Under existing law a husband, claiming benefits under the provisions of subsection (d) of section 5 and subsection (c) of section 6 of the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, as a successor to either a civilian United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces for whom provision is made in the sections mentioned, is described as a "dependent" husband. The bill would amend subsection (d) of section 5 and subsection (c) of section 6 by striking the word "dependent," thus eliminating the requirement of dependency. It is noted with respect to the proposed amendment of subsection (c) of section 6 that the bill does not cover the parallel provision in subsection (d) (4) of section 6. Presumably this omission is an oversight. The merits of the bill and the probable sum to be paid out under it are matters within the jurisdiction of the War Claims Commission. However, it should be noted that it would require additional disbursements from the war claims fund which, pursuant to sections 12 and 13 of the War Claims Act, consists of net proceeds of German and Japanese property vested under the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended, and not subject to return under that act. This Department has transferred a total of $210 million to the war claims fund, including $60 million transferred pursuant to the directive in Public Law 211, 83d Congress, approved August 7, 1953 (67 Stat. 461). It is estimated that the transfer of the remaining $15 million authorized by Public Law 211 will leave only a relatively small balance available for ultimate transfer to the war claims fund. Any appreciable increase in payments from the fund resulting from the enactment of the subject bill or other pending measures to broaden or increase the benefits under the War Claims Act might require financing from sources other than vested German and Japanese assets. Whether the bill should be enacted is a question of policy on which the Department of Justice prefers to make no recommendation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised this office that there would be no objection to the submission of this report, but stated its belief to be that no action should be taken on this bill pending completion of a study of the issues raised by the recommndations contained in the supplementary report of the War Claims Commission, concerning War Claims arising out of World War II, dated January 9, 1953, which study was undertaken at your request. Sincerely, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Deputy Attorney General. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on H. R. 2546, a bill to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, to make husbands eligible for survivor benefits under sections 5 and 6, regardless of status of dependency, has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to remove the present requirement of proof of dependency of husbands in order to make them eligible for survivor benefits under subsections 5 (d) and 6 (c) of the act. It is noted that the time limit for filing claims under subsections 5 (d) and 6 (c) of the act expired on March 31, 1952. Claims under subsection 6 (d), relating to per diem benefits for inhumane treatment as a prisoner of war, may be filed until April 9, 1953, but subject bill does not extend to this subsection. Inasmuch as the Department of Defense has no information as to the cases involved or the justification for an amendment of the nature proposed, the Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, has no recommendation to make regarding the enactment of H. R. 2546. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Department of the Navy has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report on H. R. 2546 to the Congress. Sincerely yours, IRA H. NUNN, Rear Admiral, United States Navy, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 30, 1953. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: Reference is made to your letter of February 6, 1953, transmitting for the comment of the Department of State a copy of H. R. 2546, a bill to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, to make husbands eligible for survivor benefits under sections 5 and 6, regardless of status of dependency. It is noted that an identical bill, designated as H. R. 4926, was introduced in the 82d Congress. The Department's comments on the latter mentioned bill, which it considers to be applicable to the present proposed measure, were transmitted to the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce under date of September 12, 1951, in the following language: "As presently written, sections 5 (d) and 6 (c) of that act make eligible a dependent husband to receive the detention benefits allowed under section 5 (b) and claims pursuant to section 6 (b), in the event of death of the persons who are entitled to receive payment. H. R. 4926 would amend sections 5 (d) and 6(c) by striking out the word 'dependent' wherever it appears in said subsections, thus making husbands eligible for survivor benefits under sections 5. and 6, regardless of the status of dependency. "It is the understanding of the Department that the War Claims Commission intends to present to the Congress a supplemental report which will deal with the matter of war claims on a comprehensive basis. It is accordingly recommended that, instead of considering war claims legislation on a piecemeal basis, the Congress defer consideration of H. R. 4926 until it shall have had an opportunity to consider a comprehensive measure on the subject of war claims in general." The supplementary report of the War Claims Commission was submitted to the Congress on January 16, 1953, and was published as House Document No. 67, 83d Congress, 1st session. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that while there is no objection to the submission of this report to the committee, the Bureau believes that no action should be taken on the proposed legislation pending the completion of the current study of the supplementary report of the War Claims Commission (H. Doc. 67, 83d Cong., 1st sess.). Sincerely yours, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, THRUSTON B. MORTON, Assistant Secretary (For the Secretary of State). DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 30, 1953. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: Reference is made to your letter of February 24, 1953, transmitting for the comment of the Department of State a copy of H. R. 3298, a bill to amend section 5 of the War Claims Act of 1948 so that internees will not be denied detention and disability benefits thereunder because of being within the purview of the Missing Persons Act of March 7, 1942. It is noted that an identical bill, designated as H. R. 2614, was introduced in the 82d Congress. The Department's comments on the latter mentioned bill, which it considers to be applicable to the present proposed measure, were transmitted to the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce under date of September 12, 1951, and were as follows: "Section 5 of the War Claims Act provides benefits for the detention, injury, disability or death of any civilian American citizen who was captured by the Japanese on any territory or possession of the United States, or while in transit to or from any such place, or who went into hiding at any such place to avoid capture. The term 'civilian American citizen' is defined in paragraph (a) of section 5 to exclude any person within the purview of other legislation under which this Government provides similar benefits. The exclusion of such a person from benefits under section 5 of the War Claims Act was presumably intended to prevent double payments by this Government of injury, disability or death benefits, and to prevent payment of detention benefits to employees of this Government who had already received, or were eligible to receive, from this Government full pay for the period of their internment. "The Department has been informally advised by an officer of the Bureau of Employees Compensation of the Department of Labor, which administers injury, disability and death benefits under the War Claims Act, that paragraph (a) of section 5 of the act is so worded as to prevent certain persons who receive pay for the period of their internment under the Missing Persons Act from receiving injury, disability or death benefits under the War Claims Act, although they are ineligible to receive such benefits under other legislation. It may be desirable that section 5 be amended in such manner as to provide that any civilian American citizen, who was captured in the places specified in the Act and who is not eligible to receive injury, disability or death benefits under other legislation, shall be eligible to receive such benefits under section 5 of the War Claim Act. "It is believed, however, that the proposed measure would have the effect of authorizing the payment of detention benefits to certain persons who have already received from this Government pay for the entire period of their internment. The Department perceives no justification for an amendment of the act which would authorize the payment of detention benefits and pay for the period of internment to the same person. In view of the fact that the benefits authorized by section 5 are administered by the Bureau of Employees Compensation of the Department of Labor and by the War Claims Commission, the Department suggests that those agencies be consulted as to the appropriate amendment of section 5(a) which would insure that each American civilian captured in the specified places would be eligible to receive injury, disability, and death benefits, without providing any double payment of such benefits, and which would also insure that each American civilian captured in the specified places would be eligible to receive either detention benefits or pay for the period of his internment, without providing for payment of both detention benefits and pay to the same person. "As you are aware, the Congress in directing the War Claims Commission to prepare a report on the subject of claims arising out of World War II, intended to provide a framework for dealing with such claims in a comprehensive manner, rather than on a piecemeal basis. The desirability of amending the War Claims Act to provide compensation for specified additional types and classes of war claims depends upon the amount of funds available to the War Claims Commission and upon the priorities between the specified claims and other types and classes of war claims arising out of World War II. It is the understanding of the Department that the War Claims Commission, as was indicated in the President's letter of May 3, 1950, to the Congress transmitting the report of the Commission (H. Doc. 580, 81st Cong., 2d Sess.), plans to submit comprehensive proposals to the Congress on the subject of claims arising out of World War II. It is recommended that consideration of any amendments of the War Claims Act which would make additional claimants eligible to receive compensation be deferred until comprehensive legislative proposals have been presented to the Congress." The supplementary report of the War Claims Commission was submitted to the Congress on January 16, 1953, and was published as House Document 67, 83d Congress, 1st session. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that while there is no objection to the submission of this report to the committee, the Bureau believes that no action should be taken on the proposed legislation pending the completion of the current study of the supplementary report of the War Claims Commission (H. Doc. 67, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.). Sincerely yours, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, THRUSTON B. MORTON, Assistant Secretary (For the Secretary of State). DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice concerning the bill (H. R. 3298) to amend section 5 of the War Claims Act of 1948 so that internees will not be denied detention and disability benefits thereunder because of being within the purview of the Missing Persons Act of March 7, 1942. The bill would amend section 5 (a) of the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended (50 U. S. C. App. 2004 (a)), so as to authorize payments of certain cash benefits to civilian American citizens employed by the Government who were detained by Japanese armed forces during World War II or who went into hiding to avoid such detention. These Government employees come within the purview of the Missing Persons Act of March 7, 1942, as amended (50 U. S. C. App. 10011017), which provided for the continuance of their pay and allowances while they were in detention or missing. Section 5 (a) of the War Claims Act now specifically excepts these individuals from the cash-detention benefits authorized by section 5 (c), i. e., $60 for each month during which a claimant was at least 18 years of age, and $25 for each month during which he was under 18 years of age. The bill would remove the exception. Whether the bill should be enacted involves a question of policy concerning which this Department prefers to make no recommendation. However, the bill, in common with other bills seeking to broaden the benefits of the War Claims Act, presents an aspect which it is believed the committee may wish to consider. The bill would require additional disbursements from the war claims fund which, pursuant to sections 12 and 13 of the War Claims Act, consists of the net proceeds of German and Japanese property vested under the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended, and not subject to return under that act. This Department has transferred a total of $210 million from the proceeds of vested property to the War Claims Fund, including $60 million transferred pursuant to the directive in Public Law 211, 83d Congress, approved August 7, 1953 (67 Stat. 461). It is estimated that the transfer of the remaining $15 million authorized by Public Law 211 will leave only a relatively small balance available for ultimate transfer to the war claims fund. Any appreciable increase in payments from the fund resulting from the enactment of this legislation or other pending measures to broaden or increase the benefits under the War Claims Act might require financing from sources other than vested Germany and Japanese assets. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report, but stated its belief to be that no action should be taken on this bill pending completion of a study of the issues raised by the recommendations contained in the "Supplementary Report of the War Claims Commission, concerning War Claims Arising out of World War II," dated January 9, 1953, which study was undertaken at your request. Sincerely, WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Deputy Attorney General. Mr. HINSHAW. Now, Congressman Warburton, of Delaware, is present, and will make a presentation on behalf of H. R. 3298. Mr. Warburton, we are pleased to have you. STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT B. WARBURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE Mr. WARBURTON. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, my presentation will not be too extended. I am here to speak in behalf of the claims bill 3298 with regard to amending section 5 of the War Claims Act of 1948. I should indicate to the subcommittee that my interest in this bill was engendered through the fact that I became acquainted through a mutual friend with Miss Anne Katz, who is also here this morning to testify. In the course of that acquaintanceship, hearing of her situation, which appeared to be reflective of a situation of a fairly considerable number of our citizens who were in her position, it seemed to me that I might be able to add my support for such value that it might have to the effort of the chairman in attempting to amend the provisions of the War Claims Act to take care of citizens in her category. As I understand the situation, she is one of a group of citizens of whom there are approximately 200,000 remaining who were interned in her particular instance by the Japanese after the fall of the Philippines and apparently she and the others within her class fall within that group of exclusions in the War Claims Act which exclusion is based primarily upon the fact that she entered into Government employment after the beginning of the war and while she was actually in the Philippines. In other words, she was not a Stateside-hired employee that_then was transported to the Philippines, as I understand it, the results of the exclusion of the act which the chairman's bill is attempting to rectify is to deny to her and other persons in this relatively limited group who were in that situation those benefits, particularly with regard to the assistance and curing of physical disabilities resulting from the interment and the harsh treatment which they suffered and to permit them to come within the general purview of the War Claims Act in order that those benefits and the disability corrections which are available otherwise might be secured to this small group. I would, therefore, Mr. Chairman, merely voice my support of the bill with the hope that it will receive favorable action by the subcommittee, and then by the committee as a whole. Miss Katz will go into, I think, greater detail with regard to the specifics. Thank you, sir. Mr. HINSHAW. We are delighted to have you testify on the bill. We are delighted to have you take the interest in it. Mr. Carrigg, do you have any questions? Mr. CARRIGG. No questions. Mr. HINSHAW. Thank you very much. Mr. WARBURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HINSHAW. Miss Anne Katz. Will you state your name and whom you represent, for the record? |