Apr. 2 genal messia ca Pederal disaster assistance, the Pres, lest in Lered that the study should are special attention to the impact of any czested changes apca national security.” the study will of course. Take 199 It of this important considerit in Tsuronal Tinama izrekus ommented damag the subcommotize ħqCJS Fay 2 and 3, 197, ahat the adverse e*et ugen disaster rejat e furtɛ of the mistinmai redua quiet zone, Se Page ISA of the printed Ram ke konings. Has any action been tolm by GFP to relieve that greNem The Kil radio pilet a be, an area approximately 0 miles square in Virginia and West Virginia. Was esta listel in 190 to facilitate observation on the tattire and eotposition, of the universe (radio astronomy and lasts research vital to the national defense ini sebrity Two Luomitories exist in the zene Associated Ut Tersities facility e lehalf of some 20 universities) at Green Bink. West Virginia, and a Naval Research Lab facility at Sugar Grove, West Virginia. Procedures have been established whereby coordination is required for the use of any freqüetsy, ex ept in the case of močlle opcrations, within the The baste problem is that the fres, nencies requested by Virginia civil defer se authorities in 1945 were particularly, ser sitive from a research standpoint. The Naval Resarch Lab did not obest to civil defense communications, but rem mended the use of other bards. The State civil defense organization has not made application to the Federal Communications Commission for other frequencies. We have consulted with State civil defense officials on this matter: we urged then, to request and advised "Lelli on procedures to request other frequencies. 4. "We also received testimony at Roanoke that there had been some problems in the administratum of the debris removal prioram authorized under PrðNe Late 91-79 We were told that some debris was being remired from private property under PL 91-79, but that some farmers were required to pay 29 pers cent of the cost under the so-called 80-20 program of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Have these problems heen resolved? How? The USDA emergency conservation program of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, which provides 80-20 cost sharing assistance, already 40-896 0-70 pt. 4 -24 assistance rests with local and state governments. You state that federal assistance should be supplemental. As a matter of policy, what-if any-responsibility should be assigned to the states with respect to financial aid to the localities? Should federal assistance for lost tax bases be geared to participation by the states? To what extent should the states be required to participate? The Administration bill authorizes federal loans when there is a "substantial loss" of property tax revenue. Please elaborate on the term "substantial loss." Does property tax include both real and personal property? 2. What do you contemplate will be included in the review of the relationship between the Office of Emergency Preparedness and the Office of Civil Defense? 3. Several Virginia witnesses commented during the Subcommittee hearings in Roanoke on February 2 and 3, 1970, about the adverse effect upon disaster relief efforts to the national radio quiet zone. (See Page 1081 of the printed Roanoke hearings). Has any action been taken by OEP to relieve that problem? 4. We also received testimony at Roanoke that there had been some problems in the administration of the debris removal program authorized under Publie Law 91-79. We were told that some debris was being removed from private property under PL 91-79, but that some farmers were required to pay 20 per cent of the cost under the so-called 80-20 program of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Have these problems been resolved? How? 5. What is the status of the debris removal program in Virginia? 6. Despite the efforts of government agencies to disseminate information, some people in the Camille disaster area did not learn of the relief programs available to them. Has any consideration been given to “outreach" assistance, whereby government personnel would visit homes and places of employment? 7. We received testimony from Richmond officials that OEP regulations permit overtime pay for certain categories of public employees (Street maintenance personnel), but not for such public safety employees as policemen and firemen. Please explain the basis for that distinction. 8. What is the average period of time involved for reimbursement to be made to localities that have applied for disaster assistance? I look forward to reviewing your responses to these questions. WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPONG: This responds to your April 29 letter wherein you asked that we comment for the record on certain questions relating to disaster assistance. Responses to your questions are keyed to the numbered paragraphs in your letter. 1. A number of questions are related to the revenue maintenance provisions of $3619 and S3745, as follows: 1A. "As a matter of policy, what-if any-responsibility should be assigned to the States with respect to financial aid to localities?" The financial resources of the States vary greatly. Their ability to provide disaster assistance to their political subdivisions also varies, depending upon past experience with major disasters and the actions of State legislative bodies in passing and funding disaster relief legislation. Recent experience in Mississippi has been that this State has provided financial aid in the amount of $10,500,000 to meet emergency needs and to "seed" projects for local governments in which Federal funding is primarily involved. As a matter of general policy, we believe the States should participate fully in programs to provide assistance to disasterstricken communities and individuals. Under existing Federal disaster assistance regulations, an essential element of a Governor's request for a major disaster declaration is a certification of State and local expenditures and obligations for disaster relief. 1B. "Should Federal assistance for lost tax bases be geared to participation by the States? To what extent should the States be required to participate?” This question is partially answered in the preceding paragraph. For those local governments whose State government is either unable or unwilling to participate in Federal/State cost sharing, the need for Federal assistance is no less real than for other communities supported by such cost sharing. Since loans, rather than grants, are involved in both $3619 and S3745, costs of Federal funding may be largely administrative. A review of the Nation's recent disaster experience suggests that such loans would be required in only a small percentage of declared major disasters. 1C. "Please claborate on the term "substantial loss." Does property tax include both real and personal property?" "Substantial loss" would require further clarification in our Federal regulations and other publications pertaining to these Federal loans. We recognize that the loss of a fixed percentage of tax revenue could have varying impact upon local governments depending upon the public entity's overall financial status at the time the disaster struck. For a local government with high bonded indebtedness and generally tight financial situation, a loss of tax revenues of ten to fifteen percent might be considered "substantial," while in another community, such a tax loss could be absorbed. For a large metropolitan area, a tax loss of as little as ten percent might assume disastrous proportions and cause the disruption of public services and related facilities. Where the local government includes both real and personal property in the tax base, it is our understanding that the Federal program under $3619 and 83745 would recognize both. This point could be clarified further in regulations after the law is enacted. 2. "What do you contemplate will be included in the review of the relationship between the Office of Emergency Preparedness and the Office of Civil Defense?" The details of the study remain to be developed. In general, however, the study will explore the relationships between civil defense and disaster assistance and identify those elements of each program which are overlapping or mutually supporting. In his April 22 special message on Federal disaster assistance, the President indicated that the study should "give special attention to the impact of any suggested changes upon national security;" the study will, of course, take account of this important consideration. 3. "Several Virginia witnesses commented during the subcommittee hearings in Roanoke on February 2 and 3, 1970, about the adverse effect upon disaster relief efforts of the national radio quiet zone. (See Page 1081 of the printed Roanoke hearings.) Has any action been taken by OEP to relieve that problem?" The national radio quiet zone, an area approximately 100 miles square in Virginia and West Virginia, was established in 1959 to facilitate observation on the nature and composition of the universe (radio astronomy) and basis research vital to the national defense and security. Two laboratories exist in the zone-an Associated Universities facility (on behalf of some 20 universities) at Green Bank. West Virginia, and a Naval Research Lab facility at Sugar Grove, West Virginia. Procedures have been established whereby coordination is required for the use of any frequency, except in the case of mobile operations, within the zone. The basic problem is that the frequencies requested by Virginia civil defense authorities in 1965 were particularly sensitive from a research standpoint. The Naval Research Lab did not object to civil defense communications, but recommended the use of other bands. The State civil defense organization has not made application to the Federal Communications Commission for other frequencies. We have consulted with State civil defense officials on this matter; we urged them to request and advised them on procedures to request other frequencies. 4. “We also received testimony at Roanoke that there had been some problems in the administration of the debris remoral program authorized under Public Law 91-79. We were told that some debris was being removed from private property under PL 91-79, but that some farmers were required to pay 20 percent of the cost under the so-called 80-20 program of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Have these problems been resolved? How? The USDA emergency conservation program of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, which provides 80-20 cost sharing assistance, already was in effect. However, the Office of Emergency Preparedness instructed the Department of Agriculture to provide the assistance authorized by Section 14. PL 91-79 (debris remov-1) in designated rural areas of Virginia. OEP's directive to the Secretary of Agriculture provided that USDA reimburse property owners (from funds made available by OEP) for costs of eligible debris clearance which are in excess of the payment made by the Department under its regular statutory authority. Thus, in essence, USDA is paying 80% under its emergency conservation program (PL 85-58) and the remaining 20% is paid under the authority of PL 97–79. 5. "What is the status of the debris removal program in Virginia?" The debris removal program in Virginia is progressing satisfactorily. The Corps of Engineers is removing the remaining debris in urban areas by contracts, and expects to complete this work by about August 1. The State is assisting its political subdivisions in preparing applications for funds to reimburse individuals in urban areas for money expended in removing debris from the individual's property. These applications are expected to be completed in approximately two weeks and will be given priority attention when received. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture, acting as the agent of OEP, is working closely with non-urban residents to assure that payments for the debris clearance costs of these individuals will be taken care of rapidly. (See 4 above). It anticipates that such payments will be substantly completed by August 1. Because of the scarcity of equipment available in the area, some of the work and subsequent payments may be delayed beyond that date. 6. "Despite the efforts of government agencies to disseminate information. some people in the Camille disaster area did not learn of the relief programs available to them. Has any consideration been given to "outreach" assistance. whereby government personnel would visit homes and places of employment?" The problem of informing disaster victims of the assistance available to them has been given increased emphasis by OEP in recent months. "Outreach" is one aspect of this program. We are working with the Office of Economic Opportunity to develop a program to ensure that disaster victims know of and receive the benefits to which they are entitled. This outreach program would supplement our normal information efforts through television, radio, newspaper. public meetings, posters, handouts, etc.-in major disaster situations. A copy of a new disaster information brochure that will be used in the future is enclosed. 7. “We received testimony from Richmond officials that OEP regulations permit overtime pay for certain categories of public employees (street maintenance personnel), but not for such public safety employees as policemen and firemen, Please explain the basis for that distinction." The testimony of local officials was in error in this case. Overtime of police and firemen ineligible for reimbursement under OEP disaster assistance regulations. 8. "What is the average period of time involved for reimbursement to be made to localities that have applied for disaster assistance?" Upon receipt and approval of an application from a State, OEP will, when requested by the State, advance up to 75% of the amount of funds approved for the work. After completion of the work, the applicant's records are audited by the State and a voucher for the eligible costs is submitted to OEP. It is estimated that after the voucher is received by OEP, payment of the balance due will be made in 30 to 60 days. In the case of Virginia, there were no requests for advances when projects were approved. In mid-April, the City of Richmond asked for an advance (progress payment); this was approved by OEP in the amount of $170,000 and processed to Treasury on April 27 so that funds could be advanced to the State for the applicant. I trust that this information adequately responds to your inquiry. Sincerely, G. A. LINCOLN, Director. Senator BAYн. We will recess until 2:30 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. the same day.) AFTER RECESS (The special subcommittee reconvened at 2:30 p.m., Senator Birch Bayh, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.) Senator BAYH. We will reconvene. Our next witness is Mr. David Ward, Deputy Under Secretary of the Army. Mr. Secretary, we are glad to have you with us. STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID H. WARD, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, ACCOMPANIED BY MARK S. GURNEE, CHIEF, OPERATIONS DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS; AND CHARLES MANNING, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF CIVIL DEFENSE Mr. WARD. On my left is Mr. Mark Gurnee, Chief of the Operations Division of the Director of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers. On my right is Mr. Charles Manning, General Counsel of the Office of Civil Defense. Mr. Chairman, I am David H. Ward, Deputy Under Secretary of the Army. I am the Army witness in response to your request of April 13 to the Secretary of the Army regarding Hurricane Camille and S. 3619, the Omnibus Disaster Assistance Act. It is a pleasure to appear before your subcommittee and I will attempt to set forth fully the significant role that all defense agencies played in the Camille disaster, and to offer such comments on S. 3619 as are appropriate in the light of the role of the Department of the Army in natural disaster assistance. ORGANIZATION Primary responsibility for dealing with disaster conditions rests with State and local authorities. However, as you know, the Disaster Acts of 1950, 1966, and 1969 authorize substantial Federal assistance to State and Local governments in major disasters and military resources of the Nation have traditionally been used in such situations. Executive Order 10427, dated January 16, 1953, as amended, delegates to the director, Office of Emergency Preparedness, the authority of the President to direct and coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies in rendering assistance to State and local governments during major disasters declared by the President under the provisions of the Federal Disaster Act. As a Federal agency, the Department of Defense provides a wide range of support and assistance in natural disasters, subject to OEP's direction. The Secretary of the Army has been assigned by the Secretary of Defense the primary responsibility for overall military support in disasters within the continental United States and is responsible |