[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 145 (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10724-H10728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONCERNING PROPERTIES WRONGFULLY EXPROPRIATED BY FORMERLY TOTALITARIAN 
                              GOVERNMENTS

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 562) concerning properties wrongfully 
expropriated by formerly totalitarian governments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 562

         Whereas totalitarian regimes, including Fascist and 
     Communist dictatorships, have caused immeasurable human 
     suffering and loss, degrading not only every conceivable 
     human right, but the human spirit itself;
       Whereas the villainy of communism was dedicated, in 
     particular, to the organized and systematic destruction of 
     private property ownership, including ownership of real, 
     personal, business, and financial property, by individuals 
     and communities;
       Whereas the confiscation of property without compensation 
     by totalitarian regimes was often designed to victimize 
     people because of religion, ethnicity, national or social 
     origin, or opposition to such regimes;
       Whereas certain individuals and communities twice suffered 
     the taking of their properties without compensation, first by 
     the Nazis and their collaborators and next by subsequent 
     Communist regimes;
       Whereas churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious 
     properties, as well as properties such as hospitals, schools 
     and orphanages owned by religious communities, were destroyed 
     or confiscated as a means of breaking the spiritual devotion 
     and allegiance of religious people and dismantling religious 
     communities;
       Whereas refugees from communism, in addition to being 
     wrongfully deprived of their property, were often forced to 
     relinquish their citizenship in order to protect themselves 
     and their families from reprisals by the Communists who ruled 
     their countries;
       Whereas the participating States of the Organization for 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe have agreed to achieve or 
     maintain full recognition and protection of all types of 
     property, including private property, and the right to 
     prompt, just and effective compensation in the event private 
     property is taken for public use;
       Whereas the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the 
     Caucasus, and Central Asia, have entered a post-Communist 
     period of transition and democratic development, and many 
     countries have begun the difficult and wrenching process of 
     trying to right the wrongs of previous totalitarian regimes;
       Whereas many countries in Central and Eastern Europe have 
     enacted laws providing for the restitution of properties that 
     were illegally or unjustly seized, nationalized, confiscated, 
     or otherwise expropriated by totalitarian regimes;
       Whereas legal or administrative restrictions that require 
     claimants to reside in, or be a citizen of, the country from 
     which they seek restitution of, or compensation for, 
     wrongfully expropriated property are arbitrary, 
     discriminatory, and in violation of international law; and
       Whereas the rule of law and democratic norms require that 
     the activity of governments and their administrative agencies 
     be exercised in accordance with the laws passed by their 
     parliaments or legislatures, and such laws themselves must be 
     consistent with international human rights standards: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) welcomes the efforts of many formerly totalitarian 
     countries to address the complex and difficult question of 
     the status of wrongfully expropriated properties;
       (2) urges countries which have not already done so to 
     return wrongfully expropriated properties to their rightful 
     owners or, when actual return is not possible, to pay prompt, 
     just and effective compensation, in accordance with 
     principles of justice and in a manner that is just, 
     transparent and fair;
       (3) calls for the return of wrongfully expropriated 
     properties to religious communities;
       (4) calls on Croatia, the Czech Republic, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and any other nation whose laws 
     or regulations limit restitution or compensation for 
     wrongfully expropriated properties to persons who reside in, 
     or are citizens of, the country from which restitution or 
     compensation is sought, to remove such restrictions; and
       (5) urges formerly totalitarian countries to pass and 
     effectively implement laws that provide for restitution of, 
     or compensation for, wrongfully expropriated property.
       Sec. 2. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall 
     transmit a copy of this resolution to the President.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

[[Page H10725]]

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the ranking 
member of my subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), 
for working with me and with my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) to help bring this resolution to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 562 addresses the difficult subject of 
claims arising from uncompensated property confiscation by totalitarian 
regimes in Central and Eastern Europe.
  House Resolution 562 stemmed from a Helsinki Commission hearing that 
I held in 1996 that examined the efforts underway to restore plundered 
properties in Central and Eastern Europe. One of the witnesses at that 
hearing explained that under the international law and practice, the 
U.S. government is only able to seek compensation from foreign 
governments on behalf of property claimants who were American citizens 
at the time that their property was taken.
  In contrast, claimants who were not American citizens when their 
property was taken have at their disposal only the domestic law of 
their former country, even if they later became naturalized American 
citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution urges countries to pass laws that will 
commit their governments to return plundered properties to their 
rightful owners, or, when actual return of property is not possible, to 
provide prompt, just, and effective compensation.
  This compensation language derives from the Bonn agreement on the 
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in which the 
participating states, including those in Central and Eastern Europe, 
recognized the ``right to prompt compensation in the event private 
property is taken for public use.'' This resolution also urges 
countries that have adopted restitution and compensation laws to 
implement those laws effectively and expeditiously.
  By adopting this resolution, Mr. Speaker, the Congress will lend its 
voice and persuasive power to that of the Council of Europe and the 
European Parliament, which have both passed strongly-worded and 
similarly-worded resolutions calling on the countries of Central and 
Eastern Europe to adopt legislation for the restitution of plundered 
properties. I hope this will have the full support of the body.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman of the International Relations 
Committee, Mr. Gilman, and the Ranking Member of my Subcommittee, 
Representative Tom Lantos, for working with me to bring this resolution 
to the floor. Similar legislation was introduced in the 104th Congress, 
reintroduced in this Congress, and offered as an amendment to the 
foreign relations authorization bill which has not been passed by the 
Congress. H. Res. 562 is cosponsored by my colleagues Mr. Gilman, Mr. 
Lantos, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. Fox, and by my fellow 
members of the Helsinki Commission: Mr. Christensen, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. 
Salmon, and Mr. Markey.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 562 addresses the difficult subject of claims 
arising from uncompensated property confiscations by totalitarian 
regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. Throughout much of this century, 
individuals and religious communities in Central and Eastern Europe saw 
their private property plundered by totalitarian regimes. In 
particular, Communist regimes expropriated real property, personal 
property, financial property, business property, and religious property 
in fulfillment of a main tenet of communism--the abolition of private 
property. Moreover, Communist-era expropriations often compounded 
Fascist-era wrongs. The restitution of property in Central and Eastern 
Europe today has a multitude of possible effects: restitution will 
demonstrate a commitment to the rule of law, will advance these 
countries in the establishment of free market economies, will encourage 
foreign investment, will help the newly-democratic regimes distance 
themselves from their totalitarian predecessors, and will provide a 
measure of justice to the victims of fascism and communism.
  H. Res. 562 stemmed from a 1996 Helsinki Commission hearing that 
examined the efforts underway to restore plundered properties in 
Central and Eastern Europe. Our witnesses at that hearing--Stuart 
Eizenstat, then the Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade 
and the U.S. Special Envoy for Property Claims in Central and Eastern 
Europe, and Delissa Ridgway, the then-Chairwoman of the Foreign Claims 
Settlement Commission--explained that under international law and 
practice, the United States Government is only able to seek 
compensation from foreign governments on behalf of property claimants 
who were American citizens at the time their property was taken. Under 
one common scenario, the United States obtains payment of such claims 
by having the Secretary of State, on behalf of the President, negotiate 
a government-to-government settlement agreement that settles a block of 
claims by American citizens against the foreign government in exchange 
for a lump-sum payment from the foreign government to the United 
States. Before or after such a settlement is reached, the Foreign 
Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC)--an independent, quasi-judicial 
Federal agency within the Department of Justice--determines the 
validity and valuation of property claims of U.S. nationals against 
that foreign government. The FCSC informs the Secretary of the Treasury 
of the results of the FCSC's adjudications and the Secretary of the 
Treasury then distributes funds from the lump-sum settlement on a pro 
rata basis to the U.S. nationals that obtained awards from the FCSC.
  In contrast, claimants who were not American citizens when their 
property was taken have at their disposal only the domestic law of 
their former country, even if they later became naturalized American 
citizens. Considering these realities, Congress has a role in helping 
enable these dispossessed property owners to file claims in their 
former homelands with a real possibility of achieving a just 
resolution.
  Since that 1996 hearing, the Helsinki Commission has actively 
encouraged the governments in Central and Eastern Europe to adopt 
nondiscriminatory property restitution laws and has sought to intervene 
on behalf of several claimants whose rights under existing restitution 
and compensation laws are not being respected. While some progress has 
been made, the Helsinki Commission nonetheless continues to receive 
hundreds of letters from American and foreign citizens with unresolved 
property claims in Central and Eastern Europe. The writers plead for 
help from the Helsinki Commission and from Congress. Many have been 
struggling for seven or eight years to regain possession of their 
family properties. Many are elderly and are losing hope that they will 
ever recover their property.
  The issues addressed by this resolution are timely and, Mr. Speaker, 
they demand our attention. Some countries in the region have not yet 
adopted restitution or compensation laws. In those that have, certain 
requirements imposed on claimants involve so many conditions and 
qualifications that something just short of a miracle seems necessary 
for the return of any property.
  In Communist countries, expropriated properties were often given to 
Communist party officials or collaborators. In many cases, these former 
officials still live in the properties. Regrettably, a number of the 
democratic governments now in place are stalling and delaying the 
return of those properties to their rightful owners. Worse yet, some 
governments are offering meager compensation to the rightful owners and 
then allegedly reselling the properties for a profit that the State 
then pockets.
  The resolution urges countries to pass laws that will commit their 
governments to return plundered properties to their rightful owners or, 
when actual return of property is not possible, to provide ``prompt, 
just and effective compensation.'' This compensation language derives 
from the Bonn Document of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
Europe (now the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe) in 
which the participating States, including those in Central and Eastern 
Europe, recognized the ``right to prompt compensation in the event 
private property is taken for public use.'' The resolution also urges 
countries that have adopted restitution or compensation laws to 
implement those laws effectively.
  Several examples help illustrate the state of affairs in Central and 
Eastern Europe with respect to property restitution. The Helsinki 
Commission staff met recently with a group known as the Committee for 
Private Property that has collected information from more than fifteen 
hundred people with outstanding restitution claims in Romania. Most of 
these claimants are American citizens--hundreds of whom filed legal 
claims in Romania and followed the proper judicial process to obtain 
decrees reinstating their property titles. After obtaining what they 
believed to be final and irrevocable decrees, the property owners began 
paying taxes on their properties or, in at least one case, thousands of 
dollars due on an old mortgage, only to have the Romanian Special 
Prosecutor appeal the cases to the Supreme Court and win reversals of 
the judicial decisions.
  On the other hand, some positive advancements have been made in 
regard to communal property restitution in Romania. In April 1997, the 
Romanian Government adopted a resolution restoring Jewish community 
ownership rights over six buildings, including the National Jewish 
Theater, and issued a May 1997

[[Page H10726]]

decree that established a committee with joint government and community 
participation to review communal property claims. This past June, the 
Romanian Government pledged to return an additional seventeen buildings 
to several minority ethnic communities. These efforts are positive 
steps forward in the restitution of more than three thousand communal 
properties, such as orphanages, cultural centers, apartment buildings, 
ethnic community centers, and houses of worship, lost by religious and 
minority communities under communism. Regrettably, however, legislation 
to return properties to the Greek Catholic Church was blocked in 
Romania's parliament last year and has yet to be enacted.

  Another group, American Owners of Property in Slovenia, has also 
contacted the Commission about property claims. This group estimates 
that a least 500 emigres from the former Yugoslavia are now American 
citizens with property claims in Slovenia. Despite clear mandates in 
Slovenia's restitution and compensation law requiring action on filed 
claims within one year, government officials have not implemented the 
law; the vast majority of claims remain pending without resolution 
seven years after the law was passed and five years after the filing 
deadline. Of the approximately 40,000 applications filed by the 1993 
deadline, only 35 percent of the individual claims filed had been 
resolved by the end of 1997; sixty-five percent of the claims had 
received no action or only dilatory action. The Slovenian Government 
has not shown the political will to return property and has failed to 
take the administrative measures needed to implement the legislation. 
Moreover, it is of particular concern that this past September, the 
Slovenian parliament adopted amendments to its restitution law that 
contain numerous provisions that may further restrict the ability of 
victims of the Communist regime to regain ownership and access to their 
properties.
  Similarly, in Lithuania, despite enactment of a restitution and 
compensation law, Lithuanian Government officials also appear 
disinclined to return properties. Property claimants there encounter a 
variety of roadblocks to restitution, including citizenship 
requirements, unreasonable bureaucratic delays, and the sudden, 
suspicious inclusion of claimed properties on an official ``Register of 
Immovable Cultural Properties'' as the basis for non-restitution. In 
one case, Mr. Vytautas Sliupas, an American with dual Lithuanian 
citizenship, has struggled for seven years to regain ownership and 
possession of inherited property in Palanga, Lithuania. One building is 
controlled by the Ministry of Culture and Education and is reportedly 
used by the National Museum of Lithuania primarily as a vacation site 
for Museum personnel The second property is controlled by the City of 
Palanga and is rented to a commercial entity. These properties belong 
to Mr. Sliupas' family and were nationalized, without compensation, by 
the Communist regime. In 1993, the Minister of Culture and Education 
issued an official letter stating that the Ministry agreed to return 
the first property to Mr. Sliupas. In 1997, the City of Palanga passed 
a resolution to return the second property to Mr. Sliupas. Nonetheless, 
the groups occupying the properties have failed to comply with the 
orders to vacate. Mr. Sliupas has sought unsuccessfully to obtain the 
assistance of various government entities, including the courts, in 
enforcing his right to regain possession of these properties. The 
Lithuanian Government recently informed the Helsinki Commission that 
the property has been placed on the Register of Immovable Cultural 
Properties and, therefore, cannot be restituted to Mr. Sliupas.
  In Croatia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and 
other countries, the existing restitution and compensation laws only 
allow people who are currently residents or citizens of the country to 
apply for restitution. The Czech Republic's citizenship requirement 
discriminates almost exclusively against individuals who lost their 
Czech citizenship because they chose the United States as their refuge 
from communism; as many as 8,000-10,000 Czech-Americans are precluded 
from even applying for restitution or compensation because of this 
requirement. Citizenship and residency requirements have been found to 
violate the nondiscrimination clause of the International Covenant on 
Civil and Political Rights, an international agreement that these 
countries have voluntarily signed onto, and yet the countries mentioned 
have been unwilling to eliminate the restrictions. The resolution calls 
on these countries to remove citizenship or residency requirements from 
their restitution and compensation laws.
  Mr. Speaker, the examples given only begin to show the obstacles 
faced by property claimants in formerly totalitarian countries. This 
past August, Stuart Eizenstat--now the Under Secretary of State or 
Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs and the U.S. Special Envoy 
for Property Claims in Central and Eastern Europe--testified before the 
International Relations Committee about the need for Congress to pass a 
resolution that encourages Central and East European countries to 
return wrongfully expropriated property. While that hearing focused on 
Holocaust-era assets, in reality many Holocaust victims who suffered 
the loss of their property at the hands of the Nazis were victimized 
again by Communist regimes. I comment Under Secretary Eizenstat for his 
tireless efforts on behalf of Holocaust victims and I hope that the 
Untied States Government will make property restitution and 
compensation a priority in Central and Eastern Europe--as it has done 
in Cuba, Nicaragua and other countries.
  By adopting this resolution, the Congress will add its voice and 
persuasive power to that of the Council of Europe and the European 
Parliament which have both passed strongly worded resolutions calling 
on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to adopt legislation for 
the restitution of plundered properties. For the record, I would ask 
that a reference list of provisions, form international law and 
agreements, relating to property rights and the restitution of property 
be printed following my statement.
  H. Res. 562 signals the countries of Central and Eastern Europe that 
the United States is concerned with the urgent return of plundered 
property to individuals and religious communities. I urge my colleagues 
to support H. Res. 562 and to join me and the other cosponsors of this 
resolution in pressing for a fair, timely and just property restitution 
and compensation process in formerly totalitarian countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following materials relating to this 
resolution:

 Non-discrimination Clause of the International Covenant on Civil and 
                            Political Rights

       Article 26: All persons are equal before the law and are 
     entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection 
     of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any 
     discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and 
     effective protection against discrimination on any ground 
     such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or 
     other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or 
     other status.
                                  ____


Excerpts From Decisions of the U.N. Human Rights Committee (Established 
by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) Concerning 
   Citizenship & Residency Requirements in Property Restitution Laws

       Simunek v. Czech Republic, Human Rights Comm., U.N. Doc. 
     CCPR/C/54/D/516/1992 (1995):
       In the instant cases, the [property claimants] have been 
     affected by the exclusionary effect of the requirement in Act 
     87/1991 that claimants be Czech citizens and residents of the 
     Czech Republic. The question before the Committee, therefore, 
     is whether these preconditions to restitution or compensation 
     are compatible with the non-discrimination requirement of 
     article 26 of the [International] Covenant [on Civil and 
     Political Rights]. Id. at para. 11.5.
       The Human Rights Committee . . . is of the view that the 
     denial of restitution or compensation to the [property 
     claimants] constitutes a violation of article 26 of the 
     International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Id. at 
     para. 12.1.
       Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional 
     Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of 
     the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation 
     of the Covenant or not and that . . . the State party has 
     undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory 
     and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the 
     Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy 
     in case a violation has been established, the Committee 
     wishes to receive from the State party, within ninety days, 
     information about the measures taken to given effect to the 
     Committee's Views. Id. at para. 12.3.
       Adam v. Czech Republic, Human Rights Comm., U.N. Doc. CCPR/
     C/57/D/586/1994 (1996).
       In the instant case, the [property claimant] has been 
     affected by the exclusionary effect of the requirement in Act 
     87/1991 that claimants be Czech citizens. The question before 
     the Committee, therefore, is whether the precondition to 
     restitution or compensation is compatible with the non-
     discrimination requirement of article 26 of the 
     [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights]. Id. 
     at para. 12.4
       The Human Rights Committee . . . is of the view that the 
     denial of restitution or compensation to the [property 
     claimant] constitutes a violation of article 26 of the 
     International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Id. at 
     para. 13.1.
                                  ____


         Property Provisions in International Law & Agreements

       Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 
     General Assembly), Dec. 10, 1948
       Art. 17: (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone 
     as well as in association with others.
       African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights 
     (Organization of African Unity), entered into force Oct. 21, 
     1986
       Art. 14: The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may 
     only be encroached upon

[[Page H10727]]

     in the interest of public need or in the general interest of 
     the community and in accordance with the provisions of 
     appropriate laws.
       American Convention on Human Rights (Organization of 
     American States), entered into force July 18, 1978
       Article 21: (1) Everyone has the right to the use and 
     enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use 
     and enjoyment to the interest of society.
       (2) No one shall be deprived of his property except upon 
     payment of just compensation, for reasons for public utility 
     or social interest, and in the case and according to the 
     forms established by law.
       (3) Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man 
     shall be prohibited by law.
       European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 
     Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe), entered into force 
     Sept. 3, 1953.
       No property provisions.
       Protocol (No. 1) to the European Convention for the 
     Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council 
     of Europe), entered into force, May 18, 1954
       Article 1: Every natural or legal person is entitled to the 
     peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be 
     deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and 
     subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the 
     general principles of international law.
       The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way 
     impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems 
     necessary to control the use of property in accordance with 
     the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or 
     other contributions or penalties.
       Document of the Bonn Conference on Economic Cooperation in 
     Europe (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) 
     April 11, 1990
       The participating States, . . . [b]elieve that economic 
     freedom for the individual includes the right freely to own, 
     buy, sell and otherwise utilize property.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Accordingly the participating States, . . . [w]ill 
     endeavour to achieve or maintain the following:
       Full recognition and protection of all types of property 
     including private property, and the right of citizens to own 
     and use them, as well as intellectual property rights;
       The right to prompt, just and effective compensation in the 
     event private property is taken for public use;
       Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the 
     Human Dimension of the Conference on Security and Cooperation 
     in Europe, June 29, 1990
       The participating States reaffirm that . . . everyone has 
     the right peacefully to enjoy his property either on his own 
     or in common with others. No one may be deprived of his 
     property except in the public interest and subject to the 
     conditions provided for by law and consistent with 
     international commitments and obligations.
       Charter of Paris for a New Europe (Conference on Security 
     and Cooperation in Europe) Nov. 21, 1990
       We affirm that, . . . everyone also has the right: . . . to 
     own property alone or in association and to exercise 
     individual enterprise.
       Resolution B4-1493/95 on the Return of Plundered Property 
     to Jewish Communities (European Parliament), Dec. 14, 1995
       The European Parliament,
       A. recalling the first additional protocol to the European 
     Convention on Human Rights (Paris 1952), and in particular 
     Article 1 thereof, which stipulates that `every natural 
     person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his 
     possessions',
       B. recalling the European Union's commitment to respect for 
     and defence of human rights,
       C. recalling the European Union's commitment to the duty of 
     remembrance,
       D. given the political upheavals in Central and Eastern 
     Europe after 1989,
       E. whereas certain countries of Central and Eastern Europe 
     which have returned to democracy have ratified the European 
     Convention on Human Rights (1950) by joining the Council of 
     Europe,
       F. given the twofold plundering of the property of Jewish 
     communities, first under the regimes of the Nazis and their 
     collaborators and then under the Communist regimes,
       G. Aware that under the Communist regimes many other 
     individuals of various origins, communities and religions and 
     many organizations, notably Christian churches, were deprived 
     of their property,
       1. Welcomes the fact that certain Eastern European states, 
     notably Hungary and Romania, have accepted the principle of 
     justice and morality by agreeing to return the property of 
     Jewish communities to its rightful owners;
       2. Welcomes the fact that certain Central and Eastern 
     European countries have apologized publicly for the crimes 
     committed against Jews during the Second World War and have 
     recognized their responsibilities in respect of these crimes;
       3. Calls on all countries of Central and Eastern European 
     which have not already done so to adopt appropriate 
     legislation regarding the return of plundered property so 
     that the property of Jewish communities may be returned to 
     Jewish institutions, in accordance with the principles of 
     justice and morality;
       4. Asks also that all countries of Central and Eastern 
     Europe which have not already done so adopt appropriate 
     legislation for the return of other property plundered by the 
     Communists or the Nazis and their accomplices to their 
     rightful owners;
       5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to 
     the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments 
     of the Member States, the Council of Europe and the countries 
     which have applied to join the European Union.
       Resolution 1096 on Measures to Dismantle the Heritage of 
     Former Communist Totalitarian Systems (Council of Europe 
     Parliamentary Assembly), 1996
       Para 10: The Assembly advises that property, including that 
     of the churches, which was illegally or unjustly seized by 
     the state, nationalized, confiscated or otherwise 
     expropriated during the reign of communist totalitarian 
     systems in principle be restituted to its original owners in 
     integrum, if this is possible without violating the rights of 
     current owners who acquired the property in good faith or the 
     rights of tenants who rented the property in good faith, and 
     without harming the progress of democratic reforms. In cases 
     where this is not possible, just material compensation should 
     be awarded. Claims and conflicts relating to individual cases 
     of property restitution should be decided by the courts.
       Resolution 1123 on the Honouring of Obligations and 
     Commitments by Romania (Council of Europe Parliamentary 
     Assembly), 1997
       Para 12: The Assembly encourages Romania to settle the 
     matter of return of confiscated or expropriated real estate, 
     in particular to the churches, to political prisoners or to 
     certain communities, with due regard to the principle of 
     restitution in integrum or, failing that, to pay just 
     compensation and secure free access to the court system for 
     complainants.
       Para 14: The Assembly therefore earnestly requests that the 
     Romanian authorities:

                           *   *   *   *   *

       iv. amend the legislation relating to the return of 
     confiscated and expropriated property, particularly Act No. 
     18/1991 and Act No. 112/1995, so as to provide for the 
     restitution of such property in integrum or fair compensation 
     in lieu.
       Simunek v. Czech Republic, Human Rights Comm., U.N. Doc 
     CCPR/C/54/D/516/1992 (1995);
       Adam v. Czech Republic, Human Rights Comm., U.N. Doc. CCPR/
     C/57/D/586/1994 (1996).
       These two cases before the human Rights Committee (``the 
     Committee''), established by the International Covenant on 
     Civil and Political Rights, involved American citizens with 
     property claims in the Czech Republic. In both cases, the 
     Committee determined that while there is no right to property 
     per se in the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
     Rights, there is a right to non-discrimination pursuant to 
     article 26 of the Covenant. In the case of the Czech 
     restitution law, the Committee agreed that the provision 
     requiring claimants to have Czech citizenship violates the 
     Covenant's non-discrimination clause.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I extend my 
appreciation to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and others for their work 
on this bill. It is a worthy piece of legislation. The confiscation of 
community and personal property by governments based on an individual's 
religion, ethnicity, national or social origin, is wrong and it is 
degrading.
  As we approach the beginning of the next century, we must work 
together to return property that was unjustifiably taken. This effort 
requires the continued cooperation of the governments of formerly 
Communist countries. It also requires the removal of residency 
restrictions which hinder efforts to return property to the true 
owners. This resolution deserves our support. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting yes on this important measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 562 expresses the sense of 
the House regarding properties wrongfully expropriated by formerly 
Communist governments in Central and Eastern Europe.
  I want to thank our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on International

[[Page H10728]]

Operations and Human Rights, for his ongoing commitment to these issues 
and for his sponsorship of this bill.
  I also want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hamilton) for his support of the measure.
  As many of our colleagues know, under Communist rule, individual and 
communal property was brutally confiscated without any compensation. 
Religious communities were also severely affected, as were hospitals, 
schools, and orphanages that they operated. While many post-Communist 
nations are trying to address these problems by enacting property 
restitution laws, much still remains to be done.
  Our Committee on International Relations recently conducted a hearing 
at which we heard about the successes and frustrations from Under 
Secretary of State Stewart Eisenstat.
  H.Res. 562 welcomes the efforts of countries in Central and Eastern 
Europe to address the question of expropriated properties but urges 
countries which have not already done so to return these properties to 
their rightful owners. The bill also urges countries to pay 
compensation when the actual return of property is not possible.
  H.Res. 562 specifically mentions Croatia, the Czech Republic, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia by calling on them to remove 
restrictions that limit restitution or compensation. This measure is 
also required to be transmitted to the President following its adoption 
and for his consideration.
  It is important that countries involved in this issue understand 
their response is seen as a measure of their commitment to basic human 
rights, to justice and to the rule of law as one of several standards 
by which our Nation assesses its bilateral relationship with them. 
Those who perished, those who survived and their descendants deserve 
nothing less.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.Res. 562.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon in support 
of this resolution. I wanted to also comment for the record about a 
particular concern that I have. My grandfather was a Slovak American 
and came from Slovakia. He came from a country that was dominated for a 
thousand years by other interests.
  When I visited Slovakia last September, I visited some of their 
museums and their cultural heritage facilities and what stunned me is I 
found that many of the artifacts and cultural objects that were native 
to Slovakia were missing. I hope that when we talk about returning 
properties of people from former communist regimes that we can call on 
those who have expropriated cultural heritage objects from the Slovak 
Republic and native Slovakia to return them to their rightful owners.
  Unfortunately, Slovakia was plundered under the various communist 
regimes and many of the artifacts and art and cultural objects 
disappeared.
  In light of us passing this resolution, it would be my hope that we 
could do justice in also requesting that the Slovak people have 
returned to them things that are so precious to them. They had, again, 
years of domination by the communists. For many years, they had 
domination from communists in Prague and what is now the Czech 
Republic.
  I also sent recently, October 10, a letter to His Excellency Vaclav 
Havel, the President of the Czech Republic, asking that they help 
expedite the return of some of these historic items from the Czech 
Republic.
  I come to the floor in support of this effort to see that properties 
and other rightful objects are returned to their rightful owner; that 
we correct the injustices of the past, particularly under communist 
regimes.
  I come to the floor also to congratulate the Slovak people on their 
recent elections, which will allow them with a new western leaning 
government, their rightful place in the community of free and 
independent nations. They have only been free since 1993. They gained 
their independence and now I hope with this movement by Congress today 
we can also have them retain their right title and ownership to 
properties that a country has been deprived of, a people have been 
deprived of, for many, many years under a communist totalitarian 
regime. I commend the authors of this legislation on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter of October 10.

                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 10, 1998.
     His Excellency, Vaclav Havel,
     President of the Czech Republic,
     The Embassy of the Czech Republic, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing to request your assistance 
     in securing the return to the Slovak Republic certain objects 
     of art and cultural heritage that currently are in the care 
     or possession and held with the authority of the Czech 
     Republic.
       With Slovakia's independence and status since 1993 in the 
     community of free and recognized sovereign states, it is both 
     proper and legal that objects of art and national Slovak 
     cultural heritage be returned to the Slovak Republic.
       For generations, Slovakia and the Slovak people have been 
     dominated and ruled by other people.
       Now it is only fair and just that art, paintings, 
     sculptures, antiquities and culturally significant artifacts 
     native to Slovakia be returned to the Slovak people.
       I seek your personal intervention and remedial action to 
     correct this situation. Hopefully these objects can be 
     returned through a cooperative effort. If not, it will be my 
     intention as a Member of the United States Congress to seek 
     redress by legislative action in the 106th Congress. In that 
     regard, my action may include a Congressional Resolution 
     relating to the matter and/or legislative and appropriations 
     action disapproving of future economic, military and 
     financial assistance to your country.
       I believe this to be a very serious matter that should also 
     be raised by the United States Ambassador to the United 
     Nations and to the appropriate international organizations 
     and tribunals.
       Hopefully we can work together to correct this injustice, 
     identify and return art and antiquities rightfully belonging 
     to Slovakia and amicably resolve this matter.
           Respectfully,
                                                     John L. Mica,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, H. Res 562.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________