Prepare for survival; Whose responsibility is civil defense?

Mr I am Stone journalist and publisher of the independent weekly newsletter which bears his name. Well the civil defense people I don't have much I don't have much respect for them because for one thing the poor things are operating under the influence of a lot of Republican Party nonsense real nonsense the idea that a war in which fallout can can cover a whole continent can be handled by local and state governments and by people in their own backyards are kind of a do it yourself kit. It's just nonsense This is rugged individual ism taken to add to a nonsensical extreme. The idea. Of. Turning back to the states the job of protecting people against fallout against industrial atomic hazards the waste I think is nonsensical because while some of the states particularly in the West Minnesota especially have done an excellent job and certainly I am not at all against having the states and localities share

in the task of dealing with a wartime and peacetime hazards of atomic energy because the waste disposal problem is going to be the biggest nightmare humanity ever faced. If we don't blow the world up it's going to be a really awful headache. But this is a not only a national but a world problem. Requiring a great deal of expensive. Research and study. You can't put her in a back to the states and have to have Mississippi offering private atop private operators of nuclear reactors. Nice and easy standards as against the standard let's say of the north without endangering not only people in Mississippi but the whole country by this lack of sound administration and civil defense to once a citizen to build his own thing in his own backyard wants localities to do it. This is this is nonsense to apply McKinlay and McKinlay economic theories to the

problems of the 21st century. The National Association of educational broadcasters presents prepare for survival. All radio sounding board for facts some opinions on civil defense. I think that civil defense should be provided for civilians with the assistance of civilians but not putting the primary responsibility on the civilians. And I draw a parallel to this in the provision of our military defenses. Our military defenses are a constitutional consideration of the federal government. It's in our Constitution that the federal government is responsible for defending our people against the attack of an enemy nation. And when the attack transcends what we used to call the battlefield and goes into the backyard of the people then it is my opinion that the federal responsibility goes into the backyard of the people to protect them from enemy attack. And this is on this constitutional principle. I base my

argument that civil defense is a federal responsible military and not an individual responsibility. Oh no I think it must be a federal state or local government partnership. I think that's the most economical way of getting it. And it's the most efficient way. Let's let me give you an example. Let's take the governor of any state in most instances he has a fire marshal who is make expert fire. He works real closely with fire departments throughout his state. Well he's a good chlorinator Yes he's a good special staff officer for that purpose. Why not use it. You see he has that every day function case an emergency why not use him during that emergency. Here the conservation people throughout the state widely dispersed. They have a capability they can render a service and communications helping put out rural fires and doing many other things.

It's there have a capability of using it. Then you take your health service of a state government. Well it's the competent authority. It works very closely with a State Medical Association and all branches of health. They're the ones that can thoroughly court and they direct this medical to health program within the state. We say make the maximum use you see of all these agencies personnel and resources. But we say further give us the funds to help the state and local government strengthen the staff that's necessary for the governor and the mayor to have to coordinate all of these agencies to meet the emergency should arise. It's the soundest and the most efficient and economical way. It will give you the strongest civil practice that was Governor Leo a Hawick director of the Office of Civil and defense mobilization responding to

Representative Chad Hollyfield proposal that civil defense be made the responsibility of the federal government rather than a joint responsibility shared between the federal government and those of the states. This is the 11th program in the survival series and the first of three programs to point the way for the future of civil defense. The recordings were made separately in the offices of the speakers and are presented here with the consent of the speaker. In edited form and in the original subject context in 1950 the Congress passed the Civil Defense Act of 1950 which by law made the president responsible for the appointment of a federal civil defense administration that would provide the necessary direction coordination and guidance for the protection of life and property in the event of an enemy attack. Eight years later this Act was amended by a bill referred to as public law 85 days 6 0 6 which makes civil defense the mutual

responsibility of the federal government the state governments and the local state subdivisions. Now that is briefly the legal status of civil defense today. Now what this means practically is that the federal government has the job of it by using and aiding the individual state governments in providing civil defense programs for their citizens. The states have passed this responsibility down to the city governments and the city governments have established civil defense programs in which the execution of mass projects involving great expenditures of money on a large scale such as shelter building food and medicine stockpiling have been avoided by passing down this responsibility of the city governments to the individual citizens and those of the person who looks about him wondering why there are no bomb blast or fallout shelters for him. Has no one to hold responsible but himself. Yet the paradox is that many seem to feel that Washington and government should be doing something to provide

them with tangible Survival Project. Representative Chet Hollyfield congressman from California is chairman of the House Military Operations Subcommittee a congressional body which has held little publicized hearings on nuclear war and civil defense. German Hollyfield and committee member Representative Martha Griffiths of Michigan both Democrats advocate new legislation which would specifically make civil defense a responsibility of the federal government. Gov. Hoyer got Republicans defends the present administration's interpretation of existing civil defense laws and the adequacy of those laws. The legislation is needed to specifically authorize and appropriate money for this purpose just the same as we pass each year an appropriation an authorization bill for our military defense. This is the approach that we would take it to the ordinary legislative approach to any federal problem.

Can you outline some bills that you have proposed or other people have proposed. Well there's any number of bills before the Congress there's quite a number that are similar to my bill H.R. 2 1 2 5 which recognizes the fact that civil defense is a federal responsibility and authorizes the president to proceed with a program of national integrated defense measures including shelter. And then there are other bills before the Congress that would allow. Tax refunds for individual efforts and the are in my opinion not to be decried against necessarily but I just think that a tax amortization concession will not build shelters for the American people any more than it would build an army or an air force our Navy. The point of contention between Governor Hogan represented Apollo field between Republicans

and Democrats is whether civil defense should be provided to by civilians themselves or for civilians by the federal government. Republican who I guess followed here by Democrat Hollyfield. It's a combination of both. Government must be prepared to support people to help people serve people. Therefore the government must have the capability of doing that not only to die but in case of any emergency to die in case of a natural disaster. Government is prepared to serve a case of a manmade disaster it must have that same capability but in a nuclear war or in any of these others that I described previously it's most essential that the people have the capability of sustaining themselves initially because if there were a nuclear attack. You individually would be on your own initially. It's

just like a natural disaster when a hurricane sweeps or a tornado or cyclonic comes in you're on your own initially. You get warnings and things like that just like you would get in a nuclear attack. But you're on your own. Then after the blow is over then you expect government to come in and support to help you to serve. Same thing in a nuclear disaster nuclear war. Initially you'd be on your own. It will take a little while for the local government to pick itself up before it could come to serve you. Now you can see how important it is that people have their shelter and that it be properly stocked for a two week period of time so they can sustain themselves until the local the state the federal government can pick up themselves and support and serve people. Well civilians cannot handle this themselves any more than civilians can

handle the Army the Navy and the Air Force. Of course all these branches of the military service are composed of civilians and civilians furnish the taxes to operate the military forces. This same thing would occur in the case of civil defense. The citizens would be in this instance the financier Sears of the program through their taxes the same as they are in the military. They would have individual participation which they do not have except as members of the armed forces. They would have their duties to perform in a community which would be extra curricular do this to their regular civilian duties. They would have to be directed by intelligent directing forces. This might take the shape of their local police and firemen their local National Guard their reserve officers. It might even in an emergency time be the function of the army to come in and furnish the organized

directing force. For the period of the emergency all these things can be planned and integrated in advance where if you leave them to happenstance and to the emergency period then you're like a chicken with its head cut off. You are without a directing head you're without plans. And that's why we advocate in our report pre attack planning and integration of all of the directing forces and the instruction of the civilians and exactly what part they are to play in the post attack in the during the attack in the post attack period. And how do the local civil defense directors feel about the current local state federal government partnership. What are the requests of these local directors who are between the federal government policies and the people who depend on them for civil of them. Mr. Elliott Jackson of Atlanta Georgia Portland Oregon is Mr.

Jack Lowe and general Clyde oratory of Detroit Michigan. As far as we can see the best thing Congress can do is to make money available for the furtherance of several defense. This can be done by putting up matching funds for personnel for adequate staffing which commit many communities do not have through matching funds for equipment which communities could not otherwise afford and for training programs both for professional and lay people. Another thing Congress is made up of people and these people individually could give a lot of support to civil defense by doing the things with the National Civil Defense Office recommends for individuals and families to do is aid to national security people watch these leaders and are guided as to what members of Congress believe that what they do on any issue whether it is self-protection are spending money. I would say the nonmilitary defense of this country must be federally coordinated.

If not controlled and should be federally financed at least on a 50/50 basis with state and local governments. It should be pointed out that the federal government's present policy is that it will not build fallout shelters. Therefore the individual will have to provide for his own protection. In my opinion federal funds should be made available immediately to help a local administrative costs. Large cities maintain extensive civil defense programs employ a number of people and have several offices. Some cities are financially able to do their part while others do little or nothing. We think that federal financial assistance would correct this and civil defense could then be adequately developed on a uniform basis throughout the nation. Part of the federal government civil defense responsibility as an equal partner with the

states is to provide matching funds to pay for civil defense equipment and the salaries of local civil defense officials. That is every dollar a state is willing to spend would be matched by the federal government. At the time these interviews were taped. The independent offices Appropriations Committee had refused to grant the additional money to the Office of Civil and defense mobilization to pay state civil defense workers salaries on a matching basis. In July nine hundred sixty six million dollars were finally appropriated by Congress for this purpose. There are two possible reasons for the reluctance of Congress to match salaries. The first suggested on excelled authority from within the O.C. DMN itself is that the Office of Civil and defense mobilization would use the matching funds as a means of getting control of the local civil defense organizations. That's the federal government could refuse to pay its half of the salary of any local civil defense people who did not abide by

the federal dictates. Governor Hoyt responds to this suggestion. Well that is all that might be used by an opponent of this proposal. But let me point out there are some real safeguards in this law. One is that the civil defense staff would be for the first time under civil service or the merit system and that keeps politics out which I think is most important because this isnt a political matter. This is a not political and not biased program. This is one for protection of people. And so that is safeguard second father in answer to your specific point that we would dominate. Actually we would coordinate and I think it's important that that money is provided so that we get a court unaided effort. We want to be sure that if a state is supposed

to do certain things that they do to them that's not because I want it done but that's because for the good of the people within that jurisdiction it must be done. The second reason for the Congress's reluctance to grant adequate funds could be that the Congress didn't feel the expenditure to be justified on the present civil defense administration. Senator Young a Democrat from Ohio is one of the Senate's most vehement critics of the Republican administration's civil defense record. Well sometimes the political party of which I am a member is referred to as a party of the spenders. May I tell you that I have consistently voted for economy and economy and government like economy and individual means going without some of the things you would like to have but don't absolutely need. And in the present budget for several key things for the coming year 76 million dollars

62 percent nearly two thirds is just for salaries of these high salaried federal officials. Multiply that by many times because same. You have. In the state of Ohio paid civil defense officials. I think there's been some misunderstanding by Sun that these fines might be misappropriated in that they would not go for a good purpose. But let me point out to you matching funds isn't new. You see it's in the labor program it's in the health and the welfare program and it's been administered very carefully and very wisely for 15 20 years. It can be done here in this instance also. But I think it's most essential here because civil defense is a part of the total defense of this country and certainly the federal government should pay for part of that administrative expense in

order to generate this greater participation. I'm I feel quite confident that during this session of the Congress that they'll approve it. The president as you know has spoken out very strongly as a matter of fact he made a statement recently to the Senate when he urged Congress to give us these funds for the state and local government support that defense military defense would be meaningless and incomplete without civil preparedness home preparedness. Governor Hoyt again Representatives Hollyfield and Griffiths were asked by our producer if each thought that the reluctance of Congress to provide additional civil defense funds reflected a negative attitude to the current civil defense situations. No I do not I think it reflects more or less that a lot. They probably need and were giving it to them more information

as to the role of the state and the local governments. Now you must remember there are some people that honestly feel that they have no use for any matching funds. They're just against that as a principle. And it's difficult for us to point out that while our here civil defense is a part or part of the total defense it's a partner with the military. The military is financed totally by the federal government. Here's the civil defense which is that part as I mentioned of this total defense structure. It should be financed on a partnership arrangement 50/50 basis and I think they'll accept it. But it's been difficult for them to see that that difference there. I think that looking at the problem as a whole that piecemeal measures are wasteful particularly if they are

directed. Are misdirected you might say toward no plan of any consequence. You can go along for several years here wasting money and not achieve any more than we have achieved which is nothing in the way of defense for the people. However if you had a well thought out plan approved by the president and the Security Council and the chiefs of staff then money could be spent gradually toward the implementing of that plan. We have spent over five hundred million dollars for federal civil defense. Now we've got 6 billion dollars worth of agricultural food supplies in storage which is an unprotected storage. We have spent 31 billion dollars for our need to organization and for a third of of this total amount

or half of it at the most. We could have protected the lives of 45 or 50 million people that would be sacrificed in case of enemy attack. Yes you have to have legislation because you cannot expand the money that would be necessary without the legislation. It must have federal direction. You cannot expect the states to do anything. First they don't even understand what the problem is and they don't understand it because they have never really been told by the federal government what legislation would you use of the people's will when I have already proposed legislation. I have proposed a shelter system along with every other member Democrat or Republican of my subcommittee. What do you think the fate of your proposed legislation is going and nothing will happen unless we have a president who will back it.

What success have these bills have what about your bill and no success whatsoever. They all require of course budgetary amounts and the administration is completely antagonistic to the spending of any additional money. They have a fee dish for balancing the budget I often say that it would not do us any good to be the richest nation in the cemetery but the administration seems to put the balancing of the budget above the needs for defense of the people in the nuclear age. What is going to happen to us if we do not pass this legislation if we go on as we have been going. Well that depends upon what occurs in the world if they saw vs strike us when the surprise attack for instance of the type we had in our study last year we would lose 50 million people and another 20 million people would be injured.

If it was. A larger attack we would we might lose as much as two thirds of our of our total population or over a hundred million. On the other hand if we had spent as say 15 or 20 billion which is less than one Haigh of what we spend each year. And this would be a one time expense. We could in my opinion save 80 to 90 percent of our people's lives. Nuclear physicist Dr round the lap in addition to providing technical and scientific data for this series contributed his personal and political views on the subject of civil defense. Well I believe that Congressman Hall of California has done some magnificent work in getting. God hearings on the problem of civil defense he has two sets of hearings on civil defense. I really don't think he has to explore the problem any more in terms of getting any more technical data. I think he's done a very fine job in this

respect. I believe that from this point on it's a matter of Congress deciding to do something. I believe the technical aspects there are in pretty good shape are can be gotten in shape without too much trouble and that we could get ourselves into. It's really not a problem for an investigation it's a problem for the Appropriations Committee. Finally representative Hollyfield was asked if he thought that a Democratic Party administration would automatically provide a stronger federal civil defense program. Well of course I'm a Democrat and what I might say on this point might be considered partisan but I'll give you his honest and the answers I can on this. I honestly don't know what a Democratic administration would do. You see the hydrogen bomb was developed in the closing year of the Truman administration. The intercontinental ballistic missile has been developed during the Eisenhower administration as well as the minuter ization of the atomic hydrogen warhead. Therefore this threat of national

destruction has really come to fruition during the past seven years. I can only say this that the present administration has failed to face this just like they have failed to face the necessity of beating the Russians in the space race in the missile race. And I am hopeful and I would be hopeful that the Democratic Party. Leaders would recognize this mistake which the administration has made and that they would face this problem which is a real problem it isn't a fansub problem it's a problem that's grown in the last six or seven or eight years and it must be faced by some administration. I would be very hopeful that the new leadership under the Democratic administration would face up to the realities of the nuclear challenge from an idiology which is so antagonistic to ours and that they would take the steps necessary to protect the American citizens from destruction in the event of nuclear attack.

But number three. Prepare for survival is a radio sounding board for facts and opinions on civil defense written and produced by Richard chick and directed by Alan Murdock. Our next program. Where do we go from here. Recording editor Ed Ream. Music by Rowena Logan speaking prepared for survival is recorded by Wayne State University Radio in Detroit for the National Association of educational broadcasters under a grant from the National Educational Television and Radio Center. This is the end. The radio network.