This is a wartime disaster and the Government is responsible for it. Mr. LANE. We thank you very, much Mr. Leachman.

submit your statement within a couple of weeks.

Mr. LEACHMAN. Yes, sir; if you will permit me.
Mr. LANE. The committee will take a short recess.
(Whereupon the committee took a 5-minute recess.)

You will

Mr. LANE. Now, Mr. Liftin, will you sit down here for a minute. You do not mind if Congressman Clark Thompson who represents that section of the country asks you a few questions. He is a visitor and is more interested in this than anyone in the Congress of the United States so he would like to ask you a few questions.

Mr. LIFTIN. I certainly appreciate the opportunity and privilege of answering any questions which can throw more light on this issue. STATEMENT OF HON. CLARK W. THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS—Continued

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. I wonder if it would not be well, for the benefit of any members of the committee who were not on the committee last year to review exactly what happened so far as I, as the author of the present bill, have been concerned, to remind the new members and old members that the beginning of this legislation was a resolution which I introduced into the House after the Supreme Court decision was rendered the decision which was adverse to the Texas City claimants. The substance of that resolution was an instruction to the Judiciary Committee or a subcommittee thereof to investigate the Texas City disaster and to find out whether there was any liability on the part of the Government and, if so, by what means those injured and damaged could be compensated. That, I think, is the bill in effect. Mr. LANE. That is right.

Mr. THOMPSON. That resolution was the authority for the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hyde, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jonas, to go to Texas. Your findings showed liability on the part of the Government. It was as a result of your recommendation that a later bill was introduced which covered all claimants and finally passed the House. The Senate altered it somewhat.

That brings us to this point: The House and Senate versions were so radically different before the conclusion of the session that there was no opportunity to bring the two back to conference, so both bills. died on the calendar. However, both the House and the Senate had established their belief that the Government was responsible and should settle the claims.

Now we come to this session of the Congress and, on the face, the necessity for introducing a new bill. I have never differentiated between people who had a claim on the Government. I debated a long time in my mind, knowing the feeling of the Department of Justice on the subject of subrogated claims, as to whether I should specifically exclude them from the bill you have under consideration. They are not specifically excluded, nor are they specifically included. I felt this way: That is a question of policy to be decided by the Congress. Whatever I had said in the bill, perhaps, would not have affected the setting of that policy. There seems to be a difference of

opinion as to what to do about subrogated claims. I am not a lawyer and do not want to assume the prerogatives of this committee. That brings us to this point, and this is what I would like to ask the witness:

If I have understood you correctly today in this hearing and yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the whole basis of your objection to the bill is that it includes subrogated claims. That is correct, is it not?

Mr. LIFTIN. We have objection to some of the procedural aspects of the bill but the basic objection is that the effect of the bill is to make insurance companies its principal beneficiaries.

Mr. THOMPSON. That is what I am getting at. May I assume this that you have no objection to the payment of the individual claims other than insurance?

Mr. LIFTIN. That is correct. As a grant and as a genuine relief

measure.

Mr. THOMPSON. Whatever you call it, the results are the sameto compensate those injured.

Mr. LIFTIN. Yes. Our recommendation is that there should be a $10,000 limit on property claims and $20,000 on death and injury claims.

Mr. THOMPSON. That would be the prerogative of the Congress and the Congress would set it at a proper figure and that could only be determined by examining each individual claim?

Mr. LIFTIN. And that was as a pure relief bill and not on the basis of what they would be entitled to get from the Government.

Mr. THOMPSON. Perhaps so.

Mr. LIFTIN. There is no magic in the numbers we have selected. I think your statement is correct that we have no objection to compensation. We would not oppose a bill that provides compensation for the individual claims, for death claims, personal injury claims and property damage claims. Our basic objection is to have the insurance companies use this as a basis of getting a windfall from Congress.

Mr. THOMPSON. So, Mr. Chairman, we are up against a policy matter on a very high level as to what to do on subrogation claims. I would like to state for the record as I have to all of you individually. I have no insurance company claims in my district so far as I know. I have all the personal injury and damage claims within 10 miles of my home. I am primarily interested in settling these claims and without wanting to go into any history on it. They are poor people and people who need help desperately and I am more interested in these

cases.

However, I do not feel like excluding anyone in a bill of mine but whatever the committee decides to do about that I would accept as being wise.

I would like to make one other comment, Mr. Chairman.

Some newspaper publicity has been given to the fact that there was some large corporate claims now being considered to be taken care of in this bill. That is not necessarily true that I know of. There is no claim on record before this committee that I know of. This bill is for the relief of those injured.

I talked to one of the representatives of one of the firms which sustained the most loss of any-the Monsanto Chemical Co.-yesterday and today. They were a little disturbed by the publicity and

joined with me in feeling it was uncalled for since they filed no claim. They were principally interested in the people who still work for them who were damaged or injured-taking care of the widows and families of those who were killed. And naturally, as any citizen might, they would like to be able to come to Congress or any other forum and ask that any uninsured losses be taken care of. But they are perfectly willing to abide by any means set up for determining the amount of their damages.

As of now, there are no claims on file at all, and the idea that any settlement on this bill is for the purpose of giving so much money to anybody is entirely incorrect, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LANE. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Section 3 (a) of the bill says:

The commission shall receive, investigate, and allow claims against the United States for damages whether personal injury or property damage sustained by individuals, firms, associations, companies, or corporations.

That takes in every kind of claim.

Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct.

Mr. LANE. Every kind of claim that might be placed before this Commission.

Mr. THOMPSON. To repeat myself, Mr. Chairman, I put it in because I did not feel it was up to me to establish whether one type of claim or another should go in. But in the wisdom of the committee you will decide what is proper.

Mr. LANE. Thank you very much, Congressman Thompson.

I do not think we will have to keep you, Mr. Liftin, any longer. Mr. Boyle has no questions and Congressman Forrester, who thought he would come back to ask you a few questions, has evidently been kept occupied on the floor of the House.

Mr. BOYLE. Mr. Thompson, may I ask one question? Would your investigation tell us how many people in this whole picture who have had any relief whatever?

Mr. LIFTIN. I believe we would have some information on the claims filed in the names of individuals in which there is no allegation of payment by insurance companies or that their claim is being made on behalf of insurance companies. Whether there would be undisclosed insurance company interest in these claims I do not know; or whether these people had compensation for claims other than those they sued for, we would not have any way of knowing. But in the course of litigation we analyzed the claims and found that only about 20 percent of all claims filed were claims in which there was no insurance interest or in which corporate interests were not involved. That is about as close as we can come to the answer to your question.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Brickfield, was the Department to give us the investigations of the FBI?

Mr. BRICKFIELD. At the end of the district court case in Texas in which the Government had lost, FBI investigators were sent to Texas. Forty or fifty of them spent the better part of a year on the case and they collected information and data respecting all these claims.

However, about that time, after the expiration of a year, the Government won a reversal in the circuit court of appeals and they stopped evaluating the various claims. They had other things of greater urgency to do at the time. So, they now have in the Depart

ment of Justice raw files, not properly evaluated, although they have the information and evidence on which to evaluate them.

Mr. LIFTIN. That is correct.

I think we indicated at the last hearing that there was some problem involved in turning all the FBI files over to this committee. But I am sure we can work out something whereby all the information you want can be made available to you.

Mr. THOMPSON. Can I ask you one other question? The policy of the Government has not always been to throw out subrogated claims; has it?

Mr. LIFTIN. Correct. We have a very limited position here. That is that, so far as any legal rights are concerned, those legal rights went along with the lawsuit. These subrogated insurers brought their lawsuit and they lost it in the Supreme Court-not on the ground that they were subrogated claims but that they did not have any legal rights against the Government. So their legal rights have been adjudicated.

Our position is that so far as any act of relief or grace is concerned, we are convinced the Government was not at all negligent and in the absence of negligence there is no appropriate basis for payment of the insurance companies.

Mr. THOMPSON. Whether limited or otherwise?

Mr. LIFTIN. That is correct.

Mr. THOMPSON. This committee last year intended to settle 40 percent of the claims and afterward raised it to 50 percent.

Mr. LIFTIN. It is our position that they are in the business of taking risks and having taken them and received the premiums and received the payment they are now asking that the risk be transferred to the American taxpayer.

Mr. LANE. And you say that is a windfall?

Mr. LIFTIN. The Monsanto Co. did file a suit for $50 million.

Mr. THOMPSON. There was a suit for $50 million. But they will sue for a much higher figure than they think they will get.

Mr. LIFTIN. It is usually based on the claims filed in court and that is, I think, the basis of these other charges.

Mr. THOMPSON. If Monsanto comes to me with a claim I think I will argue with them if it is something like several million dollars. But the individuals should be compensated.

Mr. LIFTIN. We have never expressed any opposition to compensation as a relief measure whatever is involved.

Mr. LANE. Thank you very much. You have been very patient and have accommodated us in sitting around here this afternoon and I know the committee appreciates it.

Mr. LIFTIN. I am sure the patience has been on the side of the committee.

Mr. LANE. Now, Judge Bryan or Mr. Markivell, is there something you want to add?

STATEMENT OF AUSTIN Y. BRYAN, JR., ATTORNEY, HOUSTON,

TEX.-Continued

Mr. BRYAN. May it please the chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I should like in a very few minutes to make this short state

ment. Mr. Liftin has done a very good job in setting up some strawmen to strike down in his own opinion. In the Senate hearing yesterday Mr. Liftin said on subrogation that the Department was not opposed to it but he thought the subrogated companies should prove the negligence of the Government. We are all willing to accept that yardstick and we have done that 3 different times before 3 different bodies with the same outraged sense of findings.

The district court, whose hearings were held, and these two committees first the regular committee of the House Judiciary and then the Senate Judiciary Committee-all men of different background and temperaments and every one of these groups has come up with these outraged findings of responsibility of the Government.

I am sure here Mr. Liftin is confused in this very technical and narrow theory that we have tried our lawsuit. We have not tried our lawsuit. We have not had our forum. We have not been legally found not entitled to recover.

Mr. BOYLE. The Supreme Court has decided that?
Mr. BRYAN. Didn't it find on jurisdiction?

Mr. BOYLE. I think the finding just tells you you have had an adjudication of your legal position here. As a member of the committee it occurs to me you had to explain whether, as the first basis for coming in here and asking for equitable relief, why you did not have to pursue your remedies against the individuals whose negligence appears patent in this case.

Can you answer that?

Mr. BRYAN. We did pursue it against the Government.

Mr. BOYLE. You misconceived the proper party defendant. I think you thought you had a live one in the Government and I think the adjudication of the Supreme Court has established categorically that you misconceived the true defendant. Just as one member of this committee, I continue to find myself trying to help you exonerate yourself from not going ahead and suing one or a lot of defendants in this case.

Judge BRYAN. Because, Mr. Congressman, assuming you are correct that there are other tort feasors involved, a plaintiff has a right to sue one or all of them. We chose the one which under the basic law of manufacturer's liability was the one who had the paramount and continuing responsibility for failure in the particulars we set forth. We have been told we did not have a forum to try that issue in and we are here under the constitutional right of petition and I readily grant that we are not here in the sense we are beggars but we have been here with a right to lay before you these facts and if they do not justify a finding of negligence we have no right of appearance nor appeal to the conscience of the Congress.

It is on this basis that I would like to return to Mr. Liftin's argu

ment.

Mr. BOYLE. I think you have to proceed first and as you start on the threshold of this case you come here in an actual trial de novo with the finding against you by the Supreme Court of the United States. The first question it occurs to me is that you misconceived your defendants and before I would have to think of giving you equitable relief I would like to have you see if you could excuse yourself from your failure to go ahead and make all of these people in the record parties defendant whose negligence contributed to this catastrophe.