Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 1 (Tuesday, January 27, 1998)

[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.

____________________