS. Right.

Mr. ROBACK. I am talking now about a $93 million request for identification and survey or marking, or whatever it is called. That is part of the total component of the $207 million earmarked for the shelter program.

The Secretary's testimony, as I recall it, was $93 million for identification work; is that not right?

Mr. RIEHLMAN. That is right.

Mr. ROBACK. Now, you made a request, and if there are differences between the two agencies, all we are trying to do is to find out the bases of establishing this estimated cost, because it is obvious that if it costs 25 cents a person or it costs 50 cents a person in the country, it makes a difference between $50 million and $100 million. That difference is not insignificant and is certainly worthy of inquiry by the committee.

BASIS OF OCDM IDENTIFFICATION PROGRAM ESTIMATE

Can you tell us, first, what is the basis of your $50 million estimate for the identification program; what it includes, and how it was arrived at?

Mr. ELLIS. It was based on a study which we can explain to you in detail, and the pilot surveys that were made in four capital cities, and over a period of time, and was predicated upon what we thought. Congress might be willing to appropriate. Therefore, it was a lean approach, a very lean approach, to the problem.

Mr. ROBACK. I remember in one of those surveys, and this is simply from memory, that someone figured it this way: Take all the people in the survey area and multiply them by 10 cents, or take all the structures in the area and multiply them by 50 cents, and then take whichever figure was higher or lower, I don't remember, but the point is that was the basis of estimate.

Now, what did you do? How did you do it? Did you multiply it by 10, 50, or did you just multiply everyone by 25 cents?

Mr. ELLIS. We took the estimated costs in these capital cities and determined what it would cost us there, and then took the cities in the United States where this work would be done, and figured it out, I think, on as nearly a practical basis as could be done. It may be inaccurate. It is an estimate.

Mr. ROBACK. I understand. But this means that every structure in the country is taken into effect in the survey.

Mr. ELLIS. Every public structure, and where available, private structures, as well.

Mr. ROBACK. In other words, this is a kind of technical census, this is not a sampling. The identification will not be projected from samples; it will involve going to every important city in the country and looking in every hallway, in every basement, in every attic, to find out what the potential is; is that right?

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. DEVANEY, DIRECTOR OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS, OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION

Mr. DEVANEY. I am John Devaney, and I would like to speak for the Director.

Mr. ROBACK. What is your position?

Mr. DEVANEY. Director of Systems Analysis.

Mr. ROBACK. Director of Systems Analysis?

Mr. DEVANEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBACK. Is that where they do the costing on this program? Mr. DEVANEY. And other studies.

The survey would first eliminate all of those buildings which patently give no shelter.

Mr. ROBACK. You mean by inspection?

Mr. DEVANEY. By inspection; by looking at aerial photographs. You would cut the job down to those buildings which apparently would give you some shelter, and those you would examine.

Mr. ROBACK. You would make an aerial survey of a whole area? Mr. DEVANEY. You would use available pictures.

Mr. ROBACK. Would you make what they call a windshield survey, just drive your car down the street, too?

Mr. DEVANEY. That, too.

You would use all of these methods to cut the survey down to a size that you can afford, and then you would spend your survey money looking at just those buildings in which you would probably find

shelter.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Would the staff member yield for just a minute? Certainly in the past there have been a number of surveys made. Haven't there been such surveys?

Mr. DEVANEY. Yes, sir. We had four that we started with, pilot surveys; and then there was a program of others which has been carried on.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Are you going to take advantage of the surveys which have been made, and then go from there on or are you just going to duplicate the work which has been carried out before?

Mr. DEVANEY. There will be no duplication, sir.

LOS ANGELES SHELTER SURVEY

Mr. ROBACK. Take the city of Los Angeles, which is the chairman's city. I have a little statement here sent to us, if I can find it, which reports a survey activity going on in Los Angeles. Do you know about the activity?

Mr. DEVANEY. Just that there is a survey going on.