do not have the answer, we would appreciate you having your staff furnish them later on.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I would be very happy to do so.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. In the day-to-day relationships, especially with States and other political subdivisions, to what extent will there need to be a direct liaison between men in uniform and civil authorities? Will the relationship always be or usually be with civilian members of the Defense Department, or will this vary by program?

Secretary MCNAMARA. It will normally be and entirely be with the civilian members of the Department.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Do you see any problems in the area of classified information whereby the issuance of statements by the Department of Defense in the civil defense field might be taken as revealing a specific defense frame of mind or philosophy?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No, I do not.

STUDIES OF POSSIBLE ATTACKS

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Now, on the basis of attack assumptions, because there has never been a study made public on a hypothetical attack such as we made in our Subcommittee on Radiation hearings in 1959, do you believe that there should be a study made by the Defense Department considering various types of attacks and the plans needed for protection made to fit the different types of attack?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I believe that the civil defense programs which are recommended should be examined against the alternative forms of attack which might be considered possible or likely.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You see, there has been a complete void in the local planning in States and regions, as to what type of an attack might take place-not that you can guarantee that the attack would be of such a nature, but there could be a series of studies made in which different types of attacks might be hypothesized and plans made to meet those types of attacks, to give reality to the programing on the local level.

Do you think that that would be in order?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think that in order to avoid confusing the planning on the local level it would be wise to pick an attack that is both most likely, and also the largest and I believe that the largest is the most likely and base the local planning on that assumption and on the outlines that such an attack might carry with it.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. On page 5 of your statement you said:

Other patterns of attack might increase or decrease the proportion of the population exposed to fallout alone, and thus increase or decrease the number of lives that can be saved by fallout shelter. But it is probably a reasonable estimate that the identification and marking of existing fallout shelter space could, without additional effort, save at least 10 to 15 million lives in the event of a thermonuclear attack.

I would say that that would be an acceptable estimate.

Of course, this leaves out of 185 million people in the total population, 170 million people subjected to the hazards of the attack; you are aware of that, naturally.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Well, it leaves only the 140 million, approximately, that are not in the shelter spaces, subject to the fallout hazard.

TIMING OF PLANS AND PROGRAMS TO SURVEY AND MODIFY SHELTER SPACE

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And so in your response to Mr. Riehlman you did say that the plans at the present time are to give protection to the greatest number of people in the shortest length of time?

Secreary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And that they are not the final or total plans in this field?

Secretary MCNAMARA. They are definitely not.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Now, you spoke of surveying existing shelter space. And I can see where this might well run into several years of effort if it is attacked in a piecemeal or inadequate fashion. I am wondering if criteria have not already been developed which would enable you to set up standards by which you could now call upon those States and cities and counties that do have civil defense efforts to assist you in locating available existing shelter as a part of their obligation in order to speed up this finding and marking of shelters.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes, we definitely can. And we have no intention of allowing this program to take several years to be completed.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Now, as you find these shelters, do they become a statistic, or will there be a concurrent plan of adaptation of these shelters, giving them, these existing potential shelter areas, the capability which can be given them by the methods of closing windows, the furnishing of auxiliary air equipment, the provision of water and food supplies, and so forth?

Secretary MCNAMARA. There will, of course, be a concurrent plan to provide the shelters with food and water and the minimum supplies I have outlined, and shelters which do not qualify for immediate stocking because of some serious limitation of ventilation or entry or exit will be identified, and these will be put into the pool for further work in the next phase of the program.

USE OF UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Is it your intention in this survey of shelters to seek out all possible means of underground and aboveground shelters, and I will cite underground shelters such as subways, service tunnels, storm drains, basements, and subbasements of all kinds

Secretary MCNAMARA. Oh, yes

Mr. HOLIFIELD (continuing). And natural caves where they might exist and are capacious enough?

In other words, your idea is not to confine the search for shelter to any specific type so long as it will meet a criteria of resistance against radiation?

Secretary MCNAMARA. That is exactly correct. Our sole objective here is to develop a potential for saving lives that otherwise might be lost because of inadequate protection from fallout in the event of an attack.

FOOD STOCKS FOR SHELTERS

Mr. HOLIFIELD. In the proposal for furnishing food, I think here is an area in which it might be reasonable to propose that there be, wherever possible, a large element of self-help. However, I think that

leadership could be given in the providing of concentrated foods such as you have mentioned, and these people have to feed themselves anyway, and it would be, I think, reasonable to ask that wherever possible the citizens supply this concentrated food which should be made available to them at as cheap a price as possible.

I notice the 5-day provision there-I think 2 weeks would be nearer the time that might be required, particularly in heavy attack areas, according to the testimony before our committee. However, I am also aware of the fact that recent tests have shown that people can live for 30 days without food if they have plenty of water.

Now, this isn't a very pleasant thing to contemplate, but I don't think that we should stumble on an extensive food program when we might be called upon to get along without some of the things we are accustomed to eating.

Secretary MCNAMARA. The ration we are proposing would cost on the order of 16 to 20 cents per person.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. So this shouldn't be too big a burden on people, providing they were given an opportunity to buy an approved powder, or whatever it might be?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes. I suspect that eventually each individual would wish to undertake to provide his own property with such stocks. In this initial program, however, where we are dealing with public shelters, it seems wise to initially stock them with public financed food.

NEAR SYSTEM

Mr. HOLIFIELD. On page 9 you speak of the National Emergency Alarm Repeater system, the NEAR system. Could you give us a little more explanation of what that is?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes. This is a system that relies upon a generated signal introduced into the electrical circuits by the public utility at particular points in their grid which modifies the current entering the home, and when a receiver is inserted in the home line, perhaps through a plug, will activate that receiver to present an alarm to the people in the house. It is a small, individual alarm system tied in with the total emergency communications network of the Nation.

We believe it is entirely feasible.

A test is now underway in Michigan to prove its system feasibility.

DELEGATIONS OF FUNCTIONS

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Now, I am somewhat concerned about the program of delegation of functions. I think it can be done right. And I think it can be done wrong more easily.

In the past we have had delegations of functions. For instance, the function of reducing urban vulnerability was delegated to the FHA by the OCDM, and they were given a $16,500 budget to carry out that delegated function. This provided for a modest salary for one individual and a secretary. At the same time, I recognize that the Department of Agriculture can do certain things, and other departments the Federal Aviation Agency certainly is better able to be responsible for emergency plans on civil airports and airways, and

the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare should be more expert in medical stockpile responsibilities, and that sort of thing. Now, in the delegation of these functions, are they going to be closely supervised and coordinated, and are they going to be under the direct power of the President?

Secretary MCNAMARA. To the extent that the functions that are delegated are closely related to the items for which we bear responsibility, we propose to coordinate them and review them and monitor them ourselves.

To the extent that the functions that are delegated are not associated with our responsibility, I presume that the Office of Emergency Planning will wish to review the delegations, monitor them, and coordinate them.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Someone is going to have to look over the whole program of delegated functions and supervise and coordinate that. It would seem likely to me that the Office of Emergency Planning would not only be looking at what you are doing, but would look at what the Department of Agriculture is doing under their assigned delegation, and present the overall picture to the President, and then if the picture needed changing the President by order to his line of authority could see that it was changed.

Is that your general concept of it?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes; with this qualification, that insofar as the delegated functions relate to the specific functions assigned to the Department of Defense, we in the Department of Defense would assume the responsibility to monitor the delegation to assure that, under the terms of the delegation, action was being taken which would complement and support the programs that we are responsible for. To the extent that the delegations to the other departments are not related to our responsibilities, I believe that the Office of Emergency Planning would carry out that function.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. All right. What if the other Departments say the same thing? And that is exactly what they said before. They said, "we are performing our functions all right, leave us alone." Don't you think that the Office of Emergency Planning should stand as the evaluator of the overall program, including the discharge of your responsibilities, and as the

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And as the one agency that would report to the President on the way the program is moving?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes, I think that section 2, paragraph (a), sub (1) provides specifically for that in the President's Executive order.

FUNDING OF DELEGATED FUNCTIONS

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Who will fund the delegation when a function is delegated to one of the departments, who will furnish the funds? Will there be a transfer of funds from your Department?

Secretary MCNAMARA. If it is a delegation of an action that relates specifically to one of the programs that we are carrying out, I believe that we would fund it.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Riehlman.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF MR. YARMOLINSKY

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Along that line, Mr. Secretary, could I ask this question?

You will have a civilian in your office to whom you will delegate this authority. And today you have spoken about Mr. Yarmolinsky. Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. And in turn he will have the responsibility of carrying out this delegation through these different departments, am I correct in that?

Secretary MCNAMARA. That is correct.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Now, what type of a staff will he be furnished with? Secretary MCNAMARA. He will have the staff that will be made upt of several hundred people. I mentioned approximately 1,000 that would be transferred from OCDM.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. And he will have the responsibility of screening those people as they come over?

Secretary MCNAMARA. He will have the responsibility of accepting them and operating with them, and as time permits, appraising their abilities just as we appraise the abilities of others in the Department in making changes that appear necessary.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. And do you anticipate that you are going to have, did I understand, a thousand people coming in?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Approximately 1,000, I believe.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. And they will be under his jurisdiction?
Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. And I repeat, he will be responsible with this staff to follow out the delegation to the other departments which are listed in your statement here this morning.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes, insofar as they relate to the assignment of responsibility to the Defense Department, yes.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. I wonder if it would be well to have the background and the experience of the Secretary's assistant for the record here.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I would be happy to insert that for the record, please.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

Mr. Adam Yarmolinsky, the special assistant to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, was born in New York City in 1922 and received his A.B. degree from Harvard in 1943. Following service in the Army Air Force from 1943 to 1946, Mr. Yarmolinsky received his LL.B. from Yale Law School in 1948. He served as law clerk for Judge Charles E. Clark, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1948-49, and was in law practice with Root, Ballentine, Harlan, Bushby & Palmer in 1949-50; was law clerk for Justice Stanley F. Reed, U.S. Supreme Court, in 1950-51 and in law practice with Cleary, Gottlieb, Friendly & Ball from 1951 to 1955. Mr. Yarmolinsky was director of the Washington office and later secretary of the Fund for the Republic between 1955 and 1957, following which he was public affairs editor for Doubleday & Co. until 1959. From 1959 to his appointment in the Department of Defense on January 24, 1961, Mr. Yarmolinsky served as lawyer and consultant to philanthropic foundations.

Mr. Yarmolinsky is the author of articles which have appeared in various periodicals. He is a trustee of the American Foundation for Continuing Education. Mr. Yarmolinsky was staff counsel for the President's Committee on Business and Government Relations in 1950. He has also been in recent years a lecturer at the Yale Law School and American University Law School. Mr. Yarmolinsky is a member of the American Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York; and the American Law Institute.