(The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. SHEA, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN Mr. Chairman, the American National Red Cross welcomes this opportunity to present its views on disaster legislation now being considered by your committee, and also to discuss, briefly, ongoing developments in the Red Cross and comment particularly as related to H.R. 17518. Most of the committee members are, I am sure, familiar with the Red Cross program, which was instituted in 1881 at the time of the Michigan Forest Fires and which was formally recognized by the Congress when it chartered the American National Red Cross in an Act of January 5, 1905 (33 Stat. 599), as amended. At that time, the Congress established the American National Red Cross as a voluntary instrumentality of the Federal government and placed upon the organization a continuing responsibility for assisting individuals and families affected by disaster. Subsequent legislation such as Public Law 875, the Federal Disaster Act, and the bills now pending before the Senate and the House-HR 17518-for example-specifically recognize this unique status of the American National Red Cross. The language of Section 4, b., of HR 17518 says, "Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to limit or in any way affect the responsibility of the American National Red Cross under the Act approved January 5, 1905 (33 Stat. 599) as amended.” I emphasize this point to assure you that the American National Red Cross has no intention of abandoning this responsibility or diminishing in any way its assistance to victims of disaster. In fact, this committee heard from General Lincoln, director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, that in 1969 the President had declared 29 major disasters. Red Cross statistics are compiled on a fiscal year basis. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, the Red Cross was active in 521 disaster relief operations in 48 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. This included 68 floods, 41 tornadoes, 1 hurricane, 21 other storms and 354 fires. In addition, our Red Cross chapters were active in 18,000 lesser disaster incidents in this same period. During the fiscal year ending last June 30, the Red Cross was active in 650 larger disasters and our chapters were on the scene of more than 20,000 disaster incidents. Although this committee is not specifically studying the Hurricane Camille operations, the renewed interest in comprehensive disaster legislation and changes in the way relief is brought to disaster sufferers did stem in part from what happened in Hurricane Camille. Therefore, it might be of interest to the Committee to know that the American Red Cross still has a followup staff on the Gulf Coast to deal with the problems of some sixty families whose recovery planning is incomplete because of matters beyond Red Cross control, and that Red Cross expenditures for relief to Camille victims in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia and West Virginia totalled well over $21,000,000 as of this week. We believe, too, that the Committee is interested in what the Red Cross has done and is doing since Camille in terms of our disaster relief program. In early October, at the peak of our operation, the President of the Red Cross designated one of our top administrative officers to begin the collection of operational data for subsequent study. In addition, the Red Cross participated extensively in studies of Camille operations made by various OEP task forces and in shaping the recommendations that came from those OEP study groups. At the same time, a task force of key Red Cross staff from across the country was appointed and is carefully analyzing Red Cross disaster regulations and procedures. Issues raised in hearings before the Senate subcommittee are included in this study. It should be pointed out, however, that this Red Cross action is not peculiar to Camille, but has been standard practice in Red Cross as part of a continuing examination and up-dating of our disaster program. A part of this study will deal with improving our methods of diseminating information to all disaster victims-and you will be interested in knowing that in the more reecnt Lubbock tornado much greater emphasis was given to direct communication with the disaster victims in the poorer sections of the city, to make certain that they knew of the help that was available from Red Cross. Attached to the copies of my statement are two documents; a printed report on Red Cross Hurricane Camille operations and a recently issued summary of the Red Cross disaster program, so I need not go into detail about how the Red Cross goes about the business of providing assistance to disaster victims. But I would like to make a general comment on disaster relief which we in the Red Cross should apply to all disaster planning and legislation. Many people who are responsible for planning or initiating disaster relief efforts tend to respond in the traditional ways they have always responded, and to see every disaster » pretty much like other disasters except perhaps in terms of size or some special problems peculiar to specific situations. If disaster legislation and disaster planning continues to be looked at in such a context, we will continue to have problems. We have to be aware of a fact that our country is changing. Communities change, the nature of human aspirations and needs change. Population shifts, housing problems, transportation patterns, job locations and the governmental and private agency patterns for dealing with such problems is in a constant state of flux. For this reason, it is our feeling that disaster legislation, like the Red Cross disaster program, must provide for built-in flexibility and allow for the possibility that what is done successfully today may be inadequate for next year's major catastrophe. Whatever legislation comes out of this committee, we feel, might well provide for an annual review or an on-going review of disaster law and agency responsibilities and methodologies so that the efforts to meet the needs of disaster victims will always be conducted in the context of today, and not be a perpetuation of practices that may no longer be valid and hence create additional problems for people who are already in enough trouble. Red Cross Hurricane Camille operations, however, did serve to emphasize the flexibility of the Red Cross disaster relief program which makes it possible for us to act in situations not covered by specific regulations. For example, there were many families who wanted to place HUD trailers on private property but lacked funds for installation and hookup charges. Because these families were living in crowded or undesirable conditions, the Red Cross assisted those families with installation and hookup charges pending required actions by the governmental agencies concerned. In one Mississippi county where an emergency food stamp program was initiated, the Red Cross provided the funds for the families to purchase the stamps. In another situation, the Red Cross paid the costs of damage to a school which was used to house disaster victims when it was discovered by the local school board that neither the school board, the county, the state or any federal agency has authority to provide the funds needed so the school could open. In many other situations related to families where there were deaths and unusual experiences not covered by specific regulations, the Red Cross met the needs at the point of encounter simply because the need was there. One criticism of the Red Cross relief program related to standards of relief giving. To safeguard against any possible future discrepancies, we have issued standard food and clothing budgets for use in helping all families regardless of their economic level. The question of improving standards of living has been frequently raised. In assisting homeowners with rebuilding or repair, the Red Cross always conforms to existing building codes and zoning regulations, but we do not believe it is in the purview or financial ability of the Red Cross to undertake the installation of water or sewage systems for areas where none existed or to undertake programs of broad economic reforms just because of a disaster. The Red Cross is aware of the suffering caused because people were living in substandard housing, had substandard incomes, and lived in substandard conditions, but does not believe the solution of such problems should wait until a disaster has occured. We would welcome the opportunity to coordinate our disaster relief efforts with government agency programs designed to alleviate such problems, but cannot undertake economic reform programs on our own. With regard to the proposed disaster legislation being considered by the House and the Senate, the Red Cross is already on record in support of a comprehensive insurance plan that would make it possible for the homeowner to protect himself against flood, tide, mudslide, and earthquake. Our disaster program is one that takes into account the responsibility of the family to itself, and its appropriate utilization of resources available, including insurance. The Red Cross supports all efforts for coordinated action in disaster, as implied in Section 4 (b) of HR 17518. But we would point out that there must be a distinction between coordination and direction. Only the Red Cross can commit Red Cross funds. And since Red Cross relief action is related to the commitment of funds, the implication of direction by Federal coordinators as outlined in that section would be in conflict with our understanding of coordination. The Red Cross has always advocated and supported community and state disaster control and coordination among agencies serving disaster victims. For some years, we have had formal understandings with the Office of Emergency Planning and the Department of the Army. And it should be pointed out that the Red Cross, under Army Regulations 500-60, Sections I and III, reimburses the Armed Forces for disaster support requested by Red Cross. A similar arrangement exists with the Division of Emergency Health Services of the United States Public Health Services of DHEW, and the Red Cross makes extensive use of Department of Agriculture Surplus Commodities in feeding disaster victims. The OEP makes extensive use of Red Cross disaster survey figures in its work. Since Camille, we have had followup contacts with a variety of agencies and groups seeking to strengthen existing relationships with Red Cross in time of Disaster. These included the Civil Air Patrol, the Mennonities, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Seventh-day Adventists, the National Catholic Disaster Relief Committee, the National Association of Real Estate Boards and other religious and medical groups who represent just a few of the national organizations with which the Red Cross has existing agreements or understandings related to disaster cooperation-organizations who look to the Red Cross for leadership and guidance as to how best their resources may be utilized in time of disaster. Just two weeks ago, six of the nation's voluntary agencies active in the field of disaster relief met with the Red Cross at our national headquarters to achieve closer coordination and to establish closer working relationships. The OEP participated in the meetings. It is believed that out of these meetings may come a national coordinating council similar to that which now exists for voluntary agencies participating in international relief programs. We whole-heartedly support to provisions forbidding discrimination on the ground of race, color or national origin in disaster relief activities. This has always been a basic policy of the Red Cross disaster relief program. I would also like to comment on the proposal reflected in President Nixon's message to Congress which called for the establishment of one-stop relief centers at which disaster victims could receive all the help they needed. This was done, with apparent effectiveness, in Lubbock, where the disaster was confined to one city, but we believe this, too, is an area in which flexibility must be maintained. While the Red Cross believes such one-stop centers could be used effectively for the dissemination of information, we do not believe it is practical or realistic to believe that such one-stop centers could always provide sufficient space to offer the wide variety of services involved and the supporting logistics for such services, especially in widespread disasters such as Camille where there is a need for relief offices in many areas. It has been the practice of the Red Cross where possible to separate mass care and casework facilities and to locate Red Cross facilities as close as possible to the disaster areas in which the victims live. In closing, let me re-emphasize one point. In the wording of the Senate bill, the legislation refers to "the Red Cross and other private relief organizations." Quite properly the Red Cross is excluded from the category of Federal Agencies defined in the bills since that term is intended only to cover agencies receiving Federal appropriations. But the Red Cross is a Federal instrumentality whose congressional charter places statutory responsibility on the Red Cross. Hence, it would be more appropriate in HR 17518 to substitute for the phrase "private relief organizations" in Sections 4 (a) and (b) the wording, "the American National Red Cross and private relief organizations." And let me assure that the Red Cross, as always, stands ready to cooperate in every way possible with government at all levels in improving the way in which disaster victims are helped. This has been true since the Red Cross first entered the field of disaster relief, and is just as true today. CLOTHING PRICES When there has been a total loss of clothing the following amounts will be used to meet immediate clothing needs. In each case this includes a change of under and outer garments plus shoes, socks and a sweater or jacket. Male under 10 years, $53. Male over 10 years, $70. Additional clothing will be provided on an individual family basis in accordance with the particular needs of the individual family members. A standard price list for this purpose is attached. CLOTHING PRICE LIST Based on National Red Cross cost survey of actual cost per clothing item and USDA Consumer Price Index, January 1970 (Prepared by the Food and Nutrition Consultant, National Headquarters, for use in computing individual and family clothing costs.) DISASTER SERVICES FOOD BUDGET The following food budget will be adhered to in providing assistance to families in need of food as a result of disaster. Assistance for food will be based on multiples of one week's requirement, and given to carry the family until their receipt of their next regular income. Where there is a total loss of food suppiles, an amount of $20.00 should be added for the replacement of staples that are not ordinarily purchased on a weekly basis. This supercedes Section VIII, F, 1, page 34, of ARC 234-B. The above amounts are based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics retail food prices by cities and the U.S. Department of Agriculture food plans for families, and they include allowance for food price increases up to April 1, 1970. Prepared by the Food and Nutrition Consultant, American National Red Cross. ROBERT M. PIERPONT, Director, Disaster Services. ROBERT F. SHEA, Vice President. Mr. SHEA. First, I would like to state that the American National Red Cross supports the legislation contained in House bill 17518, and a few additional comments I want to make are in relation to clarification of parts of that legislation-not in opposition to any of the legislation. We are supportive of this legislation and believe it is a forward step. My first coment is that one of the reasons we believe this is a forward step is that it does not presume that the Congress of the United |