Remarks on Signing the Disaster Relief Act of 1974

I guess you had good bipartisan support for this legislation. It is a very good piece of legislation. We appreciate the fact that you treated it in a bipartisan way and got it down here in a hurry.

There is one part of this whole problem that is not covered in this legislation, and of course, it couldn't be. As I went to the disaster areas, not only here but in others on previous occasions, the immediate problems are those that deal with the problem of housing, the problem of schools, the problem of food on an emergency basis, and we provide the money and the assets of the Federal Government to be of assistance to the State and local community in dealing with those problems.

But the most important thing I find in all of these areas is the problem of jobs. Are they going to stay there or, because of a disaster, are they going to move, and is Xenia going to become, for example, a dead city, or Wilkes-Barre, or what have you?

It is the long-term problem of trying to attract industries into these various disaster areas, new industries, as well as keeping those that are there. And while we do provide more relief--of course, through the Small Business Administration, we do provide relief for many of the businesses that are there--there is no question but that a longer-term program for disaster areas where we can attract or encourage new employment enterprises to come in is essential.

Secretary Lynn and I have talked about this at great length, and he has 30 days in which to have consultation with Members of Congress to give us a plan that will be of assistance in this direction. I have been, in talking to people in these areas--and you also have been talking to them--we have to be very candid about it, it does not come quickly in terms of the jobs. We can get the housing, mobile housing in quickly, we can get the food in, we can get temporary facilities for schools. But the long-term existence of and rebuilding of a city or of a town or of a community that suffers the disaster, that is something that we must remember is first and foremost in the minds of all of these people.

Do you agree, Mr. Chairman?

SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH. Yes,

Mr. President. I think for the first time the Congress met this obligation in the careful way that was necessary. We used to just appropriate money very quickly when a disaster hit--a tornado, hurricane, flood, earthquake but now we have the machinery with which to move carefully and effectively to cover the subject matters that you have mentioned. And I do commend all of those who are here today from the two committees who worked diligently in this bipartisan way, because the country needs certainly a solid program of the type that has been enacted into law. The hodgepodge, it is over, and now we are able to do the job.

Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT. John, do you agree?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN A. BLATNIK. I certainly agree. We had this very improvised, sort of a makeshift operation before. A disaster would strike as though it were striking for the first time, and we would move in. Now we know a flood or tornado and different types of catastrophic situations do occur with quite some regularity, and we have a going operation, with machinery structured, moving at once and, as the Senator said, in a very systematic and effective and a responsive way to move very effectively.

SENATOR RANDOLPH. Mr. President, could I just add that Senator Baker, the ranking minority member of the Public Works Committee in the Senate, and I, we want to express publicly our appreciation for the members of the subcommittee, for Quentin Burdick and for Pete Domenici and the others who went into the field within hours and for their leadership in this matter.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, the problem is now a national one. I mean, I go back through disasters at Anchorage, Alaska, and the hurricanes which struck in Pennsylvania and the East and also struck through the South, and then, of course, the ones that more recently are causing flooding in various parts of the country-the South Dakota problem, which we all remember, that particular disaster.

We are glad we do have one coordinated program to deal with it. I, however, emphasize that to me, the important thing that I found is that the individuals I talked to whose homes were wiped out, in every one of these cases, they want to stay. They don't want to move, but they cannot stay unless they have jobs. And consequently, while a piece of legislation as comprehensive as this is does deal with disasters in a very effective way, the longer-term problem of bringing industry in and keeping industry in so that there will be enough jobs for the people who want to stay, this is one that we all want to commit ourselves to, and we will appreciate your advice on it.