they might have some help, but they really could not make their plans and as a result many of them simply had to leave an area and seek other employment, and I submit we need to have that assistance which can only be made available through a proper insurance program. Is there a need for a Federal grant program as in section 4 or can the Red Cross and other organizations meet the need of individuals?

Mr. SHEA. Mr. Congressman, the American National Red Cross will meet the disaster-caused needs, not losses, but the disaster-caused needs of any families affected by disaster. I again would prefer not to comment on any specific section of the bill.

Mr. CLAUSEN. What is the average of grants given to a family by the Red Cross during the past few years?

Mr. SHEA. It will vary by disaster. In a tornado disaster the average assistance would run $400 to $600. In a flood disaster where there is no insurance availability the average expenditure per case will come close to $1,000.

Mr. CLAUSEN. What is the maximum amount?

Mr. SHEA. There is no maximum. We have many cases in which there may be as much as $15,000 to $20,000 to $25,000 involved, particularly where there are medical factors in the case or where there is a lack of income-producing members in the family. On the other hand it may range down to a small bit of essential household furnishings.

Mr. CLAUSEN. So that you would set the higher figure based on your experience has been about $25,000.

Mr. SHEA. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLAUSEN. And that included possibly the rebuilding of a home. Mr. SHEA. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I want to thank you very much for your very courteous responses to my questions.

Mr. SHEA. Mr. Clausen, it is a pleasure to meet you again. I think you and I met during the early days of the December floods out there. Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEE (assuming the chair). Are there any other questions? (No response.)

Mr. KEE. I want on behalf of the members to thank you for coming, and again express the appreciation of the folks of my congressional district in southern West Virginia and the surrounding areas for the outstanding service that you performed on the Southern Fork of the Ohio Basin in our floods of 1957, 1962, and 1963. It was really a warm feeling to see the effective work which your representatives did to help those folks when they were in need. I just wanted to thank you very much.

Mr. SHEA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KEE. The next witness is Dr. Robert White, Administrator of the Environment Science Services Administration. We have a quorum call on the floor. You may submit your statement to the committee for the record and make a brief statement on what you have to present. Particularly I understand an important part of your coverage is on section 8(a). Am I correct?

Dr. WHITE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. WHITE, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT B. ELLERT, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, AND PAUL H. KUTSCHENREUTER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF USER AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Dr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Mr. Robert Ellert of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Commerce, and Mr. Paul Kutschenreuter, Director of the Office of User Affairs.

I do have a statement, Mr. Chairman. I will not read it but submit it for the record and point to the pertinent points I wish to make which refer to section 8 of the proposed legislation.

(A proposed nationwide natural disaster warning system (nadwarn) report with background information, can be found in committee files.)

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY DR. ROBERT M. WHITE, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of Commerce on S. 1861, the proposed Disaster Relief Act. Among the thirteen admirable and humane purposes of this bill, there is one which is of special interest and concern to the Environmental Science Services Administration. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to Section 8, entitled "Disaster Warn

ings," which reads as follows:

"Section 8. (a) The Secretary of Defense is authorized to utilize the facilities of the civil defense communications system established and maintained pursuant to section 201 (c) of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2281(e)), for the purpose of providing needed warning to Governmental authorities and the civilian population in areas endangered by imminent natural disasters.

(b) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of subsection (a)."

The Organic Act which created the Weather Bureau (51st Congress, 1st Session 21, Part II, October 1, 1890) stated:

"The Chief of the Weather Bureau, under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, on and after July first, eighteen hundred and ninety one, shall be charged with the forecasting of the weather, the issue of storm warnings, the display of weather and flood signals for the benefit of agriculture commerce and navigation. . . ."

In 1940, when the Weather Bureau was transferred to the Department of Commerce, the "Duties of Chief of Bureau" (15 U.S.C. 313) again included "... the forecasting of the weather, the issue of storm warnings, the display of weather and flood signals.

Under Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1965, the Weather Bureau and the Coast and Geodetic Survey of the Department of Commerce and the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards were combined into the Environmental Science Services Administration on July 13, 1965. This provided “. . . a single national focus to describe, understand, and predict the state of the oceans, the state of the upper and lower atmosphere, and the size and shape of the earth." To the natural hazard warning responsibilities of the Weather Bureau were added those of the Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory; within ESSA we now have warning responsibility for all natural environmental hazards, including the tsunamis of the Pacific and also radiation hazard warnings.

For seventy-five years, Mr. Chairman, the Weather Bureau has been charged with the responsibility for forecasting, issuing and displaying warnings. With advancing technology "the display of weather and flood signals" has progressed

55-546-66-pt. 2- 6

from the initial display of signal flags to the use of modern communications methods for providing needed warning to governmental authorities and to the civilian population in areas endangered by imminent natural disasters.

We have recently prepared and are in the process of implementing a comprehensive Natural Disaster Warning Plan for the U.S. This plan is an outcome of a survey of the Palm Sunday (April 11, 1965) tornado disaster undertaken by a Weather Bureau team at my direction. The team determined, as have the sponsors of S. 1861, that communications—in the broadest sense of the word-represented the weakest link in the chain of warning responsibility. The report and recommendations were presented to the Secretary of Commerce in May of 1965. He accepted both the report and its recommendations, but directed that an interagency team be organized to conduct a comprehensive study of all natural hazards and develop a complete and integrated total natural hazard warning plan.

The second and more complete study was made by an interdepartmental group consisting of representatives of the Environmental Science Services Administration, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Communications Commission, Office of Civil Defense and Office of Emergency Planning. The Weather Bureau representative was the chairman of the Group.

As in the case of the earlier report, we determined that improved communications were an essential link in a total natural disaster warning plan. Accordingly, we recommended, among other things a communications system and plan which is capable of handling all natural disaster warnings.

Our report "A Proposed Nationwide Natural Disaster Warning (NADWARN) System" and its recommendations were studied and accepted by Secretary Connor. It was released by President Johnson on March 1, 1966. Included in the Commerce budget for Fiscal Year 1967 is $7 million for implementation of half of Phase I of the proposed III-phase plan.

One of the expression goals of the NADWARN System is: "To make effective use of existing technology and of existing facilities of all participating government agencies." Among the "existing facilities" specifically mentioned is the civil defense communications system. Through the cooperation of the Director, Office of Civil Defense, those civil defense communications facilities which can be utilized are in the process of being made available to the Environmental Science Services Administration for the distribution of warnings in areas endangered by imminent natural disasters. Similarly, reciprocal arrangements have been made whereby the Environmental Science Services Administration communications facilities will be utilized for the distribution of Office of Civil Defense warnings in event of a nuclear attack.

Thus, the intent of Section 8(a) is already in process of being realized through the Department of Commerce Environmental Science Services Administration's use of the civil defense communications system in discharging its responsibility for distributing warnings "to governmental authorities and the civilian population in areas endangered by imminent natural disasters."

As the intent of Section 8(a) is already being realized by the Environmental Science Services Administration, it is recommended that Section 8 be deleted. If, however, your Committee determines that a provision for this purpose should be included in the bill, we urge that Section 8(a) be amended by deleting the word "utilize" and substituting therefore the words "make available to the Secretary of Commerce."

Dr. WHITE. The essential point, Mr. Chairman, is that since 1890 with the formation of the Weather Bureau the responsibility for preparing and issuing natural disaster warnings with respect to weather of course has been with the Chief of the Weather Bureau. With the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of the President of last year and with the formation of the Environmental Science Services Administration which now combines the Weather Bureau and the Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards, the organization now has the comprehensive responsibility for preparing and issuing all natural hazards warnings, not only including weather warnings but seismic sea wave warnings and other kinds of geophysical warnings.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Would the gentleman yield. Would that include draught warnings and flood warnings?

Dr. WHITE. Yes, sir. In connection with the formation of this organization and also triggered by the Palm Sunday tornadoes of last year, a survey was conducted at my request of the performance of the tornado warning system in that situation. This was presented to the Secretary of Commerce, who then requested us, in conjunction with the other Federal agencies involved in natural disasters, to prepare a comprehensive plan which we have done and which has been released by the President. This is the Nationwide Natural Disaster Warning System plan, and we have provided copies of this proposed system to the members of the committee, which seeks to provide a single comprehensive system for providing warnings in all of the natural hazards to which our nation and other countries, of course, are subjected. There are many recommendations in this proposal, and we have now submitted to the Congress this year requests for appropriations in the amount of $7 million to initiate the first half of the first phase of this comprehensive plan which we believe will go a very long way toward remedying deficiencies which presently exist in our natural hazards warning system.

So given these considerations, Mr. Chairman, it is our feeling that the section 8 of the proposed legislation is in the process of being realized through the Department of Commerce and the Environmental Science Services Administration in which we use the civil defense communications system in discharging our responsibility and for distributing warnings to governmental authorities and the civilian population in areas endangered by imminent natural disasters.

As the intent of section 8(a) is already being realized, we do recommend, as I have mentioned, that it be deleted. If, however, Mr. Chairman, your committee determines that a provision for this purpose should be included in the bill, we urge that section 8(a) be amended by deleting the word "utilize" and subsituting there for the words "make available to the Secretary of Commerce." Section 8(a) would then authorize the Secretary of Defense to make available to the Secretary of Commerce the communications facilities which, incidentally, we are using extensively for our warning purposes.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. CLAUSEN. First of all, I want to take this opportunity to say that I enjoy meeting you face to face, Dr. White. We have had a substantial amount of correspondence particularly relating to my requests for approving this natural disaster warning system, and I have made the statement that it is almost ridiculous we do not have the finest available communications and warning systems commensurate with modern advances in technology. I am impressed and pleased to see that this recommendation is before us. At what stage is your request for funding?

Dr. WHITE. It is presently being considered by the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. CLAUSEN. This is the Independent Offices Appropriations Committee?

Dr. WHITE. No, sir; Commerce.

Mr. CLAUSEN. That would be in Commerce, yes. Do you anticipate any difficulty?

Dr. WHITE. Well, I hesitate to make a judgment as to what the Appropriations Committee will do to our requests.

Mr. CLAUSEN. You may expect support from this Congressman.
Dr. WHITE. Thank you.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Do you feel this will provide an adequate natural disaster warning system?

Dr. WHITE. When we have the system completely implemented, which will take several years, what it will do will be to provide a system using existing technology and present know-how in providing warnings. It does not mean all of our warnings will be perfect because our scientific understanding of the processes in the atmosphere and the oceans is not perfect. To the extent that modern technology and observation systems such as radar will permit us to give prompt, reliable warnings to the accuracy permitted by the science, I think it will do it, sir.

Mr. CLAUSEN. How long will it take you to complete this system? Dr. WHITE. We are proposing that the system be installed in approximately six sections and three phases, and we have requested funds for the first half of the first phase. This would imply approximately 5 to 6 years to install this complete system nationwide.

Mr. CLAUSEN. And are you placing a priority in those areas that are chronically flood prone?

Dr. WHITE. The implementation plans are outlined in general in the report which you have, and they are based upon an assessment of the areas of the country which are most disaster prone from all of the natural hazards-tornadoes, hurricanes, floods-and the sequence of implementation is based upon an assessment of the importance of the hazards in each area. There is a map at the front of this pamphlet which shows all of the hazards as they affect the United States and in the report on page 15 there is a map showing the general phasing of our plan.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you.

Mr. KEE. Doctor, I am certainly grateful to you for your excellent testimony clarifying the situation. I want to associate myself with my colleague on my left. I am going to work with you to try to get that appropriation. I certainly thank you very much, you and your associates, for appearing before the committee.

Dr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman I have a statement to make, with a supporting statement and material which I'd like to submit for the record.

Mr. KEE. Please proceed, Mr. Clausen.

STATEMENT BY HON. DON H. CLAUSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to deliver a statement to this committee this morning in support of the philosophy of extending aid to areas hit by natural disasters. I am particularly delighted with the progress we have been making with this type of legislation because I have been advocating action on disaster assistance for many years. I have had a great deal of personal contact with the sad, unfortunate consequences of natural disasters in my own con