Colonel SHEETS. Yes.

Mr. FASCELL. But you don't say that in your statement, do you? Colonel SHEETS. No; I may not say it. But here is something here

Mr. FASCELL. Let's take another item; then you can go ahead and elaborate on it.

Do you mean joint responsibility with respect to preparing a flat plan?

Colonel SHEETS. I don't believe that you can pass legislation, civildefense legislation-this bill without it being made effective by a national plan.

Mr. FASCELL. I got that from your statement.

Colonel SHEETS. You must have a national plan to put it into effect. Many of the things that you are going to legislate in this bill must become effective or applied through the national plan.

Otherwise I think the bill might have to be a hundred times as many pages as it has.

Mr. FASCELL. Agreed.

Colonel SHEETS. How much money or whether there will be any Federal money made available and all those sort of things I don't know enough about legislation to say that it should be referred to in here or included in here, I don't know.

Mr. FASCELL. I understand that. We don't refer to it here. This is only authorizing legislation.

Colonel SHEETS. Yes.

Mr. FASCELL. But getting away from that back to the question of responsibility whether it should be primary or joint, when we talk about a national plan, is it your concept from what I read in your statement that the national plan would be the joint responsibility of the States and the Federal government?

Colonel SHEETS. No, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. In other words, then, you are thinking that the national plan would be the responsibility primarily of the Federal Government?

Colonel SHEETS. Entirely so.

Mr. FASCELL. Right.

So what you are talking about then, as I understand it, is not the legal definition of joint and primary responsibility, since the two major things, the provision for funds, the preparation of the national plan would be the primary responsibility of the Federal Government? Colonel SHEETS. Entirely so.

Mr. FASCELL. You envision the States in the normal structure of command would be included and would have the responsibility of implementing these things?

Colonel SHEETS. You have expressed it so much better than I have,

yes, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. Since you and I have agreed as to how it would work, don't you feel that if we provide joint responsibility in the bill it could be interpreted as meaning the direct or primary responsibility should be divided and actually destroy what you and I are trying to achieve. Shouldn't we be very careful about this and wouldn't it be better perhaps to say that the Federal Government shall have the primary responsibility for these things?

Colonel SHEETS. Yes.

Mr. FASCELL. Further, we should state as clearly as it is humanly possible to do in the legislation that the States also have their responsibility but it is in an entirely different category that they have it? Colonel SHEETS. Yes, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. Because if we make joint responsibility the basis of the legislation we start out with two heads and I don't think that was your thinking at all?

Colonel SHEETS. And if you will see that I put that word "joint," which I would like very much to erase because now it is apparent that shouldn't be in there. In it I included it in parenthesis and thought it would be explanatory. What I have done is explain myself out of what I was thinking about.

Mr. FASCELL. Your idea of supplementary and complementary to an existing responsibility I can readily understand that.

Colonel SHEETS. Yes; if the word "joint" were out of there I think I could be understood.

Mr. FASCELL. Any other questions?

Mr. RIEHLMAN. I thought I wouldn't have any questions but seeing that the colonel is president of the National Association of State Directors, could you tell us very briefly and quickly what your association's attitude is toward our present civil-defense situation?

What is your feeling toward what we have today in the United States of America in civil defense? Not dealing with this legislation. Colonel SHEETS. I believe it is the consensus of all State and Territorial directors that within the last 2 years from the Federal level down to the local level that there has been a great advancement in civil defense.

That we have become certainly within the States more operational and that the Federal Civil Defense Administration and the other departments of Government are doing a much better job than ever before.

Within the last 6 or 8 months I believe every Federal department representative in the State of Oregon has been in my control center firming up their individual plans to operational plans, to do two things, relocate out of the assumed target area and rendering assistance or becoming part of our organization.

The invoking and the operations of Public Law 875, I believe, is one of the best things that the Federal Government has ever done toward meeting natural disasters.

I was asked to comment in writing by the Administrator of the Civil Defense Agency as to the operations of Public Law 875, and how I would change it.

In December 1955 and 4 months out of the first 6 months of 1956 we had 18 counties involved in major natural disasters and in 2 instances Public Law 875 was invoked and it was invoked again last Friday in the State, that is the third time. I had so much confidence in its efficient functioning that I continued on this trip rather than to go back to Portland or Oregon rather than to get excited and make certain that it would work.

Because I know it will work.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. I will agree with you on your local disasters that probably you have a very effective operating organization set up. However, the thing that disturbs me is that on the national level in respect to the program of the survival of our people and that is

exactly what that program is set up for, do you feel that we have anything adequate today to protect our people in this program?

Colonel SHEETS. Yes; I can't give you an answer relatively, but I think that we are operational in a great many things and that we are capable of doing a great many things that we weren't a year

ago.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. That probably is true. But isn't it true also that in most of these programs that we have set up-I think, in the testimony that we have had in the last 7 or 8 months would prove it-none of them have been very operational?

They have been plans on paper but no one has been able to test them or try them out to know whether they would be effective?

I am interested in your statement about the city of Portland. How you evacuate. The next thing is what you are going to do with them after you evacuate them?

I don't know of a city or a county that we have had testimony from where they actually had facilities available to take care of the people even though you start to evacuate them.

And if you could get them evacuated would they have the supplies, food and other essentials to keep them?

Colonel SHEETS. There is such a thing as becoming too enthusiastic over your daily job and I want to be careful not to make an overstatement but I believe in my State in Oregon that 25 out of the 36 counties, 32 of them are going to receive evacuees, will tell you that they have their emergency lodging surveys completed entirely or more than 50 percent and that doesn't mean just to house them, it means taking care of them for say a 10-day period.

What happens after that 10-day period, the logistic support is going to be something that we know very little about. We don't know whether food will be completely destroyed and nonusable for a certain period.

We don't know if they have missed the Portland critical target area, 25 percent of our food is in that area of the State.

In fact we have had an estimate of 40 percent of our food being in the Portland area. If it is and an attack is there, we have lost 40 percent. But our food people have made numerous surveys and they are the people who are normally engaged in that business, that we have eight and a half days of food supply in Oregon and that if we lose the city of Portland, that is if it is a saturation attack and it includes the entire city of Portland that we will lose 40 percent of our eight and a half days supply.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Let us ask you this other quick question. As president of this association, would you venture a guess how many other States out of the 48 would have the same program as you have and as effective as you outline it to us here?

Colonel SHEETS. I have to face these people next month in a conference, and if I make an understatement

Mr. RIEHLMAN. I don't want to pin you down.

Colonel SHEETS. I'll be in trouble. I would say that three Western States certainly have them, good plans.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. What States?

Colonel SHEETS. California, Oregon, and Washington.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. The State of California has changed the title of its act to the State Disaster Act. They have even taken the name

civil defense off the act. I can speak for Los Angeles County, they have proven in recent floods that they have an excellent disaster group. Colonel SHEETS. I would say you might say the State in which there are critical target areas are very well organized and so I would say that about half of the States are well organized.

I don't think half the States are as well organized as 10 percent of them are. But relatively they are well organized.

Mr. FASCELL. Colonel, believe me as far as I am concerned, you certainly haven't understated your evaluation. So I think you are safe at your conference.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I just want to say that I think the colonel, in telling us what they are going to do in Oregon, has made a good statement but it just occurs to me, Colonel, that throughout the Nation we are operating on what is literally a horse and buggy assumption, actually. We have to bring ourselves up to date. You have to know new assumptions on time and what radiological fallout is going to do to you and all the rest because it occurs to me that evacuating the people 30 to 60 miles out of the city of Portland just isn't going to be enough. Colonel SHEETS. It isn't.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You should be told and your organization should be told the up to date assumptions that you should be working under. I just believe that that would probably revise many kinds of thinking that you were discussing today. I have heard of your operation up there. I know it is good.

Mr. FASCELL. Colonel, the committee appreciates your coming down and bringing us the consensus of the National Association of Civil Defense Directors and we also appreciate your interjecting your own thoughts and comments on your concepts as well as the work which you have done in Oregon.

Thank you very much for coming down and being with us today. The next meeting of the committee will be tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock at which time we will hear testimony from the Civil Defense Research Associates and they will bring for us 4 or 5 representatives before the committee.

Until then the committee is adjourned.

(Whereupon at 12 o'clock the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m. Wednesday, March 6, 1957.)

NEW CIVIL DEFENSE LEGISLATION

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1957

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY OPERATIONS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a. m., in room 1501, New House Office Building, Hon. Chet Holifield (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Holifield (presiding), Fascell, Riehlman, Lipscomb, and Griffiths.

Also present: Herbert Roback, staff director; Robert J. McElroy, investigator; and Carey Brewer, senior defense specialist.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The subcommittee will be in order. This morning we have before us witnesses from the Civil Defense Research Associates. Mr. S. A. Anthony, I believe, will introduce the witnesses in the order which they have selected for their appearance. Mr. Anthony, will you please come forward?

Mr. ANTHONY. I have a prepared statement here, part of which I think might be entered for the record, sir, in order to save you time. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Time is precious with this committee. So we appreciate that.

STATEMENT OF S. A. ANTHONY, PRESIDENT, CIVIL DEFENSE

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

Mr. ANTHONY. My name is S. A. Anthony. I am president of the Civil Defense Research Associates.

Mr. Holifield and members of the committee, CDRA appreciates this opportunity to appear before you again to speak on behalf of what we believe to be one of the most vital problems this Nation faces.

The effective nonmilitary mobilization program of the United States to cope with emergencies in peace and war is something requiring the serious consideration of our Congress and all those responsible for sustaining the economy of the Nation in times of stress. While we have approached this program over a period of years, testimony developed by your committee during its 1955 hearings has amply justified the fears on our part that it has not been enough.

Adequate legislation and legislative surveillance are important and imperative at this time in order to provide the means for maintaining our American way of life no matter what emergency of catastrophic proportions we may face.

335