erty, were acting for or on behalf of or under instructions from the German Government with respect to such seizures of property. These two difficult and complicated questions reflect the type of problems which might be expected to arise under the bill. Others would occur under the provisions which define the words "nationalized, seized, or otherwise taken." The bill would extend to claims based upon expropriation of any business property, to the indirect deprivation of the "normal control, use, or operation of such property or business, or any substantial part thereof." This would appear to authorize claims based upon the loss of income from a business, which, of course, would be difficult to measure, and generally, not a proper claim under international law. It would also extend to claims based upon the imposition of restrictions, charges or conditions on such property or business and to the substantial impairment of the rights of the owner with respect to the use of such property by enactment of laws and other rules and regulations. In this respect the Commission believes that the provisions of the bill are far too ambiguous to make its efficient administration feasible. It is required by the bill that the claims authorized therein shall be paid out of the war claims fund. Claims of less than $500 would be paid in full. Claims in excess of $500 would be paid in 2 installments, the first to consist of an amount equal to $500 plus two-thirds of the excess, the second to be computed as of September 1, 1956, in order to stay within the limits of the remaining funds in the war claims fund, unless the amounts remaining in such fund are sufficient to pay the unpaid balances of the awards in full. The Commission believes that the complicated nature of such claims would require a settlement period of at least 4 years. The Commission cannot accurately estimate the number of claims that would be filed or paid, but from its studies of similar legislation in the past and based upon the fact that practically every conceivable type of property-loss claim is recognized by the bill with the exception of losses resulting from direct military operations, the number of such claims would be very substantial. Similarly, the amounts involved in such claims would probably aggregate several hundred million dollars and far in excess of any assets in the war claims fund available for their payment. The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, in cooperation with the Department of State and other interested agencies of the Federal Government, has given serious consideration and study to the matter of war claims by American nationals for losses attributable to German military action or to military operations occurring during World War II. The Commission's views and recommendations on this general subject have been incorporated in the presently pending bill, H. R. 6730, which provides for the limited return of German assets seized by the United States and for the payment of claims by American nationals up to $10,000 in each case. In addition to claims based upon losses from military operations, H. R. 6730 provides for certain ship and cargo losses as well as death and disability losses arising from the sinking of passenger vessels by Germany subsequent to September 1, 1939. The Commission is of the firm belief that this approach to the German claims problem is the only sound and orderly method of dealing with this subject. For the foregoing reasons the Commission would be opposed to the enactment of H. R. 2233 and would recommend that favorable consideration be given to the legislation heretofore submitted to the Congress on this subject and incorporated in H. R. 6730 and S. 2227, identical bills. Informal advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the presentation of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, WHITNEY GILLILLAND, Chairman. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D. C., April 18, 1955. Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. PRIEST: Further reference is made to your communication of February 5, 1955, requesting a report concerning H. R. 2233, a bill to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, as successor to the War Claims Commission pursuant to the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1954, to determine the amount and validity of certain claims of nationals of the United States against Germany for compensation for "losses arising as a result of the nationalization, seizure, or other taking by Germany during World War II of real or personal property, or any interests therein, or of any business owned or belonging to such individual or legal entity" referred to in the bill, and to provide for the payment of such adjudicated claims as may be allowed out of the war claims funds established under section 13 of the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended. The Department of State, together with other interested agencies of the executive branch, has been engaged for some time in a thorough examination of the question of claims of American citizens arising from the loss of or damage to property as the result of the war with Germany. On the occasion of the visit of Chancellor Adenauer to the United States in October of last year, the Chancellor and President Eisenhower agreed that representatives of the United States Government and of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany should meet to discuss this question, together with the question of the disposition of vested German assets. Conversations between representatives of the two Governments were held in Washington from February 10 to March 3, 1955. The object of these conversations was to achieve an exchange of views on these questions and to explore the range of problems which they represent. It is anticipated that proposals will soon be submitted to the Congress by the executive branch dealing with war claims held by United States nationals against Germany. It is suggested, therefore, that the committee may wish to defer consideration of H. R. 2233 until the proposals mentioned above are submitted. The Department has been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, THRUSTON B. MORTON, Assistant Secretary (For the Secretary of State). EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D. C., April 12, 1955. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge your letter of February 5, 1955, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H. R. 2233, to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended. In general, this bill would authorize the payment of certain claims of United States nationals against Germany resulting from seizure of their property during World War II. As you know, it is anticipated that, within the near future, the executive branch will submit to the Congress proposed legislation covering the property claims of United States nationals growing out of the war with Germany and providing for a limited return of vested assets to their former enemy owners. In view of the foregoing, the Bureau of the Budget recommends that action on H. R. 2233 be deferred pending consideration of this proposed legislation by the Congress. Sincerely yours, PERCIVAL BRUNDAGE, Deputy Director. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D. C. February 7, 1956. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of September 19, 1955, requesting the views of this office with respect to H. R. 3242, to amend section 32 of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended, so as to permit the return under such section of property which an alien acquired by gift, devise, bequest, or inheritance, from an American citizen. This bill would authorize the return of certain vested property thus acquired from American citizens by Germans or Austrians who can demonstrate that they have not been members of the Nazi Party. The bill would authorize the filing of claims any time within 3 years of its enactment. The Assistant Director of the Bureau of the Budget, in the report he made to your committee on March 10, 1955, on H. R. 2102, a similar bill, recommended deferment of action on that bill pending submission and consideration of the legislation the administration was planning to propose for partial return of vested enemy assets. The administration's proposal has now been submitted as H. R. 6730. The Deputy Attorney General, in the report he has made to your committee on H. R. 2102, recommends against its enactment for the reasons set out therein and urges favorable committee action on H. R. 6730. The Bureau of the Budget concurs with the views contained in the report of the Deputy Attorney General and recommends that H. R. 3242 not be enacted. Sincerely yours, Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, ROWLAND HUGHES, Director. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice concerning the bill (H. R. 3242) to amend section 32 of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended, so as to permit the return under such section of property which an alien acquired, by gift, devise, bequest, or inheritance from an American citizen. Except for one slight variation this bill is identical with sections 1 and 2 of H. R. 2102 on which the Department of Justice reported to the committee on November 22, 1955. The instant bill, in addition to providing, as does H. R. 2102, that no citizen or national of Germany or Austria shall be considered ineligible for a return of vested property which was acquired from an American citizen or a mother who at the time of her marriage was an American citizen, makes like provision with respect to vested property which was acquired from a "grandmother or other female relative by consanguinity." Accordingly, the views expressed in the Department's report on H. R. 2102 are applicable to the bill here under consideration. For the reasons stated in that report the Department of Justice is unable to recommend enactment of this measure, but urges instead favorable committee action on H. R. 6730. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Deputy Attorney General. GENERAL COUNSEL, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., February 10, 1955. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of February 5, 1955, requesting a statement of this Department's views on H. R. 3242, to amend section 32 of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended, so as to permit the return under such section of property which an alien acquired, by gift, devise, bequest, or inheritance, from an American citizen. The proposed legislation would amend section 32 (a) (2) (D) of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended (U. S. C., 1946 edition, title 15, appendix, sec. 32) to permit the return of property vested by the Alien Property Custodian to citizens or nationals of Germany or Austria where such property was acquired from an American citizen by gift, devise, bequest, or inheritance and such citizen proves he has never been a member of the Nazi Party. Since it is believed that the subject of the proposed legislation is primarily the concern of the Department of Justice rather than the Treasury Department, this Department has no comment to make with respect to the merits of the legislation. Very truly yours, DAVID W. KENDALL, General Counsel. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D. C. February 1, 1955. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge your letter of February 3, 1955, requesting the comments of this office with respect to H. R. 3460, a bill to further amend section 20 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, relating to fees of agents, attorneys, and representatives. As you are aware, H. R. 3460 is the introduced version of legislation proposed by the Department of Justice with the approval of this office. For the reasons given in the letter transmitting sucvh legislation, the Bureau of the Budget recommends that you committee give favorable consideration to H. R. 3460. Sincerely yours, Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, PERCIVAL BRUNDAGE, Deputy Director. GENERAL COUNSEL, Washington, D. C., February 14, 1955. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of February 5, 1955, requesting a statement of this Department's views on H. R. 3460, to further amend section 20 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, relating to fees of agents, attorneys, and representatives. The proposed legislation would amend section 20 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended (U. S. C. 1952 edition, title 50, App. sec. 20) by changing the methods for determining whether fees paid to agents and attorneys are fair compensation for the services rendered in connection with claims for the return of property, interest, or proceeds under the act. Since this relates to matters primarily within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, this Department does not have any recommendation to make on the merits of the proposed legislation. Very truly yours, Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, DAVID W. KENDALL, General Counsel. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN PRIEST: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice concerning the bill (H. R. 3460) to further amend section 20 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, relating to fees of agents, attorneys, and representatives. As you know, this legislation was introduced at the request of the Attorney General for the reasons set forth in his letter of January 27, 1955, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Attached for ready reference are copies of the Attorney General's letter. In view of the noncontroversial nature of the proposal, it is hoped that your committee may give the bill early favorable consideration. Sincerely, WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Deputy Attorney General. JANUARY 27, 1955. The SPEAKER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is attached for your consideration and appropriate action a legislative proposal to further amend section 20 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, relating to fees of agents, attorneys, and representatives. With respect to certain claims for returns or payments under the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended, the President or his designee is required to make a determination that the individual fees paid to attorneys or other representatives of claimants "do not exceed fair compensation for the services rendered and that the aggregate of the fees does not exceed 10 percent of the value of such property or interest or proceeds or of such payment" (60 Stat. 54; 50 U. S. C. App. 20. The attached proposal, which this Department recommends be enacted, while retaining the 10 percent ceiling on the aggregate of the fees would eliminate the requirement of determining that the individual fees do not exceed fair compensation. The required examination into individual fees has proved to be an extremely onerous burden which serves no useful purpose. Not only has experience shown that in the vast majority of cases the fees requested have been fair, but the 10 percent ceiling which would remain on the aggregate of the fees would continue to serve as a guard against unreasonable individual fees, since most claims involve relatively small amounts. Where substantial amounts are involved, claimants can secure competent independent opinions as to the reasonableness of fees and do not require governmental assistance or protection. Furthermore, there would seem to be no reason why claimants under the Trading With the Enemy Act should be afforded a protection not accorded to any other claimants against the United States. The early introduction of this proposal would be appreciated. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this recommendation. Sincerely, Attorney General. Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY 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 relative to the bill (H. R. 3462) to amend the Trading With the Enemy Act relating to debt claims. As you know, this legislation was introduced at the request of the Attorney General for the reasons set forth in his letter to the Speaker on January 24, 1955, copies of which are attached for your ready reference. You will note that in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the letter various statistics relating to debt claims were presented. We now have at hand somewhat different figures as the records have recently been made current. Accordingly, the paragraphs are rewritten below to reflect these statistics as of the present date. "The records of the Department of Justice indicate that approximately 3,500 claims fall in the first of the 2 categories to be affected. In those cases it is clear that the vesting of the debtors' property in no way prejudged the rights of the affected creditors for in the absence of any vesting action the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity from suit would have prevented the creditors from enforcing their claims against the foreign governments involved. Furthermore, it is clear that the amounts available for the payment of these claims are wholly inadequate to pay more than a token amount on any of the claims involved. For example, the funds available to pay debt claims against the Japanese Government total less than $1,300,000. Against this amount, there are 1,000 claims filed seeking payment of a face amount in excess of $10 million. The German Government account has filed more than 1,800 claims in face amount exceeding $20 million against less than $1,250,000. In both instances, |