health of the people and as such has interested the American Medical Association for many years. In its concern with the health and medical aspects of civil defense, the association has recognized, for a number of years, the urgent need for Federal leadership, direction, and coordination. The association believes that civil defense, like military defense, is an integral part of national defense which requires greater Federal responsibility and leadership. More specifically, the association is concerned with the status, in any Federal agency, of the office responsible for medical and health activities. The association is convinced that medical and health activities are one of the most, if not the most, important function in sustaining the will of the people to resist. In June 1954, the association's house of delegates adopted a resolution requesting the Administrator of the Federal Civil Defense Administration to reexamine the position of the Health Division and to elevate that Division to a status commensurate with its obligations and responsibilities. In principle, this was ultimately accomplished in the December 1957 reorganization of the Federal Civil Defense Administration with the creation of the position of Assistant Administrator, Health and Medical Affairs. In June 1956 the association's house of delegates approved the broad objective of strengthening the Federal civil defense program, but was of the opinion that the method of accomplishing this was a matter for determination by the Congress with the advice and assistance of the President and the State governments. In testimony before your subcomimttee on March 7, 1957, on H. R. 2125, 85th Congress, the association again emphasized that the medical and health functions of the civil defense program merit stature and prestige commensurate with the duties and responsibilities which must be assumed. Within the organization of the Office of Defense Mobilization there now is established a position of Assistant Director for Health and a civilian Health Resources Advisory Committee. The association believes that the health and medical functions of the Federal Civil Defense Administration and the Office of Defense Mobilization must be maintained at top level in the organization of the proposed Office of Defense and Civilian Mobilization for the good of our country and our people should our Nation ever again be confronted with another national emergency. The association is confident that the subcommittee, in furtherance of its serious efforts to strengthen the civil defense and mobilization program of our country, will give this matter of medical and health affairs the urgent and earnest attention which it merits. We would appreciate it if you would make this letter a part of your official record of the hearings. Sincerely yours, F. J. L. BLASINGAME, M. D., EXHIBIT F-STATEMENT OF COL. J. C. GAULT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OHIO VALLEY CIVIL DEFENSE AUTHORITY OHIO VALLEY CIVIL DEFENSE AUTHORITY, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 20, 1958. Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD, Congressman of United States, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I believe the time is now here when an entirely new concept pertaining to civil defense operations must be adopted. With the proposed merger of ODM and FCDA it becomes even more imperative that we take another look at the direction we have come so far and decide what road we must take for the future. One must admit that (a) The methods thus far adopted to operate civil defense at State and local levels has not been the best, to say the least. (b) That no matter what you pinpoint as the greatest need in civil defense for emergency purposes, one must admit that time prior to an actual emergency and what you do to prepare yourself for an emergency, is the key to how much of an impact civil defense can and will make during an emergency. The ingredients, such as shelters, evacuation, or a hundred other needs, after all, are ingredients or tools to make civil defense a living program. The people and methods who must use the tools must come first, if these tools are not to be wasted when and if they are provided. I am particularly concerned with the method of local organization and eventual operation of civil defense which has not proved feasible. Definitely, this is true in the case of target cities. The local city and county administration have not, nor do they hold any promise that they will adopt interest or provide even matching funds (H. R. 7576) to carry out the necessary civil defense requirements. There are many reasons for this but the key reason is enough to convince anyone who is acquainted with local problems to realize the truth of this statement. Modern weapons have knocked into a cocked hat the old idea of one city or one county civil defense. In fact, not only has it become a job of multiple counties, but in a great many cases multiple State target-area planning and operations. We are then at a point where we are in the midst of the present struggle of metropolitan government for everyday functions. By accident or whatever you call it, we find ourselves a part of the struggle. Given time, these questions will resolve themselves as they must be. However, civil defense cannot afford the luxury of time nor the political embroilment it must face as part of the overall metropolitan government struggle. Then, too, there is the fact that (a) Somehow civil defense must be built. (b) That it cannot be built with any great fanfare which places our National Government in the peculiar position of seeking peace and disarmament on the one hand, yet openly preparing itself to expect a world war III rather than preparing civil defense as a deterrent toward war on the other hand. How, then, is the best way to accomplish these many facets of the civil defense problem? It is my belief and contention that we must utilize the past experiences where such similar matters have been handled by agencies of the National Government. The best illustration is the methods adopted by the utilization of the National Guard. There are other agencies that have had similar problems. However, this is what I envision should be done : Let us assume that (a) Either the proposed merger will be affected or; (b) That some method will be found to eventually create a separate agency as proposed in your bill. In either case there should be created at field level (the 48 States and Territories) 72 Federal field offices (the 72 critical target areas). Under civil service, based on a standard organization, utilize the proposed regional organizations (7 now, 10 proposed). Each target-area office should operate in conjunction with, and guidance of, a State civil defense office for organizational and operations purpose, but responsible to the region concerned. This can be done exactly as you operate the National Guard in peacetime and federalized under wartime emergencies. Where you have a State adjutant to operate the State guard, who is federally recognized, you operate civil defense offices and units under a federally recognized State director who is responsible to the Governor of the State. The local director should be federally recognized by a national agency with the consent of the State, just as a regimental commander of the guard is recognized Federally. Both are paid by the Federal Government; both can be equipped by the Federal Government. The only difference is: one is military, the other nonmilitary. Just as the local guard commander must recruit from the local population, and work with local government, so the local director will recruit, integrate on a cooperative basis, Federal, State, and local agencies into a workable plan. In the long run the cost will be cheaper and the problem of civil defense taken out of the hands of every "do-gooder" coming down the pike. You immediately professionalize the job of civil defense and give it the dignity it should and must have. More important, instead of 3,000 different plans you can begin to standardize civil defense organizations and operations on a national scale without infringing on the right of the State or local government. You will be in a position to help them rather than harass them. You will take civil defense out of politics and instead of being a beggar it can become an organization with dignity just as any other Federal field agency at the local level is today. The FBI and several other departments of Government who must work and cooperate with local government are good examples. It is fully realized that such a plan may have a number of pitfalls and may have to be worked out in some details. The idea has considerable merit and should be thoroughly gone into. If we can do this with an open mind, without personal consideration, and think of only what is best for the country, then we can find the proper answers to this problem. We must have this new approach and we must have it now, providing this type of Federal assistance will carry out the intent of the partnership principle of H. R. 7576 and carry it beyond to your idea that civil defense is a problem of the National Government just as military defense is a national problem. In sending this proposal to you, I ask that it be made a matter of record of the present proceedings of your committee. Sincerely yours, J. C. GAULT, Executive Director. EXHIBIT G-LETTER OF HERBERT S. GREENWALD, SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JACOB K. JAVITS OF NEW YORK Mr. HERBERT ROBACK, UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Staff Administrator, Committee on Military Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ROBACK: In connection with the recent hearings held by the Committee on Military Operations concerning civil defense shelter requirements, I would like to submit for your consideration a copy of a letter to me from Herbert S. Greenwald which makes a very interesting point about the need for the incorporation of a shelter program in the title I housing program. If it is feasible at this point, I would very much appreciate it if this letter were made a part of the record of the hearings. Sincerely, JACOB K. JAVITS. MAY 12, 1958. Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: Thank you for offering to bring this letter and its subject matter to the attention of the proper committees of Congress. It is my understanding that the Government Operations Committee of the House of Representatives is exploring the nature of the civil defense shelter requirements and the scope of practical, possible solutions. The point of departure for my letter is the assumption that some sort of shelter construction program is needed and, as a practical matter, can be undertaken. My associates and I, along with other groups, are engaged in carrying out or have under construction various title I FHA urban rehabilitation projects in various major cities. By coincidence, all major cities have become important potential targets for enemy atomic attack. Irrespective of whether actual attack is to occur, it would appear necessary to provide our citizens residing in major cities with the belief that, in event of hostilities, they have at least minimal chance of survival. Otherwise, in time, it will probably be impossible to command the necessary political support from the electorate for a strong foreign policy and the military and foreign aid programs relating to such a policy. I am reliably informed that technical solutions to the defense shelter problem are in a state of flux owing to changes in the nature of possible attack with its resultant effect on the time that prudence and conditions dictate be allowed for advance warning to the civilian population. Assuming that time for advance warning is confined to 15 to 30 minutes, then it seems mandatory that the shelter be incorporated in the structures where the populace lives and works. Additionally, I am assuming that the Congress will probably conclude that protection against impact and the direct blast effect is financially impractical and that, consequently, shelter may be confined to protection against fallout and incidental damage from radioactive sources during a 30- to 60-day period when plans for mass evacuation from the exposed area might be implemented. Another valid assumption seems to be that it is impractical to contemplate that the office and residence structures in our major cities will be reconstructed in their entirety to meet the defense shelter problem and, as a result, the problem will be dealt with piecemeal in the general course of new construction. On the basis of the above assumption, I recommend that the Congress consider enacting amendments to existing FHA and other appropriate legislation to provide for federally financed incentives to permit and pay for the costs of including such adequate civil defense shelter facilities as may meet minimum technical requirements to be established by designated appropriate executive departments or agencies. The title I urban rehabilitation program is gathering momentum and any delay in reaching decisions as to how to provide for the defense shelter requirements means the the passing up of additional opportunities for meeting defense shelter needs in the new building sponsored by the FHA title I program. Consequently, I believe action should be taken before the adjournment of Congress. Kindly feel free to call upon me directly or through my counsel, Mr. William R. Burt (whose office is in the Barr Building in Washington, D. C.) for any assistance that I may provide to you or to the appropriate committee of Congress in this matter. |