"(c) At hearings under this section, the claimant shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to have compulsory process to require witnesses to appear, and to cross-examine all witnesses on whose evidence the Commission has relied in denying his claim, or in disapproving it in part. Evidence given by any witness on whose evidence the Commission has so relied, and who is not available for cross-examination by the claimant, shall be disregarded by the Commission in its determinations. A complete transcript of hearings under this section shall serve as the sole basis for the Commission's findings, and a copy of such transcript shall be furnished each claimant whose claim is denied or partially allowed.

"(d) The action of the Commission in allowing or denying any claim under this section shall be final and conclusive on all questions of law and fact on all officers of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, and not subject to review by any such officer. The Comptroller General shall allow credit in the accounts of any certifying or disbursing officer for payments in accordance with such action.

"(e) Any claimant aggrieved by any decision of the Commission after a hearing under this section may, within one year after notice of the decision of the Commission, institute proceedings for the review of such decision by filing a written petition in the United States district court for the district in which he resides, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The clerk of the court shall notify the Commission in writing of the filing of any such petition promptly after it has been so filed. Within fifteen days after the receipt of such notice by the Commission, the Commission shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which such decision was made. "The findings of fact by the Commission, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case to the Commission to take further evidence, and the Commission may thereupon make new or modified findings of fact and may modify its previous decision, and shall certify to the court the transcript and record of the further proceedings. Such now or modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.

"If the court determines that the decision of the Commission is not in accordance with law, or that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record before the court, the court may reverse or modify the decision of the Commission; otherwise the court shall enter a judgment affirming the decision of the Commission. If the court enters a judgment reversing or modifying the decision of the Commission, the court shall order the Commission to carry out the judgment of the court."

SEC. 3. Such Act is further amended by inserting immediately after section 17 the following:

"REAPPLICATIONS FOR BENEFITS

"SEC. 18. Any person whose claim for benefits under this Act has been denied or approved for less than the full allowable amount on the direct or indirect ground that such person collaborated with any hostile force or enemy of the United States as set out in sections 5 (g) and 6 (e) of this Act may, within the sixty-day period which begins on either the date notice of such denial or approval is received by him, or the date of enactment of this section, whichever last occurs, apply to the Commission for a determination of his claim, notwithstanding that such claim has been adjudicated by the Commission prior to the effective date of enactment of this section. The Commission shall thereupon redetermine, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such claimant's eligibility for compensation, and provide for the same in full or for adjustments in the amounts paid to him under any prior claim, or deny such claim."

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. QUIGLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared statement, but I would like to make a few remarks for the record. In connection with the chairman's earlier comment that the committee members probably would read all available material on these important matters, I would direct the committee's attention to some remarks by our col

league, Mr. Ashley, from Ohio, made on the floor of the House on January 12 of this year, and also to some remarks that I made on the same general subject on April 16 of this year.

Mr. Ashley is cosponsoring a companion bill, H. R. 9584.

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the purpose behind both of these bills is to amend the War Claims Act of 1948 and particularly as to the procedure followed by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission in the matter of handling the claims of Korean prisoners of war. You will recall that when in the 83d Congress that act was passed, there was put in a provision that the benefits provided for payment to these POW's should not be paid to those who knowingly collaborated with the enemy. That was an understandable, in many respects a very desirable provision, but unfortunately in the Commission's endeavor to carry through the intention of Congress they have run afoul of what I consider to be some very basic and some very fundamental American principles.

The problem basically is the question of a man's being denied or deprived of the benefits allowed to him by the act of Congress, without being given the opportunity to have any sort of what I think we would refer to as a fair American hearing. The problem, of course, is more important than that because the denial of the benefits is incidental.

The important part is that a veteran is suddenly tagged as something less than a full-fledged American. There is a great doubt cast on his loyalty. There is a suspicion created in his community that during his time in the service and particularly during the time that he was a prisoner of war in Korea he may have been guilty of the worst possible crime, that of collaborating with the enemy.

The situation that has come up has apparently affected a very limited number of persons. The best estimate I have been able to get, sir, is about 250 veterans. All of those, according to the information that I have been able to receive, are veterans of the Army rather than veterans of the Marines or the Navy or the Air Corps. The reason for that situation appears to be that the Commission, when it attempted to implement the act as amended in the 83d Congress, requested the various armed services to furnish to them any information they might have of a derogatory nature on any veteran who applied for the benefits. The three branches of service-the Marines, the Navy, and the Air Corps declined, as I am told, to give that information to the Commission on the grounds that it was classified information. So the Commission went ahead and processed any application of a Navy, Marine, or Air Corps veteran without knowing what, if any, information there might be in the Defense Department's files of a derogatory nature on any applicant.

The Army took a different approach. They furnished to the Commission any derogatory information they might have on an Army veteran who was a POW, but in doing so they pointed out to the Commission that it was classified information and they refused to lift the classification or to give the Commission authority to lift the classification. So they made the information available to the Commission, but made it available in such a way that they could not make it available to the veteran who was involved.

My interest in this particular bill is based on the fact that one such applicant happens to reside in my district. In his instance he was an

Army veteran who was in the Korean war, who was taken as a prisoner. After the exchange of prisoners he was discharged from the Army with an honorable discharge. In addition to that, he was given a good conduct medal by the Army. In addition to that, he has been paid and is now being paid a disability pension by the Veterans' Administration for stomach troubles which developed during the period when he was a POW in Korea. When this act was passed he made application for the compensation that he was entitled to.

Up to this point as far as the record was concerned, he was a good soldier and a deserving veteran, but all of a sudden the Foreign Claims Commission turned him down. Suddenly, of course, he became something quite different from that in the eyes of the people in his community.

The case was brought to my attention through the post of the VFW of which the man is a member.

All H. R. 9749 does is to spell out that the evidence, whatever it might be, would be made available to the veteran and to his counsel, and that he be given an opportunity to answer that evidence, to confront his accusers, and generally to be given what we in America accept as standard judicial procedure in handling these cases.

The basic part of the bill of course is to change the procedure that the Foreign Claims Commission would have to follow in handling these cases. That of course would take care of only future cases.

In addition the bill does have a provision in it which would provide that in any cases up to this point where a claimant has been turned down by the Commission without what I would consider an adequate and fair and decent hearing, the applicant will have the opportunity to ask that the case be reopened and that his application for the benefits be reconsidered.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Quigley, under present procedure as you have outlined it, the Commission is acting entirely on its own with classified information from the Army but without any charges having been made against the particular veteran either by the Army or from any other source. They simply act on their own in and on the basis of classified information which they are not privileged to present to the claimant or to his attorney.

Mr. QUIGLEY. That is exactly the situation. In other words, the Commission, as the court, has available to it the information by the veteran, the claimant, does not have and which they are not able, under their understanding of the present law, to make available to him to give him a fair opportunity to answer or rebut.

My bill would change the present act so that any such information would be made available to the veteran or his counsel. He might not be able to rebut it or he might not even want to try, but at least he would be given his opportunity to have his day in court.

As the Commission is presently interpreting the law, this cannot be done and is not being done.

I would point out that I had hoped that the matter might be settled without the need of congressional action. In that connection I did write to the President of the United States in a letter dated February 28, 1956. With the chairman's permission, I would like to insert that letter in the record at this point. It generally outlines the situation

as it was brought to my attention and suggest that perhaps the President, acting as the appointing officer of the members of the Commission, could indicate that this whole procedure was in violation of what we normally accept as standard American procedure. Maybe that action is all that would be necessary.

Also I would like to insert the answer to my letter of February 28, which I received from Gerald D. Morgan, special counsel to the President. That letter is dated April 2. In that letter I will point out that Mr. Morgan indicates that the administration was opposed to this particular provision which was inserted in the act when it was passed in the 83d Congress and also Mr. Morgan indicates that it is still opposed to the foreign claims settlement claims in the absence of a final determination by the armed services to pass upon such a serious matter.

He goes on and states that he hopes that Congress will see fit to amend the law. The White House does not suggest how it should be amended, but it agrees that there is a problem there and that it apparently is going to require congressional action to clear up and see that justice is done in these cases.

I would like to insert that letter too.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection both letters may be inserted in the record.

(The letters referred to follow :)

The PRESIDENT,

The White House.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention the situation in which one Spencer Welsh now finds himself. Mr. Welsh is a young veteran who resides in York County, Pa., not too many miles from your home in Gettysburg and, as such, he is one of my constituents. I hasten to add this latter fact does not in itself justify this letter, but it does explain how I became aware of Mr. Welsh's present predicament. However, the frightful implications of things destructive to fundamental American concepts inherent in this young man's case, in my opinion, more than justify this appeal to you as President of the United States.

Very briefly Mr. Welsh's situation is this: In March of 1950, at the age of 17, he enlisted in the United States Army. Eventually he reached Korea and landed in a Communist prison camp. He remained in Communist prison camps for 34 months before he was released under the Korean truce prisoner exchange agreement. Following his release, he was honorably discharged. In addition, Mr. Welsh received the Good Conduct Medal and, at present, he receives Veterans' Administration compensation for a 10-percent disability. Beyond this, Mr. Welsh applied for and received approval by the Veterans' Administration for a GI loan. Accordingly, it would seem that the United States Army and the Veterans' Administration considered Mr. Welsh a good soldier and a deserving veteran and until very recently he was considered to be both by all of his friends and neighbors. However, his was before the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission was heard from. This Commission recently ruled that Mr. Welsh is not entitled to the prisoner-of-war compensation payable to ex-POW's under Public Law 615 because he had not proven to the Commission's satisfaction that during the course of his imprisonment in Korea he had not collaborated with the enemy.

Mr. President, I think you will agree that no more serious charge than collaborating with the enemy could possibly be made against any American citizen. I know further that you will agree that when such a serious charge is made the accused should be given every conceivable right to defend himself in a fair hearing after having been advised as to the true basis of the charge against him and that, most important of all, the accused should be given the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers. I regret to advise you that the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, in the case of Mr. Welsh, saw fit to observe none

of these fundamental American precepts of fair play and justice. Charges made against Mr. Welsh by the Commission were couched in the vaguest and most general terms without any specifics as to the time and place of his alleged collaboration. To this date, Mr. Welsh does not know whether in the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission's files he has one or many accusers and, while he was given what the Commission called a hearing in which he was represented by counsel, this hearing made a mockery of the traditions of American justice. At the hearing no one appeared to testify against Mr. Welsh, and the entire burden of proving his innocence was upon Mr. Welsh.

In reviewing the manner in which this case was handled, I want to make it crystal clear that I am, in no way, passing on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Welsh. It seems to me if I were to do that without hearing all the evidence I would be guilty of the same shoddy un-American conduct as the Commission itself.

If Mr. Welsh's situation were the only case of its kind, I think it would demand your personal attention. However, I regret to further inform you that I have been advised that there are at least 250 other ex-prisoners of war whose cases have been handled in a similar manner by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission.

Mr. President, I know I do not have to point out to you that what is involved here is a flagrant violation of one of the things that makes this country really great. What that something is has been expressed in many ways, but seldom more eloquently than you yourself expressed it in your famous speech about the "Code of Abilene." I am sorely afraid that the members of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission never heard of that code, let alone of Abilene. On the basis of their conduct in this case, I am not certain that they even heard of Kansas and, if they heard of America, I'm afraid that its true meaning and real purpose managed to escape them completely.

It is my present plan to support legislation in the Congress which would abolish the kangaroo court proceedings now being pursued by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. I further understand that the appropriate committee of the United States Senate contemplates holding public hearings on the manner in which the Commission has administered the act. However, it appears to me that this is a situation which should not and need not require legislative action. Since the members of the Commission were appointed by you, this should be a matter which could be corrected once and for all if you did nothing more than indicate to the Commission members your great displeasure that they are administering the law in a manner which violates sacred fundamental American principles. Such action on your part, I am certain, would guarantee to these American combat veterans the rights for which they fought and, if it didn't, I am confident you would not hesitate to replace the present members of the Commission with Americans who give more than lip service to our American ideals. Sincerely,

JAMES M. QUIGLEY, Member of Congress.

Hon. JAMES M. QUIGLEY,

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, D. C., April 2, 1956.

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. QUIGLEY: The President asked me to look into the matter you wrote about under date of February 28, and to reply to your letter.

The administration was from the beginning opposed to the provision contained in the bill that became Public Law 615 requiring the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to pass upon the serious charge of collaboration in connection with its consideration of a claim for prisoner of war compensation. It is still opposed to having the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, in the absence of a final determination by the armed service concerned, pass upon such a serious matter, and hopes that the Congress will see fit to amend the law.

With respect to the claim of Mr. Spencer Welsh, the Chairman of the Commission has advised me that no finding of collaboration was in fact made, and that no inference of such a finding is to be drawn from the Commission's decision in his case.

Sincerely,

GERALD D. MORGAN, Special Counsel to the President.

81964-56

-3