Now, I've also included a background memorandum prepared by our legal counsel on the Universal Postal Union Convention and USPS rules and regulations in reference to registered mail. Based on this appendix which has been supplied to us, we would like to raise the following issues for further study by the counsel of the committee.

In general, we are asking that the committee take a hard look at the provisions of the Universal Postal Convention and try to amend it, where necessary, in order to protect the rights of American citizens. Thus, we are suggesting No. 12, that the UPU Conventions have the legal status of only being regulations. The Convention is not considered a treaty because it has not been ratified by the Senate. Would it be possible to have it ratified by the Senate? Could it be passed by the Congress in order to consider it as a statute? This would be raising and elevating the importance of this document and the importance of what this committee is doing.

No. 13, what can be done to make the UPU International Bureau for Arbitration a more viable and effective bureau?

No. 14, in the area of improperly or fraudulently completed return receipts, it appears to us, that there are no published regulations dealing with the procedures followed by the International Mail Classification Branch when processing such inquiries. Could such regulations be published?

No. 15, was an issue which was raised earlier today. Publication 42 of the Postal Service indicates the Soviet Union does indeed accept international mail restricted for delivery to addressee only. Other indications that we have received from the USPS indicate otherwiseexhibit 16. Could this be clarified? If they do not accept such mail to addressee only, could negotiations be started, perhaps in Brazil, to have them accept this service?"

The Universal Postal Union Convention contains some permissive, vague language. Certainly, this is what some of our legal attorneys have pointed out to us. Could some of this language be amended to make it more specific at the upcoming meeting in Bazil?

We hope such proposed steps might help us in the process of resolving this issue. Having talked to the many members involved in the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, I have received an immense amount of frustration and aggravation from many individuals who've been involved in sending letters. I think to some degree the question that you raised before, "Was what do these numbers represent in terms of the 2,000 inquiries, et cetera." I, too, have also seen the many frustrated citizens who have basically said, "To heck with it." "I've gone to the post office too many times." "I refuse to argue with those people anymore." "I'm just giving up."

They're not filing, even when they had the legal right to file. They're stopping to send their mail, which is, of course, the opposite of what we would want to happen.

I might also point out that I agreed with the suggestion made earlier by Professor McCarthy, of being able to file registered letters by mail. That could simplify the process for everyone involved. Also, the suggestion which Congressman Gilman made for the USPS improving the reporting system would also be welcomed by all of our members. I would also like to point out a few of the exhibits, just to highlight them, exhibit 7, for example, which is in the back shows four different

registered return receipts which were sent to the same individual and returned, and you don't have to be a Russian expert nor a handwriting expert to see that you have four different signatures there, a very, very blatant case. Also, you can see exhibit 8. This is the official form which the Soviet Union returns to our USPS here listing the numbers of pieces which they have confiscated, where here they claim they are carrying out the Convention postal rules. It is my impression, and I don't have statistical evidence at this point to back it up, but the Soviets are using this escape clause more and more-just declare it a prohibited item. They then avoid paying the indemnity.

Also, we see several frustrating cases here in exhibit 9 where individuals have filed, and actually collected the indemnity. Then all of a sudden, the Russians decided that they did deliver the letter and now that they have asked the U.S. Postal Service to return the money and the Postal Service in turn is asking these individuals to return the money to them. In fact no evidence exists that this letter ever got there, and these individuals are very frustrated and don't know what to do because they're afraid that the Post Office may take them to court.

I might also point out some of the absurdities involved here. In exhibit 11, a person received a letter back with item No. 5 circled. The foreign administration reported that the registered article has been seized by their office. The contents were prohibited because of violation of laws of their country. Surprisingly, a few days later this person gets this letter back in the mail with "Retour Parti" stamped on it. Again, another case of inconsistencies throughout the system in terms of the Russian response.

I might also mention, if you'll flip the next page, exhibit No. 13. Many times, in order to collect, our citizens have had to go through a maze, as I like to describe it, where as you see the comment on the bottom to their letter, "This office can not very well question the report from the foreign administration unless you furnish a letter from the addressee denying receipt." Well, that's often a catch-22 because, if you send another letter, how is that person going to be able to respond? Fortunately, thanks to the American tourists and Congressmen who've gone in and out, we've been able to get some letters out.

If you flip the page to exhibit 14, you can see two cases of this. No. 1, a letter which starts out on August 4, 1979-that's April 8, 1979-"We've completely stopped receiving from you letters. Everything is OK?" This person's correspondent in the United States writes every 2 weeks using registered return mail and this person hadn't received anything for quite awhile. Also, if you'll look at the other letter from Mr. Abe Stolar in Moscow, who happens to be an American citizen who's still trying to emigrate from there, you can see he talks about the American Post Office and, to some degree, the top paragraph is tongue in cheek because he's realizing his letters are not getting out as well as our letters are not getting in. So he writes, "One of these days, I'm going to write to the Soviet Minister of the Postal Service and beg him to make the American Post Office work honestly." Well, we have no doubts that our Post Office is working honestly. I do have severe doubts that the Soviet Post Office is getting the mail to the American Post Office. Then he continues, "A couple of weeks ago, I had an amazing surprise splurge of letters, something like what

it used to be 3 years ago when practically all letters reached me. Now the influx has petered out again. But in those letters that broke through, everyone complained that they hadn't heard from me in months, and that they had been writing to me regularly."

I think we see here, Mr. Chairman, some classic examples of responses from Soviet citizens who are still there. Of course, if you have the opportunity to talk to any Soviet emigres, whether in the United States or in Israel, they can testify to such letters as well. When I visited the Soviet Union approximately 4 years ago, I was walking around with some of these individuals and we passed by a post office and, jokingly, one of them said, "See why that post office has two stories to it," and I asked, "Why is that," and he said, "One story is for the mail they deliver; the other story is for the mail they don't deliver."

In concluding, we hope that the committee here will continue in its efforts to rectify the situation. We feel that many American citizens go to the post office with the belief that if they invest $4 in registering the letter, they will get some results. In reality, the results are not coming and I think the American citizen should either be notified of this or that stronger efforts should be taken to rectify the matter.. Thank you.

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Schapira. Your testimony is indeed excellent. Obviously, you've put a lot of time and effort into assembling it. You make many excellent points. We are going to take each of them into consideration. We will be discussing many of them with the U.S. Postal Service for their comments to determine the possibility of their adopting them.

Just off the top, many of them sound logical and certainly have a great deal of commonsense, in my judgment at least, so I assure you that they will be the subject of much consideration and, hopefully, coming from your testimony today will be some substantive results. Mr. SCHAPIRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We express our willingness to continue to cooperate with you and supply anything necessary to help you in your efforts.

Mr. HANLEY. We appreciate that very much.

Mr. Gilman?

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if I might, before I question the witness I'd like to refer back again to Mr. Regan and to Mr. Sharp concerning the information on this subject that has been distributed to the postal personnel.

I notice in exhibit 19 that's been submitted by Mr. Schapira today. that there was a letter from the Office of International Postal Affairs dated October 7, 1977, exhibit No. 19, that notes "guidelines we have prepared to assist mailers in sending, inquiring or filing for an indemnity for registered mail to the Soviet Union." I was curious if that same information had been distributed to the postal personnel. When we discussed this earlier today, I asked if there had been any memorandum prepared and, since you were distributing this to mailers, I am curious if copies had also been distributed to postal personnel. Could you respond to that, Mr. Regan?

Mr. REGAN. Yes, Congressman Gilman. The guidelines which have been prepared have been distributed to mailers only. They represent a summary of the information contained in more detailed form in postal

publications and, presumably, the postal clerks have access to the more detailed information in postal publications. Publication 42, for example, is available to all post offices and clerks have access to that information. Guidelines that summarize that information are more handy in memo form for mailers.

Mr. GILMAN. It would seem to me, if you are still distributing this October 7, 1977 letter, you might want to consider letting your own personnel have the opportunity to read it so that when a mailer goes to a local post office requesting information on this subject the postal personnel would have a little more information that they could provide. I would hope you'd give that some thought.

Mr. Schapira, we've certainly welcomed your extensive compilation of data and documentary proof and your conclusions and recommendations. I'm sure that they're going to be helpful to our committee. I'd like to address to you some of the same questions I addressed to earlier witnesses.

Having examined all of this data and having been involved in the issue for such a long period of time, do you see this as a systematic harassment or do you see it as just a sporadic occurrence due to the capricious acts of individual Soviet postal authorities?

Mr. SCHAPIRA. Unfortunately, we see it as being rather systematic. There may be occasional fluctuations in it for reasons we don't quite understand, depending on political moods there. I think sometimes it's improved before U.S. high level talks, but it's in general our conclusion that things have been very systematic over the years, that the Russians have been more ingenious in their ways as the years have gone along in seeking out methods to avoid delivering the mail.

Mr. GILMAN. Have you seen any improvement at all in this situation over the past year?

Mr. SCHAPIRA. The numbers game is a very, very difficult one to assess. I would say that there are more letters getting through but probably proportionately it's a smaller proportion. That is because there are more letters being sent. On the other hand, more letters are getting through, but I don't think that it's rising a proportional rate. Mr. GILMAN. You heard some of the statistical information presented today regarding the number of inquiries that were made and the number of individuals who have been reimbursed. What are your thoughts about whether that information accurately reflects the total picture or whether it's much less than the actual number of violations that have occurred?

Mr. SCHAPIRA. I think the number is probably just a mere snapshot. You need to see a whole panoramic view. I think that perhaps in terms of the way those numbers were defined, they might be correct, but the amount of mail behind them is much more significant, and I think as we've heard testimony from numerous individuals-I have certainly heard this from my colleagues around the country-more and more constituents are just basically giving up.

You can't fight the Post Office; you can't fight the Russians; you send a letter once; you send it twice, and three times; and people are just being worn down and the Russians are very well aware of that. It's a question of who's going to give in first and, unfortunately, I think that they're beginning to win.

Mr. GILMAN. Has the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews been able to compile any national statistics regarding the failure of delivery of mail to the Soviet Union?

Mr. SCHAPIRA. On a limited basis, yes. The way we have been doing it, is that the local councils have been compiling their information locally and forwarding it to Washington to our Postal Affairs Director, Mrs. Newman. She in fact has been making appointments to see Mr. Stock and Mr. Bandak and other members there on a regular basis in order to supply them with information.

Mr. GILMAN. You don't have any of the summaries of that statistical information, do you?

Mr. SCHAPIRA. No. I apologize for that, because Mrs. Newman has been out of town, No. 1, and No. 2, because of the relatively short amount of time that I've had to prepare this. This would have taken a lot more careful compilation.

Mr. GILMAN. Would you be able to submit that to the committee later?

Mrs. SCHAPIRA. Yes, we would. We'd be more than glad to. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a request that Mr. Schapira be allowed to submit this report to the committee. Mr. HANLEY. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Schapira, I want to thank you for taking the time to present this material to us. I think your constructive ideas are going to be extremely helpful and I look forward to making use of them at some future date.

Mr. SCHAPIRA. Thank you, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Schapira.

Our next witness is Mr. Zdzislaw Zakrzewski, representing the Polish American Congress and Captive Nations Committee of Northern California.

Mr. Zakrzewski?

STATEMENT OF ZDZISŁAW ZAKRZEWSKI, POLISH AMERICAN CONGRESS AND CAPTIVE NATIONS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Mr. ZAKRZEWSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a real pleasure to be here, and after the lengthy testimonials and so many documentations, I think I would just keep my remarks to a little bit in a different focus because we are talking right now, at least I've heard talking, about a relatively small amount of cases which could not be justified in our sense of law and order, but they could be justified in a way from the Soviet point of view. We were talking about dissidents. We were talking about refuseniks and, in some cases, distinguished scientists of which, well, Soviets may be just afraid of losing them. I would like to address myself to a much larger problem, a problem of the fact that the discrimination in the postal service in the Soviet Union as well as other Communist countries is a matter of principle and method. There are millions of people that are being discriminated against by the postal service.

We have in our organization of Captive Nations 11 nations representing 11 ethnic centralization groups and that probably will be in