currently have authority to provide specialized types of assistance, and more than 100 regular programs are available for use after disasters. Hence, the coordinating task is now of greater importance.

OEP plans and prepares for providing assistance in the event of disaster. One important element of this planning and preparedness effort is assisting States and local governments in their disaster planning activities. Another is guiding the disaster planning and preparedness work of other Federal agencies. We are now making a major effort in these areas-illustrated by (1) an exhaustive interagency analysis of the Camille experience; (2) the April 16-17, 1970, disaster preparedness conference with officials of 17 Western States at San Clemente; (3) the May 26-27 meeting held in New York City on hurricane and coastal storms preparedness, attended by 12 North Atlantic States; and (4) the June 23-24 tornado and flood preparedness conference held in Rock Island, Illinois, attended by 13 Central and North Central States. A hurricane preparedness conference for the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast States is scheduled for August, 1970. This latter conference will also feature discussion of tornadoes and flooding.

OEP, acting for the President, has a wide range of responsibilities, but most of the office is involved, to some degree, in disaster assistance. The Field Operations Office, headed by Mr. George Grace, who is with me today, operates the disaster assistance program in the field through our eight regional offices.

There is a heavy day-to-day involvement of most of the elements of our small but complex organization. This involvement does allow for a rapid increase in the number of knowledgeable professionals assigned to disaster assistance duties— and the entire agency gives disaster assistance top priority when the need arises.

DISASTER EXPERIENCE

With this background on OEP's organization, I now turn to the nation's disaster. experience in 1969. The Administration's objective is—and will continue to beto use the lessons of the recent past in improving Federal disaster assistance for the future.

During calendar year 1969 (Chart 2), there were 29 major disaster declarations— the largest number in any year since the program began in 1950. Major disasters affected 23 States. All disasters involved flooding or wind-driven water or both. The declarations were clustered in the middle of the calendar year, with 25 in the second and third quarters. Measured in terms of cost to the Federal Government, the California floods and Hurricane Camille in Mississippi were the two largest disasters in the history of the Federal Disaster Assistance Program.

Allocations from the President's Disaster Relief Fund during 1969 amounted to $148,970,000, the largest amount in a calendar year since passage of PL 81-875 in 1950. That allocation does not include the extensive aid provided through other disaster-related programs-for example, the disaster loan programs of the Small Business Administration and the Farmers Home Administration.

In addition to the 29 Presidentially declared "major" disasters, the Office of Emergency Preparedness maintained surveillance of many of the lesser disasters which occurred in the nation in 1969. In many of these small-scale disasters, my Office consulted with Governors or other key State officials, and provided, or arranged for, Federal assistance to individuals and communities.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Subcommittee's record a report on the Federal response following a serious fire in Swanton, Vermont (Chart 3). This case illustrates the kinds of assistance which we are trying to furnish for lesser disasters. The President's annual Report to the Congress on Federal Disaster Assistance provides an accounting of the Federal Government's assistance efforts under PL 875 during 1969. Mr. Chairman, I submit that report for inclusion in the Subcommittee's record.

As Fiscal Year 1970 terminated on June 30, I will comment briefly on OEP disaster assistance operations during that period. The President declared 26 major disasters; 21 States were involved, with three declarations made for Kentucky, and two each for Alabama, California, and West Virginia. The vast majority of these disasters were due to flooding.

The allocations from the President's Disaster Relief Fund during the fiscal year totaled $202,614,750. This included $92,340,000 for FY 1970 disasters; $109,845,000 for disasters declared prior to this fiscal year; and $429,750 were made available for cost-sharing assistance to States for comprehensive disaster planning authorized by Section 8 of Public Law 91-79. This fiscal year allocation is the largest by far in the history of the Federal disaster assistance program.

The lessons from our disaster experience in 1969, and 1970, coupled with the broad span of experience across several years, have helped us develop a clearer understanding of the when, how, and why of Federal assistance.

DISASTER ASSISTANCE-BASIC GUIDELINES

The President, and I as his responsible official, are guided in our assistance activities by a number of broad considerations. These guidelines which have been developed are the basis of (1) a legislative proposal which embodies those changes the Administration recommends in basic disaster assistance law; and (2) administrative actions to improve the responsiveness and effectiveness of Federal assistance. I will now discuss each of these basic guidelines.

The first, and paramount, consideration is that initial and primary responsibility rests with local and State governments. Federal assistance is supplemental, but should be provided on a timely and appropriate basis.

I believe there is considerable misunderstanding of the actual nature of the disaster assistance program we operate and of the disaster situations we typically deal with. In fact, only a few of the disasters for which we provide assistance get into other than the local newspapers. The immediate problems caused by a disaster are normally handled by State and local government agencies.

It may interest you to know that of the 37 major disasters declared by the President during the past 18 months, only seven were requested by the Governors within the first three days after the disaster activity began, and four of these seven were for States affected by Camille.

Thus, a very large part of our job is channeling and coordinating Federal assistance that is available from the various Federal agencies, and insuring that these agencies link up with the appropriate State and local government agencies. This is a highly sophisticated and important form of government activity, but much of it is not directly associated with the emergency or crisis aspect of natural disasters-the aspect that so often comes to people's minds.

A second element of our approach concerns disaster prevention and preparedness. Timely action by local and State governments, assisted by the Federal Government, may serve to prevent disasters or to mitigate their effects. Operation Foresight, which the President ordered early in 1969, is an example. In that case, expenditures of $20 million for flood dikes and levees prevented untold human suffering and an estimated $200 million in damages. When circumstances for preventive action exist in the future, similar action should therefore be taken.

Another_basic_guideline-and of fundamental importance is that the end purpose of Federal disaster assistance is to help people. Assistance is provided directly -through the emergency loan programs of SBA and the Farmers Home Administration and indirectly through such measures as restoration of essential public facilities. Assistance to individuals must be provided equitably and fairly to all, based on the needs of individuals and their families.

In regard to the way in which disaster assistance is provided, it is clear that assistance is most timely and effective when it is provided by existing agencies performing tasks during the emergency period which are similar to those which they perform in normal circumstances. As an example of this fourth guideline, the Department of Agriculture is best equipped of all Federal agencies to assist farmers. The disaster-caused needs of specialized groups should be met by those agencies which work with these groups on a day-to-day basis. As I mentioned earlier, over ' 20 agencies, administering more than 100 different programs, can now provide specialized forms of assistance following disasters.

Finally, our experiences in recent years have underlined the fact that very largescale disasters pose unusual problems and create opportunities for rebuilding. The Federal Government must be and now is better prepared to assist in rebuilding when such an effort is required. As an example of this concern, OEP and several other agencies have provided staff assistance to the damaged communities in Mississippi to assist in their long-range planning and rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Camille. I will further discuss this facet of disaster relief later in my statement.

To summarize, we have broadened and deepened the Federal disaster assistance program. The program now extends from advance planning through preparedness, prevention, warning, crisis assistance, relief and recovery, to long-range rebuilding. Moreover the program is increasingly concerned with the needs of individuals and groups, as well as with the needs of the public sector.

These developments point up the need, of which this Subcommittee is aware, for some changes in the legislative authorities of the disaster assistance program, covered later in my presentation.

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

Many improvements were made in the President's Disaster Assistance Program during the past year. Some of these were conceived and put into effect before Camille; others were developed out of Camille and subsequent experience. (Chart 4)

The President personally directed the following program improvements: 1. National Council on Federal Disaster Assistance

To improve coordination of Federal disaster assistance efforts, both among Federal agencies and among Federal, State, and local officials, the President established, by Executive Order 11526, dated April 22, 1970, a National Council on Federal Disaster Assistance. The purpose of the Council is to bring together senior officials from Federal agencies with disaster assistance responsibilities or capabilities to consult with and advise the OEP Director on his responsibilities for developing a strong and responsive program for Federal disaster assistance. The first meeting, an organization and indoctrination session, was held on June 26, 1970.

2. Federal Regional Council membership

The President has directed that OEP Regional Directors be included as ad hoc members of the newly formed Federal Regional Councils to improve long-range response to large-scale disasters.

3. Disaster related research

The President has directed OEP to act as a central clearing-house for all Federal disaster-related research and studies. Two disaster research projects were initiated by OEP in FY 1970:

(a) Washington and Lee University Project-This project will develop information about the actions and reactions of disaster victims (Virginia floods caused by Camille), that will bring out the critical needs of these victims following a natural disaster and provide OEP with a comprehensive evaluation of the Federal disaster assistance programs from the standpoint of the recipient.

(b) Council of State Governments Project-The Council will review State laws, regulations, and mutual aid agreements to determine their most acceptable features. Based on this evaluation, the Council will make recommendations calculated to improve the response posture of each State. 4. Assistance to individuals

The President also directed OEP (1) to develop improved methods for assisting individuals in disaster areas (including "one stop" service which was initiated and proved very effective in Lubbock), (2) to form Federal disaster assistance teams to help coordinate the overall assistance efforts, (3) to use concerned young people as volunteer workers in disaster situations, and (4) to provide better emergency communication services to stricken areas in disaster emergencies. These directives are spelled out in the President's April 22, 1970, message on disaster assistance. I submit a copy of the President's message for the Subcommittee's record.

OEP, in coordination with other Federal agencies, has accomplished or planned these additional actions and improvements:

1. Study of Camille response

Two days after the storm struck the Gulf Coast, the Director of OEP ordered a detailed analysis of the Federal response, to include recommendations for improvements. Twenty-one Federal agencies and the Red Cross participated in this effort. This resulted in the adoption of a number of programs for the improvement in Federal disaster assistance, particularly in the area of individual assistance. 2. Long-range rebuilding study

The Camille disaster also prompted the President to request OEP to go beyond concern with immediate basic recovery measures and prepare guidelines for longer-range rebuilding efforts. In February 1970, a report was submitted to the President highlighting the additional Federal efforts needed to accomplish this purpose. I submit a copy of this report for inclusion in the Subcommittee's record. In October 1969, responding to a request from the Governor of Mississippi, OEP dispatched a task force of four professionals to work on long-range planning with the Governor's Emergency Council and officials of Gulf coast communities most affected by the hurricane. The task force's conclusions, reported to OEP and the Council in December, are being used by the Council and concerned

communities as the basis for their long-range recovery efforts. OEP is continuing to consult with the Governor's Emergency Council concerning long-range recovery problems.

3. Operational analysis division

In January, 1970, OEP established as an integral part of the Field Operations Office an Operational Analysis Division. This Division will provide a non-operational focal point for review, analysis, and program recommendations geared to improving the Federal disaster assistance program.

4. OEP disaster assistance center

In order to provide more efficient arrangements for disaster assistance efforts, OEP has redesigned its office area to accommodate a center with up-to-date communications capabilities, and well-organized management techniques to enhance the agency's Federal coordination effort for disasters. No additional staffing is anticipated to operate the center.

5. Disaster management information system

OEP is developing a Disaster Management Information System which will provide rapid retrieval of critical disaster records for use in management of declared disasters, and in review of costs and effectiveness of operations.

6. Informing disaster victims

OEP is also developing new techniques and procedures to inform disaster victims of aid available, procedures to obtain assistance, and the Federal response to disasters. A new pamphlet has been developed, to be tailored to each disaster, listing availability and sources of aid.

7. Preparedness conferences

As I have previously stated, a number of inter-regional Federal-State preparedness conferences sponsored by OEP have been held. These meetings were geared to the types of disasters that may be expected in the various geographical areas of the country. Continued emphasis will be given to preparedness measures-the key to effective disaster relief.

8. State disaster plans

Under the authority of Section 8 of PL 91-79, Federal funds have been advanced for 50-50 cost-sharing assistance in developing comprehensive disaster plans and programs. Twelve States and Guam were enrolled in this program during FY 1970.

9. Disaster communications

Special efforts have been initiated with the Department of Defense to ensure emergency communication support to OEP in disaster situations. Similar arrangements have been made with Federal civilian agencies having telecommunications capabilities.

10. Streamlining procedures

The President authorized the OEP Director to allocate disaster relief funds as needed in each declared major disaster. Formerly, each allocation required Presidential action. The President also authorized the OEP Director to grant time extensions (to complete eligible disaster work) of up to six months.

The experience I have gained during my tenure as Director of OEP amply demonstrates that improvements are needed in the Federal disaster assistance program. As I previously stated, a number of administrative changes that will improve the Federal posture already have been made but the most urgent requirement is new legislation geared to meeting more effectively the needs of distressed communities and individuals.

H.R. 17518, in my opinion, best provides the additional assistance that is required. The Administration does not favor at this time an omnibus bill that will repeal all existing disaster assistance legislation and start anew. H.R. 17518 augments existing authorities in the areas where they are most needed, particularly those brought into sharp focus by the devastation caused by Hurricane Camille. This bill also continues a number of key provisions of Public Law 91–79 which will expire on December 31, 1970 (Chart 5).

ADMINISTRATION BILL (H.R. 17518)-SECTION BY SECTION COMMENTS (CHART 6)

My comments are keyed to the section numbers of H.R. 17518 and are as follows:

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION

Section 2 covers relief and rehabilitation measures that may be authorized as disaster assistance. Normally such disaster assistance is accomplished promptly within one year after a major disaster occurs. Section 2(c) involves no change in emergency assistance provided by present laws.

PERMANENT REPAIR

I endorse the proposed revision of PL 81-875 in Section 2(c) to permit the restoration of public facilities to their predisaster capacity and in conformity with current codes and specifications. Under existing authorities we are limited to making emergency repairs or temporary replacement of these facilities. In some cases within a short time, the State or local government must provide permanent repairs or replacement at additional expense to taxpayers, including removal of emergency repairs. It is not always technically feasible to perform emergency repairs to such facilities as water or sewage plants, or public utilities.

Housing

We interpret the amendment of PL 81-875 in Section 2(c) as not precluding the use of all types of temporary housing, including available FHA and VĂ properties. We need the flexibility of selecting the most available and suitable housing in an emergency to meet the needs of disaster victims.

Section 2(c) also provides that rentals can be charged to occupants as we did in Hurricane Camille and the Lubbock, Texas, tornado. I submit for the record copies of the rent policy statements used in these two disasters. I favor an initial period of free rental after each major disaster as we provided after Camille and Lubbock disasters and interpret this to be authorized in this section.

Coordination of Private Agencies

Section 2(e) amends PL 81-875 to provide arrangements for fully utilizing the capabilities of private relief agencies in major disasters. OEP now has a Memorandum of Understanding with the American National Red Cross but no formalized agreements with other such agencies. This section expresses Congressional intent on this subject.

Disaster Assistance Loans

Section 3(a) and (b) include the forgiveness feature which appears ample to provide equitable relief to disaster victims at a fair rate of interest. We support the Administration's position, but defer to the Small Business Administration and the Farmers Home Administration for further details on this provision.

Planning Assistance

Section 3(c) extends disaster assistance for development of plans and programs by the States under Section 8 of Public Law 91-79 and removes the deadline of December 31, 1970. Section 3(d) provides for improving, maintaining, and updating these plans. With these changes, OEP can program and budget for this planning assistance effectively.

Page 8, HR 17518, should be amended to insert the following after "to" at the end of line 12: "exceed $25,000 per annum to any State in an amount not to". I understand that the proposed insertion was inadvertently omitted during the printing of HR 17518.

Debris Removal

Section 3(e) replaces Section 14 of Public Law 91-79 pertaining to debris removal from privately owned lands and in privately owned waters. Section 3(e) provides OEP guidance for coordinating its debris removal efforts with State and local governments in a planned schedule for the rapid accomplishment of this assistance to the private sector. Reimbursements to individuals for completed work are not authorized in the proposed section. In many cases, under section 14, Public Law 91-79, the affected individual had already cleared his land and documentation was not available to verify the extent of the eligibile work enough to justify reimbursement. Therefore, I believe that the State or local community should directly assume the responsibility for performing the eligible work either with its own resources or under contract with debris removal firms.