APPENDIX 7.-DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING DEFENSE FOOD RESERVES (SUMMARY STATEMENT DATED AUGUST 23, 1961, SUBMITTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE BY FRANK B. ELLIS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION) Analyses of various possible attack patterns on the United States made over the past several years have consistently indicated that there would be sufficient food in the United States to feed the surviving population postattack until food production could be resumed. These analyses have also indicated that much of this food would not be available at points of need in the early postattack period because of distribution problems resulting from shortages of essentials such as fuel, transportation, etc. New England and offshore areas such as Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are among areas which would suffer critical food shortages before postattack distribution could be resumed in volume. As a result of these analyses further actions were taken to assure adequate supplies of food in the event of attack. 1. In February 1956 the Department of Agriculture established a policy, approved by the Director, Office of Defense Mobilization, and the Administrator of the Federal Civil Defense Administration, to apply defense criteria in selecting storage sites for Commodity Credit Corporation stocks. These criteria provided that where substantial extra costs or substantial deviations from normal trade channels were not involved storage sites were to be selected which were relatively safe from attack effects and would be accessible for use in the event of attack. 2. In June 1959 the Department of Agriculture completed a report entitled "Food Stockpiles for Civilians in Offshore Areas of the United States." This report indicated that in the event of interruption of waterborne shipping for 60 days a number of our offshore areas would sustain food shortages. 3. In September 1959 Governor Quinn of Hawaii requested that steps be taken to establish food reserves in Hawaii. As a result of negotiations, Governor Quinn submitted a proposal in June 1960 providing for joint Federal-State action to establish a food stockpile in Hawaii. It was not possible to review this proposal and submit the necessary requests for funds to the Congress before it adjourned in the summer of 1960. Subsequent consideration of Hawaii's requests was included in the total national program discussed later in this paper. 4. In January 1960 the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization requested the Department of Agriculture to report what steps would be required to provide in each State a 6 months' supply, at normal consumption rates, of wheat for the human population and feed grains for the livestock population. In June 1960 the Department of Agriculture made a report which indicated that substantial stocks of wheat and feed grains would have to be moved, principally to the east and west coasts in order to provide a 6-month supply. The Secretary of Agriculture announced in August 1960 that, under existing authority and funds, stocks of Government-owned grain in States along the eastern seaboard were being increased materially as a part of the overall program of increasing civil defense "readiness." 5. In March 1961 Governor Brown of California requested that a survey team be sent by the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization and the Department of Agriculture to discuss with him and his staff the food situation in California. Following the visit of the survey team, Governor Brown, in May 1961 requested that the Department of Agriculture relocate substantial stocks of wheat to California pending completion of a national survey which he had been informed was being made. 6. On March 2, 1961, the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture concerning the studies that had been made of food stockpiling needs and requesting the Department of Agriculture to develop a comprehensive program in this area. On May 5, 1961, the Under Secretary of Agriculture advised that a task force had been appointed to examine the Department of Agriculture's policies on the storage and stockpiling of agricultural commodities and foods for defense purposes. Following staff discussions between the two agencies, the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization suggested to the Department of Agriculture on June 14, 1961, three policy points for consideration of the task force: a. Maintain an inventory of Government-owned wheat (or comparable unprocessed food) in each of our States and offshore areas equal to 1 year's normal consumption by the population of the State or area. Such stocks to be rotated into regular foreign and domestic trade outlets including food for peace. b. Maintain an inventory of Government-owned feed grains (or wheat) in each of our livestock producing States and offshore areas equal to 6 months' normal consumption by the livestock population of the State or area. Such stocks to be rotated into regular foreign and domestic trade outlets including food for peace. c. Maintain an inventory of Government-owned ready-to-eat food in each of our States and offshore areas equal to 90 man-days of food based on a balanced diet of 2,600 calories per day for the population of the State or area. Such stocks to be rotated through the direct distribution program for school lunches and relief feeding and, possibly, food for peace. On July 8, the Under Secretary of Agriculture advised that the task force had been considering the policy points proposed by Mr. Ellis and indicated that he would be prepared to discuss the Department of Agriculture's recommendation in the near future. At a meeting on July 27 the Under Secretary of Agriculture and members of his staff met with the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization and members of his staff and presented tentative recommendations for relocating CCC stocks of wheat to provide a supply sufficient to assure a 6-months' supply of wheat for people in areas of population concentration at the per capita rate of three-quarters of a pound per day. There was preliminary discussion concerning the other two policy points suggested but the Department of Agriculture indicated that it was not at that time prepared to make firm recommendation concerning these points. It proposed that relocation of wheat be undertaken as the first step and that action on stocks of ready-to-eat food and feed grains be deferred to permit further study. Further staff discussions resulted in modification of the plan for relocating wheat to establish a 4-month supply in and near each of the country's areas of population concentration. In accordance with the recommendation of the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, President Kennedy on August 14 issued an Executive order assigning to the Department of Agriculture responsibility for establishing and maintaining food stockpiles under the provisions of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950. On that same date, he transmitted to the Congress an appropriation request for 47.2 million to cover the costs of relocating 126 million bushels of federally owned wheat from current storage sites to areas in which food shortages could exist following attack. The stocks would be relocated close to 191 metropolitan areas with a total estimated population of 95 million, and would thus make available three-fourths of a pound of wheat per person per day over a 4-month period. Attached are copies of Executive Order 10958 and the White House press release concerning the appropriation request. The Department of Agriculture and the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization are continuing studies to determine what additional action may be required to assure an adequate supply of food in all parts of the country in the event of a nuclear attack. APPENDIX 8A.-SUMMARY STATEMENT ON CIVIL DEFENSE OPERATIONS, DATED AUGUST 1, 1961, SUBMITTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD, Chairman, Military Operations Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with your request of July 28, 1961, for a summary statement on the major findings of our investigations and surveys of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization (OCDM), the following information is presented: We are making reviews of three OCDM programs: the Federal contributions program, the surplus property program, and the survival projects program. The fieldwork on these reviews by the operating groups is almost completed, but staff reviews have not been completed. The information which we are presenting, therefore, represents that developed by our operating groups performing the reviews and should be considered in that light. Further, although the findings in each of our reviews have been brought to the attention of OCDM regional and headquarters officials, OCDM has had the opportunity to furnish us with their written comments on the information and conclusions set forth for only the Federal contributions program. Accordingly, we have not had available to us for consideration the formal views of these officials or such additional facts as they may have on information and conclusions presented for the surplus property and survival projects programs. FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS PROGRAM The Federal contributions program was initiated by OCDM under authority contained in the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950. The program was intended to provide a means for the States and their political subdivisions to obtain Federal funds for up to one-half of the cost of civil defense materials, buildings, equipment, and training. Over $100 million of Federal funds have been obligated under the program since its inception in 1951. The intent of the Congress is that items approved under the Federal contributions program should be for civil defense and over and above the normal requirements of the applicants. OCDM has acknowledged this intent, but our review has shown that its administration of the program has resulted in the expenditure of Federal funds for items which States and political subdivisions acquired primarily for their normal governmental activities rather than for civil defense. The program, in the 9 years of operation since 1951, has been instrumental in stimulating the acquisition or construction of many civil defense items by the States and their political subdivisions. However, our review of project applications, with a Federal share of about $8.4 million, has shown that applications with a Federal share of about $5.2 million were primarily for items which were not over and above the normal requirements of States and their political subdivisions. This amount represents about 62 percent of the dollar total of the project applications reviewed. In its administration of the program over the years, OCDM has relied primarily on the applicants' certifications and has not developed standards or criteria for use by its regional offices so that consistent independent determinations could be made as to whether items requested were over and above the applicants' normal requirements. We recognize that the development of standards or criteria to completely evaluate the normal needs of applicants would not be practicable, but criteria could have been developed to allow a quantitative analysis of normal needs. Without such criteria, OCDM regional offices do not have a reasonable and consistent basis for approval of project applications. For certain types of items, such as radio communications equipment, training centers, traffic control equipment, helicopters, hospital generators, cafeteria equipment, and firearms, our review showed a high incidence of cases where the applicants obtained the items for use in carrying out normal governmental activities. We would like to discuss certain of these types of equipment to illustrate the tentative conclusions that have been reached. The acquisition and leasing of communications equipment represent the largest segment of the Federal contributions program. From fiscal year 1952 through fiscal year 1960, about $41.5 million, or 43 percent of the total cost of the Federal contributions program, has been obligated for the procurement, leasing, and maintenance of communications equipment. Communications equipment, such as base stations, mobile radios, and related accessories, has been obtained under the program by State and local police, fire, highway, and conservation departments. OCDM has approved the replacement or expansion of existing communications systems and also procurement of complete, new systems. Our examination of records, and discussions with responsible State and local officials, for 59 applications, Federal share about $3.6 million, showed that the communications equipment involved was needed by applicants primarily to carry out effectively their normal day-to-day responsibilities. A few examples of situations found in our review of communications applications are cited as follows: A State highway department obtained OCDM approval for a statewide radio communications system consisting of 166 base stations and 2,094 mobile units, Federal share $923,890, one of the largest systems ever approved under the program. This system was acquired to more efficiently carry out the normal day-today responsibilities of the department for operating a statewide highway system, including those for maintaining, repairing, and clearing highways and assisting in traffic control rather than for civil defense as certified by the applicant. A State public safety department obtained approval of a communications system, Federal share $175,499, to be used in law-enforcement activities. This system was needed for normal operations because of the obsolescence of the old system, rather than for civil defense as certified by the applicant. Actually, a Federal Communications Commission ruling required the equipment change. A county police department obtained approval for the cost of leasing a complete radio system, Federal share $97,742, which was required, not for civil defense as certified by the applicant, but rather for the normal operations of the police department. The centralized traffic control program was designed to provide Federal funds to assist applicants in modifying existing traffic systems to provide for coordinated traffic signalization for use in a civil defense emergency. We reviewed three project applications, Federal share $427,456, approved by OCDM under this program since its inception in 1957. Most of the equipment approved by OCDM was needed by the applicants to replace or expand obsolete or outdated traffic control systems in order to handle normal traffic control problems. The helicopter program was started by OCDM in 1955 to assist the States and their political subdivisions in obtaining helicopters to perform specialized civil defense emergency functions. Our review of 7 of 12 helicopters approved by OCDM showed that all 7 were being used in normal governmental activities of the applicants. Two of the seven helicopters were used extensively by the applicants for revenue-producing spraying operations for which they had received $97,000, over a period of a year and half, from landowners and the U.S. Forest Service. The remaining five were being used for regular police, fire, or traffic control activities, and four of these had been acquired several months prior to request for OCDM approval of the project applications. Hospital generators have been an approvable item under the engineering program since 1954 and were included to provide essential electrical operation of hospitals in the event of an extensive enemy attack. Our review showed that OCDM approved one-half of the total cost of many generators which were completely or partially for the applicants' normal emergency requirements rather than for civil defense, mainly because the regional offices were not provided with criteria to determine what portion of generating power was for civil defense and over and above hospitals' normal requirements. Under the emergency welfare program, OCDM approves feeding, sleeping, heating, and administrative equipment for use in reception areas during civil defense emergencies. Feeding equipment appears to include all items necessary to operate a cafeteria or kitchen. We reviewed five project applications for cafeteria equipment which represented a Federal share of $124,894, or about 20 percent of the total obligated under this program. This equipment was being used or would be used for the daily feeding of schoolchildren and patients of a home for the aged and was needed regardless of civil defense. The police services program is designed to assist States and their political subdivisions in acquiring equipment required by auxiliary police and to expand police facilities to meet civil defense requirements. For fiscal years 1955 through 1960, OCDM has approved about $346,000 under this program. From our re view of four applications, Federal share $20,532, we have concluded that most of the equipment, principally firearms, under these applications, approved by OCDM on the basis of civil defense need, was acquired and is being used for the normal needs of the applicants. Our review also showed some other basic deficiencies in management controls which permitted (1) about $1 million in nonlegal payments, (2) unnecessary or premature advances of millions of dollars in Federal funds, (3) improper payments because of insufficient documentation for claims paid, and (4) OCDM approvals of project applications, Federal share $188,407, for generators in hospitals financed by the Public Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare although such dual Federal participation was not legal. Further, OCDM does not perform comprehensive and continuing reviews at the State and local levels to determine whether applicants are complying with pertinent laws or OCDM policies, procedures, and requirements, and, as a result, information has not been available to management for the evaluation of the program procedures and performance to achieve effective administration of the program. SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM The surplus property program was initiated by OCDM under authority contained in Public Law 655, 84th Congress, approved July 3, 1956. The program was intended to provide a means by which States and their political subdivisions could obtain Federal surplus property for civil defense purposes. Since inception of the program in 1956 through September 1960, surplus property with an original acquisition cost to the Federal Government of about $150 million has been donated to States and their political subdivisions for civil defense purposes. The intent of the Congress in enacting the law was that surplus property would be donated to and used by public bodies for civil defense purposes only, with the exception of use during a natural disaster. OCDM has acknowledged this intent. Our review indicates that OCDM has placed little emphasis on administering this program and that management controls established by OCDM are not adequate to provide for operation of the program in accordance with the law. In its administration of the program, OCDM has not developed standards or criteria for use by its regional offices or by State civil defense offices to carry out assigned responsibilities in order to achieve some standard of program operation. Neither has OCDM made adequate program reviews at the regional, State, and donee levels to determine the effectiveness of program operations and compliance with law, policy, and procedures. Our review of about 1,000 donations of surplus property disclosed that the majority of property involved had been obtained for and was being used in normal governmental activities of the donees. Donees obtaining surplus property under the program are, for the most part, the usual operating departments of State and local governments such as police, fire, public works, and highway departments. Most of the surplus items acquired by these donees, on the basis of a civil defense need, are the same type which they ordinarily purchase for use in day-to-day operations. Our review showed that donees have used the program to acquire property which substituted for that which they would normally purchase. For example, the administrative manual of one State reviewed urged State agencies to obtain and use civil defense surplus property in normal operations. In one large city, a directive of the city controller instructed city departments to fill their normal procurement requirements through the program. Further, many local civil defense and other municipal officials have advised us that all surplus property obtained under this program on the basis of civil defense need was intended for use in normal operations. Civil defense property is meant to supplement other property, and its distribution is intended to have available more property for use in case of an enemy attack upon the United States. Both the civil defense property and the property ordinarily used in normal operations should be in existence in event of an enemy attack. If a political entity uses civil defense property in its normal operations, the civil defense property is not supplementary property at all; it is substitute property. Under OCDM regulations, donees are not required to have civil defense plans to be eligible to receive surplus property. Our review showed that many donees with no civil defense plans or only partially complete plans obtained property. For example, one county obtained surplus property with an original acquisition cost to the Federal Government of over $2 million without a complete civil defense plan. This program could have been a valuable tool in stimulating the preparation of local plans if such plans had been required as a basis for eligibility under the program. We noted instances of misuse of almost every type of property which we reviewed such as trucks, bulldozers, road graders, armored cars, boats, marine engines, helicopters and other aircraft, cranes, radar sets, diesel engines, revolvers, shotguns, tugboats, barges, snowplows, and forklift trucks. We also noted the misuse of many expendable items such as clothing, paint, wire, small tools, tarpaulins, and mosquito nets. SURVIVAL PROJECTS PROGRAM The survival projects program was initiated by OCDM under authority contained in the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended. The program was intended to provide a means for the States and political subdivisions to prepare operational survival plans for use in a civil defense emergency. These plans were designed to specify the required actions and the manner of carrying |