Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, sir.

Indeed, you have portrayed an all-too-familiar story to the junior Senator from Indiana, and I am glad to have it in the record.

I think one thing that your testimony and your slides pointed out was the unique character of some of the losses, and the expenses that have to be incurred.

For example, you point to the objects that are protruding from the lake. Well, there are also objects, if your lakes are the same as ours, that were affected and are going to be coming to the surface throughout the summer, and these are going to be a considerable hazard to water skiers and swimmers.

Mr. FELLER. And yet, these lakes, to this day, are certified as not public hazards by the Office of Emergency Planning. To this day, we can't get any help to clear our lakes, because these are considered to be private lakes, because they are surrounded by private owners.

Senator BAYH. When one is anticipating insuring his or her property against loss, this type of loss or expense certainly is not a normal one to consider. An example is the heavy burden that many farmers have had in clearing property. I think that it is beyond the realm of reason to have to consider insuring your property against this type of loss. One farmer that I know-and a county agent could undoubtedly tell us some examples in Michigan-destroyed five large tractor tires, or had them punctured, in plowing a 20-acre field. Well, this is not like changing a car tire, as anyone who has had to change one of them knows. It is an expensive process. And fences. It is very seldom that a fence is ever insured. In fact, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get insurance on fences. Yet in one county in Indiana, we had 300 miles of fencing destroyed, and that is a long line of fence.

I won't pursue this any further.

Senator Moss, do you have any questions?

Senator Moss. Those slides are very telling, indeed. They show a degree of damage and desolation that is hard to conceive, and I think that this was very effective to show the severity of this disaster. I am a little bit at a loss as to why the difficulties have arisen to getting aid in there.

I assume that you had Red Cross aid, and disaster organizations like that, in the early stages. Is that right?

Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, sir; Red Cross for food and shelter. Yet. And then our local agencies, such as our Moose Lodge, our Eagles, chamber of commerce. We had at one time 1,400 high school students in the county, out helping. They took their spring vacation over Easter to assist.

Senator Moss. What about the National Guard? Did the Governor send in the guard?

Mr. FELLER. Yes. The National Guard came in the next morning, and stayed, I believe, 2 weeks.

Senator Moss. I am reassured to know that, but I can see the problem. It is really a financial base for being able to clean up and rehabilitate, and eliminate all of these hazards.

Mr. FELLER. Our final estimate on debris clearance which was submitted was two hundred fifty thousand about six hundred some dollars. And, after spending $70,000 the first 10 days, of county money, with

out having it, we had to stop cleanup operations, pending our disaster fund moneys from Public Law 875.

And again, I have people in my office every day, wondering why can't you come out and help us, or when are you going to come out? I believe I have 150 people that signed requests the first week. All right, this is 9 weeks ago, and they wonder why we aren't out there. We can't move, because the office doesn't have that kind of money. This would be 212 mills on our State equalized valuation, and we just can't raise that kind of money alone.

Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Wiggins.

Senator BAYH. I might add one other bit of information for the record, to underscore the seriousness of the picture that was painted here.

We were very much alarmed by the loss that was suffered by our fellow countrymen in Alaska, and we appropriated a sizable amount of money, and passed a special act. Yet, the loss of life in Alaska was 119, whereas in the State of Indiana alone on that one Palm Sunday, we lost 139 people, eventually. Several of them died later. This, again is, a rather striking indication of what mother nature can do when she decides to let loose some of these horrible forces.

Let me ask one other question, if I may, of you, Mr. Wiggins. One of the ways that we have tried to get some relief is to get the Agriculture Department to extend the feed grain program signup 2 weeks. It was all the extension that would have been necessary for this disaster. Now, the Indiana experience has been this: Despite the burden, despite the loss, our farmers are determined to get back in production, and, as a result, at considerable expense to themselves, they have gone ahead and have cleared this land. It has cost them quite a bit more to get it into production, and because of the lateness of the crop, it is going to be a less economic crop, or a less bountiful crop. This land is going to be in production in Indiana. It is planted now. much of it, but at greater expense. It seems to me that we would decrease production, and provide a financial benefit to the farmer at the same time, which, as I see it, are the purposes of the feed grains program. Now, has this been the experience in Michigan, or are there going to be large areas that aren't going to be put into use?

Mr. WIGGINS. No. This is pretty well the same experience in Michigan, but this was our purpose, when we asked for the feed grain program to be extended, the same as your purpose in Indiana, so that the farmer would have more time to clear his land, and it would also serve the purpose of cutting down on production. This is why I think that the Secretary should be given this right to open these up. Senator BAYH. So, it is fair to say that it is going to cost consideraly more per acre to put it in. Probably because of the lateness of the season, the income will be less, and, yet, there is going to be production on this land.

Mr. WIGGINS. Some of it. Some of it will have to lie idle because they couldn't get in and get it cleared in time. I hate to think of the cost of harvesting wheat with all of the debris that was in the wheat that they couldn't get in and get out.

I guess we should be in the tire business this year, with the number of tires that are being ruined.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much gentlemen.

49-751 0-65—4

Do you have anything further?

Mr. FELLER. Thank you.

Senator BAYH. Let us now have our Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, Gov. Buford Ellington.

Governor, it is a pleasure to have you with us this morning. Mr. ELLINGTON. Thank

you,

sir.

Senator BAYH. I know first hand of your interest in this, inasmuch as we both had the good fortune, or should I say misfortune, of accompanying the President to view some of these disaster areas, and I am anxious to have your thoughts on what we can do to complement the job that you are already doing on an around-the-clock basis in the administration of our emergency planning and disaster aid program. STATEMENT OF BUFORD ELLINGTON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT Y. PHIL LIPS, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT READINESS; M. M. MERKER, LEGAL ADVISER; AND HUBERT R. GALLAGHER, DIRECTOR, LIAISON AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Mr. ELLINGTON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have with me this morning Mr. Robert Phillips, Director of Government Readiness; Mr. M. M. Merker, our legal adviser; and Mr. Hubert R. Gallagher, our Director of Liaison and Public Affairs. If I might, sir, I will read a very brief statement, and then we will try to be ready for your questions.

First, let me say that it is a privilege to appear before you today in response to your invitation to offer our comments on S. 1861, a bill "To provide additional assistance for areas suffering a major disaster". As you know, the President has delegated responsibility for administration of the Federal Disaster Act, Public Law 81-875, to the Office of Emergency Planning.

Under Executive Orders 10427, 10737, and 11051, the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning has the authority to coordinate and direct the activities of Federal agencies in providing disaster assistance to States and local governments, and to administer funds for disaster relief made available to the President by the Congress.

Public Law 875 was enacted on September 30, 1950, to provide a uniform and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to States and local governments threatened or suffering from the effects of major disasters. The act provides the legal authority for Federal disaster relief and authorizes establishment of permanent administrative procedures to insure the orderly application of Federal assistance when required to alleviate suffering and damage resulting from major disasters.

Federal assistance under the act is supplementary to, and not in substitution for, relief afforded by private, local, and State agencies. The prinicpal types of supplemental assistance available under Public Law 875 are: protective, health and sanitation measures; debris clearance; and the emergency repair or temporary replacement of essential public facilities of State and local governments.

From 1953 to 1962, allocations from the Public Law 875 fund averaged some $11 million a year. Since 1962, the average under this act

has been over $49 million a year. In Alaska, alone, following the 1964 earthquake, $60 million of Public Law 875 funds were required. Some $276 million of other Federal funds were necessary to cope with that catastrophe, including loans to private individuals and cooperative associations.

I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of your interest in providing the necessary legislation to assure adequate programs to alleviate the suffering and hardships of the victims of disasters. I agree with the necessity for reviewing existing legislative measures at this time to be sure that any desired improvements can be made to cope with what seems to be a growing incidence of major disasters.

Numerous bills have been introduced to take care of special situations arising from individual disasters. In the case of Alaska, the 1964 Amendments to the Alaska Omnibus Act were enacted. Following the 1964 Christmas floods in the Northwest States, the Pacific Northwest Disaster Relief Act of 1965 was enacted to aid those individuals affected. More bills were introduced after the disastrous floods and tornadoes in the Midwest.

Again, the proposals authorized assistance to those particular disaster victims. I am most pleased to see an approach both general in application and permanent in nature, as reflected in this measure. I have already submitted to you, Mr. Chairman, in our departmental report our recommendations on S. 1861, commenting on each individual section.

Briefly, then, our position on this proposal is favorable, but I would like to defer to those departments and agencies that would be specifically involved in the administration of sections 3, 6, 7, and 8. would also defer comments on section 4 to the Bureau of the Budget, which, I believe, will offer an alternative proposal.

I would like, if I may, to comment on those sections in which the Office of Emergency Planning has a direct responsibility.

Section 5 of the bill would authorize the President to provide shelter for disaster victims. With one exception, this section duplicates authority now available under Public Law 875 and I believe, therefore, is unnecessary. The exception is the authority to acquire real estate. I do not believe that the present lack of authority to acquire realty under Public Law 875 has ever hindered our ability to provide emergency housing.

I believe, also, Mr. Chairman, that the first paragraph of section 9 is unnecessary since Public Law 875 authorizes the repair or reconstruction of public facilities regardless of their location. This paragraph should be deleted.

I would suggest that the part of section 10 which would amend Public Law 815, the act which provides Federal assistance in the construction of schools in impacted areas, also duplicates authority now available under Public Law 875. The balance of that section, which authorizes grants for the maintenance and operating costs of school districts, is not now available under Public Law 875, and I would defer to the interested agencies.

Section 11 of this bill would authorize the payment of 100 percent of the cost of emergency repair and replacement of any Federal aid highways. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that Public Law 88-658, enacted by the Congress last year, providing for emergency repair and replace

ment of these highways on the same sliding scale basis as initial construction is a fair and equitable approach.

The Office of Emergency Planning opposes section 12, which provides for reimbursement by the Office of Emergency Planning to individuals, corporations, or other entities up to 50 percent for costs incurred in constructing flood control works. We believe a do-ityourself flood protection program of this type might have an adverse effect on coordinated flood protection work. It could create heavy administrative burdens on local officials and burdensome costs to the Federal Government.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me again make clear that we favor this type of legislation, applicable equally throughout the country and affording Federal assistance to the individual-those who suffer in the greatest degree from the effects of major distasters. Mr. Chairman, that is our statement, sir.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Governor.

First, let me compliment not only you but Mr. Phillips, in particular, for the close cooperation that our office has received in our efforts to study this program. We have had some situations, I am sure, where we can point to that relief provided has not been exactly what we would like. I can attest from personal experience to the fact that your office and you, Mr. Phillips, and the others, certainly are as interested as we in trying to shore up the weak spots that may now exist.

I have several questions, if I may, that stem from your particular expertise in this area.

You refer in your statement to the debris clearance. Does this refer to debris clearance by private individuals or to clearance of the public domain?

Mr. ELLINGTON. Of course, in the private individual case, Mr. Chairman, we have no responsibility unless it is certified to us that it is a health hazard.

Senator BAYH. Public safety or health hazard.

Mr. ELLINGTON. That is correct.

Senator BAYH. I see.

Who makes that certification?

Mr. ELLINGTON. The Health Department.

Senator BAYн. The Health Department.

Would you care to comment concerning the statement by the gentleman from Branch County?

Mr. ELLINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I didn't arrive in time to hear all of the statement. I did hear part of it. Let me say this, and, if you will, I would like Mr. Phillips to comment on that, because he was directly connected with the program in that area.

We have had, since I came here in February, I believe it was, March, as you may know, almost a disaster a week. There is no reason in that, however, for any delay. Our great problem has been to get those responsible at the local level to understand how far and what we can do under our present program, and under the law under which we operate.

I would not say that that is anyone's fault, because it is human nature that we don't expect these things to ever happen to us. Therefore, in many cases, we had misunderstandings as to how far we could go within the law.