Thanking in behalf of the Conference of Americans of Central Eastern European Descent, I am, Chairman, Subcommittee on Europe, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN: We wish to go on record that we endorse in all respects S. 1935 and S. 2064, the bills on which the Subcommittee on Europe, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, will hold hearings beginning August 9th. S. 1935, among other things, will accomplish the distribution of funds received pursuant to claims settlement agreements concluded with the Governments of Bulgaria (on July 16, 1960) and Rumania (on March 30, 1960). S. 2064 is identical to S. 2634 which was previously approved by the Senate. This bill provides for the return to persecutees of their own funds in certain foreign corporations which were vested either under the International Claims Settlement Act or under the Trading With the Enemy Act. This bill is most meritorious and is in line with the policy of Congress, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State, as well as the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, none of which ever proposed to take the private property of persons who were persecuted for political, racial or religious grounds in countries such as Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania. The purpose of the bill is fully explained in Senate Report No. 1419 of the 86th Congress, Second Session. Said Senate Report accompanied the above rereferred to S. 2634. Senator Fulbright's statement (Senate Report No. 1419 above), in one of its passages, succinctly sets out the purpose and the need for the bill and I am quoting this passage: "The bill simply rectifies this wrong. It fits into the framework of general U.S. international policies with respect to the blocking and vesting of the property of persecutees or of nonenemy nationals. These policies support the principle that the private property of Allied nationals or the victims of enemy persecution shall not be indiscriminately seized for reparations or similar pur poses. The United States has upheld this principle as regards American or other nonenemy property interests abroad and at home. Yet, one class of nonenemies (persecutees) with indirect interests in blocked or vested property is not pres ently embraced by the principle. If the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 is amended along the lines of S. 2634, the effect will be to bring the practice with respect to the rights of persecutees in vested property in this country into line with the position which the United States has traditionally taken. "As is pointed out above, under existing law there are differences in treatment as between persons having certain interests in assets which were vested under the Trading With the Enemy Act and persons having similar interests in assets which were vested under title II of the International Claims Settlement Act. Both the Department of State and the Department of Justice are of the opinion that there appears to be no valid reason for these differences in treatment and favor the enactment of S. 2634," S. 2064 is not a claim bill. If enacted it will merely restore property to persons who were its beneficial owners. Respectfully yours, NICHOLAS R. DOMAN. NEW YORK, N.Y., August 1, 1966. Representative EDNA F. KELLY, DEAR MRS. KELLY: Thank you for forwarding your release advising that hear ings will be held on the Bill S. 1935 commencing August 9th. I will be abroad on a trip for most of the month of August and therefore regret that I cannot appear to testify at the said hearings. However I would request that the enclosed sworn declaration by the former Director of Legislation of the Rumanian Ministry of Justice, who presently resides in the State of Israel, be made a part of the Subcommittee record and considered in its deliberations. This declaration substantiates the point which I had made in my letter of June 10, 1966 addressed to Congressman Farbstein, which he subsequently forwarded to you. This point is that the benefit seemingly conferred by paragraph 9 of Bill S. 1935 is illusory. The said paragraph would authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to accept and adjudicate new claims only for nationalization which occurred between August 9, 1955 and March 30, 1960. Since it appears that no such nationalizations took place in Rumania during this period, the bill contemplates a class of claims which does not exist. On the other hand there are American citizens who were not able to file claims within the previous filing period for nationalizations which occurred prior to 1955. The proposed bill gives no relief to such American citizens. Since the Rumanian Claims Agreement of 1960 settles and finally cuts off all claims of American citizens arising prior to its effective date, (Art. IV), it would be equitable for the implementing legislation to allow such claimants to file claims. Otherwise they will be deprived of all possibility of compensation. It could be left to the discretion of the Commission whether to entertain such late filed claims. In the Polish Claims Program the Commission has utilized such discretion fairly and intelligently. For the foregoing reasons I hope that it may be possible to amend this bill in Committee. I thank you for your courteous attention to this matter. Very truly yours, DECLARATION IRWIN HEIMOWITZ, I, the undersigned Schneyer Zalman Feller, of No. 17 Haarazim Street, Jerusalem, Israel, owner of the certificate of identity No. 2.709.877, at present Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, following an inquiry by Counselor at Law Irwin Heimovitz of 233 Broadway, New York 71, N.Y., Suite 1150, hereby declare the following: 1. From May 1951, through November, 1961, I conducted the Direction of Legislation, the Ministry of Justice of Rumania, this Direction being in charge of elaborating and preparation of principal normative regulations and issuing opinions as to normative regulations drafted by other Departments, and of following-up and recording of the Rumanian State Legislation. 2. On the strength of the knowledge acquired in the matter of the issue of laws and regulations by the Rumanian State Authorities during the period quoted under 1. above, I hereby affirm that between August 9, 1955, and March 30, 1960, no laws decreed, or any other normative regulations were issued by Rumanian State concerning, or in connection with, nationalization or collective expropriation of property belonging to Rumanian citizens or to physical persons or juridical bodies of foreign nationality. 3. I add that between August 9, 1955 and March 30, 1960, no operations were performed on the strength of normative regulations of nationalization and for transferring of ownership to the Rumanian State that were issued prior to August 9, 1955, taking into consideration that prompt, and even instantaneous, action by the authorities concerned was mandatory and essential to such regulations. July 21, 1966. SCHNEYER ZALMAN FELLER. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. IRWIN HEIMOWITZ, Counselor at Law, New York, N.Y. DEAR MR. HEIMOWITZ: I have your letter of June 10 regarding S. 1935. Europe of which Congresswoman Kelly is Chairman, I am forwarding your letter to her for consideration. With kind regards, I remain, LEONARD FARBSTEIN. NEW YORK, N.Y., June 10, 1966. Hon. LEONARD FARBSTEIN, DEAR CONGRESSMAN FARBSTEIN: I am writing you in regard to a bill, S. 1935. which is presently being considered by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. This bill would amend the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 in various respects, including implementation of the Rumanian Claims Agreement of March 30, 1960. It is in this regard that I am writing. Between the dates of August 9, 1955 and August 9, 1959 the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission conducted a Rumanian Claims Program in which various awards were made and certified to the Treasury. Payments on account of such awards were made out of the sum of $22,026,370 in blocked Rumanian assets. which sufficed to pay about 30% of the face amount of the awards. Thereafter the Rumanian Claims Agreement was concluded on March 30, 1960, providing for payment of an additional $2,500,000 by the Rumanian Government in full satisfaction of all claims of American nationals. Paragraph 9 of Bill S. 1935 provides for payment of effective compensation for nationalization of property of American nationals in Rumania between August 9, 1955 and March 30, 1960. To this extent it would authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to accept and adjudicate new claims, Any new awards made would receive payment in equal proportion to payments previously authorized on the existing Rumanian awards. Thereafter the balance of the $2,500.000 would be paid proportionately on account of all Rumanian claims awards. (Par. 12 of the Bill) I would like to draw to your attention that the benefit seemingly conferred by this amendment may be illusory. I am informed that all Rumanian seizures of foreign property were completed long before August 1955. Thus the bill contemplates a class of claims which does not exist. On the other hand there are American citizens who were not able to file claims within the previous filing period for nationalizations which occurred prior to 1955. The proposed bill gives no relief to such American citizens. Since the Rumanian Claims Agreement of 1960 settles and finally cuts off all claims of American citizens arising prior to its effective date, (Art. IV), it would be equitable for the implementing legislation to allow such claimants to file claims. Otherwise they will be deprived of all possibility of compensation. It could be left to the discretion of the Commission whether to entertain such late filed claims. In the Polish Claims Program the Commission has utilized such discretion fairly and intelligently. For the foregoing reasons I hope that it may be possible to amend this bill in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I would appreciate your comments and thank you for your courteous attention to this matter. Very truly yours, IRWIN HEIMOWITZ, Hon. EDNA F. KELLY, NEW YORK, N.Y., August 11, 1966. Chairman, Subcommittee on Europe, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of DEAR MRS. KELLY: I deeply appreciate the fact that you extended me the opportunity to testify at the hearing on S. 1935, I feel that I owe it to the many claimants I represent to clear up some of the matters presented to your subcommittee and, therefore, take the liberty of sup plementing both the oral and written statement I presented at the hearing on August 9th. Speaking for the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Mr. Andrew Me Guire, General Counsel, stated that the Commission had "completed the Polish program". There are two things wrong with this statement. In the first place, it may give the impression that the Commission completed the adjudication of all the claims and that the claims for which Mr. Alberti and I spoke are new claims. That is, obviously, not so. The claims we have in mind, including claims of other counsel, were claims that were filed on time but which, for many reasons, could not be completed by March 31, 1966, principally because of the lack of evidence. This evidence has since come in or is expected to be received soon. In the second place, to say that the Commission has completed the program is to say that the Congress has nothing to say about when the program shall be deemed to have been completed. Mr. McGuire's statement assumes the very answer that the Congress is called upon to give. The Commission has completed the Polish claims program only if the Congress says that it has completed it and that the claimants who could complete their claims within an additional period shall be barred from doing so. Cer I stress this point particularly because of the observation by Congressman Hays that behind the effort to give claimants the additional time to prove their claims is the desire on the part of lawyers "to further milk their clients". tainly, lawyers expect to be compensated for their services and the persons who receive awards under the Polish claims program gladly pay the nominal fee that the statute allows. But the basic responsibility of every lawyer is to see that his client receives what he is entitled to get and that is what is at issue in trying to give claimants the opportunity to establish their claims by a date beyond March 31, 1966. In response to questions by Congressman Derwinski, Mr. McGuire stated that S. 1935, as worded, would admit new claimants. None that I know of has suggested that this be permitted. I, personally, do not read S. 1935 as authorizing the filing of new claims. I believe that the Commission had the right to fix March 31, 1962, as the deadline for the filing of claims under the Polish claims program and that his deadline is not affected by S. 1935. The relevant provision of S. 1935 merely states: "The Commission shall complete its affairs in connection with the settlement of the United States Polish claims arising under the Polish Claims Agreement of July 16, 1960, not later than March 31, 1966." However, if, indeed, there is the slightest doubt about the admission of new claims if a terminal date beyond March 31, 1966 is fixed, that could be readily handled by appropriate language. I am informed that your subcommittee has received individual letters from claimants, or their counsel, urging it to recommend the ratification of March 31, 1966, as the terminal date. I do not have to tell you, Mrs. Kelly, that in no time I could inspire 50 to 100 letters from clients urging you to do the opposite. What do these letters prove? Nothing, in my judgment, except that one group of claimants (the hitherto successful ones) want to exclude others from proving up their claims so their cut will be a bigger one while another group of claimants plead for opportunity to prove up their claims on the basis of documents they have already received or will have received by the date fixed by the Congress beyond March 31, 1966, so that they may get something for their losses. It will be the decision of the Congress to make as to where the equities lie between these two categories of claimants. I tried to press the point that both categories of claimants have claims of equal merit and that, therefore, the latter category should be permitted to present the evidence they have or will get, to establish their claims. At the hearing one of members of your subcommittee asked whether the extension of the Polish claims program would reduce the amount the successful claimants will eventually receive on their awards. Mr. McGuire replied that it would "tend" to have the effect. Congressman Derwinski reacted to this reply properly by stating that it would "not tend to" but "would" reduce the amount the awardees would receive. What Mr. Derwinski said is absolutely true but that is true of any award, no matter when granted, in a situation such as the Polish claims program, where there is not enough to pay all claims in full. But that is no reason for opposing the plea of persons who could now prove their claims and could not do so before March 31, 1966. These claimants, as I tried to point out at the hearing, have claims just as meritorious as those who were lucky enough to have established their claims by March 31, 1966. Finally, Mrs. Kelly, you were gracious enough to indicate that you would inquire into the type of claims that would be processed if the time for the con sideration of the claims were to be extended. I would point out that when the Commission stopped adjudicating the claims on March 31, 1966, we lawyers stopped sending in the evidence that we had on claims that were denied for lack of proof because we felt that it was futile to present the evidence until the Congress had extended the life of the program. Only in some of the claims, at the insistence of clients, did I submit the evidence that I had received after March 31, 1966. I wanted you to know this so that you might properly assess any informa tion your subcommittee is given by the Commission on this question. There is one more observation I want to make. In one section of S. 1935 the Commission is authorized to reopen and extend the Italian claims program to cover claims not previously compensable because of late filing. The Executive Department and the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission indicated their sup port of this legislation. By what logic, I ask, do they recommend this legislation for new claimants-late filers-and in the same breath recommend the exclusion of the survivors of the victims of Nazism from the opportunity to develop their claims which they have filed on time and which they have been unable to prove by March 31, 1966, by circumstances wholly beyond their control, but which will be able to prove within a short time? I trust that you will consider the foregoing in connection with your deliberations on S. 1935. Respectfully, ABRAHAM S. HYMAN, BURNS MIDDLETON ROGERS & FARRELL, Re bills S. 1935 and S. 2064, Mrs. Edwin L. Gotley (Bulgarian claim). DEAR MRS. KELLY: On behalf of Mrs. Edwin L. Gotley, we should like to urge favorable consideration with respect to S. 1935 and S. 2064. Mrs. Gotley's claim relates to stock owned by her late husband in a Bulgarian corporation which was expropriated on or about September 14, 1955. Any further advice which you may give us will be greatly appreciated. Mrs. Gotley asked me to convey to you her very best wishes, since she stated she was one of your constituents for quite some time when she lived in Brooklyn. Respectfully yours, ELWYN L. MIDDLETON, Attorney. STATEMENT OF HON. F. BRADFORD MORSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS IN SUPPORT OF S. 1935, AUGUST 9, 1966 Madame Chairman, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to declare my support for S. 1935 and to urge that it be reported favorably by your Subcommittee. Enactment of this legislation will make it possible for the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to finish paying the legitimate claims of U.S. nationals, as originally authorized in the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949. One example, with which I am familiar, illustrates the merit in approving this legislation just as soon as possible. Brandeis University in Massachusetts was named sole recipient of the proceeds from the settlement of a compensation claim by the Leon Estate against the Rumanian government. This claim was determined by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission in an award of approximately $1,850.000. About 32 percent of this amount was paid in 1960. The remaining amount would be included in the legislation before you. The urgency of the situation results from the fact that the money is needed to match available Ford Foundation funds for the University. I am sure that this is only one of a great number of deserving awards covered by this bill. These claims have been outstanding for a considerable period of time. Now that the governments in question have made final settlements of the claims against them. I hope we can move quickly to compensate the individuals and institutions who have waited so patiently for so long. |