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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

58–408 PDF 2010

HOLOCAUST INSURANCE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 

OF 2010 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 4596 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

Serial No. 111–148 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chairman 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JUDY CHU, California 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MICHONE JOHNSON, Chief Counsel 

DANIEL FLORES, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R 4596, the Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act of 2010’’ ......................... 4 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law .................................................................................................. 14 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 18 

The Honorable Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 40 

The Honorable John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 43 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 45 

Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat, Special Advisor to the Secretary for Holocaust Issues, Office of Holocaust Issues (EUR/OHI), U.S. Department of 

State 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 53 

Mr. Samuel J. Dubbin, P.A., Dubbin & Kravetz, LLP 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 69 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 72 

Mr. Michael P. Van Alstine, Professor of Law, University of Maryland School 

of Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 140 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 143 

Ms. Anna B. Rubin, Director, Holocaust Claims Processing Office, New York 

State Banking Department 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 153 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 155 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida ................................................................ 23 

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................ 171 

Page

IV 

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................ 196 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from the Holocaust Survivors’ Foundation—USA ..................................... 237 

Prepared Statement of Alberto Goetzl ................................................................... 254 

(1) 

HOLOCAUST INSURANCE ACCOUNTABILITY 

ACT OF 2010 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL

AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:39 a.m., in 

room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve 

Cohen (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Cohen, Johnson, Chu, Franks, Jordan, 

and Coble. 

Staff present: (Majority) Eric Tamarkin, Counsel; Carol Chodroff, 

Counsel; Adam Russell, Professional Staff Member; and (Minority) 

Blaine Merritt, Counsel. 

Mr. COHEN. This hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Subcommittee and Commercial Administrative Law will now come 

to order. Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare 

a recess of the hearing, and I will recognize myself first for a short 

statement. 

First of all, to those who it is relevant to, Happy New Year. The 

issue we are examining today is a particularly sensitive issue to 

the people here and many people throughout the world—compensation for survivors of the Holocaust and their heirs—the victims of 

the Holocaust. 

The Holocaust, the unspeakable horror that took place World 

War II in the Nazi regime, should never be, and hopefully will 

never be forgotten or denied by people anywhere. Nothing could 

ever undo the devastation, the loss of life, the total disregard for 

basic rights, property values and property rights so secondary to 

the rest—still, that was part of it—and it shattered the lives of millions of human beings and families and destroyed them. And it 

happened 70 years, give or take, ago. 

We can never undo the horror that took place. We can never 

really make—there is no way to make things right. But we have 

to ensure that Holocaust survivors receive what is rightfully theirs 

and find the proper process to do it. 

Before and during World War II, millions of Jewish people in Europe bought insurance policies to protect their family assets, save 

for their childrens’ education, plan for retirement. All forms of 

property, including insurance policies and insurance benefits, were 

confiscated from Jewish people by the Nazi regime. 

2 

Following the war, Holocaust survivors and their families filed 

claims with insurance companies. Countless Holocaust survivor 

claims were rejected due to the absence of death certificates and 

policy documents. Many insurance companies informed claimants 

that their policies had already been paid. 

Frequently, insurance company records and records in government archives are the only proof of the existence of insurance policy belonging to Holocaust victims, as the Nazis destroyed property 

and took people from their homes without the opportunities to 

keep, take, preserve records. 

After World War II, the West German government enacted restitution laws which excluded many claimants and prohibited certain types of claims. In 1989, after the Berlin Wall came down, 

Germany was reunified. The reunified Germany allowed claimants 

to gain access to records and file claims. 

German courts treated the 1990 treaty as a lifting of the prohibition on certain Holocaust-era claims, and Holocaust survivors 

began to file Holocaust insurance claims in our country. Claimants 

also filed class-action lawsuits in the United States courts against 

the Swiss, the German, Austrian, Italian and French companies 

who conducted business in Germany during the Nazi regime seeking compensation for Holocaust-era assets, unpaid insurance policies, and dormant bank accounts. 

Many of these were cases of first impression. To address the 

novel issues presented, the Federal Government sought to facilitate 

a global settlement through a series of agreements involving national and state governments, class-action lawyers, private industry and a variety of Jewish and other victims groups. 

These negotiations led to the creation of the International Commission on Holocaust-Era Insurance Claims, ICHEIC, in 1998 and 

identified Holocaust-era insurance policies, hoped to reach out to 

potential claimants and evaluate claims out of court based on relaxed standards of proof. ICHEIC received funding of about $550 

million from participating European insurers. 

From 2000 to 2007, $300 million was paid under ICHEIC’s 

claims process to 47,353 people out of 90,000 claimants. In addition 

to the funds paid to individual claimants, ICHEIC also allocated 

$190 million to assist Holocaust survivors and promote Holocaust 

education and remembrance. 

Critics of the ICHEIC process maintain that companies holding 

Holocaust-era insurance policies continue to withhold the names of 

the owners and beneficiaries of thousands of insurance policies. 

They are frustrated that only a fraction of the money—amount of 

the insurance companies’ monies that were owed have been paid to 

victims. 

As a result of this H.R. 4596, the ‘‘Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act of 2010’’ was introduced. It, (1), permits enforcement of 

state laws, creating a cause of action for covered Holocaust-era insurance policy claims; (2), it clarifies the validity of a state law requiring insurers doing business in state to disclose information 

about Holocaust-era policies; and (3) restricts the use of funds by 

the Department of State, or any other agency, for the purpose of 

issuing a statement in a U.S. court seeking to dismiss Holocaustera insurance policy claims. 

3 

I hope today’s hearing will provide a forum for all of these views 

on each side to be heard. We have a balanced panel. We are not 

here to advance any particular position. We are here to bring attention to an important issue, and I am confident that our witnesses will help us sort out the many questions it raises. 

Legislation raises emotional issues, difficult, highly sensitive 

issues. I appreciate how painful these issues can be, especially for 

the victims and the families who were impacted most directly by 

the Holocaust. I also wish to extend my thanks to several Holocaust survivors who wanted to be here this morning but, for health 

or other reasons, were unable to join us. 

As we begin this hearing, and keeping the sensitivity of these 

issues in mind, I am reminded of the message of Elie Wiesel, famous Holocaust survivor, one of my heroes whose picture is on my 

wall in my office, great writer, professor, political activist, Nobel 

Laureate, human being, man of the world, a man who was exposed 

as—the depraved aspects of human nature as a Holocaust 

incarceree, pictures in many Holocaust museums I think here and 

in Jerusalem, as well, Yad Vashem. 

But he still manages to show kindness and respect for everyone 

around him. He is a benevolent man, I guess the living Martin Luther King, consistently delivered a powerful message since the end 

of World War II, a message of peace, atonement, appropriate this 

time of year, and human dignity for all humanity. 

I thank the witnesses for appearing today. I look forward to their 

testimony. I share the frustration of everybody here in not having 

a totally good result, but we are trying to find something that 

brings justice and equity to the situation to the best that we can. 

[The bill, H.R. 4596, follows.] 

4 


HR4596-1.eps
5 


HR4596-2.eps
6 


HR4596-3.eps
7 


HR4596-4.eps
8 


HR4596-5.eps
9 


HR4596-6.eps
10 


HR4596-7.eps
11 


HR4596-8.eps
12 


HR4596-9.eps
13 


HR4596-10.eps
14 

Mr. COHEN. I now recognize my colleague, Mr. Franks, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for his opening 

remarks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I sincerely 

appreciate you calling today’s hearing. It brings to mind probably 

one of the very darkest eras of human history. 

Since immediately preceding and during World War II, the Nazi 

government indiscriminately confiscated assets of Jews living in 

Germany and other occupied territories. This included the liquidation of insurance policies as well as the forced payment of insurance proceeds from claims for the cash values directly to the Nazi 

government. 

Following the war, Western European countries tried to provide 

restitution to dispossessed property owners, including insured persons and their beneficiaries. But the difficulty of assessing records 

complicated the ability of Holocaust victims and their heirs to file 

claims without highly specific policy information. 

In the 1990’s, Jewish organizations, Holocaust survivors and the 

U.S. and Israeli governments renewed efforts to obtain compensation for survivors who did not participate in previous post-war restitution programs. In addition to the class-action lawsuits brought 

against Western European insurers, the U.S. government brokered 

discussions that led to compensation agreements between victims 

and affected European governments and insurers. 

Concurrent with these events, Mr. Chairman, your insurance organizations, Jewish advocacy groups and the state of Israel signed 

a memorandum of understanding to create the International Commission on Holocaust-Era Insurance Claims, or ICHEIC. ICHEIC 

was tasked with identifying relevant Holocaust-era insurance policies issued between 1920 and 1945, reaching out to potential claimants and encouraging them to participate in the ICHEIC process. 

Mr. Chairman, the ICHEIC claims process featured relaxed 

standards of proof and an insured-provided database of potential 

policyholders. The organization commenced operation in 2000 and 

closed 3 years ago. ICHEIC facilitated the payment of approximately $300 million to 48,000 claimants. Forty-three thousand 

claims were denied since they were satisfied under previous compensation agreements or because they failed to satisfy the relaxed 

standards of proof. 

ICHEIC members also contributed an additional $200 million to 

a humanitarian fund, the distribution of which is overseen by Jewish advocacy groups. Although ICHEIC claims and appeals processes have concluded, the participating insurers will continue to accept and process remaining claims. This will be done on the same 

ICHEIC terms at no cost to the claimants and without regard to 

the statute of limitations. 

Now, despite this record of achievement, ICHEIC is not without 

its critics, of course, some of whom will testify today. They believe 

that ICHEIC maintained incomplete records of Holocaust-era policyholders and still owe billions to unpaid claims. 

H.R. 4596 addresses their concerns by upholding the validity of 

state laws that allow aggrieved policyholders to pursue their claims 

through state courts. Defenders of the ICHEIC maintain that organizations delivered good results—that that organization delivered 

15 

good results under the difficult circumstances, and the question is 

asked in the absence of cooperation among the participating insurers, how could claimants expect to receive a greater access to policy 

information under the relaxed legal standards. 

And I don’t know the answer to that question, Mr. Chairman. 

The Holocaust represents the very worst of the human condition, 

and it is a scar on humanity’s soul that I am afraid will never heal. 

Our government must do all it can that survivors and their heirs 

are fairly compensated under existing circumstances 65 years after 

the fact. 

But I don’t know what the consensus and which avenue of redress will work best. And so, though, that we have, as so many in 

this room, the greatest respect and compassion for the survivors 

and their families, and pray and will work for justice. The challenge before us is to find where that justice can best be achieved. 

And so, I want to thank all the witnesses for the expertise and 

insights that they bring to the hearing, and as certainly will try to 

use their testimony to better educate myself about 4596 and its 

consequences and how to find justice in this very real situation before us. And I thank all of you for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for his statement. Without 

objection, other Members’ opening statements will be included in 

the record. And I think people probably know that there were originally votes scheduled for Tuesday night. They were moved to this 

evening, and that is probably the primary reason why more Members of the Committee aren’t here, for they are not necessary required to be here to vote until later this afternoon. But because of 

the importance of this hearing, we wanted to hold it regardless. 

And I am pleased Mr. Coble is here, a distinguished Member 

from North Carolina. His statement will be placed in the record. 

The first panel is very familiar with our rules. Your written 

statement will be placed in the record, and we would ask you limit 

your oral remarks to 5 minutes. You know the lighting system, the 

yellow, the green, and the red. 

And then you will be subject to questions sometimes, and sometimes not. We vary on Members. Sometimes we let you not have 

to be bothered with those of us that would ask questions. 

Our first witness is Congressman Adam Schiff. He represents 

California’s 29th Congressional District, which encompasses Pasadena Polytechnic School, where I attended. He serves on the House 

Judiciary Committee, where he is a leader in efforts to combat intellectual property theft and the piracy of copyrighted materials. I 

attended two high schools, so you don’t think that I am cheating 

and lying about Coral Gables. 

He also serves on the House Appropriations Committee and the 

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Prior to serving in the House, he completed a 4-year term as state senator in 

California’s 21st State Senate district, and he chaired the Senate 

Judiciary Committee. 

He is the Senate Select Committee on Juvenile Justice and the 

Joint Committee on the Arts. He led legislative efforts to guarantee 

up-to-date textbooks in the classroom, overhaul child support, and 

pass a Patient’s Bill of Rights. 

16 

Before serving in the legislature, he served with the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles for 6 years, most notably prosecuting the 

first FBI agent ever to be indicted for espionage. I have learned 

from him in my service on the Judiciary Committee. He is an outstanding Member, somebody who the—his district and the country 

can be proud of for serving in the United States Congress. Intelligent, dedicated and talented, and doing a fine job in prosecuting 

an impeachment case in the Senate. Talents are most valuable. 

Thank you, Mr. Schiff, and you would begin your testimony, 

please? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ADAM B. SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those kind 

words. I barely recognized myself with that introduction. 

But Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Franks, I want to thank 

you for calling this hearing on the Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act. I am pleased to be joined on the panel by my colleagues, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, a sponsor of the legislation 

and a tremendous advocate; and Congressman John Garamendi, 

whose incredible leadership on this issue long predates his time in 

Congress. 

We are brought here today by our shared commitment to justice 

for victims of the Holocaust. For more than 60 years, many European insurance companies have unfairly denied insurance claims 

frequently because survivors and their families could not produce 

documentation, such as death certificates, needed to prove ownership of a policy. 

It is an impossible burden to expect survivors and their families 

to meet. In fact, we know that, frequently, the only surviving 

records of these policies are held by these very same insurance 

companies. 

There has been a concerted effort by honorable people to help 

survivors who are suffering in poverty. The International Commission on Holocaust-Era Insurance Claims process, though flawed in 

many respects, provided some measure of redress, and I appreciate 

the commitment and good intentions of those who were involved in 

the ICHEIC during its 7 years of existence. But it is not the final 

word, and it cannot be the final word while thousands of survivors 

struggle in poverty without access to financial restitution that 

rightfully belongs to them. 

There are significant questions about the claims process that the 

ICHEIC used that need to be addressed, as we know this was not 

a transparent process. The history of Holocaust insurance claims 

working their way through the courts and through the International Commission is torturous, and I will leave it for other witnesses on the panel to summarize more fully. 

But where the history of these cases is complex, the legislation 

introduced by my colleague, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, is simple. It asks only for Holocaust survivors and their beneficiaries the 

same that is owed to every American: a fair day in court. 

The Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act would state unequivocally that no vague executive foreign policy interest compels 

17 

the dismissal of state actions against insurance companies that 

refuse to honor claims of Holocaust survivors and their families. In 

doing so, I believe it would undo wrongly decided cases that have 

been taken at face value—that have taken at face value vague, unaccountable statements about the foreign policy interests of the 

United States and allowed them to carry the force of law. 

Let me quote briefly from a document that was recently obtained 

through a Freedom of Information request. It was written by an attorney in the solicitor general’s office at the DOJ. In it, the attorney writes, ‘‘On the merits, I have some reservations about the 

legal theory on which the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s 

common-law claims. As a general matter, executive branch actions 

that express Federal policy but lack the force of law do not preempt 

state law.’’ 

I agree. I have joined with a bipartisan group of colleagues to 

sign an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to grant cert and 

address the unsettled separation of powers questions that the executive branch has asserted. I hope the Supreme Court will take the 

case and conclude that a vague expression of executive policy is not 

sufficient to pre-empt state law. 

Finally, I want to take a moment to address an argument I have 

heard by groups that oppose this legislation. They say that this 

hearing and the legislation will raise expectations of survivors and 

that we will surely disappoint these people and their families that 

have already suffered so terribly. 

While I respect those making the argument on this, I must disagree. Justice and fairness should be the expectation of every 

American, and the right to use the legal system to address fully 

and finally the wrongs that have been done to a person is a 

foundational aspect of our system of government. I have met with 

Holocaust survivors who are still trying, after all these many years, 

to get what is rightfully theirs. They are a tough group, as they 

would have to be, given the horrors they have endured. It is time 

for them to get their day in court. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to advance 

this legislation this year. I don’t think this is an issue that can 

wait any longer. And I want to thank you again for your hard work 

on this, and thank you for inviting me to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:] 

18 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ADAM B. SCHIFF, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


AS-1.eps
19 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. 

Our second witness is Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen. Congressman Ros-Lehtinen was selected in 1989 to represent Florida’s 18th 

Congressional District. Ranking Member of the House Committee 

on Foreign Affairs, and personally, I hope she stays that way. 


AS-2.eps
20 

Prior to her election, Ms. Lehtinen was elected to the Florida 

State House of Representatives in 1982 and the Florida State Senate in 1986. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I think your introduction was sweeter. 

Mr. COHEN. She also founded and served as the principal and 

teacher of a private bilingual elementary school in Hialeah, Florida. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen is the author of H.R. 4596, the ‘‘Holocaust 

Insurance Accountability Act of 2010.’’ 

She does represent a district that is close to my heart, as I did 

go to two high schools, and one of which Coral Gables abuts your 

district, and I attended Hialeah Race Track on many occasions and 

enjoyed the flamingos when they existed. I thank you. And if that 

unfortunate circumstance should occur, which is very unlikely that 

there should be a switch, I know you will be a great Chairwoman. 

Thank you, Congressman Ros-Lehtinen, for coming today and 

giving your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ILENA ROS-LEHTINEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

FLORIDA 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Chairman Cohen. 

Thank you to Ranking Member Franks and distinguished Members 

for the opportunity to testify on an issue that is of great importance to me but, more importantly, of great importance to my district and my constituents, and that is the legal rights of Holocaust 

survivors and the responsibility of insurance companies as it relates to Holocaust-era policies. 

I have the honor and the privilege of representing a district in 

South Florida which is home to one of the largest communities of 

Holocaust survivors in the Nation. I have worked with several of 

our colleagues to protect the interests and the rights of survivors 

against the government, against banks, and against others who 

have benefited—benefited—from the atrocities committed during 

the Holocaust, and I have worked on issues related to Holocaustera compensation for years. 

And one of the Holocaust-related issues that remains unresolved 

and one that many of my constituents regularly reach out to me 

on asking for congressional action on this, is the matter of unpaid 

Holocaust-era insurance policies. Although many decades have 

passed since the world witnessed the terrible crimes perpetrated by 

the Nazi regime, many European companies continue to refuse to 

disclose Holocaust-era insurance policy information or pay Holocaust survivors, or families of victims, for policies purchased before 

or during World War II. 

These companies have unfairly denied claims, alleging that Holocaust survivors and heirs of the victims lack proper documentation, 

as Congressman Schiff has pointed out, such as death certificates, 

to prove insurance policy ownerships. Denial of claims based on 

this argument is shameful and outrageous, since concentration and 

death camps in which many of these Holocaust victims perished 

did not issue death certificates. 

Many of the documents the victims had to substantiate their 

claims were confiscated by the Nazis or left behind by the victims 

while fleeing. In many cases, the only records of policy ownership, 

21 

as Congressman Schiff pointed out, are in the vaults of the insurance companies, many of which continue to refuse to disclose these 

documents. Essentially, what these insurance companies are saying 

is that they will only settle these claims if the survivors provide 

policy documentation, which only the insurance companies have 

and are refusing to disclose. 

In 1998, the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, or ICHEIC, was established with the objective of settling Holocaust-era insurance claims. However, the voluntary 

ICHEIC process was controlled by the European insurance companies and lacked the necessary oversight and enforcement mechanisms. 

The insurance companies were never forced to adequately disclose policy information. If the policy information was not disclosed, 

then how were the survivors supposed to prove policy ownership? 

ICHEIC was to apply a relaxed standard of proof when processing 

Holocaust-era claims, taking into account the special circumstances 

associated with the Holocaust. 

However, evidence indicates that ICHEIC often failed to apply 

this relaxed standard of proof and, in some cases, placed heavier 

burden of proof on the survivors that would have been required in 

a court of law. The ICHEIC process ended in 2007 after producing 

payments for only a small fraction of the value of Holocaust-era insurance policies, a flawed process which no longer exists should not 

be deemed as the exclusive remedy for survivors to recover under 

their policies as proposed by those who oppose this Holocaust insurance legislation that I have introduced with my colleague from 

Florida, Congressman Klein. 

Some of the insurance companies have stated that they will continue to process claims under ICHEIC rules, but these are empty 

promises that will lead to little, if any, results. History has shown 

us that, despite wishful thinking, insurance companies will not do 

the right thing, and they will not voluntarily disclose information 

and pay out insurance claims to Holocaust survivors. 

Holocaust survivors, just like everyone else, should have the 

right to have their day in court to recover under their policies. Allowing insurance companies to continue to withhold information 

and withhold payment, as they did under ICHEIC, without allowing claimants to have access to U.S. courts, is unacceptable. 

Companies that have shamefully failed to disclose Holocaust-era 

policy information or adequately settle claims should not be granted legal immunity and allowed to be unjustly enriched at the expense of Holocaust victims. 

To restore the rights of Holocaust survivors, Congressman Klein 

and I have introduced the Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act 

that you, Mr. Chairman, have referenced, a bipartisan measure 

which currently has 37 co-sponsors, including the distinguished colleagues on this panel, Congressman Schiff, and my colleague 

from—Congressman Schiff’s colleague from California, Congressman Garamendi, who is—his case is mentioned quite a lot in the 

bill. 

Also, Congressman Conyers, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has well as Chairman Cohen, and my good friend, Congressman Coble—we call him ‘‘Shug’’ in our hallway—are some of 

22 

the distinguished Members of the House who have cosponsored the 

legislation. And as Congressman Schiff has pointed out, the bill 

seeks to restore the rights of survivors by blocking preemption of 

state laws that were passed to allow Holocaust survivors and heirs 

of victims to have their day in court and to require insurance companies conducting business in those states to disclose Nazi-era insurance policy information. 

Now, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, who—a fine gentleman who 

has for years worked closely on Holocaust restitution and compensation issues, and others who oppose this measure argue that 

this bill will undermine the foreign policy interests of the United 

States and that legal peace should be granted to companies that 

participated in ICHEIC. I disagree. I strongly disagree. 

It is not in the interests of the United States to deny survivors 

their legal rights. Denying their survivors their rights would not 

only send the wrong message to the rest of the world about how 

the United States treats individual property and contract rights, 

but will send the worst possible message about how we treat victims of the Holocaust. 

The number of living Holocaust survivors is shrinking significantly every year. It is therefore urgent, Mr. Chairman, that Congress take immediate action aimed at bringing at least a degree of 

justice and closure to them after all these years. I hope that the 

bill will soon be brought to the House floor and will ultimately be 

enacted into law as soon as possible. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I 

would like to submit for the record a few of the many letters written to me by Holocaust survivors and Holocaust survivor organizations asking Congress to address the issue of unpaid insurance 

policies. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

23 


1-1.eps
24 


1-2.eps
25 


1-3.eps
26 


1-4.eps
27 


1-5.eps
28 


1-6.eps
29 


1-7.eps
30 


1-8.eps
31 


1-9.eps
32 


1-10.eps
33 


1-11.eps
34 


1-12.eps
35 


1-13.eps
36 


1-14.eps
37 


1-15.eps
38 


1-16.eps
39 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for granting us the opportunity to testify at this hearing. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen follows:] 


1-17.eps
40 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


IRL-1.eps
41 


IRL-2.eps
42 

Mr. COHEN. You are very welcome, and thank you for your testimony. And there is a bit of a protocol issue, as I understanding. 

It is my understanding you might have some place you would like 

to go to and there is some issue, but I have always deferred to the 

Ranking Member and potential—whatever. So if you would like to 


IRL-3.eps
43 

be relieved with your lovely daughter, you are welcome, and if you 

would like to stay, you are welcome, too. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much for the 

privilege of sneaking out of here. I have another forum that I have 

arranged in the Rayburn Building that started—— 

Mr. COHEN. You are dismissed, and you can call me ‘‘Shug.’’ 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. 

[Off Mike]: Don’t do it. 

Mr. COHEN. Our third witness is Congressman John Garamendi. 

Congressman Garamendi is an outstanding new Member of the 

United States House of Representatives, elected November 5, 2009. 

Before being elected to the House, he was the 46th lieutenant governor of California. He brings over 34 years of public service to the 

House. 

He was elected to the California State Assembly in 1974 and the 

State Senate in 1976, where he served for 14 years and attained 

the position of Senate majority leader. In 1991, Mr. Garamendi became California’s first elected insurance commissioner, and in 

1995, appointed by President Clinton as deputy secretary of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, where his efforts led to significant 

environmental improvements for the Nation and California, which 

possesses so many of our beautiful natural resources. 

In 2002, Representative Garamendi was reelected California’s insurance commissioner. And I am sure he can speak better of insurance than some of the people involved in this issue. That is why 

we had healthcare reform, because we knew you can’t trust the insurance folk on certain issues. 

Mr. Garamendi, would you proceed with your testimony? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Franks, 

Members of the Committee, my colleagues here at the table, I 

hadn’t expected to get back into this issue. The survivors of the 

Holocaust, their family, their heirs, their children, suffered a major 

defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court, on a five to four decision, 

overturned a California state law that would have simply provided 

survivors and their families with information about what policies 

their parents, aunts and uncles may have purchased in Europe 

prior to World War II and during the war. 

That decision slammed the door on something that is just fundamental. That is information. All of us here have talked about justice, but when access is denied, justice is denied. And access to information was the first step of access to the courts and to resolution and resolving the question of claims. 

A lot of children survived the Holocaust. Their parents didn’t. 

They have no knowledge of what their parents may have purchased 

in way of insurance, but they know that their parents lived during 

that period and may very well have had insurance policies. 

There is absolutely no way for them to find that information. 

California passed a law in 1999 that would have given them that 

information by requiring the insurance companies to disclose policies, the names, the locations. 

44 

The American Insurance Association, carrying out what I believe 

to be the first commandment of the insurance companies, and that 

commandment is to pay as little as late as possible, filed suit 

against that law, and I was left to defend it. We lost in the United 

States Supreme Court, and access and knowledge was denied, and 

justice was therefore denied. 

ICHEIC did a credible job, but not a perfect job. I had a lot of 

questions when I was insurance commissioner with ICHEIC about 

their decisions, about their processes. 

The work is incomplete. It is simply incomplete. The insurance 

companies have the information about the policies that they sold 

during this critical period, and to this date, that information has 

not been generally made available, or even made available in a 

manner that would allow children, heirs, grandchildren and survivors to know if a policy actually exists and to pursue their rightful claim to the benefits of that policy. 

This law is pretty simple. It allows state laws to move forward. 

The California law is still on the books. It was never repealed. And 

if this bill goes forward and becomes law, then information is made 

available. 

I understand why the insurance companies don’t want people to 

know what is going on, because they want the money. They don’t 

want to have to pay the claims. But they have contractual obligation to pay claims. And if people knew that their parents, their 

grandparents actually had purchased a policy, they can therefore 

be in a position to make a claim. 

It is a matter of simple justice. It is a matter of simple fairness. 

And my view is the insurance companies owe an obligation to all 

their policyholders, to all the heirs and potential claimants against 

those policyholders to make the information available. 

It is an extraordinary situation. God willing, it will never happen 

again, but it did happen. And because it happened, because it happened and because of the subsequent actions of the insurance companies, a wrongdoing has taken place. 

Now specifically, Generali comes into this question. My recollection of ICHEIC and what went before it was that Generali was 

never party to that agreement. And for Generali to be arguing that 

they are covered by ICHEIC is simply incorrect. 

Now, I have had great battles with Generali over this. I didn’t 

know I would have another opportunity to take a swing at them, 

but by God, I am going to. 

And I am going to use this forum to say it is a matter of contractual obligation, say nothing of justice, that every insurance company—every insurance company—that sold a policy during that period of time has a requirement, under simple justice, to make information available about the existence of a policy, the name of the 

purchaser, and others that are named in the policy so that family 

members can go to a file, a list, and discover that a policy exists, 

and then they can pursue it in a court of law where they have access to justice and presumably an appropriate outcome. 

It is very important that this bill pass, and I urge you to do so. 

And thank you for the opportunity to reengage on this matter. And 

I have written testimony—I would just say one correction in what 

45 

was presented to you. In 1999, I was not the commissioner, so instead of during, it is after my term. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN GARAMENDI, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


JG-1.eps
46 


JG-2.eps
47 


JG-3.eps
48 

Mr. COHEN. Staff will be appropriately admonished. But thank 

you for all of your other good deeds, many of which were not mentioned, and thank you for your testimony. 

I don’t believe there are any questions. If not, we thank each of 

you for your testimony and for your good work and your service. 

You are relieved of—— 


JG-4.eps
49 

Mr. FRANKS. Chairman, one question—— 

Mr. COHEN. Well, there is one question, excuse me, for Mr. 

Garamendi. 

Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Garamendi, some of us have a concern about 

reparation-type bills in general because the concern is that those 

who did not commit the act would be forced to compensate to those 

people who the act was not perpetrated against. This seems to be 

very different. 

It seems that, if I understand, the insurance companies were 

forced to pay some of these policy claims to the Nazi government, 

and that, in some cases, the bottom line is that they did insure certain individuals that were killed and murdered as a result of the 

Holocaust, and that you are suggesting that this is a matter of enforcing those insurance policies from those companies that still 

exist. This is not a—doesn’t go outside that parameter, correct? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes, in part. Somebody purchased a policy, and 

that policy—let us say it is a life insurance policy—most of what 

we are talking about here is life policies, although there are clearly 

issues of property-casualty policies that have yet to be pursued. 

But they purchased a policy. The individual was killed during 

the Holocaust, and perhaps most of the family—there may be a 

survivor, but the survivors don’t know that that policy is there. 

And it seems to me they have a—they ought to have the right to 

pursue that policy. It is not a matter of reparation. It is a matter 

of contractual obligation. It is quite different than a reparation. 

Now, whether the insurance company was forced by the Nazi regime to pay money, or to somehow transfer money from the insurance company to the Nazi government, I don’t know about that and 

whether it was directly related to a policy or not, we have no specific information on that. But nonetheless, that contract still remains. 

Mr. FRANKS. So to be clear, what your objective here is to enforce 

policies that were issues in that day and time as they would have 

normally had it not been for the interdiction of World War II and 

some of the other confusions that took place. Is that correct? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. That is correct, with a caveat that the owner of 

the policy, and quite possibly most of the family were murdered, 

and knowledge about the policy may or may not be passed on/ 

Mr. FRANKS. So this would force the insurance companies to divulge that information. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you Mr. Franks I appreciate you are clarifying that issue. I and some campaigns have been—they tried to 

parallel reparations and contract, and this is contract. And it is— 

although you could argue labor is equivalent to policy, but that is 

a whole other step. But I thank you for clarifying. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. First panel is completed. We appreciate everybody 

here. The—we—same rules apply, the red, green and yellow. 

You may not know them as well. Red means you have started 

your presentation. You have 5 minutes to make your presentation. 

The lights will turn to yellow when you have 1 minute left. We 

50 

hope you would start to conclude—it starts with green, excuse me, 

and then we get to yellow, and then red means your 5 minutes is 

up. 

So you have green for 4 minutes, yellow for one, and then red 

means your time is up. Again, though, 5 minutes of questioning for 

each member of the panel. There will be an opportunity to extend 

questions to you later if they are not asked here, and we would ask 

you to respond to those as quickly as possible. 

Second question empaneled, one, come forward please, sign in, 

please, and tell us your name. Not quite yet, just trying to expedite 

the folk. There we go. 

So I want to thank each of you participating today’s hearing. Our 

first witness on this panel is Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat. Ambassador Eizenstat heads the Covington & Burlings Law Firm in the 

International Practice area. His work at Covington focuses on resolving international trade problems and business disputes with 

the United States and foreign governments, international business 

transactions and regulations on behalf of United States companies 

and others around the world. 

During a decade and a half of public service in three United 

States administrations, the ambassador has held a number of key 

senior positions, including Chief White House domestic policy advisor to President Carter. During the Carter Administration, ambassador to the European Union, and undersecretary of commerce for 

national trade, undersecretary of state for economic, business and 

agriculture affairs, and deputy secretary of the treasury all during 

the Clinton administration. 

During the Clinton administration, he held a prominent role in 

the development of key international initiatives and was special 

representative to the President and secretary of state on Holocaustera issues. A denizen of Atlanta, Georgia, we welcome you, Ambassador Eizenstat. Will you begin your testimony? 

TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR STUART E. EIZENSTAT, SPECIAL 

ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY FOR HOLOCAUST ISSUES, OFFICE OF HOLOCAUST ISSUES (EUR/OHI), U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. As many of you know, I have devoted a substantial part of my life to raising the cause of justice for Holocaust survivors and their families when it was not on the world’s agenda for 

50 years and when it was largely forgotten. From the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which I helped initiate, to leading $8 billion in settlements for Jewish victims of the Holocaust and their 

families, and for non-Jewish victims of Nazi oppression, I have devoted all this time to it. 

Despite the lofty motives of this bill, it would put all of this 

progress at risk and would imperil future and ongoing negotiations 

for Holocaust survivors and their families, or indeed for any claims 

process which relies on the commitment of the United States government. 

Mr. COHEN. Maybe if you would move a little bit from the mic, 

we won’t get the feedback. I am not sure. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Quite bluntly, it would undermine the credibility 

of the United States of America. 

51 

We owe an international obligation to Germany and Austria to provide the legal peace that unlocked this $8 billion in settlements. 

This bill would reopen lawsuits against European insurers for Holocaust-era claims already settled by a court decision in the 

Generali class-action case, by an international commission, 

ICHEIC, established through a cooperative effort among state insurance commissioners, victim’s advocates, Jewish groups and the 

State Department. It would undo the policy of the last three Administrations to resolve Holocaust-era claims by diplomatic negotiations and alternative dispute mechanisms rather than litigation. 

The breadth of this is extraordinary and breathtaking. It would 

overturn a Supreme Court decision, a Court of Appeals decision, indicating that the foreign policy of the United States preempts conflicting state laws. It would allow state laws to enable lawyers who 

could have participated in the negotiations I led for 10 years to 

bring new lawsuits against insurance companies who have already 

paid hundreds of millions of dollars to Holocaust survivors and 

their heirs with the clear express understanding that the United 

States government would support a carefully negotiated legal piece 

so they wouldn’t have to pay twice. 

It would, therefore, conflict with our longstanding foreign policy 

and executive agreements. It would forbid the State Department to 

issue statements of interest in Holocaust-era cases when those 

were a central part of the bargain that led to the payment of all 

of this money. And it would cause the U.S. government to repudiate obligations we have made to foreign governments and raise 

questions about our ability to adhere to any future agreements. 

ICHEIC was created at the initiative of state insurance commissions, not the insurance companies in Europe, I can assure you, 

precisely because they knew that the road of litigation was slow, 

costly, and given the passage of 50 years, unlikely to lead to recovery by survivors. 

It was a claimant-friendly process encouraging people to file 

claims even if they only suspected but couldn’t prove someone in 

their family was a beneficiary. They paid thousands of claims that 

could never have gotten to the courthouse door. 

For example, they paid thousands of claims on companies that 

were defunct. They paid thousands of claims, indeed tens of thousands of claims, where the claimant couldn’t name an insurance 

company. They paid claims on companies that had been nationalized by the communists. They paid 31,000 claims where there was 

absolutely no evidence, only anecdotal stories. 

These would never have been recoverable in a court. That is 

what the ICHEIC process did, and it did it by creating a list of 

500,000 possible names at their expense, auditing the insurance 

companies to make sure that this was credible. 

Now, how did we get $8 billion in recovery from the Swiss, from 

the Germans, from the Austrians, from the French and from others? With a very essential bargain: legal peace. 

I can tell you, it was the most excruciatingly difficult negotiation 

I have ever had. Legal peace meant, if you pay once, you don’t have 

to pay a second time. That is, it was critical to unlocking compensation for victims who would never have been able to recover 

otherwise, given the passage of time. 

52 

This $8 billion has gone to one and a half million Jewish and 

non-Jewish victims of World War II, slave laborers and others. And 

it was premised on the promise of the United States government 

to support legal peace, backed by a statement of interest from the 

U.S. government, in future cases that these settlements were in the 

foreign policy interests of the United States. To upend this bargain 

would impair the credibility of the U.S. government in Holocaust 

negotiations and others. 

Now, ICHEIC did cease operating in March of 2007, but the European insurance companies that were part of ICHEIC have voluntarily agreed to continue to review new claims, and new claims 

have been provided and paid. For example, for German insurance 

companies alone, they have identified 43 new policies, and 

$140,000 has been paid on them. There is now, as we speak, an active claims process for both new insurance claims and previously 

rejected claims, if new information comes to light, at no cost to the 

claimant. 

I publicly invite any person who believes they have an insurance 

claim to bring this to our attention, and we in the State Department, through our Holocaust claims office or through the New York 

State Holocaust Claims Processing Office, so brilliantly led by 

Anna Rubin, will pursue that claim. We will forward it to the insurance entity. We will make sure they thoroughly research the 

claim and that they provide us with the results. 

This bill, as previous versions, is opposed by six major Jewish 

groups, by survivor groups, and by the class-action lawyer, Robert 

Swift—and I have got the scars on my back negotiating with him— 

who was the class-action lawyer in the Generali settlement. It 

would upend a negotiated settlement reached through the efforts of 

the government more than 10 years ago with respected class-action 

lawyers, and that negotiation was agreed to by these Jewish organizations, by advocates for Holocaust survivors, and by foreign governments as well as the United States. 

So this law, whatever its motives might be—and I am sure they 

are good—would undermine presidential authority in the most profound way, would impugn the credibility of the United States in negotiations, would complicate further efforts, which are ongoing 

now, to negotiate with Germany and other countries on behalf of 

Holocaust survivors and their families. We are trying to get best 

practices done, which I negotiated in June of this year, on real 

property. It would throw into question whether the word of the executive branch meant anything. 

So I urge you, in the strongest terms, to recognize that this 

claims process outside of court, it was the best way. It is the best 

way. It remains open for future claims. We will pursue any claims 

that we hear about to make sure that they are inspected. Please 

do not take an action to undermine what was $8 billion worth of 

compensation premised on legal peace, and that legal peace would 

be undermined by this bill in the most profound way. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eizenstat follows:] 

53 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STUART E. EIZENSTAT


SEE-1.eps
54 


SEE-2.eps
55 


SEE-3.eps
56 


SEE-4.eps
57 


SEE-5.eps
58 


SEE-6.eps
59 


SEE-7.eps
60 


SEE-8.eps
61 


SEE-9.eps
62 


SEE-10.eps
63 


SEE-11.eps
64 


SEE-12.eps
65 


SEE-13.eps
66 


SEE-14.eps
67 


SEE-15.eps
68 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, and I would noticed 

that you are, in fact, a resident, or a denizen, of D.C. now, but your 

roots are certainly in Atlanta. You never lose those. And I would 

comment—— 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Haven’t lost my accent, although I have changed 

my residence. 


SEE-16.eps
69 

Mr. COHEN. Understood, and I am sure you are proud of your Atlanta roots, though. 

Chairman Berman wrote a letter pretty much in support of the 

position you are taking, and then we have heard from the Administration, as well. 

Our second witness is Mr. Samuel Dubbin. Mr. Dubbin is a principal in the law firm of Dubbin & Kravetz, former shareholder in 

the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, and a partner with Steel Hector 

& Davis. Concentrations in this practice here is administrative, 

regulatory and commercial litigation. 

Dubbin & Kravetz currently represent Holocaust survivors and 

heirs of Holocaust victims and litigation against European insurance companies that have failed to pay the proceeds of insurance 

policies issued prior to World War II in Federal court litigation and 

for recovery of other assets, as well. 

He has testified on the issue of insurance policies that were sold 

to Holocaust victims but never before the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee. And he has testified before 

the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

Mr. Dubbin served from 1993 to 1996 as an official in the United 

States Department of Justice and Transportation. He was special 

assistant to Attorney General Reno, a graduate of Coral Gables 

High School, and deputy assistant attorney general for policy development in the Department of Justice, and later served as chief 

counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 

the Department of Transportation. I guess was that when Jim Hall 

was there, or was it earlier? Okay. Thank you. Would you please 

begin your testimony? 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL J. DUBBIN, P.A., 

DUBBIN & KRAVETZ, LLP 

Mr. DUBBIN. [Off Mike] Is that better? Can you hear me? Am I 

audible here? Thank you very much. I want to thank the Committee for holding this hearing. I represent Holocaust survivors, a 

large number of them. They don’t all necessarily have insurance 

claims. In fact, many may not. I also represent some family members of survivors. 

But survivors I represent are elected leaders of Holocaust survivor groups from around the country. They sent the Committee a 

letter expressing their support for the legislation and their pointed 

opposition to the arguments that have been made by institutions 

and organizations who do not represent survivors and who certainly don’t represent them in their individual capacity. 

They are American citizens, and today, their rights as American 

citizens have been stripped away not because Congress passed a 

law with full open disclosure and debate, but because the executive 

branch, in letters to the court and in exaggerating what was agreed 

to in 2000, has essentially said that a private offshore corporation 

that was funded by the insurance companies, and controlled by the 

insurance companies, that excluded claimants and that rejected 

congressional oversight, even though Congress had mandated the 

production of ICHEIC-related records, because the executive 

branch has said that we believe this private chamber should be the 

exclusive remedy, that today, Holocaust survivors are second-class 

70 

citizens in the U.S. legal system. They have asked me to come 

speak on their behalf in support of this legislation. 

There are three fundamental problems with the status quo. The 

first is the general notion of executive preemption. It is a constitutional and public policy disaster that has allowed these U.S. citizens, Holocaust survivors, including U.S. veterans and war veterans, to be stripped of their legal rights. 

The second is the instrument of this stripping, the ICHEIC. It 

was a fundamentally flawed process. And I can show you the 

stacks of newspaper articles by those people who, if they weren’t 

part of ICHEIC, they weren’t flown around the world in business 

class and staying in five-star hotels to participate, they were simply trying to help people. 

And what they proved, and what a large body of evidence shows, 

was that ICHEIC operated in secret. ICHEIC did not produce the 

policy names that were supposed to be produced. It was substantially incomplete. 

Survivors were not represented by anybody they authorized. And at the end of the day, it paid 3 percent. ICHEIC paid $250 million 

in policy claims. Of the—today’s numbers, $20 billion that were 

sold by these companies. 

So the second element to this is, if you were to design a system 

today to be an alternate remedy for any citizen, like in a Worker’s 

Comp program, would you construct it so that the defendants paid 

for it and controlled it and were the only ones allowed to participate, and that the claimants didn’t have the right of representation, and it was not overseen by any governmental authority? I 

don’t think you would. 

But that is the law today. That is what the opponents of the legislation are saying. That is what Holocaust survivors should be 

stuck with. 

The third is the problematic expansion of the limited benefits the 

U.S. ever agreed to into the broad immunity now enjoyed by insurance companies. The legal peace argument is a misrepresentation 

of what was agreed to by President Clinton. 

President—the Germans, in their negotiations, asked for immunity from litigation. President Clinton said no. It was understood 

that the President did not have the power to immunize these insurance companies. They only promised that, if a German company 

was sued, it would file a statement of interest saying that the litigation should be dismissed on other available legal grounds, but 

categorically that the participation in ICHEIC did not, by itself, 

constitute grounds for dismissal. 

But today, the legal peace that the insurance companies enjoy is 

far broader than was ever agreed to, and the executive branch of 

the United States has literally misrepresented what was agreed to 

in the service of the insurance companies. They have said in court 

that it is U.S. policy that any litigation against any ICHEIC company violates U.S. foreign policy, and that such litigation is contrary to U.S. public policy. That is not what was agreed to. 

So the bedrock argument being made by Mr. Eizenstat and others is a misrepresentation of what was agreed to. They are asking 

you, as Congress, to ratify not only what you didn’t agree to in 

2000, but what President Clinton didn’t agree to in 2000. 

71 

And when Mr. Eizenstat says that the underlying premise of 

legal peace is that the companies should not have to pay twice, we 

agree with that. If this bill passes, nobody is going to pay twice. 

If they paid through ICHEIC, that claim is dead. But if they are 

holding one of the 97 percent, over $19 billion worth of policies that 

were not paid through ICHEIC, the survivors deserve, and their 

heirs deserve to have those claims paid. So that is something that 

needs to be carefully understood. 

The other problem with the arguments being asserted is that the 

survivors never agreed. I mean, talk about Jewish organizations 

participating in a commission, no survivor authorized the Claims 

Conference or the American Jewish Committee to sit at a table and 

decide what they are entitled to as individual American citizens. 

That is anathema to the American way. 

And so, the organizations that are now opposing the legislation 

were part of the commission. They also—and I have to say this, 

and it is uncomfortable for me because I am Jewish, and I have received awards from most of the organizations who are opposing the 

survivors today—but you have to look deeply. What is their standing to oppose survivor’s interests? They claim to have been actively 

fighting for survivors’ rights all those years. The record doesn’t 

support it. But worse yet—— 

Mr. COHEN. Let me suggest that I will ask you a question where 

you can respond to this, but that the red light is on, and we have 

our rules, and we can’t go over. 

Mr. DUBBIN. All right. Can I just finish that one thought there? 

Mr. COHEN. If it is a quick way to finish it. 

Mr. DUBBIN. Well, if the organizations, like the ADL, has taken 

money from Generali, and the American Jewish Committee has 

taken, and is taking money from Allianz today, you need to examine that. You need to understand their motives for opposing the 

rights of individual American citizens who are Holocaust survivors 

from enjoying their equal rights. 

And I do have some comments to some of the other questions 

that were made, so I do hope you ask me some questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dubbin follows:] 

72 

*Mr. Dubbin submitted eleven exhibits as attachments to his prepared statement. Due to the 

voluminous size of the attachments, the material is not being printed with this statement but 

is on file with the Subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMUEL J. DUBBIN* 


SJD-1.eps
73 


SJD-2.eps
74 


SJD-3.eps
75 


SJD-4.eps
76 


SJD-5.eps
77 


SJD-6.eps
78 


SJD-7.eps
79 


SJD-8.eps
80 


SJD-9.eps
81 


SJD-10.eps
82 


SJD-11.eps
83 


SJD-12.eps
84 


SJD-13.eps
85 


SJD-14.eps
86 


SJD-15.eps
87 


SJD-16.eps
88 


SJD-17.eps
89 


SJD-18.eps
90 


SJD-19.eps
91 


SJD-20.eps
92 


SJD-21.eps
93 


SJD-22.eps
94 


SJD-23.eps
95 


SJD-24.eps
96 


SJD-25.eps
97 


SJD-26.eps
98 


SJD-27.eps
99 


SJD-28.eps
100 


SJD-29.eps
101 


SJD-30.eps
102 


SJD-31.eps
103 


SJD-32.eps
104 


SJD-33.eps
105 


SJD-34.eps
106 


SJD-35.eps
107 


SJD-36.eps
108 


SJD-37.eps
109 


SJD-38.eps
110 


SJD-39.eps
111 


SJD-40.eps
112 


SJD-41.eps
113 


SJD-42.eps
114 


SJD-43.eps
115 


SJD-44.eps
116 


SJD-45.eps
117 


SJD-46.eps
118 


SJD-47.eps
119 


SJD-48.eps
120 


SJD-49.eps
121 


SJD-50.eps
122 


SJD-51.eps
123 


SJD-52.eps
124 


SJD-53.eps
125 


SJD-54.eps
126 


SJD-55.eps
127 


SJD-56.eps
128 


SJD-57.eps
129 


SJD-58.eps
130 


SJD-59.eps
131 


SJD-60.eps
132 


SJD-61.eps
133 


SJD-62.eps
134 


SJD-63.eps
135 


SJD-64.eps
136 


SJD-65.eps
137 


SJD-66.eps
138 


SJD-67.eps
139 


SJD-68.eps
140 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Dubbin. Appreciate your testimony. 

Our third witness, and we would appreciate everybody else sticking with the 5 minutes, Professor Van Alstine, Michal Van Alstine. 

He specializes in international domestic private law. He is published widely in both English and German in the areas of contracts, 

commercial law, international commercial transactions. His particular area of scholarly interest is domestic law application of 

international law through the vehicle of treaties. 

Prior to joining the University of Maryland School of Law faculty 

in 2002, Professor Van Alstine spent 7 years at the University Of 

Cincinnati College Of Law, during which time he was a four-time 

recipient of the Goldman Prize for excellence in teaching. 

At the School of Law, Professor Van Alstine teaches international 

business transactions, contract sales, sales financing and commercial law. He served as associate dean for research and faculty development from 2006 to 2010. Before becoming a law professor, he 

practiced domestic, international and commercial and business law 

at different firms in the U.S. and Germany. 

Professor Van Alstine, please proceed. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL P. VAN ALSTINE, PROFESSOR OF 

LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW 

Mr. VAN ALSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have timed this. 

It should be exactly 5 minutes. 

I am here today to address the legal backdrop for the Holocaust 

Insurance Accountability Act of 2010. I wish to emphasize, I am 

not here on behalf of any of the interested parties. I have had no 

involvement with any of the substantive issues that have led to 

this legislation, weighty though they are. 

My motivation for appearing here is, instead, a deep concern 

about the constitutional issues that have made legislation such as 

this necessary at all. My more detailed thoughts are set forth in 

my statement, but I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that the principles 

of our Constitution that I will discuss are so elementary that, well, 

they are taught in elementary school. 

And so, I risk sounding like a pedantic law professor when I say 

out loud that the Constitution establishes Congress, you, as a Federal lawmaker, not the President acting on his own, and certainly 

not lower-level unelected executive branch officials. Nonetheless, 

some recent Federal courts, as we have heard, perhaps overawed 

by the role of the executive branch in foreign affairs, improperly 

have given effect as law to simple statements of foreign policy by 

the executive branch officials. It is for this reason that the subject 

of this legislation is highly worthy of Congress’s attention to right 

what I believe, from a legal matter, is a constitutional wrong. 

At the core of the disputes, as you have heard, are the executive 

agreements that were concluded, I must emphasize, without congressional approval, and the essential legal issue is the extent to 

which these executive agreements and, more broadly, statements of 

executive foreign policy have any force as law in the United States. 

As mentioned, the agreements themselves do not even purport to 

have the power to dismiss lawsuits. 

Nonetheless, in the Garamendi opinion, five to four—and I will 

note in the margins, three of the five are no longer on the court— 

141 

the Supreme Court found that the foreign policy reflected in the executive agreements precluded direct interference by the California 

insurance disclosure statute. Unfortunately, but entirely predictably, the court’s immoderate rhetoric in Garamendi has led to even 

greater claims of unilateral executive lawmaking powers and to 

Federal lawsuit—the Federal courts now dismissing otherwise entirely valid lawsuits based solely on claims by executive branch officials that is contrary to the foreign policy of the United States. 

In my view, these opinions violate fundamental principles of separation of powers and federalism at the core of our Constitution. 

I hardly need to remind the Committee that the Constitution created significant procedural hurdles to the creation of Federal law, 

and those hurdles required the cooperation of both houses of Congress, typically, and the President. And the fact that we are discussing the preemption of state law changes nothing of relevance 

here other than minor issues I don’t have time to talk about. 

The Federal Government, indeed, has the power to displace even 

neutral state laws of general application, especially in matters of 

foreign affairs, but it may only do so acting through constitutionally-empowered institutions—read Congress—following constitutionally-prescribed procedures. Nothing in this mandatory procedure for creating Federal law gives the force of law to unilateral 

executive agreements or unilateral statements of foreign policy. 

The Constitution’s finely-wrought procedures for Federal lawmaking serve important ends of transparency and representative 

democracy. They ensure that the law is made in the open and with 

the input of the people’s elected representatives in Congress. Under 

the misguided recent Federal court opinions, in contrast, I must 

emphasize this: the very content of the law is subject to the whims 

of the executive branch from time to time, from subject to subject, 

and even from case to case. 

As I note, there is an example right now of this, the BP fund 

process going on with regard to the Gulf Oil Spill. At the present 

time, this process is entirely voluntary, but under the Federal court 

opinions, this could change at any time at the whim of the executive branch. If some future executive branch officials were to determine at the behest of a foreign government, industry groups, BP 

itself, or in any way we probably will never find out, that the lawsuits against BP in court were contrary to our foreign policy, the 

courts would dismiss the cases on that basis alone. 

Now, even in the few and narrow cases where the Supreme 

Court has recognized sole executive agreements with foreign countries, it has emphasized that their legal effect must depend decisively on the existence of longstanding approval of Congress. It is 

thus, in any event, entirely appropriate for Congress now to reassert its proper authority as the Federal lawmaker under the Constitution and to declare its actual intent. 

And indeed, I just noted this now—and I might go 15 seconds 

over—there is a perverse feedback loop here. If you do not pass this 

legislation, in the future, litigators are going to say, ‘‘See, Congress 

agrees with the President dismissing cases on his own,’’ typically 

lower level officials, ‘‘because Congress refused to do anything 

about it.’’ 

142 

Finally, you certainly have the power to take away the preemptive effect under the Constitution. The Constitution expressly gives 

to you, to Congress, the power to regulate foreign commerce. In exercise of this power, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held 

throughout history that you may even abrogate a formal treaty, 

and that certainly must apply as well to the domestic law effect of 

a unilateral executive agreement or mere statements of foreign policy. 

And one last thought to give you a sense of how much we are 

talking about, there are something like 15,000 to 18,000 executive 

agreements out there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Alstine follows:] 

143 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. VAN ALSTINE


MPVA-1.eps
144 


MPVA-2.eps
145 


MPVA-3.eps
146 


MPVA-4.eps
147 


MPVA-5.eps
148 


MPVA-6.eps
149 


MPVA-7.eps
150 


MPVA-8.eps
151 


MPVA-9.eps
152 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Professor Van Alstine. You have each 

left us with scary propositions, that these organizations are influenced by money. There is gambling. I am shocked. And your idea 

of all these executive agreements, those are all scary things. 

Our final witness is Ms. Anna Rubin. Ms. Rubin is the director 

of the Holocaust Claims Processing Office of the New York State 

Banking Department. 


MPVA-10.eps
153 

Since joining the Holocaust Claims Processing Office in 2001, she 

has worked directly with Holocaust survivors and their heirs, seeking a measure of just resolution for the theft of assets during the 

reign of the Nazi regime. Through consultation with high level officials from numerous international and domestic compensation organizations and partner entities, Ms. Rubin developed systems for 

and coordinate submission of claims from over 5,000 individuals located in 45 states and 38 countries. 

She frequently represents the HCPO at conferences and events, 

both locally and abroad, that focus on matters related to looted assets and restitution. And she got a nice compliment from the ambassador and gave a wonderful smile that he didn’t see. 

Thank you, Ms. Rubin. Will you proceed with your testimony? 

TESTIMONY OF ANNA B. RUBIN, DIRECTOR, HOLOCAUST 

CLAIMS PROCESSING OFFICE, NEW YORK STATE BANKING 

DEPARTMENT 

Ms. RUBIN. Good afternoon, Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member 

Franks and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and share my knowledge on the 

important issue of Holocaust-era insurance claims. As director of 

the Holocaust Claims Processing Office, a joint venture of the New 

York State Banking and Insurance Departments, I am pleased to 

be able to provide insight into New York State’s efforts to provide 

some measure of justice to the victims of a painful chapter in world 

history. 

For over 13 years, the state of New York has been at the forefront of ensuring a just resolution of unresolved claims for assets 

lost due to Nazi persecution, and in June 1997 established the 

HCPO. Claimants pay no fee for the HCPO’s services, nor does the 

office take a percentage of the value of the assets recovered. Our 

goal is to advocate for claimants by helping to alleviate any costs 

and bureaucratic hardships they might encounter in trying to pursue claims on their own. 

Since its inception, the HCPO has assisted over 2,300 individuals 

from 43 states and 24 countries in making claims for insurance 

policies. To date, the combined total of offers extended to HCPO 

claimants amounts to more than $154 million, $31 million of which 

is compensation for insurance policies. 

In response to the complex nature of restitution claims, the 

HCPO employs a four-step method to handle cases. First, the 

HCPO undertakes general historical research to corroborate and 

contextualize information specifically regarding the insurance industry in pre-war Europe, the results of which have shown that 

Germany, with the largest pre-war insurance market in Continental Europe, also had the most comprehensive post-war compensation program. 

In contrast, Poland, the country with the largest number of victims of Nazi persecution, played a relatively minor role in the industry. Realistic expectations of what policy-specific information 

can be found in both archives and company records must take this 

backdrop into account. 

The past 10 years has seen the publication of hundreds of thousands of potential policyholder names from both company records 

154 

and public archives. The HCPO uses this information, in conjunction with research in domestic and international public and private 

archives, to obtain documentary evidence. This has proven critical 

to resolving claims. 

Second, the HCPO determines where to file a claim, meaning 

what present-day company or process is responsible for the policy. 

For claims for policies issued by companies still in existence, finding the appropriate successor is relatively straightforward. But for 

others, determining the successor is more complex. Indeed, in many 

cases, there is no present-day successor. 

Third, relying on relaxed standards of proof, claims are submitted to all available venues. Under these commonly accepted evidentiary standards, which are not as stringent as those generally 

employed in court, the claim cannot be rejected on the grounds that 

the claimant lacks complete documentary evidence. 

With the implementation of international agreements mentioned 

earlier, the HCPO transferred thousands of claims to a variety of 

processes. In March 2007, with the closing of ICHEIC, its member 

companies, as well as members of the German Insurance Association, the vast majority of which are beyond the reach of the U.S. 

judicial system, reiterated their commitment to continue to review 

and process claims under ICHEIC’s relaxed standards of proof. 

The HCPO continues to deal directly with insurance companies 

to successfully resolve outstanding claims. The fourth and final 

step in the HCPO process involves evaluating decisions to ensure 

that they adhere to agreed-upon processing guidelines. 

Like the missing property we search for, no two claims are alike. 

Each requires conscientious individual attention and painstaking 

effort, a task greatly helped by increased archival and library cooperation and the company’s continued willingness to review 

claims. 

The process of restitution is difficult and distressing for claimants. However, the HCPO has successfully brought closure to survivors and their heirs. The HCPO’s non-litigious approach to claims 

resolution shows that it is possible to obtain compensation for assets lost during the Holocaust era through open and mutual cooperation and at no cost to claimants. 

In closing, permit me to suggest that, as we strive to achieve our 

common goal to settle claims for Holocaust-era looted assets as sensitively and as swiftly as possible, it behooves us all to manage 

claimants’ expectations and not raise an exaggerated sense of what 

might be accomplished through litigation. 

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I would be happy to 

address any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rubin follows:] 

155 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNA B. RUBIN


ABR-1.eps
156 


ABR-2.eps
157 


ABR-3.eps
158 


ABR-4.eps
159 


ABR-5.eps
160 


ABR-6.eps
161 


ABR-7.eps
162 


ABR-8.eps
163 


ABR-9.eps
164 


ABR-10.eps
165 


ABR-11.eps
166 


ABR-12.eps
167 


ABR-13.eps
168 


ABR-14.eps
169 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Ms. Rubin. And like the old game show 

before your time, Bud Collyer, you beat the clock. Thank you. 

We have been asked by a group that comes together under the 

umbrella of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors 

and the descendants of President Sam Bloch to enter some papers 

into the record. They are testimony that would have been given by 


ABR-15.eps
170 

the American Jewish Committee of the Anti-Defamation League, 

B’Nai Brith International, Conference of Jewish Material Claims 

Against Germany, World Jewish Congress, World Jewish Restitution Organizations. And without objection, they will be entered into 

the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

171 


2A.eps
172 


2B-1.eps
173 


2B-2.eps
174 


2B-3.eps
175 


2B-4.eps
176 


2B-5.eps
177 


2B-6.eps
178 


2B-7.eps
179 


2B-8.eps
180 


2B-9.eps
181 

Mr. COHEN. We will now start questioning. It will be 5 minutes. 

And my first question is to Mr. Dubbin. 

You made some statements, with the permission of the chair to 

go over, about some organizations. And I think it was the Anti-Defamation League and maybe B’Nai Brith, two revered organizations 

in this country. 


2B-10.eps
182 

And while I understand, as a person who gets campaign contributions, that they can have effects on you in certain ways maybe 

you sometimes don’t even understand, I have also gotten contributions from groups that I never would support. And I feel like, if 

they want to give me money, so be it. I am still going to vote 

against their issue if I think it is wrong, and I don’t make it what 

decides what I do. 

Those statements you made were serious, and I would like you 

to just address them. Do you have any definite basis for suggesting 

that those contributions have influenced the policy or decisions or 

positions of either of those organizations? 

Mr. DUBBIN. Well, there is a difference, Mr. Chairman, between 

an elected official whose job it is to balance the public interest considerations that he has to deal with in making public policy and 

a Jewish not-for-profit organization whose only currency is morality. So if in the heat of a public battle over whether Generali lied 

to its customers, lied to the public, failed to pay policies, lied about 

the fact that it had a complete archive of all of its policyholder informations, if in the heat of that battle the ADL wants to take 

money, it has the right to take money. But to then step out in the 

public domain and support the company that victimized Holocaust 

survivors on that issue I think is—— 

Mr. COHEN. Tell me, Mr. Dubbin, your proof. How much money 

did they receive, and when did they receive it? 

Mr. DUBBIN. Well, what is certain is that, in 1999, they received $100,000 at a dinner honoring Generali’s president and have consistently, since that time—— 

Mr. COHEN. And this is the Anti-Defamation League? 

Mr. DUBBIN. This is the Anti-Defamation League, okay? So 

again, I don’t question their ability to receive money from a company like this, but they don’t have a public—— 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you a question. Had they taken a position prior to 1999 that was consistent with their position today? 

Have they changed their position since they received that contribution, or has their position been consistent? 

Mr. DUBBIN. They were not—I am not aware of their having 

taken the position prior to the time they received that money, but 

that all happened about the time that this issue was raised in the 

public consciousness. 

I mean, as a practical matter, the issue was raised in the heat 

of the Swiss Bank controversy in 1996. Generali issued a paper 

around the world saying that it was a lie that they had records of 

unpaid policies. A reporter found an archive entry that showed that 

they had systematic records of the policies they sold during that 

period of time. 

The NAIC then conducted hearings, digging into this, hearing 

from survivors about what happened. And states passed laws in 

1998, like Mr. Garamendi said, saying if you want to do business 

in our state, you have to produce the information from that period 

of time, and also extending periods of—— 

Mr. COHEN. So bottom line is, you say that there is public 

record—it is given that, in 1999, $100,000 was contributed to the 

ADL, and you don’t know if they had a position. To the best of your 

knowledge, they didn’t have one prior, but they had one later. And 

183 

you are suggesting that that $100,000 influenced them. Is that 

what you are saying? 

Mr. DUBBIN. I am saying that, in evaluating—well, I will say 

something else, okay? At the time they sent a letter out—— 

Mr. COHEN. Go ahead. I am listening. 

Mr. DUBBIN. I am saying there are other—I think you also have 

to ask the question about the former president of the ADL who is 

also Generali’s chief lawyer, who plays a prominent role in the organization, whose name is on the letter that was sent by ADL opposing the survivors’ interests. 

Mr. COHEN. And what is that man’s name? 

Mr. DUBBIN. Ken Bialkin. I am saying that the Congress should 

consider the motives of an organization that had no direct involvement in the advocacy for survivors’ affairs prior to the time they 

took that money. I went on the—one of the things the Holocaust 

Survivors Foundation has been advocating for is—— 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you another question. You mentioned a 

second group. Was it—— 

Mr. DUBBIN. It is the American Jewish Committee, okay, and the 

American Jewish Committee is currently advertising and making 

no bones about the fact that it has a partnership with Allianz— 

Allianz is a company that attempted to secure the naming rights 

for the New York Giants-Jets stadium in New Jersey in 2008—and 

the public outcry over its unmet Holocaust-era actions, not only 

having insured Auschwitz but having failed to pay a couple of billion dollars worth of policies resulted in them withdrawing their 

bid to name the Allianz—to name that stadium in New York. They 

were part of ICHEIC. 

But according to Sid Davidoff, the economist who was in ICHEIC 

for 6 years, they have tens of thousands of unpaid policies, including, by the way, policies from Ross, which like Generali was a Jewish company, an entity that Allianz acquired, they have at least $2 

billion worth of unpaid policies. 

So I am not saying that the American Jewish Committee can’t 

have a partnership with anybody it wants to. They could have one 

with Phillip Morris. They could have one with Goldman Sachs. 

They could have one with Allianz. 

But to then step into the public debate against Holocaust survivors who have made it clear—I mean, these are elected survivors 

from all over the country who say, if Mr. So-and-So wants to go to 

ICHEIC, if Mr. So-and-So wants to go to Ms. Rubin, they have 

every right to do that. If they want to accept 10 cents on the dollar, 

like ICHEIC was paying, they have every right to do that. But I 

am an American citizen. 

My father entered into a contract with the Generali and Allianz. 

That contract, by the way, they promised to pay wherever the 

claimant sought payment. So these aren’t foreign transactions, because they knew, when they were selling to Jewish people in Europe, those people may not end up in Europe after the war. 

Mr. COHEN. So they have got an agreement with this company, 

but they haven’t necessarily taken a contribution that you know of? 

Mr. DUBBIN. The documents that I have seen that are public say 

that Allianz is funding trips through the American Jewish Committee of young professionals to Germany as part of a partnership. 

184 

Mr. COHEN. All right. Let me ask a question of the panel. And 

I wish we could go into the substance, and maybe we will in further questioning about the substance of the law and the merits of 

the law. But you brought up, and I think it is a serious allegation, 

and it needs to be clarified. I would like to ask either the ambassador or anybody else, do you have any knowledge of any of these 

contributions, and what is your response to what Mr. Dubbin has 

suggested? 

Ambassador, you are recognized. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. In the space of 5 minutes, the chief outside advocate for this bill has impugned the rationale, saying that the executive branch that negotiated these $8 billion in settlements has misrepresented the legal peace that it offered, which is not the case. 

We said that the statement of interest was in the foreign policy interest of the government. We did not suggest that there was absolute immunity, and that the courts have upheld that. 

Second, the notion that ICHEIC was somehow a tool of the foreign insurance companies, it was headed by the former Secretary 

of State of the United States, Lawrence Eagleburger. It had, and 

was initiated, by insurance commissioners of this country, Bill Nelson, Glenn Pomeroy, Diane Koken, Charles Quakenbush from California. 

The notion that it had no claimant representatives on it—Mr. 

Dubbin says he is the representative of the claimants. Roman 

Kent, whose testimony is so eloquent against this bill, is the founder of the American Gathering of Holocaust Victims. It was the first 

time, 20 years ago when they met, that Holocaust victims ever met 

each other. He founded the organization. 

The Jewish Agency of Israel was on this. Moshe Sanbar, the 

chairman of the Center of Organization of Holocaust Survivors in 

Israel, the American Jewish Committee, the ADL, I mean, the notion that these are somehow tools of the insurance companies that 

they got $300 million from, paying policies that would never have 

been paid in court, is really a terrible allegation. 

Now, I am not here—I am representing the United States government, but because these groups, the ADL and the AJC, have 

taken the position we have, I think it is very important to clarify 

the record. They haven’t opposed this legislation. 

These are groups—the American Jewish Committee, for goodness 

sake, has been around for almost 100 years representing the interests of Jews all over the world and others disadvantaged. Abe 

Foxman is the prime spokesman for the defense of human rights 

anywhere. He is himself a Holocaust child survivor. 

And the reason that they—again, not speaking for them, but I 

know about this dinner. Allianz was a key partner in getting $5 

billion, 10 billion deutschmarks, from the German companies and 

German government. And $280 million of that was passed through 

to ICHEIC. Generali, the reason I am sure that they were honored, 

they paid $135 million in claims through ICHEIC, more than any 

other company, almost 4,000 claimants. Another $48 million to 

foundations in Israel, Germany, Austria and Netherlands, $3 million to claimants outside of ICHEIC, a total of $200 million. 

I mean, the notion—the notion—that the groups that have opposed, as we do, this legislation have done so because they have 

185 

been bought and sold by foreign insurance companies whom were 

extracted $300 million for victims, who have spent their whole careers fighting for justice for Jews and other discriminated against? 

The record should not stand with that allegation. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. And that is why I 

raised it as a question, because it is a serious allegation. If it is 

true, it needs to be aired. And if it is not true, it needs to be dispelled. 

Does the professor or Ms. Rubin want to make comment on any 

of those allegations? You are obviously—Solomon. 

Professor, let me ask you this. You say that this is a fundamental and basic law. You believe that, because of the separation 

of powers, the inherent authorities of the legislature, that the executive has overstepped itself. Is that your position? 

Mr. VAN ALSTINE. With respect to this legislation, absolutely, 

and I am not sure that anyone can make a plausible claim to the 

contrary. 

Mr. COHEN. Is there any precedent for this type of action? You 

have got 10,000, you said, executive orders out there. Do they all 

rival the—and come in the same—no? 

Mr. VAN ALSTINE. No. The precedent on these executive agreements, there are three previous cases, two of which go back to 

World War II. They relate to the recognition of the Soviet Union 

entirely within the executive branch’s authority to recognize governments, totally unproblematic. The difficulty was there was some 

really loose rhetoric in the first—it was the Belmont case. I won’t 

be too much law professor and tell you all the details of that. 

Second one related to the agreements that settled the Iran hostage case, and that was clear executive—I am sorry, clear approval 

of Congress, and the Supreme Court made absolutely clear in that 

Dames & Moore case that it was related to the sole facts of that 

case. 

The trouble is the loose language of the court in Garamendi. Actually, I firmly believe the Supreme Court will overrule Garamendi 

at some point. In fact, I read there is a later case called Medellin, 

and I think the Supreme Court has already overruled Garamendi. 

But it is out there. 

And with just one narrow thing to make sure that I am not misunderstood, if a state were to intentionally inject itself into foreign 

affairs—I will give you an absurd example—if Michigan were to declare that they don’t like the government of France and they are 

not going to recognize France as a country, or something absurd 

like that, if a state were to inject itself into foreign affairs, then 

yes, that would be something completely independently that would 

preclude that that would be barred by all sorts of other provisions 

in the Constitution I won’t get into. 

But the idea that the executive branch can simply state that it 

is foreign policy and take away private rights, I am not aware of 

any plausible argument that that conforms to—— 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Ambassador, do you have a plausible argument 

to counter Professor Van Alstine’s position? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Mr. Chairman, I am not here to debate constitutional issues of preemption. The government will have its position 

if it decides to file an amicus brief in the cases which are pending. 

186 

What I am here to do is to say that, as a policy matter, we established a process that paid tens of thousands of people who would 

never have been able to recover in court, and that we did so and 

got that money on the basis of an understanding that we reached, 

a bargain that we would file statements of interest asking that 

cases be dismissed on any legal ground because it was in the foreign policy interest in the United States. So that is how we got this 

money. And I am not here to debate the preemption or not. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, but let me ask you—Mr. Ambassador, I appreciate that, that maybe you are not here to debate it, but we are 

here to hear it. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Yes, sir. And I—— 

Mr. COHEN. And as a legislator, I am a legislative guy. I spent 

my whole life in the legislature. You have spent your whole life in 

the executive. There are differences, and there is a Constitution to 

say what is Caesar’s and what is God’s. And the ends don’t always 

justify the means. Is there a basis in an argument that you can 

make that would counter Professor Van Alstine’s, that this is a 

usurpation of congressional authority? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. There is, and that is what the Supreme Court of 

the United States said in Garamendi. Basically, they said that the 

foreign policy of the United States preempts conflicting state laws. 

That is what they said. 

Now, in terms of what the Administration will say, I am going 

to leave that to the solicitor general. But there certainly are very 

strong legal grounds here. But again, I am here to talk about the 

policy issues. What Congress can do constitutionally and what it 

should do, given the bargain that was reached here and what it 

would do to impugn the credibility of the United States, are very 

different things. 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask Mr. Dubbin this. He may have knowledge, Ms. Rubin may have knowledge, I don’t know. Obviously 

there are issues on both sides. There have been a lot of individuals 

who have received compensation and a goodly amount of money. 

What is your position on how many people who have not received 

compensation, and how much money have they been denied? 

Mr. DUBBIN. Well, I rely on Sid Zubludoff, a well respected economist who participated in ICHEIC, participated in the study they 

did where they examined the markets in Europe and how many 

policies each of these companies sold and the like. 

He said that, at the time ICHEIC started, there was about 800 

million then, $14 billion at the time in unpaid money. By the time 

ICHEIC ended in 2007, that was 18 billion in unpaid, okay? 

ICHEIC compensated 250 million of 18 billion, and it paid 14,000 

claims out of 800,000 policies, according to Mr. Zubludoff. I am telling you that the number of unpaid policies is undoubtedly in the 

thousands. It is probably in the tens of thousands. 

Does that mean that is how many lawsuits will result if this law 

passes? Honestly, I doubt it because, you know, some families have 

passed from the scene entirely. Some families were annihilated. A 

lot will depend on the kind of protections. 

I mean, let us face it. It is not easy to sue an insurance company. 

I mean, this bill doesn’t give anybody any money. It simply allows 

the states to go get that information like Mr. Garamendi said they 

187 

were trying to do before ICHEIC came along and cut short the 

amount of information that the insurance commissioners thought 

they needed, and it would allow people to go to a lawyer, say, ‘‘Do 

you think I have a case.’’ 

Now, most states have laws saying that, if you have to sue an 

insurance company to get your money back, you get your attorney’s 

fees and additional damages because most lawyers are not going to 

take a $50,000 or $100,000 case on a contingency. But the money 

belongs to the people and the heirs, not the insurance company. 

Mr. COHEN. Some have alleged that this will not open up the 

courts to that many people, and only really to one client. What is 

your response to that? 

Mr. DUBBIN. That is simply not true. 

Mr. COHEN. Anybody else have a comment on any of the matters 

that we have discussed? 

Mr. DUBBIN. I would like to see that if someone has actually 

written that, because I can promise you that that is not true. 

Mr. COHEN. Ms. Rubin, do you have any comments on any of the 

things that have been discussed, close up? 

Ms. RUBIN. I would simply say that our study of the market, of 

the pre-war insurance market suggests that the value of the overall 

market is far less than what is asserted to be the remaining unpaid balance of insurance policies. 

Our study has showed that the market was valued, at the highest possible U.S. conversion rate, to be about $13 billion. Using an 

alternative method to up-rate the 1936 dollar to today’s value, we 

get $6 billion. Calculation is very contingent on the method you use 

to arrive at the figures. 

As to the size of the overall market, I would also suggest that 

it is somewhat smaller in areas than has been articulated. We 

know that the Central and Eastern European insurance markets 

were relatively small. Germany had the largest market. They also 

had a highly comprehensive compensation program after the war. 

They continue to review claims today. They continue to pay claims 

today. They have paid over $130,000 in claims since ICHEIC 

closed. 

Since ICHEIC closed, we have also only received about 75 claims, 

or inquiries, for insurance policies. So the overall universe of what 

remains to be unpaid seems to be much smaller than—. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Mr. Chairman, we—— 

Mr. COHEN. Professor Van Alstine, do you have a comment on 

any of it? You are going to pass. 

Mr. Ambassador, to close? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. When ICHEIC began, it 

started with commissioning a study called the Pomeroy-Ferras 

study. Pomeroy was the state insurance commissioner in North Dakota. It provided solid evidence about the size and type of insurance products issued in each market prior to World War II. 

And we very much agree with Anna Rubin’s conclusion. They 

found, for example, that even in relatively wealthy Germany, the 

value of the average life insurance policy between 1933 and 1938 

was about $300 to $400, and that the estimates of the proportion 

188 

of unpaid claims on survivors immediately following World War II, 

in the case of Germany, was between 15 and 32 percent. 

So I think that the figures need to be put into that context. And 

may I also say that, after we reached our agreements, I testified 

very frequently before Congress in the Rayburn Building, explicitly 

outlining the agreements we reached, the legal peace concepts, the 

insurance agreements. This was done with the clear understanding 

and support of Congress. Jim Leach, as Chairman of the Banking 

Committee, had many, many hearings on this. 

So this was not done in the dead of night. It was done with great 

transparency, and I am privileged to have had the support on a bipartisan basis of Members of Congress. But again, on the actual 

numbers, the Pomeroy-Ferras report and Anna’s are, we think, the 

definitive. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir, and I appreciate the indulgence of 

the Committee, and a little Chairman’s prerogative, to take a little 

extra time. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Franks, for as much 

time as he may consume, and some—maybe discard—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Eizenstat, I will just say to you, person to person, 

I feel like I really sense, on your part, a desperate desire to do 

what is right by the people that were so tragically treated and so 

subjected to such injustice. And I think, like you, all of us here on 

this panel want, more than anything else, given the injustices, to 

especially do everything that we can to see that the most effective 

mechanism possible is employed to bring about the fulfillment of 

contractual rights in this situation. 

So what I want to ask you—and I assure you, I don’t have a bias 

here on the answer to this question. This is a sincere desire to find 

the truth here—given the complexities that exist, what system, or 

which system do you feel represents the best opportunity, in a 

world of reality, to achieve justice for the victims of the Holocaust 

and for those who did not get their contracts fulfilled, the existing 

ICHEIC process and the ongoing process that we will follow, or 

something that would occur as a result of the protocol under this 

bill? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Thank you for that very thoughtful question. 

Without question, it is the ICHEIC process and the post-ICHEIC 

process. And may I say, in that respect, that we are not letting this 

process simply careen out of control ourselves. The companies have 

pledged to use the same liberal standards of finding policies even 

if claimants don’t know the names of the companies. 

I invite every single person that Mr. Dubbin represents to submit 

to us and to submit to Anna their names. We will submit it to the 

companies. We will ensure that those companies research the 

claims. We will ensure that they report to us on what they have 

done. That is a far better process than reopening, after a decade, 

agreements that were reached and hundreds of millions of dollars 

paid by these insurance companies on the basis of legal fees. 

Let me just, if I may, show you why I think the process that was 

used is better than a court process. There were 91,000 claims made 

to ICHEIC; 31,000 of them, Congressman Franks, could not name 

189 

a company. There were, in effect, 60,000 unnamed claimants. That 

is an unnamed claim. 

ICHEIC, at the cost to the insurance companies themselves, created a list of 500,000 names of possible policyholders, and then 

they published it on the Internet. They invited people at no cost to 

make claims. They sent in auditors to the insurance companies to 

confirm that the claims were being properly processed. They developed lenient standards of evidence that would never have been allowed, and won’t be allowed, in a court today. 

They took 8,000 claims that didn’t even name an insurance company, and they found, through their own research, the actual 

names. They linked them. So somebody said, ‘‘I remember my father,’’ or ‘‘My grandfather said I had a policy. I don’t know what 

it was, but it was probably issued in such-and-such a company.’’ 

Eight thousand of those were found and nearly $100 million paid 

just on those policies. 

They paid 2,900 claims against defunct companies, companies 

who don’t even exist, because of the feeling that justice should be 

done to those victims. So these are all instances where the traditional court system wouldn’t work. 

Even if you take the legal peace aside, even if you take the fact 

that these companies paid with the understanding that the credibility of the United States would stand behind them, still the question you ask is the right question. This is a far more flexible system than having people go into court. 

So again, every person that Mr. Dubbin or others think continue 

to have a claim, please give it to us. We will take it to the companies. We will oversee that process. We will insist that they use the 

same flexible evidentiary standards that they did, and it would 

never have been permitted in a U.S. court. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Ambassador. Obviously, that 

seems to me to be very compelling, and you did answer the question that I was asking. 

And Ms. Rubin, you know what I am really saying here, is how 

do we, within the bounds of the realities and complexities that we 

find ourselves in, how do we achieve the best justice possible in 

this situation? Do you agree with Ambassador Eizenstat? 

Ms. RUBIN. I do. I do. I think openness and open communication, 

and the companies have indicated that they would be so willing is 

the best method. 

Mr. FRANKS. That the greatest number of people, subjected to the 

injustice that occurred, will be made as whole as possible under the 

existing ICHEIC system and the following process rather that 

under what might occur if this bill became law. Is that what you 

are saying? Because, I mean, I think that is what the ambassador 

was saying. 

Ms. RUBIN. I am saying that a non-litigious approach to resolving 

these claims is the best method to get as many claims as possible 

settled, for many reasons, and one of them being that the claimants 

don’t—wouldn’t have a place to start with the legal system in that 

they don’t have information themselves. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to stop there, because that is certainly 

my goal here, and I think that that is what the Committee’s goal 

190 

here, is to try to do the right thing. And sometimes it is hard 

to—— 

Mr. DUBBIN. Could I address the point? 

Mr. FRANKS. Certainly. And Mr. Dubbin, I would also just throw 

this out. I mean, I will let you address that, but some of the comments you have made here today, there are those in the political 

circles that could throw a page or two back at yourself, given the 

notion that this might be something that would be financially enriching to you if it occurs. 

Now, I am not suggesting that. I am just saying—— 

Mr. DUBBIN. They have said it. They have said it. I don’t care. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I do. I don’t want to make such a contention 

otherwise. I am just suggesting to you that I would encourage you 

to be cautious about making such suggestions against organizations that, for a long time, even though I disagree with a lot of 

them on a lot of different subject issues, it is hard for me to call 

into question their basic commitment to the Jewish people. 

Mr. DUBBIN. Well, that is fine, sir, but let me just say the following about that. 

What I said about the organizations is not Sam Dubbin’s opinion. 

This is from Holocaust survivors, okay, the Holocaust Survivors 

Foundation USA. I am channeling what they have asked me to say, 

what their letter says, what they have said publicly, okay? 

But these are facts, and so you need to examine those facts as 

a policymaker to see whether or not these organizations—which, by 

the way, I have got on my mantle awards from those organizations 

for a long time. I mean, it pains me to see otherwise legitimate organizations using their currency—their moral currency of Jewish 

leadership to oppose Holocaust survivors. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I mean, just to the point, Mr. Chairman, I 

guess that is why I asked the question, Mr. Dubbins, what was the 

best way to achieve justice for those people that are Holocaust survivors. That is the goal here within the bounds of integrity and the 

law. And we can never achieve the compensation that they deserve, 

except perhaps to make sure that such tragedies don’t occur in the 

future. 

Mr. DUBBIN. But remember what we are talking about here, contracts, okay, contracts sold to people who promised to pay them or 

their heirs wherever they sought payment. That is what we are 

talking about here, and many of those people ended up in places 

like California, Miami, New York and the like. 

When ICHEIC started, it was understood, when people applied 

to ICHEIC, it was voluntary. It was not an exclusive remedy. This 

is abundantly clear in the ICHEIC minutes. The insurance companies attempted to get the commissioners to state that, in order to 

participate in ICHEIC, you had to waive your right to go to court. 

The commissioners said no. 

So when people entered that process, it was understood to be voluntary. So we are not against ICHEIC. ICHEIC did what it did, 

and it is over with. Now, it didn’t do a great job for a large number 

of people, and those people—and at the time, you said your initial 

question was, ‘‘This is all so complicated. How do we get to the bottom of these facts,’’ the states had the answer in 1998. They passed 

laws saying, if you are an insurance company doing business anyVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:40 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\092210\58408.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
191 

where in our state, and you did business back then, you need to 

produce the information about what happened to these policies during that period of time. 

Now, there is nothing unusual about foreign corporations producing regulatory documents to insurance commissioners. They do 

that all the time. There is nothing unusual about foreign corporations participating in litigation where they are required, under 

court supervision, to produce their policies. 

So let us take the case of Herb Karliner. He was on the St. Louis 

from Germany, sitting outside of Miami Beach. They were sent 

back. His whole family was murdered. His dad told him about an 

Allianz policy. He went through ICHEIC. Allianz told him, ‘‘We 

paid that policy to your father,’’ and that was the end of the discussion under the rules of ICHEIC. 

Years later, he was able to find the so-called repurchase document, which occurred on Kristallnacht when his father was in Buchenwald. But ICHEIC didn’t supply that information to him so 

that he could have shown what a ridiculous denial it was. And with 

all due respect, I don’t think Ms. Rubin is in a position to get that 

information. 

That is why we have courts. That is why we have rules. That is 

why we have rules. That is why we have procedures. That is why 

we have judicial supervision. And all this legislation would do 

would be to open up the possibility for those people who believe 

they might have a claim, based upon further production of information, to pursue that. 

Now, would I make money if it turned out that Allianz wrongfully denied payment to a person and I was that person’s lawyer? 

You know, there is a system for compensation in—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes. No, I understand. 

Well, Mr. Dubbin, I thank you for your comments, and I think 

I have given you an opportunity here to express your perspective. 

And with all due respect, I would like to give Ambassador 

Eizenstat the last word, if he would choose it, and then yield back. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I am sure that Mr. Dubbin is acting in good 

faith, and I certainly wouldn’t impugn his integrity, even though 

he may have impugned others of us. 

What I have suggested to him, and what I would say again here, 

give us the names of your clients. Let us go through this process 

that we negotiated 10 years ago on which it is not only $300 million paid on the claims, Congressman Franks, they paid another 

ICHEIC $150 million for welfare benefits for survivors. 

Give us those names. Give them to Anna. Let us pursue them 

with the companies using the ICHEIC framework. We will oversee 

it. We will stand on their necks to make sure that they do a thorough review. We will insist on a report. 

And this is not just theoretical. Again, the German companies 

themselves have taken out of this post-ICHEIC process, just in the 

last couple of years, there have been 129 entries. They have identified 43 new policies. Ten were eligible for compensation. They have 

paid $140,000 on those policies. 

But again, your basic question was the most fundamental and 

most important, which is the best process. Would 31,000 people 

have been paid $1,000 simply because they had anecdotal evidence? 

192 

That is what ICHEIC did. Would almost 3,000 have been paid 

against a defunct company that could never have been subject to 

jurisdiction? That is what ICHEIC did. 

And so, that is the question. But again, I would just say to Mr.— 

I want, and the U.S. Government, wants every single policy paid 

that can be identified. Anna spends all day, every day, doing that. 

That is what we do. Give us the names. Let us try to find them 

under the process we created, not send them into court in an endless process, a fruitless and frustrating process where rules of evidence, statute of limitations and all these other things will be 

raised. You will see. 

How do you have proof that you have got an insurance company? 

I mean, that is what we have avoided through this process, and 

that is what we will continue to avoid. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back. I would just suggest 

that the complexities today, and some of the emotions and the remembrances of tragic situations should be an admonition to all of 

us to take very seriously when any nation, or any group of people, 

begins to diminish the personhood of any of God’s children, because 

it is among our greatest failures as a people and as a nation and 

as a government when we do that. 

It reminds me that, of course, you know the German High Tribunal. The Supreme Court of Germany once said that the Jew was 

Untermensch, subhuman, not a human being, and here is where all 

the tragedy really began. And of course, I know that so many of 

you are much more aware of that than most of the general public 

that sits in these chairs. 

But I guess I just have to take the opportunity to try to admonish us all, in the days that we live in, not to let such tragedies ever 

enter our minds and to be on guard for them at all times. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Franks. 

And now, I appreciate the lady from California, her willingness 

to sit in, and recognize you for as much time as you may consume. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Ambassador, there have been a number of claims 

by Mr. Dubbin and the proponents of H.R. 4596, which is that 

ICHEIC has ultimately distributed far less to survivors than the 

estimated value of the total unpaid whole cost era insurance 

claims, and that the flawed claims process was the reason for these 

shortfalls. How do you respond to that? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. There is no perfect process, but this process came 

as close as possible to doing justice in an expedited way without 

cost to the claimants, not sharing a third of the fees with any lawyers, as any process could. It posted 500,000 names of possible insured on its process. It accepted almost 100,000 claims. It sent in 

auditors to review the process of these insurance—these are things 

that would not have been possible because many of these companies weren’t even subject to jurisdiction in the courts. 

That is why we created this process. The state insurance commissioners did it. It wasn’t the foreign insurance companies. They 

would have been more than happy to fight these cases in court and 

raise the statute of limitations, raise the fact that they weren’t subject to jurisdiction because they don’t do business here, raise the 

193 

defense that it is a defunct company, raise the defense that there 

is no evidence that the policy existed. 

So there is no process that was perfect, but it is a process that 

didn’t cost the claimants anything, that the insurance companies 

were required to pay for their own research, that auditors were 

sent in, that a special report was done of the insurance market by 

one of the insurance commissioners. So compared to any other 

process, it was as good a process as one that could possibly be created. 

And again, may I please mention to you that the breadth of the 

membership of ICHEIC, it was state insurance commissioners from 

all over, and they created it because they know that, by subjecting 

claimants to case-by-case determinations in court, would be a fruitless, endless, frustrating process. They were the ones that initiated 

it with major Jewish organizations, with the Israeli government, 

with the state insurance companies, with virtually every major 

Jewish organization. 

It is the best process that could be developed, and it is supplemented by Anna. Anna also handles, through the New York Holocaust Claims Processing Office, so it gives us a double advantage 

through her research and through ICHEIC research. And that will 

continue to this very day. If we have new names, they will be processed in the same way. 

Ms. CHU. Well, they are also claiming that the ICHEIC process 

did not, in fact, employ relaxed standards of proof for claimants, 

and that many claims were rejected as a result. How do you respond to that? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. There were claims rejected because, for example, 

people had not even anecdotal evidence. They couldn’t produce any 

indication, or they said ‘‘We have a policy, we believe.’’ They gave 

the name of the insured, and after all the ICHEIC companies, with 

the oversight that I have suggested went through, there was no 

match. 

Now, again, there were 8,000 people who did not have a policy. 

They couldn’t name the policy their loved one had. But ICHEIC, 

through its research, was able to find 8,000 of those, but in others 

they simply had no evidence. And even in those where there 

weren’t any, there were 31,000 people who just had a—they had 

some credible story. They remembered their father or their grandfather—they were paid $1,000 apiece to 31,000 people, even without any credible evidence of a policy. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Dubbin, on the other side of the issue, the opponents of the bill argue that, if survivors are allowed to litigate, that 

their cases would be lengthy and costly, and that there would be 

difficult hurdles of evidence and jurisdiction if they were allowed 

to go to seek court remedies. How do you respond to that? 

Mr. DUBBIN. The short answer, and as any survivor would tell 

you, that is their choice. They are American citizens, and nobody, 

not any Jewish organization, not their rabbi, not the principal of 

their high school, not their county commissioner, no one has the 

right to tell them that they don’t have the right to go try. 

But can I address the two questions you asked Ambassador 

Eizenstat, because they are really important in this sense, rather 

the fulfillment of the answer, which is that it is easy to say that 

194 

ICHEIC helped people, and it did. I mean, nobody questions that. 

But the idea that ICHEIC would be a legally binding and preemptive process was never the case. 

So when people tried it, they understood that, if they were not 

happy, they would have the right to go to court. That is undisputed. That is undisputed. But today, the law says—and this is a 

exaggeration, a distortion of what was ever agreed to—the courts 

have said that, simply because a company participated in ICHEIC, 

a survivor cannot sue him, period. 

That is constitutionally highly questionable. I think it is morally 

hard for Holocaust survivors to understand because they understood something to be different. So the idea that legal peace means 

that you don’t even have the right to go into court against one of 

these companies was never the case. And I am going to explain 

that in a second, but I also want to address the relaxed standards 

of proof. 

Generali was a company that sold a lot of policies to Jewish people. It was actually owned by Jews and managed by Jews, and 

many of the agents were Jews. So, not surprisingly, a lot of the 

customers were Jewish. There are a large number of policies where 

Generali admitted a policy was sold but denied payment through 

ICHEIC on the grounds that it was lapsed or paid or somehow 

went out of service before they computerized their records. 

Now, ICHEIC accepted that, but Generali did not produce any 

proof of payment or lapse. Now, in court, if you have evidence of 

a policy, the burden shifts to the insurance company to prove the 

defense of payment or lapse or something like that. This happened 

in hundreds, if not thousands of cases in ICHEIC. 

So on those cases alone, the idea that there were relaxed standards relative to court cases is false, is false. ICHEIC, instead of 

putting the burden on the insurance companies to prove their defense, put the burden on the survivors even though they had evidence of a policy. In the courts, the outcome would be different. 

Why shouldn’t—and if you look at the exhibits I gave with my testimony, madam, you will see numerous examples of this from people all over the country. 

Now, how many more are like this? I can’t say. Why? Because 

ICHEIC did not comply with the congressional mandate to produce 

its claims processing information, so I don’t know, and you don’t 

know the exact number. But I hear from people all the time, and 

I have got a number of examples here, the New York Legal Assistance group, which is a pro bono legal operation in New York helping Holocaust survivors supports the legislation because they saw 

the runaround that a lot of survivors received. 

So, legally speaking and morally speaking, it was never an exclusive remedy, and the relaxed standards of proof were not necessarily applied. And I would say in response to the argument that, 

hey, people who didn’t know that they had a policy or not got paid, 

if the statute in California passed in 1999, or Florida passed in 

1998 or New York passed in 1998 had been allowed to operate and 

hadn’t been overturned by Garamendi, those companies would have 

had to produce those names, and those people would have gotten 

that information. 

195 

So maybe they would have wanted to go to ICHEIC to validate 

it and accept the significantly lower amounts that ICHEIC was 

paying. If people wanted to accept that, that is their right. Nobody 

is saying they shouldn’t have the right to do that. But people who 

didn’t want that shouldn’t be bound by it. 

So here is the nub of this problem right now, is that we keep 

hearing that this legislation would undermine promises of legal 

peace. Let us be clear: it was never promised by any President 

that, simply because a company participated in ICHEIC, that they 

would be immunized from litigation. 

In fact, after the German agreement was signed, several Members of Congress wrote the Clinton administration and said, ‘‘We 

are worried that this agreement is going to preclude people from 

going to court.’’ And the Department of Justice under President 

Clinton said, ‘‘We are opposing California’s disclosure statute, but 

the agreement’’—under the agreement, ‘‘The United States does not 

suggest that its policy interests in the foundation in themselves 

provide an independent basis for dismissal,’’ the foundation being 

with insurance companies, ICHEIC. Now that is what the Clinton 

administration said to Members of Congress who raised concerns 

about what ultimately happened, which was ICHEIC becoming a 

mandatorily exclusive forum. 

And then, a year later, the Clinton administration said in a court 

case that the United States has not undertaken a duty to achieve 

legal peace for German companies against state litigation, and the 

Clinton administration said in court the German agreement does 

not preclude individuals from filing—— 

Mr. COHEN. Excuse me. I am going to have to ask, and it may 

be wrong, but I did grant, as part of having gone over myself, Ms. 

Chu unlimited time, but I didn’t grant Mr. Dubbin unlimited time. 

Ms. Chu, are you satisfied with your response? Did you have another question? 

Ms. CHU. I am. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Ms. Chu, and I appreciate your patience, 

and my time, as well. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony today. 

Without objections, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit 

any additional written questions, which we forward to the witnesses and that you answer as promptly as you can. They will be 

made a part of the record. 

Without objection, the record will remain open for 5 legislative 

days for the submission of any other materials. There are two 

statements that I have been asked to enter into the record. Without objection, they will. A statement of Mr. Roman Kent that was 

prepared for this particular hearing, and I believe he is in support 

of the position that the Ambassador has. 

And Ms. Rubin, I guess, and the testimony of Jack Rubin—no relation—I presume they have given to the Senate Committees in the 

past, and he is in favor of the last bill that has been filed. And 

without objection, both will be entered into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

196 


3A-1.eps
197 


3A-2.eps
198 


3A-3.eps
199 


3A-4.eps
200 


3A-5.eps
201 


3A-6.eps
202 


3A-7.eps
203 


3A-8.eps
204 


3A-9.eps
205 


3A-10.eps
206 


3A-11.eps
207 


3B-1.eps
208 


3B-2.eps
209 


3B-3.eps
210 


3B-4.eps
211 


3B-5.eps
212 


3B-6.eps
213 


3B-7.eps
214 


3B-8.eps
215 


3B-9.eps
216 


3B-10.eps
217 


3B-11.eps
218 


3B-12.eps
219 


3B-13.eps
220 


3B-14.eps
221 


3B-15.eps
222 


3B-16.eps
223 


3B-17.eps
224 


3B-18.eps
225 


3B-19.eps
226 


3B-20.eps
227 


3B-21.eps
228 


3B-22.eps
229 


3B-23.eps
230 


3B-24.eps
231 


3B-25.eps
232 


3B-26.eps
233 


3B-27.eps
234 


3B-28.eps
235 


3B-29.eps
236 

Mr. COHEN. So I thank everyone for their time and patience and 

wish everybody, again, a Happy New Year. Hope you didn’t have 

to atone too much and you just continue on in the right path to 

have a short atonement next year. 

This hearing of this Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

237 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

LETTER FROM THE HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS’ FOUNDATION—USA 


4-1.eps
238 


4-2.eps
239 


4-3.eps
240 


4-4.eps
241 


4-5.eps
242 


4-6.eps
243 


4-7.eps
244 


4-8.eps
245 


4-9.eps
246 


4-10.eps
247 


4-11.eps
248 


4-12.eps
249 


4-13.eps
250 


4-14.eps
251 


4-15.eps
252 


4-16.eps
253 

f 


4-17.eps
254 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALBERTO GOETZL


5-1.eps
255 


5-2.eps
256 

Æ 


5-3.eps