Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes. But today is August 1, and as of today the Office of Civil Defense in the Department is the assigned agency. Mr. ROBACK. If I understand what you say, then, that regulation which I referred to will have to be revised?

Secretary MCNAMARA. The Army will continue to carry out the functions that it had previously assigned to it. But the functions assigned to the Department today are much broader than those functions assigned to the Army. The additional functions are assigned to the office that I have mentioned previously.

USE OF MILITARY RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL

Mr. ROBACK. Now, this regulation, Mr. Secretary, spells out in rather careful detail certain premises or conditions of military operation. And among those is one that there will be no predesignation of forces, there will be no predesignation of resources, for civil defense purposes; that if and when such resources or personnel are used, they will be used by the decision of local military commanders after an emergency, or in some special cases by higher headquarters' decision,. but at this stage of the game you do not have any resources earmarked for civil defense purposes, and you preclude their earmarking.

Then the question is, What does it mean for you to say that the civil defense function will not impinge on or compete with the military function?

Does it mean, for example, that you will add the warehousing resources, that you will add the functionaries in the civil defense field?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No, I think that again it means just exactly what it says. The military units are primarily for military purposes. We will not reduce their effectiveness as military units in order to take advantage of any expertise they may have that might be usable by the civil defense office.

We will, however, utilize the military personnel when they can be used without diluting their military effectiveness.

I cited two illustrations of that use, specifically the use of the Corps of Engineers and the use of the Navy's Office of the Bureau of Yards and Docks in conjunction with the fallout shelter program.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Secretary, the military departments have been used by the FCDA for many years to do contracting work for them, not entirely, but for certain medical supplies, for example; so in itself the paperwork that has to do with contracting is no innovation in military departments which, as you know, perform many services for many Federal agencies in the contracting field.

Secretary MCNAMARA. It is an innovation to utilize the Corps of Engineers and the Navy's Bureau of Yards and Docks in conjunction with the fallout program. I think it is a very important innovation, and it is fundamental to the effectiveness of the program we are proposing to Congress. It is an innovation that we have suggested, and it is one, I believe, that the country will benefit from.

Mr. ROBACK. As far as the use of resources are concerned, as far as the use of forces is concerned, you have not at this time made any change in what the policy has been over the years?

Secretary MCNAMARA. We have not. And I certainly would not recommend under any circumstances that we dilute the effectiveness of our military units by assigning to them civil defense functions.

General LEMNITZER. The regulation to which you referred was part of an effort to place added emphasis on the support-and I emphasize the word "support"-that the Army could give to civil defense authorities without interfering with essential military mission. It was also an effort to compile in a concise document all the data which was available and required by commanders for their planning. There were no major changes in policy involved in the preparation of that regulation.

It did place added emphasis upon the Army's civil defense support role. It emphasized that that role of the Army was a support role rather than a substitute for its combatant role.

FUNCTIONS OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

Mr. ROBACK. What are the functions of the Joint Chiefs now in relation to civil defense?

Secretary MCNAMARA. They have no responsibility—no greater responsibility in relation to civil defense under the new organization than they did previously.

General LEMNITZER. And I might point out what those are. The Joint Chiefs do have responsibilities in issuing civil defense and defense mobilization instructions to the commanders of the Unified Command.

Mr. ROBACK. And you have a responsibility as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to weigh the strategic potentials of civil defense, and recommend that the resources available for this purpose be larger or smaller in the Department of Defense?

General LEMNITZER. No, we have not up to the present time, and I do not anticipate any change in that regard.

Mr. ROBACK. It will be a matter of the Joint Chiefs' consideration whether there will be predesignations of materials or men for civil defense purposes?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes, definitely so. If we were to designate, under an unlikely circumstance, a particular Army division as having primarily a civil defense function, such predesignation would not take place without review and counsel and advice from the Joint Chiefs.

DIFFERENCE OF DOD SURVEY FROM OCDM SURVEY PLANS

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Secretary, you have earmarked the larger part of your civil defense budget for these surveys. So that the committee can understand clearly what the civil defense program assigned to you is, may I ask you to advise the committee in what respect this program is different from the program that was outlined to the committee by the preceding OCDM Director? The summary of that program is contained on page 6 of our latest report issued in 1960, which says that the essentials are these: They will inform the American people about the prospects of a thermonuclear attack, survey existing structures for their fallout potentials, accelerate research on incorporating shelters in existing and new structures, construct a limited number of prototype shelters, and provide leadership and example, by incorporating shelters in new Federal buildings.

Now, in what respect, other than the question of getting funds, is this a new program or a different program?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I am not completely familiar with all of the programs previously discussed with this committee, but I know of no program that proposed, not only the survey of shelters but the survey identification, marking and equipping of shelters sufficient to provide protection to 45 to 50 million Americans; with the probability that 15 million of those will be saved from destruction at a cost of $4 per shelter space, a total cost approximating $200 million.

It would be extremely unlikely that any such program had been presented in detail to the committee, because to the best of my knowledge this program was developed under my direction in the Department of Defense.

INFORMATION AND EDUCATION ON CIVIL DEFENSE

Mrs. GRIFFITHS (now presiding). Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you a question.

How are you going to disseminate this information as to the shelter system or any other program that you originate?

Secretary MCNAMARA. It must, of course, be disseminated through the State and local authorities.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Secretary, we have been working on this program for a long time, and at the end of 2 years of extensive hearings there is not a single head of civil defense in a single State that I know of that even understood what the bomb would do. Now, if you are willing to teach people what the problem is, you are going to have to proceed in some other system than just telling people within civil defense. I would be quite interested in seeing you set up a nationwide television broadcast, which I think would be the cheapest thing you could do, to explain the problem exactly.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Our first effort, of course, would be to organize the approach to identify these shelters, to organize the procurement of the supplies and actually carry out the program we have outlined.

We have set out a time schedule for its accomplishment. The need is great. We propose to move as expeditiously as we can toward accomplishment of that program. And it will take all of our effort and all of our energies in the near term future to accomplish it. After that, we will proceed to develop a program, acquaint the public with the other aspects of civil defense. It will require efforts of the type you have mentioned.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. We have a quorum call.

Do you have a question?

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Just one question.

Mr. Secretary, you probably know this. There have been millions of pieces of literature printed under the civil defense program, and it has been disseminated throughout the United States of America. And yet in conversation with most of our people they do not understand any portion of our program of civil defense, and how it is to be carried out. And I just cannot understand, and I want to support my Chairman's position here in respect to this program of education. I think something has got to be done to alert the American people as to what they can do for themselves and what the Department of Defense intends to do when they assume this new responsibility, because if we just go through the motions as we have gone in

the past it is not going to be an effective program, I don't care how sincere we may be about it. And one of the reasons why I have been hopeful that we would get greater attention if it were transferred to the Department of Defense was that it would have this impact upon the thinking of the American people, that it was an arm of our defense program, and an important one.

T

This is my hope. And without an educational program I just cannot conceive of it being very effective.

VALUE OF SHELTERS IN THE CENTERS OF CITIES

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. I would like to say further, Mr. Secretary, in regard to this shelter program, that while I wish you all possible success, if a bomb hit at night, the District that I represent-with which you are quite well acquainted, I am sure the people would be from 8 to 15 miles from a shelter, any kind of a shelter. There is not one building in my district that in my opinion would be an adequate shelter. And I have listened for a long time to these programs. And I doubt if you could get those people back down into a shelter, or if anybody in his right mind at the time of the alarm would be willing to try for the interior of Detroit. So I think the shelter marking program, while it might have some real advantages, in the long run can be both an illusion and a snare if you think that you are going to save anybody with it.

Secretary MCNAMARA. This is a rather important point. We are presenting to the Congress a request for $200 million, $207 million. I wouldn't wish this committee to believe that we would present such a request to Congress if we felt that the program would not be effective.

In developing this program we have had available to assist us the citizens in the country who have specialized in the shelter studies and shelter surveys. There have been several men from the Stanford Research Institute, which has done much work in this field.

I am sure that the estimates we have included in our paper in support of our program are correct. There is every reason to believe that the program will save 10 to 15 million lives in the event of an attack. The problems that you mentioned as they relate to Detroit are difficult. We have taken an account of those when we made this estimate.

I have been encouraged to believe that the saving of life will exceed the figures we have indicated. I don't wish to overstate them. And we, therefore, indicated the potential saving at 10 to 15 million lives.

In the particular case of Detroit, there are churches, there are schools, there are other public buildings, I can think of two or three office buildings on the periphery of the city, and there are a number of other areas that I believe we can identify and indicate as shelters and stock as shelters.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Thank you very much.

We have a quorum call, and we are going to have to go.

Did you have a question?

Mr. MORSE. I have one question, if I may.

I would just like to support the statement of Mr. Riehlman on the educational aspects of this. This is the big deterrent, it seems to me, of an effective civil defense program. Within the last 2

months this Congress, firmly in the grip of the President's party, deleted from the independent offices appropriations bill funds for fallout shelters in the Veterans' Administration hospitals. I think your educational efforts must be direct to the public at large, or else they must be directed to the Congress.

Secretary MCNAMARA. That is why I wish to emphasize the great benefit that this program will bring to the Nation. I don't represent it as the solution to the fallout problem by any means, but it is a tremendous step forward. We need the funds and we know you support our request.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. If worst comes to worst, I suggest you give those thousand employees a pick and a shovel and let them construct them. I wish to thank you on behalf of the subcommittee for appearing. The subcommittee is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, August 2, 1961.)