Immediately following the President's inaugural address, you recall his statement that it is not what the Nation can do for you but it is what you can do for the Nation, to paraphrase what he said.

Today the public are writing in and recognizing this problem, saying, "What do you want us to do?" And I think we have got to get this public information to them as rapidly as possible.

Mr. ROBACK. Congressman Kilgore made a point that is very serious and important.

Mr. ELLIS. Yes.

Mr. ROBACK. And it has to do with exhorting people to do things which they are unable to do, while the Government does not do its part or else asks the people to do the wrong things.

I ask you this question: Are you asking people to do the wrong things in building a basement shelter if, for example, they are in an area, as someone recently remarked, where the blast feature of an explosion would have them looking at the sky? The house would be blown away with the basement or the roof would be blown off, and the fallout protection would not do them any good; that is, the shelter would not do them any good? So the question then is, does it make sense, does it make sense, let me repeat, to ask people to do these things without asking them to do other things?

Mr. ELLIS. I think the chairman has made a point that there is certainly some blast protection in shelters which are constructed in basements, depending upon the degree of strength of that construction. It may have considerable blast protection and, furthermore, you cannot altogether take a target area and write off every home in it because of the inaccuracy of a possible ICBM attack, and other factors.

You, of course, assume all sorts of things, including a direct hit and, perhaps, that survival would be more or less impossible.

I think that we have got to go forward to build these things on the supposition that errors do creep in, conditions do arise where lives will be saved, and I think they will be.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. There are simple methods of providing overhead construction in a basement.

Mr. ELLIS. Absolutely.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. In addition to that which is normally there, just the very fact of placing sandbags over an aperture in the basement between the joints of the floor above and some type of supportMr. ELLIS. It makes a lot of difference.

Mr. HOLIFIELD (continuing). Is one of the simple ways to do it. That is, readily accessible dirt in sacks, and so forth; sandbags have been used for a long time by people in foxholes in a conventional war. Mr. ELLIS. All sorts of things.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And it just so happens that dirt has a shielding quality against radiation-I am not saying a high order of several thousand roentgens, but certainly on some types of radiation it has quite a shielding property.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from an engineer in Michigan written to you-probably you have been too busy to look at it which says, among other things, that basically the official shelter recommended by the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization in their bulletin MP-15 gives no weight whatever to the blast or fire hazard.

It says that they admit this shelter was designed for fallout for rural areas, and yet its major distribution is in cities:

As there is no alternative for proper city design, although they are so close to the target areas, they must give consideration to some blast or fire protection or else the public is being deluded.

He writes an article which is to be published in some publication dealing with that subject.

What do you think about that?

Mr. ELLIS. I do not think that a shelter was designed for blast, but if it happened that it was placed in an underground location and with concrete walls around it it would have blast protection, and if you wanted to put it up on top of the ground, why, then, of course, you do not have protection except for radioactive fallout.

I am not completely discounting the proposition of going forward in the future with discussion and with a study and, perhaps, some action in the area of blast protection.

To what extent it would be done is still a matter that we have been studying and working upon and giving lots of thought to.

Mr. ROBACK. The Department of Defense seems to have concerned itself, or to have persuaded itself, that a fallout shelter does not compete with, let us say, antimissile defense and other defense measures, whereas a blast shelter would. They would have to weigh the benefits of comparative returns from different outlays for, say, Nike-Zeus or blast protection. They did not want to touch blast protection, but fallout protection seems to be more palatable.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I objected yesterday to the use of the word "blast" without modification, and I also objected to the use of the word "radiation" without modification.

These are both elements which have to be considered, and can be considered from the standpoint of degree.

Mr. ELLIS. That is right, sir.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. No one is saying that a fallout shelter will provide any type of protection to persons near ground zero. To go into the field of 100 pounds per square inch or higher, as is done in our Vandenberg Missile Base and other missile bases to get higher protection is also ridiculous, because all of the people will not be subjected to that type of pressure any more than they will be subjected to 8,000 or 10,000 roentgens, as they would be in certain areas on a megaton blast.

Mr. ELLIS. Yes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. But you have got to look at this thing from the standpoint of the hazards to the majority of the people, and then give them that protection from the greatest hazard, which is radioactivity, lethal radioactivity, and in so doing you are going to automatically give them protection from some degrees of blast.

It will vary in different areas according to the type of structures they have, and the size of the weapon that is exploded.

So when we start talking about this subject, we should not use these rigid terms of "blast" and "radiation" without some intelligent modification as to degree.

NEAR HOME WARNING SYSTEM

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Ellis, can you tell the committee about the so-called NEAR system? Mr. Garmatz had a constituent making several inquiries in this field. They are in the business of producing black boxes that go into the house.

Would you describe briefly the components of this program and what are the problems, and I ask you to do that in light of the statement which I recall from Secretary McNamara that the Federal Government would pick up the tab for the generating costs.

Mr. ELLIS. Well, I do not specifically recall his statement, but I will either file this for the record-I will read it-it analyzes the system, it is only two and a half pages.

Mr. ROBACK. You do not have to read the technical description of the system; you can submit it for the record.

But let me ask you this: How long has this program, this development program, been operated?

Mr. ELLIS. It had its beginnings 2 years before, but it has been actually in full force of operation for the past year.

Mr. ROBACK. Well, Secretary McNamara says that "if an extensive system test in Michigan proves successful," and then he goes on. Now, when is this going to prove out?

Mr. ELLIS. We feel that it has already been completely proven. Mr. ROBACK. He is giving it a second check from the Department of Defense point of view, is that the idea?

Mr. ELLIS. Well, I do not know. Perhaps that has been done, but our pilot surveys in Michigan have proved that this is completely feasible, utilization of existing lines.

Mr. ROBACK. Your testimony is that from an experimental or pilot point of view, the study is finished?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBACK. All right.

Now, Mr. McNamara says that the receivers will be sold to the general public; Federal funds will be used to cover the cost of the signal generators.

Now, these generators, as I understand it, and I do not know much about the technical part, are installed in substations around the country, and on the basis of a certain kind of signal they would set in motion these particular home signals, which the householder gets in the form of a buzz from a black box, which may be painted white, but anyway, it is a small black box which he plugs in.

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir.

COSTS OF NEAR SYSTEM COMPONENTS

Mr. ROBACK. What is the dimension of the costs of installing these generators in substations throughout the country, for which Mr. McNamara says the Federal Government will pick up the tab? Mr. ELLIS. We have estimated that the cost of completing the NEAR system in Michigan would be about $2 million. Throughout the Nation it would be in the area of $50 million.

Mr. ROBACK. Area of $50 million?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes; upon the hypothesis, however, that they would be sold to the public for a cost of $5 or under, depending upon mass production prices.

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.

12:50

(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.)