The alarm gadget that would be attached to the premises, that might be billed to the people at $1 a month on their utility bill; it might be handled in some way so that in would make it a part of their general electric costs.

Mr. ROBACK. Is the black box, which is the homeowner's responsibility, is that going to be distributed through the electrical companies?

Mr. ELLIS. I think that could be one way of handling it. I think it also could be merchandised through retail establishments such as Montgomery Ward, Sears, Roebuck, or other large establishments like that.

Montgomery Ward told me yesterday that they were ready at any time to discuss the handling of it.

Mr. ROBACK. It would be my guess, that they would be.

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBACK. It is a lucrative market that somebody estimated to be in the neighborhood of a half billion dollars, at least a New York Times story mentioned that figure some time ago.

Mr. ELLIS. I think there is some patriotism there in the desire to establish that

Mr. ROBACK. We understand that. We are not casting any reflection on any one. What we are trying to assess now are the expense allocations. Has any consideration been given, for example, to whether the householder should bear the cost of the generating installations through monthly utility payments?

Mr. ELLIS. No, sir. That has been considered as a Federal expense. Mr. ROBACK. No question about that?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir.

POLICING QUALITY AND COSTS OF NEAR EQUIPMENT

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Is there going to be protection to the householder in the price of this article? Is it going to be a regular item with a regular merchandise markup or is it going to be handled partly from a patriotic standpoint, and it will merely be the cost of the article? Mr. ELLIS. The householder should be protected, and it should reach him at cost or a fraction above it.

Mr. ROBACK. Is this going to be done with Federal specifications, because many firms want to make these black boxes. It is a handsome market, if every homeowner in the country wants to have it. Are they going to do it under military specifications, would you suppose? Mr. ELLIS. I am sure they would in accordance with their usual procurement methods.

Mr. ROBACK. How would it be enforced?

Mr. ELLIS. How would it be enforced?

Mr. ROBACK. How can they compel a homeowner to buy this particular set or watch when he does it?

Mr. ELLIS. You cannot. Unless there were State statutes passed in the areas requiring this installation under the police power, then it is probable that that would be a requirement.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Ellis, I have pieces of paper in my office which describe varieties of shelter designs, and which offer shelters for sale, and which say that they have been approved by your office, have been approved by the State civil defense office. They advertise that their

articles have the stamp of the Government, the stamp of Government approval.

How are you going to police, or is the Secretary of Defense going to police, the sale of black boxes which are no good? How are you going to do that? Every homeowner's life or death may depend on it. Mr. ELLIS. I would like to have the facilities of DOD. I would certainly police it.

Mr. ROBACK. He has that worry, but you recognize the problem. Mr. ELLIS. But I think he can handle it very easily. I think he can have certainly those clearly delineated lines of what he approves or does not approve.

Mr. ROBACK. He might set up a qualified products list.

Mr. ELLIS. Yes; and I think it can be easily policed.

Mr. ROBACK. One of the issues raised by Mr. Garmatz's constituent, who is in the engineering phase of this type of equipment, was that the substation arrangement around the country did not necessarily mean an arrangement such as the one in Michigan. There are places, for example, in Maryland where it is more highly developed, much more modern than some of the rather obsolete equipment elsewhere, and if you did not have suitable adjustments around the country, the magnitude of the cost might vary from $50 million to $250 million. Mr. ELLIS. And they could be less.

Mr. ROBACK. And they could be less, I suppose.

Can we get enlightenment on that from your assistants?

Mr. ELLIS. I frankly do not know whether that material is available in the office or not, because I do not think it has gone far enough, but I think we have got to start somewhere, and if we do not, and to take a whole State and use that as the basis for a pilot study, and what the State of Michigan decided was characteristic, because this was begun before my administration, substantially before

Mr. ROBACK. I understand.

You have testified, so far as you are concerned, this has been studied to death; let us do something about it; is that the substance of it?

Mr. ELLIS. That is right, and I would want to go into more States that have different conditions, just as you point out, because I think our responsibility is well taken, because there could be a decided variation in various areas, but we considered that Michigan is typical, perhaps, of an average State.

Mr. ROBACK. You recognize that you may have to really investigate areas in which substation arrangements, electrical setups, are significantly different in terms of the design, in terms of the age of the equipment, and everything else.

Mr. ELLIS. I think it involves serious problems, but it is a very important facet of the program.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The subcommittee will meet tomorrow in room 1304, the Public Works Committee room. Mr. Ellis and his staff, in supporting the Department of Defense, will be our witnesses. Thank you for your attendance today, and the meeting will be adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12: 50 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, August 3, 1961, in room 1304, Public Works Committee room.)

CIVIL DEFENSE-1961

THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY OPERATIONS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 1302, New House Office Building, Hon. Chet Holifield (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Chet Holifield, Martha W. Griffiths, and R. Walter Riehlman.

Also present: Herbert Roback, staff administrator; Douglas Dahlin, staff attorney; Earl J. Morgan, chief investigator; Paul Ridgely, investigator; and Robert McElroy, investigator.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The subcommittee will be in order.

Mr. Ellis, will you take the chair, please?

STATEMENT OF FRANK B. ELLIS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, yesterday it was agreed that I would be permitted to file in the record a document from me as Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, dated July 18, 1961, to the Assistant Director of the Civil Accouting Auditing Division relating to the Federal contribution. And I would respectfully ask that that be made a part of the record.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. It will be received without objection.

(See Appendix 8B, p. 395.)

Mr. ELLIS. I believe, Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee, there is another important committee meeting that I would like to attend at this time, if I may be permitted to do so. Mr. Carey Brewer, my executive assistant, would be in charge. And I have a full staff here who can respond to any questions the committee may have.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. As I understand it, you are required to attend a Senate committee hearing?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir; with your permission.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Under those circumstances, Mr. Ellis, we will be happy to excuse you.

Mr. ELLIS. Thank you very much. I appreciate your courtesy.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Chairman, here today are representatives of the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, and I suggest that in order to conserve time, because we have to cover a rather wide territory, that we consider them

as joint witnesses, and that we start by asking the Defense and OCDM witnesses to come forward and take seats.

Mr. Yarmolinsky?

Mr. VANCE. Mr. Yarmolinsky is out making a phone call.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Vance, will you come forward and identify your witnesses and your own position in the Department?

STATEMENT OF ADAM YARMOLINSKY, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; ACCOMPANIED BY CYRUS R. VANCE, GENERAL COUNSEL; ROGERS CANNELL, STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CONSULTANT TO OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; MAJ. ALBERT K. STEBBINS III, DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY; ALSO CAREY BREWER, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION; ACCOMPANIED BY RALPH E. SPEAR, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM AND POLICY; G. LYLE BELSLEY, RESOURCES AND PRODUCTION; JOHN F. DEVANEY, DIRECTOR OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS; AND EUGENE QUINDLEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FEDERAL-STATE LOCAL PLANS

Mr. VANCE. Mr. Rogers Cannell, Major Stebbins, Mr. Yarmolinsky, and myself.

Mr. ROBACK. Who is in charge for the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization?

Mr. BREWER. I am.

Mr. ROBACK. Will you bring forward those of your staff who can be conveniently accommodated?

Mr. Brewer, will you see that the reporter clearly gets the names of your associates?

Mr. BREWER. Yes, I have supplied the list for the record.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Yarmolinsky, will you please come forward? Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Yarmolinsky, we have suggested that in the interests of economizing time and getting the record complete that we hear witnesses conjointly from both agencies.

CIVIL DEFENSE ASPECTS OF MISSILE BASE SITING

Now we are going to start this morning by raising a basic question which has been presented to the committee before, which has been a matter of great concern, and which has been the subject of rather pointed criticism in some respects; namely, the relationship between the location of missile sites and civil defense hazards.

Do you have any commentary in addition to what was presented by the Department of Defense last year?

Mr. YARMOLINSKY. I do not have any specific commentary at this time on the policy of the Department. I do know that the matter is under review by the Secretary.

Mr. ROBACK. What are the possibilities? Are there possibilities, for example, for site relocation or new location?

Mr. YARMOLINSKY. I should doubt that it would be possible to relocate missile bases already sited, simply in view of the very substantial investment of funds, and indeed the elaborate construction that is necessary in creating such sites.

I think the question that is involved here would relate to the siting of future bases, rather than the transfer of present sites.

Mr. ROBACK. Does the Department of Defense recognize the problem?

Mr. YARMOLINSKY. The Department of Defense does recognize that there is a very real problem, and the Secretary has expressed to me his personal concern about this and his determination to find out what can be done about it.

Mr. ROBACK. It was established in our hearings and report that the military authorities, when they make site selections, do not make them on the basis of any specific civil defense advice or instruction from the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization.

And now that the Secretary has complete authority both for civil defense and base siting, the problem becomes vested in one single authority. Would you comment on that?

Mr. YARMOLINSKY. Mr. Roback, I can't speak to the previous policy or practice. I know that in the enunciation of policy by the Department of the Air Force, the Air Force did state that one of the criteria involved in the process of missile siting was the possible local fallout effect on population. But I do want to emphasize that the location of these two responsibilities in the Department should make it quite feasible for us to give careful and detailed consideration at the time that a decision is being made by the military to these civil defense factors. I don't know to what extent these factors were considered as a practical matter in the past. I can assure you that they will be considered from now on.

Mr. ROBACK. Do you know, Mr. Yarmolinsky, at this time whether there are plans for missile bases which are relocatable, that is to say, where there is still flexibility?

In other words, if you study this problem, what difference will it make unless you still have time to make new decisions?

Mr. YARMOLINSKY. Certainly all of the missile bases to be constructed are not yet firmly selected. To give you specific information, I would have to look into that, and I would be glad to supply that for the record.

(The following information subsequently was received:)

SITING OF MISSILE BASES

In November 1955, Secretary of Defense Wilson transferred to the Air Force responsibility for establishing criteria for the site selection of ICBM bases. The goal of the site selection program was to obtain, in the most economic manner possible, maximum operational capability and minimum vulnerability, coupled with minimum hazards to civilian population. Thus, while the Air Force realized the potential danger to the civilian population in proximity to missile bases, this consideration was not determining in the location of these bases.