FUTURE DISASTERS Prior to 1966, when the first comprehensive disaster relief act was enacted, disaster laws were largely the result of Congressional response to a particular major disaster. Today we realize the need to plan for future disasters. DISASTER PREVENTION Part of planning for future disasters is prevention of future disasters. Last year the administration undertook a commendable initiative labeled "operation foresight." Temporary flood control measures were taken in the upper Midwestern States which demonstrated that by an expenditure of $20 million of prevention, it was possible to save $200 million in damages. In California alone, it is estimated that the $0.9 billion spent for flood control projects in that State saved $1.6 billion in public and private damage. It is estimated that because of the absence of engineered flood control works costing $250 million in New Orleans and Plaquemines Parish, 100,000 lives would have been lost and there would have been approximately $2 billion in property damage if Camille had struck 35 miles westward. The extension of the Federal Government's authority to assist state and local governments in disaster prevention and damage reduction will provide direct savings to both the public and private sectors. STATE PLANNING In our hearings, it was evident that there was wide variance among the States on the quality of procedures devised for response to natural disasters. As part of an effort to plan for future disasters, the Disaster Relief Act of 1969 authorized one-time matching grants to encourage States to formulae contingency disaster plans. While there has been a substantial response by the States, their plans must be continuously reviewed and updated. The President's request for additional authorization for matching grants recognizes this fact. REVENUE MAINTENANCE One of the most severe problems in the areas hit by Camille was the loss of property tax base and widespread destruction of essential services. We heard numerous representatives of city and county governments testify that, unless they received financial assistance from the State or Federal Government, they would be unable to meet fixed obligations and restore public services. In such cases, the State also suffered sales tax and income tax losses and, therefore, had diminished capability to assist local government. The President's proposals for a property tax revenue maintenance plan to provide loans to local governments at favorable interest rates would assist in the provision of necessary funds. PERMANENT REPAIRS The rebuilding of a community struck by a natural disaster is often a slow and demanding process. When public facilities have been damaged or destroyed, it is even more difficult. One of the recurring difficulties in past disaster relief efforts has been the strict interpretation by GAO of the existing law providing for emergency repairs and temporary replacement of damaged public facilities. Such a limited Federal contribution discourages the improvement or replacement of facilities. Rather than building a better bridge, the community finds itself bound to the old structure, or even worse, due to cost fluctuation. The administration's liberalization of this provision should allow the community not only to rebuild but to improve and upgrade its facilities. LONG-RANGE RECOVERY With a disaster, there is also an opportunity to rebuild a better community and provide greater opportunity for all of its citizens. The one agency in our Government that was created to assist in long-range economic planning is the Economic Development Administration. The President has requested legislation to broaden the responsibilities of that agency and make its staff and financial resources available for long-range rebuilding and redevelopment in major disaster areas. HOUSING Central to any disaster relief program must be the assistance available to the individual victim of the disaster. The disaster victim is most frequently in severe need of temporary housing. The 1969 act provided for temporary housing which was furnished after Camille to over 5,000 families. Despite these commendable statistics, numerous witnesses appeared before our committee to complain that they were unfairly treated. To improve the administration of temporary housing, the President has recommended clarification of the law. This change will provide flexibility and allow the Government to house disaster victims more efficiently and expeditiously under varying circumstances. DISASTER LOANS If the individual is to rebuild his home and business, it must be possible for him to obtain loans at favorable interest rates. The SBA and FHA loan programs have worked as well as any disaster relief assistance. However, there are problems that must be dealt with. The refinancing of disaster loans and the deferral arrangements have been liberalized and the forgiveness has been increased from $1,800 to $2,500. A provision that is particularly important is the guarantee that older citizens are able to obtain a home loan. We found retired people living on a fixed income who after paying off their home mortgage were unable to qualify for a loan to rebuild. DEBRIS REMOVAL As the President pointed out, one of the serious problems encountered in hurricane Camille related to the removal of debris from private property. I am told that although it has been over 3 months since our committee was in Missisippi, substantial debris remains on private property or individuals have not been reimbursed for removal. I applaud the President's proposal and anticipate a more expeditious and fair procedure in future disasters. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION Although unemployment is initially inevitable in a disaster area, after reconstruction begins there is often a sharp increase in employment. Nevertheless, it is often a time-consuming process for business and industry to resume normal operations, and the individual unemployed because of the disaster must bear an additional burden. While the program has had a significant impact on such disaster areas as Mississippi, the States must define who is eligible under this program for assistance. For those not covered under unemployment compensation, other programs must be utilized for the maintenance of income during such periods. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS By the administrative action taken by the President, he recognized the need for substantial changes in programs that would benefit the individual disaster relief victim. A common complaint was the failure of Government agencies to coordinate their efforts. Hopefully, the National Council on Federal Disaster Assistance, and membership of the OEP on the Federal regional councils, will mean better communications in Federal programs. Close cooperation with State and local governmental organizations should give each a better understanding of the tasks being performed by the other. To assist the individual in obtaining information at what is usually a very frustrating and discouraging time, President Nixon has established a "onestop" service. Transportation is often difficult and all forms of assistance should be available at one location. The disaster teams created to "help local communities" should be of great assistance. Oftentimes the local government officials and especially the individual citizens are initially not familiar with the intricacies of the disaster law and procedures. A disaster team would be on the spot to help immediately after or during the disaster. Two important areas were not covered by the President's message. Property insurance coverage is a major problem in various parts of our country. Without that coverage, it is often impossible for an individual or business to rebuild. Because of the broad implications, the President has appointed a task force to study comprehensive property insurance coverage for disaster situations. We hope they can devise an all-risk insurance that will be fair to the insurers as well as the insured. Of course, no review of disaster legislation is complete without examining the structure of our disaster relief agencies. The question of the relationship of OEP to OCD and their respective roles in natural disaster arose frequently in our hearings. I am hopeful the President will be able to rationalize what appears to be a hodgepodge of agencies with competing constituencies often working at cross purposes. I concur with the decision to postpone reorganization in order to consider the national security implications of such action, but I urge an early decision. The public will not long tolerate a system which encourages such obvious contradictions. The President's message, the legislation and administrative actions will go a long way in bringing order to the chaos of major natural disasters. Mr. Sparkman subsequently said: Mr. President, there is at the desk a message from the President of the United States and also a suggested bill introduced by the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Cooper). That bill is one that overlaps in its various subject matters the jurisdiction of more than one committee. I have discussed this with the Parliamentarian and with the chairman of the Public Works Committee. The bill basically belongs to the Public Works Committee. But there are parts of it which belong to the Committee on Banking and Currency. For instance, disaster loans, small business loans and housing. I have suggested to the chairman of the Committee on Public Works, the distingiushed Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Randolph), that the bill be referred to his committee and that it hold hearings on it and decide what it wants to do with it, but before reporting it to the calendar that the whole matter be referred to the Commitee on Banking and Currency for consideration and recommendation. Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I am responding to the observations of the able Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sparkman) with reference to S. 3745, the administration disaster relief legislation introduced by the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Cooper), who is the ranking minority member of the Committee on Public Works. The understanding between the Public Works Committee and the Banking and Currency Committee, as explained by the Senator from Alabama, its chairman, is correct. Mr. President, pending in the Public Works Committee is S. 3619 disaster relief legislation, which was introduced on March 20, 1970, by the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), a member of the committee and chairman of the Special Subcommittee on Disaster Relief. That measure will be heard and testimony will be taken on April 27, 28, and 29. It would be my intention to consider the provisions of the administration bill introduced by the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Cooper) at those hearings. I join him in the introduction of that legislation, not that I subscribe, of course, to that measure, or any other measure in detail at its introduction. I believe we can consider that measure along with the measure S. 3619 already introduced by the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), and 26 other Senators. I am also one of the cosponsors of that legislation. My desire is to facilitate that comity and understanding which has always existed between the Committee on Banking and Currency and the Committee on Public Works with reference to disaster relief legislation. It is important also to say that there may be, after the hearings in our subcommittee on the legislation but before the measure is reported from the Committee on Public Works-in other words, after the markup has occurredreasons why the Committee on Banking and Currency might ask that a portion of the subject matter be referred to it. I doubt that this will occur, but it could occur. Properly, the Committee on Banking and Currency will want to review the hearings which the Public Works Committee will have held by that time. I am delighted to know that the Senator from Alabama has arranged for members of his staff to sit in with the Public Works Subcommittee when it hears not only the legislation, S. 3619, but also the bill, S. 3745 introduced this afternoon. I assure the Senator from Alabama and the members of his committee that there will be very desire, and every determination to work together, as in the past, to bring to this body legislation which has been considered by all members within the committees that have not only an interest but also a jurisdictional problem which must be equated. Once more, I thank the Senator from Alabama. Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his cooperation. Let me say to him that I did not in any way question reference of the bill to the Public Works Committee. I said that is where it basically belongs even though there are three features in it that particularly belong to the Committee on Banking and Currency. Mr. President, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Hartke) wants to file a conference report-call up a conference report. He tells me it will take just about 2 minutes. I therefore yield to him for that purpose. Senator DOLE. Let me add to what the Senator from Indiana said. After our hearings in Biloxi, Miss., and Roanoke, Va., there was a recognition by the subcommittee members that we must close some gaps and streamline our Federal disaster procedures. There have been changes recommended by the Senator from Indiana, myself and the executive branch. Hopefully, as a result of these hearings, improvements can be made. We approach the problem in a complete spirit of bipartisanship or nonpartisanship, as it should be. Senator BAYH. Senator Baker? Senator BAKER. I have nothing to say. Senator BAYH. Our first witness is Dr. Myron Tribus, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science and Technology of the Department of Commerce. We are glad to have you with us and are anxious to have your testimony. STATEMENT OF MYRON TRIBUS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ROBERT WHITE, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND DR. ROBERT ELLERT, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Dr. TRIBUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, let me introduce the gentlemen who are here with me. On my left is Dr. Robert White, Administrator of ESSA; on my right is Dr. Robert Ellert, Assistant General Counsel in the Department of Commerce. Mr. Chairman and members of the special subcommittee: I am pleased to be here to present a review of the Department of Commerce's hurricane warnings services in connection with the Hurricane Camille disaster. Guarding against hurricanes is a very serious part of living along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Over the years, while the death toll has dropped consistently, property damages have soared at a phenomenal rate. On the basis of the 1957–59 dollar-which in the light of today's dollar is a modest basis-we find that hurricanes cost something over $200 million in the 5-year period ending in 1934. In the period between 1965 and 1969, partly because of the proliferation of activity along our shores, this figure had climbed to more than $2.4 billion. This slide will illustrate the point. (Slide 1 follows:) |