[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2693, THE HOLOCAUST VICTIMS INSURANCE RELIEF ACT OF 2001
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY,
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 2693
TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HOLOCAUST INSURANCE REGISTRY BY
THE ACHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO REQUIRE CERTAIN DISCLOSURES BY
INSURERS TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
__________
SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-161
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
84-701 WASHINGTON : 2003
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations
STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Bonnie Heald, Staff Director
Henry Wray, Senior Counsel
Chris Barkley, Clerk
Michelle Ash, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 24, 2002............................... 1
Text of H.R. 2693................................................ 4
Statement of:
Bell, Randolph Marshall, special envoy for Holocaust Issues,
Department of State........................................ 21
Kurtz, Michael, Assistant Archivist for Records Services,
National Archives and Records Administration; and Greg
Bradsher, Director of the Holocaust-Era Assets Records
Project, National Archives and Records Administration...... 28
Tick, Leslie, senior staff counsel, California Department of
Insurance.................................................. 36
Waldman, David, vice president and chief operations counsel,
MONY Life Insurance Co..................................... 49
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bell, Randolph Marshall, special envoy for Holocaust Issues,
Department of State, prepared statement of................. 23
Bradsher, Greg, Director of the Holocaust-Era Assets Records
Project, National Archives and Records Administration,
prepared statement of...................................... 33
Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 3
Kurtz, Michael, Assistant Archivist for Records Services,
National Archives and Records Administration, prepared
statement of............................................... 30
Tick, Leslie, senior staff counsel, California Department of
Insurance, prepared statement of........................... 38
Waldman, David, vice president and chief operations counsel,
MONY Life Insurance Co., prepared statement of............. 51
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 14
H.R. 2693, THE HOLOCAUST VICTIMS INSURANCE RELIEF ACT OF 2001
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management and Intergovernmental Relations,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Horn and Schakowsky.
Also present: Representative Waxman.
Staff present: Bonnie Heald, staff director; Henry Wray,
senior counsel; Dan Daly, counsel; Chris Barkley, clerk;
Michelle Ash, minority counsel; David McMillen, minority
professional staff member; Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk;
Jonathan Samuels, legislative director for Ms. Schakowsky; and
Zahava Goldman, legislative assistant for Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Horn. We might as well swear in the witnesses, and I
think most of you know to stand up, raise your right hands and
if you have staff behind you, please get them to take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that all five witnesses have
taken the oath.
This is an investigative committee and we thank you for
coming. And automatically when we call on you, we will
automatically put that in the hearing. Today's hearing deals
with a subject that involves the most basic considerations of
humanity and morality. The bill we are considering attempts to
bring some measure of justice to many victims of the Holocaust
and their heirs.
H.R. 2693, the ``Holocaust Victims Insurance Relief Act of
2001,'' was introduced by the distinguished ranking member of
our full committee, Mr. Waxman. Both the ranking member of this
subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky, and I are among the bill's many
cosponsors. The ultimate purpose of this bill is to enable
Holocaust victims and survivors and their heirs to recover on
insurance policies that were issued during the Nazi era. The
insurance policies and other evidence needed to establish
entitlement to payment were typically stolen from these
claimants by the Nazis or were otherwise destroyed. Thus, in
many cases, insurance companies have the only records in
existence that could support their claims against the policies.
H.R. 2693 requires insurance companies doing business in
the United States to provide the Commerce Department with
identifying information on all individuals to whom they issued
policies during the Nazi regime. This information would then be
made available to potential claimants through a registry
maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration.
This bill is modeled on legislation that has been enacted
in several States. For a number of years, attempts have been
made to pry Holocaust-era insurance information from the
insurance companies through international negotiations.
However, those efforts have been painfully slow. That lack of
progress is one reason for pursuing legislative remedies at the
State and Federal levels of government. Last week, there was a
major breakthrough in the international efforts.
During today's hearing, we will explore the impact of that
development on the bill before us. I do not know the answer to
that question. What I do know is that we must get to an
appropriate solution quickly. Holocaust victims are literally
dying while their insurance claims remain unsatisfied.
I welcome all of you today and the wisdom you can bring to
this. I look forward to discussing with you how we can best
resolve this terrible injustice once and for all.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn and the text
of H.R. 2693 follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Horn. I now am delighted to recognize a member of the
Democratic side of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, who has been
with this problem for many years, and we hope that he can be
satisfied by it also.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me
thank you for holding this hearing today and joining in support
of this legislation. What we are trying to do is rectify a
terrible injustice. The bill that is the subject of this
hearing, the Holocaust Victims Insurance Relief Act, H.R. 2693,
addresses one of the most difficult problems faced by Holocaust
survivors and their families when they seek restitution from
insurance companies that have refused to pay claims held by
victims of Nazi persecution, and that is how to identify the
insurance company that issued the policy.
I want to acknowledge the fact that not only Chairman Horn,
but also Ranking Member Schakowsky is an original cosponsor of
the legislation before us today, and I am very pleased that we
are holding this hearing to help achieve justice for Holocaust
survivors and their families.
The history of Holocaust insurance is shameful. After the
war, survivors filing claims for life insurance often were
rejected for the cruelest of reasons. Some survivors were
rejected because they could not produce death certificates for
loved ones who perished in the Nazi concentration camps. Other
insurance companies took advantage of the fact that the
claimants had no policy documents to prove their policy
existed. In many cases, survivors recalled that their families
had insurance, but could not name the company holding their
assets.
In 1998, the International Commission on Holocaust-Era
Insurance Claims, known as ICHEIC, was set up as a forum for
the insurance companies to expeditiously settle outstanding
policies. In November 2001, our full committee held an
oversight hearing on the ICHEIC process and we found the work
of ICHEIC disheartening. At the time, ICHEIC had received
77,800 claims for restitution but had resolved only 758, less
than 1 percent. Today, nearly a year later, these statistics
are not much better.
One of the main problems confronting the ICHEIC process was
the difficulty in getting names of Holocaust-era policyholders.
At the time of the hearing, less than 10,000 policyholders'
names had been published by the companies involved in ICHEIC,
and most of those names came from just one company. Without
comprehensive policyholder lists to search for the names of
family members, more than 80 percent of ICHEIC applicants filed
incomplete claims, naming no insurance company at all. As a
result, the rate of claims approval was very small.
A representative case is that of Israel Arbeiter, a
Holocaust survivor who was born in Poland and came to the
United States after being liberated from Auschwitz. As he
testified at last year's hearing, Mr. Arbeiter knew his family
had insurance policies, because he vividly remembers that every
week an agent of an insurance company visited his home to
collect premiums. The records were kept in a ledger left behind
when the Nazi SS stormed into his home in February 1941. But he
never knew which company had issued the policies of his parents
and uncles who were killed at the Treblinka death camp. As a
result, ICHEIC has been unable to resolve his claim.
The purpose of the legislation we are considering today is
to help Mr. Arbeiter and countless others who are in the same
situation. This bill requires all insurance companies operating
in the United States to provide information about Holocaust-era
policyholders to the U.S. Government for publication by the
Holocaust-era Assets Recovery Project of the National Archives.
We know this bill can work. It was patterned after a
California State law which has already produced positive
results within California. We will hear today from MONY Life
Insurance, an insurance company that is fully complying with
the California law. Because of the California law, policy
information is getting out of companies' archives and into the
hands of rightful beneficiaries.
There has been one positive development recently. The
chairman alluded to it. Today we will have the opportunity to
hear about a new agreement that was announced last week between
ICHEIC and the companies in the German Insurance Association.
Under the agreement, the names of Jewish policyholders who
lived in Germany after 1933 are to be released publicly.
Assuming that the German insurance companies actually comply
and that a reliable list of Jews who lived in Germany can be
compiled, this could help many families in filing restitution
claims.
This agreement, as welcome as it may be, will not solve the
problems. For one thing, it will not help Mr. Arbeiter and
others like him, because he came from areas under Nazi control,
not Germany proper.
What's clearly needed is a legislative response by Congress
that will in effect compel recalcitrant insurance companies to
provide complete lists of Holocaust-era policyholders. That's
the goal of H.R. 2693.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for holding this
hearing and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses
today so that we can have a record to learn from as we consider
this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Horn. I am delighted also that the ranking member on
the subcommittee is Jan Schakowsky, the gentlewoman from
Illinois.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Waxman,
for the work that you and your staff have done to put together
this important hearing on H.R. 2693, the Holocaust Victims
Insurance Relief Act. I was proud to join Mr. Waxman, the
author, as an original cosponsor in introducing this
legislation, and I really want to commend him and thank him for
his leadership and the leadership that he continues to
demonstrate on this subject.
I represent the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois,
which includes the village of Skokie, home to one of the
greatest survivor communities in the country. Since before
coming to Congress, I had been moved by stories of survivors in
my district that lost everything during the Holocaust. These
people lost their families, property, bank accounts. They came
to this country with nothing, and struggled for years and years
to cope with economic hardship, discrimination, and emotional
trauma. Many were children at the time of the Holocaust. Now,
years later, they are senior citizens. So representatives of
the families are dwindling reminders of our historic and moral
imperative to provide the utmost measure of justice to those
who suffered at the hands of the Nazi regime.
Today's hearing will focus on insurance and a legislative
proposal that many of us believe to be an appropriate mechanism
to force progress on this issue after survivors and heirs of
victims have waited for over 50 years to receive acknowledgment
and restitution for their suffering. With the assistance of
major insurance companies, some of which operate in the United
States today, the Nazi regime took over and liquidated policies
that were held by Jews that were killed, sent to concentration
camps, and forced into slave labor. Those who died had paid
into dowry, education, and life insurance policies for years.
Their spouses and children never received the benefits they
were owed. Others who survived were never paid for the
investment they had made in various insurance policies.
Besides the reprehensible foot-dragging and refusal to
accept responsibility for the shameful acts of their executives
or their government during the Nazi era, Holocaust-era policy
writers have to date not provided victims or heirs access to
lists of those policies they wrote during that time period.
Without access to names, survivors and victims' families have
no way to know if they qualify for compensation under the
ICHEIC agreement. I have had scores of constituents contact me
with questions, dismayed that the process has gone on for so
long and that they are still without answers or justice.
There are still some 10,000 survivors in Illinois and it is
my understanding that roughly 1,100 of them have filed claims
for insurance. To my knowledge, only a handful have received
offers for payments. This is an issue that is beyond urgency.
There are serious problems that need to be resolved, and
Congress has responsibility to make sure that is done so that
those who have lived to recall the Holocaust may also have some
small measure of justice and dignity paid to them.
Last week it has been mentioned that twice there was a
settlement reached to govern the framework for publication of
lists and the processing of claims for policies that were
issued in Germany. While the settlement is not perfect because
it is limited in scope, it does represent significant progress.
I want to mention the fact that one of the hold-ups during
these negotiations has been that the companies were demanding
compensation for administrative costs that occurred as a result
of their participation in ICHEIC and demanded that compensation
come from funds contributed for the payment of claims. That was
an unreasonable request, and I am pleased that ultimately--and
because of the leadership of Nat Shapo, the chairman of the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners and our
Illinois insurance commissioner--because of his work and the
work of the committee on this subject, and other people, that
demand was dropped.
While last week's settlement does demonstrate progress, our
work is not done. And that is why efforts to pass H.R. 2693 are
still appropriate. It would improve upon all progress to date.
Their bill requires that the U.S. Department of Commerce
disclose critical information, names and places of birth listed
on all life, dowry, education, and property insurance about
policies that were in effect in all regions under Nazi control
between 1933 and 1945. In addition, the bill requires the
disclosure of the name of the company that issued the policy
and the name of the company responsible for those policies
today. The information would be made public through a registry
operated by the National Archives.
Another important provision of the bill is the enforcement
mechanism, $5,000 a day for noncompliance. The history of this
process and the behavior of the companies have demonstrated
that only with the threat of financial consequences can results
be achieved. Some States, including Illinois, have taken steps
of their own toward revoking or considering the revocation of
licenses of companies that do not operate as good-faith
partners in the struggle to provide justice to Holocaust
survivors. The Federal Government should follow suit. We should
send a loud, clear, and long-overdue message to companies that
do business in the United States that unless they agree to stop
their dilatory and evasive tactics, own up to their shameful
past, and provide needed information to the public, they should
not expect to reap the large profits that they have come to
enjoy from their customers in this country. H.R. 2693 would
accomplish the goal of convincing insurance companies with
unmet obligations to Holocaust survivors that they are better
off cooperating.
Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome our witnesses today. I look
forward to hearing their testimony and to a worthwhile
discussion.
Mr. Horn. I thank the gentlewoman.
We will now start with the first presenter. We have five
presenters. And when that is finished, we will open with
questions and we will be able to see where we are. The
honorable Randolph Marshall Bell is special envoy for Holocaust
Issues at the Department of State. And I will note in the
hearing on all of you and the background that you have had,
that's relevant to this particular situation. And it's very
impressive for many of us. Mr. Bell.
STATEMENT OF RANDOLPH MARSHALL BELL, SPECIAL ENVOY FOR
HOLOCAUST ISSUES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Bell. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Waxman, Ms. Schakowsky, ladies
and gentlemen, I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear
before the subcommittee today concerning H.R. 2693. The U.S.
Government is committed to securing equitable compensation for
Holocaust victims, and in pursuit of that goal, we have
facilitated prolonged international negotiations and entered
into several bilateral agreements. We have worked steadily to
support international cooperative efforts to address and
resolve Holocaust-era issues. We recognize and salute the
active role of the U.S. Congress in this regard.
While we appreciate the purpose of the proposed legislation
to provide information about Holocaust-era insurance policies
to assist potential claimants, we do have serious concerns with
it and the negative impact it could have on the implementation
of agreements we have concluded with several countries.
This legislation's demand for information under the threat
of sanctions against European companies on activities that took
place more than 50 years ago is contrary to longstanding U.S.
policy that matters of Holocaust-era restitution and
compensation should be resolved through negotiation and
cooperation and dialog. This legislation's mandate for
disclosure of information on all policies issued in Europe from
1933 to 1945, rather than information only on those
policyholders who were likely to have been Holocaust victims,
could result in the publication of thousands of names of
individuals whose claims would not be eligible for payment, and
the subsequent creation of unrealistic public expectation. It
is also highly likely that some policyholders or their heirs
would object to publication on the grounds that it violates
their privacy.
In my written testimony I have outlined U.S. policy with
regard to Holocaust-era compensation and restitution. Mr.
Chairman, I would like to enter for the record the September
19, 2002 statement made by State Department Deputy Spokesman
Philip Reeker, in which the United States welcomed the
announcement that ICHEIC and the German Foundation had reached
agreement on the processing and payment of insurance claims
last week. The chief component of this agreement includes a
provision to make available the most comprehensive listing
possible of insurance policies issued to potential victims of
National Socialists.
As is the case with names currently published on ICHEIC's
Web site, the listing generated under the ICHEIC Foundation
agreement will be used to assist potential claimants. Insurance
companies will research all claims received, using all of their
electronic and paper records. Claimants do not need to find a
name on a list in order to file a claim. That was made quite
clear in the worldwide outreach program launched by ICHEIC in
February 2000 that has subsequently generated more than 86,000
claim applications. Sources that will be used to assemble this
list under the ICHEIC Foundation Agreement include the 1939
national census which contains information on Jews living in
Germany as compiled by the German Federal Archives; immigration
and deportation lists and other registers of German Holocaust
victims, and electronic lists provided by companies with data
on some 5 million policies to be matched with the listing
compiled from the census and archival registry.
ICHEIC members all accept the ICHEIC Foundation Agreement
as a valid and worthy result. Representatives of the Claims
Conference, Jewish Agency for Israel, the World Jewish
Restitution Organization, the State of Israel, U.S. State
insurance regulators, and individuals who themselves are
Holocaust survivors, all have publicly endorsed the agreement,
including the provision for the publication of names of
policyholders.
Mr. Chairman, we share the frustration of many with the
slow pace of progress of paying Holocaust-era insurance claims.
However, 2 years of negotiations have now taken place and the
parties have reached an agreement to do exactly what this
legislation seeks to have them do; that is, to create usable
lists of Holocaust-era insurance policies to facilitate the
filing and payment of claims.
We think this agreement should be given the opportunity to
succeed. We are concerned that if the legislation passes, it
could frustrate or prevent the very goals it seeks to achieve.
In conclusion, it is the Department of State's view that
H.R. 2693 would not be in the best interest of claimants, many
of whom are elderly Holocaust survivors who, as you yourself
have said, have waited for justice far too long while that
justice has up to this point been denied.
I urge you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
to take this into account during your consideration of a bill
that may put undue pressure on European insurers to report to
the Department of Commerce rather than through internationally
agreed channels. This bill will have a seriously dampening
effect not only on the recent ICHEIC Agreement, but also on the
other institutions the United States has helped create and
nurture under both the Clinton and Bush administrations in the
bipartisan furtherance of the national interest and of
longstanding U.S. policy goals. These institutions have
widespread national and international support, and seek to help
claimants receive a measure of justice in their lifetime. I
thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
Mr. Horn. We thank you for that. We will have a number of
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bell follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Horn. And we now have Dr. Kurtz. Dr. Kurtz is the
Assistant Archivist for Record Services, National Archives and
Records Administration. And I believe the gentleman with you is
Dr. Greg Bradsher, Director of the Holocaust-Era Assets Records
Project of the National Archives and Records Administration. So
I assume you are going to have it several ways.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL KURTZ, ASSISTANT ARCHIVIST FOR RECORDS
SERVICES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; AND
GREG BRADSHER, DIRECTOR OF THE HOLOCAUST-ERA ASSETS RECORDS
PROJECT, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Kurtz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Bradsher
will talk about our contributions and our work with Holocaust-
era records. As you may remember, for several years I was chair
of the Nazi War Crimes Interagency Working Group and I want to
take this opportunity to thank you, Congressman Waxman and
Congresswoman Schakowsky, for your support of that effort which
is ongoing.
I have submitted my testimony and I have a statement for
the record.
In my oral testimony I would like to highlight several
points of importance to the National Archives. If H.R. 2693
becomes law, the National Archives is committed to comply with
the provisions calling for the establishment and maintenance of
the Holocaust Insurance Registry. This is in keeping with the
stated goal of the National Archives Strategic Plan, which is
ready access for essential evidence.
We do have several concerns with the legislation that we
would like to bring to your attention. First and--there are
three points and they are related. First is the question of
size and scope of the registry as envisioned. We have heard
estimates ranging in the range of millions of names, and would
see the placement of this size data base as potentially an
undertaking beyond what our current funding would permit.
And as regards to number of expected inquiries--and I think
there would be a substantial number of inquiries--we are
considering setting up a separate Web site to be able to handle
the inquiries in a very expeditious and quick way.Estimates in
both of these areas would be essential in costing the impact of
the legislation.
Our second and related concern is the funding source of the
registry. It's unclear to us, at least to the National
Archives, at least as drafted, if the penalty fees charged
against noncompliant insurance companies would serve as the
sole funding mechanism for the development and maintenance of
the registry. If that is the case, the logic and the structure
would seem to be reversed. In other words, if insurance
companies comply with the law, the National Archives would have
the responsibility of Web access to a potentially huge names
registry, but would not receive any direct moneys to establish
and maintain the registry. If on the other hand, the insurance
companies do not comply--and so the costs of the registry would
be very low--but we would receive money by way of these fines
with little end results.
If the former situation takes place, we would need to rely
on increased appropriations to meet the legislative
requirement. If the latter situation occurs--in other words, if
there is noncompliance but the fines are levied--proper use of
the fines would be somewhat in question.
And the third issue relates to the fact that the
legislation does not have a sunset date for the maintenance of
the registry on line and a Web-accessible format. We suggest
that provision would be made for the National Archives to
maintain the information in a Web-searchable format until the
year 2020, which is 75 years after the end of World War II, and
after such time we would still retain the electronic
information and undertake individual searches when requested.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral testimony and I would
be glad to answer any questions and turn things over to Dr.
Bradsher for some comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kurtz follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Horn. OK, Dr. Bradsher.
Mr. Bradsher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been with the
National Archives for 25 years and I have spent the last 6\1/2\
years as the Federal Government's expert on Holocaust-era
assets records. The National Archives and Records
Administration, as you know, preserves and makes available the
permanently valuable records of our Federal Government. A
significant amount of records in our custody relate to the
Holocaust and Holocaust-era assets.
As we all should know by now, the Holocaust was not only
the greatest murder in history but also the greatest theft in
history. During and after World War II, some 30 Federal
agencies created upwards of 20 million pages of records
relating to the theft recovery and restitution of looted gold,
art, cultural property, Jewish communal property, as well as
the operations of European banking and insurance institutions,
and slave and forced labor.
The volume of records that we have to deal with has
increased somewhat the past several years as a result of the
Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act of 1998, which you certainly had
a role in, Mr. Chairman. All this commends your efforts to make
sure relevant records are declassified and open to research. In
fact, amongst the records the CIA just declassified 2 years ago
are the records of the Office of Strategic Services
Intelligence Insurance Unit, which none of us knew even
existed. This unit was established during World War II to
monitor the operations of European axis and neutral-country
insurance companies. In fact, every day researchers come to the
National Archives to use the records relating to Holocaust-era
assets and find them a very useful source in doing their
research.
During the past 6\1/2\ years, much has been accomplished
toward bringing justice and compensation to victims of Nazi
persecution. Many issues both old and new are still unresolved.
Thus, undoubtedly, interest in Holocaust-era assets issues will
continue for years if not for decades.
Just as certainly, our agency and its archival holdings
will continue to serve as important roles in the search for
truth and justice. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2693, given our agency's
role in the Holocaust-era assets research effort, the National
Archives would indeed be an appropriate location for the names
registry envisioned by this legislation. As Dr. Kurtz pointed
out, we do have some questions about its implementation.
I will shorten my testimony at this time to allow more time
for questions at the appropriate time. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradsher follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Horn. We now go to Ms. Tick, and she is the senior
staff counsel for the California Department of Insurance.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE TICK, SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
Ms. Tick. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you this
afternoon. I am going to summarize my written testimony and
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
California Insurance Code Section 13800 et seq. is the law
that H.R. 2693 is somewhat based on. It took effect in late
1999. The documents were due to the Department of Insurance in
April 2000. However, in March 2000, the Department was sued,
insurers claiming that the statute was unconstitutional. The
litigation has been continuous and contentious since March
2000. The constitutionality of the statute has been upheld in
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in two separate published
opinions. However, the statute is still not enforceable because
the insurers are asking that the orders--that the opinions be
stayed pending their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. So it's
going to potentially take some time. It's unclear right now
whether or not the Supreme Court will choose to hear the case.
What we did receive, though, before the statute was
enjoined--and actually some companies complied after the
statute was enjoined--roughly 1,500 insurers who were obligated
to report. Four groups representing about eight insurance
companies fully complied; that is, they gave us lists of names
of policies that either they wrote or related companies wrote
in Europe between 1920 and 1945. About another four groups
representing another 43 companies provided partial or
incomplete submissions; that is, they gave us the names of
unpaid policies issued to Holocaust victims, whereas the
California law, just like the Federal bill, requires all
policies written. And then about 100 additional insurers just
flat refused to comply. And all the rest basically told us, we
either weren't around in those days or we searched and have
nothing to tell you.
I would like to point out, if I could, some differences
between the ICHEIC requirements for lists and the German
Foundation's requirements for lists and what the California law
requires and what this Federal bill would require, because
there are significant differences. We were very happy that the
German Foundation Agreement was resolved. We supported it all
along. It's a tremendous step forward, but as far as the lists
go, it doesn't resolve the issue as completely as it should be
resolved. The ICHEIC requires its member companies to provide
lists of unpaid policies issued to Holocaust victims. That left
it up to the company to determine who was a Holocaust victim
and who wasn't, which is inordinately difficult to do, even if
you're only dealing with Jewish victims. It is impossible to do
if you're dealing with homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses,
political dissidents, and the other myriad of victims of the
Nazis. So it leaves out all those people.
There was also a problem with the definition of ``unpaid.''
The companies told ICHEIC and told California at various
hearings that they did not include policies that had been paid
to the Nazis as unpaid, because they considered those policies
to have been paid. So those policies are not on the ICHEIC
lists.
The German Foundation calls for the German companies to
create a list of policyholders that they already have on
computer, that they already have digitized. I believe those are
life insurance policies in force, which I believe would mean
unpaid, although that's not entirely clear. Those names will be
matched against this new list of German Jews, and whichever
names stick will then be published. So it is not the full 5
million list that will be published. It is a subset of that.
Again, these are just German names. Policyholders issued by
German insurers--and again, the California law and the Federal
law would go further than that to include policyholders from
all over Europe. Those are just some of the important
differences.
Another issue, as Mr. Waxman pointed out, is that most of
the names published on the ICHEIC list don't come from the
insurance companies. In fact, 85 percent of them do not come
from the insurance companies, and those 15 percent that do come
from the insurance companies are mostly from one company. So it
seems that the ICHEIC insurers have not been able to truly meet
even the ICHEIC requirements, which are lesser than the
California and Federal requirements would be. And I'll be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tick follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Horn. Before we move to Mr. Waldman, I would like to
know who was the author of the California law. It's a very
fascinating situation. So do you know which State senator or
assembly man?
Ms. Tick. Assemblyman Wally Knox, who is no longer in the
assembly. He's from Los Angeles.
Mr. Horn. He is a very creative author, to say the least.
And now, Mr. David Waldman is vice president and chief
operations counsel of MONY Life Insurance Co.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WALDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATIONS
COUNSEL, MONY LIFE INSURANCE CO.
Mr. Waldman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee, my name is David Waldman. I'm the vice
president and chief operations counsel of MONY Life Insurance
Co., formerly the Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, which
was chartered in 1842 and issued the first mutual life
insurance policy in the United States. It was my responsibility
to provide legal advice to the team of individuals at our
company who prepared and filed the reports required under the
various State Holocaust Victims Insurance Relief Acts,
including that of California.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today and for
affording me the opportunity to share with you our experience
in complying with the California act. In response to the
enactment of the various State Holocaust Victim reporting laws
applicable to insurance companies, MONY conducted an extensive
and exhaustive examination of its records relating to its
European business, including an attempt to identify any
policies sold to persons in Europe that would have been in
effect between 1920 and 1945. Such records that did exist
indicate that MONY sold life insurance and annuity products in
Europe in the early 1900's. However, MONY completely
discontinued writing new business in Europe by 1914. Moreover,
it appeared in the 1920-26 time period, MONY disposed of
virtually all its existing European business by transfer to
European-domiciled insurers.
There were a number of policies in various European
countries that were not transferred and we conducted an
investigation of any documentation we might have concerning
them. There were several boxes of paper files, related record
cards on microfilm, and policy payment vouchers in the archives
of our record center dating back to the relevant time period. A
review of our paper files resulted in the identification and
inputting of 6,813 potentially relevant policies.
The next step was the retrieval of material data on these
policies as well as on an eventual 4,700 additional policies
which were identified in our records center as potentially
relevant. This investigative process resulted in the definite
identification of 6,149 policies sold to persons in Europe that
were in effect in Europe between 1920 and 1945. We reviewed our
records from that era, including cards denoting policy status
in numerical order, covering the entire period in question, and
vouchers evidencing payment dating from 1926.
The data obtained from this research, together with any
additional information obtained from our files, was then input
into our data base and organized into a format conforming with
the prescriptions of the act.
Subsequent to this initial examination, we embarked upon a
second phase which consisted of the direct review of all of our
policy records during the relevant time period and
identification of the policies derived from those records sold
to persons in Europe that were in effect between 1920 and 1945.
The number of policies identified in the second phase was
27,603. The data for these policies was combined with that for
the 6,149 identified in the first phase and incorporated into a
report reflecting the data for a total of 33,752 policies.
The review of our records resulted in our finding only two
cases identifiable as Holocaust victim claims, one with an
agency of record of Brussels and the other in the United
States. Both included references to concentration camps on the
death benefit voucher as the cause of death. One indicated
payment of proceeds in 1945 and the other in 1950. In addition,
there was one claim with the cause of death listed as killed by
Germans, and payment of proceeds was indicated in 1949.
The interpretation and inputting of data from our files was
an extremely resource-intensive and time-consuming task. We
eventually had four persons in our operations area and three
temporary workers dedicated full time to the project, and
expended over 8,286 hours in identifiable staff time. The work
did serve as the basis for our reports for all the States that
have enacted Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Acts, although
some adjustments were needed to define and populate the data
bases used in the various States due to the differing wording
in their laws, particularly in the time periods and geographic
areas covered. The data base we created also allowed us to
respond in quick order to inquiries we received on particular
individuals either directly, through State insurance
departments or from the International Commission on Holocaust-
Era Insurance Claims.
I may add that in no case was there any documentary
evidence of the failure on our part to pay, or an improper
payment of, the proceeds of a policy on the life of a Holocaust
victim or the claim of a Holocaust survivor, or any attempt on
our part to avoid our contractual obligations under any of the
policies found in our records.
In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the
extremely dedicated group of individuals MONY Life assigned to
this project, who worked tirelessly and with heartfelt concern
for the subject matter until it was completed, and to MONY Life
which willingly devoted the resources necessary to do a good
job not only because it was the law, but also because it was
the right thing to do.
And I would be happy to answer any questions at the
appropriate time.
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Waldman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waldman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Horn. I am going to start the questioning and then turn
it over to my colleague, Mr. Waxman. But let me ask Ambassador
Bell, to start with, what is your basis for stating that
enactment of H.R. 2693 would undermine the international
Commission process?
Mr. Bell. Let me, if I may, begin by noting that the U.S.
Government in this matter--my predecessor, James D. Bindenagel,
probably told you all in November--has been an observer to
these negotiations, albeit a very active and to the best of our
ability informed observer rather than a direct participant. So
everything I had to say orally and in my written statement and
I shall be saying in questions is based on that observer status
and the information that comes to us. So it is all to the best
of our knowledge.
To the best of our knowledge, this, like other negotiations
in which the United States has been a direct participant, has
turned on the creation of an exclusive mechanism or venue for
the settlement of claims. The basic dynamic of the negotiation
has been you come across--``you'' meaning in this case the
companies--with that which we require, ``we'' being the victim
side of the table--the Jewish groups and the State regulators--
and we will consider that this is the exclusive venue for
settling these claims. And if you then remove that exclusivity
or if you proclaim it to be defective or you proclaim it to be
replaced by another mechanism, you have gotten to the very
heart of the political negotiation.
Mr. Horn. Just for the record here, who were the members of
the Commission?
Mr. Bell. ICHEIC consists of, of course, its own
leadership. It also involves the State regulators from States
in the United States. It involves the Conference on Jewish
Material Claims Against Germany, which also deals with claims
against other countries in Europe as well. It involves the
World Jewish Restitution Organization. It involves the Jewish
Agency for Israel, the State of Israel, and it involves, of
course, also the German companies, the German regulators, and
the German Foundation.
Mr. Horn. Are most of the commissioners very well with
history and experience on that Commission, or are there a lot
of politicians there? Not that I am against politicians.
Mr. Bell. Only if you consider officials of States of the
United States to be politicians. But most of the people who
have participated in this have worked in these issues quite
professionally, quite well, with strong belief and strong
motivation from their very diverse perspectives.
One of the things that has made this such a lengthy and
painful process has been that it represents great diversity.
What could be more historically divided than the two sides of
such a table? Because all of them, however, believe so strongly
in what they are doing, it has been necessary to establish
confidence among them, and many of the things that happened
over these past few years come under that rubric.
Mr. Horn. Would you agree that until very recently the
Commission proceeded at a glacial pace?
Mr. Bell. I think what you need to do when answering that
question, or even posing it, is look at what has proceeded. It
has been the negotiations. And I think I just offered an
answer. It isn't the Commission so much. The Commission
consists of the people sitting around that table and
negotiating. It took a very long time for them to reach
conclusions, arrangements, detailed accomplishments, which they
all support; and they all now publicly do. It also took a lot
of money, as has been noted in many of the press reports on
this, and that money in large measure has gone for research and
archival work, the provision of auditing and monitoring
mechanisms.
Mr. Horn. You state that the agreement reached last week
does exactly what H.R. 2693 would have the insurance companies
do. Could you elaborate on this point?
Mr. Bell. Mr. Chairman, if I may have a minute or two to do
that, I would be happy to. What we are really talking about
here is the strongly shared objective. I very much endorse and
pray that the activities of this committee, the subcommittee,
Mr. Waxman, yourself, Ms. Schakowsky, try to create
circumstances in which people who have any reason whatever to
believe that they may have had an unpaid Holocaust-era
insurance claim, can find the tools and the information
necessary to move forward and have processed such a claim.
That's what we all want to achieve.
What is at issue here is whether to pursue the publication
of a great many names that are not directly related to
furthering that end, especially if at the same time that
activity undercuts the political basis on which the recent
agreement rests. If I could just take a moment to tell you, if
it's of interest to you, what I know of this agreement with
respect to the question you just posed. Let's look just a
minute at the key elements of the agreement. I don't wish to
digress if you don't wish me to do so. I will do it in short
order.
Mr. Horn. Don't rush. I am for getting to the bottom of
things.
Mr. Bell. All German insurance companies will be required
to process claims, both those that name a specific company and
those that do not, using the ICHEIC standards and guidelines.
And let me address in that connection--the German companies
will also be required and have agreed to deal with the business
that they were doing outside Germany, in other countries in
Europe.
I think that addresses one of the points one of the other
speakers raised. The provision for processing these claims
involves what are called relaxed standards of proof. It is not
incumbent on a claimant to come forward with documentary
evidence that person could not possibly obtain. They need show
only the plausibility of the claim under a very relaxed
standard. The burden of proof immediately shifts to the German
company. That company then has to show either that the claim is
not plausible or it has to immediately process it and show how
much it is going to pay. It imposes ICHEIC valuation rules.
That is what the money of that era translates into in the money
in this era, and it imposes it on all the companies. It imposes
it also for blocked account claims. That is, when policies were
paid out during the Nazi era into accounts to which under Nazi
law nobody, practically, had any access. That payment doesn't
count. It has to be paid again. It deals with publication of
lists, and I will give you some more information on that in a
moment.
With matching, it provides for audits, including what's
called a second-stage peer review in which the companies are
submitted to rigorous audits a second time over. It submits
even the non-MOU companies to audits by the German regulators.
It provides for a monitoring group under Lord Archer, which
will further ensure MOU insurance companies' compliance. It
involves an appeals mechanism and, of course, it has provision
for funding which breaks down to $100 million of claims and
related expenses and $175 for humanitarian purposes; as the
panelist pointed out, no credits for prior payments by the
companies.
Let us look for just a minute, if we may, at first what the
current state of publication of names is, and then what will
happen under this agreement. There was a very extensive
outreach program undertaken by ICHEIC in the year 2000. There's
an important point we need to remember about this; that is, it
wasn't on the basis of lists that this outreach occurred. It
was on the basis of going out in many directions, not only
through archival research but also through publication of the
fact that we're looking for claims, and it produced 86,472
claims on policies. The sources for that outreach included
research in European public archives including the Vienna State
Archives which hold the 1938 asset declarations--people leaving
the German Reich--and archives in the United States, Europe,
and the former Soviet Union. It involved lists provided by the
MOU companies, that is the ICHEIC members which were cross-
matched with Yad Vashen's data base on Holocaust victims, and
that was agreed by all the parties by ICHEIC. It involved also
sources in the Czech Ministry of Finance, the Dutch Insurance
Association, and the Washington State Insurance Commissioner's
Office. So that's what is out there.
What now, as I detailed earlier, they propose to do is
reach out to other lists for publication, reaching back to the
1939 national census information in Germany on Jews living in
Germany at the time, immigration and deportation lists and
other registers of German Holocaust victims. These are from the
archives that are recommended by the experts participating in
the negotiation, electronic lists provided by companies with
data on 5 million policies to be matched with the listing
compiled from the census and archival registers, and then
additional research on the 1938 asset declarations that is
underway in public archives supplementing ICHEIC's research.
So what actually happens: You take all of that, everything
from that archival information--the German companies have
already an electronic data base of 5 million Holocaust-era
policies--and you check everything that comes out of that
effort against those 5 million policies.
I think it's important also to recognize what happens if
you publish names in great quantities that do not pertain in
any way to this effort. There is a sort of human element in
play here, and that is that people, if their names appear, or
appear to appear, will of course conclude emotionally and in
many other ways that they have an expectation. Again I say, I
only know what people tell me, but I know a great many
participants in the process spend a great deal of their time
talking with people who under, you know, the rigors of further
evidence do not have a claim and are gravely disappointed when
they so discover.
We operate, the U.S. Government, on the premise that the
participants must be satisfied. And I'd like to just leave the
most important of my contentions in, you know, a sort of
summation of this. If the Claims Conference, the World Jewish
Restitution Organization, the State of Israel, the survivors,
and the state regulators believe that this mechanism gets to
the totality for--it has been said to me over 99 percent of the
totality of the field--then the executive branch of the U.S.
Government is hardly going to question them.
Thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for
interrogation.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For the
record, I wonder if we could have a copy of the agreement for
the record, so we could put the----
Mr. Bell. Well, that--Mr. Waxman, again, I get back to, you
need to get that from the direct participants. I do not have
that with me today. I can ask the Commission to provide it to
you, and I will immediately do so, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Bell, I appreciate all that you had to say,
but notwithstanding that--I have some questions about the
German agreement, but I still think that the legislation is
needed, because I'm skeptical that the agreement is going to
produce anything like a result that is going to satisfy 99
percent of the potential claims that are out there. I think
it's going to fall far short.
But let me pursue some questions about this German
agreement, even though we'll have to get a copy of it for the
record from the participants.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, that will be put in the
hearing record at this point.
Mr. Waxman. Ambassador Bell, approximately how many
policies will be included in this new data base being provided
by the German companies?
Mr. Bell. Well, again, sir, if you want to get into the
particulars of their numbers, I would strongly suggest it would
probably be wise to call direct participants in the negotiation
to your hearing, to this or another one.
Mr. Waxman. Well, you are suggesting to this committee that
you don't think legislation would be necessary, as I understand
your views, because you feel that the German agreement is going
to satisfy the problem.
Mr. Bell. I'm reporting to you, sir, that which is reported
to me by the direct participants in the negotiation.
Mr. Waxman. Do they tell you how many policies are going to
be included in the new data base?
Mr. Bell. I don't think you can know how many policies are
going to be included in the new data base until the agreement
has been given a chance to work. You know, it has to actually
go into operation. It is very likely that it will turn up a
large number of new claims, and then we will know the answer to
that question.
Mr. Waxman. How soon after the agreement is finalized do we
expect the 5.5 million policyholder names to be turned over to
ICHEIC?
Mr. Bell. The 5-plus million figure will be used as a
company list against--as I understand it, against which the
products of the other lists I have delineated will be matched.
That 5.5 million figure is not a list that is to be published;
that's my understanding.
Mr. Waxman. But it's to be turned over to ICHEIC?
Mr. Bell. I am not sure it's turned over to ICHEIC. I
believe that the companies cooperate in the mechanism. It is
probably----
Mr. Waxman. Using the ICHEIC mechanism?
Mr. Bell. Right.
Mr. Waxman. How many criteria will be required for a policy
match between the policy data base and the list of German Jews
to be released for publication?
Mr. Bell. Again, Mr. Waxman, I cannot speak to criteria.
There is just this limitation that, as an observer to the
negotiation, we don't have all the technical data. And I would
have to respectfully refer you to the participants.
Mr. Waxman. You indicated that these companies are going to
not only deal with the Jews who had lived in Germany, but Jews
who had lived in other countries. When we had a hearing in
November, RAS said they mostly issued policies in Hungary and
elsewhere outside of Germany.
Does the German policy data base include policies issued by
RAS or other German subsidiaries that issued policies outside
of Germany? And how would you match them against the list of
German Jews if their beneficiaries lived outside of Germany?
Mr. Bell. My understanding, sir, is that the agreement
covers all of the companies that are regulated by the German
regulators. I don't have that list; ICHEIC has that list.
Estimates of how many that is have informally come my way of
approximately 350 companies.
It is further my understanding that the Foundation
agreement covers the foreign-owned portfolios of these German
insurance companies. It logically follows from that any German
company regulated by the German regulators would turn over all
information concerning--or the agreement would cover that
company's portfolios outside Germany.
Mr. Waxman. During our November hearing, the committee
learned that ICHEIC companies that signed the ICHEIC memorandum
of understanding, or the MOU companies, are only required to
publish names matched against the Yad Vashem data base.
Ambassador Bell, should the State Department be concerned
that the Yad Vashem data base contains the names of only about
half of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust?
Mr. Bell. We base our concerns and our level of concern in
general and in particular on how the victims' organizations
react to what has been achieved. I cannot go behind that. I
cannot usefully offer you anything but what all of them have
said to us. We have conscientiously spoken with the leadership
of each of these organizations and groups to ask them whether
they are satisfied with these provisions.
Mr. Waxman. Well, I have a lot of detailed questions that I
would like to have responses to, but your last statement seems
to indicate that you are really not going to look at----
Mr. Bell. How we see our role in this is in trying to be
informed, as much as we can. The participants in the
negotiation conduct the negotiation. We endeavor to do two
things. One is to keep track of whether they are satisfied with
what is proceeding. We endeavor to learn from them whether what
they have achieved will cover the entire range of prospective
claimants and ask them actively whether that is the case.
Mr. Waxman. In September 2000, when the case against the
California Holocaust Victims Insurance Relief Act was about to
be heard in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, I wrote a
letter, also signed by my colleague, Representative Schakowsky,
urging the U.S. Government not to intervene in that case.
Mr. Bell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. It was just after the agreement with Germany,
and we were very concerned about emerging reports about
ICHEIC's abysmal record on claims handling. As you know,
Ambassador Bell, our request was denied.
But in his response to our letter, Solicitor General Seth
Waxman--a friend, but not a relative, as far as I know--added,
``Should the German Foundation fail to be funded and brought
into full operation, or should the United States conclude that
ICHEIC cannot fulfill the function for which it was created,
the United States will certainly reconsider the balance
reflected in his views on the constitutional issues.''
Is this still the U.S. Government position?
Mr. Bell. The U.S. Government position on the California
statute, as put forward by the Department of Justice, to my
understanding, has not changed. The Department of Justice has
continued actively to find--and I would not speak for them. I
can only tell you I understand informally that their arguments
turn on constitutionality as well as extraterritoriality. That
has provided a difficulty for us again with regard to the
legislation under consideration here today.
If I understand it correctly, section 9(a) provides for
ceding to state legislatures a central role in creating
legislation, additionally to that which you yourselves put
forward. We would probably consult with the Department of
Justice as to whether that creates the same constitutional
problems.
There was, as you know, a case in Florida which was similar
to the--in its handling--to the California statute, in
consequence of which there are two districts of the Federal
court system that have taken diverging views on almost the same
issue, at least as the lawyers inform me, which is one of the
reasons that government lawyers in the executive branch
consider that there is a prospect of this matter coming before
the Supreme Court.
Mr. Waxman. As I understand what I hear you saying about
your position, even if the ICHEIC process weren't working--
because we have seen it's paid barely 1 percent of the claims,
and even if the German Foundation funds haven't been
transferred or allocated properly, if some of these outside
groups are saying they are satisfied, you are not going to look
behind what they say.
Mr. Bell. Well, Mr. Waxman, my understanding is that if the
agreement is permitted to work, there will be a much more rapid
and highly accelerated processing of claims discovery and
processing. That is certainly the hope of all of the
participants. So we would by no means conclude at this
juncture, after last week's development, that the ICHEIC
process is not working.
Again, I think it would probably be best, if I may be so
bold, to recommend that the subcommittee or the full committee
call direct representatives of ICHEIC and of the ICHEIC
negotiation.
Mr. Waxman. When we did have Mr. Eagleburger here before us
in November, I asked him if he had opposition to H.R. 2693, and
he said no. Representatives from the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners and the Jewish organizations also
raised no objections. Why then does the State Department
believe that the bill might undermine ICHEIC?
Mr. Bell. Well, it's my objective and best informed view
that the circumstance at this juncture is materially different.
The process which led to the agreement last week rested on the
assumptions I earlier outlined and that, in consequence of now
having reached this agreement, it would be highly unlikely that
the one side of the table--that is, the German companies'
side--would continue to cooperate in the manner they have
obligated themselves under the agreement to do if there were
created an alternative reporting requirement.
I can't state that categorically to you and I would not be,
you know, in any way honest if I did. The situation has not
transpired. But every indication we have from the political
analysis of what led to this agreement inclines us very much to
that view.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask for a second
round, but I know Ms. Schakowsky wants to ask her questions, so
I'm going to defer to her.
Mr. Horn. Sure. The gentlewoman from Illinois.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank you very much, both of you, for the
questions that you have been asking.
Mr. Bell, let me just first react to something that you
said, that this demand for information from European companies
on activities that took place in Europe more than 50 years ago
under the threat of sanctions is contrary to longstanding U.S.
policy, that matters of Holocaust-era restitution and
compensation should be resolved through negotiation,
cooperation, and dialog.
And in reacting to that, I have to reflect some of the
impatience, frustration, misery, being distraught, of--of many
of the people in my district, fewer of the people in my
district, because in this half century some of the leaders of
the effort to get restitution have died. Erna Gans, who was one
of the great leaders we had in Illinois, is now deceased before
seeing restitution. And so this idea of negotiation,
cooperation, and dialog has not really yielded what so many of
my constituents are really feeling.
So it's--quite naturally, I was very happy to become a
cosponsor of a bill that sought a way--I mean, I quite frankly
am so skeptical that this kind of process is going to yield,
although I'm happy that the agreement was reached. I think that
we do need to operate on parallel tracks.
That really wasn't a question, but go ahead, sure.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, ma'am.
Well, you know, I, as you may see in my biographic
statement, worked on quite a lot of what we as a government--
executive, legislative, Democratic, Republican, Independent--
have all been working on with regard to securing payment and a
dignified measure of justice in their lifetimes to Holocaust
victims and their heirs.
We have done this through the agreement we reached with the
Germans that created the Foundation. That's 10 billion marks.
We have done this through the agreement reached with the
Austrians on property claims, which created a general
settlement fund of $210 million. We have done this through the
agreement we reached with the French on dormant bank accounts
and other matters. We have done this by being an amicus in the
Swiss bank negotiations.
You all know as well as I the many endeavors that have been
out there. I can only note that those are, all of them,
imperfect achievements as they may be--and nobody, including my
friend Stu Eizenstat, if he were sitting here next to me today,
would say those are perfection. But what they are is the
wherewithal to get the best possible deal that all of us who
participated in it thought we could get after arduous efforts
so that we can pay people while they are still alive.
Our concern with what would happen if we undermine the
agreement of last week is that the lesson of the last 2 years
would be the lesson of the next many years. We all know that if
that agreement had not come about, people in many quarters, not
merely in the Congress of the United States, but also in the
German Bundestag for different reasons, among N G Os, would
have very likely set about taking apart the ICHEIC process. My
own impression, had it come to that, is that we would not be
paying insurance claims and the publication of lists would not
lead to their payment.
What we wish to do, all of us, from our various
perspectives is, get people paid in a dignified and
conscionable manner while there is still time.
Ms. Schakowsky. I guess I would also question the absolute
conclusion that you have reached that the publication of names
in a broad way would create expectations that would be
devastating. It's hard for me to imagine people more devastated
than they are, and the opportunity to put--empower them in a
greater way than this process does, I think would be a good
thing to do.
But let me ask something more specific. Anyone can answer
it. We're talking with this agreement that has been reached
only, I--is that only in respect to German companies? What
about the rest of Europe?
Mr. Bell. It's with respect to German companies, but
reaches out far beyond that. ICHEIC claim handling procedures,
as they existed when our executive agreement was signed in July
2000, and all those which additionally have been reached as a
result of these negotiations, then get applied broadly. The MOU
companies apply them and the non-MOU companies apply them.
With respect to the subject matter that we have touched
upon of what happens, you know, for claimants who had policies
outside the territory of the German Reich, I have attempted to
explain it to the very best of my knowledge. All the companies
covered by the agreement then apply that to their--the policies
they had written outside the Reich's territory.
There is--let me just add on that point one footnote with
regard to Eastern Europe. There is the problem, however you go
about this, of what happened in the Communist era and what
happened to archives and names and what happened to lists in
those countries because of Communist nationalizations and
manipulations of records.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, Ms. Tick, then, regarding the scope
of what the agreement was and what you would hope to do to
implement in California, how do those differ?
Ms. Tick. Well, if I can back up for a minute, the ICHEIC
was formed in 1998 with five or six insurance companies. The
ICHEIC set up this whole relaxed standard of proof and all the
claims processes and all the evaluation processes, and it was
because the German slave labor agreement brought German
insurers in, that resulted in this small piece of it or
separate piece of it, the German Foundation Agreement, applying
to German insurance companies.
All the other insurance companies, for the rest of the
world, that you refer to have already been going on through the
ICHEIC process. The German Foundation agreement brings the
German companies in. They were refusing to participate in the
process; now they are in the process.
So it's not the German insurance companies that are
bringing in all the rest of them. All the rest of them are in
already, to whatever extent they were there, and the German
Foundation brought in the German companies, the business they
wrote in Germany and the business they wrote outside of
Germany.
I think this issue came up before with lists. The lists of
German policyholders will be matched against a list of German
Jews, which raises the question of, well, what about the
insureds the German insurance companies insured that lived
outside of Germany? They would have nothing to be matched
against.
My understanding is that those companies, particularly
RAS--and I'm not sure; I think there were two or three
companies that this applies to--will publish their entire
lists. They will not be matched at all, which actually creates
a better scenario than basic ICHEIC which--those companies are
supposed to match their names against the Yad Vashem, which
Congressman Waxman pointed out only has about half the names.
And actually they haven't even been matched yet, as far as I
know. You can see from the numbers of names that have actually
been published that in all probability they haven't been
matched yet.
So there are a lot of little twists and turns on this, but
for the insurance companies insuring the rest of the world to
whatever extent they are involved in ICHEIC, the process has
been ongoing since 1998.
Ms. Schakowsky. So if you were then to sum up--I'm sorry I
was out of the room for your testimony; I've looked over it
briefly.
Sum up how your legislation would go beyond what this
agreement does and how it would better be able to guarantee
some restitution to Holocaust survivors.
Ms. Tick. Well, it covers more names. The California law
requires all policies written between 1920 and 1945. The ICHEIC
system and, I believe, the German agreement require lists of
policies in force, which would mean policies that are still
unpaid.
The German companies and the ICHEIC companies have told us,
though, if they paid a policy to the Nazis, they consider that
policy paid, so that policy does not turn up on the list.
For the ICHEIC companies and the German Foundation
companies, those names are matched against lists of Jewish
victims; only the ones that match get published. So there are
going to be some mistakes in the matching process. Of course,
it can't be perfect. But the biggest populations that it leaves
out are those victims of the Nazis that were not Jews.
There are big groups of victims of the Nazis that were not
Jews. I think what the California legislature wanted to do was
get the biggest list possible so that people who thought that
they had a policy could look and just make a claim. It is no
guarantee that they are entitled to anything. It just gives
them the ammunition they need to make a claim, and then it's up
to somebody else to decide whether the claim is valid or not,
either in whatever from they choose.
Ms. Schakowsky. And the opposition to the implementation of
the legislation, what were those arguments?
Ms. Tick. Well, there's 2\1/2\ years' worth of litigation.
There are many--there were several constitutional arguments
based on foreign affairs, that individual States shouldn't
participate in foreign affairs based on commerce clause issues
and due process.
Ms. Schakowsky. But the arguments wouldn't apply to Federal
legislation. Were there any rationales for not complying?
Ms. Tick. For why the companies--well, the California
companies, by and large, are not the ones that wrote and--are
not the ones that wrote the policies. It was their European
affiliates that wrote the policies. And the California
companies are saying our European affiliates won't give us the
information, so we can't give it to you.
And the court's answer to that is, well, you don't have to
do business in the United States if you can't live up to U.S.
law. That was basically what the Ninth Circuit said.
The California companies also said that European law would
preclude them, European privacy. Somebody mentioned that
policyholders or survivors, descendents of policyholders, maybe
wouldn't want this information published. I have never heard--
and I've been working on this since the summer of 1997----
Ms. Schakowsky. You mean the privacy concerns that were
raised?
Ms. Tick. I've never heard any claimant have any privacy
concerns. By and large, the names of the people on these lists
are long deceased, and the amount of information that there is
to even identify them is so sparse that it would be virtually
impossible to identify anyone.
Early on, people were saying, well, if these names were
published, they would be victims of hate mail, etc. I mean, it
says Goldberg, Joseph, Minsk. There is no way to find him now
or to find his descendents now. It just doesn't apply.
Ms. Schakowsky. Can I just--I think it was you, Mr. Bell,
who mentioned the----
Mr. Bell. It wasn't with regard to Holocaust victims. I
would be very much surprised if anybody who is the--him- or
herself a victim, or the heir of a victim just generally, would
object to publication. I think it's--the phenomenon is, if you
take everything in that long historical period that any company
has on file about any applicant or any claimant or any
policyholder, you then take in a vast field of people who have
no connection with the Holocaust whatever; and it is from among
those--from among that group that this phenomenon has arisen.
So I don't think----
Ms. Schakowsky. Maybe I'm missing what you are saying.
It is also highly likely that some policyholders and/or
their heirs will object strenuously----
Mr. Bell. Right.
Ms. Schakowsky [continuing]. To publication on the grounds
that it violates their privacy?
Mr. Bell. Those are people who have no connection whatever
with the Holocaust. Some of them in the past have said they
would not want these policy data put forward.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes. I would like to yield to Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I have to admit, this all sounds like a bunch
of excuses. I can't imagine that there are that many people
that are going to rise up and say, I'm really offended.
Mr. Bell. I couldn't tell you how many, sir.
Mr. Waxman. We can't tell how many, but it can't be more
than a handful. What we know is, we have perhaps millions of
people who cannot get the satisfaction of their claims against
insurance companies because their descendents' names are not
published so that they can make a claim to ICHEIC.
The idea of ICHEIC was to streamline the process for people
to make their claims. Under ICHEIC, they would not need the
policy and the death certificate and all the things that we
ordinarily require, because the Holocaust made it impossible
for many of these things to happen. And so ICHEIC was supposed
to be an abbreviated, simplified procedure. But it can't work
if people don't have any basic information. And they can't get
that basic information unless the names are published so they
can identify that there was a policy. Then the burden shifts
under the ICHEIC process.
So, Ms. Tick, let me--could I just----
Ms. Schakowsky. Sure. Go ahead.
Mr. Waxman. Ms. Tick, I'm going to pursue this with you
because you have had experience with the California law.
Ms. Tick. Yes.
Mr. Waxman. And before I ask you any questions, let me just
thank you on behalf of my staff and myself for all the help you
have given us, working with our constituents who have had
claims and helping us figure out how to deal with this process.
Ms. Tick. You are welcome.
Mr. Waxman. California has this law that has said that if
you want to do business in California, you should make sure
that your company, for which you are related and sold policies
in Europe, publishes the names.
Now, that hasn't kept, in my view, the negotiations from
taking place or anything else from happening that Ambassador
Bell now would argue might be undermined. That law has been on
the books and has been tested in the courts and now found to be
constitutional. It hasn't interfered with the agreement that
has now been reached.
But the California law and the law we are proposing would
go far beyond what this agreement proposes; isn't that correct?
Ms. Tick. Yes. I agree with you, it hasn't interfered at
all. ICHEIC has gone along all throughout the pendency of the
litigation on the California law. The German agreement has been
in negotiation for several years, hasn't--it hasn't moved
slowly because of the California law. And it came to a
successful resolution--we are very happy about that--this week.
The way I see it, the California law, supplemented by the
Federal law, would only help the process that ICHEIC is engaged
in, because once someone finds their name on a list, they can
to make a claim. And that's who they would make the claim
through; they would make the claim through ICHEIC. There is
very limited ability to make the claim in any courts that I
know of--very, very limited. Basically, people would make a
claim through ICHEIC. All the list does is give them some small
amount of information, and then they have to make a claim.
So, if anything, this Federal law would supplement what
ICHEIC has started, just expand upon it; that's the way I see
it. And also, all of these companies--with the exception of
Allianz, that chose not to put their 1 million policy files on
a computer data base, all the companies already have this
information on disk.
Mr. Waxman. And, therefore, they could make it available?
Ms. Tick. Yes. They could make it available with a small
amount of work. They don't have to start searching through
warehouses and transcribing ancient languages into modern
computerese. It's all there already. It was all done in the
mid-1990's.
Mr. Waxman. There are concerns about other ICHEIC companies
not covered by the German settlement, namely Winterthur, AXA,
and Zurich. At the time of our hearing last November,
Winterthur had published four policies, Zurich had provided 20,
AXA had given information about 191.
Can we expect additional policyholder names to be released
by these companies?
Ms. Tick. Well, they're in the same position as Generali
which--it's a matter of whether they are made to comply with
the basic ICHEIC standards. They should take their lists and
either publish them completely, which is what I would like to
see, or at least run them through Yad Vashem. But that hasn't
been accomplished.
Mr. Waxman. Even though Yad Vashem is going to miss so many
people?
Ms. Tick. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's why I think that the Yad
Vashem system is--that the system envisioned by the Federal law
is better; it would cover more people. But these companies have
not even done what--the lesser standard, what the ICHEIC
requires of them.
Mr. Waxman. Tell us the situation with Generali.
Ms. Tick. Generali has a list of--and these are round
numbers, but they are accurate. Generali has a list of 360,000
policies that were in force in 1939. They boiled that list down
to 90,000 that remain unpaid. And they gave the list of 90,000
to Yad Vashem, who matched it and came up with 8,388 matches,
which are the names that Generali has--which are the Generali
names that are published on the ICHEIC list.
If Generali were to comply with the Federal law, they would
hand over--they would publish the full list of 360,000
policies; and it is entirely possible that people would make a
claim and would get a letter back saying, Sorry to tell you,
but your great aunt was already paid in 1954; therefore, you
are not entitled to anything. And I don't think that would
cause people problems at all. In fact, the people whom I talk
to just want know what happened.
Mr. Waxman. Generali wouldn't even be affected by the
German agreement, would it?
Ms. Tick. You know, I don't know off the top of my head if
Generali did business in Germany. But probably not, because
they've already made a list of all the policies that they have.
Mr. Waxman. I have other questions. But Mr. Chairman, I'm
willing to----
Mr. Horn. I will move to a few other witnesses, and then
get back to that.
Mr. Waxman. OK.
Mr. Horn. Dr. Kurtz, I am curious. You raise some concerns
in your testimony about the cost and the funding of this
project. What kind of effort will it take for the archives to
fulfill its duties under the act?
Mr. Kurtz. Well, Mr. Chairman, I consulted with our
technology experts, and we don't expect that there would be any
problem from the point of view of being able to convert data
and create the data base. But building the data base and the
maintenance of the data base, our estimate for our first year
of operations would be $1 million, and then $250,000 each year
thereafter for maintenance, because I think we would need to
set up a separate Web site and separate data base
administration, because it would be such a large number of
names, to be able to efficiently process them.
Mr. Horn. How are we doing on the Freedmen's Bureau?
Mr. Kurtz. We are doing very well.
Mr. Horn. OK. That's something we were able to get $10
million more.
Mr. Kurtz. In fact, we are ahead of our schedule for this
year.
Mr. Horn. OK. And when do you see that being done?
Mr. Kurtz. Well, we have a 3-year time period to completely
the microfilming, and we'll be done on time or before.
Mr. Horn. Well, let me just go one more since you are under
oath.
Mr. Kurtz. Yes.
Mr. Horn. Where are the Japanese war crimes? Are any in the
archives anyplace or in the State Department? Do you know?
Mr. Kurtz. Well, I'm a little bit removed from that since
I'm no longer the Chair. But it's my knowledge, at least when I
was involved with it, that there is, compared to the German-
related records, a far smaller corpus to work with. And the
records that were sent back to Japan by the U.S. Government
between 1958 and 1961 are over there. I think it's very
difficult to get access to those records. They are under
Japanese Government control.
But everything that's in U.S. Government control is in the
process of being identified and opened.
Mr. Horn. Now, there's four members of the Diet that want
all of that to be open and to get with it. Now, do you know if
all those records were destroyed?
Mr. Kurtz. Mr. Chairman--do you have some information on
that, Greg?
Mr. Horn. Dr. Bradsher.
Mr. Bradsher. Interestingly enough, about 2 weeks ago I
went to the CIA and read a still-classified history of the
Washington Document Center, which was the institution here in
Washington that physically housed these records before they
came to the National Archives and before we sent them back.
We have been discussing with the Japanese--I met an hour
this morning with a representative of the Deputy Archivist of
Japan to discuss this. And sometimes there is a terminology
problem.
We returned to the Japanese every record that we basically
took from them, with a few exceptions.
Mr. Horn. And yet we had no microfilm of them ourselves?
Mr. Bradsher. The U.S. Army historians microfilmed a small
portion, a bunch of historians microfilmed a small portion, and
during the war itself there was an operation at Camp Ritchie,
MD, called PACMIRS, Pacific Area Command Military Intelligence
Research Service, that translated and published these
translations. In the Pacific, General MacArthur had the Allied
Translator and Interpreter Section that did the same thing.
So we were learning more and more that rather than
microfilming the records, that during wartime itself, ATIS, the
Allied Translator Interpreter Section, had 2,700 people doing
this. Until January, I'd never heard of ATIS, and now that's
all I see, that these records were fully exploited by the
Americans for war crimes purposes at the time, and we just sort
of lost record of that. It's like the corporate memory, we all
didn't know what we were doing before the records came to us.
Mr. Horn. Is there something at Camp Ritchie?
Mr. Bradsher. They turned the records over in April 1946 to
the Washington Document Center, who then turned them over to
the National Archives in 1948. In 1946, the military gave up
operation to the Central Intelligence Group, and their
interests changed from Japan to the cold war and they were done
with the Japanese situation.
In Japan, it appears that the records are primarily opened,
but like our situation, they haven't made finding aids to the
records; you have to rely on the archivist. Also, some of the
records are closed because of lawyer/client privilege. Some of
the war criminals, their attorneys' files are not open for
research.
But we have learned a lot just in the last 9 months on the
strange story of the Japanese records, and I will have an
article published in the next issue of the Interagency Working
Group's newsletter explaining this, and will make sure that you
get a copy.
Mr. Horn. Well, I'd like to do it before the end of the
107th Congress, because we all know that they want Japan to be
our ally and all that, and that's fine. But it seems to me that
you want to--just as they are doing in Germany--for heaven's
sake, let's pull it out of the clouds and on to the tables and
see what is there and clean it up.
And that's what the four members of the Diet want--a couple
of them came over to see me on this. If you have any thoughts,
I would like to hear them. And if we're going to have to
subpoena somebody, why, let me know on that, too.
Mr. Bradsher. We can certainly provide in writing to you a
more detailed capture, exploitation, and return of the records.
It's something that we have spent a lot of time on in the last
8 months, since January.
Mr. Horn. Well, I'm delighted because when we started on
this, we were told they are not around, etc. And of course I
suspect, if CIA was involved, we don't know if they are there
or not. So I think we will get to that.
Mr. Kurtz. We will get you the information as soon as
possible.
Mr. Horn. Thank you. Under the terms of this act that we're
discussing, the Secretary of Commerce will transfer to the
Archivist any information filed with the Secretary concerning
Holocaust-era insurance policies.
Can you envision any problems with this data exchange?
Mr. Kurtz. No. And in speaking with our technology experts,
we do not anticipate a problem with data exchange.
Mr. Horn. Ms. Tick, I was very interested in what you had
to say. Do you believe that last week's agreement eliminates
the need for the California law or/and enactment of H.R. 2693?
Ms. Tick. No, I don't. Because, as I've said, there are
differences between what's required under the German agreement
and what's required under the ICHEIC and what would be required
under the Federal law. The Federal law requires a broader base
of information which would be beneficial to claimants.
Mr. Horn. Do you believe the enactment of H.R. 2693 would
be helpful in overcoming the legal challenges to the California
law and other similar State laws?
Ms. Tick. Well, we believe the California law has already
been upheld by the Ninth Circuit, so it's already been
established that it is constitutional. But the additional
weight of the Federal law would be welcome and would certainly
help in future challenges.
Mr. Horn. Do you believe we should move forward then?
Ms. Tick. Yes, I think you should move forward. I don't
think that the Federal law does anything to disrupt ICHEIC or
does anything to disrupt the ability of organizations helping
claimants to get paid. I think it only helps.
Mr. Horn. Well, thank you very much.
And, Mr. Waldman, you state that MONY Life devoted the
resources necessary to comply with the California statute,
``not only because it was the law, but also because it was the
right thing to do.''
Why are not other insurance companies choosing to fight the
statute in court rather than adopting the same attitude?
Mr. Waldman. It's not for me to say what other companies
are doing. I mean, we did--we understood the importance of the
law and the seriousness of the subject matter, and complied to
the best of our ability.
Mr. Horn. Do you have any suggestions for improving H.R.
2693?
Mr. Waldman. Well, I guess, as with all the laws, companies
have varying amounts of files, whether the completeness of
them, the legibility of them, the relevance of them. And I
guess there has to be some discretion within the--in the case
of the State's insurance department, I suppose in the
administration, in the regulatory scheme of things as to how
the law would be applied, in certain situations, the
terminology is not going to match the records of the companies
versus what's in the--what would be in the bill. Policy--might
have policyholder versus insured versus beneficiary, as to what
the domicile is.
One particular point, I think, is that in all of the State
laws, when a date comes up, it's the date of death rather than
the date of birth. And I think, at least from our standpoint,
we would have very little material on date of birth of many
policyholders because we have--the records that we do have
generally are going to be when the policy went out of force for
payments that weren't made.
And probably from the standpoint of the survivors and the
claimants, as well, I think they're more likely to know the
date of death, even though not exactly certainly, because of
the circumstances of the war, but rather than the date of
birth.
So, I mean, if it comes to the point where there is
questioning with the company and you find that you have a
possible match and you get to negotiations, then you can go
into detail of whether you have date of birth or not.
But I think if you want to pick a date that would be on the
report, I think the date of death is probably more helpful and
more likely to be in the records of the company than the date
of birth.
Mr. Horn. Are there any other ways to get the fact that the
individual was alive at a certain time--because, as I remember,
some of the Protestant churches changed a lot of their files
when the Nazis were steaming up in 1937-1938, and they changed
some of the parish names because they didn't want to be a Jew
in that time. Will any of that help in terms of looking at some
of those files?
Mr. Waldman. I guess within our own records we would have a
record of possibly when the policy was issued, certainly when
it went out of force. So we are assuming that the person was
alive at the time it went out of force, so we would know that
they would be alive at that time. But as far as whether they
are still alive, that information we wouldn't have. But whether
they were alive during the period in question, we would have,
to the extent that we know when it went out of force.
So if it went out of force after 1920, if that's the year
that we pick, or 1933, I think the Federal--the California one
I think was 1920--then, to that extent, we would assume that
they were alive at that point.
Mr. Horn. The gentleman from California.
Mr. Waxman. Just a few questions for the record, Mr.
Chairman, because you have covered some of these points.
But, Mr. Waldman, based on what you know of H.R. 2693, do
you believe that lists already compiled by MONY Life Insurance
would enable you to be in compliance with the proposed Federal
law?
Mr. Waldman. Well, certainly the scope of policies that
were covered by the State laws would be--in toto, would be
greater than what's subject to the Federal law, because you
have, for example, 1933 to 1945 instead of 1920 to 1945.
The only question from our standpoint would be, we would
have it within--the individuals and the policies would be
within the data base. It would just be a question of whether we
would need to provide additional detail, for example, date of
birth versus date of death. We'd need additional research
perhaps.
I don't think we would have much on that, but we'd have to
do additional work on that. But as to the population of
policies, it would already be covered by having complied with
the State laws.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you.
Dr. Kurtz, you also mentioned you have concerns regarding
the size and scope of the registry envisioned. I'd like to know
your thinking about that. And can you suggest reasonable ways
to limit the size and scope?
Mr. Kurtz. Actually, what I was trying to note, Congressman
Waxman, is that it was really related to the second point about
funding that is going to be, because of the potential size of
it, a large data base, a large Web site; and so adequate
resources are needed, more than trying to figure out ways to
slim down the size.
Mr. Waxman. Dr. Bradsher, the California law and the
parameters of ICHEIC require the review of all policies between
1920 and 1945. H.R. 2693 only requires information about
policies in effect between 1933 and 1945. Do you think this
would significantly cut the amount of policy information that
would have to be provided?
Mr. Bradsher. I'm not an expert on this subject, but I
remember some testimony that was given before a House committee
several years ago. And talking to Yakov Lazowitz, who is with
the Yad Vashem archives, it seems that an awful lot of policies
were sold in the 1930's because people--even Jewish salesmen,
targeted Jews, saying, Things are getting bad here, you need
insurance. And this was more of a 1930's phenomenon, let's say,
1920's.
But I really can't truthfully say that--what date. But Jews
were certainly targeted for insurance in the late 1930's, where
they were just targeted to be sold insurance. And as we know
now, that's--some of these people were sold the policies and
then liquidated, and then the Nazis cashed in on them, on the
policies.
Mr. Waxman. Dr. Bradsher, the Nazi regime confiscated
policies and killed Jews based on the Nuremberg laws that
identified anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent as a
Jew. Many of those who were persecuted did not even consider
themselves Jewish, or maybe didn't even know that they had
identifi--they didn't even know that they had grandparents who
were Jewish. So their names wouldn't be on census lists, and
they didn't have identifiable Jewish names that might lead
people to put them on a list.
Do you think this will have an impact on the ability to
collect a comprehensive list of Jews who may have held
policies?
Mr. Bradsher. I know that the Yad Vashem archives, as you
have indicated, they had 1,000 people taking every single
document they had and keying it into a data base. And many
times, especially in Polish towns, people spell their name one
way on the census of the town, and then the Germans spelled it
another way, so there is a problem there.
I know that, in 1962, the Swiss banks, when they were
trying to come to agreement on dormant accounts, they hired
rabbis to go through lists and try to identify Jewish names,
and found it impossible. So that--the problem of names is--I
don't think can be overcome unless someone is willing to invest
the time and money, going through the records of the National
Archives, the Holocaust Museum, the Yad Vashem.
It's simply doing a worldwide census. You're going to end
up not capturing everyone. And even if you capture all names of
all existing humans, then in terms of their religion--that's
one problem, as Ms. Tick pointed out, that Communists,
homosexuals, gypsies, and other people are also part of these
victims. And that presents a whole 'nother series of problems.
Mr. Waxman. Ambassador Bell, I believe you mentioned that
about 2,000 additional names will be added to ICHEIC's Web site
this week. Are those names from member companies' records? And
if not, from where?
And did ICHEIC make an announcement regarding the release
of those names?
Mr. Bell. I believe, sir, it's correct that ICHEIC did make
an announcement concerning that, although again, you know,
ICHEIC usefully needs to be interviewed on this.
It is my understanding that those are claims which arose
out of the outreach project that I mentioned to you earlier.
And like a great many things, they awaited the conclusion of
this agreement to come into the pipeline.
One of the things I would add that comes on line with the
agreement coming into force is the use of this list of names
and matching model as an example for the non-MOU companies,
including--we have made mention of some of the Swiss companies
where there has been no movement. Many of those companies, it
is my understanding, sir, have been awaiting the outcome of
this agreement. And it is certainly my profound hope, and I
believe the expectation of others in the process that they
would now replicate this approach in what they are doing.
So, again, it gets back to the point earlier of, will there
be an acceleration of all of this when the agreement begins to
operate? And my answer to that would be yes.
Mr. Waxman. Well, we all hope so.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all the people
who have testified in this panel. I wonder if we could leave
the record open so that if--there may be additional questions
we'd like to submit to the witnesses and have them respond in
writing for the record, so we can get those responses in the
record.
Mr. Horn. Certainly. Absolutely. Put that in the record at
this point.
And we do have the staff of both the majority and the
minority, and the members, might send you some questions--and
you are all under oath, etc.
I am looking very carefully at Dr. Greg Bradsher. I never
saw such a very fine scholar in so many single spaces of what
you have done. And I would just like to ask you now that I've
taken notice. You've got special assignments with the
Interagency Group on Nazi Loot assets; you have got U.S.
Representative, Independent Commission of the Experts
Switzerland Meeting on the Nazi Gold Records; the Looted
Archives and Libraries at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum;
and about 100 here of items.
Now, that leads me to getting back to the International
Commission, which we haven't met. A lot of the people, I think
on those points here, are on that International Commission,
aren't they? And I'd just like to know your feeling on whether
they will do something or drag their feet.
Mr. Bradsher. I can't speak for commercial companies and so
forth, but I echo Ambassador Bell's comments that all the
people that have labored so hard since 1996 when Senator
D'Amato and others initiated this effort, I think they have all
been very dedicated and very professional. And I would not list
names, but there are several of them in the room here today
that just simply because of their interests have come to attend
this hearing.
I think our fellow citizens are very lucky that we have
people that are knowledgeable and caring about the survivors
and victims.
Mr. Horn. Well, that's helpful. And with that, if my
colleagues don't have any more questions here? OK.
I want to thank the people that helped in preparation of
this: our staff director, Bonnie Heald; Bonnie is back here.
Henry Wray had to go to a family situation, and is the senior
counsel. Dan Daly, to my left, your right, is the counsel
today. Chris Barkley is the majority clerk.
The minority staff: Michelle Ash, counsel; and then Zhava
Goldman of Mr. Waxman's office; Jean Gosa, minority clerk;
David McMillen, minority professional staff; Jonathan Samuels,
legislative director for Ms. Schakowsky; and the court
reporters, Nancy O'Rourke and Tina Smith. Thank you very much.
And, with that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-