would seem to me that this new agency, especially the planning committee, would be in an excellent position-if they really served the purposes of the reorganization-to develop recommendations for consideration of the Congress.

Mr. MOSCARITOLO. Yes; we would hope so, Senator. We found that to be one of the most frustrating elements in terms of dealing with the specific recovery efforts. They are just spread across so many agencies and there is not one functional or operational program to which States-in this case the Governor-could look to, as well as local governments could look to for assistance. That is a very good point. Senator MUSKIE. I recognize the roadblocks that might block effective legislative implementation of that objective. What would be your response to the comment that this new agency could perform a service in coordinating existing programs at the administrative level? Do you think that that is out of the question?

Mr. MOSCARITOLO. I think we would prefer a legislatively mandated operation.

Senator MUSKIE. But until you get tired of waiting for it?

Mr. MOSCARITOLO. Exactly. But we would hope that the new committee would clearly see that as one of their initial missions.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you think something could be accomplished by coordinating existing programs better? It seems to me that existing actions without any fundamental changes in their programs could improve their administrative response under proper guidance and coordinating efforts on the part of this agency.

Mr. MOSCARITOLO. We would agree with that. Again our concern is that it would have to have the heightened visibility and the direction. from the Executive Office of the President to insure that the various Federal agencies would be responsive.

We, in Massachusetts, found the example of the FDAA serving as the sounding board and coordinating committee to draw together a number of Federal agencies.

The Lieutenant Governor and our Washington office people met with a number of officials, with SBA, HUD, Federal Insurance Administration people, EDA people, and so forth, all under the coordinating mechanism of FDAA. We had a forum, an opportunity to present our case, but shortly after the meeting was adjourned and we had to go back again almost to knock individually, again, on the doors of the respective agencies and go up a parallel route and structure within that existing agency to get access to the programs that we felt would be available to the Commonwealth. In effect, we found our selves retracing our tracks in that situation.

And we would hope that in the administrative mechanism, that would be addressed by the new reorganization, that it would be one that had clear and specific direction from the Executive Office of the President to assure that the agencies were responsive.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me pose two examples of problems: one, the point you make that applications for one program had to be completed before applications for another.

Now, it seems to me that that is something that could be dealt with administratively.

Mr. MOSCARITOLO. Yes, I would think so.

84-953-78

Senator MUSKIE. It seems to me the emergency planning committee does address questions of that sort and wouldn't take the timeconsuming legislative process to straighten that out.

Mr. MOSCARITOLO. That is a very good point, yes.

Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to differences in eligibility requirements, I gather you ran into difficulties?

Mr. MOSCARITOLO. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. That may or may not require legislation.

It seems that an administrative agency or the emergency planning committee could look at problems like that and determine, first of all, whether or not that might be ironed our or mitigated to some extent by executive order or administrative action rather than short of legislative action.

In other words, my inclination would be to avoid having to go the legislative route if there is an administrative route that would achieve the same objective.

Mr. MOSCARITOLO. Fine, I understand.

Senator MUSKIE. I don't know how many committees would have to vote to accomplish that in Congress. We have a set of committees on the Senate side, another set of committees on the House side. By the time you got them coordinated in developing legislation, you know, the country, half the country might be lost through natural disasters.

Mr. MOSCARITOLO. I see.

Senator MUSKIE. So I would strongly urge, if this reorganization plan is approved, we lean very hard on the emergency planning committee to deal with the very specific list of problems that you have run into and others have run into in implementation of this legislation. The coordination of the sister programs might be the most frustrating in the long run.

With respect to postdisaster planning, again I expect to benefit a great deal from the recommendations of the emergency planning committee. Hopefully it will have high visibility-that is why it has been created-and could get the attention of the Congress on this kind of a problem such as funding, for disaster relief, long-term planning, mitigation planning, more than the FDAA could.

So in short I think that your three basic recommendations are sound, and we will certainly bear them in mind as we proceed.

On the national fire control and prevention problem, I will listen additional testimony on that. I don't have a hard-and-fast position on it, but I think you have made from your own experience a sensible recommendation, and I appreciate having that, too.

Mr. MOSCARITOLO. Fine. Thank you very much.
Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much.

Give my best to the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. MOSCARITOLO. I shall. Thank you again.

Senator MUSKIE. Our next witnesses are a panel made up of Mr. George M. Elsey, president, American National Red Cross; Mr. Paul M. Moore, vice president, American National Red Cross, responsible for disaster services; and Mr. Bryce J. Torrence, national director, disaster services, American National Red Cross.

Gentlemen, we are delighted to welcome you this morning.

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE M. ELSEY, PRESIDENT; PAUL M. MOORE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR DISASTER SERVICES; AND BRYCE J TORRENCE, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF DISASTER SERVICES, AMERICAN RED CROSS, A PANEL

Mr. ELSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you have noted, Mr. Paul Moore, vice president for Red Cross Disaster Services, is with me; Mr. Moore is on my left. Mr. Torrence, national director of disaster services, is on my right.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and we shall be happy to answer any questions you may have after I have completed my brief statement. The American Red Cross experience in disaster relief dates back almost 100 years, beginning with the Michigan forest fires of 1881. The organization's disaster role was formalized by Congress in June of 1900 and affirmed by the act of Congress January 5, 1905, as amended (36 U.S.C. section 1 and following), entitled, "An Act to incorporate the American National Red Cross."

Because of its disaster relief mandates and other duties vested in the corporation under its charter by the Congress, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously concluded that the American National Red Cross is an instrumentality of the United States. Department of Employment v. United States, 87 S. Ct. 464, 385 U.S. 355 (1966).

This role has been reaffirmed by the Congress as recently as in Disaster Relief Act of 1974-Public Law 93-288-and has been further defined in Statements of Understanding between the Red Cross and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration and the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. The Red Cross also has working agreements with other Federal and many State and local units of government as well as with voluntary groups involved in disasterrelated programs. Over the years, the Red Cross has been consistently recognized by all branches of the Federal Government as the Nation's official instrumentality for bringing voluntary aid to disaster victims. The Red Cross has been assisting disaster victims in our Nation since 1881. Today the Red Cross program involves an average of 37,000 emergency responses annually. We welcome the expanded role of Government in providing disaster assistance, for it is no longer possible for agencies supported by voluntary contributions to meet more than the most pressing emergency needs of large numbers of people affected by disaster in our country.

The Red Cross program, therefore, is primarily one of providing emergency assistance, first in the form of mass shelters, feeding stations, providing clothing, cleaning supplies, supplementary medical care, provision of blood and blood products, and we handle welfare inquiries from anxious relatives outside the disaster area and other immediately needed services, depending in each instance on the character of the disaster situation.

As soon as families can begin to resume living as family units, we also provide emergency assistance-food, clothing, certain essential household furnishings, minor repairs to homes, rent, transportation, if the family needs transportation for medical and health needs,

including replacement of lost dentures, eyeglasses, prescription drugs and prosthetic devices, and replacement of personal occupational supplies and equipment. It is only when Government programs are unavailable or inadequate that we provide additional assistance involving more extensive and expensive repairs to homes and replacement of other essential household contents.

The Red Cross has also participated in a variety of ways in the Nation's attack-related civil defense programs, has been involved with Government in activities related to energy shortages, train derailments, civil disorders, and other emergencies that do not come under the heading of natural disasters, that are usually called manmade disasters. We work closely with Government at the Federal, State, and local levels in both disaster preparedness planning and disaster relief operations.

It is from the vantage point of all this experience gained during these years that the Red Cross supports the concept of a single Federal disaster and civil defense agency to manage the various Federal programs related to preparedness and response, hazard mitigation and long-range recovery and to the civil preparedness aspects of enemy attack planning.

As federally funded programs have expanded, especially since the early 1960's, we have observed and often experienced the same frustrations which State and local officials and disaster victims have had in dealing with these programs. This does not mean that the programs themselves were unsound in their intent or that the people charged with implementing them were not competent. What we do mean is that the fragmentation of the Federal efforts at emergency planning and response and hazard mitigation have led to duplication, competition, confusion, and situations in which the policies of one program are sometimes in actual direct conflict with the policies of another. This fragmentation imposes on the potential or real disaster victim a confusing burden of procedural requirements, only slightly mitigated by "one-stop" centers.

We believe that the proposed reorganization plan will make it easier for State and local governments and voluntary agencies to relate to the Federal Government and, as a result, to be more effective in providing emergency preparedness and response in their States. The ultimate beneficiary will, of course, be the dissater victims themselves who will receive better service.

We believe also that the proposed reorganization plan will better integrate hazard mitigation efforts into the total preparedness and response pattern and thereby move our Nation toward safer communities.

We recognize that the reorganization plan by itself is just a beginning step, but we see it leading to:

An effective centralized approach to Federal disaster preparedness and a faster and more effective response to the needs of the victims; resolution of conflicts between different laws and regulations in the disaster field; more uniform implementation of federally funded. disaster assistance programs nationwide; better training of Federal staff assigned to disasters and broader utilization of voluntary resources including those of the Red Cross; more priority and attention to helping States with preparedness planning and with hazard mitigation efforts; and, finally, a realistic utilization of existing emergency

preparedness and response resources in a way that makes it possible to expand them to meet the far greater operational challenges posed by the potential problems which could result from a nuclear threat or attack.

We hope also, Mr. Chairman, that in the process of reorganizing the Federal Government's emergency preparedness and response program, the importance of the congressionally mandated role of the Red Cross will continue to be recognized in both operational regulations and in legislation. Because even with the creation of a single Federal agency, it will still be necessary for the Red Cross to have effective working relationships with and to assist and be assisted by many governmental units which will be participating in planning and relief activities under the coordination or direction of the new agency.

Appropriate and continued recognition of the role of the Red Cross as an instrumentality of the Government is essential to such relationships.

Again, it is our belief that the proposed reorganization plan will result in a much better coordinated and effective Federal emergency preparedness and response program. We assure you, sir, that the Red Cross stands ready to cooperate fully with the new agency just as we have in the past with exisiting Federal disaster agencies and with the reorganization project. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to express our support for the plan and are ready to answer answer any questions you or other committee members may have. I shall appreciate it, sir, if a wire from Dr. Frank Stanton, chairman of the American National Red Cross, to President Carter, dated last June 16, last Friday, can also be entered in the record, and the text of that wire is attached to this statement.

Thank you, sir.

[The information referred to follows:]

JUNE 16, 1978.

To: THE HONORABLE JIMMY CARTER, THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, D.C. From: FRANK STANTON, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS,

WASHINGTON.

The American Red Cross fully supports the proposed comprehensive reorganiza tion of the Federal Government's emergency preparedness and disaster response programs into a single agency. It is our belief this move will not only alleviate many of the problems faced by State and local governments, The American Red Cross and other voluntary agencies when they try to relate to a myriad of Federal agencies with different programs and policies, but will also expedite both the process of preparedness planning and providing assistance to disaster victims. We believe also that the comprehensive approach envisioned by the reorganization plan will place the need for hazard mitigation in proper perspective as part of our Nation's effort to improve the quality of life for all Americans. Furthermore, the centralization of planning for all kinds of civil emergencies, from the manmade energy shortages to natural disasters to civil preparedness for nuclear attack, will minimize duplication of effort and the confusion of overlapping or conflicting programs. It is our hope that the Congress will support this reorganization effort. FRANK STANTON,

Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Elsey. First of all, I would add my commendation to the Red Cross for its record of service over the years. Certainly you have understated the American people's response to the Red Cross. I don't know whether that is matched by the American people's financial support of the program at the present time. I suppose inflation has created problems for you as well as for others in that respect.