U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

31–542 PDF 2007

REVIEW OF THE REPATRIATION OF

HOLOCAUST ART ASSETS IN THE UNITED STATES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL 

MONETARY POLICY, TRADE, AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 27, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 109–113

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

CAMPBELL, JOHN, California 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY, TRADE, AND

TECHNOLOGY

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio, Chair

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Vice Chair 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

BARBARA LEE, California 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 27, 2006 ..................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

July 27, 2006 ..................................................................................................... 39

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2006

Able, Edward H., Jr., President and CEO, American Association of Museums . 15

Cuno, James, President and Director, Art Institute of Chicago, on behalf 

of the Association of Art Museum Directors ...................................................... 19

Edelson, Gilbert S., Administrative Vice President and Counsel, Art Dealers 

Association of America ......................................................................................... 17

Eizenstat, Stuart E., former Commissioner, Presidential Advisory Commission 

on Holocaust Assets in the U.S., Covington & Burling .................................... 10

Lillie, Catherine A., Director, Holocaust Claims Processing Office, New York 

State Banking Department ................................................................................. 26

Rub, Timothy M., Director, Cleveland Museum of Art ......................................... 23

Taylor, Gideon, Executive Vice President, Conference on Jewish Material 

Claims Against Germany, Inc. ............................................................................ 13

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Able, Edward H., Jr. ......................................................................................... 40

Cuno, James ...................................................................................................... 61

Edelson, Gilbert S. ............................................................................................ 94

Eizenstat, Stuart E. .......................................................................................... 104

Lillie, Catherine A. ........................................................................................... 125

Rub, Timothy M. ............................................................................................... 145

Taylor, Gideon .................................................................................................. 149

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Shelley Berkley: 

Copies of pictures drawn by Deena Babbott at Auschwitz ........................... 209

Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney: 

New York Times article ................................................................................... 214

Responses to questions submitted to Gilbert S. Edelson .............................. 217

Hon. Debbie Wasserman Schultz: 

Responses to questions submitted to Gideon Taylor ..................................... 221

(1)

REVIEW OF THE REPATRIATION 

OF HOLOCAUST ART ASSETS IN 

THE UNITED STATES 

Thursday, July 27, 2006

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC AND

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY, 

TRADE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Deborah Pryce [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Pryce, Leach, Kennedy, Maloney, Sherman, Wasserman-Schultz, and Frank. 

Also present: Representatives Kelly, Israel, and Berkley. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. The Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology will come to 

order. Without objection, all members’ opening statements will be 

made a part of the record. 

Mr. FRANK. Madam Chairwoman? 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Yes. 

Mr. FRANK. Could I ask unanimous consent to have participation 

by one Member who is on the Full Committee, but not on the subcommittee, and one Member who is not on the committee, both of 

whom have a great interest in and knowledge of this subject, the 

gentleman from New York, Mr. Israel, and the gentlewoman from 

Nevada, Ms. Berkley. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you. 

We will begin by thanking all of you who are here at this hearing 

to review the Repatriation of Holocaust Art Assets in the United 

States. 

I would like to thank Ranking Member Frank and Ranking 

Member Maloney for their work on the hearing, and for bringing 

to the subcommittee’s attention the need to review this very important issue. 

I would also like to recognize the efforts of Mr. Leach over the 

years in keeping the focus on this, and he will be presiding later 

on in the morning. 

In 1993, and continuing through the second world war, countless 

pieces of art were looted throughout Europe. After being seized by 

the Nazis, some of the art made its way to the United States, funVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Mar 07, 2007 Jkt 031542 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31542.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
2

neled into American collections through various undetectable methods. In addition, some art remained in Europe, arriving in the 

United States several years after they were stolen. 

This committee held a series of hearings, led by then-Chairman 

Leach, from 1997 until 2000, to discuss the progress of returning 

the looted property to the victims of the Holocaust. 

At those hearings, witnesses from various organizations such as 

the American Jewish Committee, the Department of the Treasury, 

and museum representatives testified on the process of searching 

for the art and the difficulties in returning it. 

Although much progress was determined to have been made at 

that point, little attention since those hearings has been given to 

the restitution of the Holocaust artwork and other properties. 

It is my hope that this hearing can bring us up-to-date on efforts 

made by museums, and examine issues involving the ease of transporting art across international borders, such as the lack of public 

records documenting original ownership, the difficulty of tracing 

our transactions over many decades, and the lack of a central authority to arbitrate the claims for artwork. 

The struggles of the Jewish people affected by the Holocaust continue to this day, as survivors and their families struggle with governments and museums to recapture their heritage and their culture. 

Art is very personal, and each piece that is returned is a way to 

bring what was lost in those years back to them. 

So much of their lives, families, and homes were destroyed in the 

war that returning this art allows them to throw off the vestiges 

of the Holocaust in some small way. Each piece of art is a symbol 

of hope, a freeing of the spirit, and a healing of the soul. 

Many survivors spend years working to get their property returned, dogged by foreign governments and museums who will try 

to wait them out until they resign in defeat or pass from this 

world. 

The efforts of the U.S. museums who have such a rich and treasured history of support by the Jewish people has been inspirational. 

I commend the yeoman’s work of the Museum Associations, the 

Conference on Jewish Claims, and the—New York to set up its own 

claims office. 

Although American museums hold but a small percentage of art 

that would qualify, they work tirelessly, using vital time and resources to research the problems of the art in their collections and 

build a searchable database. 

I appreciate the witnesses being here with us today, discussing 

this important issue, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. The ranking member of the Full Committee, 

Mr. Frank, is recognized. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate your 

having this hearing, and I want to again note the work that the 

former chairman of the Full Committee, the gentleman from Iowa, 

who joins us today, has done on this. 

I am very pleased to be having this hearing, and I do want to 

say at the outset that I think we should make it clear to everyone 

3

that this is not, in my mind, and I hope in the minds of our colleagues, anything adversarial, and certainly not prosecutorial. 

There are times when people on Congressional committees regard witnesses as opponents or potentially uncooperative. I think, 

as a result, in part, of some of the urging that members of this 

committee did under the gentleman from Iowa’s leadership, but 

also because of the goodwill of people here, that we have made 

progress in working together. 

I was pleased in reading the summary that just came out of the 

Claims Conference, dated just a couple of days ago. Basically, what 

they said is, in summary, there has been some progress, but there 

is still a lot to do, and they acknowledge that, in principle, there 

was broad agreement here, and we need to work to keep it up, and 

I am pleased that is the spirit. 

Something uniquely terrible in human history happened 60 years 

ago and more, and we are still dealing with the consequences of 

that, not just of the lives lost but of the lives scarred, and those 

of us who are Jewish, particularly, feel scarred, also, indelibly by 

this experience. So, we come together to do what we can, not to 

undo what happened—that would be ridiculous to even talk about, 

but to the extent that it is humanly possible to mitigate the terrible effects, and I think it is important to recognize that yes, we 

are dealing with as emotional a subject as has existed in human 

history, and anyone who does not deeply feel this emotion is 

flawed, and our job is to make sure that the deep emotions we 

feel—that all of those things are kept in context and that they do 

not become reasons that we turn on each other, and the people 

here engaged in this are not each other’s opponents. 

We are, I hope, people who are going to be working together on 

this small part of the task of addressing on an ongoing basis the 

terrible history of the Holocaust. 

So, I appreciate that sentiment. 

I want to acknowledge that the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Israel, who is here, who has joined us, has had a particular interest 

in this, and as a member of our committee, the Committee on Financial Services, has been one of the ones taking the lead. 

I know our colleague, Ms. Berkley, has a particularly relevant 

situation in her own district with regard to an individual who was 

so tragically involved in this. 

Others who are here, the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. 

Maloney, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, have 

had an ongoing interest. 

So, I think this is a chance for Congress to be at its constructive 

best, to help be a catalyst to get people of good will together to 

work on a task which is both intellectually challenging and emotionally wrenching, and I hope we will all be able to go forward in 

that spirit. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you, Mr. Frank. 

Mr. Leach? 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, very much. 

First, I want to commend you for holding this hearing, and for 

your thoughtful opening statement. Also, Mr. Frank’s words, I 

think, were as wise as any I have heard in this committee. 

4

In the late 1990’s, this committee undertook a task of reviewing 

history, which is a very unusual thing for any Congressional committee. We worked closely with the Clinton Administration and 

particularly with one extraordinary figure in that Administration, 

who is with us today, Stuart Eizenstat, and I do not know of anyone on any issue who dedicated more effort, with greater professionalism, than Mr. Eizenstat did at that time. 

We all know of the depth of the Holocaust, as Mr. Frank has indicated. 

The committee attempted to undertake the examination, not just 

of the largest mass murder in history, but also the greatest mass 

theft in history. We looked at the dimensions of the holocaust from 

a mass theft dimension, which is our committee’s jurisdiction, and 

we began with Swiss and other bank accounts. We looked at issues 

of gold, life insurance, and the whole spectrum of issues, of which, 

in one sense, art is a subset, and maybe even a footnote, but it is 

not a small footnote. Art is part of culture. Preceding the Holocaust, we had international law that suggests as much. One of the 

great quotations comes from a sculpturist named Emmerich de 

Vattel who wrote in the Law of Nations in the 18th century, ‘‘For 

whatever cause a country is ravaged, we ought to spare those edifices which do honor the human society and do not contribute to 

increase the enemy’s strength, and it is to call oneself an enemy 

to mankind to deprive people of monuments of art,’’ and I think 

that is part of the aspect of why art is important. We all know 

there were the Nuremberg trials, which held, symbolically, a very 

few people accountable for genocide. 

These Congressional hearings have been duplicated and quite 

possibly precipitated by this committee’s action in a dozen other 

countries in Europe and elsewhere. Each of these hearings has 

raised the notion of accountability, and the precept that there is 

not a statute of limitations on genocide. There are also monetary 

implications: there was a multi-billion-dollar recompense that Stuart Eizenstat negotiated. The settlement may be minuscule compared to the losses, but it is symbolic and profoundly significant. 

I will just conclude with this: WWII caused the greatest displacement of art in history. The notion that avarice might have played 

a small role in the mass genocide has to be looked at as more than 

a monetary issue. Genocide and theft go hand in hand, and that 

is why this committee entered this field. It is also why I think the 

Clinton Administration should be commended most highly for its 

effort to end this all by the end of the 20th century, which it largely succeeded in doing. But we are looking at elements that go beyond that, which is why this hearing is today. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Our ranking member, my good friend, the 

gentlelady from New York. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to thank Deborah Pryce, the chairwoman and my good friend, for calling this incredibly important 

hearing. 

I also want to publicly congratulate Stuart Eizenstat for his commitment and really effective work with the Swiss bank accounts, 

with the art, with so many areas, and thank him for the support 

that he gave me with the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, which 

5

has now been turned into a book, and is probably the biggest opening of records during that period for scholars, and I was proud to 

have authored it and passed it. 

I also particularly want to mention that one of my constituents, 

Catherine Lillie, is here from New York. Catherine is the director 

of the Holocaust Claims Processing Office of the New York State 

Banking Department, and she is representing Diana Taylor, our 

banking commissioner, and for 10 years, they have been assisting 

claimants, and do a very, very fine job. 

In the interest of time, I am going to place my comments in the 

record, but I do want to know that the Claims Conference noted 

that about a third of the museums did not respond to the survey, 

and those that did did not provide complete information, which is 

discouraging, and we need to work on that, but I am proud of one 

of the institutions that I represent, the Metropolitan Museum of 

Art, which was cited in a New York Times article, and I would like 

permission to place it in the record. 

Not only do we have to work to make museums and institutions 

comply, but we should also applaud those that have transparency 

and have obeyed the law and have responded to it and have 

worked hard on it. 

Chairman Leach, you played a very vital role in this, in creating 

this legislation in 1998, the Presidential Advisory Committee on 

Holocaust Assets, and I am indebted to you, as are many of my 

constituents, some of whom are Holocaust survivors. 

I often associate my comments with the distinguished ranking 

member of this Committee on Financial Services, Barney Frank, 

but today, I particularly would like to associate my feelings and 

support of his comments and be associated with them. 

Again, we have several panelists here. I thank the chairwoman 

for responding to the minority’s request for representatives on this 

panel, and I request permission to place my long statement in the 

record, but I am really anxious to hear what our panel has to say 

today. Thank you for being here on this important issue. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Without objection. 

We will recognize members for opening statements, and realize 

that your full statements can be submitted for the record, and because we have such a large panel, just ask you to be brief, if possible. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you for holding these hearings. They are 

important. 

I served with our distinguished witness, Stuart Eizenstat, on the 

Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the 

United States, and as others have said, his tremendous work on 

this shows a real dedication. 

With 600,000 pieces of artwork stolen by the Nazis and their collaborators, obviously stolen art during the Holocaust is a very important problem, but an even greater problem are the other assets 

stolen during the Holocaust, during World War II, and even during 

World War I and the Armenian genocide that followed. 

We should recognize that in terms of a family portfolio, even in 

Europe last century, art would have been, for most families, a 

6

small percentage of their total assets, and that art, unlike almost 

everything else that you would invest in, is not centrally recorded. 

There are bad records or no records as to who owns all but the 

most valuable paintings. 

So, to put a value for restitution we would be able to achieve 

even if we worked diligently is modest compared to the total value 

of all the assets stolen in the Holocaust in World War II and the 

Armenian genocide. 

We are the Financial Services Committee, and I hope that we 

will focus on financial institutions, as well as brokerage accounts, 

bank accounts, and insurance policies. Right now, we have seen 

some restitution from the banks, but I have been very concerned 

about life insurance companies who have said that they sold policies to Armenians in the 1800’s or the first decade of the last century and no one has made a claim, so they do not have to pay, or 

they sold policies in Poland to gentiles and Jews in the 1930’s, and 

no one has made a claim, and they have not heard from the families, so they do not owe any money. 

I have introduced legislation, and I hope that we can move forward to hearings and markup on legislation that would require 

every insurance company doing business in this country and its 

European affiliates to simply post on a central Internet site a list 

of insurance policies, life insurance policies, where the insured is 

over 100 years old, where it is likely that the insured perished in 

the great tragedies of Europe and west Asia of the last century, 

and where families could come forward and show that they are the 

next of kin. 

The same steps should be taken with regard to bank accounts 

and brokerage accounts. 

I think it is important that we have these hearings on artwork, 

but the records are available, the power is in this committee. 

Every one of those major European companies wants to do business through affiliates here in the United States, and it is about 

time that we protect American consumers from companies so rapacious that they would sell policies and then hide behind the Holocaust so that they do not have to pay. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Kelly be permitted to deliver 

an opening statement. 

No objection. 

So ordered. 

The gentlelady is recognized. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Pryce, for allowing me to come to the hearing. Your commitment to ensuring that 

the victims of Nazi tyranny can reclaim the possessions that were 

stolen from them so long ago is really to be commended. 

As all of our witnesses know, the Nazi leadership had a unique 

relationship with the artistic world. 

Their hatred of modernity and the work of Jewish artists and 

writers did not stop them from illegally acquiring some of the largest art collections in the world, not only for resale but for personal 

display in such places as Hermann Goering’s Carin Hall and Hitler’s planned Nazi Art Museum in Linsk. 

7

Specific orders were issued to military and paramilitary forces 

entering occupied territories to seize, survey, and transfer collections of art and music to the Third Reich. This pillage, unseen 

since the fall of the Roman Empire, stripped tens of thousands of 

Jewish families of their possessions. 

Many have not been recovered and are still in the hands of private collectors and art museums worldwide. 

This committee has an important responsibility to ensure that 

not only do we return this art to its rightful owners and their heirs 

but that we do more to stop the smuggling of art, and especially 

the use of art as a means of moving value between nations. 

Thanks to the diligent work of Chairman Oxley and others on 

the financial offenses against terrorists using our banking system, 

we are stronger than we have ever been. Unfortunately, terrorists 

and money launderers have responded and are increasingly using 

the smuggling of cash, gold, and diamonds. 

Of particular interest to this subcommittee will be the fact that 

they are also using the movement of higher value goods such as art 

to move terrorist money. Items of high value and high density store 

a value that has a ready market worldwide. 

Numerous reports exist that money launderers are using the art 

world as a safe way to do business. I would ask each of the witnesses from the art and curatorial industries to discuss what procedures they have in place to detect money laundering in the sale 

and purchase of art. 

Again, I compliment you on holding this important hearing, and 

thank you for allowing me to sit in. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Israel, 

is recognized. 

Once again, members can put their entire statements in the 

record, and please be brief. 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. That is exactly 

what I intend to do, and to repay you for the courtesy of allowing 

me to sit in on this hearing, although I am not a member of the 

subcommittee—the reason I asked to participate in the hearing is 

because this issue, for me, is personal. 

Before my election to Congress, I founded and organized the Institute on the Holocaust and the Law, which explored the role of 

judges, lawmakers, lawyers, and law schools in advancing the Holocaust. 

Prevailing up to recent times was that the Holocaust was an act 

of lawlessness. 

It was not an act of lawlessness, it was an act of law, and it was 

a collective act of law and decrees and decisions organized, created, 

and codified in order to discriminate, annihilate, and confiscate, 

and that involved not just lawmakers but art dealers, museums, 

businesses, and insurance companies. 

Throughout my experience with the Institute on the Holocaust 

and the Law, I often asked myself, what would I have done then 

if I were in a position of power to help? 

Well, there is nothing that I could do about what happened then. 

This venue gives me an opportunity to do something now. 

This is one of those lingering issues that still requires justice and 

still requires an aggressive response by the U.S. Congress and the 

8

Administration, and that is why I have asked to participate in this 

hearing. Again, I want to thank the chairwoman and our ranking 

member, Mr. Frank, for their support. 

I was pleased to join the letter requesting this hearing, and I 

look forward to hearing the views of our panelists. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you. We welcome your participation. 

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, do you have a statement? 

All right. 

Mr. Kennedy? 

Okay. 

Ms. Berkley? 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I appreciate 

the courtesy that you and Mr. Frank have extended me to allow 

me to participate. 

When we talk about this issue as being very personal and emotional, I certainly believe we can all agree on that. I want to share 

with you very briefly a story that is very personal to me. 

I have been in Congress now for 8 years. 

During my first year, I received a visit from a woman whose family lives in my Congressional district, and this is her story. 

She is a Czechoslovakian Jew. 

In February of 1943, this woman, at the age of 20, was shipped 

to Auschwitz, along with her mother and 3,600 other Czechoslovakian Jews. 

By the time the war was over, there were only 22 Czechoslovakian Jews left, and Deena Babbott and her mother were 2 of 

the 22 that managed to survive. 

The way she managed to survive is that Deena Babbott, at the 

age of 20, was a very talented artist, and she had painted a Disney 

character or a few of the characters on the barrack walls of the 

children’s barrack at Auschwitz. 

Josef Mengele saw her art, and he asked her, told her, ordered 

her to start drawing pictures of the gypsy inmates. What he would 

do—the reason he could not take photos of them is because he 

could not capture in the photos of those times the skin tone of the 

gypsies, and he wanted Deena Babbott to do this. 

What he would do is point out gypsy inmates at Auschwitz and 

have her draw them. 

When she completed the drawing, he would have the gypsy 

killed. 

Now, Deena drew—there are seven of her drawings that remain. 

When she was liberated, obviously she and her mother left 

Auschwitz rather quickly, like everybody else. She did not take her 

art with her. 

It was not hers at the time, although she had created it, to take 

with her. 

Many years later, in the 1970’s, Deena Babbott was contacted by 

the Polish Government. 

They had discovered her art in a broom closet at Auschwitz, and 

they asked her to come and authenticate the art. She was under 

the impression that she was going to Poland to reclaim her art. 

9

She is absolutely convinced that the only thing that kept her and 

her mother alive was the fact that Mengele thought she was of 

some value. It is these pictures that saved her life. 

The Polish Government has refused to give Deena Babbott her 

artwork back. 

Now, when I was part of the delegation that Mr. Israel and I, 

I guess, were a part of that, that represented Congress at the 60th 

anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, we, in fact, saw Mrs. 

Babbott’s art, and what they told me—there are seven pictures remaining, and I’ve got them here, if you’re interested. I would like 

to submit them for the record. 

I think she is entitled to her art back. 

Now, she has agreed to compromise with the Polish Government 

and only take three of the seven, at her selection, and we still cannot get them. 

I have gotten a resolution from Congress saying that this art is 

her artwork. 

We have put something in the Authorization Act saying that the 

Polish Government ought to return this art. I am at my wit’s end, 

and I think this woman is entitled to her art as much as any family that lost their art and had it confiscated. There is nothing more 

personal than something that was created by her hand. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. BERKLEY. I would appreciate any guidance you could give me 

to make this happen for this woman before she passes away. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you. 

Now, the reason we are here is to hear from you, and I would 

like to introduce our panel at this time, and we will start to my 

left, and that is the order in which you will testify. 

Mr. Stuart Eizenstat is a former commissioner for the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United 

States, and we have already heard much about your good work, sir. 

Mr. Gideon Taylor is the executive vice president for the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany. 

Welcome. 

Mr. Edward Able is the president and CEP of the American Association of Museums. 

Mr. Able, welcome. 

Mr. Gilbert Edelson is the administrative vice president and 

counsel at the Art Dealers Association of America. 

Mr. Jim Cuno is the president and director of the Art Institute 

of Chicago. He is here today on behalf of the Association of Art Museum Directors. 

Mr. Timothy Rub is the director of the Cleveland Art Museum 

in the great State of Ohio. 

Our final witness, Catherine Lillie, is the director the Holocaust 

Claims Processing Office in the State of New York Banking Department. 

Mr. FRANK. Madam Chairwoman, I have to leave, but I just 

wanted to commend the majority and minority, and particularly 

our staffs, who do all this work, for putting together really a firstrate panel. 

10

I am just impressed, as you read off the names, of how well we 

have represented that spectrum. It is always a pleasure to have 

Mr. Eizenstat, who has contributed so much, but to all of you, I am 

grateful for your being here, and I think we have really achieved 

what we would like to, which is a very balanced and thoughtful 

panel, and while I have to leave, I want to express my appreciation 

to all of them for joining us. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you, Ranking Member Frank. 

Without objection, all of your written testimonies will be made a 

part of the record. 

Each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes for a summary of 

your testimony, and we will begin with Stuart Eizenstat. 

STATEMENT OF STUART E. EIZENSTAT, FORMER COMMISSIONER, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON HOLOCAUST ASSETS IN THE U.S., COVINGTON & BURLING 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I want to thank the leadership of the committee 

for holding these hearings and the Claims Conference for championing them. 

The hearings will bring renewed attention to the restitution of 

art looted by the Nazis during World War II, which, after a burst 

of activity in the late 1990’s, has lost momentum and threatens to 

fall off the pages of history, particularly abroad, where most nations lack the continued commitment shown by the American Association of Museums. 

At a time when almost all other Holocaust-related restitution 

and compensation matters have been completed, or are nearing 

completion, Holocaust-era art recovery remains a major unresolved 

challenge. 

There is a certain art restitution fatigue that has set in, particularly in many foreign countries, and I hope these hearings will 

change that process. 

Our work on art restitution in the Clinton Administration was 

part and parcel of our negotiations over the recovery of bank accounts, property, insurance, and slave-enforced labor compensation. 

While the looting of artworks is as old as war, like the Holocaust 

itself, the efficiency, brutality, and scale of the Nazi art theft was 

unprecedented. As many as 600,000 paintings were stolen, of which 

100,000 are still missing some 60 years later. 

There was nothing casual about this massive plunder; it was well 

organized. 

Hitler viewed the amassing of art as a necessary project in his 

creation of an Aryan master race, and the cultural centerpiece of 

his Thousand Year Reich was to be a Fuhrermuseum in Linz, Austria, where he was raised. 

In my lengthy written statement, I have provided, as I was asked 

by the committee, a history of how the issue of art restitution, long 

forgotten for decades, suddenly thrust itself on the world’s agenda. 

Suffice it to say here they were doing the work of four academics, 

a barred college seminar in 1995, the adoption of principles of art 

restitution by the American Association of Museum and Museum 

Directors, under the part of Chairman Leach at the 1999 hearings, 

our work in the Clinton Administration, leading to the adoption by 

44 countries of the Washington principles of art at the 1998 WashVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Mar 07, 2007 Jkt 031542 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31542.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
11

ington conference on Holocaust-era assets, which, in effect, internationalized the AAM principles. 

Congressman Leach was part of our team. He presided over the 

art portion of that conference, and deserves our unwavering 

thanks. 

I also want to thank Ed O’Donnell and John Becker of the State 

Department’s Holocaust Era Assets Office for their continuing interest. 

These Washington principles, Madam Chairwoman, changed the 

way in which the art world did business. They required museums, 

governments, auction houses, and others to cooperate in tracing 

looted art through stringent provenance research to put the results 

in an accessible form, to be lenient in accepting claims, and to 

adopt a system of conflict resolution to avoid protracted litigation. 

I’ll spend the bulk of my testimony, as I did in my written testimony, on developments abroad, but let me say the following, in a 

paragraph or two, at home. 

Under the leadership of the AAM and the AAMD, many American museums and virtually all major American museums have 

demonstrated a real commitment to implementing our Washington 

principles, as well as their own. They have created, for example, a 

Nazi era provenance information Internet portal, a tremendously 

important, searchable central registry, so people can go to one 

place that will then connect to over 150 museums. 

There are now 18,000 objects from 151 participating museums on 

that portal, but as the Claims Conference survey indicates, there 

is still much work to be done, with half of the AAM membership 

not yet participating and with a potential universe of at least 

140,000 covered objects. 

I also want to applaud the work of the New York State Holocaust 

Claims Processing Office, created by Governor Pataki, which has 

led to the return of 12 pieces of art. I want to note that litigation 

since the U.S. Supreme Court case of Maria Aldman is another potential avenue. 

In the United States, the focus should be on art dealers, since 

it is in the commercial art market where most Holocaust-era art 

is sold. 

Art auction houses like Christy’s and Sotheby’s, which have to 

publish their catalogs and they have public auctions, have done a 

commendable job of implementing the Washington principles, with 

dedicated full-time experts at Sotheby’s and Christy’s on the restitution effort. 

I am pleased to learn from Mr. Gil Edelson that the Art Dealers 

Association of America has, contrary to my understanding in my 

written statement, adopted principles and best practices for the art 

dealers. 

I would say to you, Gil, that this is a well-kept secret, and I hope 

that it will be published. I have relied on some of the best experts 

in the world who are unaware of this. 

I think it is a tremendously important thing that you have done, 

and I would only ask that you make more public use of it and implement it thoroughly. So, I congratulate you on the fact that you 

did, and I hope that they will be better published. 

12

Let me make the following concrete suggestions for the Congress 

in the U.S. area: 

First, encourage all American museums that belong to the AAM 

to complete and regularly update their databases and to have all 

140,000 covered objects on the central portal within 3 years. 

Second, encourage American museums who litigate cases to do so 

on the merits rather than on technical defenses like the statute of 

limitations. 

Third, encourage the Art Dealers Association to give the widest 

publication and the broadest implementation to the guidelines 

which, again, I am pleased, Gil, to learn this morning that you 

have published in 1998, and importantly, to pass bipartisan legislation to create a federally funded memory foundation. 

There is a bill pending to do this, to assist U.S. citizens in pursuing Holocaust-era claims, including for art, as the New York 

State office is doing. 

And suggestions for abroad: 

While American museums still have additional work to do, their 

progress is light years ahead of other countries abroad, who are 

signatories to the Washington principles. 

There are bright spots, like Austria and the Netherlands, but the 

vast majority have done no provenance research at all, or only on 

a limited basis, and have large quantities of looted art or cultural 

property in Europe that is unidentified. 

Where countries have published databases abroad of potential 

Holocaust looted art, it is in inaccessible languages, lacks the detail 

necessary for each identification, and is not based on any comprehensive provenance standards. 

There is no international centralized database like the one the 

U.S. museums have created. 

Only four countries have national processes for resolving claims, 

and most, including the U.K., Italy, Hungary, and Poland, have absolutely no restitution laws, so that even if art is identified, there 

is no realistic way to have it returned, as well as strict time limits 

on claims. 

I have detailed the status, Madam Chairwoman, and members of 

the committee, of implementation of the Washington principles on 

a country-by-country basis in my testimony. Suffice it to say here 

that the real focus should be on a few key countries which have 

the largest quantity of Holocaust looted artworks: Russia, Germany, France, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Switzerland. 

Russia, for example, has refused to follow through on their commitments or to follow their own law, which is actually, on its face, 

a positive law for restitution. German museums have ignored repeated pleas from the German Government at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels to do basic provenance research. Where 

it has been done by a few museums, it has been a great treasure 

trove of identifying art. 

Some of my recommendations for what I would ask you to do for 

the countries abroad: 

One, convene an international conference in 2007 for the 44 

countries who signed the Washington principles to encourage foreign governments to implement the principles by doing serious 

13

provenance research based on internationally accepted standards to 

publish an accessible database, to work cooperatively with claimants, and to avoid using technical defenses to block claims. 

Second, for the Executive Branch, at senior levels, to work bilaterally with Russia, Germany, in particularly, but also with France, 

Poland, Hungary, and Switzerland, to make progress and open up 

their archives. 

Third, to work to create an international Internet art restitution 

portal managed by a neutral intergovernmental body into which all 

nations, museums, art dealers, and auction houses could place 

their provenance research. This would be the single most effective 

step, Madam Chairwoman, for restitution abroad. 

And finally, to urge foreign governments to develop transparent 

procedures to handle claims fairly, justly, and on the merits, without technical defenses. 

In conclusion, if the U.S. Government and this Congress does not 

take the lead, as Chairman Leach did before, and as we did in the 

Clinton Administration, then, indeed, art restitution abroad will revert to the dormant status it had 50 years ago, and art fatigue will 

continue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eizenstat can be found on page 

104 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman PRYCE. I really thank you for your testimony, and 

we will read it in its entirety, and we will continue on with Mr. 

Gideon. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF GIDEON TAYLOR, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CONFERENCE ON JEWISH MATERIAL CLAIMS 

AGAINST GERMANY, INC. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Chairwoman Pryce, and members of the 

subcommittee. 

Art is about family, it is about memory, and it is about history. 

It is about the history of paintings and drawings and sculptures, 

but more importantly, it is about the history of people. 

For many, it is the last tangible connection with a past that was 

destroyed and with a family that was lost. 

The looting of art by the Nazis was a systematic, widespread, unrelenting extension of their racial theories. The Jews who were to 

be exterminated in body were also to be plundered of all their assets. 

During the past decade, this committee has established itself as 

a leading force in the attempt to secure a measure of justice for 

Holocaust victims and their heirs. 

On their behalf, we applaud your continuous efforts. Without information regarding looted artworks, survivors and their heirs will 

not know where to look, and the last opportunity we will have to 

right a historic injustice will be gone. 

The average age of Holocaust survivors is over age 80. The generation of the survivors is slipping away, and with them will go the 

personal recollections and memories that may help connect a family with its past. 

The report of the Presidential Advisory Commission, as well as 

other experts, have described how, despite efforts to prevent it, 

14

some looted art made its way to the United States during and after 

the war. 

The Washington Conference on Holocaust Era Assets, initiated 

by Deputy Secretary Eizenstat and hosted by the State Department, at which the Claims Conference participated, established a 

set of international principles. The common thread that runs 

through those international commitments is the need, firstly, to 

identify looted art; secondly, to publicize such items; and thirdly, 

to resolve the issue of its return in an expeditious, just, and fair 

manner. 

Guidelines were adopted by the American Association for Museums. 

We applaud the AAM and the AAMD for undertaking this major 

effort. 

In an important development, a special Web site was established 

by the AAM to provide a searchable registry of objects. 

Seven years have now elapsed since the Washington conference. 

In order to obtain an overview of what has been achieved, in February 2006, the Claims Conference sent a survey to 332 art museums throughout the United States. All responses were made publicly available on a Web site. 

In general, while some museums had made excellent progress, 

others had lagged behind. We welcome the progress that has been 

made, and look forward to the rapid completion of this task. 

In many cases, looted art is in the hands of private individuals, 

and often, the only time it is known to the general public is when 

it changes hands. 

We also, at last, learned today of guidelines for art dealers on 

these issues, and would urge that they be made publicly and widely 

available so the claimants will be aware of their contents. 

We also would request that procedures regarding how provenance research is done, in what way and in what manner, be 

adopted by the appropriate organizations of dealers and also be 

made publicly and widely available. 

When dealers learn that an object may have been looted, we believe that there should be an obligation, rather than a discretion, 

as included in the guidelines presented today, to inform the appropriate authorities. This would be the most effective step to ensure 

that looted items do not become part of the U.S. art market. 

In addition, although purchases often involve client confidentiality issues, we believe that the restitution of looted art raises 

sufficient moral questions that, for this small group of transactions, 

records of previous and prospective purchases and sales should be 

fully and completely accessible to claimants. 

In light of the unique concerns related to Holocaust-era restitution issues, we believe that ways to deal with claims need to be 

found outside of the courts, and perhaps through a central panel 

system, especially given the age of the claimants. 

The Claims Conference is also creating a limited database on 

looted items based on Nazi records. This will certainly not obviate 

the need for provenance research from museums and art dealers, 

but we believe that it can be a significant additional component of 

the steps to be taken when provenance of artwork is researched. 

15

In conclusion, while there has been significant progress, there is 

clearly more to do. 

Since the Washington conference, a number of other countries 

have been dealing with the Holocaust-era looted art, as we have 

heard. 

The progress in this area varies greatly from country to country, 

but generally has been disappointing. We urge greater efforts in 

this area. 

The United States has in the past, and can in the future, show 

leadership in this field. 

In view of its distinguished role in reviewing these issues in the 

past, we respectfully urge this committee to take the following 

steps in the future: 

First, to maintain its oversight of the progress in the United 

States in carrying out the agreed national and international principles; second, to strongly encourage the private art community in 

the United States to implement these principles with regard to 

provenance research and handling of claims; and finally, to encourage the U.S. Government to make a renewed effort regarding this 

issue in its discussions with governments in Europe and around 

the world. 

We also believe that an international conference on this subject 

would be tremendously important. 

We thank this committee for its efforts in the past, and request 

your involvement in the future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor can be found on page 149 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Able. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD H. ABLE, JR., PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS 

Mr. ABLE. Chairwoman Pryce, Representative Maloney, and 

members of the subcommittee, I’m Ed Able, president and CEO of 

the American Association of Museums. The topic of today’s hearing 

is one that is complex and difficult to distill into a 5-minute presentation, but as you indicated, Madam Chairwoman, my entire statement and many attached documents are at your disposal. 

First, I would like to be clear that we share with the Claims Conference a strong passion for, and commitment to, correcting the injustices to the victims of the Holocaust. The museum community 

has taken thoughtful and aggressive steps befitting the seriousness 

with which we take this issue. 

Briefly, today, there are four key areas that I would like to focus 

on in my oral testimony. At the end of the statement, I will respond to two additional questions raised in your invitation. 

First, guidelines for museums. 

After extensive consultation with the museum field, legal experts, and the President’s Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets, AAM published its guidelines in the fall of 1999, and amended 

them in the spring of 2001. 

16

This document and the Association of Art Museum Directors report in spring 1998 represent the standards for the museum community. 

Second, technical information and training. 

It is very important to understand that, in 1999, there were very 

few museum professionals trained in the highly specialized and unusual research skills necessary to conduct Nazi-era provenance research, and few people with the experience and language skills required to investigate recently opened archives and other information sources. 

AAM commissioned three of the world’s leading experts to write 

a 300-page state-of-the-art how-to manual which immediately became the ‘‘bible’’ for the field. 

AAM also embarked on a multi-year training program designed 

to spread technical information throughout the field. 

We have conducted seminars at the National Archives, convened 

an international research colloquium, presented education sessions 

at all of our annual membership meetings, and launched an online 

discussion forum for museum professionals conducting provenance 

research. 

Third, let us talk about research. 

It is expensive. 

For objects with no prior indication of Nazi looting, the costs range anywhere from $40 to $60 per hour, and the time needed to 

document just one object can vary enormously, from a week to a 

year, and if initial research suggests an object has a history that 

may include unlawful appropriation by the Nazis, time and expense can double or triple. One museum spent $20,000 plus travel and expenses over the 

course of 2 years to have a researcher resolve the history of just 

three paintings. 

Fourth, sharing the results with the public. 

Parallel with our training efforts and technical information, AAM 

fulfilled the museum community’s commitment to create a central, 

searchable, online database for publicly sharing collections information and provenance research. 

In September 2003, AAM publicly launched the Nazi-era provenance Internet portal, which has been broadly reported in the 

media. 

The portal now includes more than 150 participating museums 

that have collectively registered more than 18,000 objects from 

their collections that meet the definition of covered objects, a comprehensive and objective definition recommended by the claimants’ 

advocates. That is, any object that may have changed hands in continental Europe between 1932 and 1946 under any circumstances. 

Thus, finding an object on the portal simply means that it may 

have been in continental Europe between 1932 and 1946, and may 

have changed hands one or more times. 

It is important to have a clear understanding of this definition, 

which is easily misunderstood and can unintentionally taint thousands of objects as, ‘‘Nazi loot.’’ 

To illustrate, I will offer an example. 

A photographer working in Paris in 1934 takes a picture and 

makes 20 prints. 

17

He sells those prints to 20 customers, one of which is a U.S. museum. 

Even though the photo has an ironclad provenance and no taint 

of looting, it is, and always will be, a ‘‘covered object.’’ 

The willingness of museums to work with this broad definition 

for covered objects is a testament to our commitment to public 

transparency. 

So, how many potentially looted objects are located in U.S. museums? 

Prior to the 1970’s, the entire art trade was conducted on a centuries-old tradition of handshake deals and little or no paperwork, 

resulting in enormous provenance gaps. However, after several 

years of intensive activity by the museum field, I can state with 

confidence, not many. 

After 8 years of museum research and more than 100,000 

searches through the portal, there have been 22 public settlements 

concerning Nazi-era looting claims for works of art found in American museums, and six pending cases. 

Our greatest concern for completing provenance research is financial resources, particularly for small and medium-size museums. 

AAM encourages Congress to consider appropriating additional 

funding to the Institute of Museum and Library Services aimed 

specifically at provenance research. 

Finally, with respect to the claims process, experience with previously settled cases clearly demonstrates that direct respectful engagement between museums and claimants leads to the most rapid 

settlement of meritorious claims with the least cost to all, and 

there is, in our view, no better system. 

I thank you for your attention, and I am happy to respond to any 

questions during the colloquy. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Able can be found on page 40 of 

the appendix.] 

Mr. LEACH. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Able. 

Mr. Edelson. 

STATEMENT OF GILBERT S. EDELSON, ADMINISTRATIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT AND COUNSEL, ART DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA 

Mr. EDELSON. I thank the committee for its invitation to appear 

this morning, and I hope that my testimony will be helpful to you. 

I have submitted written testimony which I suggest be made 

part of the record. 

We deal today with a very serious problem, a serious and difficult problem, the looting of art during the Nazi era, one of the 

most horrible periods in the history of mankind. For many years, 

we did not face this problem, but in the 1990’s, as a result of the 

efforts of some really outstanding people, one of whom, Stuart 

Eizenstat, is seated here today, we began to deal with the problem 

with the seriousness and intensity that was previously lacking. 

This committee held hearings in 1998 on the subject. The hearings were chaired by Congressman Leach, who won the respect of 

the art community for his deep and sympathetic knowledge. 

I was one of the witnesses then. 

18

Now, as I understand it, we are dealing with a follow-up to those 

hearings. 

The ADAA is a not-for-profit organization of dealers in works of 

the fine arts—paintings, sculpture, and works on paper. 

It is selective in its membership; it has 165 members across the 

country. 

We are, and have been, concerned about the problem of art looted 

during the Nazi period. 

Shortly after the committee’s hearings in 1998, the association, 

after consulting with its members, issued its guidelines regarding 

art looted during the Nazi era. They were, we thought, publicized 

and made widely available, but not everybody was interested, and 

it appears that memories are short. 

Having heard the testimony this morning, I think we will reissue the guidelines, and we will send copies to Christy’s and 

Sotheby’s, the auction houses, who have become very important 

dealers through their private transactions, and we hope that the 

guidelines would cover the auction houses, as well. 

The guidelines are recommendations. They set a standard for 

professional behavior, but they are really based on common sense. 

I have attached a copy of the guidelines to my written testimony 

so that you will have them in full. In summary, they deal with two 

situations; what a dealer should do with respect to consignments 

and sales, and what a dealer should do with respect to claims of 

ownership that may be asserted in connection with objects they 

have for sale or may have sold. 

The guidelines say that, when the Nazi-era provenance is incomplete, the dealer should do the necessary research. The problem 

here, of course, is that the necessary research is time consuming 

and could be very expensive. 

If there is sufficient evidence of looting, the dealer should not acquire the work or offer it for sale, and should notify the seller. 

Depending on the facts, additional steps may be necessary, such 

as notifying others of the dealer’s findings. 

All claims of ownership should be handled promptly and with seriousness and respect. 

If the work is presently being offered for sale, it should be withdrawn until the claim is resolved. If the dealer has sold the work 

in the past, the dealer should make available such records as will 

serve to clarify issues of ownership. 

Finally, when reasonable and practical, dealers should seek equitable methods other than litigation to resolve claims. This makes 

good sense. 

Litigation, I can tell you from my personal experience, is time 

consuming and can be very costly. There are alternative methods 

of dispute resolutions, such as mediation, which I strongly recommend. I have mediated several disputes in this area, and the results have been more than satisfactory. 

I believe that dealers have been careful in what they offer for 

sale. 

I know at least one litigation involving an ADAA member, now 

retired, who sold a work many years ago that was now claimed to 

have been looted. 

19

Although the dealer was advised that he had a number of solid 

defenses, he settled the matter promptly and satisfactorily. 

I can also testify that I have personal knowledge of a number of 

situations where dealers declined to sell works, not because they 

knew that the works were looted but because they were not certain 

that the works were not looted, because there were unanswered 

questions about the works. 

No responsible dealer wants to sell a looted work. First, it is not 

the right thing to do; and second, it is not good business. You do 

not want to sell a possible problem to someone who is spending a 

great deal of money, especially in an industry where people love to 

talk. 

As I have said, many problems of provenance will never be 

solved. We may never know for sure. 

For the reasons I have set forth in my written testimony, many 

works have gaps in their chains of title. Provenance research, as 

I have said, is difficult, and all too frequently, it is unrewarding, 

but it is the only tool we have. 

Finally, there are no records to quantify the number of looted 

works that have been sold in this country over the years. 

There are not even any Census Bureau figures on how much art 

is sold every year. 

The Census Bureau does not gather information in this field, although it does in other industries. 

Whatever we may guess, the problem exists. ADAA’s position is 

simple and straightforward: Looted art should be returned to its 

rightful owners, and dealers should cooperate, to the extent possible, in these efforts. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Edelson can be found on page 94 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much, Mr. Edelson. 

Before turning to Mr. Cuno, let me place on the record that I am 

personally very indebted to Mr. Cuno for his museum’s generosity 

in lending America’s Gustav Klimt—that is, the Grant Wood’s 

American Gothic—to a museum here in Washington. Your museum 

has led the country in the area that we are discussing today in 

terms of the provenance research on Holocaust-era work. It has 

also led the country in generosity, and I am very appreciative to 

the Art Institute of Chicago. 

Mr. Cuno. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES CUNO, PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR, 

ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS 

Mr. CUNO. Thank you, Congressman. 

My name is Jim Cuno, and I am president and director of the 

Art Institute of Chicago. I testify today on behalf of the Association 

of Art Museum Directors, where I served as president of the board 

in 2000 and 2001, and on behalf of the Art Institute, where I have 

been president and director since 2004. 

I thank the committee for holding these hearings. It is important 

that Congress and the American people have periodic updates on 

the work U.S. art museums are doing to research the provenance 

20

records of works of art in our collection, especially those which may 

have been looted during World War II and not restituted to their 

rightful owners. 

It is my understanding that today’s hearing is the second such 

hearing since the committee’s initial hearing under then-Chairman 

Congressman Leach 8 years ago. In addition, AAMD testified before the Washington Conference on Holocaust Era Assets in 1998. 

I am a child of a 30-year career U.S. Air Force officer. My father 

served in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. 

He was taken prisoner during the Korean War, and for the greater 

part of a year, we did not know if he was alive or dead. 

I am aware of the physical and psychological trauma of warfare, 

and like everyone, I deplore the circumstances during World War 

II that resulted in the unjust deaths of millions of people and the 

illegal taking of their personal property. 

All of us want to resolve any and all legitimate claims against 

U.S. art museums regarding the possible existence within our collections of works of art looted during World War II and not 

restituted to their rightful owners. To that end, we have been diligently researching our collections since and even before this committee first met on the subject in 1998. 

AAMD, which has approximately 170 members and was founded 

in 1916, has been a consistent champion of the highest standards 

for art museums, standards that enable art museums to bring important works of art to the public we serve. 

Since 1973, AAMD has included in its professional practices in 

art museums the admonition that museums must not acquire 

works that have been stolen or removed in violation of a treaty or 

convention to which the United States is a party. 

In 1998, AAMD published its much-praised report of the AAMD 

task force on spoliation of art during the Nazi World War II era, 

which gives specific guidance regarding provenance research and 

how to handle claims. I was pleased to have served on the committee that drafted those guidelines. 

As early as 1999, 100 percent of the AAMD members who had 

collections that could include Nazi stolen art reported that they 

had begun in-depth research required by the AAMD report. 

That research is now available on each museum’s Web site, 

which, in turn, is linked to the AAM portal. 

Of all of the art museums in the United States, approximately 

half have no permanent collection or have collections of only contemporary art. By definition, these hundreds of art museums cannot have Nazi-era looted art in their possession. 

Thirty percent of the AAMD’s 170 member museums fall into 

this category. 

The 120 AAMD member museums that may have Nazi-era looted 

art in their collections have collections comprising 18 million works 

of art, many thousands of which were acquired before World War 

II. 

Unlike eastern and western Europe, the United States was never 

a repository for any of the 200,000 works of art recovered after the 

war. Any Nazi-era looted art that may be in U.S. art museums is 

there as a result of second-, third-, or even fourth-generation goodfaith transactions. 

21

I mention this only to remind us of the scale of the potential 

problem in this country. 

The likelihood of there being problems in U.S. art museums is 

relatively low. 

Nevertheless, the amount of research to be undertaken on the 

tens of thousands of works of art that, by definition, may have 

Nazi-era provenance problems is significant, requiring large allocations of staff time and money, allocations U.S. art museums have 

made, and will make, until the job is finished. 

Of the tens of thousands of potential problems in U.S. art museums’ collections, only 22 claims have resulted in settlements of the 

restitution of works of arts from U.S. art museums since 1998, 

some of these at the initiative of the museums themselves, others 

in response to claims on works of arts by their rightful owners, and 

I refer to Appendix A in my written testimony. 

In the most recent case of restituted art, the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas, returned its only painting by the celebrated and important English landscape painter, Joseph Mallord 

William Turner to the heirs of a legitimate owner. 

The Kimbell, which purchased the painting in 1966, was contacted by one of the heirs in September 2005, after the heirs’ decade-long search to restore to his family works of art that had been 

part of a forced sale. After reviewing the documentation of the 

heirs and conducting its own research, the Kimbell Art Museum 

determined that the painting had been part of a forced sale and 

that the heirs did represent the legitimate owner. 

On May 17, 2006, the Kimbell agreed to restore the painting to 

the heirs, who have since taken physical possession of it. 

In another case in 2002, the Detroit Institute of Art had a painting shipped from a dealer in London for further study pending acquisition. 

In researching the work, the museum suspected that it may have 

been looted during the Nazi era and not restituted to its rightful 

owner. 

The museum contacted the London dealer. After 18 months of intensive examination of archives in several countries, it was determined that the work had, indeed, been looted by the Nazis. 

Incurring substantial legal fees for a painting it did not own, the 

museum continued its efforts to locate the heirs of the original 

owner. It eventually found the owner, who then sold the painting 

to the museum for full market value. 

Let me now testify quickly on behalf of the Art Institute of Chicago, if only as further illustration of how U.S. art museums are 

addressing this important issue. 

Our permanent collection includes some 250,000 works of art in 

10 curatorial departments. 

Our efforts focused especially on Holocaust-era provenance questions began with a survey of our collection in 1997, even before the 

AAM issued its guidelines and before the AAMD report and the 

Washington conference principles of 1998. 

Our 1997 survey sought to determine the number of paintings, 

sculptures, and drawings in our collection that were created before 

1946 and acquired by the museum after 1932. 

22

Our survey thus exceeded the expectations established in the 

AAM and AAMD guidelines, which suggested that the initial focus 

of research should be European paintings and Judaica. 

At present, based on our current database search capabilities, we 

estimate that our collection includes 7,481 works of art made before 1946 and acquired by the museum after 1932. 

Our curatorial staff has analyzed whether, in addition to being 

made before 1946 and acquired by the museum after 1932, the 

work of art underwent a change of ownership between 1932 and 

1946, and was or might reasonably have been thought to have been 

in continental Europe between those dates. 

This is the definition of a covered object, as you know very well. 

Although our research is constantly ongoing, our curatorial staff 

has determined that 2,832 of the 7,481 works of art fall within this 

definition. 

All of the objects of the provenance research project pages of our 

Web site are accessible through the AAM’s Nazi-era provenance 

Internet portal. 

Nearly 2,000 of the 2,832 works of art in our collection that meet 

the terms of our inquiry will be posted in full on our Web site, together with all of their provenance information in which we are 

confident, this September, in a much improved searchable database, and I refer again to my written testimony which has pages 

from the Web site, so you can see exactly how that is. 

In addition to providing information about our collection, our 

Web site contains information on provenance bibliography to help 

guide people in their own research in their own collections or other 

museums in their research. 

Provenance research is an integral part of the work of the Art 

Institute of Chicago’s staff and all curatorial departments. 

Such research is performed on a daily basis. In addition to ongoing research efforts in the departments, we maintain an inter-departmental provenance committee comprising curators, researchers, library staff, and other staff with relevant skills and knowledge that meets to share information and focus efforts specifically 

on Nazi-era provenance research. 

Funding for provenance research comes from our operating budget, department funds, gifts from individual donors, and grants for 

projects that include provenance research as a fundamental, but 

not sole, piece of the project. All together, since 1998, we have 

spent well over half-a-million dollars researching our provenance 

records, not to mention the annual operating funds we use for the 

salaries of permanent professional staff, including conservatives, 

curators, registrars, photographers, Web masters, and lawyers, who 

spend a part of each year on this project. 

We have hired long-term researchers and project researchers. 

We have sent them to Europe to consult archives, and we have 

purchased copies of archival materials. 

The Art Institute strives to resolve claims of ownership in an equitable, appropriate, and mutually agreeable manner. We are 

pleased that, in those cases that have arisen to date, the Art Institute has resolved the claims amicably. There have been only two, 

and I refer again to my written testimony, to the particulars of 

those instances. 

23

Like many museums and art museums in the United States, our 

institute has received a letter from the Claims Conference inviting 

us to participate in the survey. 

The letter was dated February 27, 2006, and instructed us to answer 24 detailed questions and to return the survey by April 14th, 

7 weeks later. We responded with a detailed five-page letter answering, we believe, the survey’s questions in full. 

In conclusion, let me say that the U.S. art museums will continue to respond to claims made against works in their collection, 

as they have done in the past. 

We will continue to work diligently to provide as much provenance information on our Web sites as soon as it becomes available. 

By continuing to link our Web sites to the AAM portal, potential 

claimants may go to one source for information, but again, I stress 

that, after more than 8 years of intensive investigation, we have 

been able to verify very few claims. 

I do not expect that to change dramatically, for the reasons that 

I have mentioned. There are few Holocaust looted works of art in 

American museums, but even one such work is one too many. 

U.S. art museums will continue to do everything we can to restore that work to its rightful owner. 

Thank you again for holding this important hearing, and thank 

you for allowing me to submit this testimony and my written testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cuno can be found on page 61 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Cuno. 

Mr. Rub. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY M. RUB, DIRECTOR, CLEVELAND 

MUSEUM OF ART 

Mr. RUB. Thank you, and good morning. 

I am Timothy Rub, the director of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 

and I speak to you today on behalf of the Association of Art Museum Directors and the trustees of the Cleveland Museum of Art. 

I would like to express our thanks for this opportunity you’ve given 

me to share with you the significant efforts that American museums have undertaken since the subcommittee first held hearings 

on this important subject in February 1998, but before I do, I 

should pause and encourage this group, following on the Congressman’s suggestion, to see the Grant Wood exhibition nearby, and to 

see the greatest Grant Wood collections in Ohio, Daughters of the 

Revolution, in the collection of the Cincinnati Art Museum. It is a 

wonderful picture. 

Over the past 8 years, a considerable amount of progress has 

been made by the many museums whose collections might have included works that were illegally appropriated during the Holocaust. 

Even though provenance research is time consuming and costly, 

the several institutions I have had the privilege to lead during this 

period, the Cleveland Museum of Art today, and before this, the 

Cincinnati Art Museum, and the Hood Museum of Art at Dartmouth College, as well as the members of the AAMD, all have 

made a firm commitment to undertake this work and to make the 

results of their research available to the public. 

24

In doing so, we have complied with the guidelines articulated in 

the AAMD’s June 1998 report on the spoliation of art during the 

Nazi World War II era. 

Notably, in terms of the work that has been done thus far, we 

have focused our initial efforts on our collections of European 

paintings. 

American museums embraced this responsibility and acted upon 

it quickly and with great resolve, in my opinion. For example, the 

AAMD surveyed its members in 1999, and determined that 100 

percent of those whose collections included art that might have 

been looted during the Holocaust period had, in fact, completed or 

were in the process of undertaking provenance research. Furthermore, in that survey, 100 percent of AAMD members indicated that 

access to their provenance records was open. 

While we consider provenance research to be critically important, 

and have made a broad commitment to undertake this work, it is 

vital for you, the members of the subcommittee, to understand how 

complicated and labor intensive such research can be. 

It requires a detailed review of primary and secondary documents, often scattered in many different places throughout the 

world, and in many instances where such documents do not exist 

or cannot be found, substantial inferential analysis. In many cases, 

we have not been able to fill all the gaps, and must recognize that 

we may never be able to do so. 

Others can help, and for this reason, the posting of provenance 

records on our Web sites and on the portal maintained by the AAM 

is an essential tool. 

It is also important for the members of the subcommittee to understand that a gap in the provenance of a work of art during the 

Holocaust period does not mean that this work was seized illegally 

by the Nazis or was the subject of a forced sale and not restituted. 

Rather, a gap in provenance indicates that we have been unable 

to find documentation or other evidence that allows us to determine the ownership of a particular work of art during a certain period of time. In other words, this means, quite literally, the absence 

of information on an object, not the presence of information that 

gives rise to or may constitute a justification for a claim that it was 

illegally taken and not restituted. 

Given the extensive research that has been done by American 

museums, without, it should not go unremarked, any appreciable 

public funding, the number of claims received by American museums, as my colleagues have mentioned, has been very small. To 

date, only 22 works have been restituted by American museums because they were looted by the Nazis and not returned to their 

rightful owners after the war. 

For those who claim that hundreds or even thousands of spoliated works remain in the collections of American museums, the 

work done during the last decade, as a statistical point, simply indicates otherwise. 

In this regard, I would not suggest that the extensive efforts that 

have been undertaken to research the provenance of Holocaust-era 

works has been inappropriate or that they should be curtailed, but 

our experience indicates the magnitude of this problem does not 

match the sometimes often strongly emotional appeal made on ocVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Mar 07, 2007 Jkt 031542 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31542.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
25

casion by those who seek to recover art that is believed to have 

been lost and not restituted. 

Furthermore—and I think this is the important point—it confirms that the course taken by American museums, who hold their 

collections in trust for the benefit of the public, is fair and designed 

to achieve the best possible outcomes for both our institutions and 

those who may have valid claims on works of art that were confiscated or illegally taken from them or their families during the 

Holocaust. 

Finally, some critics have questioned the wisdom of continuing 

the Federal immunity that is granted or accorded to works of art 

that are in the United States on loan to American museums, and 

whether such a protection should apply when there might be a Holocaust issue. 

Please note the emphasis I have placed on the possibility of a 

Holocaust-related issue, such as a gap, as opposed to an outstanding claim that may be valid but is, as yet, unresolved. 

If this issue comes before the subcommittee in the future, I urge 

you to continue to support the Federal immunity program. 

The immunity program is a time-honored and valuable instrument that enables American museums to present to the public 

great works of art from around the world. Absent such protection, 

many foreign-owned works might not be made available to American museums because of the fear that such works will become encumbered with litigation in the United States courts, and here I 

should add that we have all agreed—we, the American museum 

community—that we must carefully evaluate all loan requests to 

make sure that we are not requesting illegally confiscated or Holocaust-era art, and this is a part of the immunity process, as well. 

When museums apply for immunity for loans, they are required 

to address Holocaust issues as part of the application process. I 

should also add in this regard that the very fact of exhibiting a 

painting with a gap in its provenance can, in fact, help the process 

of restitution, because the public presentation of this work in the 

United States can bring to the attention of a claimant its existence 

or make available information that an individual would need in 

order to make a claim. 

Let me conclude by stating once again that the 8 years since the 

subcommittee’s first hearings on this subject have witnessed significant progress in the development of a broader knowledge of 

provenance information that has now been made available to potential claimants and the public at large. 

While this work is not yet complete, research regarding most of 

the works of art that may be at issue has certainly been undertaken, and America, as many of my colleagues have said, can be 

very proud of the leadership role that its art museums have played 

in this effort. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rub can be found on page 145 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Rub. 

Ms. Lillie. 

26

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE A. LILLIE, DIRECTOR, HOLOCAUST CLAIMS PROCESSING OFFICE, NEW YORK STATE 

BANKING DEPARTMENT 

Ms. LILLIE. Thank you. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Maloney, and 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to 

testify before you today on Holocaust-era asset restitution. 

The New York State Banking Department has 10 years of handson experience working with, and advocating on behalf of, claimants 

seeking the return of assets lost, looted, or stolen during the Holocaust. 

The Banking Department’s involvement in these issues goes back 

to 1996, when the world finally began to pay attention to the fate 

of assets deposited in Swiss financial institutions. 

Governor Pataki, at the urging of then-Superintendent Neil 

Levin, encouraged the Banking Department to use its influence, expertise, and international reach to rationally resolve these emotionally charged and politically complex estates. 

The department has been actively committed ever since, first 

with our investigation into the war-time activities of the Swiss 

banks’ New York agencies and then by establishing the Holocaust 

Claims Processing Office as a separate and unique division. 

Our involvement was extended further still with the establishment of the International Commission on Holocaust Insurance 

Claims, also a legacy of the late Neil Levin, and ultimately, the department took on the task of assisting claimants in their quest for 

works of art lost, looted, or stolen during the Holocaust. 

The HCPO has a long tradition of quality and substance. It remains the only government agency in the world to offer Holocaust 

survivors or the heirs of Holocaust victims and survivors assistance 

with a vast array of multinational claims processes. 

To date, the HCPO has received approximately 5,000 claims from 

48 States and 37 countries, and has secured the return of more 

than $55 million to claimants, as well as 13 works of art. 

The knowledge and assistance of the HCPO staff have alleviated 

burdens and costs often incurred by claimants who attempt to navigate the diversity of international claims processes by themselves. 

Our successes are a direct result of the importance attached to, 

and attention paid by, the HCPO to individualized analysis. 

Many of the claimants we work with have lost everything and everyone, resulting in the need for archival and genealogical research 

to confirm family relationships and to uncover details regarding the 

fate of many original owners. All of our services are provided free 

of charge. 

The HCPO has, over the past decade, worked directly and intimately with almost all restitution and compensation processes in 

existence today. 

As a result, we have close working relationships with archival 

and historical commissions, financial institutions, trade associations, and our colleagues in federal, state, and local governments 

in Europe. 

At the same time, many claims processes have sought the 

HCPO’s advice. 

27

Put another way, almost all paths to restitution and/or compensation for Holocaust-era assets have converged at the HCPO at 

one point or another. 

Throughout, the HCPO has had a single purpose: to resolve 

claims as promptly as possible, and in a sensitive manner, given 

the singularity of the events that preceded them. 

The passage of time, the ravages of war, the lack of documentation that you heard about, and the mortality of claimants make 

this a complex task. 

The HCPO owes its success to a dedicated team of multilingual 

and multi-talented professionals. Possessing a broad and long traditional legal, historical, economic, and linguistic skill set, coupled 

with the ability to communicate with, and conduct research in, a 

vast number of European government and private offices, the 

HCPO staff research, investigate, and secure documentation, building upon the foundation provided by claimants. 

Let there be no mistake about it. Even claims with documentation are a time-consuming task, and the paucity of published 

records often complicates matters further. For significant works of 

art, the odds of there being academic publications which serve as 

vital tools in our research efforts are high, but the Nazis did not 

limit their spoliation to museum-quality pieces. Ordinary middleclass collections, second-tier painters, decorative arts, tapestries, 

and antiquities, as well as Judaica, were looted. In some of these 

areas, the art historical literature is anything but deep. 

To complicate matters further, information, much like the objects 

themselves, have often ended up scattered all across the globe. 

Claimants seeking the return of such low monetary value but 

high emotional and spiritual value items face daunting hurdles, 

given the lack of historical significance, not to mention the enormous logistical and legal challenges. The HCPO, earlier this year, 

successfully completed the return of a Torah cover from the Jewish 

Museum in Vienna. The obvious inestimable emotional value is 

without question, but without the HCPO, where would claimants 

have gone for help, given its limited monetary value? 

Overall, art claimants, as you have heard, are piecemeal work, 

which unlike financial assets such as bank accounts or insurance 

policies, do not lend themselves to wholesale centralized settlements. 

Instead, given the individualized nature of these cases, they 

must be painstakingly resolved painting by painting, object by object, and Torah cover by Torah cover. 

The publication of provenance information is critically important 

to our endeavors, as is the ease of access to such information. 

As we work piece together each claims complex mosaic, accessibility is paramount. 

The AAM’s Web portal is an excellent illustration of what is possible. 

While far from perfect, it is a major step in the right direction, 

currently allowing 151 museums to make their provenance research available via a single point of entry, with more museums 

joining all the time, as evidenced by the Claims Conference’s recent 

report. 

28

There remains, of course, a significant difference between the 

work done by museums and public collections and such information 

as is available for private collections in the art market as a whole. 

The issue becomes trickier once claimants locate items in private 

collections or, indeed, in the market. 

Sale rooms have learned much in the past decade, and certainly, 

the large auction houses have dedicated staff who have worked 

well with the HCPO and our claimants to determine whether items 

submitted to auctions have a problematic provenance. 

Smaller sale rooms both in the United States and Europe still 

need encouragement and education. 

Not all are as willing to pull lots from sales when questions 

arise. Few of them are sensitive to the labor-intensive, and therefore time-consuming, research these cases require. As a result, the 

HCPO still finds more resistance to clarifying title in these contexts than we would like to see. 

So, continued education of active market participants remains a 

critical piece in all this if buyers and sellers are to understand and 

ultimately accept that transactions conducted in seemingly good 

faith many years ago may nonetheless be questionable. 

In closing, I would like to share the following thought. 

We have a unique challenge in a complex market, but we also 

have the potential to help so many. If we are to achieve our mission, we must encourage open, transparent cooperation both internally and in the larger universe of Holocaust-era restitution and 

compensation programs. Cross-functional and interagency dialogue 

between such claims processes encourages new perspectives, expands and enhances coalitions, fosters partnerships, and ensures a 

more comprehensive approach. 

By finding creative solutions and mechanisms, agencies can work 

together to streamline the prolonged claims processes for claimants, many of whom are in their 80’s and 90’s, and for whom time 

is a disappearing luxury. 

Finally, let me return briefly to the Torah cover I mentioned earlier. 

Marpe Lanefesch, the name of the congregation that was in effect 

the Torah cover’s birthplace, translates to ‘‘the healing of the soul.’’ 

How better to summarize what I think our collective intent is: 

the attempt by a few people committed to doing what is right, rather than what is easy, to repair, to the extent possible, a lasting 

rend in the fabric of life. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lillie can be found on page 125 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much, Ms. Lillie, and thank you all 

for extraordinary testimony. 

I want to begin briefly with Mr. Eizenstat. Stuart, your testimony was extraordinary and comprehensive. As principally a lawyer, I think you symbolize the best ‘‘lawyer’’ approach in terms of 

not only the law, but in the legal way of thinking. One of the interesting legal issues that exists, as you note the problems in Europe, 

is the difference between the Napoleonic codes and the common law 

on the issue of theft. That is, in common law countries like ours 

and Great Britain, if a thief sells an item to a party and the party 

29

sells that item to a third party, if the original owner has a claim, 

that owner can make a claim directly to the current owner, whereas under the Napoleonic codes, if there was a good faith process at 

any point, the original owner only has a claim against the thief. 

This means that, theoretically, if you have a piece of art with dubious provenance, you would rather sell it in Europe than in the 

United States. Thus, it is very difficult to return stolen art in Napoleonic code countries unless there is will. What you have suggested is that several countries have exhibited will and others have 

not. Could you comment on this? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Mr. Chairman, this is really an excellent point, 

and you are quite correct about the difference in the legal structures. We tried to overcome that with the Washington principles, 

but as you will remember, in the late hours of negotiation, only 

partially, because in order to get over 40 countries to ascribe to the 

principles, which were based on the AAMD principles, with some 

modifications, we needed to put in language that assured countries 

that they could apply their only law. It is the only way we could 

get that done. 

But the principles are there, and they are meant, and some of 

them say very clearly, to facilitate claims resolution, to have nonlitigable ways to do so, and a number of countries—for example, 

Austria has passed a specific law recognizing that the Napoleonic 

issue—that Holocaust looted art should be treated differently, and 

they passed a law which has permitted hundreds and hundreds of 

pieces to be returned. 

The Netherlands has done the same. 

Russia, theoretically, has done the same, but it has not applied 

it. 

So, what we need to do is to get countries to apply special restitution laws for this area, so that you do not have the kind of complication that you have just indicated. One of the advantages of trying to get an international conference together and to at least encourage, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney, the publication of lists as 

the portal has done in the United States, is at least we will know 

what the universe is. 

Once we know what the universe is, then even with the Napoleonic problem, we can facilitate settlements, we can facilitate monetary recoveries, which are not precluded by the Napoleonic code. 

We can facilitate arbitrated or mediated solutions, but we can’t 

do any of those if we do not have the basic raw data, and because 

so few countries have published, even in Germany, anything like 

what the AMD museums have done, we do not have the basis to 

apply settlements that could be done outside of the strictures of the 

Napoleonic code. 

Mr. LEACH. Let me just ask one follow-on question. 

It appears that Russia, in many regards, is the great laggard, not 

so much in law but in the classic instance have not wanting to publish what it has, and one has a sense that part of it relates to this 

issue. 

Most of it may relate to issues itself in museums. Powerful people walk away with great art. Do you have a sense of this problem? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Yes. 

Let me explain, if I may, as best I can, the Russian situation. 

30

Of course there is a broader picture in Russia of the rule of law 

which we have seen trampled on in recent years in a whole range 

of areas. 

They were the only delegation in the 1998 Washington conference that participated separately in the closing news conference. 

The Russian legislation was once vetoed, but ultimately legislation 

was signed that separated two types of art. 

One was what they call trophy art, which was art that the Red 

Army took, after the war or in the closing days of the war, from 

German museums and public institutions as what they viewed as 

compensation for their massive loss of life and property from the 

German invasion. 

The law that President Putin signed makes it clear they will 

never return that, but they also made it clear in that legislation 

that art which was taken by the Red Army from the Germans, 

which, in turn, was taken from Jews or Jewish institutions or for 

racial reasons should be returned—and they committed themselves 

to publish the provenance of their major museums, and they have 

a claims process. 

There has been a very small amount of publication of their provenance by a very few museums, not the major ones, the Hermitage 

and others, and there is basically no claims process. 

This is a very key matter where a good bilateral discussion, let 

alone an international conference, could bring the Russians, as 

they did in 1998, to come up to international standards. 

I think there is no question but that the Russians have the 

greatest treasure trove of looted art, and if we assure them that no 

one is trying to get their—that we are focusing on art taken from 

Holocaust victims and we put enough political muscle behind it at 

senior enough level, perhaps we can make progress. 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. 

Ms. Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

I thank all of you for your testimony. 

I would like to ask Mr. Edelson—you mentioned that we should 

focus a little bit on the dealers. 

How can dealers best be encouraged to make their records available to bona fide researchers, claimants, and claimant representatives? 

Mr. EDELSON. So far as I know, ma’am, dealers do make their 

records available. 

I can tell you now that I was speaking to one dealer the other 

day who said that he had opened his records to the Metropolitan 

Museum, for example, who was doing some research in provenance, 

and I have not, myself, had a complaint from anyone that a dealer 

has not cooperated. 

Now, it does not mean, necessarily, that all dealers are cooperating. 

I hope they are, and we urge them to do so. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to ask Ms. Lillie the same question. 

Have you, in your work with your office, reached out to art dealers and gotten their cooperation, or do you think they should be 

part of the central registry? 

31

Ms. LILLIE. We have had, I think, examples of just about every 

form of cooperation you can imagine, which ranges from very productive to almost none at all, and that is true not just in the 

United States but across Europe, as well. Your question, whether 

we would like to see a more centralized venue for this, is one that 

resonates very deeply with me. 

The portal, where we worked extensively with Mr. Able and his 

organization in terms of technical assistance, the sort of information that ought to be put up that would be helpful to claimants and 

researchers but also finding common denominators between and 

amongst museums and the information they have has been very, 

very helpful. There is a single point of entry. It is a starting point. 

Even if we do not find specific paintings, we often find information 

held within museum records that will lead us to other sources of 

information. 

If we could work with Mr. Edelson on finding some sort of central venue for dealers, as well, that would be superb. One of the 

difficulties, of course, is, as he mentioned, would owners be willing 

to share that information? From my vantage point, the more transparency we have in the market, the better and more efficienct marketplace it would surely be. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Cuno and Mr. Rub, thank you for your leadership and the work of your museums. 

What can we do to accelerate the speed of provenance research 

and publication of such research while the present generation of 

Holocaust survivors is still with us? Obviously, the sense of urgency is, simply put, not our friend, and when you lose the last living memories of these items, then where will we go, and I just 

want to ask the question—the reports that came out—they said 

many of the museums had cooperated, but others had not, and they 

mentioned some very prominent museums that had not cooperated. 

What is the enforcement or the incentive for museums to cooperate? 

They cited some, such as your own, that have done remarkable 

work, but they cited others who did not fill out the survey, would 

not respond, said they did not have the time or finances to respond. 

Mr. CUNO. I am afraid my answer to the first question will not 

necessarily be satisfactory, because the answer has got to be assistance with funding, and funding not necessarily to individual museums in their research but to the creation of centralized databases 

such as we have begun to undertake but could use additional resources to perpetuate or to deepen. 

To step back just one second to the question about the dealers, 

I do not know the extent to which this is possible, but it would be 

greatly advantageous to the work of museums and museum researchers, not just on the question of Holocaust-era provenance research but generally in provenance research, if there were a way, 

when dealers go out of business, for example, that those records 

would not necessarily disappear. 

It has been one of the obstacles that we face in our research, not 

just in this country but among European art dealers, is when they 

do go out of business, there is no perpetuation, necessarily, of the 

records that they had, and so, we lose track of those records, and 

the loss is sometimes insurmountable. 

32

To your question about what it is that museums can do, and also 

to your question about why it is that some museums have not responded to the survey, I do think it is a matter of time and money, 

and we have competing calls on our time and money, as you can 

well understand, as every institution, and that is with regard to 

the education that we do in our cities, where we are ultimately and 

increasingly responsible for the arts education and some of the civic 

education of our citizens. 

So, we could use some assistance in that regard, perhaps on an 

individual basis but certainly in a collective basis, to provide the 

resources that we need to advance our research, and to work cooperatively with our colleagues outside of museums. 

To the question about why some museums did not return the 

survey, I cannot speak for them. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Do you feel like there is a difference between a 

large museum and a small museum? 

Mr. CUNO. A very big difference. 

My quick count of the list of museums that did not respond—out 

of the 108 listed that did not respond, only 26 of them belong to 

the AAMD, and to belong to the AAMD, you have to have a budget 

of at least $2 million for 2 years. 

It is the minority of museums that have the significant resources 

to apply toward research. 

Of the museums on the list of 108 that did not respond, many 

have budgets less than $2 million, and many of those museums, 19 

of them, to my count, are small community college or small college 

museums. 

So, it is very difficult for those museums to marshall the resources, financial and human resources to respond to the complicated questions asked in the survey. The assistance would have 

to be material, I am afraid. 

Mr. ABLE. Jim, may I add something to that? 

Mrs. Maloney, if you look at the chart, it does not mean that all 

these museums are not cooperating in the work. It means they did 

not respond to the survey. 

There is a chart in the report of 25 major museums, and it is 

pointed out that five did not respond. Well, they did not respond 

to the survey, and that is regrettable, but four of them are registered and have registered, collectively, 621 objects on the portal. 

So, I think that there needs to be some clarification of some of 

the statements in the report as to the accuracy, that they can be 

somewhat misleading. 

Mr. RUB. Let me add that I—I should say I think it is unfortunate that some of our colleagues or fellow institutions did not respond to the survey. However, I do not think that lack of response 

should be taken for—taken in any way to mean that they are not, 

as Ed mentioned a moment ago, participating actively in this kind 

of work, particularly if they have collections that include covered 

objects. 

It should also be pointed out that it is not entirely clear to me, 

at least, whether or not many of these institutions on the list that 

did not respond actually have covered objects in their collections. 

We have a number of members of the AAMD, and there are 

many more institutions that are not, that either collect contemVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Mar 07, 2007 Jkt 031542 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31542.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
33

porary art, and so do not work in this field and never have collected in this field, or collect American art or some other types of 

objects that would not fall under the heading of covered object, as 

well. 

I would also like to come back to points that my colleague, Jim 

Cuno, made a moment ago, and that is the enormity of the task 

that is facing many of these institutions in terms of how to fund 

this work on an ongoing basis. 

I have been, as I mentioned in my testimony, at three institutions during the past 8 years that have decided to undertake this 

work, and in each case, it was a formidable challenge to find the 

time and the human resources to do this on an ongoing basis. 

In each case, we did, but we had to carve the funds to do that 

out of existing work, and it is a complicated issue to deal with during a time of diminishing resources for support of museums in general. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Our only request with the survey was that we felt 

it was important that museums, even if they have no covered objects, would simply answer that, and many did. Many who had no 

covered objects or where it was not applicable very kindly wrote 

back, and all of those answers are publicly available on the Web 

site for people to see. 

So, we would just respectfully urge museums, even if their answer is that it does not apply to them, or only to a certain extent, 

to do so, and maybe my colleagues will assist, so that there is a 

public record of museums reporting what they have done. The survey does include, also, some larger museums, some of whom are 

AAM accredited that did not respond. 

We welcome responses so that the public can check and look and 

see what museums are doing, and we just urge them to report that 

for the benefit of the public. 

Mr. LEACH. Mrs. Wasserman-Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to all of you, and I appreciate the opportunity to listen 

to your testimony today. 

I have questions far beyond the 5-minute time allotment that I 

have. 

So, Mr. Taylor, specifically, I would request that, if you can, come 

and make an appointment with me so that we can spend some expanded time talking about issues that go beyond just the topic that 

we are covering here today. 

I would surely appreciate it. 

Mr. Eizenstat, when you have an opportunity to do that, if you 

would be willing to do so, as well, I would surely appreciate it. 

I represent a district in south Florida that is home to one of the 

largest, if not the largest, survivor population in the country, and 

it is a rapidly aging population, one in which even child survivors 

are now well into their 70’s, and some older than that, and there 

are not many more years left, obviously, that we are going to be 

able to do anything for them to either improve the quality of life 

or achieve restitution for them in material ways. 

34

I am wondering, particularly at the Claims Conference, Mr. Taylor, to what degree you’ve already recovered art, and to what degree—well, let me back up for a second. 

I know that you already hold title to a large inventory of property in Germany, and there was not a great deal of understanding 

as to what that is, what is in your—what is in the Claims Conference’s possession, the value of it, and I know a lot of that is land 

parcels and buildings, but what I am wondering is if any of those 

holdings are outstanding claims that include art and cultural property. 

Additionally, how much in compensation has the Claims Conference received to date from the German authorities for artwork 

and cultural objects, and if you could elaborate on that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Firstly, when we recover buildings and properties, 

we sell those properties and then allocate those funds primarily for 

social programs for Holocaust survivors, and for programs of Holocaust education. That is regarding our allocations program, and it 

is a long and complicated issue. I would be very happy to meet 

with you and look forward to that opportunity. 

Regarding art, we have tried to pursue art claims in the former 

East Germany, where the Claims Conference has a special status. 

We have had limited success. I think it is probably less than 

about half-a-dozen so far, but there are about 80 claims pending. 

Of the handful that we have received, those have been recovered 

and turned over to heirs, and we have worked with the heirs of 

those to return those. 

We filed about 80 claims which cover some hundreds of objects, 

maybe up to about 1,000 objects, but it is about 80 claims. 

There is a list of them posted on our Web site, where there is 

a full listing of the individual claims. When we meet, I can certainly point out where that is. Most claimants have come forward, 

and we are assisting and working with them on those art claims 

in the former East Germany, but there are, I should say, also a 

number of claimants in Germany who have filed claims directly. 

We have given some indirect assistance, but those are filed directly, particularly for the former West Germany, where the deadlines have expired, but efforts still continue to recover items of 

looted art. 

Ms. WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ. I can appreciate your testimony about 

the creation of the databases that you currently hold about stolen 

artwork, because obviously, access to that information is important. 

Does the Claims Conference publish a similar database of real 

estate property in Germany, listing things like property parcels, 

Jewish families who originally owned them? What kind of identification have you been able to surmise, and what about looted property? 

Is there no property that you hold title to? How quickly do you 

sell it? I am just not really knowledgeable about that process. 

Mr. TAYLOR. There were certain items that we had recovered, 

and there was a period for dealing with this issue, and there was 

a publication of a database which related to these items, and there 

was a period for dealing with this issue. So, yes, there was a publication. 

35

Ms. WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ. Is that still available? 

Mr. TAYLOR. It is not. 

The period for claiming for those particular items has expired, 

but it was available, and there were claims, and there was a claims 

period after publication. 

Ms. WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ. What happened to the property that 

was not claimed? 

Mr. TAYLOR. The Claims Conference uses those funds recovered 

from items that are not claimed largely for programs of home care, 

social assistance, and other programs, particularly for programs for 

needy Holocaust survivors, including some in your district. In over 

60 countries around the world, we operate programs providing assistance to Holocaust survivors: food packages; home care; shelter; 

social care; and various forms of assistance. 

Ms. WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ. How many voting members of the 

Claims Conference board are survivor groups? 

Mr. TAYLOR. There are three organizations of survivor groups but 

there are many Holocaust survivors on the board of the Claims 

Conference, a very significant number of Holocaust survivors. 

I do not have the specific number. 

Ms. WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ. Three groups out of how many? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Twenty-four groups, but the other groups are Jewish organizations, many of whom have Holocaust survivors and are 

represented on the Claims Conference by Holocaust survivors. 

Ms. WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of 

other questions, and I do not want to take up the committee’s time, 

because they are not quite as relevant to the topics at hand, but 

I would like them answered, and if I could ask unanimous consent 

to submit those questions for the record, I ask that the panelists 

answer them in written form. 

Mr. LEACH. Without objection, they will be submitted for the 

record and transmitted. 

Ms. WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ. Thank you, very much. 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you for your contribution. 

Let me thank you all. 

It is apparent that the United States leads in this effort. 

Yet, it may be the case that there is some art fatigue. More can 

be done. Each of you represented here have contributed impressively to the effort, and so, the committee is very appreciative of 

your efforts. 

I might just suggest, because I do not know how significant this 

is, but to Mr. Cuno, who heads what, in effect, is an accrediting 

body, as I understand it—you head an accrediting body of museums? 

Mr. CUNO. Yes. No, I do not head the—I headed for one time the 

AAMD. Accrediting of museums is done through AAM. 

Mr. LEACH. Oh, I am sorry, through AAM. 

Mr. Able, I do not know how significant in the accreditation the 

attention to the Holocaust art issue is, but I would hope that you 

would put it front and center. Is that a credible request, or is it 

a request that has already been— 

Mr. ABLE. Accreditation deals with that issue, Congressman, but 

in a wider view and way. 

36

Accredited museums are required to demonstrate that they are 

taking every step to ensure that any item in their collection is legally held. If they had an item that was illegally appropriated by 

the Nazis, that would be covered in that area. 

So, it actually captures a much wider—and it is very carefully 

looked at by the accrediting visiting evaluators, in their self-study 

of the institution itself, and then carefully reviewed by the accreditation commission when the accreditation review is done on its regular basis. 

Mr. LEACH. I appreciate that very much. 

I think the only footnote would be that there is theft and then 

there is Holocaust theft, and so, to raise this to particular significance, I think, would be good social policy. 

Mr. ABLE. Actually, that was done much earlier, back in the late 

1990s, when we passed our guidelines. 

It has been extensively discussed at the commission meetings 

and with all the site evaluators. 

Mr. LEACH. Well, I appreciate you being well ahead of the committee. 

Mr. Eizenstat. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I just wanted to make a concluding remark. 

I first want to thank you for your continuing interest, and Mrs. 

Maloney for her continuing interest, the chairwoman for having the 

hearing, but you know, we all have a limited amount of time and 

resources. The question is where you devote to it, and for sure, 

American museums can be encouraged to do more, but they have 

made a huge step forward with this portal. 

We ought to get as many to contribute as possible, but they really have done a tremendous job. 

The real focus, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney, really needs to be 

abroad. 

That is where the real problem is. That is where most of the art 

is that is potentially looted. That is not going to happen unless 

Congress focuses attention on it and encourages senior people in 

the Administration to make this an issue they care about. The art 

issue has not gotten a huge amount of attention, to say the least, 

from the Administration. 

It has sort of fallen off the radar screen. There are a lot of other 

issues, anti-Semitism and so forth, they have done a very good job 

with, but now with the art that we are concerned with. 

The bulk of it, is going to be in a few countries abroad, and I 

would just urge the committee to be creative in focusing attention 

there and focusing the attention of the Executive Branch on pursuing that. In particular, again, an international conference is a 

way of elevating it. It is an action-forcing device. If countries knew 

they had to come and report on their progress, you would see a lot 

more action coming. 

Mr. LEACH. I appreciate that very much. I agree. I would just 

add to that, because of the steps that you in this panel have taken, 

the United States is in a much better position to lead. That is, if 

the American museums had not been as attentive, I do not think 

we could stand on a very solid basis, and so, your efforts have 

made our country’s position, I think, far more credible than would 

otherwise be the case. 

37

With that, let me thank you all very much, and I am personally 

very impressed with each of your statements and with your commitment. The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X

July 27, 2006

40


31542.001
41


31542.002
42


31542.003
43


31542.004
44


31542.005
45


31542.006
46


31542.007
47


31542.008
48


31542.009
49


31542.010
50


31542.011
51


31542.012
52


31542.013
53


31542.014
54


31542.015
55


31542.016
56


31542.017
57


31542.018
58


31542.019
59


31542.020
60


31542.021
61


31542.022
62


31542.023
63


31542.024
64


31542.025
65


31542.026
66


31542.027
67


31542.028
68


31542.029
69


31542.030
70


31542.031
71


31542.032
72


31542.033
73


31542.034
74


31542.035
75


31542.036
76


31542.037
77


31542.038
78


31542.039
79


31542.040
80


31542.041
81


31542.042
82


31542.043
83


31542.044
84


31542.045
85


31542.046
86


31542.047
87


31542.048
88


31542.049
89


31542.050
90


31542.051
91


31542.052
92


31542.053
93


31542.054
94


31542.055
95


31542.056
96


31542.057
97


31542.058
98


31542.059
99


31542.060
100


31542.061
101


31542.062
102


31542.063
103


31542.064
104


31542.065
105


31542.066
106


31542.067
107


31542.068
108


31542.069
109


31542.070
110


31542.071
111


31542.072
112


31542.073
113


31542.074
114


31542.075
115


31542.076
116


31542.077
117


31542.078
118


31542.079
119


31542.080
120


31542.081
121


31542.082
122


31542.083
123


31542.084
124


31542.085
125


31542.086
126


31542.087
127


31542.088
128


31542.089
129


31542.090
130


31542.091
131


31542.092
132


31542.093
133


31542.094
134


31542.095
135


31542.096
136


31542.097
137


31542.098
138


31542.099
139


31542.100
140


31542.101
141


31542.102
142


31542.103
143


31542.104
144


31542.105
145


31542.106
146


31542.107
147


31542.108
148


31542.109
149


31542.110
150


31542.111
151


31542.112
152


31542.113
153


31542.114
154


31542.115
155


31542.116
156


31542.117
157


31542.118
158


31542.119
159


31542.120
160


31542.121
161


31542.122
162


31542.123
163


31542.124
164


31542.125
165


31542.126
166


31542.127
167


31542.128
168


31542.129
169


31542.130
170


31542.131
171


31542.132
172


31542.133
173


31542.134
174


31542.135
175


31542.136
176


31542.137
177


31542.138
178


31542.139
179


31542.140
180


31542.141
181


31542.142
182


31542.143
183


31542.144
184


31542.145
185


31542.146
186


31542.147
187


31542.148
188


31542.149
189


31542.150
190


31542.151
191


31542.152
192


31542.153
193


31542.154
194


31542.155
195


31542.156
196


31542.157
197


31542.158
198


31542.159
199


31542.160
200


31542.161
201


31542.162
202


31542.163
203


31542.164
204


31542.165
205


31542.166
206


31542.167
207


31542.168
208


31542.169
209


31542.170
210


31542.171
211


31542.172
212


31542.173
213


31542.174
214


31542.175
215


31542.176
216


31542.177
217


31542.178
218


31542.179
219


31542.180
220


31542.181
221


31542.182
222


31542.183
223


31542.184
224


31542.185
225


31542.186
226


31542.187