[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 27, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2-H8]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     HOLOCAUST VICTIMS REDRESS ACT

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
International Relations be discharged from further consideration of the 
Senate bill (S. 1564) to provide redress for inadequate restitution of 
assets seized by the United States Government during World War II which 
belonged to victims of the Holocaust, and for other purposes, and ask 
unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do 
not intend to object, but I do want to make a statement on the Record 
with regard to the unanimous consent request for the House to consider 
H.R. 1564, the Holocaust Victims Redress Act.
  Before I do that I ask the proponents of the bill for an explanation 
of the bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].

[[Page H3]]

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we attempted to have 
a hearing on this issue last year. We were unable to because the 
witness who was to come before us had to cancel his appearance.
  Would the gentleman set forth his objections to our bill?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yielded for the purpose of an 
explanation of the bill. Does the gentleman want me to go ahead and 
state my objection?
  Mr. GILMAN. Please.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, let me state at the outset that Federal 
assistance for victims of the Holocaust is a very compelling priority. 
These victims have suffered as much as any human being. They have known 
the evil and the brutality that sometimes lurks unfortunately in the 
heart of man. It is fitting and understandable that the United States 
should be responsive. Restitution for victims of the Holocaust deserve 
our support.
  Therefore, I will support S. 1564, and I commend my friend the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Jim Leach], the chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services, for introducing the companion bill in 
the House, H.R. 2591.
  While I support the substance of this bill and will vote for it and 
not object to the unanimous consent, I am nonetheless deeply 
disappointed by the process. This is the first Committee on 
International Relations bill in this session and the committee, by the 
chairman's decision, has been bypassed. I do not know of any reason to 
rush this bill through on the first day of the session without giving 
members of the Committee on International Relations an opportunity to 
consider the bill.
  I fully understand that the chairman had some difficulty in 
scheduling administration's witnesses, but that is true on almost any 
bill we have when we are dealing with high level administration 
officials. H.R. 2591 was referred solely to the Committee on 
International Relations on October 1 of last year. Despite my request, 
the committee has not held a single hearing on the bill. There has been 
no committee deliberation on it and no markup.
  S. 1564 was passed by the Senate on November 13th, 1997 and was 
referred to the committee. It is substantially the same as the bill 
authored by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] and also did not have 
any consideration by the House Committee on International Relations. So 
the committee is taking a bill with a very worthy purpose, handed to us 
by an outside group and urging its approval without a serious 
examination of it.
  Now, there's nothing wrong or unusual about that, in looking to 
outside groups for information and advice, but it is not responsible 
for the Congress----
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAMILTON. I would like to finish my statement, if I may.
  Mr. LEACH. The gentleman has the time, of course.
  Mr. HAMILTON. But, yes, under my reservation of objection, I will be 
happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. LEACH. I would not be so timorous to ask the gentleman to yield 
except on a point of fact.
  This bill was written exclusively by the chairman of the House 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services. No outside group presented 
this bill or suggested the bill prior to its introduction. I state that 
to the gentleman as a matter of fact and would request a correction.
  Mr. HAMILTON. I am quite willing to accept the word of the gentleman 
from Iowa because I have great confidence in his word.
  Mr. LEACH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation of 
objection, there is nothing wrong to looking to outside groups for 
information and advice, but what is not responsible is for the Congress 
to pass a bill without independently considering the various questions 
that it raises. The members of the committee have not had an 
opportunity to study this bill adequately. We do not have any idea of 
the implications and its dimensions.
  This measure begins a new Federal program. Thirty million dollars is 
authorized for contributions to charitable organizations to assist 
survivors of the Holocaust but, in my mind at least, many questions 
abound: Where is the money coming from? Is a new appropriation going to 
be required? What programs, if any, will be cut in order to allocate 
the funds for this program? Who determines who gets what relief? Which 
victims will be compensated, which victims will not be compensated? 
Will richer beneficiaries get the same amount as poorer beneficiaries? 
Is this a one-shot deal or the beginning of a permanent program with 
annual appropriations?
  I do not think we are doing our job as a committee and I do not think 
we are doing our job as a Congress if we cannot delve into such 
questions.
  S. 1564 directs the President to direct his representative to seek 
and vote for an agreement to make contributions to a reparation fund. 
My understanding is that creation of such a fund was announced in 
December 1997. At the very least this inaccuracy would have been 
corrected at a committee markup.
  I understand that there is pressure to act on this bill. It has the 
broad support of the Congress, it has my support as its stands, but I 
think we could have done a better job. It has the support of the 
administration. We all want to do the right thing to help the victims 
of the Holocaust but the process that we are following is flawed. The 
committee is not doing its job. The Congress is not in a position to do 
its job as an institution. I believe a better process would result in a 
better draft of the bill.
  I ardently hope that the Committee on International Relations' first 
action this session, waiving jurisdiction, does not mark a trend for 
the upcoming session. I hope that on measures of important policy 
issues before the Committee on International Relations during the 
session, including remaining issues related to Holocaust restitution, 
we will have timely and balanced consideration in the committee.
  I understand there are other Members who may want to speak, and I am 
happy to yield at this point to the proponents of the bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAMILTON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman], the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman's concern about 
waiving jurisdiction, as the gentleman knows we attempted to hold a 
hearing on this issue last year, at the end of last year. We were 
unable to because the witness who was to come before us had to cancel 
his appearance because the Secretary of State was testifying elsewhere 
on the Hill and the department frowns on having its officers testify on 
the same day a Secretary is testifying. We tried to accommodate the 
witness and he was not able to rearrange his schedule.
  I understand that, in any event, the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, as the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] will 
testify, held a hearing on this issue in June of 1997, as well as one 
hearing in a prior Congress in December of 1996. Meanwhile, the Senate 
passed this measure. It is not a controversial measure, and if we can 
arrange for the appropriate witnesses to appear, we will certainly 
conduct a hearing to dig into the issues that the gentleman is raising 
with regard to the financing.
  There are other bills and resolutions on this general subject pending 
before our committee, but the chairman of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services and I thought that given the fact that survivors are 
passing away every day while awaiting satisfaction of just claims, that 
we should move the bill as expeditiously as possible.
  I do appreciate my colleague's willingness to allow the bill to move 
forward at this time and we certainly will try to accommodate his 
concerns in the coming weeks in this new session.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation of objection, I will 
be happy to yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, let me first explain some of the background 
of this bill to my distinguished friend, with whom I have had talks 
prior to this session and with whose staff we have consulted.
  This bill is the result of several extensive hearings in the House 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services

[[Page H4]]

that will be followed up by more hearings in the next several weeks. 
The bill, as I would repeat again, was introduced after these hearings 
at the exclusive instigation of the chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services. And I would say to my distinguished 
friend, the implication of outside group pressure is not a very 
appropriate one.
  I would also say that one of the backgrounds for trying to push the 
bill at the very end of the last session related, A, to the fact that 
the Senate passed it in virtual identical form to the bill that my 
distinguished colleague the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and I 
introduced with broad bipartisan support, including the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. LaFalce], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], another gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Jackson]; and on the Republican side the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], 
and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly].
  This bill caught the so-called groups that the gentleman implies are 
behind it by surprise. It was exclusively based upon hearings before 
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the timing related 
to the fact that international negotiations were to commence in 
December to deal with this subject matter calling for international 
support. And we wanted to make it clear that the United States would be 
a participant so that our participation could help leverage substantial 
foreign support.

                              {time}  1300

  Now, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) indicates that he 
believes the bill is faultily crafted in a timing sense at this point 
in time because certain negotiations have occurred.
  The gentleman is partially but not fully correct. The decision that 
was made in the negotiations in December opened up the prospect of 
further international support, but no agreement has been made on what 
support individual countries will make. So the bill, in its verbiage, 
is entirely appropriate and entirely accurate.
  Now let me go back a little bit about what stands behind the bill. 
This bill was initially introduced in the House of Representatives. It 
would provide $25 million as a U.S. contribution to the organizations 
serving survivors of the Holocaust and an additional $5 million for 
archival research to be managed by the Holocaust Museum.
  The second aspect, the additional $5 million for the Holocaust 
Museum, came from the United States Senate, one that I believe is 
thoroughly appropriate. Our bill only referenced the Holocaust Museum 
without a designated number. But I believe it is appropriate, as the 
Senate has done, to put in a precise number.
  The bill would also declare the sense of Congress that all 
governments take appropriate actions to ensure that artwork seized or 
extorted by the Nazis or by the Soviets be returned to their original 
owners or heirs. I think that is an entirely appropriate position for 
the United States Government to take and this Congress in particular. 
After all, the Holocaust was the greatest crime in history; and I 
believe this bill is something that provides a material redress and is 
entirely appropriate.
  But, most of all, this bill is a reminder that the past must never be 
forgotten. Sometimes issues of the past are more controversial than 
issues of the present; and sometimes there is nothing more difficult 
than to judge the past, to establish what might be described as 
retrospective justice.
  It must be understood that history doesn't have a statute of 
limitations. People cannot be allowed to disappear from the earth 
without tracks, without moral if not monetary restitution. And when one 
really thinks it through, one has to recognize that one of the 
impelling aspects of the Holocaust was avarice. This bill says, in 
effect, that even at a very late moment in time avarice will not be 
rewarded.
  Finally, let me indicate to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hamilton), because he has raised some questions that I believe are 
specifically answered in the legislative language, this bill is not a 
new appropriation. It is a redirection of formerly appropriated funds. 
There are no ongoing implications of funding. It is entirely designed 
to assist the Department of State in its current ongoing activities.
  It has the strong support of the administration; and here I want to 
tip my hat to the Under Secretary of State, Stuart Eizenstat, for his 
leadership on this issue, which I think has been thoroughly 
appropriate.
  Finally, let me also say as strongly as I can to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), for whom I have no higher respect of anyone in 
this body, that the hearing record established in the House Committee 
on Banking and Financial Services is extensive and extraordinary.
  I had not, in working on the legislation, intended that the resources 
be derived from the State Department budget. But that is what the 
administration recommended; and, therefore, that is the way this bill 
is designed.
  But I would assure the gentleman that the hearing record is 
extensive, it is compelling, and it is extraordinary. I recognize that 
the gentleman has certain concerns. I also recognize that the gentleman 
is supportive, and for that I am very appreciative.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, may I simply say to my 
good friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of 
the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, that I don't mean to be too critical here of their conduct. I 
understand that they operate under considerable pressures, particularly 
with an important bill like this is.
  I do think my position with regard to process here is entirely 
correct. This is an important bill. It does require a substantial 
authorization. It could very well be an authorization that will be 
repeated in the years ahead.
  Very few members of this institution know very much about this bill. 
The House Committee on International Relations was the committee of 
jurisdiction, not the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. We 
did not have hearings on it. We did not have any discussions on it. It 
simply comes to the floor.
  I do not see how any Member can defend that kind of a process for an 
important bill, and I rise only on the point of process and that is 
all.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding.
  As I assured the gentleman before, we will conduct whatever hearings 
are needed to fully explain the issues that the gentleman has raised.
  I wanted to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for bringing 
the measure before us. He endeavored to do this at the end of the last 
session, and because of the business at hand we were not able to do it 
at that time.
  I rise in strong support of this measure; and I wanted to take the 
opportunity to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Leach), for his leadership on this important issue. As chairman of our 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services and as senior member of our 
House Committee on International Relations, Chairman Leach expended a 
great deal of effort to make certain that justice would be achieved for 
victims whose assets were confiscated by the Nazis and looked into the 
issue extensively.
  The heinous crimes conducted by the Nazis decades ago still leave 
their mark today as elderly survivors struggle around the world to meet 
even their most basic needs and as heirs discover that valued family 
possessions, such as paintings, are hanging today in museums and 
private homes around the globe.
  The Holocaust Victims Redress Act recognizes that there are numerous 
Jewish victims of the Holocaust who still remain uncompensated and who 
are in dire financial circumstances in their twilight years. 
Accordingly, the Leach bill authorizes $25 million to support 
restitution efforts to survivors residing in our Nation and elsewhere; 
and an additional $5 million is authorized to the Holocaust Memorial 
Museum to be distributed for archive value research to assist in the 
resolution of assets that were looted or extorted from the victims of 
the Holocaust.

[[Page H5]]

  Our Nation, under Secretary Eizenstat's initiative, is pressing 15 
claimant nations for the speedy distribution of nearly six metric tons 
of gold still held by the Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of 
Monetary Gold. This is the body established by France, by Great Britain 
and our Nation at the end of World War II to return gold looted by Nazi 
Germany to the central banks of nations occupied during the war by 
Germany.
  Our Nation asks that these nations contribute a substantial portion 
of any distribution they received to Holocaust survivors in recognition 
of the recently documented fact that this gold includes gold stolen 
from the individual victims in the Holocaust. This measure also 
expresses a sense of Congress that all governments should undertake in 
good faith to facilitate the return of private and public properties, 
such as works of art, to the rightful owners in cases where assets were 
confiscated during the Holocaust and where there is reasonable proof 
that the claimant is the rightful owner.

  This sense of the Congress resolution builds on the London Conference 
on Nazi Gold held in December, since the Holocaust Museum announced in 
London that it will sponsor a follow-on conference on looted artwork 
and other assets early this summer.
  Having recently visited Poland with some of my colleagues, I became 
familiar with Poland's efforts to speed up the restitution of Jewish 
communal properties. We commend the Polish government for their recent 
legislation and hope that those funds might be used to clarify issues 
related to the ownership of those properties, and we hope other 
countries will follow suit.
  Accordingly, the legislation before us will be of great assistance in 
helping our Nation to move the issue of asset restitution forward and 
is most worthy of our consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in support of this measure.
  I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise on the reservation of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hamilton) not because I do not support the bill. In fact, I do support 
the bill and compliment the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) on his 
efforts to put this legislation together. I had, however, hoped to 
offer an amendment to it in order to address an issue of equal gravity 
to Holocaust survivors. That is the issue of unpaid life insurance 
policies from the Holocaust.
  Recently, I received a letter from a constituent outlining his 
attempt to collect on the life insurance policy owed to his father who 
was killed by the Nazis. He was given $30 for the life of his father 
and has never heard from the insurance company again. Because of this 
story and others like it and the fact that there were over 1.3 million 
policies sold to Germans at the time, Congress must act to right this 
wrong.
  In light of the circumstances under which the bill is being 
considered, I will now introduce legislation today requiring European 
insurance companies to report to the Attorney General the names of 
anyone they insured who is listed on either the Holocaust Museum's 
Registry of Jewish Holocaust Survivors or on Yad Veshem's Hall of Names 
in Jerusalem.
  Had the opportunity been presented, I would have offered this, the 
Comprehensive Holocaust Accountability in Insurance Measure, as an 
answer to the legislation presently before us. Of course, I am very 
pleased that the House is able to act quickly at the beginning of this 
session to redress victims of the Holocaust. They have awaited 
reparations for so long, and this measure is a step in the right 
direction. I only wish that it had been a larger step for victims of 
the Holocaust.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following:

                                                 January 21, 1998.
     U.S. Congressman Mark Foley
       Dear Sir: I read in the Palm Beach Post of 1/21/98 that you 
     are going after the insurance crooks such as the German 
     Allianz.
       Many years ago (it must be may be 30 years ago--or somewhat 
     less) I received a letter from Allianz where they had found 
     that my father had a life insurance with them--and they were 
     settling with me as his heir.
       They sent me the princely sum of about 20 to 30 dollars and 
     said that the claim thus was settled.
       I never heard from them again and at the time I felt it was 
     hopeless to go any further.
       Anyhow in the files of Allianz there is definitely the name 
     of (my father who was murdered by the Nazis) and my name.
           Thank you.

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAMILTON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hamilton) for yielding.
  First, let me say, the gentleman has discussed this issue with me; 
and I would say the gentleman's leadership is very appreciated. It is 
the gentleman from Iowa's belief that the insurance issue is much 
larger than the banking issue, and we will be holding a hearing on 
February 12 on this issue. I believe it is a very important subject 
matter of a little different dimension and direction, and we intend to 
pursue legislation in this arena, and I believe it is very important 
that we do so.
  I would only ask the indulgence of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hamilton) to make a point, though, that I think has been misunderstood 
by the other side. That is, not only was this bill introduced at the 
exclusive direction of the chairman of the House Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services without any prior input from any source, the 
pressure to bring it to the floor entirely emanates from the chairman 
of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, partly 
because of disappointment that it was not brought just as the House 
came to adjournment because of the timing matters that occurred then. 
And the leadership agreed that they would bring it up as the first item 
of this session, which I think is very important, and partly because it 
is the view of the gentleman from Iowa that, in a negotiating 
circumstance, it is very important to press forward.
  I raise this as profoundly as I can because the implications on this 
House floor that there are pressures from outside groups is 
inappropriate.
  This bill is a statement of the moral direction of the House of 
Representatives as a reflection of the American people, not of any 
particular group.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, may I 
simply say that we just had an example of why this bill should go 
through the regular process. A Member of this institution wanted to 
offer an amendment to it. He is excluded from doing so.
  Now, that is the name of my objection here. We have orderly processes 
in this House. We ought to follow them.
  A Member on the other side of the aisle was excluded from offering an 
amendment. Why? Because my colleague wanted to push this thing through 
on unanimous consent today. That is not the way the House of 
Representatives should do business.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly am sympathetic to the bill, but I think the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) does make a valid point about 
committees and committee process and committee hearings.
  I want to add my voice in support of the underlying legislation. For 
several months now I have been working on legislation which would force 
insurance companies that have not paid Holocaust victims what they are 
supposed to be paid, to force them to do so. I think one of the most 
obscene things that has come to light during this whole process has 
been the role of the insurance companies in stonewalling and not paying 
Holocaust victims and their families and descendants what is rightfully 
due to them. So I think it is very, very important in this Congress 
that we focus on this issue and that we move on this issue.
  I am a member of the Committee on Commerce, and the bill will come 
through the Committee on Commerce in terms of the bill forcing 
insurance companies. I already have several cosponsors, and will drop 
the bill in today. I am working with the Holocaust Museum and the 
people of the

[[Page H6]]

Holocaust Museum on this bill. I think that it is very, very important 
that we move swiftly on the bill that I am dropping in today, which has 
bipartisan support.
  I wanted to make this comment because I think this issue is very, 
very important. I am very sympathetic to the objections of my friend, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), and I hope we can resolve 
this so this very important legislation, as well as my legislation, 
gets passed very, very soon, so that the victims of the Holocaust and 
their descendants will at least get what is rightfully due them.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, before I withdraw my reservation, may I 
say I was pleased to have the assurance of the two chairmen, the 
gentlemen from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) that there will be further hearings on the bill. I thank them 
for that, and look forward to cooperating with them in that regard.
  Mr. Speaker, the Holocaust Victims Redress Act, the result of a 
series of hearings in the House Banking Committee, is a virtual carbon 
copy of a bill introduced by Chairman Gilman and myself in the previous 
session. There are a number of co-sponsors, including Members from both 
sides of the aisle: Congressmen John LaFalce, Ken Bensten, Martin 
Frost, Sidney Yates, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Luis Gutierrez, Jon Fox, 
Michael McNulty, Jim Saxton, James McGovern, Barney Frank, Brad 
Sherman, and Mark Foley; and Congresswomen Connie Morella, Carolyn 
Maloney, and Sue Kelly.
  The bill authorizes up to $25 million as a U.S. contribution to 
organizations serving survivors of the Holocaust and an additional $5 
million for archival research, to be managed by the Holocaust Museum, 
to assist in the restitution of assets looted or extorted from 
Holocaust victims by the Nazis. It would also declare the sense of 
Congress that all governments take appropriate action to ensure that 
artworks confiscated by the Nazis, or by the Soviets, be returned to 
their original owners or their heirs.
  The Holocaust was the greatest crime in human history. This measure 
will provide some material redress for inadequate restitution of assets 
seized by the American government during World War II which belonged to 
Holocaust victims.
  But most of all, this measure is a reminder the past must never be 
forgotten and that it is often more controversial than issues of the 
present.
  While little is more difficult than to judge the past, to establish 
what in this case must be called retrospective justice, it must be 
understood that history does not have a statute of limitations. People 
cannot be allowed to disappear from earth without tracks, without moral 
if not monetary restitution.
  The genesis for this proposal dates back to hearings which the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services has held since December 
1996, chronicling how the Nazis looted gold from the central banks of 
Europe as well as from individual Holocaust victims.
  Following World War II, the Tripartite Gold Commission, consisting of 
the United States, the United Kingdom and France, was created to 
oversee the recovery and return of Nazi-looted gold to the countries 
from which it was stolen. Most of the gold recovered during that period 
was long ago returned to claimant countries. However, a small portion 
of that gold remains to be distributed. The amount of gold in TGC 
custody, amount to six metric tons, is worth anywhere from $50 million 
to $70 million depending on the price of gold at a given time. Fifteen 
nations hold claim to some portion of that gold.
  The case for speedy final distribution of the remaining gold pool to 
Holocaust survivors is compelling. The moral case for such a 
distribution was strengthened by the horrific revelation in a May 1997 
report from Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat that Nazi Germany 
co-mingled victim gold, taken from the personal property of Holocaust 
victims, including their dental fillings, with monetary gold, 
resmelting it into gold bars which the Nazis traded for hard currency 
to finance the war effort.
  This bill would put the Congress on record in strong support of the 
State Department's appeal to claimant nations to contribute their TGC 
gold to Holocaust survivors and strengthen the Department's hand in 
seeking this goal by authorizing the President to commit the United 
States to a voluntary donation of up to $25 million for this purpose. A 
voluntary contribution on our part would go a long way in facilitating 
a similar gesture of generosity from others who may be claimants of the 
gold pool or who may have reason to provide redress for actions taken 
during the dark night of the human soul we call the Holocaust.
  I had hoped that the House would act on this bill at the end of the 
last session so the U.S. delegation attending an international 
conference on Nazi-looted gold in London in December could report that 
the U.S. had agreed to make a contribution to this fund. Nevertheless, 
I am pleased that the House is taking up the bill today at the first 
opportunity of this session.
  I might add that a contribution of this nature by the United States 
would also serve as an act of conscience on the part of this nation. As 
the bill indicates in the findings, there was an unknown quantity of 
heirless assets of Holocaust victims in the United States after World 
War II. A 1941 census of foreign assets in the United States identified 
$198 million in German-owned assets in the United States as well as 
another $1.2 billion in Swiss assets. Assets inventoried in the census 
included bank accounts, securities, trusts, and other items. In the 
years following World War II, Congress recognized that some of the 
assets held in the United States may have in fact belonged to Jewish 
victims of the Holocaust who had sent their assets abroad for 
safekeeping.
  Given this circumstance, Congress authorized up to $3 million in 
claims for such heirless assets to be awarded to a successor 
organization to provide relief and rehabilitation for needy survivors. 
However, the political difficulties associated with such a commitment 
led Congress ultimately to settle on a $500,000 contribution. Although 
the documentary record on asset ownership remains sparse, it is likely 
that heirless assets in the U.S. were worth much more than the 1962 
settlement figure.

  A precise accounting of claims will remain unknowable, but the fact 
that the United States committed itself to such a modest amount in 
settlement for victim claims provides justification for the United 
States to make an inflation-adjusted contribution today for victim 
funds mingled with Nazi assets located in and seized by the United 
States during the war.
  In testimony before our Committee last year, Under Secretary 
Eizenstat urged that a better accounting be made for the fate of 
heirless assets in banks in the United States, and that the issue of 
World War II-era insurance policies, securities and art work also be 
examined. To help answer these questions, the legislation would direct 
$5 million to the United States Holocaust Museum for archival research 
to assist in the restitution of assets of all types looted or extorted 
from Holocaust victims, and activities that would support Holocaust 
remembrance and education activities.
  I am pleased to report that the London conference mentioned earlier, 
Under Secretary of State Eizenstat announced that the United States 
would host a second international conference in 1998 to look further 
into the issue of assets looted by the Nazis. In that context, it is 
important to note that the second title of the bill deals with Nazi-
looted art which is expected to be among the topics to be discussed at 
the next conference.
  A witness at the Banking Committee's hearing last June noted that, 
``The twelve years of the Nazi era mark the greatest displacement of 
art in history.'' Under international legal principles dating back to 
the Hague Convention of 1907, pillaging during war is forbidden as is 
the seizure of works of art. In defiance of international standards, 
the Nazis looted valuable works of art from their own citizens and 
institutions as well as from people and institutions in France and 
Holland and other occupied countries. This grand theft of art helped 
the Nazis finance their war. Avarice served as an incentive to genocide 
with the ultimate in governmental censorship being reflected in the 
Aryan supremacist notion that certain modern art was degenerate and 
thus disposable.
  The Nazis purged state museums of impressionist, abstract, 
expressionist, and religious art as well as art they deemed to be 
politically or racially incorrect. Private Jewish art collections in 
Germany and Nazi-occupied countries were confiscated while others were 
extorted from their owners. Still others were exchanged by their owners 
for exit permits to flee the country. As the Nazis sold works of art 
for hard currency to finance the war, many artworks disappeared into 
the international marketplace. Efforts following the war to return the 
looted art to original owners were successful to a degree, but to this 
day many items remain lost to their original owners and heirs.
  It is interesting to note that when the French Vichy government tried 
to object on international legal grounds to Nazi confiscation of art 
owned by Jewish citizens in France, the Germans responded that such 
individuals (including those who were sent to concentration camps) had 
been declared by French authorities no longer to be citizens. Hence, 
the Nazis claimed that the 1907 Hague Convention, which prohibits the 
confiscation of assets from citizens in occupied countries, did not 
apply.
  This reasoning cannot be tolerated by civilized people, and one 
purpose of the legislation before us today is to underline that the 
restitution of these works of art to their rightful owners is required 
by international law, as spelled out in the 1907 Hague Convention. The 
return of war booty ought to be a goal of

[[Page H7]]

civilized nations even at this late date, long after the end of World 
War II. For that reason, I have included in the legislation a sense of 
Congress urging all governments to take appropriate actions to achieve 
this end.
  The Holocaust may have been a war within a war--one fought against 
defined individuals and civilized values--but it was an integral part 
of the larger world war among states. Hence, the international 
principles prohibiting the theft of art and private property during 
wartime should be applied with equal rigor in instances of genocidal 
war within a country's borders or conquered territory.
  In closing, I would like to announce that the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services will be holding its third hearing on the subject 
of Nazi-looted gold, dormant bank accounts in Switzerland, and other 
assets taken from victims of the Holocaust on February 12. At that 
time, the Committee plans to hear testimony from Under Secretary 
Eizenstat, Swiss Ambassador Thomas Borer, and two panels of witnesses 
discussing the topics of looted art and insurance.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge the unanimous adoption of S. 1564. Thank 
you.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
want to express my strong support for the passage of this legislation.
  Let me say at the outset that I share the concerns which were raised 
by the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International 
Relations, Mr. Hamilton, about the inappropriate way in which this bill 
comes to the floor of the House today. We should have held hearings, 
and we should have had proper consideration of this legislation in the 
Committee. There is not such urgency in the adoption of this 
legislation that we could not have followed regular procedures in the 
consideration of this bill.
  Having said that, however, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate my strong 
support for S. 1564--the Holocaust Victims Redress Act. I want to thank 
my dear friend, Congressman Jim Leach, the Chairman of the Banking 
Committee, who introduced a similar bill in the House of 
Representatives and who has shown great sympathy for this issue. I also 
want to thank my dear friend, Congressman Ben Gilman, the Chairman of 
the International Relations Committee, for his efforts and support of 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Holocaust Victims Redress Act directs that the 
United States government support the contribution of all or of a 
substantial portion of the gold remaining under the control of the 
Tripartite Gold Commission to charitable organizations to assist 
survivors of the Holocaust. It also authorizes the President to 
obligate up to $30 million for such distribution. It authorizes 
appropriations for archival research to assist in the restitution of 
assets looted from Holocaust victims and for other activities to 
further Holocaust remembrance and education. The legislation urges 
efforts to facilitate the return of private and public property--
primarily works of art--which were seized during the period of Nazi 
rule to the rightful owners in cases where the ownership can be 
established.
  Mr. Speaker, it is most appropriate that we take the action proposed 
in this legislation. Thousands and thousands of the victims of Nazi 
terror suffered the destruction of their lives, the murder of their 
family members, and debilitating illnesses resulting from their 
unbelievable hardships. It is only appropriate that we acknowledge this 
suffering and take these modest steps to assist the victims.
  The Administration has indicated its support for the approach that 
this legislation takes. The United States government recognizes that a 
portion of the gold looted by the Nazis contained a significant amount 
of gold stolen or coerced from victims of the Holocaust. I am delighted 
that the Administration favors the proposal that the remaining gold, or 
most of it, be contributed to the ``Special Persecutee Relief Fund'' 
which was announced in December 1997, and I welcome the positive 
reaction from many of the potential donors to this fund. I do hope, Mr. 
Speaker, that the neutral countries who received Nazi gold during the 
course of World War II will also make generous contributions to this 
fund. It is most appropriate in view of the benefits they enjoyed as a 
result of the Nazi gold that was moved to their countries during the 
war.
  I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Administration has shown 
United States leadership by indicating our intention to participate in 
this fund with a contribution of up to $25 million. This should be an 
incentive for countries which have claims under the Tripartite Gold 
Commission and countries which were neutral in World War II to join in 
making significant contributions to this fund. Our contribution is 
indeed a modest amount--and I hope that our participation will 
increase--but I do hope that it will encourage others.
  Mr. Speaker, no amount of monetary reparation and no amount of 
recognition or expressions of sorrow can ever compensate for the 
unspeakable suffering that the victims of the Holocaust have endured. 
It is important, however, that we make this gesture of recognition--
regardless of how small it is in the face of the enormity of the 
injustice against these victims.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

                                S. 1564

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Holocaust Victims Redress 
     Act''.
                        TITLE I--HEIRLESS ASSETS

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Among the $198,000,000 in German assets located in the 
     United States and seized by the United States Government in 
     World War II were believed to be bank accounts, trusts, 
     securities, or other assets belonging to Jewish victims of 
     the Holocaust.
       (2) Among an estimated $1,200,000,000 in assets of Swiss 
     nationals and institutions which were frozen by the United 
     States Government during World War II (including over 
     $400,000,000 in bank deposits) were assets whose beneficial 
     owners were believed to include victims of the Holocaust.
       (3) In the aftermath of the war, the Congress recognized 
     that some of the victims of the Holocaust whose assets were 
     among those seized or frozen during the war might not have 
     any legal heirs, and legislation was enacted to authorize the 
     transfer of up to $3,000,000 of such assets to organizations 
     dedicated to providing relief and rehabilitation for 
     survivors of the Holocaust.
       (4) Although the Congress and the Administration authorized 
     the transfer of such amount to the relief organizations 
     referred to in paragraph (3), the enormous administrative 
     difficulties and cost involved in proving legal ownership of 
     such assets, directly or beneficially, by victims of the 
     Holocaust, and proving the existence or absence of heirs of 
     such victims, led the Congress in 1962 to agree to a lump-sum 
     settlement and to provide $500,000 for the Jewish Restitution 
     Successor Organization of New York, such sum amounting to \1/
     6\th of the authorized maximum level of ``heirless'' assets 
     to be transferred.
       (5) In June of 1997, a representative of the Secretary of 
     State, in testimony before the Congress, urged the 
     reconsideration of the limited $500,000 settlement.
       (6) While a precisely accurate accounting of ``heirless'' 
     assets may be impossible, good conscience warrants the 
     recognition that the victims of the Holocaust have a 
     compelling moral claim to the unrestituted portion of assets 
     referred to in paragraph (3).
       (7) Furthermore, leadership by the United States in meeting 
     obligations to Holocaust victims would strengthen--
       (A) the efforts of the United States to press for the 
     speedy distribution of the remaining nearly 6 metric tons of 
     gold still held by the Tripartite Commission for the 
     Restitution of Monetary Gold (the body established by France, 
     Great Britain, and the United States at the end of World War 
     II to return gold looted by Nazi Germany to the central banks 
     of countries occupied by Germany during the war); and
       (B) the appeals by the United States to the 15 nations 
     claiming a portion of such gold to contribute a substantial 
     portion of any such distribution to Holocaust survivors in 
     recognition of the recently documented fact that the gold 
     held by the Commission includes gold stolen from individual 
     victims of the Holocaust.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To provide a measure of justice to survivors of the 
     Holocaust all around the world while they are still alive.
       (2) To authorize the appropriation of an amount which is at 
     least equal to the present value of the difference between 
     the amount which was authorized to be transferred to 
     successor organizations to compensate for assets in the 
     United States of heirless victims of the Holocaust and the 
     amount actually paid in 1962 to the Jewish Restitution 
     Successor Organization of New York for that purpose.
       (3) To facilitate efforts by the United States to seek an 
     agreement whereby nations with claims against gold held by 
     the Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary 
     Gold would contribute all, or a substantial portion, of that 
     gold to charitable organizations to assist survivors of the 
     Holocaust.

     SEC. 102. DISTRIBUTIONS BY THE TRIPARTITE GOLD COMMISSION.

       (a) Directions to the President.--The President shall 
     direct the commissioner representing the United States on the 
     Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold, 
     established pursuant to Part III of the Paris Agreement on 
     Reparation, to seek and vote for a timely agreement under 
     which all signatories to the Paris Agreement on Reparation, 
     with claims against the monetary gold pool in the 
     jurisdiction of such Commission, contribute all, or a 
     substantial

[[Page H8]]

     portion, of such gold to charitable organizations to assist 
     survivors of the Holocaust.
       (b) Authority To Obligate the United States.--
       (1) In general.--From funds otherwise unobligated in the 
     Treasury of the United States, the President is authorized to 
     obligate subject to paragraph (2) an amount not to exceed 
     $30,000,000 for distribution in accordance with subsections 
     (a) and (b).
       (2) Conformance with budget act requirement.--Any budget 
     authority contained in paragraph (1) shall be effective only 
     to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in advance 
     in appropriation Acts.

     SEC. 103. FULFILLMENT OF OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the President such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, not to 
     exceed a total of $25,000,000 for all such fiscal years, for 
     distribution to organizations as may be specified in any 
     agreement concluded pursuant to section 102.
       (b) Archival Research.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the President $5,000,000 for archival 
     research and translation services to assist in the 
     restitution of assets looted or extorted from victims of the 
     Holocaust and such other activities that would further 
     Holocaust remembrance and education.
                         TITLE II--WORKS OF ART

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Established pre-World War II principles of 
     international law, as enunciated in Articles 47 and 56 of the 
     Regulations annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) 
     Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, prohibited 
     pillage and the seizure of works of art.
       (2) In the years since World War II, international 
     sanctions against confiscation of works of art have been 
     amplified through such conventions as the 1970 Convention on 
     the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, 
     Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which 
     forbids the illegal export of art work and calls for its 
     earliest possible restitution to its rightful owner.
       (3) In defiance of the 1907 Hague Convention, the Nazis 
     extorted and looted art from individuals and institutions in 
     countries it occupied during World War II and used such booty 
     to help finance their war of aggression.
       (4) The Nazis' policy of looting art was a critical element 
     and incentive in their campaign of genocide against 
     individuals of Jewish and other religious and cultural 
     heritage and, in this context, the Holocaust, while standing 
     as a civil war against defined individuals and civilized 
     values, must be considered a fundamental aspect of the world 
     war unleashed on the continent.
       (5) Hence, the same international legal principles applied 
     among states should be applied to art and other assets stolen 
     from victims of the Holocaust.
       (6) In the aftermath of the war, art and other assets were 
     transferred from territory previously controlled by the Nazis 
     to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, much of which has 
     not been returned to rightful owners.

     SEC. 202. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING RESTITUTION OF 
                   PRIVATE PROPERTY, SUCH AS WORKS OF ART.

       It is the sense of the Congress that consistent with the 
     1907 Hague Convention, all governments should undertake good 
     faith efforts to facilitate the return of private and public 
     property, such as works of art, to the rightful owners in 
     cases where assets were confiscated from the claimant during 
     the period of Nazi rule and there is reasonable proof that 
     the claimant is the rightful owner.

  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________