[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.
____________________