Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

will be retained? After transfer, will the personnel be screened as to whether they are going to be retained?

Mr. ELLIS. As I read the Secretary's testimony

Mr. ROBACK. Yes.

Mr. ELLIS (continuing). Of yesterday, he expected to take over this complement of individuals, and had taken it over effective as of August 1, and gradually would weed out, I believe, the chairman referred to them as chair sitters or those incompetents whom he would consider were not able to handle the program adequately.

Mr. ROBACK. That would be on the basis of personal competency rather than on the need for the function?

Mr. ELLIS. Well, of course, the need of the function is there. You would have to substitute some other personnel in their place.

ADEQUACY OF CIVIL DEFENSE LEGISLATION

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Ellis, is it your responsibility or is it Mr. McNamara's responsibility to determine now the adequacy or inadequacy of legislation which supports the civil defense program?

Mr. ELLIS. Well, I would say that we, of both agencies, obviously, would have a right to make an interpretation, and I think the matter ultimately would find its way for determination into the Budget, the Bureau of the Budget, and would undoubtedly be decided at that level.

Mr. ROBACK. Has your agency given any consideration recently to the problem of the adequacy of legislation in the light of the President's program for civil defense?

Mr. ELLIS. Very much so.

Mr. ROBACK. Well, what have you concluded?

Mr. ELLIS. We hope to develop a series of incentive measures which would be submitted to the Congress.

In addition to that, I think the program on continuity of government should probably be changed to permit dual-usage construction, in order to permit more States to come into the picture, perhaps some escalation over and above the 50 percent which is permitted under existing law.

I just give you those as examples. But there are many others. Mr. ROBACK. Let us talk a few minutes about the shelter program which has been announced.

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir.

AUTHORITY TO BUILD GOVERNMENT-OWNED SHELTERS

Mr. ROBACK. There have been references to shelter construction. What does that mean? Who would do the building and does the law enable the Federal Government, for example, to, if it so decided, build shelters?

Mr. ELLIS. No, sir.

Mr. ROBACK. It does not?

Mr. ELLIS. No, sir. We have no funds for shelter construction.

Mr. ROBACK. So that if we were talking about shelter construction, it would be an aid-grant program!

Mr. ELLIS. At the present so far as underground control centers are concerned, the authority to build is there, and insofar as continuity of government program, there is authority for matching funds. But for the home fallout shelter there are no funds that can be made available for that.

Mr. ROBACK. You do not construe the authority to procure materials, to acquire facilities, as set out in Public Law 920, as amended, to include Federal construction of federally financed shelters?

Mr. ELLIS. We have the specific authority to go forward, as you know, with the prototype program under existing law. But our legal department has not construed that we have the right to use funds for the purpose of other fallout shelter construction.

Mr. ROBACK. Review this portion of your testimony and submit for the record a legal statement as to the authority of the Federal Government to construct shelters? Will you do that?

Mr. ELLIS. I think it is very important, I will be glad to do it. Mr. Kendall would be very happy-my legal counsel is hereMr. ROBACK. Can you enlarge on it?

Mr. ELLIS (continuing). To expand on it right now if you would like it, sir.

Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Roback, the difficulty has been in the availability of funds. The very section that you quoted a moment ago is broad enough, if funds were provided, for the Federal Government to build a shelter anywhere.

There are other difficulties with the statute. The share, for instance, of Federal participation in State activity is 50-50, as you know, and no money has been provided for that.

Mr. ROBACK. I am not asking, Mr. Kendall, about funds, and I am not asking questions about policy. I am asking a legal question: If the Federal Government, say the Corps of Engineers, decided that it was going to put shelters all over the country with Federal funds, what are the statutory limitations on that program?

Mr. KENDALL. There would be no statutory limitation on that program.

Mr. ROBACK. What about the inhibition on the acquisition of real estate?

Mr. KENDALL. There is that inhibition. We must secure congressional consent to taking fee title.

Mr. ROBACK. You will have to have congressional consent?

Mr. KENDALL. To taking fee title.

Mr. ROBACK. How would you get that?

Mr. KENDALL. The law does not provide how we would get it. I assume we would have to have a statute to get it.

Mr. ROBACK. In other words, the law at this stage of the game does not allow the Federal Government to procure real estate for the purpose of shelter construction; is that so?

Mr. KENDALL. That is correct; not without further action by the Congress.

Mr. ROBACK. But that limitation aside, it has authority to build shelters; is that your testimony?

Mr. KENDALL. That is correct.

Mr. ROBACK. Thank you.

Mr. Ellis, with regard to the discussion with the Chairman about the funding, you made a statement as to how this funding was going to be prosecuted in the future. Will you, when these determinations are made, if they will be made soon, submit for the record a statement about funding under the delegations program and under-in fact, the whole civil defense program?

(The following information subsequently was received:)

FUNDING FOR NON MILITARY DEFENSE

With the delegation by the President to the Secretary of Defense of major civil defense responsibilities, new procedures for the funding of nonmilitary defense functions will be adopted. They will be such, however, as to assure an executive budget which presents a nonmilitary defense program which is coordinated and balanced.

The Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization will, in the normal course of its activity in assisting the President in coordinating and reporting on the total program, be in close touch with the several Federal departments and agencies performing delegated functions. These contacts will be both individual and collective. In the latter category, the Civil and Defense Mobilization Board will be a particularly useful forum in arriving at a consensus on a balanced interagency approach. Thus there will be ample discussion to serve as a basis for the initial preparation of budget requests for nonmilitary defense functions.

In addition to discussions of initial agency budget preparation, additional opportunities for influencing the total budget will exist in the review process. As is the case with the Office of the Science Adviser on scientific programs, the Bureau of the Budget will look to OCDM for advice and counsel in the review of budget requests for nonmilitary defense programs. (It is worth noting that OCDM participated in the review of the civil defense items in the recent Department of Defense supplementary request.)

The total budget for the executive branch is, of course, the President's budget, and it is clearly intended that OCDM will, as a part of the Executive Office of the President, have an important voice in the preparation of those portions of the budget which are in support of nonmilitary defense programs.

Mr. ELLIS. We certainly will.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I might say this is a very important question.
Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir. We will treat it accordingly.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We have to look into this matter, and we have to find out if this is going to be left up to the administrators of agencies whose main mission is other than that of civil defense or whether it is going to be directed, a directed funding from the President.

Mr. ELLIS. Yes.

EMERGENCY FOOD SUPPLIES

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Ellis, there appeared in the Wall Street Journal issue of July 25 an extended article on "Food for War." It discussed the proposed distribution of surplus wheat to serve a civil defense purpose. There has been some criticism about this; there is also a critical editorial in the Wall Street Journal of July 31 called “Bread Amid the Ruins."

Now, can you enlighten the committee at this stage on what the wheat distribution plan is, whether decisions have been made, and if the decisions have been made, what will be done?

Mr. ELLIS. Well, in the area of food we met last week with the Under Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Murphy, and his staff.

We find that Agriculture has been doing a great deal of research on this program, and we discussed three areas.

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.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »