« PreviousContinue »
INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1965
MONDAY, MAY 11, 1964
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
OFFICE OF CIVIL DEFENSE
STATEMENT OF HON. CYRUS R. VANCE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN AILES, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY; WILLIAM P. DURKEE, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE; ROBERT E. YOUNG, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE; HUBERT A. SCHON, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE; MRS. JANE F. HANNA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE; JOHN W. MCCONNELL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANS AND OPERATIONS; TROY V. MCKINNEY, COMPTROLLER; ROBERT E. HOLT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT; WALMER E. STROPE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH; EDWARD S. JOHNSON, DEPUTY COMPTROLLER; FREDERIC E. STEVENSON, DIRECTOR, PROGRAMS DIVISION; AND CHARLES M. MANNING, GENERAL COUNSEL
ESTIMATES, 1965 AND APPROPRIATION, 1964 Senator MAGNUSON. All right.
The committee will come to order. We have today the Office of Civil Defense, Department of the Army.
We have the Deputy Secretary of Defense here today, Mr. Vance, and several of his associates in the Department of the Army.
For the purpose of the record, on operation and maintenance last year there was appropriated $70,319,000. The budget this year—the budget estimates which were sent up by the administration were $92,400,000, or a plus of $22,081,000.
For research, shelter survey, and marking, the amount last year was $41,250,000, but there is no budget estimate on that item this year; is
that correct? You drop down to the shelter research and development and there was no item under that heading this year. Mr. McKINNEY. That is correct.
Senator MAGNUson. And this year the estimate is $265,600,000, that is a new item under a new heading. The chairman got a little optimistic and we thought we would drop $41 million someplace.
All right, the Secretary has a short statement and we will be glad to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Mr. VANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have the opportunity to appear before your committee.
My purpose is briefly to underscore the importance of this program as an indispensable element of our national security. Secretary Ailes and Mr. Durkee will discuss the matters before you in more detail.
STUDIES IN CIVIL DEFENSE
Within the Defense Department, an assessment of the importance of civil defense and, in particular, of the fallout shelter program, rests upon detailed studies, the views of senior military officers, and the best judgment of Secretary McNamara and his advisers in this field. All point to civil defense as an essential ingredient of national defense. In both practical and human terms, all indicate the especial importance of a nationwide fallout shelter program. In my view, a civil defense program with emphasis on fallout shelters is essential because: It will save many millions of lives in the event of nuclear attack; It will demonstrate our national will to stand fast, recover from nuclear attack, and look to the future with optimistic determination; It will give us more flexibility in making future decisions as to weapons systems and strategy: It will, as Mr. McNamara has said, “contribute much more, dollar for dollar, to the saving of lives” than further increases in either our strategic retaliatory or continental air and missile defense forces; It will, in accomplishing all of the foregoing, strengthen our deter
The complementary relationship of the civil defense program to military measures seems apparent to me. It has repeatedly been emphasized by our senior military leaders.
General Wheeler, in testifying before the Senate, pointed out that:
The objectives of deterrence and of limiting damage on the United States are served by a combination of offenses and defenses— and identified civil defense as an element of our defenses, a conservator of lives, and so a “significant part of our national security effort.”
General LeMay has written that civil defense has the same objective as active defense operations; namely minimizing damage to our country and its people. Thus, he stated:
Civil defense is a vital element of our national deterrent posture and is another factor which must be carefully assessed by any potential enemy in calculating his chances of success. FALLOUT SHIELTER PROGRAM
But just as the relationship of civil defense to military defense measures is apparent, so, too, is it clear that a nationwide program for fallout shelters is important in its own right. It will stand on its own feet. No matter what else we do, fallout shelters would save lives and give us a human springboard to national recovery from nuclear attack. No matter what future decisions are made as to defensive systems, these shelters are needed.
With reference to future decisions as to defenses, perhaps one of the most significant questions to be answered is whether or not the NIKE-X ballistic missile defense system merits deployment. It is the view of our experts that such a system is closely related to the development of fallout shelters. Indeed, they question that ballistic missile defenses would serve any effective purpose if not coupled in timely fashion with fallout shelters.
Mr. McNamara, reflecting this widely held view, has said that an active defense— in the absence of adequate fallout shelters * * * might not significantly increase the proportion of the population surviving an “all-out” nuclear attack. Offensive missiles—
he pointed out— could easily be targeted at points outside the defended area and thereby achieve by fallout what otherwise would have to be achieved by blast and heat effects.
In short, it is essential to move forward with the program we are supporting today.
iderer Ment of Fallout shelter bill,
As you consider the budgetary request before you, I should like to mention two recent events which may have been misconstrued.
The first is the decision by the responsible Senate Armed Services Subcommittee to defer action on H.R. 8200, the administration's fallout shelter bill. This decision has been interpreted by some news sources as an abandonment of the fallout shelter program.
Senator Jackson has made it very clear that this is not the case. The deferral decision was based on several factors not directly related to the substance of the bill, and the committee suggests that further work be undertaken to enhance the national shelter capability within the authority of existing law. It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that the Department transmitted several budget revisions to you recently, reprograming some $72 million of the fiscal year 1965 budget request to purposes authorized under the basic Civil Defense Act. This should not be construed as an executive branch reduction in priority for new legislation of the type proposed in H.R. 8200. There has been no change in the administration's position that legislative authority should be enacted promptly to permit incorporation of fallout shelters in existing and new facilities of nonprofit institutions.
TRANSFER OF CIVIL DEFENSE TO ARMY The other event to which I referred is the recent transfer of the Office of Civil Defense to the Office of the Secretary of the Army. I have been distressed to read statements in the press to the effect that this move constituted a downgrading of civil defense. I want to state categorically that this is not so. Rather, this action constituted recognition of the progress already made and á belief that the program, now essentially operational, should be located in that office already having principal responsibility for coordinating military support of civil authority.
In sum, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this program is critical to the security of the people and the military defense of the Nation. Good progress has been made, but further progress is essential. I urge your support in this. (The statement of Mr. Ailes follows:)
STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN AILES, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Army has long had a particular interest in civil defense. We are responsible, as you know, for the development and, if there were a decision to deploy, for the operation of an active ballistic missile defense system. The Army is also responsible for the coordination of military support of civil defense. I would like to discuss these matters after I outline for you the manner in which I intend to administer my new responsibilities for the entire civil defense program.
The delegation of civil defense responsibilities from the Secretary of Defense is a personal one to me. Under the terms of this delegation, the Army staff has no responsibilities. I have redelegated my authority to Mr. William P. Durkee who has been designated the Director of the Office of Civil Defense, Department of the Army. He will report directly to me. The civilian nature of the leadership, supervision, and control are in no way changed by this action. The Office of Civil Defense is now a fully operational agency within the Defense Department. This being the case, Mr. McNamara decided to incorporate it within one of the operational military departments. The Army was the logical choice due to our already great interest in this field.
To assure that all matters involving civil defense are given priority attention and support, I have directed my top civilian staff to make available to the civil defense decisionmaking process all the talents available to the Department of the Army. However, civil defense remains a civilian responsibility in the same fashion as our authority over the Canal Zone and the Panama Canal Company is assigned to me as Secretary of the Army, and not to the Army staff.
We will deal with the problems of civil defense in relation to their place in our total defense posture. The same approach must be taken with respect to decisions to deploy any ballistic missile defense system. Secretary of Defense McNamara has defined this problem in his March posture briefing to the Appropriations Committees : "* * * the effectiveness of an active ballistic missile defense system in saving lives depends in large part upon the existence of an adequate civil defense system. Indeed, in the absence of adequate fallout shelters, an active defense might not significantly increase the proportion of the population surviving an 'all out' nuclear attack. Offensive missiles could easily be targeted at points outside the defended area and thereby achieve by fallout what otherwise would have to be achieved by blast and heat effects."
I need not repeat what Secretary Vance said about the justification for the program standing alone because of the millions of lives that a fallout shelter system would save in a nuclear attack. As I am sure most of you know, General Wheeler, Chief of Staff of the Army, strongly supports this program and the military justification for it. I would like to quote a paragraph from his presentation before the Armed Services Committees :
"Speaking both for myself as a professional soldier and for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a fallout protection oriented civil defense is clearly a necessary element of the total U.S. national security effort.” Later, he said, "To sum up, effective fallout protection of our population, both civilian and military, gives us