Mr. GARDNER. May I say, sir, that rainmaking has been done in the laboratory. It can always be done in the laboratory. It has been done on individual clouds without question, in fact, in every circumstance where you seed a supercooled cloud with dry ice, you can produce precipitation; but about these large-scale operations, we don't know. When you operate on a large scale you are reduced to making a statistical analysis. You have to determine what would have fallen otherwise.

Captain ORVILLE. I have here pictures showing the seeding of stratus clouds. Shortly after seeding, about 20 minutes later, you can see the effect of the dry ice. This is dry-ice seeding from an aircraft. And about 40 minutes after the seeding, you have a trail here over 5 miles wide and extending between 5 and 7 miles.

That shows the effect of this one cloud-seeding operation.

Mr. GARDNER. In other words, that section of cloud has been precipitated out.

Captain ORVILLE. We have other pictures and reports where cumulus clouds have been seeded and have caused heavy precipitation; in fact, the clouds were completely dissipated.

Mr. Coon. In the Northwest, there is a conflict of interest as to when and how much it should rain, there. Dr. Krick, a most prominent rainmaker out there, said he would welcome a lawsuit, because then he said he could really sell his program, and there is no tangible evidence so far that anybody has made it rain in the Northwest. Yet they sell the program. I might say I happened to support it when it happened to be the dry year.

Captain ORVILLE. Our committee has reports. Of course, some don't want rain during certain times of the year. On the other hand, the wheat farmers do want it. So there is a conflict of interest there, and we have one report from one of the private operators out there, who indicates that he can give the wheat farmers the rain they want and also prevent rain for the others.

We have the reports and will try to evaluate them.

Mr. GARDNER. In one operation, sir, the operator claimed to have dumped 13 inches of rain on a forest fire.

Mr. Bow. Will you yield?

Mr. CooN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. Were there not suits filed in New York State or somewhere, where they claimed too much rain had caused floods? Have those cases ever been tried?

Captain ORVILLE. In 1950 the city of New York was suffering a shortage of water, and they employed a private operator as their consultant at $100 a day, Wallace Howell. He carried out cloud seeding operations both from aircraft and otherwise.

The report shows they increased the rain 14 percent; which amounted to roughly 15 billion gallons of water to the reservoir system the city. On the other hand, some of the farmers and the people in the watershed area claimed damage and brought suits approximating $2 million against the city of New York.

I understand that the suits were thrown out because of a techcality. Instead of naming Wallace Howell they named the city of New York.

Mr. Bow. They were never tried?

Captain ORVILLE. They were never tried.

Mr. PRESTON. Captain, this is a very interesting field to which you are now directing your talents, and of course it is of wonderful benefit to agriculture and other purposes. But I was just thinking about the possibility of some adverse effects of this program if the people who follow the horses around decide to wet the track one day, so the favorite will be slowed down, the mudder may win. Politicians may decide to rain out the other fellow's barbecue or picnic. The society matron may decide to have a lawn party rained out for one of her opponents for the social crown of the city.

I can think of all sorts of things that can happen if we can just turn the rain on and off at will.

Captain ORVILLE. The committee is aware of some of those possibilities.

Mr. PRESTON. For instance, when we have a ball game we may decide to turn the clouds lose on the football field so the favorite team may not be as successful as the other team. All sorts of athletic contests might become involved.

Captain ÖRVILLE. Your comment suggests, then, that there probably should be Federal regulation of cloud-seeding operations. Mr. PRESTON. Unquestionably.

Captain ORVILLE. Article 10 of Public Law 256 states that—

At the earliest possible moment the committee shall submit a report to the President for submission to the Congress on the advisability of the Federal Government regulating, by means of license or otherwise, those who attempt to engage in activities designed to modify or control the weather. The committee shall submit a final report to the President for submission to Congress not later than June 30, 1956.

So that, in line with your comment, is one of the first recommendations the committee is supposed to come up with for the President and the Congress.

EFFECT OF ATOMIC EXPLOSIONS

Mr. PRESTON. Has your group already looked into or do you plan to look into the effect of atomic explosions on weather?

Captain ORVILLE. Yes, sir. While that is not specifically mentioned in here, if it has any bearing on the weather we consider that we should look into that and see whether it has any possible effect. So that will be one of our missions, because if it does affect the weather, then this committee should know about it.

Mr. PRESTON. I think so. For instance, if an atomic explosion tended to dissipate clouds, it might prove unwise to get a detonation in an area where you had a sustained drought.

Captain ORVILLE. Of course, the actual explosion itself generates a cloud. But then, later, it is true it might have an effect. That is something our committee will most certainly look into, sir.

In fact, we have a trip planned now which will take us on a visit to one of the companies that is eminently interested in that work for the Atomic Energy Commission. And our questions will be directed along that line.

Mr. PRESTON. I imagine the umbrella industry will be interested in this activity, too. At any rate, I am for it. I think it is necessary It would be interesting to see what you develop.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Any further questions?
Thank you, gentlemen.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1954.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CLAIMS OF PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY

WITNESSES

WARREN E. BURGER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION

ANNETTA ENGLISH, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, CIVIL DIVISION S. A. ANDRETTA, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL

E. R. BUTTS, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. CLEVENGER. The next item is for the Department of Justice, "Salaries and expenses, claims of persons of Japanese ancestry." The request is for $1,560,000. It is contained at page 13 of House Document No. 330. We will include that in the record; and also pages 3, 4, and 5 of the justifications. (Material referred to is as follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

"LEGAL ACTIVITIES AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

"SALARIES AND EXPENSES, CLAIMS OF PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY "For an additional amount for 'Salaries and expenses, claims of persons of Japanese ancestry', $1,560,000."

This proposed supplemental appropriation is necessary to provide for payment of claims already adjudicated or expected to be adjudicated this year.

As of January 31, 1954, awards totaled $941,525. It is estimated that an additional $618,475 will be awarded during the present fiscal year under the accelerated adjudications program made possible by the enactment of Public Law 116, approved August 17, 1951.

"GENERAL PROVISION

"The Attorney General is hereby authorized to transfer from the appropriation 'Salaries and expenses, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1954', not to exceed $100,000 to the appropriation Fees and expenses of witnesses, 1954', not to exceed $350,000 to the appropriation 'Salaries and expenses, Bureau of Prisons, 1954', and not to exceed $500,000 to the appropriation Support of United States prisoners, 1954'."

Increased requirements during the first half of this fiscal year over those experienced in previous years indicate that additional funds will be needed to pay fees and expenses of witnesses appearing on behalf of the Government in cases in which the United States is a party.

Unprecedented increases in the numbers of prisoners in Federal institutions have occurred in recent months. An average inmate population of 17,800 was provided for in the 1954 appropriation. Due to increases in commitments, longer sentences, and a lower parole rate, it now appears that the average population will be almost 1,400 in excess of the previous estimate, necessitating additional funds for inmate care. On October 19, 1953, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget apportioned the appropriation "Salaries and expenses, Bureau of Prisons,' on a basis which would indicate the necessity for a supplemental estimate. This action was reported to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in letters of the same date in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of subsection (e) of section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended.

Federal prisoners awaiting trial or serving sentences of short duration are boarded in non-Federal jails on a contract basis. Corresponding to the increase in prisoners in Federal institutions, the number of contract jail-days has increased

to 717,362 in the first 6 months of the current fiscal year as compared to 630,314 during the corresponding period of the previous year. In addition, daily jail charges have been increased.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS

A request is made for a supplemental appropriation of $1,560,000, necessary for the payment of claims of certain persons of Japanese ancestry for the fiscal year

1954.

For the fiscal year 1954, $225,000 was appropriated for administrative expenses only. Thus, there is an ascertained deficit of $941,525 as of the close of business January 31, 1954. It is estimated that during the remainder of the present fiscal year an additional amount of $618,475 will be awarded either by the compromise procedure or by adjudication (which would be payable from this appropriation if the award is in the amount of $2,500 or less), thereby making an estimated deficit for the year of $1,560,000.

Japanese claims compromised and adjudicated for the period July 1, 1953, through Jan. 31, 1954

Mr. CLEVENGER. Do you have a statement you want to make, Mr. Burger?

Mr. BURGER. I have no prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, other than perhaps to refer the committee to page 3 of our justification, which contains the essence of the whole matter. In substance, it is this, that in the first 7 months of the current year, adjudications have been made by the Civil Division amounting to $941,524.88. Those are actual determinations already closed as to these cases.

At the rate of closing we have set up, we estimate that we will close about $125,000 of claims each month in the remaining 5 months of the year, which is the basis for the estimate of $618,475. Mr. ROONEY. How much in claims, did you say?

Mr. BURGER. $941,524.88 is what we have already passed upon. Mr. ROONEY. You just made a statement as to so much in claims a month?

Mr. BURGER. $125,000 a month is about the rate of determinations. That will give us, mathematically, $625,000, to reach a round figure

since it is only an estimate. We have made that $618,475 to support the $1,560,000.

Mr. ROONEY. If I understand this, you now want $1,560,000?

Mr. BURGER. We have approved claims in the first 7 months of the year amounting to the $941,524. Those are already determined amounts that we will pay out to these claimants. And we estimate that on the same basis we will pass upon and adjudicate $618,000, in round figures, in the last 5 months of the year.

All of this is for the payment of claims; none of it is for administration expenses.

CLAIMS SETTLED

Mr. CLEVENGER. How many claims were settled during February? Mr. BURGER. During February, 87 claims; having a total of, in round figures, $168,000. That is about 87 cases actually closed during the month of February.

On page 4 we have shown the number, by each month during the year except February.

Mr. CLEVENGER. You settled about 138 claims in the month for a total

Mrs. ENGLISH. We settled 87 claims for a total of $168,115 during the month of February.

Mr. CLEVENGER. How many have been settled to date?

Mr. BURGER. Altogether, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. CLEVENGER. Yes.

Mr. BURGER. Perhaps this summary, which would include that figure, would bring the matter before the members of the committee again.

We started out with 24,058 claims. There have been disposed of up to this time, either by adjudication or by dismissal, 21,058, leaving a total of 3,000 unadjudicated cases, together with 179 cases which have been reopened for good cause shown; for a total of 3,179 cases still remaining to be passed upon.

Now, the amounts are of some interest perhaps.

The average of the claims asserted, which have been disposed of, that is, the 21,000 that we have closed out, was an average claim of $5,000. The average of the 3,179 remaining cases is about $25,000. In other words, we have disposed of what I think the committee has frequently characterized as most of the pots-and-pans cases. We now have the cases of more substance, running up to one which is over $1 million.

The total dollar volume of cases closed is about $64 million, and the total dollar volume of those remaining is about $65 million.

Mr. COUDERT. So that you are about halfway through?

Mr. BURGER. Dollarwise, yes, sir. In numbers of cases, we are far more than halfway through, except that the remaining cases will be much slower in being processed because they will go to hearing. Mr. COUDERT. What is the total amount of awards that were made in fiscal 1953?

Mr. BURGER. $4,359,182.

Mr. COUDERT. What is the total amount you will pay out in 1954, assuming you get the $1,560,000 you are asking for under this estimate? Mr. BURGER. That is our best estimate of what it would be. And, of course, we have 7 months of experience where we are dealing with a known factor.