represent only a portion of the awards allowed by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. Additional sums have been received from some of these governments and additional receipts are anticipated from other countries. These funds were received by this Government for the account of American citizens whose property was confiscated. It is therefore important that the House of Representatives join the Senate in amending the International Claims Settlement Act so as to permit moneys held by the U.S. Government for this purpose to be disbursed among eligible claimants. In the interests of justice and of promoting equity and equality among claimants whose property was seized in Eastern Europe, we respectfully request that this subcommittee take affirmative action in recommending enactment of the proposed amendments to the International Claims Settlement Act, as described. We believe this subcommittee will agree with the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that claimants should be given adequate time in which to secure evidence to substantiate their claims against Poland and that an extension of the period in which the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission may consider such claims is necessary to afford this opportunity. On behalf of the Brooklyn Jewish Community Council and its 800,000 members, may I thank you again for permitting me to testify today. Mrs. KELLY. Thank you so much, Mr. Fisch. I assure you that we Members of Congress are also interested in justice and in assuring equitable treatment of all claimants. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Could I ask one brief question, Madam Chairman. I notice you mention recent developments which enable the obtaining of proof of ownership in that part of Poland which used to be East Germany. In your opinion, does this make it unnecessary to extend the grace period for 2 years? Mr. FISCH. We feel 1 year is sufficient time to substantiate these claims. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Because of the fact that evidence is easier to get? Mr. FISCH. It is liberalization from the Government themselves. They themselves want to see these claims paid. In short, we might simply say it would seem that it would be unfair to reward those whose claims were easy to substantiate and punish those whose claims were hard to substantiate. Proof is now forthcoming and 1 year should be sufficient. Thank you. Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Fisch. Mr. Robert H. Reiter, attorney at law, of Washington, D.C., will be the next witness. STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. REITER, ATTORNEY, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mrs. KELLY. I am sorry that our time is running out, Mr. Reiter. The bell has rung for us to go to the floor and we will have to close this meeting shortly. If you would like to summarize your presentation orally, we will be glad to put your full statement in the record. (The statement of Mr. Reiter is as follows:) STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. REITER, ATTORNEY, WASHINGTON, D.C. I represent a number of American citizens who suffered injuries and damages at the hands of the Italians during World War II. The Italian Government paid $5,000,000 into the United States Treasury to cover American losses not covered by the Italian Peace Treaty, and approximately $1,000,000 remains in that fund. There are two groups of Americans who, I submit, are entitled to be compensated before those funds, which are essentially held by the Treasury in trust for Americans having claims against Italy, are used for other purposes as proposed. In fact, I question whether, while there are outstanding claims, it would be legally proper to divert funds deposited for this specific purpose to other uses. First, I represent a group of Americans of Greek origin who owned property in Albania which was overrun by the Italians. Many of these were not American citizens at the time of loss, and came to this country after the war. It is to be noted that Congress in dealing with Italian claims did not adhere to the requirement of citizenship at date of loss, since there were adequate funds to permit extension of the requirement, and on August 9, 1955 legislation was enacted authorizing the payment of claims previously filed by persons who were Americans on that date. Senator Sparkman, at the request of the Administration, introduced S. 1935 in the present Congress, which would allow new claims to be filed by persons who became citizens by August 9, 1958. However, this date was changed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1958 to 1955. A number of the group I represent had difficulty in leaving Albania after the communists took control, and could do so only after years of planning. For example, Simos Zuppas became a judge in Albania in 1939, was named in 1944 as President of the Investigating Commission for War Criminals, and after the communists took gradual control of Albania, was only able to escape on September 5, 1948. Other members of his family were killed and imprisoned for anti-communist activities. He came to the United States in 1949 as a student. became a permanent resident in 1952, and a citizen in 1958. The area in which he lived in Albania was occupied by the Italians in January 1940, and his prop erty destroyed. He received no compensation whatever. It is submitted that since there is adequate money left in the Italian Claims Fund with which to pay just claims like that of Mr. Zuppas, there is no reason why the language of S. 1935 as it originally read, setting August 9, 1958 as the date of required citizenship, should not be reinstated. There is no legal sig nificance to August 9, 1955, or any reason why that date should be used so as to cut off legitimate claims of Americans equally entitled to compensation. There is one other matter I would like to call to the Committee's attention. I also represent several native American citizens who suffered personal injuries at the hands of the Italians, and whose claims were denied by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. A reporter for the Dayton Daily News discovered that a similar claim of a woman was paid by the Commission, [the membership of the Commission has changed completely since then], and that an Ohio man whose claim was denied had at least an equally meritorious claim. When the attention of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was called to this discrepancy in treatment, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission was asked for its comments, and the Commission's response dated August 9, 1965 included the following: "Robert Reiter, Esq., proposes extending the Italian claims program to in clude death and disability claims. The only programs including similar claims were those concerning U.S. citizens who were interned in the Philippines during World War II." I respectfully submit that Title III of the International Claims Settlement Act. the legislation before the Committee, provides for the payment of claims for personal injury and suffering arising from the "war in which Italy was engaged from June 10, 1940, to September 15, 1947", in the terms of section 304. On April 22, 1955, when this Committee had under consideration the original Italian claims legislation. I testified in behalf of Americans who underwent personal injury and suffering in Italy, and particularly those captured while fighting with the anti-fascist and anti-nazi forces in northern Italy after the armistice of 1943. Based on my testimony, I was asked to submit language to be incorporated into the Committee report to make sure this group of Americans would be compensated, and did so, and the Committee did incorporate language in its report (House Report No. 624, 84th Congress, 1st Session, page 14), as to the type of claims covered by the statute, including the following: "Property losses outside of Italy and claims for personal injury and suffering and other losses would be compensable." I am taking the liberty of appending to this statement a copy of the portion of my testimony in 1955 before this Committee dealing with this subject. There is simply no reason, since the Congressional committees, including the Senate committee which used the same statement as that quoted above in its report, clearly indicated that these claims were intended to be covered, why this should not be done, and not to do so would be a violation of the Congressional mandate. The letter from the Commission of August 9, 1965 contains the following statement regarding the one claim for personal injury and suffering which was allowed under the Italian claims program and was discovered by the reporter: "The only exception was one case under the Italian program wherein the Commission determined that there was a violation of international law on the part of Italy. The Commission feels that the present statute is sufficient to accommodate comparable instances." I agree that the present statute is sufficient, and all that is required is authorization for the Commission to reconsider claims for personal injury and suffering in light of the clearly stated legislative intent. This is necessary, since the time within which the Commission could consider Italian claims has expired. One simple way to accomplish this would be to add at the end of the language proposed as Section 304 (b) under the tenth section of S. 1935 as it passed the Senate the following: ", and claims for personal injury and suffering". I would like to point out in passing that although the Commission letter states that there was only a single case allowed for personal injury, my cursory review of Commission decisions disclosed that at least one other, the claim of Mary Demas Kakaris, Claim No. 10,596, was allowed. She was awarded $2,000 for suffering at the hands of the Italians during internment, which affected her health. I believe a case like that of Carl Hauss, who fought valiantly for the American cause while the war was at its worst in Italy, was captured and imprisoned under inhuman conditions in violation of international law, and suffered a breakdown in his health, is even more appealing. The Italian Government decorated him, yet the American Government refuses to recognize his entitlement to compensation out of funds provided by Italy for the purpose. I am appending the press accounts of this situation, and an affidavit of Mr. Hauss. Senator Young of Ohio was moved to make a statement on the Senate floor as to this inequity, and I am also adding this for the record. I want to reiterate that there is a million dollars, not of American money, but Italian money, in the Treasury for the purpose of paying these claims and no other. I respectfully suggest that these funds should be used for the purpose intended. (The statements above referred to follow :) STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. REITER, ATTORNEY, WASHINGTON, D.C., BEFORE THE Mr. REITER. No. I just have a few remarks to make. My name is Robert H. Reiter. I am a member of the law firm of Spaulding, Reiter & Rose, with offices at 1311 G Street NW. Mr. VORYS. I might say that Mr. Reiter is a graduate of Ohio State University Law School and Ohio State University, and came originally from Dayton, Ohio. Chairman RICHARDS. Wasn't that around where William Tecumseh Sherman was born? Mr. VORYS. It is near it. Chairman RICHARDS. We won't hold that against you. Mr. REITER. A number of people have come to us asking advice with respect to this legislation. Their particular problems have posed a few questions which I feel might very well be gone into at this point merely from the point of view of perhaps explaining what a few of the questions will be, and perhaps with the idea of incorporating into the report of the committee some aiding language with respect to these problems. First of all, there has been relatively little said in these hearings with respect to title III relating to claims against Italy. My understanding is that this is the one title of the bill where there is more than enough money available to pay the claims which will probably be filed against the fund. This constitutes $5 million which was deposited by Italy with the Treasury Department for the purpose of paying claims not taken care of by the Italian provisions for property damages within Italy. There has been some mention made by one of the Government witnesses that one class of claims which would be payable under this title would be claims of Americans for property damages outside Italy, such as in Greece or perhaps Yugoslavia. But there is one other class I want to mention. A number of American civilians who were in Italy at the time of the war rather than risk capture by the Italians, or Germans a little bit later on, fled to the hills, or somehow managed to secrete themselves in Italy, and some of them actually became engaged in underground activities, and some actually joined the guerrilla forces fighting against the Fascists and Nazi invaders. These people were often subjected not only to actual enemy fire, but in some cases suffered physical injuries and wounds through their activities in behalf of the Allies. But in other cases they suffered malnutrition and diseases as a result of the circumstances under which they were compelled to exist, being fugitives from the Nazis and Fascists. I merely want to suggest that although the language of section 303 on page 34 of the committee print of the bill would by its terms apparently cover all claims not taken care of in the Italian domestic legislation, I would hope that in the committee report it is indicated that this should not be limited to property damages but should also include this other class of personal injuries and physical hardships which were suffered by these Americans who did not permit themselves to be interned or sent to concentration camps but who instead chose to continue to fight for the Allied cause. Mr. FULTON. Some of the members of the committee would ordinarily leave it to the discretion of the particular claims commission, as we have done previously. As you have come from a pretty good law school, I would like to have you submit any further language that you might like as an amendment to tie this thing down. We may be making new footsteps on the sands of international claims that we have not come up with so far. Mr. REITER. I didn't intend that it should take the form of an amendment to the bill, because it is strictly a procedural matter which probably, as you say, is within the realm of the Commission's discretion. I only hoped to indicate possibly for incorporation in the report of the committee the problems which will be faced in that matter. Mr. FULTON. Could you submit language embodying that particular provision? Mr. REITER. I would be delighted to, if I may. (The following has been submitted for the record.) HON. JAMES P. RICHARDS, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, SPAULDING, REITER & ROSE, Washington 5, D.C., April 27, 1955. DEAR CONGRESSMAN RICHARDS: In accordance with the suggestion made during the course of my testimony before your committee on April 22, 1955, on the proposed legislation to amend the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, below is submitted suggested language for inclusion in the committee's report. The particular problem to which it is addressed is the virtual impossibility of obtaining documentary evidence regarding description, title, value, and damage to property located in Soviet-dominated countries, in conjunction with claims for war damage and taking in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania under title II. The purpose of such language would be to indicate the committee's recognition of the particular seriousness of this problem with respect to these classes of claims. The language might be somewhat as follows: "It is recognized that the obtaining of documentary evidence from areas under Soviet domination is almost completely impossible, and that consequently the Commission will find it necessary to rely in many instances on secondary evidence to establish the details of the claims filed under this title." The other suggested reference in the committee report which I proposed was with respect to the claims of American civilians in Italy who were forced into hiding to avoid arrest and incarceration by the Italians and Germans, some of whom even joined the underground and guerrilla forces fighting the enemy, and were wounded or became diseased. Particularly since the $5 million deposited by Italy to cover American claims is expected to exceed the total value of claims to be filed. I feel that the committee might in its report indicate its recognition of the existence of the claims of these Americans for their injuries and suffering, in addition to property damage claims. Suggested language covering this point, for incorporation in the committee's report on title III, might be as follows: Claims to be considered under this title are those of American nationals against the Government of Italy and with respect to which provision for compensation was not made in the Treaty of Peace with Italy. These include such claims as those for property losses outside Italy, and for personal injury and suffering, not covered by the Treaty. In the event I can be of further assistance, I shall be pleased to do so. Chairman RICHARDS. Thank you, sir. ROBERT H. REITER. [From the Congressional Record, Sept. 7, 1965, p. 22093] LET US END THIS INJUSTICE-AMENDMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, pending on the Senate Calendar is S. 1935, proposed by the administration to amend the International Claims Settlement Act in connection with, among other things, the disposition of funds deposited in the U.S. Treasury by the Government of Italy to pay claims of Americans who suffered as the result of the fighting in Italy during World War II. More than a million dollars remain in the fund, and this proposal would reopen the claims program. A suggestion was made during the hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of an inequity which occurred during the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission's earlier consideration of personal injury claims and which a representative of the Commission acknowledged, but which could not previously have been cured because of the absence of congressional authority for further action on Italian claims. What happened was that two Americans to my knowledge in the same situation were treated differently. The man whose claim was disallowed, Carl Hauss of Cincinnati, Ohio, fought valiantly against the Italian Fascists, and was arrested by them near Milan, Italy, after the armistice. Both the agreement with Italy under which the funds were deposited in the U.S. Treasury, and the legislation providing for the payment of claims, provided for payment of claims of this type, and yet, despite the suffering of Mr. Hauss in the cause of the Allies, his claim was not allowed, while others in the same situation were allowed and compensation was provided. I know personally, having served with the U.S. Army in northern Italy during World War Two, of the continuing participation of the Italian Fascist forces in combat in Italy there after the armistice was signed in 1943 and Italy officially was out of the war. I know of the activities of the partisans against the Fascists thereafter. It would be most unfortunate if Americans who were injured or suffered property damage in Italy could not be compensated from the fund provided by Italy for that very purpose. A million dollars remains in that fund and I know of no reason for not providing such compensation. The International Law Committee of the District of Columbia Bar Association took this position in connection with this legislation which was proposed but not acted upon in the last Congress, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a copy of its resolution. There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows: |