Page images
PDF
EPUB

basis, where the Federal Government, the State government, and the individual involved each would bear part of cost.

To my knowledge, we have not arrived at a specific formula, but the philosophy behind this is that it is good, really, for all levels of government recognize a responsibility to help in situations like this. Also, we don't want to take away all the incentive from the individual property owner to take what steps are available to protect himself from loss.

Now, this makes good sense to me, with one reservation. All of our States are not equally able to pay contributing shares. I wonder what you think, first of all, of the principle, the establishment of such a fund, and, secondly, what you would think of, perhaps, adjusting the States' contributions thereto on the basis of the income, the valuation, and some of the various economic factors we have that judge our States according to wealth. This would, it seems to me, be particularly applicable to Alaska, because of the large percentage of Federal lands that we have in Alaska.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, of course, replying to your last question first, I think there is very considerable merit to this approach. It has been used elsewhere in matters unrelated to disaster used, as a matter of fact, in income tax principles to a considerable extent.

I think the joint fund has merit. I hadn't heard about it before. I would want to consider it. But, offhand, I would say that something of this kind is justified.

I would add that if the bill to which I previously alluded, S. 408, becomes law, and if the Housing and Home Finance Agency is able— and who knows whether they will be or not, I don't-to come up with a reasonable insurance program, that might to a certain extent supersede the need for this joint fund arrangement.

I realize it is going to be a terribly complicated and complex matter to arrive at an equitable insurance program. There are some complexities regarding different homeowners, for example. This became very clear in Alaska.

Let us say a man had a $25,000 home, and he owned $15,000 on that, and $10,000 had been paid, and the home went over the bluff at the time of the earthquake. Well, it has been the general experience, I believe, that if that man is given a 3-percent Small Business Administration disaster loan to rebuild elsewhere, actually, he isn't hurt as badly as one might infer at first glance. This is because the difference between the interest rates which existed and the Small Business Administration is so considerable that he ends up paying the same or less in monthly payments. Though, of course, he has double principal to pay.

Then what do you do with the man who had a $25,000 house next door, who, through greater prudence or greater possession of money, or whatever the factors might be, had paid off his mortgage, and didn't owe anything on his house? Well, too often, there, at least, he has been without help of any kind.

I mention those situations only to seek to demonstrate that this is a very complex matter. It has to be studied, as I know it will be, with exceeding care.

Senator BAYH. One of the important things, and difficult things, as you point out, is to try to provide this type of assistance in a man

ner that would be equitable, and not deter an individual from the prudence and the initiative which is so representative of most of the people in the country. We appreciate very much your taking the time to come here and contribute to the record, and let us have the benefit of your experience in Alaska.

Thank you very much, Senator Bartlett.

Senator BARTLETT. You are very kind to hear me. Thank you. (The prepared statement of Senator Bartlett and his remarks in the Senate on April 30 are as follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR E. L. BARTLETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Mr. Chairman, I have asked to appear before this subcommittee today both because I am a cosponsor of the legislation which you are considering and because I feel that I have an obligation to share with you my experience in working with existing Federal statutes.

On March 27, 1964, not quite 15 months ago, my State of Alaska experienced what, up to that time, was one of the most devastating catastrophes ever to strike a State of the Union.

Yet, since that time, there has been three major disasters, each of which has caused more property damage than the Alaska earthquake. Each of these events, two floods, and a series of tornadoes, occurred in a multistate area-the Pacific Northwest floods of December and January, the Upper Plains area flooding and the Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio tornadoes of late April.

The Alaska earthquake, the Pacific Northwest floods and the Midwest floods and tornadoes have given the Senate significant experience in working with Public Law 81-875, the National Disaster Act. Those of us who have worked with it know what an effective instrument the act is in dealing with many aspects of a natural disaster. Under its terms, a presidential determination that a "natural disaster" has occurred immediately brings into play the President's Office of Emergency Planning. Through the OEP, the President can order any agency of the Federal Government to lend, donate, lease or sell equipment, supplies, facilities, personnel and other resources to State and local governments in a disasterstricken area. In addition, provision is made for assistance in restoring public facilities, clearing debris, and providing emergency housing.

Public Law 81-875 also provides for the immediate reconstruction or restoration of all Federal facilities damaged or destroyed in any major disaster. The cost of the work can be paid from "any available funds not otherwise immediately required." Provision is also made for the President to devote to disaster relief any funds which he has available. Broad authority is granted all Federal agencies to acquire, rent or contract for equipment, services, supplies, travel, communication and administrative assistance required in the emergency without regard to the civil service laws.

All of these activities are administered by the President through the extraordinary efficiency of the Office of Emergency Planning, and are supplemented by the work of a multitude of other Federal agencies. The full range of Federal services available to a community in a natural disaster is outlined in a publication entitled "Federal Disaster Relief Manual," produced under the supervision of the Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations of the Senate Committee on Government Operations.

However, Mr. Chairman, Public Law 81-875 is defective in many areas, as those of us who have attempted to stretch its language well known. As a result, the Alaska congressional delegation, the California-Oregon-Washington-Idaho delegations, and the delegations from the flood and tornado stricken States of the Midwest have had to introduce special legislation to handle disaster-created problems, the solutions to which were clear though requiring special legislative authority. Of special note are the Federal loan adjustment provisions of the Alaska, the Pacific Northwest and the proposed Midwest relief bills. Other recent disaster relief proposals have provided long-term, low-interest refinancing of outstanding mortgage obligations.

In each case there were certain geographical peculiarities and special needs that required individual consideration by the Congress. It is obvious that, as new disasters inevitably strike across the country in the years to come, special legislation will continue to be required to handle local situations.

However, many of the disaster-related problems which had to be treated through special legislation could be handled more quickly and efficiently if Public Law 81-875 were amended by the bill under consideration today. Were Public Law 81-875 so amended, members of congressional delegations from disaster-stricken areas could concentrate on legislation of limited scope treating special peculiarities of the affected regions rather than with having to concern themselves with special, one-time amendments to Farmers Home Administration legislation, Rural Electrification Administration legislation, Housing and Home Finance Agency legislation, Veterans' Administration legislation, Small Business Administration legislation, and Federal Housing Agency legislation.

Such a development would make it easier for the elected representatives of disaster-stricken communities to define for their colleagues the peculiar local problems which required special legislation. This work of explanation and definition would be uncomplicated by the need to explain proposed amendments of a more general scope. Suspicions would be allayed. Fears concerning inequitable application of general legislation would be quieted.

But, most of all, Mr. Chairman, passage of S. 1861 by the Congress would make more efficient the admiinstration of Public Law 81-875 by the Office of Emergency Planning and the great number of other Federal and State agencies which inevitably become involved in handling the problems created by any major natural disaster.

Is this not what we seek, Mr. Chairman? Are we not after a more effective response to natural disaster? Relief through Federal and State agencies, even if it involves vast amounts of money and large numbers of people, is of decreased value if it arrives after a disaster-stricken people have been forced to work out what solutions they can under existing law. What good does a 30-year, 3-percent refinancing do a man who, because of the press of his creditors, has had to go into bankruptcy and surrender to the trustee in bankruptcy all but a few hundred dollars of his personal belongings and the tools of his trade? For him relief is too late no matter how liberal the terms. As in the case of justice, disaster relief delayed is quite often relief denied.

Finally, let me say that I have been hopeful all this spring that we here in Congress who are interested in improving Public Law 81-875 would have rec ommendations from the President as to what he and his Office of Emergency Planning believe to be necessary on that score. So far, these recommendations have not been forthcoming. Perhaps this is, in part, due to the time which the OEP has had to spend in handling the more immediate problems presented by the Pacific coast floods, the mid-west floods and tornadoes, and the most recent Colorado floods. In any event I am sure that this subcommittee has sought the thoughts of the Office of Emergency Planning on the provisions of the proposed legislation. Knowing as I do the fine people at OEP I am certain that their comments will be informative to the subcommittee members.

About a year ago this time, Mr. Chairman, the Senate Committee on Public Works was hard at work on proposals for solving the problems created by the Alaska earthquake. I am happy to have had the opportunity today to be of what assistance I could in assisting this subcommittee in its consideration of legisla tion which, in future disasters, would make unnecessary the wasteful duplication of effort which now is necessary on the part of the congressional delegations of disaster-stricken areas.

I urge its approval by this subcommittee and urge the Committee on Public Works to recommend passage to the full body of the Senate. There as here it will have my enthusiastic support. Thank you.

[From the Congressional Record, Apr. 30, 1965]

MIDDLE WEST FLOODS AND PACIFIC NORTHWEST QUAKE ONCE AGAIN DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR FEDERAL DISASTER LEGISLATION

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, I have recently returned from my State of Alaska. There I found the most profound sympathy for the plight of the people of the Middle Western States currently being victimized by massive Mississippi River system flooding.

The people of my State are familiar with natural disasters. Floods and earthquakes have long been phenomena with which Alaskans have had to live.

As in the case of the west coast floods of December and January last, this most recent news together with news of a severe earth tremor in the Pacific Northwest demonstrates the urgent need for some more comprehensive national

disaster legislation. Once again, as happened in the case of Alaska last spring and in the case of California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho this last winter, Senators and Congressmen from the affected disaster-stricken areas have had to put together emergency legislation and press it through the congressional gristmills. It is inevitable that such hastily drafted legislation will be found to have both technical and practical defects.

On March 18, I addressed the Senate on the subject of the lessons learned from the great Alaska earthquake. I pointed out that the Federal Reconstruction and Development Planning Commission for Alaska, headed by the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Anderson, had, at the conclusion of its work, made certain recommendations for improvement of the ability of the Federal Government to respond to disaster.

These included, among others, recommendations for revision of Public Law 81-875, the Federal Disaster Act. In my remarks on March 18, I reported that a three-part study by the Office of Emergency Planning of ways in which the Public Law 81-875 could be improved was currently going on. And I told the Senate that my contacts with the Office of Emergency Planning indicated that the Senate could, in the relatively near future expect some recommendations from the President for improvements.

Now we have another disaster which, without the promised improvements in Public Law 81-875 and the much-needed review of related statutes, must once again be handled by special legislation. In the same week that the Senate passed S. 327, the omnibus disaster bill dealing with winter floods in Oregon, Washington, California, and Idaho, the junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Mondale] for himself and the senior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. McCarthy] introdudced an omnibus disaster bill (S. 1793) to cover the current flood disaster in the upper Midwest. The following day the senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Proxmire] for himself and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Hartke], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Mondale], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Miller], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Nelson], and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Long], introduced a bill (S. 1795) to provide special disaster relief to certain persons covered by the Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act of 1961. Immediately thereafter, for himself and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Hartke], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Mondale], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Long], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. McCarthy], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Proxmire] introduced legislation-S. 1796-to amend the Small Business Act so as to provide additional assistance for disaster victims.

Not being unfamiliar with existing Federal disaster legislation, Mr. President, I understand with some intimacy the problems for which my colleagues are now trying to find solutions. I support their legislative proposals with enthusiasm for I know how absolutely necessary Federal assistance is to the victims of major natural disasters. As in the case of the Alaska omnibus bill-S. 2881-of last spring, Mr. President, and as in the case of the west coast disaster bill of this year-S. 327-these legislative proposals must be passed by the Congress in order that thousands of individual disaster victims and scores of flooded communities may be assisted in their efforts to rebuild and redevelop. At the same time, Mr. President, I again point out that such stopgap legislation, however necessary at the time, only demonstrates the need for major amendments to existing Federal legislation.

More than just a revision of Public Law 81-875 is necessary. Amendments are needed to Farmers Home Administration legislation, Rural Electrification Administration legislation, Housing and Home Finance Administration legislation, Veterans' Administration legislation, the Small Business Act, Federal Housing Administration legislation, Department of Agriculture legislation, Federal aid highways legislation, and civil defense legislation.

For this reason I have joined with other Senators in sponsoring the proposal of the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bayh] for legislation in all of these

areas.

As Senator Bayh's proposals are considered by the Congress, let us hope that we will have the comments of the affected executive agencies in order that we may have the benefit of their experience in administering existing natural disaster legislation. I know that the sponsors of S. 1861 will welcome suggestions for altering their proposals.

The liberal terms of the Alaska earthquake and the west coast flood disaster legislation have twice been approved by this body. Most of their terms appear

in the pending Midwest flood disaster legislation. The experience of those who have drafted these stopgap measures have been utilized by those who drafted the bill.

This great Nation can no longer afford to wait until disaster strikes before granting to executive agencies authority to deal with the multitude of problems which every natural disaster presents. They must have authority on a continuing basis. This bill will grant them on a permanent basis what we have so often given them on a temporary, limited basis.

Senator BAYH. Our next witness is Rex Whitton of the Bureau of Public Roads. I would like to ask Mr. Whitton's patience for just

one more moment.

I have another committee that is going to convene shortly, and I would like to call the chairman and see what the situation is, if we could just stand in recess for about 3 minutes, and beg your indulgence. I will be right back.

(Off the record.)

Senator BAYH. Now, Mr. Whitton, we are fortunate in having you with us, sir. You have had firsthand experience with so many of these disasters of all sizes, shapes, and descriptions and locations.

One of the fortunate things, perhaps one of the few fortunate things about the Indiana disaster, was that it didn't have much effect on highways. However, as you know, in the past we have not been so fortunate, and at this particular moment, certain parts of our country are being very severely affected by highway damage.

Senator Allott appeared before the committee yesterday with some photographs showing what is happening out in Colorado, where whole sections of highways are being washed away.

We are anxious to have your thoughts on ways that we can strengthen the disaster provisions of our laws which affect directly the area where you spend so many tireless hours working.

STATEMENT OF REX M. WHITTON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS; ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK TURNER, CHIEF ENGINEER, AND CHARLES HOLLIS, COUNSEL

Mr. WHITTON. Thank you, Senator.

I am happy to have the opportunity again to appear before your committee, and may I introduce Frank Turner, our Chief Engineer of the Bureau of Public Roads, and Charles Hollis, one of our attorneys.

I am here this morning, if I may, to read a short statement, and present the comments of the Bureau of Public Roads and the Department of Commerce on Senate bill 1861, a bill to provide assistance to areas suffering a major disaster.

During recent months, various sections of our Nation have experienced serious losses of both life and property because of natural disasters such as earthquakes, tidal waves, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.

Sections 120 and 125 of title 23, United States Code, presently govern the use of Federal-aid highway funds for the repair and reconstruc tion of highways, roads and trails which have suffered serious damage as a result of a major disaster.

The Federal share of the cost of repairs to all Federal-aid systems. as specified by subsection 120 (f), is normally 50 percent. Public Law

« PreviousContinue »