Page images
PDF
EPUB

ury the sum of approximately $112 billion, quite a sizable sum, whereas our own citizens who were in the Philippines at the time, as one letter states here, have received two-thirds of half of the value of their loss.

Mr. KLEIN. You are talking about loss to their property?
Mr. HINSHAW. That is property.

Mr. Wilson. To make it more a matter of irony, for instance, if you were in the Philippines and you had a business and you lost it through the shelling or act of war, you put a claim through what they call the Philippine War Damage, which was passed in 1941.

Now, the Government would make a survey of your business and they would appraise it and they would allow you exactly half of what you put in for.

Mr. KLEIN. You are talking now of American citizens?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. This applied to anybody in the Philippines.

So the Government allowed you one-half, you see. But they didn't pay you the half. They only paid you the half of the half.

In other words, a quarter. But they paid it in pesos for the rehabilitation of the Philippine Islands. So you are an American over here and you had pesos in the Philippines. What did the Philippine Government do? They put a tax of i7 percent on every dollar you brought out of the Philippines.

So if you did get half of a half, or a quarter, you were still taxed 17 percent. I was one who fought Quirino and Quaderno on the thing.

I know that that Philippine crowd brought over $7 million and deposited it over in this country without the 17 percent tax.

Mr. KLEIN. What was the the theory under which we paid Filipinos for war damage done by the Japs? Was it because they were attacking us in the sense that the Japs were ?

Mr. HINSHAW. That came out of another committee of the Congress, not out of this committee.

Mr. KLEIN. What was the reason behind it?

Mr. HINSHAW. Rehabilitation. They were rehabilitating everybody all over the world except our own people.

Mr. Wilson. As I say, they take care of the world, but not our own.

Mr. KLEIN. I do not want my question to be misunderstood. Of course, I am in favor of helping the people who need help wherever they are, but it seems to me our first obligation is to our own people.

NÍr. Hinshaw. I think so. We have already taken care of all of the other people.

Now, this first obligation you talk of, having been postponed until everybody else has been taken care of, we can take care of our own. The hearings are concluded. (Thereupon, at 11:40 a. m., the hearing was concluded.)

50190-54-_-6

WAR CLAIMS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1954

THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1954

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE
ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to call, in the caucus room, Old House Office Building, Hon. Carl Hinshaw (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HINSHAW. The committee will come to order.

Today we will hear witnesses in connection with S. 541 and H. R. 4422, bills identical, to extend detention benefits under the War Claims Act of 1948 to employees of contractors with the United States.

At the point, we will insert a copy of each bill in the record. (The bills are as follows:)

[S. 541, 83d Cong., 1st sess.) AN ACT To extend detention benefits under the War Claims Act of 1948 to employees of

contractors with the United States

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5 (a) of the War Claims Act of 1948 is amended by striking out clause (2) (B) thereof.

SEC. 2. Section 5 (b) of such Act is amended

(a) by striking out “The Commission” and inserting in lieu thereof “(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Commission”; and

(b) by adding at the end thereof a new paragraph as follows:

“(2) The Secretary of Labor is authorized to receive, adjudicate according to law, and provide for the payment of any claim filed by, or on behalf of, any civilian American citizen specified in section 101 (a) of the Act entitled 'An Act to provide benefits for the injury, disability, death, or enemy detention of employees of contractors with the United States, and for other purposes', approved December 2, 1942, as amended, for detention benefits for any period of time subsequent to December 6, 1941, during which he was held by the Imperial Japanese Government as a prisoner, internee, hostage, or in any other capacity, or remained in hiding to avoid being captured or interned by such Imperial Japanese Government." Passed the Senate July 18 (legislative day, July 6), 1953.

J. MARK TRICE,

Secretary.

[H. R. 4422, 83d Cong., 1st sess.) A BILL To extend detention benefits under the War Claims Act of 1948 to employees of

contractors with the United States

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5 (a) of the War Claims Act of 1948 is amended by striking out clause (2) (B) thereof.

77

SEC. 2. Section 5 (b) of such Act is amended,

(a) by striking out “The Commission” and inserting in lieu thereof "(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Commission”; and

(b) by adding at the end thereof a new paragraph as follows: “(2) The Secretary of Labor is authorized to receive, adjudicate according to law, and provide for the payment of any claim filed by, or on behalf of, any civilian American citizen specified in section 101 (a) of the Act entitled 'An Act to provide benefits for the injury, disability, death, or enemy detention of employees of contractors with the United States, and for other purposes', approved December 2, 1942, as amended, for detention benefits for any period of time subsequent to December 6, 1941, during which he was held by the Imperial Japanese Government as a prisoner, internee, hostage, or in any other capacity, or remained in hiding to avoid being captured or interned by such Imperial Japanese Government."

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Hamer H. Budge, representative from the State of Idaho, desires to make a statement.

Mr. Budge.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAMER H. BUDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO Mr. BUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the privilege of appearing before your committee this morning. I should like to say that I have talked this morning with both Senator Henry Dworshak and Senator Herman Welker, both of my State of Idaho, and they would be here if it were not for committee commitments which they have in the other body.

In making this statement, I speak for the three others. Both of the Senators are as much interested in this problem as am I, and this legislation before you has the full sympathy of the three others.

S. 541 and H. R. 4422 comprise legislation to provide additional benefits to certain civilian prisoners of war who were taken prisoners of war on Wake, Guam, and Cavite, and held captive by the Japanese for nearly 4 years. I am sure the committee is familiar with the history of these prisoners of war and know of the privations and the sufferings endured by them.

Because of this, I will not go into detail to recount the serious physical and mental damages done these persons during their imprisonment. It is sufficient to say that they suffered the identical treatment given the military and other civilian internees.

The War Claims Commission reports, and I quote: The persons who are the subject matter of this legislation number approximately 1,500 employees of certain contractors who were engaged in the construction of airfields, fortifications, and ship facilities on Pacific Ocean islands prior to the commencement of World War II. When war broke out, these men were captured by the Japanese forces while taking part in the defense of Wake Island, Guam, and the Philippines, in late 1941 and early 1942. After their capture, they spent the remainder of the war in Japanese prison camps throughout the Orient. These employees of contractors were confined in prisoner of war camps and were considered by Japanese authorities as civilian prisoners of war and as such were treated in the same manner as the military prisoners with whom they were captured and imprisoned.

About 400 of these prisoners came from my State of Idaho. Some of them I know quite well. At the present time, there are 35 of these men who are totally and permanently disabled.' And I think in practically all instances this is as a direct result of the treatment which was accorded them while they were in the prisoner of war camps.

I know that they have had a very difficult time getting reestablished in life. It has been a problem because of physical and mental disabilities. And the mental disabilities should be considered by the committee as well as the physical disabilities.

Many of them, even those who are not totally disabled, are unable to work at any type of full employment. It appears to me that, although I know that this committee is faced with a number of very justifiable claims to be paid from the impounded Japanese assets, these men during this 4-year period suffered hardships that were practically unendurable. I sincerely hope, and I know that Senators Dworshak and Welker hope, that the committee will give this legislation, as I know it will, your fullest consideration.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this privilege.
Mr. HINSHAW. Thank you.

Mr. KLEIN. Would this bill provide for a payment of a certain amount per day for every day they were incarcerated ?

Mr. BUDGE. It provides for $2.50 per day.
Mr. Klein. The same as the military prisoners of war get?
Mr. BUDGE. That is my understanding, Mr. Klein.

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Wilson, I notice you are sitting back there. How does this bill differ from the one we had under consideration yesterday? Is that limited to civilian employees of the United States ?

STATEMENT OF FRANK E. WILSON, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN

INTERNEE COMMITTEE, PASADENA, CALIF.

a

Mr. Wilson. He mentions some of the people, too, like the Cavite people we were talking about yesterday.

Mr. KLEIN. The other bill would not cover these people?

Mr. Wilson. No, it is a different bill. These come under a different category of the act.

Mr. Klein. Yesterday, the bill we had under consideration was limited to civilian employees of the Government who were hired locally in the Philippines. Is that not correct?

Mr. Wilson. That is correct.

Mr. KLEIN. This, on the other hand, takes care of American citizens, employees of contractors!

Mr. WILSON. Yes.
Mr. HINSHAW. Who were hired in the United States for the job.

Mr. KLEIN. In one case it was Government employees; in another case it was civilian employees. It seems to me that it is fair, if we are to take care of one type of employees we should take care of other types, as well.

Mr. BUDGE. The reason so many came from Idaho is that the principal contractor was located in Idaho and these men were employees of the contractor and recruited locally for the Pacific Island bases just prior to the outbreak of war.

Mr. Klein. Did those people get any compensation, anything at all from the Government to compensate them for the torture they had to go through?

Mr. BUDGE. They have had compensation but not to the extent that the military and the civilian employees have had. It is my understanding, Mr. Klein, that this legislation, if enacted, would bring them

« PreviousContinue »