what their final damages may be but are desperately in need of money may receive a down payment, which is clearly within what will be owing them so that that money will be made available soon while the balance is then determined over a period of time. I do think that that is a very important provision that the present legislation does not provide for.

Second, the Governor of Idaho calls to my attention to the fact that the State government itself and local government as well have been put to emergency expenses and that they have been victims of a sin as well as the people. The Governor makes a very strong case for including State agencies and local governmental agencies among those who might be compensated for the additional costs that they have been put to as a result of this emergency.

Our bill, as passed in the Senate, in section 10, would seem to accommodate State and local government for it agrees the purpose of this act determines persons, hence any individual, Indian tribe, corporation, partnership, municipality, township, association, or other nonFederal entities. By that we need to include the State of Idaho; if that could be clarified here, in the House language, it would be appreciated. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record, an argument made by the Governor of Idaho for including the State amongst those eligible to file claims and ask that be included as part of the record. Mr. FLOWERS. It will be included as part of the record.

We appreciate you speaking to us. We appreciate your very professional statement. I think that the members of the subcommittee share the feeling of Federal responsibility. As the Congressman said from California, "How it is carried out," that is our purpose, to do it expediously, but with one that would take care of all of the ramifications down the line.

[The material referred to follows:]

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Boise, Idaho, June 29, 1976. Telecopied to Office of Senator Church with request that the office hand deliver copies to the following:

Senator Frank Church, Room 245, Russell Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. Senator James A. McClure, Dirksen Bldg., Room 2106, Washington, D.C. Representative George Hansen, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. Representative Steve Symms, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. Representative Walter Flowers, Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations, Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: On the occasion of the meeting of the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the House Judiciary Committee, Wednesday, June 30, 1976, regarding legislated relief for losses incurred as a result of the Teton Dam disaster, I wish to comment on pending legislation and the needs of state and local government. My specific comments will be directed to S. 3542 which has passed the Senate. I also have a general concern that should be incorporated in appropriate legislation.

I have several concerns about S. 3542, designed to compensate for loss of life, health or property caused by the Teton Dam disaster. It is not at all clear that the State of Idaho or the counties within the disaster area are "persons" under Section 10 of the bill entitled to compensation for losses to improvements and structures. I strongly recommend that Section 10 of the bill be amended to read as follows: "For the purposes of this Act, the term 'persons' means any individual, Indian, Indian tribe, corporation, partnership, district, association, the State of Idaho, any county, municipality whether or not incorporated or chartered, school district, township, or other political subdivision of the State of Idaho, or other non-Federal entity."

Moreover, not only have some governmental entities suffered losses of structures and other improvements, the State of Idaho and general governmental units in the disaster area have incurred and will continue to incure expenses over and above the normal course of governmental operations and services as a result of security, relief and assistance necessitated by the disaster. S. 3542 does not appear to authorize compensation for these expenses. We have not been directed to any other existing federal law that would permit recovery of these expenses.

Accordingly, I suggest that the following definition of “loss of property" be incorporated in the legislation: "As used in this Act, 'loss of property' shall include without limitation any uncompensated extraordinary expenses of the State of Idaho, the counties within the disaster area, and the incorporated municipalities_within those counties, that are incurred as a proximate result of the failure on June 5, 1976, of the Teton Dam."

My other major concern at this time is the erosion of the tax base of general local governments and special taxing districts in the disaster area. Loss of tax base will adversely effect the ability of local governments to finance operations at a pre-disaster level, not to mention the additional operating costs associated with disaster relief and recovery.

There is a present inequity in the law between disaster relief for operating expenses to local educational agencies on the one hand and to other units of local government on the other hand. Assistance under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, P.L. 93-288, 20 U.S.C. 414, for community disaster loans to meet operating expenses will fall short of meeting the needs of some local units of government in the disaster area. These community disaster loans are limited by statute to no more than 25% of the operating budget of the local unit of government and a loan can be made for a single year of operation only. Thereafter, federal assistance is withdrawn.

By comparison, assistance is available under P.L. 81-874, 20 U.S.C. 241-1, from the Commissioner of Education to local educational agencies in major disaster areas for each year over a five-year period. Grants for assistance for current school expenditures (operating expenses) without any dollar or percentage limitation to permit local educational agencies to provide a level of education equivalent to that maintained in the schools prior to the disaster are provided. There is no reason why local units of government should receive differing treatment from the United States for maintenance of operations following this disaster. Legislation granting relief from losses arising out of the Teton Dam disaster should take full account of the eroded tax base of local government and the reality that it will take a number of years to restore the tax base to predisaster levels.

Amendatory language covering these areas of relief to state and local government is required as a matter of legislated equity and fairness. While my paramount concern has been and will continue to remain the compensation of private flood victims suffering direct losses from the disaster, state and local units of government have also suffered and will continue to suffer real monetary losses arising out of the Teton Dam disaster and its aftermath that are uncompensated under present law. State and local governments in Idaho should be compensated for their losses.

If I or my office can be of assistance to you in your deliberations, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

Sincerely,

CECIL D. ANDRUS, Governor.

Mr. FLOWERS. I call on our distinguished colleague, Mr. McClure. TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES A. McCLURE, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. McCLURE. Thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to be here today not only with my colleague from the Senate but also to say hello to some old friends in the House.

I have a prepared statement which I ask to be included in the record in full.

Mr. CHURCH. May I do that as well?

Mr. FLOWERS. Without objection, they will be made part of the record.

[The material referred to follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. MCCLURE, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. CHAIRMAN. The Lower Teton Dam, a Bureau of Reclamation project, failed on June 5, 1976, killing 11 people and causing over $500 million property damage. Our immediate concern was to protect against losing more lives and to reduce damages from the raging flood. Having spent time with the people in the disaster area immediately after the dam burst, I know the terrifying trauma they went through and their helplessness in seeing the total devastation of their homes and livelihoods. Our sympathies continue to go out to them. While I do not wish to detract in any way from the emotional effects these people are still feeling, I do feel we have a task at hand today, as we have had in the last few weeks, and that is to direct our efforts to try to provide a means for compensating the victims and for allowing the rebuilding process to begin.

The basic premise we are working from today is this: First, the Teton Dam was owned, constructed and operated by the Federal Government. Second, those people who were hurt by the failure of this project are due the total replacement of what they had worked hard for over the years. It is thus the Federal government's responsibility to restore these losses. I believe, as do Senator Church and Congressman Hansen and Symms, that special legislation is imperative in order to guarantee that the Federal Government meets its full responsibility.

For this reason, on June 9th we introduced S. 3542, which provides full compensation for all damages. On June 11, President Ford, also reiterated the government's responsibility by requesting $200 million in supplemental appropriations to begin covering damages. Congress has acted with deliberate speed on that appropriations bill, and we are hopeful it will be signed by the President today. Unfortunately, that bill is not enough! The President's $200 million appropriation is strictly an appropriation bill and provides to date only $200 million. Already the Federal Disaster Administration has estimated damage costs to be well over $500 million. It is inevitable that additional appropriations will be necessary, S. 3542 helps carry out the President's intention to cover all damages by providing the authorizing instrument for later appropriations. Congress should have some control over this authorization.

While the President's request and subsequent appropriation measure will begin to help toward restoration, the rules and regulations for administering these damage claims are in some instances not as complete as they should be. The regulations allow an individual to file only one claim. I believe this can mean adequate compensation. A good case in point might well occur in the town of Roberts, which is still partially under water at this moment, more than three weeks after the dam failure. The tremendous amount of water settling in this area has pushed the natural underground water table to the surface in some areas. The homeowner in Roberts may well be compensated now for damages to this home. But after the claim has been settled and he is back on the road to a normal life, he might well find the walls of his basement begin to crumble next winter as the water-saturated ground freezes and expands. Under present regulations, as proposed by the Administration, this man would have no recourse. Once a claim is filed and settled, no further claims may be sought. This individual might still be in danger of losing his home as a direct result of the Teton Dam failure with no recourse at all. This is why our legislation allows for the filing of claim up to two years after the passage of this legislation.

Our bill likewise provides for complete rehabilitation or replacement of irrigation facilities affected by the flood-those built in anticipation of the Teton project which are now unusable and those that are vital for the continued cultivation of the rich farmland that is the economic resource for Eastern Idaho. Under the regulations today, there isn't the assurance that the entire irrigation system in Eastern Idaho will be completely restored to a functioning level, and the regulations do not provide for the payment of damages to irrigation systems outside the disaster area outlined by the Administration. For instance, over 400,000 acres of cultivated land were threatened by lack of water when irrigation facilities were torn out and some of these lands irrigated were outside of the immediate flooded area. There is the possibility that these structures could not be replaced or land damaged would not be covered by government funds. Again, our bill does provide for that total protection due these farmers.

There are other instances to cite but more importantly other cases that will arise that we are not even aware of now. These people must have the protection of broad coverage by law in order to gain the full compensation entitled them. S. 3542 gives Congress the authority to direct that the Federal Government does uphold its responsibilities, that the Federal Governments gives all victims every opportunity to recover from damages the government has caused. This bill does not grant special privileges or benefits. It merely provides simple justice rightfully due the disaster victims.

I believe it is the moral obligation of Congress to see that the people of Idaho are treated fairly in their claims against the United States Government. Only Congress can provide the impartiality necessary by passing a just law that both the Federal Government and the people of Eastern Idaho can abide by.

The Senate recognizes their duty in this case and has passed S. 3542. The fact that the Senate Interior Committee held hearings on June 15, reported the bill on June 16, and the full Senate passed it on June 17, only brings home my point. It is the Senate's intention that this bill become law immediately. The President, the Senate, and most importantly, the victims of his federal disaster see the need for complete compensation by the Federal government. S. 3542 will guarantee that right!

Mr. McCLURE. I want to simply add to what has been said, without repetition, that there are some peculiar problems that the existing legislation and the regulations issued will not accommodate what Senator Church has made reference to in the State and municipal area; that the existing regulations probably do not cover.

What do you do for a school district whose entire fleet of schoolbuses have been destroyed? How do you get them back into operation? I think that this is a very, very serious question. I saw one schoolbus out there that was not much larger than half the size of a Volkswagen. It has been run or rolled downstream and rolled into a ball and that is all that remains of it. There is no salvage, no repair. It simply has got to be replaced and the money has got to be obtained to do that.

The second, which Congressman Hansen has made reference to, is the very peculiar situation in which the ground water level is very high and this flood-water went in there and is now just standing. They cannot pump it out of their basements because if they do so the basements could collapse. They are standing in a sea of water and will be for some time until that water evaporates and slowly seeps into the ground.

They have peculiar needs for partial payments to tide them over during this period of time and perhaps a greater need of time to respond to the claim. I think that the single claim requirement and the limitation on partial payment that are under the existing regulations simply do not meet that need as well as the need of some others who, in order to get back into business will need a larger partial payment than the $10,000 limit under the existing regulations.

But, I think we would not be fair to the Government if, in pointing to their responsibility, we did not also add a word of commendation to the way that the agencies have responded. It has been very heartwarming to see the ability of the Federal agencies to respond in the very sensitive way in which they have. The people in the area are very grateful, at this time, for the assistance that they have gotten from the various Federal agencies. There is a very good feeling in that area right now. I am sure that that will wear off after awhile.

Mr. FLOWERS. I have seen this in action. I lived in tornado country and I have seen communities wiped out by natural disasters. It is nice to behold the Federal Government operating just like it ought to. It helps out back home, doesn't it?

Mr. McCLURE. It certainly does. And on the other side to see a look of amazement on the faces of bureaucrats who find that they are appreciated. That is also rather unique. But they have appreciated it, and I think that that ought to be on the record.

The bill that we have passed in the Senate that is before you now is not totally of our own making. It is largely the drafting that was done by our staff and the staff of the committee and the Senate. But, it also contains in it some features of legislation that was introduced here, in the House, that filled in some of the gaps that flushed out the framework in some areas that our bill did not.

I would be very happy to respond to whatever questions you might have as we thank you for your attention to this problem.

Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you very much. I would like to engage in a conversation with you both, but I am going to do something for my constituents and go punch in over at the House.

We appreciate very much your coming. I know you all have to get back to the Senate side. We will recess for 10 minutes.

[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 10:40 a.m. the same day.]

Mr. FLOWERS. The subcommittee will again come to order.

TESTIMONY OF HON. STEVE SYMMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, I know that this consideration has come up at a most inopportune and busy time for you and for the members of your subcommittee and for the Judiciary Committee as a whole.

I am most grateful for the consideration you have given it. There has just been a barrage of legislation, and much of it very important legislation, that I know has to be considered.

[The statement of Hon. Steve Symms follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SYMMS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the speed with which this Subcommittee has taken up consideration of the legislation to compensate the victims of the Teton Dam flood disaster. It must be emphasized that the various federal agencies involved in disaster assistance and the flood clean-up have done an outstanding job. Their work has statutory limitations placed upon it, and we have now understandably reached the end of our ability to handle many of the tasks which must yet be undertaken.

For that reason, I have cosponsored the legislation pending before your subcommittee along with the others who represent Idaho in the congressional delegation. This legislation in no way implies liability on the part of the Federal Government or any other organization involved in the construction of the Teton Dam. It simply proposes that this Government undertake a humanitarian effort to in some way compensate for the tragedy of the loss of lives, property, and— for many-the work and efforts of their lifetime as a part of our Idaho farm community.

My colleague, Congressman Hansen, has provided the statistical information of interest to the subcommittee. I will close, therefore, in an effort to conserve your time by telling you once again how very much our delegation and the people of Idaho appreciate your prompt attention to this legislation. Thank you. Mr. FLOWERS. Our next witness is from the Department of Justice, the Honorable Irving Jaffe, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division.

We will be delighted to hear from you and we welcome you to our subcommittee.