mation had been transmitted to the Board in terms of making these decisions. That was my question and I guess you have said no.

Mr. COLDWELL. I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question. We were given the information about the targeting areas.

Mr. EVANS. I understand also that Chairman Brown of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said that the United States is currently retargeting some of our missiles against warmaking capability that we are interested in hitting in the Soviet Union. I presume the Soviet Union is constantly retargeting their launch vehicles also. Wouldn't it make sense that the Soviets would have some type of information as to where we would store information and records and so forth vital to our warmaking and recovery effort in what we would presume to be nontarget areas in this country? How do we get the idea that the Soviets feel these are nontarget areas?

Mr. COLDWELL. Well, I believe you're right, and I wouldn't downgrade the Soviet intelligence in that sense. I think they probably are retargeting and we have changed some of our assumptions on targeting areas in the United States and therefore have changed some of our relocation sites.

Mr. EVANS. So it's really a game then of trying to outguess the other side?

Mr. COLDWELL. It's an ongoing thing.

Mr. EVANS. How long would you estimate, if we did suffer a first blow from the Soviet Union or even a retaliatory attack upon this country, it would take to get back into the business of currency production?

Mr. COLDWELL. Probably a year to 2 years, Congressman. If Washington itself were badly damaged so that the equipment were gone and the trained personnel were gone, it would take a year to 2 years to get back into production.

Mr. EVANS. Are there other locations where high speed presses of the type used down at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing could be found or is this site in Washington the only one in this country?

Mr. COLDWELL. It's the only one, but there are some obsolete pieces of equipment which the Bureau of Printing and Engraving is considering storing elsewhere.

Mr. EVANS. And you would consider those to be backup presses although they are currently not stored in any type of hard sites in this country?

Mr. COLDWELL. I can't give you an answer exactly where they are right now. Two of them have been stored, but not in hardened sites. Mr. EVANS. I understand you to say two presses have been stored? Mr. GRIMWOOD. Two have been stored, Congressman, and eight remain to be removed and stored.

Mr. EVANS. But there are plans underway to make that move?
Mr. GRIMWOOD. Yes, sir.

Mr. EVANS. It would seem to make a great deal of sense for that type of move to be carried out with a great deal of urgency, in that here we have the possibility of storing an alternate source of printing of currency instead of storing billions of dollars of cash.

Mr. COLDWELL. We will be reappraising our storage of cash once the storage of the equipment takes place.

Mr. EVANS. When would that be carried out? Within the next number of months?

Mr. COLDWELL. Within the next year.

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you. Well, we thank you very, very much, gentlemen. You have been most helpful to us. I must say I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Burns in his skepticism about this operation and the assumptions behind it and I do hope, General Bray, that you will be able to make that report to Dr. Burns just as soon as possible. Not only is he a very important man in our overall economic situation, but he's an extremely wise and thoughtful man, one of the wisest in the Government, and I think his skepticism is certainly warranted. Thank you very much.

(For responses to additional questions for the record, see p. 278) The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning when we reconvene in room 1114.

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was recessed, to be reconvened at 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 29, 1976.]

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL EMERGENCY

PREPAREDNESS

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1976

U.S. CONGRESS,

JOINT COMMITTEE ON DEFENSE PRODUCTION,

Washington, D.C.

The Joint Committee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1114, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. David Evans presiding. Present: Congressmen David Evans, Garry Brown and Parren Mitchell.

Also present: Bill Kincade, staff director, and Rhett Dawson, minority counsel.

Mr. EVANS. The hearing will come to order. Senator Proxmire could not be here this morning because of a Senate Banking Committee markup, and he has asked me to conduct today's hearings.

Yesterday the Joint Committee began the public portion of its inquiry into the condition of the Nation's civil emergency preparedness effort, hearing testimony primarily on Federal organization and

programs.

Today we will continue with another aspect of the Federal preparedness scene, hearing testimony on post-disaster rehabilitation programs from Mr. Thomas Dunne, Administrator of the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration.

We will also look at local preparedness programs at the city and county level. For this purpose we are privileged to have as witnesses Mr. George R. Rodericks, Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness of the District of Columbia, and Mr. Cecil Russell, Director of Emergency Services of Huntington, W. Va., and president of the U.S. Civil Defense Council, an association of 2,500 municipal and county preparedness officials.

In the earlier hearing the committee examined different types of preparedness organizations and programs, as well as different levels of organizations. We will continue that focus throughout. But today I think it is important that we add another dimension to our thinking and address preparedness measures in terms of sequence. That is, how are preparedness tasks differentiated in time and how do agency responsibilities shift with changes in tasks from pre-disaster operations to disaster and relief operations to post-disaster rehabilitation. A question which arose in yesterday's hearings which I believe will and should be another important theme in these discussions is how we set preparedness priorities. There seems to be feeling among some State and local officials that the Federal Government has, perhaps unwittingly, deemphasized preparedness programs across the board. Still others seem to feel that the Federal Government has become ex

cessively preoccupied with civil preparedness for nuclear attack, even though the public utterances of Presidents and Defense Secretaries characterize nuclear attack as an extremely remote contingency.

On the other hand, Federal officials express concern that State and local agencies are not giving sufficient attention to nationwide emergencies such as nuclear attack. They observe that State and local governments favor programs aimed at recurring local and regional disasters, such as floods or earthquakes, while slighting their capability for other contingencies.

Somehow these differing perceptions and interests have to be harmonized into an integrated set of priorities if we are to have a common effort that welds together agencies and individuals at all levels of government. If we do not have common priorities and agreement on those priorities, then the so-called national civil emergency preparedness effort will continue to be a loose confederation handicapped by internal disagreement, with different segments pulling in different directions. With relatively few resources available, we can't afford that kind of disagreement over their use.

Our first witness today will be Mr. Dunne. He will be followed by Mr. Rodericks and Mr. Russell, both of whom bring extensive backgrounds in preparedness to their present assignments. I will ask each of you to limit your oral summaries to 15 minutes. Then we will follow with questions and answers.

Mr. Dunne, I would like to welcome you this morning, and ask you to proceed with your oral statement. I expect to be interrupted several times this morning with quorum calls and votes in the House of Representatives. If there are other members of the committee who are here, I will ask them to carry on. If not, Mr. Bill Kincade, Staff Director of the Joint Committee, will go ahead with the meeting until I can return.

So if you would, please begin.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. DUNNE, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. DUNNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before your committee to discuss disaster preparedness and the responsibilities of the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration.

I wish to congratulate your committee for approaching the subject of preparedness from the standpoint of basic requirements rather than simply from an organizational point of view.

First, I would like to give you a brief summary of the program which I administer. The basic authority for the Federal Government's disaster assistance program is the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, which was enacted on May 22, 1974.

The purpose of the act, as set forth in Section 101, is to provide an orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to supplement the efforts of State and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which result from disasters.

The word assistance is a very important one. Federal legislation recognizes that the first response and recovery efforts will come from the people directly affected by the disaster. Cities, towns, and counties respond daily to disasters which do not require outside assistance. If the occurrence is severe and widespread, local governments may turn to the State for help.

The State, in turn, may ask for help from the Federal Government. It should be noted that Federal disaster assistance under the act is initiated only upon a request from the Governor of a State and a declaration by the President. The Governor's request must be based on his finding that effective response is beyond the capability of the State and the affected local governments. The President's declaration of a major disaster is made upon his determination that the damage is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant Federal assistance under the act to supplement the efforts and available resources of the States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating damage, loss, hardship or suffering.

All of the authorities in the act are given to the President. The assistance authorities which are activated by the President's declaration have been delegated to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. She has delegated them to the Administrator, FDAA. As the Administrator, I also have the responsibility for appointing a Federal Coordinating Officer in each disaster. The Federal Coordinating Officer is the primary Federal official in the disaster area. His particular concern is coordination of Federal support of the State and local efforts.

The act provides for assistance to local and State governments, mostly for repair and restoration of publicly owned facilities. Generally, assistance is in the form of financial grants. The affected government, under its own regular management procedures, does the necessary work. Assistance is also given directly to individuals in the form of temporary housing, unemployment assistance, food and food coupons, and grants for other necessary expenses or serious needs. Disaster loans are made by the Small Business Administration and by the Farmers Home Administration.

The Disaster Relief Act also authorizes preparedness grants to the States for developing plans, programs and capabilities, especially for making use of Federal disaster assistance. All States-and other jurisdictions defined as "States" in the act-57 in all-except the Canal Zone, are participating. The average grant is $248,000.

Mr. Chairman, you may have heard and probably will hear discussion on a number of issues related to preparedness: recommendations for more flexibility in the use of Federal funds for preparedness planning; recommendations for more effective coordination of preparedness at the Federal level: and recommendations for the reorganization of the executive branch. It is possible that many of these recommendations deal with the symptoms and not with the disease, if indeed there is a disease. I do not wish to imply that I have the answers.

Mr. EVANS. Excuse me, Mr. Dunne. I have to leave for a few moments. So if you will continue your statement, Mr. Kincade will carry on at the beginning of the questions.

Mr. DUNNE. Certainly.

79-953 O-77-4