up to 50-percent grants for the same purpose where loan financing would require service charges more than 50 percent above the average in comparable communities in the State or beyond the financial ability of a majority of the users. This Agency strongly recommends against enactment of this provision. It would substantially overlap the program of loans for essential public works or facilities which this Agency administers under title II of the Housing Amendments of 1955. Amendments to make the program also available to private nonprofit bodies are presently pending in the housing and urban development bill of 1965. It would also overlap the proposed Housing Agency programs of grants for sewer, water, and other community facilities under that bill.

This Agency has basic responsibility, within the executive branch, for administration of community facilities programs. Any additional Federal assistance for such facilities should be administered through this Agency.

Senator BAYH. The first two or three witnesses that we have on our schedule this morning have been unavoidably detained, we are advised, and are on the way.

We would like to ask Mr. E. Lee Feller of Coldwater, Mich., who is accompanied by Mr. Boyd Wiggins, if he would desire to let us have the benefits of his thoughts on this.

While they are proceeding to come to the microphone, I would like to ask permission on the part of the committee to introduce a statement that I have on the subject, inasmuch as it pertains, at least partially, to a disaster in the form of tornadoes which we had in Indiana. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. BIRCH BAYH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

On Palm Sunday of this year, at least three killer tornadoes swept through northern Indiana and into neighboring States.

Within the space of a few hours, quiet and well-kept towns of Indiana were transformed into scenes of devastation.

One hundred and thirty-eight Hoosiers were fatally injured that day. Another 1,369 persons in Indiana were hurt. The tornadoes which struck Indiana destroyed 1,251 homes, inflicted major damage on 679 others, and minor damage on 1,227 more; 208 trailer homes were destroyed, another 94 heavily damaged; 1,055 farm buildings were destroyed, and another 178 were damaged; 154 businesses were destroyed or damaged.

In all, 3,875 Hoosier families suffered losses of one kind or another on that fateful day.

These figures for Indiana can be multiplied many times over when we consider the natural disasters that have struck various parts of our Nation since the spring of last year. The earthquakes in Alaska and Washington *** the record floods in the Pacific Northwest and the Midwest * * * the floods now inundating Kansas and Colorado.

We have, of course, some Federal provisions for disaster aid. By and large. these have been administered fairly and have, as far as they go, proved helpful. The purpose of these hearings, however, is to determine whether Federal disaster assistance presently available to communities and individuals is adequate to meet the needs-the pressing needs-imposed on people, cities, and States through no fault of their own.

It took a special act of Congress to provide reasonably adequate assistance to Alaska after its terrible earthquake. We recently have passed another special act to provide some additional assistance to the Northwest States which were struck by floods.

The simple fact that we have had to resort on occasion to special, sectional acts of Congress to provide relief for disaster areas should be indication enough that present laws are inadequate. Certainly, it is time for us to pro

vide adequate and equitable disaster relief to disaster victims wherever they live in this great country.

Let me say at the outset that I do not favor legislation that would in any way discourage sound business practices or private charity. I am not interested in the Government getting into the insurance business or discouraging individual incentive. I am, however, vitally interested in Government being involved in matters which, because of their magnitude, cannot be coped with by individuals alone. I am also vitally interested that the National Government face up to its responsibilities in matters where city and State governments need a helping hand.

When disaster strikes on a broad scale, there are two general problem areas, damages to the public domain and damages to individuals and their private property. Present law recognizes both problem areas as legitimate concerns of government. But, in both areas, present assistance available falls far short of existing needs.

In the public domain, for example, minimal assistance is provided for the repair or reconstruction of schools. It seems to me that where local and State resources are exhausted, we have the clear responsibility to provide all the assistance necessary to disaster areas to see to it that schools are rebuilt. that books and equipment are provided, and-in cases of extreme emergencyto help keep those schools operating.

Federal highways, as we know, are constructed on a Federal-State matchingfund basis. In a disaster, State funds and State funds only must be diverted to the repair and reconstruction of damaged State highways and county roads and must be used to help repair city streets. It makes sense to me, therefore, that the usual matching-fund formulas should be dispensed with in the repair and reconstruction of Federal highways in disaster areas.

Unincorporated communities-a number of which have been devastated by recent tornadoes and floods-find themselves in particularly difficult straits after a disaster. Logic dictates that these areas should be extended the same special assistance that is available to cities and incorporated towns in time of disaster. Often the very existence of these areas and rehabilitation demands water and sewerage facilities, matching Federal grants as in the programs. In the area of private assistance, we must extend help to homeowners who, more often than not, find themselves in extreme financial difficulties following a disaster.

In Indiana, a large number of families were left with the burden of a mortgage or a loss of their equity or both after their homes were blown away by the storm. We must strive to ease this burden, to help them rebuild-either through long-term, low-interest loans or through a cost-sharing plan, or a combination of both.

The same is true of businessmen and farmers who lose their stores, or their barns; their stock or their livestock; their equipment or their fences.

It seems to me we have an obligation to provide a means by which payments can be suspended on home or business loans for reasonable periods so that disaster victims have a chance to get back on their feet. I believe we have an obligation to provide shelter at reasonable cost to families displaced by disasters.

All these things would be an investment, really, for they would encourage people to make good on their existing obligations; they would help people over a rough road so they could continue as contributing citizens and not be forced into unmanageable financial situations or bankruptcy.

I am wed to no specific language nor any specific means of alleviating the problems of which I speak. S. 1861, which I introduced for myself and more than 30 of my colleagues, proposes specific means. I think I speak for us all when I say that if there are better means to accomplish the same ends, we will wholeheartedly embrace them.

What must be emphasized, however, is the obvious need-and our obvious obligation--to provide broad and general assistance to victims of all types

of natural disasters who reside in an area designated by the President of the United States as a disaster area. We are not proposing or suggesting that the Federal Government provide relief in spot cases of tragedy for, as I said earlier, we are not interested in getting into the insurance business. We suggest only that residents of areas sufficiently devastated to warrant designation by the President as disaster areas be extended greater and more meaningful assistance than that now available.

This must be done to relieve general suffering by individuals and their families and to prevent wholesale economic difficulties in entire cities and States.

Indeed, it would be ironic if the Congress does not see fit to provide such assistance for disaster-stricken citizens of the United States. In the past decade, we of the United States have extended disaster assistance to dozens of foreign nations in the amount of $797,300,000.

When portions of Chile were devastated by an earthquake, this Nation extended a generous helping hand. We gave Chileans an outright grant of $20 million. We gave them a loan, in addition, of $100 million. We suspended repayment on the principal of the loan for 10 years. We set the interest rate at three-fourths of 1 percent.

We are a Nation of compassionate men and women. Our expenditures of billions of dollars to help our foreign neighbors economically and militarily is testimony to that. We are in the process now of approving another $3 billion in foreign aid.

Surely, it is not too much to ask that we spend an amount of money, infinitesimal compared to foreign aid, on our own people at a time when they are desperately in need of a helping hand.

Surely, it is not unreasonable to suggest that logic, compassion, and necessity demand that we provide more adequate assistance to Americans-hard-working, wage-earning Americans-who, suddenly, through no fault of their own, find themselves without a home, without possessions, and heavily in debt.

Our people have been led to believe that adequate Federal assistance will be available to them in time of disaster. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Our job is to make it so.

For, as in so many of our national programs, we are not suggesting a handout. We are suggesting that we help people to bounce back onto their feet after being knocked down by the unpredictable forces of nature. We are suggesting that we find a way to help people so they may help themselves.

That is in the best tradition of our Nation, its people, and this Congress. Senator BAYH. I am personally interested, and have viewed the area, and we have given considerable thought to the preparation of the bill on which we will hear testimony today.

I want to thank all of the other Senators who joined in the preparation and in the introduction of this bill, some 30 of us.

I am looking forward to getting the testimony of private citizens and of individuals who are charged with disaster responsibility in the various Federal agencies, so that we can have a basis for overhaul or revision of the national disaster laws.

I would like to recognize my colleague from Utah, Senator Moss, if he has any observations that he would like to make at this time. Senator Moss. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am here to hear the testimony, and not to be a witness myself, except to say that the fact that we are now having flood disaster in Colorado and Kansas and Nebraska, and some in Montana, underlines the need to have some general overall plan that can quickly be put

into effect when the disaster strikes to relieve as much as we can loss of life and property, and to restore property, and it seems to me this bill is designed to effect that, so I am anxious to hear the testimony, and to move along to see if we can get some legislation in this area, and I compliment the chairman for his leadership in bringing this bill before the committee and pushing it along the way it is going

now.

Senator BAYH. Senator, you are very kind in your compliments. However, there are many who are responsible for this. I know of your interest.

Our colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Harris:

Mr. Harris, do you have some thoughts to express?

Senator HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I simply would join in the commendations of you and others in the drafting of this legislation which is attempting to bring some uniformity to the declaration of disaster areas, and toward the efforts which are made for the recovery of those

areas.

Senator BAYH. I would like to introduce with no objection at this time a statement by Senator Miller of Iowa. Senator Miller has been one of those who have been interested in this, and, inasmuch as Iowa, as well as many other States, have been plagued with some of these recent disasters, with no objection, I would like to put his statement in the record at this time.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK MILLER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

I make this statement in support of S. 1861, of which I am an original cosponsor, to provide additional assistance to areas suffering major disaster.

The devastation resulting from the record floods and tornadoes in the Midwest is well know. It has likewise occurred in other parts of our country, and I want to make it clear that this bill is designed to cover disaster situations in every part of the United States where such unfortunate events have occurred.

Hundreds of lives were lost, many more were injured, and millions of dollars of damage resulted to property and livestock. No one will ever be able to affix dollar values on the human suffering.

The President declared most counties in the State of Iowa to be a major disas ter area on April 22, 1965. Several assistance programs were brought into play under existing law. These included the furnishing of millions of pounds of surplus commodities to flood and tornado victims and making available 3-percent Farmers Home Administration loans on homes and buildings for periods up to 33 years and on equipment and livestock up to 7 years. The Iowa National Guard helped to evacuate residents and livestock, patrolled, built and repaired levees, and searched for and recovered victims. Thousands of Iowans, including many school and college students, contributed hours of their time.

Today, however, the floods are down, the tornadoes are gone, but much of the misery, devastation, and mortgage obligations remain. Insurance covered only part of the loss at best. In frequent disaster areas, the cost of insurance coverage against these risks is prohibitive. New financing may be available to some vic tims, but only by assuming a new mortgage in addition to the prior one covering an asset which may no longer exist. Many of the victims face prospects of foreclosure or bankruptcy or both.

The present law primarily provides for assistance to our States and local communities. I would point out that the bill does provide for assistance to repair or rebuild Federal-aid highways and bridges on the 100-percent basis rather than the matching basis which exists under present law. Within recent experience. many States simply do not have sufficient funds available to meet the matching requirements.

The present law is fatally weak with reference to the problems of individuals. There is a great and immediate need to provide assistance to both individuals and businesses who have lost or suffered serious damage to homes, buildings, and equipment.

S. 1861 is a consensus of the machinery needed to meet the most pressing needs of victims in disaster areas. It is the result of weeks of exchange of ideas and conference among the original cosponsors. The need for this legislation is urgent, and I hope it will receive favorable consideration by this subcommittee. I feel the need to take care adequately of Americans who go through these hardships is as great as the need of those to whom we extend foreign aid.

Senator BAYH. Senator Nelson is another of the group of 30 Senators who joined with us in the construction and subsequent introduction of this legislation.

I would also like to include his statement in the record. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. GAYLORD NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony in support of S. 1861, of which I am a cosponsor.

This bill, known as the Disaster Relief Act of 1965, is a comprehensive proposal to provide relief to victims of floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters.

Because of the length and scope of this piece of legislation permit me to briefly summarize its provisions. S. 1861 provides for

1. Federal loan adjustments in declared disaster areas whether the loan be from the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Electrification Administration, the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the Small Business Administration, or the Veterans' Administration.

2. Refinancing of mortgage obligations on real property not insured or guaranteed by any Federal agency.

3. Shelter for disaster victims by providing accommodations through acquisition or lease of existing housing or mobile homes.

4. FHA-insured disaster loans of up to 100 percent of the appraised value of the property or estimated cost of repair to replace or restore homes.

5. Extension of time for compliance with programs administered by the Department of Agriculture.

6. Utilization of the civil defense communications system to warn governmental authorities and the civilian population in areas endangered by imminent natural disasters.

7. Assistance to any rural community or unincorporated town or village struck by a natural disaster.

8. Assistance to elementary and secondary schools where local communities hit by disasters have exhausted their resources to repair or replace damaged schools.

9. Assistance to rebuild or repair Federal-aid highways or bridges in disaster areas.

In summary, this bill primarily seeks to provide the additional machinery necessary to meet the pressing needs of the individuals in disaster areas.

Regrettably we have had for too many disasters during the last few years. The Alaska earthquake seems to have been the beginning of a long chain of disasters. Since that quake in March of 1964, 30 major disasters have occurred. The latest being the May 26 floods in South Dakota.

All of us who are sponsoring this bill believe that present laws generally provide adequate assistance from the Federal Government to our States and our communities when we are considering public property losses.

But we also generally agree that there is a great and immediate need to expand existing law to make it possible for the Government to help individual citizens in disaster areas who lose their homes, businesses, farm buildings, and other property. Too often disaster victims lose everything except their mortgage obligations.