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

41–176 PDF 2008

THE HOLOCAUST INSURANCE ACCOUNTABILITY

ACT OF 2007 (H.R. 1746): HOLOCAUST ERA

INSURANCE RESTITUTION AFTER ICHEIC, THE

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON HOLOCAUST

ERA INSURANCE CLAIMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 7, 2008

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 110–85

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

CHARLES WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

February 7, 2008 .............................................................................................. 1

Appendix: 

February 7, 2009 .............................................................................................. 59

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008

Arbeiter, Israel, President, American Association of Jewish Holocaust Survivors of Greater Boston ...................................................................................... 28

Dubbin, Sam, Esq., Attorney, Miami, Florida ....................................................... 36

Eizenstat, Stuart, Former Special Representative of the President & Secretary of State on Holocaust-Era Issues ............................................................ 31

Kennedy, Ambassador J. Christian, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, U.S. 

Department of State ............................................................................................ 10

Kent, Roman, Chairman, American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors . 39

Koken, Diane, Former Vice-Chairman, ICHEIC, and Former Pennsylvania 

Insurance Commissioner ..................................................................................... 34

Kurtz, Dr. Michael, Assistant Archivist for Records Services, National Archives and Records Administration .................................................................... 12

Zabludoff, Sidney, Former Consultant, Conference on Jewish Material Claims 

Against Germany, Inc. ......................................................................................... 41

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana ............................................................................... 60

Arbeiter, Israel .................................................................................................. 63

Dubbin, Sam ..................................................................................................... 66

Eizenstat, Stuart .............................................................................................. 102

Kennedy, Ambassador J. Christian ................................................................ 111

Kent, Roman ..................................................................................................... 119

Koken, Diane .................................................................................................... 128

Kurtz, Dr. Michael ............................................................................................ 142

Zabludoff, Sidney .............................................................................................. 148

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Frank, Hon. Barney: 

Letter from the American Jewish Committee, dated February 4, 2008 ...... 153

Letter from the Anti-Defamation League, dated February 4, 2008 ............. 155

Letter from B’Nai B’Rith International, dated February 6, 2008 ................ 156

Letter from the Association of Insurers in the Netherlands, dated February 1, 2008 ................................................................................................. 157

Letter from the World Jewish Congress, dated January 31, 2008 ............... 159

Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana: 

Dear Colleague letter from Representative Ros-Lehtinen and Representative Robert Wexler, dated February 5, 2008 ............................................... 161

Collection of letters from Holocaust survivors ............................................... 162

Koken, Diane: 

Letter from AXA Group, dated January 31, 2008 ......................................... 179

Letter from Generali, dated February 4, 2008 ............................................... 180 

Letter from Zurich Insurance Company, dated December 4, 2007 .............. 181

(1)

THE HOLOCAUST INSURANCE 

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007

(H.R. 1746): HOLOCAUST ERA 

INSURANCE RESTITUTION AFTER 

ICHEIC, THE INTERNATIONAL 

COMMISSION ON HOLOCAUST 

ERA INSURANCE CLAIMS 

Thursday, February 7, 2008

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barney Frank, [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Frank, Waters, Maloney, Ackerman, Sherman, Moore of Kansas, Capuano, Clay, Baca, Scott, 

Green, Klein, Mahoney, Wexler; Castle, and Shays. 

Also present: Representative Ros-Lehtinen. 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. To begin, the 

representative of the minority—one of the members of the minority 

is on the way up, but as soon as he gets here, I am going to ask 

unanimous consent that our colleague from the Foreign Affairs 

Committee, a major author of the bill, the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, be given by unanimous consent the right to 

participate as a member of the hearing. Is there any objection? 

[No response] 

The CHAIRMAN. There being none, the gentlewoman from Florida 

will participate as if she were a member of the committee. This is 

a very important hearing. It’s particularly relevant for us to be 

doing this, because I think it’s fair to say that this whole effort has 

been a result of congressional involvement. We are often told that 

we should stay out of foreign policy. That is in fact up to the Executive, and we may from time to time send them notes expressing 

our opinion, but we should not anticipate any significant weight 

being given to those expressions of opinion. 

This is an example of why it is a mistake to pay attention to that 

argument. If it had not been for work that began in this particular 

committee under the chairmanship of our former member from 

Ohio, Jim Leach, things would not be nearly as far along as they 

are. Now they’re not where they should be in the opinion of many, 

but they are somewhere, and they would not have been had there 

not been this intervention. I was grateful to one of the advocates, 

2

and my constituent, Mr. Arbeiter, who mentioned in his statement 

that this began, I think it was about 10 years ago, with hearings 

that Mr. Leach convened. And we will continue that. 

So this is a subject of particular interest to this Congress and to 

this committee. I cannot think of an issue, to touch briefly on the 

substance, that is more important than doing justice to the victims 

of the greatest crime in recent times, perhaps in all of history. And 

people should not be surprised when that insistence that justice be 

done as fully as possible motivates members of this body to the extent that it does and that it will. 

There are obviously other considerations that come into play. But 

even considerations that have some impact in the normal course of 

events in my judgment shrink in their importance when measured 

against the need to provide justice to victims of the Holocaust. Obviously, the great majority of victims are beyond any recompense. 

They’re beyond anything we can do. And that is a terrible and tragic fact. But it makes us all the more eager to make sure that those 

who are still here, those who did survive, that we do everything 

possible for them, that we not compound in even the most minor 

of ways the past tragedy by letting remain undone that which 

should be done. 

I’m going to start now, because there is a great deal of interest 

in this, and a number of my colleagues want to make statements. 

We have a number of witnesses. I will ask people to be cognizant 

of the time, and I will begin with the gentlewoman from New York, 

the chairwoman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, Mrs. 

Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I’d like to be associated with your remarks. This is a very complicated and highly 

sensitive issue, and I hope that today’s hearing will shed more light 

on how we can resolve the problems that still exist. 

The International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance 

Claims was established in 1998 to give Holocaust victims and survivors a way to settle their insurance claims. The agreement did 

not charge claimants to file a claim, and included relaxed standards of proof, recognizing that for many people, papers and documents were understandably destroyed by the Nazis. Over the 

years, I have participated in a number of Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearings on this issue, and have learned 

about the successes and the shortcomings of this program. 

It has become clear that it was a positive step towards addressing Holocaust insurance restitution, but that much, much more is 

needed. Over a period of about 9 years, over $306 million was paid 

out to roughly 48,000 of about 90,000 claimants; 34,000 of those received $1,000 humanitarian awards. Though I firmly believe that 

intentions were good with this program, it has not achieved the 

goal of processing claims quickly and fairly for the survivors, the 

very people who are now running out of time. 

I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 1746 because I believe transparency 

and justice are our primary obligations, which we should give to 

the survivors. When something doesn’t function properly, we need 

to find a better solution. In this case, this bill offers a better solution. The bill would require insurers to disclose Holocaust era poliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 041176 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\41176.TXT TERRIE
3

cies, and without an exhaustive list of policyholders, we will not be 

able to reach everyone affected. 

The bill also establishes a Federal cause of action allowing individuals to pursue claims in U.S. courts. Survivors must not be denied the sole class of people who—they should have their day in 

court, and they should not be denied their ability to go into court. 

Too much has been taken away from them. This must not be another thing that is taken away from them. And I understand that 

there is some opposition. I look forward to hearing the testimony, 

but in the end, I believe strongly that we must not let obstacles get 

in the way of doing the right thing and helping the Holocaust survivors. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. First of 

all, thank you for your kindness in allowing me to participate in 

the committee’s hearing today. Certainly the Holocaust stands as 

one of the darkest chapters in human history. 

Over half-a-century has passed since the world witnessed the 

atrocities committed by Hitler’s regime, yet many Holocaust-related 

issues remain unresolved. One of these is the continued failure of 

insurance companies to pay Holocaust survivors or families of Holocaust victims for policies they purchased before or during World 

War II. 

These insurance companies have for over 60 years refused to provide compensation under the insurance policies to Holocaust survivors or families of Holocaust victims. These companies argued 

that Holocaust survivors and their families do not have the documentation, such as a death certificate and insurance records. Concentration camps in which many of these Holocaust victims perished did not issue death certificates, and all assets and documents 

were confiscated from the Jews during that time by the Nazis. 

For years, I have worked on the issues related to Holocaust-era 

compensation, and to address the issue of insurance policies specifically, my colleague, Robert Wexler, and I introduced H.R. 1746 in 

March of last year. Among other provisions, the bill requires insurance companies that do business in the United States to disclose 

the names of Holocaust-era insurance policyholders. Furthermore, 

the measure will allow Holocaust survivors or their heirs to sue the 

insurance companies in U.S. courts. 

People often ask us why we introduced this bill and why we feel 

so strongly about this issue. Well, let me answer by reading one of 

the many letters that I received from Holocaust survivors, and this 

one is from Elizabeth Lefkowicz of Florida: 

‘‘Dear Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen: My name is Elizabeth 

Unger Lefkowicz, and I am a U.S. citizen and a Florida resident. 

I was sent to the Auschwitz concentration camp in 1944 when I 

was 20 years old. During the Holocaust, I lost both of my parents, 

my grandparents, my two sisters, and a 2-year-old nephew. After 

the war, I found a document that was hidden by my father, Ignatz 

Ungar. This document contained his life insurance policy for 25,000 

gold dollars. In 1945 when I presented the insurance claim to the 

insurance company, they requested a death certificate as a prerequisite to pay the claim. Without the death certificate, they said 

4

the policy was invalid. A few years ago, the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims revived our hope for justice with the insurance companies, and I filed the claim, Claim 

Number 77452, reference Ignatz Ungar Life Insurance. Unfortunately, this effort produced no results. I’m very glad that the Holocaust Claims Insurance Accountability Act, H.R. 1746 legislation 

has been introduced in Congress and if passed, the insurance companies doing business in the United States that profited from the 

Holocaust will be held accountable for their actions.’’ 

So Mr. Chairman, it is because of Ms. Lefkowicz and countless 

others who share her history and her tragedy, her circumstances, 

that Mr. Wexler and I introduced our bill. Unfortunately, today, obviously, we cannot bring back those who perished in the Holocaust, 

nor can we erase the pain and suffering from the memories of those 

who suffered these atrocities. However, we can work to bring about 

long-awaited justice to Holocaust survivors and their families. Because the number of Holocaust survivors who are alive decreases 

drastically every year, it is critical that Congress move expeditiously to pass H.R. 1746 and offer a level of closure to those who 

suffered immensely under Hitler’s regime and then were shamelessly mistreated for decades by the insurance companies that 

sought unjust enrichment at the expense of Holocaust victims. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to participate in the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is welcome. And you never 

know when I’m going to show up at Foreign Affairs and make a 

speech, so I’m sure you’ll remember that. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, who has been a 

strong advocate of justice in this area is now recognized. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much. First let me thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for holding this what I consider essential hearing 

before our committee and of course you’re always welcome at our 

International Relations Committee as well. Special thanks to Ms. 

Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Wexler for being the authors and initiators 

of this important piece of legislation that would finally bring some 

justice to so many people for whom justice has been denied. 

The issues surrounding the question of Holocaust era insurance 

restitution are both immensely sensitive and highly complex. More 

examination yields less certainty, more questions, finer distinctions 

and unabating concern that not only has justice not been done, but 

that it may never be done. 

While the principal of restitution is stark and clear and definitive, there are significant differences in the policies and behavior 

of the relevant European insurance companies, and among the 

countries in which they are based. There are differences based on 

the type of assets that were systematically stripped from Holocaust 

victims. There are differences in the scope of records, in the history 

of different firms, in the limits of privacy laws, and there are differences among the survivors, plaintiffs, and heirs. 

And there are questions. There are questions about the scope of 

assets deserving restitution. There are questions about the transparency and the efficacy of the ICHEIC process. There are foreign 

policy questions. There are constitutional questions about the propVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 041176 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\41176.TXT TERRIE
5

er role for America’s foreign policy interests in the context of private civil litigation. 

There are public policy questions about the role of the States and 

the Federal Government when it comes to insurance, moral questions about the rights of communities to speak for individuals, and 

philosophical questions about what justice means in so singular a 

catastrophe. 

In this case, Mr. Chairman, the more that I learn, the less I 

seem to know. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that 

this hearing should be the first of a series. While we must recognize that many survivors are entering their last years, I believe the 

issue is too important and too complex for us to fall short in our 

due diligence. We need to act both quickly and correctly. We need 

to get this right. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for bringing the matter before 

the committee, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Delaware. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to learn something about this issue. This is very complex for 

those of us who are coming in from scratch on this, and I have no 

particular opinion as to the legislation at this point. 

But I do think the issue is of substantial importance, and I agree 

with Ileana and others as to the need to look at this to make a determination of what, if anything, we should be doing from a legislative point of view to try to help, particularly with the survivors of 

the Holocaust. 

On the other hand, the complications of how to do that also presents some interesting questions, and that’s why it is very hard to 

say that this legislation is absolutely the right course of action. I 

believe the hearing we are having today, which unfortunately I 

won’t be able to take full part in because of other scheduling issues, 

is of vital significance in terms of developing exactly what our 

course of action should be. 

I appreciate all of the witnesses who are here today and all of 

those who are participating, and I think we have a responsibility 

to try to learn all that we can in making a fair and good evaluation 

of where we are and what we should be doing. I realize that even 

among the witnesses there are some differences, and for that reason, we have a responsibility to try to sort this out and make sure 

we’re going in the correct direction to try to alleviate a problem 

which we all agree is there. 

So I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity of participating 

and learning and hopefully arriving at a final resolution which will 

be in the best interests, particularly to the survivors of the Holocaust. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mahoney. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this important hearing today. I would also like to thank my colleagues from Florida, Mr. Wexler and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their 

leadership on this important issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe this hearing is of the utmost importance 

because we as a society owe survivors of the Holocaust the opporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 041176 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\41176.TXT TERRIE
6

tunity to have their voices heard. There is no greater way to honor 

the victims of the Holocaust than to let their stories be told. 

This issue was first brought to my attention by one of my constituents, Mr. Alex Moskovic. Mr. Moskovic, who lives today in 

Hope Sound, Florida, as a constituent, is a Holocaust survivor from 

Zibronsk, Slovakia. In 1944, Mr. Moskovic, his parents, Joseph and 

Gittel Moskovic, and two brothers were deported to the Auschwitz 

Birkenau concentration camp. Mr. Moskovic was the only one of 41 

family members to survive the Holocaust and during a torturous 

march through freezing weather, nearly 2 weeks on a cramped 

train where thousands died of hunger and the horrors of Auschwitz. 

Upon his return to Zebronsk after the war, he found that his 

family’s house had been destroyed. In 1947, Mr. Moskovic came to 

the United States where he established a successful career as an 

editor for ABC Sports. In fact, Mr. Moskovic was awarded numerous Emmys for his 30-year career. 

After moving to Florida, Mr. Moskovic volunteered to work on 

the advisory committee of the Ruth Rales Jewish Family Services 

Board in Boca Raton, a nonprofit organization that provides members of the Palm Beach County community with counseling and an 

educational program. In addition, he is a member of the board of 

directors and executive committee of the Holocaust Survivors Foundation, where he has worked tirelessly on this issue. 

I wanted to spend a few moments today talking about Mr. 

Moskovic’s story because I believe it’s important for the members 

of this committee to hear the stories of those fighting for restitution, whether it be through the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims or other agreements. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that as a result of today’s hearings, we 

have a better understanding of how the ICHEIC process worked, 

the promises that were made by the insurance industry, and the 

agreements reached by the U.S. Government. I am also interested 

in hearing what each witness thinks the impact of H.R. 1746, the 

Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act, will be on the process moving forward. 

In the final analysis, gentlemen, right is right. In this case, this 

body needs to make sure that these claims are paid. To deny these 

benefits to Holocaust survivors on the basis of politics or administrative snafus only serves to trivialize the Holocaust itself. These 

unpaid premiums do not belong to the insurance companies. They 

belong to the survivors. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Connecticut wish to 

make a statement? 

Mr. SHAYS. It will be a short one just to say that I agree and 

want to align myself with all of the speakers, particularly Ileana 

Ros-Lehtinen, and to say that as a Peace Corps volunteer, we had 

a lot of time to read, and I read all of Leon Uris’s books. You can’t 

read Exodus, Mila 18, particularly Mila 18 or Armageddon without 

realizing there is nothing to compare to the Holocaust. There is 

nothing. Nothing comes to the level of the Holocaust, this premeditated, factory system of annihilating people. And I just really beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 041176 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\41176.TXT TERRIE
7

lieve that this is one of many hearings we have had so far in Congress. I really hope we’re able to push a little harder and to see 

some action, overseas in particular. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein. 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I come to 

this hearing with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I’m profoundly 

disappointed that it has taken so long for survivors to get an inkling of hope that their claims will be settled. And although there 

has been a lot of representations over the years and some action, 

we stand here today, 63 years after the end of World War II, and 

there are families and survivors who have never had any type of 

compensation for an insurance policy that was purchased during or 

prior to World War II. 

I appreciate the fact that Chairman Frank, Congresswoman RosLehtinen, and Congressman Wexler have brought this forward. I 

personally have been involved in Florida in Holocaust education 

and awareness and working with a lot of people in our community, 

who have needs, great needs because of their economic situation. 

The survivors who are here today appreciate your coming forward 

and bringing your stories forward. 

But this is not just about stories. This is about what’s right and 

what’s moral. And as far as I’m concerned, we don’t have to have 

long hearings, we don’t have to have multiple hearings to get this 

issue resolved. This has been discussed; it has been debated; and 

it has been analyzed. And with the number of people remaining 

today, and the age of many of the survivors, the time is now to finish and do the right thing. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on this long-overdue issue. 

It is very important that we continue to address this decades-long 

movement for fair and just equality for survivors of the Holocaust 

as it relates to thousands of still uncompensated insurance policyholders. 

And even as the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims was set up to address various issues involved and 

settle outstanding Holocaust-era policies, there are still today 

delays in participation of these insurance companies. Companies 

failed to provide the comprehensive lists of the policyholders’ 

names, and as we know, these individuals’ names are essential as 

Holocaust survivors and heirs often recall, that their families held 

these policies. However, they do not know the name of the companies that issued the specific policies. 

These insurance issues facing Holocaust victims and their survivors are extremely complex, and efforts to provide restitution are 

certainly challenging at best. However, it is very, very important 

that we look into other ways to help speed up this process and 

maybe curb some of the frustrations being experienced by all involved. And that’s why, Mr. Chairman, I’m very proud to support 

H.R. 1746, which would do some essential and very important 

things. 

First, it would create a publicly available registry of insurance 

policies issued between January 30, 1933, and December 31, 1945, 

8

to persons who were domiciled in an area controlled by Nazi Germany, and require insurers to file information on these policies 

with the Secretary of Commerce within 90 days of the bill’s enactment. This is very, very important. And second, this bill would create a Federal civil cause of action for any claim arising out of such 

a policy. 

This is a very, very important piece of legislation. It moves to 

correct one of the great omissions and one of the greatest sins of 

mankind’s inhumanity against their fellow mankind. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I associate myself 

with the remarks of the chair. I have had the opportunity to travel 

to Israel, and I visited the Holocaust Museum. And I assure anyone 

who questions why we are so concerned that if you have an opportunity to just visit one of the museums—we also have one in Houston, Texas—you will understand. Tears literally welled in my eyes 

as I saw the pictorial representations of the horrors and the atrocities that were committed. 

We are truly embracing a circumstance where we cannot do 

enough. We really cannot. However, whenever you cannot do 

enough, you do have a duty to do all that you can. We must do all 

that we can to bring justice to the victims of the most horrific 

atrocity perpetrated upon humankind. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler, is recognized, the sponsor of the bill and a major mover in having this 

hearing and in trying to get action. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am deeply 

grateful to you for your seriousness of purpose in allowing us to 

have this hearing. I am also deeply grateful to my colleague and 

friend from Florida, Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen, for being a champion. 

The two of us have worked very, very hard in bringing this issue 

forth, and there is opposition. What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is to talk about the specific facts relating to this bill, what 

the bill actually does, what the opposition is, and why, in my view, 

that opposition is not meritorious. 

First of all, this bill essentially does two things. It mandates that 

insurance companies who do business in the United States publicly 

disclose all Holocaust era insurance policies. Why that should be 

debatable, why there should be controversy about whether or not 

insurance companies who have profited from the Holocaust should 

disclose their insurance policies in the United States sixty-someodd years afterwards to me is not debatable. It should be disclosed, 

period. There should be no legitimate debate. 

The second part of the bill is that those people who claim to have 

insurance policies are given an opportunity to go into Federal court 

and prove their claim. There are a couple of misnomers here. If we 

passed this bill today, Mr. Chairman, not a single Holocaust survivor would receive a penny. Not a single one, because they would 

all have to go into Federal court and prove their claim. Do they 

have a lower standard that they have to prove in Federal court 

than anybody else who walked into Federal court? No. They would 

9

have to prove the same insurance-related evidentiary matters as 

everybody else. So what is the issue? 

The issue is this: previously, we entered, the United States of 

America, into an ICHEIC process. And that ICHEIC process, to 

sum it up, has divvied out, according to Secretary Eagleburger, 

who is in fairness an opponent of this legislation, $306 million to 

the survivors of the Holocaust. If you add in the amounts of money 

that were given to the claims conference and other related organizations, $450 million has been distributed through that process. 

Now was that a fair amount? That should be the question everyone 

is asking. 

If you use the amount of money estimated by the proponents of 

the bill, the assets available; in other words, the amount of the insurance policies that these companies hold, are probably about $17 

billion. But even if you use the estimate of the opponents of the 

bill, if you use the estimate of Ambassador Kennedy, whom I have 

enormous respect for—he is a terrific man—the estimate is roughly 

$3 billion. So the opponents of the bill essentially are saying that 

even though $3 billion is rightfully owed to survivors of the Holocaust, $450 million has been paid, and that’s it. Fifteen percent. 

In other words, what the Administration is saying, what the opponents of the bill are saying is that 85 percent of the value of the 

insurance policies held by survivors during the Holocaust should 

remain with the insurance companies, period. And what they will 

argue is that legal peace was made, and that it’s not fair, it’s not 

equitable today to undo that legal peace. Well, there is a big problem with the argument of legal peace. How is it that insurance 

companies who have not fully disclosed their policyowners can take 

advantage of the agreement that was made by not having to pay 

out that which is rightfully owed, and those that are rightfully 

owed are penalized by the agreement? This can’t possibly be an equitable conclusion. 

So the question isn’t whether or not we are abrogating the word 

of the United States Government. The question is, there are insurance companies who hold billions of dollars of assets rightfully held 

by the survivors of the Holocaust. And is this Congress in the last 

moments of these survivors’ lives going to give them an opportunity 

to use our Federal judicial system to gain some measure of justice? 

If this bill does not pass, game over. Game over. Insurance companies keep 85 percent of the assets even using the insurance company numbers, the Administration numbers. They keep 85 percent 

of the assets that are rightfully owed to the survivors of the Holocaust and they don’t—they are not required to disclose those 

policyowners that rightfully have a right to know who they are. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Applause] 

The CHAIRMAN. There will be no demonstrations. None. Zero. We 

will now begin the hearing, and I am pleased to welcome the representative of the Department of State. I’m especially pleased to 

welcome the representative of the Department of State today, because I won’t be able to do that tomorrow when we have a very important hearing on the signing statement issued by the President 

that would undercut the effect of our bill to strengthen the divestVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 041176 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\41176.TXT TERRIE
10

ment from Sudan, and the State Department has refused to show 

up. 

But we are glad to have Mr. Kennedy. We will take what we can 

get from this Administration, and we won’t ask you to defend that. 

We will ask you instead to discuss this position. So, Ambassador 

J. Christian Kennedy, who is a Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues 

at the Department of State, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR J. CHRISTIAN KENNEDY, SPECIAL ENVOY FOR HOLOCAUST ISSUES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank you to you and your colleagues for the invitation to be 

here today. 

Thank you for holding this important hearing about issues concerning my office’s main constituency, Holocaust survivors. We all 

agree that those who spent the Nazi era in concentration camps 

and ghettos or in hiding deserve not only our sympathy and moral 

support, but also a measure of justice in their lifetimes. Our office 

therefore supports the continuing general effort to obtain compensation for their suffering and restitution or compensation for 

their material losses. 

Your hearing today deals with insurance purchased by Holocaust 

victims and the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, known as ICHEIC. Let me say that the State Department believes ICHEIC was very successful in dealing with the 

most difficult life insurance claims arising from the Holocaust; 

cases where the claimants had no documentation or only the 

scantiest of records. 

Earlier claims payments programs starting in 1953 had already 

dealt with other life insurance claims. ICHEIC created a process 

that included archives, appeals, audits, payments to individuals totaling more than $300 million, and nearly $200 million to humanitarian programs administered by the claims conference. It is a signal achievement, and I know that you will hear much more detail 

from the next panel. 

Since 1969, State Department negotiations with governments, 

companies, and nongovernmental organizations have made over $8 

billion in new money available to Holocaust survivors and other 

victims of the Nazis. Because negotiation and conversation have 

been so successful in getting Holocaust victims and victims’ heirs 

a measure of compensation, the Administration opposes H.R. 1746, 

which would make litigation the main vehicle for claiming unpaid 

life insurance proceeds. Litigation always bears great uncertainty 

for the litigants, and it takes time. Negotiation is faster, especially 

with well-meaning partners. 

Holocaust reparations are part of our very strong relationship, 

bilateral relationship with Germany, for example. Thanks to ongoing negotiations and the strength of this relationship, Germany has 

made available 350 million euros in new pensions and one-time 

payments to survivors since March of 2007. March 2007 was the 

date when ICHEIC closed its doors after completing, successfully 

we believe, its very important task of processing the most difficult 

life insurance claims arising from the Holocaust. 

11

ICHEIC succeeded because of voluntary cooperation between insurers, governments, American State insurance regulators, and 

Holocaust survivors organizations. It did not charge claimants for 

its work, and nearly 48,000 people received payments. ICHEIC 

compiled a list of 519,000 names of people likely caught up in the 

Holocaust who also probably had life insurance policies. This database was the result of careful research and cross-checking with 

Israel’s Yad Vashem Museum. 

The completeness of this database was driven home for me very 

recently. We received a few days ago a Gestapo document that included two names of Holocaust victims who were listed as owning 

life insurance policies in 1942. A quick check with ICHEIC’s 

519,000 name list showed that the names of both people were on 

that list. 

Returning to the broader issue, ICHEIC undertook research 

across company archives and even international boundaries to complete its database. Its research also studied insurance markets extensively, for example, the number of policies per capita in given 

countries. 

Most important, perhaps, is that dialogue and negotiation allowed ICHEIC to establish relaxed standards of proof in order to 

pay claims. And insurance companies cooperating in the ICHEIC 

process have agreed to continue using relaxed standards of proof to 

process new claims that might appear even after the extensive outreach that ICHEIC did. 

The Administration is concerned that because H.R. 1746 favors 

an adversarial relationship of litigants over negotiation, the bill 

would undermine the many positive working relationships we have 

built over the years and discourage countries that haven’t met 

their obligations to survivors. 

Lastly, let me touch on ongoing business. Germany has paid Hol- ocaust reparations totaling nearly $100 billion in current value, but 

we still have many pending issues there involving elderly survivors. My office is involved in conversations and negotiations with 

other countries, too, especially the new democracies in Europe, 

where much remains to be done. 

In negotiating the bilateral executive agreements that supported 

the creation of ICHEIC, we promised legal peace if participating 

companies were sued in U.S. courts about matters relating to the 

Holocaust. This legal peace does not prevent U.S. citizens from 

bringing suit, but it does obligate the government to seek dismissals. Our partners expect us to uphold our word and see H.R. 1746 

as a grave threat to legal peace. If we cannot keep our given 

word—our word given in negotiations that have borne so many 

positive results, future negotiations will be much more difficult. 

The perceived inability to keep our word would undermine our 

capacity to continue helping survivors of the Holocaust and the 

heirs of victims. 

Chairman Frank, members of the committee, thank you very 

much for your invitation to be here today. I will be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Kennedy can be found 

on page 111 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

12

Next, we will hear from the Assistant Archivist for Records Services of the National Archives and Records Administration, Dr. Michael Kurtz. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL KURTZ, ASSISTANT ARCHIVIST 

FOR RECORDS SERVICES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND 

RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. KURTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m honored to be here 

today, and thank you for the invitation to testify. 

For the record, I would like to note that in the holdings of the 

National Archives, we have tens of millions of pages relating to all 

aspects of the Holocaust, and we have worked assiduously over 

many decades to make these records available. I was honored to 

serve as the first chair of the Interagency Working Group on Nazi 

War Crimes and I worked very closely with Congresswoman 

Maloney, who was the legislative leader of this effort. 

Our concerns with the bill are of a practical nature, as the National Archives would be responsible for the creating and servicing 

of the registry, and we also have concerns about the funding. So, 

we tackle these issues from a practical point of view and ask the 

committee’s consideration of these concerns. 

First, the size and scope of the registry is unclear. And there is 

no firm number for the size of the registry. We estimate that there 

are potentially millions of names of individuals who could file 

claims, and submitting claims in a variety of different formats and 

styles and so forth, so it has been very difficult to estimate exactly 

what resources would be required. Our information technology experts roughly estimate the cost to be at about $28 million. 

One of the major concerns that we have is that the National Archives is a small agency, and we are fully taxed at this point trying 

to implement an electronic records archives for the first time. So 

almost our entire IT staff is devoted to this, and so we would need 

a stable and secure source of funding. We estimate it would cost 

about $28 million to develop and maintain the registry over the life 

of the legislation. 

Our concern for the funding is that we are unclear from the bill 

as drafted if the penalty fees charged against noncompliant insurance companies would be the main or sole source of the funding for 

the registry. If that’s the case, if insurance companies do comply 

with the law, we would have responsibility for Web access to a potentially huge name registry, but we would not receive any direct 

monies to establish and maintain the registry. 

So we strongly state the need for a stable, appropriated source 

of funding that would enable us to get the infrastructure created 

necessary to properly create and service the registry, and to hire 

the expertise, both information technology and archival expertise. 

There are a number of issues related to privacy and information security and things of that nature where we really would need experts to work with us. 

This would be a new and separate line of business for the National Archives, and we would need the support of Congress with 

a clear, stable source of funding to be able to do this. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify on 

this bill. 

13

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kurtz can be found on page 142 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me begin my questioning. Ambassador Kennedy, I understand the State Department’s concern 

with bilateral relations with Germany. Indeed, the German ambassador came in to see me. Does anyone think that the outcome of 

congressional deliberations on this bill will have any significant effect on overall American-German relations? 

I must tell you, I’m of the opinion that the nature of the ties that 

bind us, the issues that might arise, really are of such magnitude 

that it’s hard for me to see that the fate of this bill one way or the 

other would have any significant effect on our relations. Is there 

a serious concern about American-German relations if this bill 

passes? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Thank you for that very important question, Mr. Chairman. Let me answer in two parts if I may, one personal, and one broader. I have been very surprised at the depth of 

feeling from my German interlocutors on the subject of this bill 

both in the private sector as well as the official sector. This is 

something which they take with great umbrage. 

In the second area, or more broadly, I think it’s hard to envision 

a change in a relationship that has been collaborative, that has 

been based on negotiation, that has produced substantial results. 

I don’t claim they’re enough, that they’re sufficient, but substantial 

results. It’s hard to see how that would not have a negative impact 

on the relationship. In the broadest sense— 

The CHAIRMAN. What kind of negative impact? I mean, what 

would you foresee? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, as I said in my statement, sir, we 

still have a number of issues to resolve involving Holocaust survivors, and that’s of course the area that I worry about the most. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, would you see any—you are testifying on 

behalf of the Department of State. 

Ambassador KENNEDY. I’m sorry? 

The CHAIRMAN. Would there be any—there were suggestions 

from some that there might be a spillover into broader issues because the American-German relationship is a very important one 

in terms of Europe, NATO, and the economy. Do you see any 

broader negative implications? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, I think that would be speculative at 

this point. I know that the—in the area of Holocaust reparations, 

I think I can say clearly that there might very well be some very 

negative repercussions. 

The CHAIRMAN. You mean they might stop cooperating in some 

areas where they’re now cooperating? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, the— 

The CHAIRMAN. I’d like to be kind of specific. 

Ambassador KENNEDY. The companies certainly would not want 

to, I think, deal with an issue in the courts and also deal with it 

in negotiation. They would have to choose a venue. 

The CHAIRMAN. So there are ongoing negotiations that would be 

broken off, you think? Or might be? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. I think there is that risk, yes, sir. 

14

The CHAIRMAN. And Dr. Kurtz, your issue went to two, as I read, 

one was the absence of an end date in maintenance of the record, 

and also the money. If we could meet—just one question. You mentioned $28 million. Is that an annual cost or a total cost? 

Mr. KURTZ. That would be a total cost. 

The CHAIRMAN. Total cost—$28 million? 

Mr. KURTZ. $22 million for the creation and servicing of the reg- istry, and about $2 or $3 million a year for ongoing maintenance. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. So we’re not talking about huge sums. 

That is, it would be within the capacity of this Congress, if we were 

to pass the bill, to appropriate $28 million to take care of this. If 

we were, in fact, to accompany passage of the bill in some form 

with the $28 million, and give you enough time to hire, would that 

then be disruptive of your operations? 

Mr. KURTZ. No. I don’t think it would be disruptive. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentlewoman from Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Ambassador. I wanted to ask you a few questions about the 

ICHEIC process and proper compensation for the victims and their 

descendants. 

ICHEIC has been criticized for failing to review hundreds of 

thousands of relevant files. For example, ICHIEC’s final report of 

external research indicates that when looking at the Central Property Office files of Slovakia, ‘‘more than 700 boxes or records dealing with the Ayrianization of Jewish firms in Slovakia were found.’’ 

Over 700 boxes of records. And these files contained information 

about the assets of the firms or their Jewish owners. However, the 

researchers searched only what they call, ‘‘a small amount,’’ of 

those 700 boxes, which provided information about 18 policies—18 

policies. Would it be accurate to say to either of our witnesses actually that there were many files that ICHIEC did not examine containing information about Holocaust era insurance policies? And 

shouldn’t the beneficiaries of these policies have a right to be compensated for their insurance policies? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I 

think that the point I’d like to focus on in replying is that if insurance policy documents come to light, and there will be a few, the 

members of the ICHIEC participating companies have all agreed to 

continue to use the relaxed standards of proof that characterize the 

ICHIEC process to process those claims. 

So while ICHIEC has closed its doors, the committees—I’m 

sorry—the companies have said that they will continue to use those 

standards as they process the claims. And that’s what I think is 

important from our point of view, that the people who have claims 

can still file them. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. That in no way answers the 

question, but on that issue that there will be a few insurance companies that have participated in the ICHIEC process have agreed, 

as you say, to continue to consider claims and use the ICHIEC’s 

lower standard of proof. However, there are no oversight mechanisms. There is no way to appeal the decisions of the insurance 

company. And it seems as though the insurance companies will 

again be in full control of deciding who will or will not be compensated, as well as determining the amount of that compensation. 

15

And considering that ICHIEC was established because the insurance companies failed—failed to act on their own—how would this 

voluntary process that you talked about offered by the insurance 

company, which lacks an appeals mechanism, which lacks oversight, will be at all effective in fairly resolving what you consider 

a few of these unpaid claims? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, in my conversations with people 

from the insurance associations, they have welcomed the idea of 

some oversight. I imagine that people here in the United States 

who have an issue, if their claim is not resolved, would still be able 

to go to the State insurance commissioners and to other entities 

that have real expertise in these matters. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Your responses—well, it has 

often been argued that the court’s proof requirements would be a 

lot more stringent than those used by ICHIEC’s and that it is unlikely that many claims will turn out to be successful. And if that’s 

the case, then I ask myself, why are the insurance companies so 

worried about litigation if there is not enough proof and the case 

will be quickly dismissed because of lack of evidence? So why not 

let the survivors have their day in court, have a judge or a jury 

decide rather than have an insurance company, again with no oversight, although they say that they would welcome it? That’s a real 

stretch of the imagination. They have not done so yet. But what 

would be wrong with having the survivors have their day in court 

rather than have this insurance company or that insurance company whose interests lie in not paying, in having to pay as few policies as possible? That’s how they make their money. 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Thank you, Congresswoman. The bilateral executive agreement that we have, for example, with Germany, in no way infringes on the ability of someone to go into court 

and seek redress right now. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Well, yes, the U.S. Federal Government cannot forbid U.S. citizens from pursuing legal action against the insurance companies. However, it did commit to filing statements of 

interest encouraging dismissals of any legal action against European companies in the United States, and these statements have 

prevented lawsuits against European insurance companies brought 

by Holocaust survivors. And after seeing that only a fraction of the 

policies have actually been paid out by the insurance companies, 

and that the ICHIEC process ended without adequately addressing 

the issue of Holocaust era insurance policies, shouldn’t the U.S. 

Government’s statement of policy change in order to allow those 

who have been denied a fair opportunity to recover their insurance 

policy? To be able to bring their claims to court? I think that would 

be the fair thing to do. 

Thank you so much for your time and generosity, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. WATERS. [presiding] You’re welcome. And you may answer 

the question. 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Let me take the two parts of your question separately, if 

I may. The government negotiated an agreement, and it has been 

the policy since those agreements were entered into that we would 

favor negotiation and dialogue to resolve Holocaust era claims beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 041176 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\41176.TXT TERRIE
16

cause they are—negotiations has produced results rapidly. I think 

that is the point I would like to underline there. 

And secondly, as I said in my testimony, in my written statement, we need to be able to continue to negotiate credibly with 

countries where there are still many, many issues to be resolved, 

hopefully in favor of Holocaust survivors and the heirs of the victims. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I will recognize myself for 

5 minutes. Let me welcome our witnesses and just raise some very 

basic questions of you. I do not know all of the details of the establishment of the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance, so I’d like to ask you when this Commission was established, 

were you specifically given the ability to negotiate this legal peace 

deal that you negotiated? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. The State Insurance Commissioners here 

in the United States in the mid- and late 1990’s noticed a serious 

number of holocaust era claims that were not being resolved. They 

themselves started to talk about a mechanism that might deal with 

this, and this mechanism ultimately led to ICHIEC. At the same 

time, the U.S. Government, represented very ably by Stuart 

Eizenstat, began negotiations with the various countries involved, 

especially Germany. 

Ms. WATERS. I understand that, generally. I want to know about 

the specificity of the authorization. Were you authorized? Was the 

Commission authorized to negotiate legal peace? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, the kind of legal peace that is offered, the commitment of the government to seek dismissals, is 

something that the negotiators felt was inherent in the executive’s 

powers to reach. 

Ms. WATERS. This was born out of the negotiations, but there 

was nothing specific in the establishment of the Commission that 

gave authority to negotiate and settle on the so-called legal peace. 

Is that correct? Would you accept that as correctly identifying what 

power you have or did not have relative to establishing this legal 

peace agreement? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, the agreement covered a number of 

things. 

Ms. WATERS. Did it give you the authority to negotiate a legal 

peace agreement? Yes or no. 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, first, I was not present in those negotiations. 

Ms. WATERS. So you don’t know whether or not that authorizes 

this? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. The authority, I believe, is inherent in 

the executive ability, but not foreign relations. 

Ms. WATERS. You think it’s implied, but not specific. Is that correct? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. I’d be happy to take that question, 

Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. WATERS. Do you know if anyone sought the opinion or support of Congress in the negotiation of that legal peace agreement? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Again, I’d like a chance to go back and 

review the record and get back to you Madam Chairwoman. 

17

Ms. WATERS. Is it safe to say that Congress was not involved in 

that agreement? Do you know of any bill or resolution that was 

sought or passed in Congress that would support that agreement? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. I know of no bill that was sought prior 

to the education, ma’am. I’m sorry—to the conclusion of the negotiation. 

Ms. WATERS. So then this bill that’s before the Congress today 

would be the first time that we have been engaged on that so-called 

legal peace agreement and we were not asked before to give an 

opinion to support to question that agreement that was made, even 

though the significance of this peace agreement is such that it 

would deny the opportunity for survivors to even address the issue. 

So given that it was that important, the Congress of the United 

States was not engaged on it at all. 

Ambassador KENNEDY,. Well, Madam Chairwoman, I don’t think 

the statement that we deny Americans the right to sue in court is 

quite accurate. The ability to deny Americans to go into court, the 

opportunity to go into court would be something very serious. 

Americans can go into court. Nothing in the executive agreement 

prohibits or prevents people. It simply states that the executive, 

that the government will seek dismissal on all valid, legal grounds. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay, thank you. I think that’s very clear, and I 

will now recognize, for 5 minutes, Ms. Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much and thank you for your 

testimony today. 

Ambassador Kennedy, between 1933 and 1938, the Jews of Germany were obligated by law to deliver to the Nazi government declarations specifying all their property and assets. The duty to file 

such declarations was imposed on all the Jews of Germany with 

the clear intention being to use these declarations in order to confiscate all Jewish property and assets in Germany. This documentation is highly detailed, including real estate, money, insurance policies, tangibles, intangible rights and other assets held by 

German Jews prior to the holocaust. 

However, this information will not be made public until 2018, 

and my question is, why not? Even the KGB has opened up the 

files of World War II. We in the U.S. Government, our most secretive agency, the CIA, has opened up its files, the Nazi War Crimes 

Bill that Dr. Kurtz and I worked so hard on, to learn and to go forward. 

Why not? Why are they not opening up these files? This is quite 

a long, long time. These should be opened, and what are we doing 

as Americans and as the U.S. Government to ensure that Holocaust survivors get access to this very important information. 

There’s absolutely no reason to keep this confidential. These people 

are entitled to this information and I’d like to know what steps 

have we taken to open up these files, to provide this information 

and transparency, and what should we do in the future? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Thank you very much for that important 

question, Congresswoman. There are a number of archival issues 

that have gotten alot of serious work over the last few years. We 

have managed, thanks to the leadership of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and my office, to get the International 

Tracing Service files located in Bad Arolsen transferred electroniVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 041176 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\41176.TXT TERRIE
18

cally to the United States where we believe survivors will have a 

friendly environment to work with at the museum. 

There are archival issues in other countries, such as Hungary, 

where we have been dealing with our Hungarian colleagues asking 

them for specific files as well. My understanding is that the asset 

declarations which you mentioned, which were just one more inhumane and criminal tool that the Nazi’s used in their depredations 

on Germany’s Jewish population, are in the Bundesgard keep in 

the various German states and that parties who under European 

privacy law have a right to access can get at those, a specific file 

for say their family. 

One of the frustrations in dealing with file issues, archival 

issues, for us in Europe is that our legislation is much, much more 

liberal, and European privacy legislation, I found out in my negotiations on the tracing service, is actually going in the opposite direction, and it’s much more restrictive the lengths of time are 

frankly, excessively long, in this American’s opinion. 

I would be happy to raise this issue with my German counterparts and get back to you after my next trip to Germany. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, we would appreciate you raising this issue 

in writing. To hide behind a privacy protection, when citizens, 

American citizens or citizens of the world, are trying to get information on their insurance policy that could help them, so this to 

me seems like a stonewall, a really unresponsive step. 

You and I know how difficult it is to work through a bureaucracy. So to tell someone, ‘‘Oh, go to Germany and you’ll get your 

file,’’ that is like saying, ‘‘We’re not going to help you at all.’’ And 

I for one think that we should, as a government, request that this 

information be made available and public. And if they won’t do it, 

then I think our country should do it along with other like-minded 

countries that feel strongly about justice. 

These asset declarations, to hide behind a shield of we’re protecting privacy laws, I think is ludicrous and comical. And I for one 

would like to join my colleagues in a congressional letter or possibly a congressional resolution that these files should be made 

public. 

As I said, our government has opened our files. Argentina, even 

the former Soviet Union, has opened up the files of the war. And 

to keep private insurance information hidden until 2018 is just, I 

think, scandalous, absolutely scandalous. 

My time has expired. I have a number of other questions, but I’ll 

put them in writing. Dr. Kurtz, I do want to thank you for your 

hard work on the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, the really brilliant work that you did with these archives, and I hope you get the 

opportunity to work on the asset disclosure declarations and other 

important archives for our country and the world. Thank you for 

your testimony. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I thank the 

panel for the good work that they have done to-date, the progress 

that they have made. 

I sit here somewhat in disbelief, because it is very hard for me 

to process some of the things that I’m hearing, although I’ve heard 

19

them many times. It seems to me that there is an inherent conflict 

between life and time. Time always wins, but justice should not fall 

victim in that contest. 

In the closing days of World War II, Hitler put on a maddening 

rush, not to defend Germany, because that was all over, but to kill 

as many Jews as he could, to rev up the action in his murder machinery and put more people in the gas chambers and the furnaces 

just to destroy people—to run the clock on them. This is all about 

running the clock. 

The insurance companies are in no way part of Hitler’s machinery. They’re a commercial industry motivated by making a profit. 

We should not confuse profit with greed. The people who were fortunate enough to be among the very, very few who escaped temporarily from that contest with time, should not fall victim today to 

our participation in helping with what motivated Hitler. These people are in a very close race. I don’t have to tell you what their ages 

are; some of them are in this audience today. There are others too 

frail to come. 

In international relations, it is very, very important that we keep 

our word, and sometimes we give our word in order to make 

progress. But there are higher issues and more important values 

that are really at stake here. What we have done, inadvertently I’m 

sure, in signing important agreements even in order to get compliance in issues where there should have been compliance out of a 

sense of morality, rather than negotiation, is to put an expiration 

date on justice. 

That should not be allowed to stand, although arrived at honorably. There is no justice in our government going to court against 

U.S. citizens, seeking restitution for horrendous things that were 

done against them personally, against the people, against humanity. And to be able to prove their day in court without their government standing on the other side of the bar and saying we have to 

object because we signed a document at one point in time, I am not 

impressed that Germany has paid out a hundred billion dollars or 

a trillion, billion dollars. It is not what is paid. It is what is owed. 

I think an awful lot is owed to these people, and it has nothing 

to do with money. It has to do with the dignity that so many were 

stripped of, the hope to get it restored to which they cling, and 

those principles, and those values, that we have to look at, that we 

have to fight for. 

How do we go to court and stand up against those who seek restitutions before a court of law to be able to make their case and 

to say that they should be denied that opportunity because we 

signed a document. We gave away their rights and put our government in between them and the justice that they seek. I suppose 

that’s the only question that I have. 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Thank you very much for your remarks, 

and for your question, Congressman. 

I think it is important to recognize that in the area of insurance, 

which we’re discussing today, that ICHIEC basically took the hardest cases; and those were the ones that were left after the reparations and compensation programs started in 1953 that dealt with 

other insurance issues. Getting to that very difficult mechanism 

was the product of arduous negotiation that was undertaken by the 

20

government and it included the slave labor foundation. ICHIEC 

was eventually joined to that. 

So I can certainly share your frustration that we are probably 

going to have some people with claims that were not resolved, but 

I do honestly believe that those are very, very few and that the 

ICHIEC negotiation and the ICHIEC process was successful in answering those claims that had not been resolved in the earlier programs in the 1950s’, 1960’s, and 1970’s. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. If I may continue, Madam Chairwoman? 

Ms. WATERS. Yes, you may, for one more minute. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I appreciate the progress made by the ICHIEC 

process, and it was important. It was extremely helpful. It’s laudatory. But to say that because there was progress made with some, 

that others can be denied, is not really an acceptable argument. 

I don’t understand how our President would veto this bill. Those 

of us who are on both this committee and on the International Relations Committee, some of us have a hard time understanding how 

this would be disruptive to our relations with Germany—painful, 

yes—but not disruptive. There are too many other things at stake, 

and the people. 

If I had to name a country that was more anti-Nazi than any 

other country in the world today, it would be Germany, because 

they know what the Nazis did. This is not about anything other 

than greed. Greed is the answer to the questions that my friends 

Mr. Wexler and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and others on this committee 

have raised. 

Why would somebody object to publishing the list? I mean, a lot 

of people are the heirs to things that are owed to them that don’t 

know that their uncle or great grandmother, or grandmother or father had a policy unless they see it written down somewhere. This 

is about greed. This is about denial. This is another aspect of Holocaust denial, not that the Holocaust took place, but that people 

paid for policies. And because of greed, as a result of the Holocaust, 

had no way of knowing policies existed, assets were in place, that 

they were entitled. That is the answer to, why not? It is greed. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Somebody gave me a list. You’re next, Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. 

Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

This is a fascinating hearing dealing with one of the epoch parts 

of our history, world history. I think it’s important to recall at this 

point a correspondence between Heidrich and his superior at the 

time, Himmler, just prior to Heidrich being assassinated in Prague. 

And in that communication Heidrich, who was the henchman, 

the architect of this for Himmler, said this: ‘‘that it is not just the 

human worth that comes from this holocaust, or final solution, it 

is the wealth. It is the economic.’’ And this is illustrated right down 

to the very taking of Jewish people’s teeth during the holocaust. So 

we’re dealing with a monstrous situation here. 

Now, I want to ask about Bad Arolsen. I believe I’m pronouncing 

that right. Can you tell me about Bad Arolsen? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Thank you, Congressman. I’d be happy to 

talk about Bad Arolsen a little bit. 

21

When the Western allies were storming into Europe at the end 

of the Second World War, they began finding, in addition to these 

horrific death camps and other places of mass murder, a lot of documentation and files that dealt with this issue. They were kept in 

the individual occupation zones for awhile. And then in the early 

1950’s, there was an agreement among the Western allies that we 

needed to put all this in one place, and find a way to help families 

use it for family reunification purposes, primarily. 

There are three major groups of files at Bad Arolsen: one which 

is called the detention records, which is largely, well, it can be 

characterized by any contact with any of the police organizations, 

not the Gestapo, the Crepo and also deportations to concentration 

camps. It covers the whole apparatus of the death machine, shall 

we say. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me ask you: I only have a few minutes to follow 

this. But, in addition to all of that, is it not true that also with Bad 

Arolsen, there has been revealed evidence of corporate complicity, 

unrevealed insurance company involvement, pervasive IBM punchcards among the papers, and the secret Bad Arolsen repository, 

and that this has reignited the grassroot survivor campaign to recover the rightful Nazi-era insurance claims against this huge 

Italian company and insurance company Generali. And is there evidence of Generali’s complicity in this? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Congressman, I have been asking questions like that of the archivists who know the Bad Arolsen’s collections best on both sides of the Atlantic for over a year now. And 

I’m told that there is no systematic archive related to insurance. 

I think it’s possible, and in fact the case I talked about, the Gestapo document we received just recently, we will occasionally find 

traces of insurance-related information that comes out. But at this 

point, what’s in Bad Arolsen, in addition to detention records, are 

slave labor and forced labor records, and then finally the displaced 

persons records. 

And in those it’s possible that there will be some, occasionally appearing document that deals with insurance, but no one who knows 

the collection well has been able to identify anything that would 

systematically reveal life insurance documents. There are some 

documents relating to medical and retirement insurance, which 

was another scam that the SS operated to build companies and 

then use that money for their own purposes. 

But, when it comes to life insurance, casualty insurance, other 

than the random appearance of a document once in a while, there 

hasn’t been anything yet. But it’s something that we ask about constantly. 

Mr. SCOTT. This Bad Arolsen, I don’t think, has been examined 

thoroughly enough. I mean, if you look at it, they—or the repository of nearly 18 million, as a matter of fact, 17.5 million Jews, and 

non-Jews. Wouldn’t you think that this alone gives renewed justification for this legislation? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, Congressman, as I say, I don’t 

think that the collection at Bad Arolsen is going to be very useful 

for insurance recovery matters. It is just the nature of the files 

doesn’t lend itself to that. There will be the occasional document 

that is helpful to a particular person, but it’s not systemic. 

22

The CHAIRMAN. No. Your time has expired. You can’t ask another 

question. 

Mr. SCOTT. Oh, okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’re over time. Did you want to finish answering? Are you finished? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, I think I finished, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank both of the 

members of the panel for appearing. 

Mr. Ambassador, you have indicated that there is nothing that 

will prohibit victims from suing. Is this correct? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Yes, sir. That’s my understanding. 

Mr. GREEN. Let us please examine this statement, because in the 

United States, we have a concept known as open courts, which literally means that anyone can sue anybody for any thing at any 

time for any amount of money. It does not, however, mean that you 

will prevail. It literally means, if you want to sue, you may. 

So to say that you may sue is not enough to give people a proper 

understanding of what will happen after the lawsuit has been filed. 

Is it a fair statement that the government would file pleadings indicating that there is a limitations problem? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Sir, our pleadings, generally speaking, 

have asked the court to dismiss on valid, legal grounds. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. What— 

Ambassador KENNEDY. On valid legal grounds. I’d be happy to 

check whether we have specifically cited in a particular case a specific reason like the one you know. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, generally speaking, requests for dismissals 

that broad are not granted, because you have to be specific as to 

why general, legal grounds. And you’re saying, ‘‘Judge, you become 

my lawyer and determine what my legal rights are and my legal 

grounds are.’’ So generally speaking, that would not be sufficient. 

And if you plead limitations, what you in essence are saying is 

this: The companies that we are suing, that to some extent created 

the problem, now get the benefit from the problem that they have 

created. They have put us in the position where we could not bring 

the action and now they’re saying it’s too late for me to bring the 

action. 

That is in and of itself an injustice. It appears to me, and by the 

way, I think honorable people can have honorable disagreements, 

and I perceive you to be an honorable person. But it appears to me 

that this really is about more than money. It is about due process. 

It is about a desire to have an opportunity to know for myself what 

happened. It is about the desire to have discovery, to find out for 

myself what is in the record. 

What’s in the files? Has there been something secretive that 

someone, even my government, may know about and not tell me? 

That’s what due process gives you when you go to court, the ability to have your day and to understand what happened to the life 

that has been so horribly interrupted and so dastardly dealt with. 

It’s just about that, and people in this country seem to cherish that 

right to have a day in court. So I would say to you as you make 

that comment, this is just about the comment that people have the 

23

right to sue. If you would, I think it leaves something terribly necessary—missing—when you don’t explain that right doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be anything more than filing a lawsuit. 

A final comment, because my time is about up: There was nothing that prohibited the Administration from working with Congress 

so that we could have in the final analysis an agreement that Congress was a part of, that the Administration was a part of, and that 

would have brought in all of the victims so that they could be a 

part of it in some way, because that’s what’s missing. 

I think people live in this world where it is not enough for things 

to be right, they must also look right, and it doesn’t look right to 

victims to have someone decide their fate without their input. I 

think that we should do more to dialogue before we get to this 

point. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do either of the witnesses wish to respond? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. No. I thank the Congressman for his 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida? 

Mr. MAHONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me start out by thanking Dr. Kurtz for his testimony and 

the fact that the National Archives is up to the task as long as 

Congress is up to the money, and I’m glad to hear that. 

Some quick questions for Ambassador Kennedy. Thank you very 

much for your testimony and representing the Administration’s position here. 

Now, my understanding is that $300 million in claims that have 

been paid out, roughly, represents about 15 percent of what the Administration thought was the potential pool. Is that correct? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, the current market value of the 

policies involved is something that economists have been struggling 

with since the end of the Second World War. It’s very, very hard 

to do. I would say that for example if you pick your point in time 

and you can make calculations, now whether those calculations 

have any bearing on what finally happens to people, if I can give 

you an example. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Well, you’re using up some time. I mean, the 

point I’m just trying to make here is that, you know, I’ve seen estimates of 17 billion that you guys are saying is something significantly less, but whether it’s the Administration’s estimate or what 

other folks are saying is the total amount, it’s a small percentage 

that paid off. 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, I think if you look at ICHIEC dealing with the most difficult cases that were not resolvable in other 

fora, ICHIEC dealt with those cases. There were considerable other 

fora, starting in 1953 in Germany, that dealt with insurance reparations. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Okay. Let me ask you a question. Do you know 

how much we spent on all the administrative costs to have ICHIEC 

operate for this period of time? How much money did we spend administering the program? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, the U.S. Government was not the 

funder of ICHIEC, the German insurance companies, the German 

businesses, and the German government. 

24

Mr. MAHONEY. So the answer is, you don’t know how much was 

spent? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. You’d have to ask ICHIEC, sir. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Well, the number I have heard is around $80 million. 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, I think— 

Mr. MAHONEY. I understand. The next question I have for you sir 

is that you made an argument earlier that you thought that it was 

better to use diplomacy, because diplomacy in this particular case 

will get a better result than by going to court. 

Do I understand that to be one of your main points? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Generally speaking, yes, sir. 

Mr. MAHONEY. So, given Mr. Wexler’s point that only 15 percent 

of the claims had been paid, does the Administration consider diplomacy to be working? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, no amount of money that’s recovered is ever going to make people whole for this horrific experience 

that they suffered losing their loved ones, the material depredations they suffered. We’re not asserting that. I would just go back. 

Mr. MAHONEY. So you’re saying diplomacy didn’t work in this 

particular situation? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. No, I’m saying it does work, because 

ICHIEC dealt with those difficult cases that previous administrative processes had not been able to resolve. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Okay, now let me ask you a question. I don’t 

think you were back there in 1998 when they put this together, so 

it puts you at a disadvantage. I understand. But, you know, given 

all of your experiences of diplomat and everything, you know. And 

I’m just new to Congress so I’m just trying to figure this all out. 

But it would seem to me that if you had a crystal ball back in 

1998, that if you only thought that 15 percent of these potential 

claims would get paid out, would we have entered into an agreement in your estimation to spend hundreds of millions of dollars 

to get such a small result back in 1998? 

Is that something that diplomats do in the Administration—I 

think it was the Clinton Administration—would have entered into 

if they thought that was going to be the result here? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, when the ICHIEC process was 

claims-driven, people had to file a claim for there to be a payment. 

I don’t think anyone at the beginning of the process knew exactly 

how many claimants there could be. They knew that there was a 

large number of people who held, were victims, or caught up in the 

Holocaust and who held insurance policies. 

But it was the excellent research that ICHIEC did after the process started, once it was established, that got us the results we have 

today. And I’d also note, as Chairman Eagleburger did in earlier 

testimony, that in every case, ICHIEC’s estimates of what it needed were very much on the marker. 

The CHAIRMAN. One last quick question. 

Mr. MAHONEY. Okay. The only point that I’m trying to make 

here is that common sense tells you that a 15 percent result doesn’t 

make sense. And your argument is that we entered into an agreement, okay? And that we should honor an agreement for a flawed 

process. 

25

It’s clear to me that the process that ICHIEC processed did not 

deliver the result. And if it didn’t deliver the result, and it’s not 

delivering the justice that these Holocaust survivors deserve, why 

would we then continue to want to support this failed policy? Why 

not do what’s right for the Holocaust survivors and get these people 

paid? 

The CHAIRMAN. Any response, Ambassador Kennedy? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Yes. I think the earlier compensation programs took care of probably the vast bulk of the unpaid insurance 

claims that were out there, so ICHIEC is dealing with what 

couldn’t be handled easily without the research, without the very 

dedicated work that the staff at ICHIEC did. 

Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler? 

Has the gentleman from Missouri asked his questions yet? 

Mr. CLAY. I have not. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, well, let me go to the gentleman from 

Missouri first, then the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. CLAY. The microphone isn’t working over here. 

Ms. WATERS. Could you move to the next one? Perhaps that 

would be better, Mr. Clay. 

Mr. CLAY. That is better. Thank you so much. 

Ambassador, with ICHEIC having finished their process, what 

assurances do you have that companies will continue to process 

Holocaust era claims? 

Have you gotten any word back from insurance entities that tell 

you we will continue this process until it is complete? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Thank you for that very important question. I am in very frequent contact with insurance companies, with 

insurance associates in foreign countries, and we have received assurances from the companies that participated in ICHIEC that 

they will continue to process claims with the relaxed standards of 

proof that are similar to the ones ICHIEC used. 

Mr. CLAY. Would you have a running tally of how many have 

come through since the end of 2004 or since the corporation shut 

down? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. The German Insurance Association 

groups, I believe, 77 companies, we have a letter from the Association, a copy of the letter from the Association that it sent to this 

committee saying that they will continue to use relaxed standards 

of proof. I have similar assurances from Generali, which has a very 

significant company archive in Trieste. 

We have received similar assurances from Austria is, I’d say, yes. 

We do have the basis to be optimistic. 

Mr. CLAY. But no hard numbers of how many remain out there? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. It’s very difficult to estimate, Congressman. I will say that the German Insurance Association shared with 

me that between March 31st of last year, and the 1st of December 

of last year, they had received a total of, I believe, 72 new claims—

less than 10 a month. 

Mr. CLAY. For those claimants who have had their claims satisfied, what kind of reaction do you get from the Holocaust era survivors or their families? 

26

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, I think those that effected a substantial recovery are happy they did. Those who received smaller 

payments that they considered insufficient were probably happy 

they got the money they did, but wish they’d gotten more—normal 

human reactions. 

Mr. CLAY. How about you, Dr. Kurtz? Any reaction to that? 

Mr. KURTZ. I think the only thing I would say, Congressman, is 

that from the point of view of the National Archives, any access to 

records, any access to information related to the Holocaust or any 

of these other areas, is extremely significant and important, and 

our emphasis is always on access. 

Mr. CLAY. Do you think it brings closure to the chapter for some 

of the survivors and their families? 

Mr. KURTZ. To get these payments? 

Mr. CLAY. Yes. 

Mr. KURTZ. I think it brings partial closure. I think also from the 

point of view of closure, this comes also from historical accountability, and that is why I said what I said about access. Because 

the more of this information that is out, and people really understand not only what happened, but the whole effort to try to rectify 

what happened, this really provides closure, I think, in a broader 

sense. 

Mr. CLAY. Well, thank you both for your response, and I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say at the outset, I did not file this legislation with 

Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen to in any way minimize the achievements and 

the accomplishments of Ambassador Eizenstat and Secretary 

Eagleburger, which have been extraordinary. I stand in admiration 

and respect for what they have done. But I filed this legislation because what we are presented with today is the ultimate injustice, 

having proceeded through the ICHIEC process, which has expired. 

And Ambassador Kennedy, I appreciate that you say insurance 

companies have voluntarily agreed to participate, even though 

there’s no appellate process, there’s no auditing process. I appreciate that they have voluntarily agreed to continue in some respects, but the process has expired, and we are presented with the 

ultimate injustice because what we have is a situation we’re using 

the Administration’s estimates and the estimates of the insurance 

companies, roughly 85 percent of the assets, the value of the assets 

of insurance policies from the holocaust era remain unpaid. 

So the question is, do we let it lie? That’s it? Game over? Or does 

this Congress participate in a remedy which allows yet one last 

chance? This is it—one last chance. This legislation is the last 

chance for those survivors who have not received an equitable result to get it. And what the position of the Administration is, is 

‘‘no.’’ They will not get it. The position of the opponents of the bill 

is ‘‘no.’’ The Holocaust survivors are done. They will not get their 

last chance. Now, what’s the inequity? 

The inequity is because the victims of the Holocaust do not have 

their records. They burned. They were exterminated. They’re in ravines. They don’t have records. We talked about that often. Yes, 

there may or may not be something in Bad Arolsen, but there’s one 

27

place where there are records. The insurance companies have the 

records. 

And yet, the insurance companies are not mandated. They have 

not provided all the records so that they can be viewed by everyone. If the insurance companies would provide the records, this 

issue would be largely over, but they haven’t provided the records. 

So the next question is why is the United States Government putting itself in the position of protecting insurance companies who 

refuse to disclose records from the Holocaust era? 

And with all due respect to a few of the leaders in the AmericanJewish community who have called me and said, ‘‘Wexler, you’re 

upsetting the apple cart. Stop doing it,’’ they should also ask themselves how it is that they can sleep at night when they know that 

the effort here is simply to provide that insurance companies 

should disclose their efforts to give people a reasonable opportunity 

in Federal court. Let’s see, Ambassador Kennedy, if we can agree 

on certain facts. 

I think we agree that 90,000 claims were made in the ICHIEC 

process, correct? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. That would be approximately right. Yes, 

sir. 

Mr. WEXLER. Approximately 43,000 of those 90,000 claims received were rejected outright. Correct? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. You’d have to ask ICHIEC about their 

process. 

Mr. WEXLER. That’s what their records indicate; 43,000 of the 

90,000 were rejected outright. What their records indicate, maybe 

you can concur, is that 34,000 people received a humanitarian 

award of $1,000. 

Would you agree? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. That’s right. 

Mr. WEXLER. So that’s 77,000 of the 90,000. The remaining 

13,000 received an average of $16,000 in compensation. 

Ambassador KENNEDY. I believe that’s also right. 

Mr. WEXLER. That’s it. That’s it. Six million people died in the 

holocaust. Thirteen thousand people have received compensation of 

more than a humanitarian token payment. That’s the process we’re 

defending here. That’s the process that we’re saying prohibits 

American citizens from going into court and having to fight their 

own government to get past the first I’m here to make a claim. 

And I think it was Mr. Green and Mr. Cleaver who both brought 

out an extraordinary point, which is that it is a bit duplicitous to 

say we’re not stopping people from suing. You’re right. You can’t 

stop them from suing, but the Administration is saying the moment you get into court, the forum of the American government is 

going to say we underwrote your ability to sue because we made 

an agreement with Germany. We made an agreement with other 

countries. 

Could we also agree that all of the companies that hold Holocaust era insurance policies have not been before the ICHIEC process and their subsidiaries? Have they all been before that process? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. I think all of the companies that probably 

were involved in European insurance markets or their successors, 

28

because many of these companies existed, the vast majority took 

part in the ICHIEC process. 

Mr. WEXLER. Vast majority—so there are some insurance companies and/or their subsidiaries who have not participated? 

Ambassador KENNEDY. I’d be happy to try and get a list for you, 

sir, but I would assert that basically they participated. 

Mr. WEXLER. Okay, well that is a legitimate difference of opinion 

then, because— 

The CHAIRMAN. Finish up. 

Mr. WEXLER. Because there are claims, I think, legitimate credible ones, that there are insurance companies and/or their subsidiaries who have not participated. But they, too, now are benefiting 

from this legal peace argument, which is then even a double, compounded, legal inequity. 

Ambassador KENNEDY. Well, the legal peace argument applies 

primarily to Germany and Austria. Those are the two countries 

with which these agreements were negotiated. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the witnesses, and we will now hear 

from the next panel. 

All right, I need the room cleared, we have another panel coming 

up. So, please let’s move quickly, let’s get everybody seated quickly. 

Let’s not block the aisles there. Would the witnesses please take 

their seats. I want to get this thing started. 

Thank you, oh, we need everybody to sit down. We are going to 

begin in a minute. Let me just say that everyone will have whatever material he or she wants submitted for the record, so there 

will be no need to ask. We will also grant by unanimous consent, 

to which there is no objection, the right for everybody to submit. 

I would also make a suggestion. We will consider ourselves 

thanked in advance. We probably save time, getting rid of five 

‘‘thank you’s.’’ And we know what is in the bill, so don’t summarize 

it. Tell us why you think we should, or shouldn’t pass it, or we 

should change it. And we will begin with a constituent who has 

been a great source of advice, and inspiration on this issue to me, 

central to mine. 

This is Mr. Arbeiter. Mr. Arbeiter is president of the American 

Association of Jewish Holocaust Survivors of Greater Boston. Mr. 

Arbeiter? 

STATEMENT OF ISRAEL ARBEITER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

ASSOCIATION OF JEWISH HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS OF 

GREATER BOSTON 

Mr. ARBEITER. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is Israel Arbeiter, and I have lived 

in Newton, Massachusetts, since 1970. I retired from my business 

in 1995, but have remained extremely active, especially in the face 

of Holocaust survivors, including as a speaker in public schools, 

representative of survivors of several community organization in 

the Boston area, and as president of the Jewish Holocaust Survivors of Greater Boston, a position I was first elected to in 1950, 

and I have been president of all but 8 years of this organization. 

I want to extend my utmost gratitude to Chairman Barney 

Frank, our own elected Member of Congress, and a real champion 

29

of rights to everyone. Mr. Chairman, the survivors of our community regard you as a great friend, and consistent advocacte on our 

behalf. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

express my most sincere thanks to members of your staff, for assisting in helping me to come here. 

I appear here today with very mixed feelings. On the one hand, 

I appreciate the opportunity to address this committee to urge the 

immediate passage of H.R. 1746, the Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act of 2007. On the other hand, I am very distressed, and 

even angered, that 10 years after this committee first held a hearing in 1998, under Representative Jim Leach, on Holocaust survivor’s insurance claims, and 7 years after I first testified in Congress in 2001, the insurance industry has managed to escape having to fully account for its handling of our family policies, and has 

retained so many billions that we survivors should have received 

decades ago. 

Today, in 2008, there is no more time to talk. If Congress wants 

to do the right thing, passage of this insurance imperative with no 

more delays. The legislation would restore the basic rights of survivors. It isn’t asking very much, really. Is it too much for Holocaust survivors to have the right to have access to American courts 

to sue insurance companies who cheated our families out of insurance proceeds? 

Is it too much for Holocaust survivors to make decisions for 

themselves about property rights? Is it too much to require insurance companies who want to do business in the United States to 

disclose information about their customers, and give a complete account of their conduct during and after the Holocaust? I don’t think 

so. I don’t think it is asking too much to have the same rights as 

any other American citizen to hold insurers accountable. 

The survivors I represent, and those I am in contact with everyday, are confused and frustrated, yet Congress will stand by and 

allow the status quo to prevail. 

I was born in Plock, Poland, one of five sons of Isaac and Hagara 

Arbeiter. My father was self-employed as a custom tailor, and had 

two employees and an apprentice. He made a comfortable living. In 

order to protect his family in case something happened to him, my 

father purchased life insurance. Every week, an agent from the insurance company would come to our house and collect the premiums. He wrote the date and amount in a booklet that was given 

to my father for that very purpose. 

I remember distinctly, when my siblings and I asked my father 

why this man was coming every week to collect money, we were 

told that payment was ‘‘for your future.’’ Unfortunately, our future 

was anything but secure. In September 1939, World War II broke 

out, and Nazi Germany occupied Poland. On February 26, 1941, in 

the middle of the night, following the orders of SS storm troopers, 

we were ordered out of our homes, and required to leave everything 

behind, including the life insurance policies, paperwork, and the 

booklet in which the agents of the insurance company recorded my 

father’s payments. 

From there, we were taken to concentration camps. My parents, 

and my younger brother were later gassed in Treblinka. Two of my 

brothers and I spent the next 4 years in various concentration 

30

camps, including Auschwitz. Then, by some miracle, the war ended, 

and I was liberated. After the war, I attempted to pursue my father’s insurance policy. I tried to find out where it could be cashed 

since my father had died in the Holocaust. However, my efforts 

were unsuccessful. 

When ICHEIC was created in 1998, Holocaust survivors and 

family members were promised a decent, total process to recover 

our fair value from these insurers from their massive theft. Instead, we have been victimized again by a commission process 

which has operated without any public accountability, far from the 

preying eyes of the United States legal system. Amazingly, it was 

populated by the companies that had managed to hold on to our 

money for 5 decades. This idea was an abomination, because companies were represented, but the survivors did not ask for their officials, insurance commissioners, or anyone else to negotiate for us. 

Why, of all people, should the Holocaust survivors be the only 

ones whose property rights would be negotiated by others? In Italy, 

in 2007, after 9 years, ICHEIC closed its doors, and the results are 

terrible. It paid less than 3 percent of the amount of the insurance 

owned by European Jews in 1938, now, conservatively estimated to 

be worth $17 billion. Those of us who personally experienced 

ICHEIC inefficiency and arrogant behavior were certainly not surprised at this. 

My experience is typical, and shows why H.R. 1746 is so important. In the fall of the year 2000, I learned that the creation of 

ICHEIC—I applied for a claim form, filled it out and sent it in. I 

soon received a— 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Arbeiter, we are going to need you to move 

towards a close. 

Mr. ARBEITER. I soon received a letter with the claim number 

00067890, which stated that all member companies will investigate 

my claim, and they will report their findings within 90 days. A 

year after I filed, I had nothing. In 2001, I was asked by Congressman Henry Waxman to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives. I explained about my family history, my ICHEIC application, and the commission’s failure to even follow on its rules. 

Time, we all agree, was of utmost importance. I listened to 

ICHEIC Chairman Lawrence Eagleburger, government officials, 

and other members of ICHEIC who promised quick action—a process where rules are enforced and everyone gets a fair share. We 

were told to be patient, that the system was new, and would improve. Congress chose not to take any action in 2001, to give 

ICHEIC a chance to work. Ultimately, in 2003, I found myself— 

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to update, get to a conclusion on the 

bill, we are running late. 

Mr. ARBEITER. Okay. Some say that we should accept what 

ICHEIC gave us, because there was a deal to limit our rights to 

whatever ICHEIC decided. This is simply not acceptable. Ladies 

and gentlemen, no survivor I know asked anyone else to make any 

deals about our insurance policy, and no survivors I know were 

asked if he, or she agreed to any such deals. How did anybody presume to deny the history I am certain about, because I lived it? 

I know my father had insurance, but whatever deal was made by 

ICHEIC failed to produce the fact, and I know that happened. So, 

31

it is not disrespectful to say I am entitled to the truth. I am entitled, as a Holocaust survivor, to any information that these companies have, or that any other company has, that is relevant to our 

past. 

Now, there is no more time to deny me the history, nor the histories of thousands of families. I will finish with this, and I thank 

you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

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

63 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and your entire statement will be in 

the record. 

Mr. Eizenstat, we will give you some extra time here. 

STATEMENT OF STUART EIZENSTAT, FORMER SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESIDENT & SECRETARY OF STATE 

ON HOLOCAUST-ERA ISSUES 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I have an amended statement that I’d like to put 

in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. The record is open, for anybody who wants to put 

something in. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. My capacity as Special Representative of the 

President for Holocaust Issues during the Clinton Administration,— 

The CHAIRMAN. There are going to be a series of votes. We will 

finish Mr. Eizenstat’s testimony, and then we will break for vote. 

There are four votes, so we may be gone for the better part of the 

hour. Mr. Eizenstat, please go ahead. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I negotiated agreements with the German, Swiss, 

Austrian, French and other European governments, resulting in 

payments of more than $8 billion in compensation to 1.5 million 

Holocaust survivors, their heirs, and heirs of those who did not survive, including Jews, and non-Jews, for slave labor, real estate, insurance claims, and art claims. 

I testified time and again before this committee and others on 

these agreements, including the legal peace that was part and parcel of it, and got bipartisan support. None of the $8 billion would 

have been paid, or would have been possible, without in return, 

providing legal peace to the companies who paid it. These agreements were reached, not just on a bilateral basis between the U.S. 

Government, and the governments of these other countries. They 

were done in a complex set of negotiations with private sector representatives and corporations abroad and with the plaintiff’s attorneys, class action lawyers who brought the bulk of these suits. 

And with the World Jewish Congress, and with the Jewish 

Claims Conference, and in full recognition by the Congress, this 

committee, this chairman being ranking member, and with Chairman Leach. The bill that is currently drafted threatens the integrity of the U.S. Government’s long-standing policy of resolving Holocaust-era claims through negotiation and not litigation. I want to 

explain why that was our principle. The reason was that we wanted to have flexible rules of evidence. We wanted to have ICHEIC, 

which was created by the insurance regulators, do the research, not 

lawyers, for the claimants. 

32

We wanted to have low burdens of proof, not the high burdens 

of proof that would exist in courts. The ICHEIC process emerged 

from the impetus provided by insurance regulators in a number of 

States. In the spring of 1998, those commissioners, and Holocaust 

survivor organizations, invited the Administration to support an 

international commission to resolve unpaid Holocaust-era claims, 

and asked us to use our diplomatic efforts with European governments and companies, to bring them into the process. 

We agreed, ICHEIC was created, and the Administration had an 

observer on ICHEIC. We were not full members, because it was a 

State-led process. Our support for ICHEIC was premised on our interest in obtaining justice quickly. We knew that there was a time 

window, that litigation would be costly, uncertain, and subject to 

all sorts of defenses—statue of limitations, post-war agreements, 

and rules of evidence. And that this would consign Holocaust survivors to an endless and fruitless search for justice. 

And so what we did, whether it was slave laborers, people who 

had their properties taken, people whose art was stolen, is to adopt 

administrative processes that could move quickly in the lifetime of 

these people, and that is what the ICHEIC process was all about. 

It was done, by the way, also not only with the participation, all 

these negotiations, with Jewish organizations, and Holocaust organizations. It was done with a representative of the state of Israel, 

and with the prime minister of Israel being directly involved, and 

informed of the negotiations. 

We had to involve, and perhaps, the most difficult part of the 

process was the insurance issue, because insurance was regulated 

at the State level, and yet, we had to merge our broader negotiations with Germany over slave labor and other issues, with this 

issue. We felt that to ensure the inclusion of the broadest possible 

number of companies, and countries, that State insurance regulators had influence only over those European insurers who could 

be subject to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court. And that meant only 

those doing substantial amounts of business here. We wanted a 

broader universe of insurers involved. 

And therefore, the ICHEIC process allowed us to get insurance 

companies engaged in paying into this process, who were not subject, and wouldn’t today be subject to the jurisdiction of these 

courts. We took a number of steps to support the ICHEIC process. 

I testified in 1999 before this very committee, saying that we continued to believe ICHEIC was the best vehicle for resolving Holocaust-era claims. We reiterated that numerous times, and I wrote 

a letter to Mr. Eagleburger, who is chairman of ICHEIC, stating 

‘‘that it was the foreign policy of the United States that ICHEIC 

should be recognized as the exclusive remedy for resolving all insurance claims relating to the Nazi era, because courts were not a 

satisfactory, timely and appropriate way to do it.’’ 

Now, it is very important to understand what was done, and 

what wasn’t done in the negotiation with the Germans. We created 

a German foundation, funded with 10 billion Deutsche Marks, half 

by the German government, half by the private companies. The private companies included thousands of German companies, including insurance companies. The insurance piece was the most difficult piece to negotiate because the German insurers, led by 

33

Allianz, said that they would not contribute to our overall 10 billion 

Deutsche Mark pot, unless they, along with all other German companies, including the Daimlers, and the Siemens and the others 

who were slave labor employers got their legal peace. 

Now, what did legal peace involve? It is very important to understand. We had this 10 billion Deutsche Mark. We had to divide 

that 10 billion Deutsche Marks between slave laborers and forced 

laborers, who got 8.1 billion. A future fund for tolerance programs 

got 700 million. More went to property, and we agreed after very 

difficult negotiations, to pass through to ICHEIC 550 million Deutsche Marks to ICHEIC, for them to administer. But the condition 

of that was that Allianz, and the German insurance companies, as 

the other German companies, the slave labor employers needed to 

have legal peace. What did legal peace involve? 

They demanded, initially, a piece of legislation of Congress to cut 

off the rights of people to sue. We said that is not possible. They 

wanted an executive agreement that would cut off the rights of people to sue. We said that was not possible. What we did agree to 

was a statement of interest. To say that it was in the national security interest of the United States that the cases be dismissed, in 

return for the payment of 10 billion Deutsche Marks. And that 

statement of interest simply said it was in the interest of the 

United States, the U.S. Government, with the full understanding 

of the Congress, to promote that dismissal. 

If there were valid legal grounds found by a court to dismiss the 

case, that was the single most contentious part of the negotiation. 

They said, ‘‘Well, that leaves a huge loophole, the courts have to 

find a valid legal ground for dismissal.’’ And we said, ‘‘That is exactly right, that is the most we can give, and that is what legal 

peace is going to mean, in return for your 10 billion Deutsche 

Marks.’’ And that is what ended up happening. 

The CHAIRMAN. You need to wind it up. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I’ll wind it up. Here is what I would suggest. I 

have particular concerns about access to court issues, because it 

cuts directly against the understanding that we have reached after 

painful, long, difficult negotiations with these companies. It would 

totally vitiate the understanding that we reached in broad daylight— 

The CHAIRMAN. We have the point, but we do ask you to finish. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. There is a part of this legislation on the registry 

that I want to talk address. I am concerned about the fact that people may not know, and may not be paid for their policies. And here 

is what I would suggest. Instead of a registry, which runs against 

certain privacy rules in Europe, I would suggest the following: That 

Congress pass in legislation, a mandated requirement that all companies doing business in the United States submit period reports 

of their post-ICHEIC claims processing to the Congress, and to an 

appropriate office of the Department of State, stating the number 

of claims submitted, the number granted, the reasons for refusal, 

the amount offered in compensation, to vindicate the public interests in ensuring that companies live up to their commitments, 

while still respecting our agreement and the privacy rules of European companies. 

34

They should do so according to the rules submitted by ICHEIC, 

the loose rules. I would go a step further, and suggest that all potential claimants be told that they can file claims through the German Insurance Association, GDV, and that insurance associations 

distribute those claims to the appropriate German companies. And 

those companies would be obligated to search their files to see if 

there was a match, and then to report, on an annual basis to the 

Congress and to the State Department, on their results. This, to 

me, would be a more appropriate way of dealing with it, than vitiating agreement— 

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

102 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We are over time, and we have a vote. So, we 

will recess, and come back when we are through voting. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask, I am supposed to 

be— 

The CHAIRMAN. We are over time. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I understand. How long do you anticipate we 

should— 

The CHAIRMAN. It is going to be about 40 minutes—4 votes. If 

you have to leave, we understand that. 

[Recess] 

The CHAIRMAN. Sorry, the delay, in part, was to commemorate 

the victims of the Tennessee tornadoes, which took longer than anticipated. We will resume, and we are now up to Mr. Dubbin; is he 

not here yet? Then, we will move on to Ms. Koken, and we will get 

back to Mr. Dubbin. 

Ms. Koken, why don’t you begin. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE KOKEN, FORMER VICE-CHAIRMAN, 

ICHEIC, AND FORMER PENNSYLVANIA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

Ms. KOKEN. Chairman Frank, and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I appreciate the committee’s efforts to examine the issues underlying the 

Holocaust-era insurance claims, including the work of ICHEIC, in 

the context of considering this legislation. ICHEIC’s mission was to 

identify, and compensate previously unpaid Holocaust-era insurance policies. Under the leadership of former Secretary of State 

Lawrence Eagleburger, ICHEIC resolved more than 90,000 claims, 

ensuring that over $306 million was offered to Holocaust survivors 

and their heirs for previously unpaid insurance policies. 

Of this amount, more than half went to individuals who were unable to provide policy documentation or identify the company that 

may have issued the policy. The commission also distributed more 

than, or nearly $200 million more for humanitarian social welfare 

purposes, largely to honor the memory of heir-less claims. 

I hope to help you to understand why, and how the commission 

approached its mission, and how the organization was structured 

around that mission. As a former president of the NAIC, and vice 

chair of ICHEIC, I participated in this process from its earliest 

days. I was joined in this effort by insurance regulators from all 

parts of the country who deserve even greater recognition for much 

of the work of ICHEIC. In particular, is the work of New York, and 

35

the late Neil Levin, who perished on 9/11, and Glen Pomeroy, 

former president of the NAIC and North Dakota insurance commissioner. 

Credit also goes to the NAIC for their efforts to resolve the complex issue of unpaid Holocaust-era insurance claims. Through the 

participation of a diverse group, ICHEIC offered recourse to thousands of individuals who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to pursue their claims. We only came to appreciate the challenge we worked through with the undertaking. We were creating 

a process to address claims that were over 70 years old, from more 

than 30 countries, with more than 20 languages and currencies 

with no relevant value, and with little documentation. 

To start, we researched the pre-war, and wartime insurance market, and then invested heavily in extensive global outreach. We utilized all means available, and emphasized that anyone, regardless 

of the documentation they possessed, who thought that they were 

entitled to a Holocaust-era insurance policy, should file a claim. 

We established an agreement on relaxed standards of proof, and 

created valuation standards that could be calculated without usual 

policy documentation. We also developed an extensive research 

database, and a matching system. Furthermore, we instituted a 

separate, but related humanitarian claims payment process for 

unnamed, unmatched claims, and for claims on Eastern European 

companies that had been liquidated, nationalized, or for which 

there really were no present-day successors. 

One of the commission’s first priorities was to gain a clear understanding of the overall volume, and estimated value of potential 

claims. Glen Pomeroy, brother of your colleague, Earl Pomeroy 

from North Dakota, co-chaired a task force to explore these issues. 

The Pomeroy task force, utilizing outside experts, guided the commission in deliberation on how to assess appropriate settlement 

amounts across the markets in Europe, which ultimately resulted 

in overall settlements of approximately $550 million. 

ICHEIC’s archival research was similarly critical to build on the 

information provided by claimants constructing an ICHEIC research database that ultimately could be matched with the company’s information. As a by-product of this research, ICHEIC published the names of 519,000 potential Holocaust-era policyholders 

on its Web Site. Finding a name on a list, published by the commission, was neither necessary to file a claim, nor proof that a previously unpaid claim existed. 

We recognized that our credibility depended on adequate oversight. For this reason, ICHEIC established four important processes: One, a two-stage, independent, third party audit for the 

claims review processes of each participating company and partner 

entity; two, an executive monitoring group that could conduct realtime evaluations of companies and the ICHEIC claims operations; 

three, an in-house verification process to crosscheck every decision 

on every claim that named a company; and four, an appeals process 

that allowed for any named claimant to have a decision by a company reviewed. 

The successful settlement of ICHEIC claims, coupled with restitution efforts during the immediate post-war period, and the ongoing work of existing entities to resolve the remaining unpaid inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 041176 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\41176.TXT TERRIE
36

surance policies within their respective jurisdictions addresses a 

preponderance of the pre-war insurance market. In addition, at 

ICHEIC’s concluding meeting, every company that was a member 

of the commission, as well as the 70 companies of the German Insurance Association, through its partnership agreement with 

ICHEIC, and the Sjoa Foundation reaffirmed their commitment to 

continue to review, and process claims sent directly to them, which 

was confirmed by company letters. 

The work of the commission was unprecedented, yet we were 

able, through amicable and inclusive dialogue to voluntarily adopt 

a new approach towards the resolution of unpaid Holocaust-era insurance claims for the benefits of survivors, and their families, and 

those who did not survive. In the end, for me, it was about the people, and their stories, and about justice. The commission could not 

resolve the wrongs done by the Holocaust, as that debt is incalculable. However, our efforts could bring some measure of justice to 

the lives of thousands of survivors, their families and the families 

of those who perished. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Koken can be found on page 128 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Koken. 

We now go to Sam Dubbin. 

STATEMENT OF SAM DUBBIN, ESQ., ATTORNEY, MIAMI, 

FLORIDA 

Mr. DUBBIN. Thank you. My name is Sam Dubbin, and I am an 

attorney from Miami, Florida. I would like to explain to the committee how I got involved in this matter. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dubbin, we have a limited amount of time, 

and your background may or may not be relevant to what we do 

on the bill. 

Mr. DUBBIN. I understand. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Use your judgement, but you don’t have— 

Mr. DUBBIN. I got involved because when I returned to practice 

law in Miami in the late 1990’s, I was approached by a number of 

Holocaust survivors, elected leaders of survivor groups who were 

very concerned about the way deals had been made, and discussions were done over their rights. And many of them talked about 

insurance policies. And the survivors, and I went to our legislators. 

And in the State of Florida, legislation was passed that provided, 

based upon the testimony that the insurance commissioners had 

heard that—because everybody recognized that today would be difficult, or in the 1990’s it would be difficult for survivors to be able 

to know about a claim. 

The legislation in Florida, like the legislation in several States, 

required the publication of names, and it allowed survivors to go 

to court with a 10-year window. And the 10-year window was extremely important, because to have to litigate the statue of limitations under the circumstances would be an undue burden to impose 

upon people who obviously have been denied that information for 

years. 

So, it was the heartfelt outpouring of desire for truth, and for 

reconciliation for history, and the ability to reconnect with what 

their families had lost, from Holocaust survivors, that got me inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 041176 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\41176.TXT TERRIE
37

volved. I filed a number of lawsuits against certain insurance companies. I was one of the lead counsels in the Hungarian Gold Train 

case in which we were able, with the help of Members of Congress, 

including many people on this committee, to get a just resolution. 

And that was through the courts. 

And that is because the survivors had the ability to speak for 

themselves. It is the denial of that ability to control their own 

rights through the courts of the United States that is the greatest 

abomination really of what has happened over the last 10 years. I 

want to remind the committee that those who are opposing the legislation talk about legal peace. What is legal peace? 

Mr. Eizenstat has said, in his book, that during the negotiations 

over whether German industry would pay slave and forced laborers 

for the torture that they inflicted on them; he said, in effect, that 

before they would make those payments, they insisted that the 

United States wrap insurance into that overall agreement at the 

11th hour. 

Now, whether or not it is appropriate to negotiate by executive 

agreement payments about slave labor, which is a different kind of 

legal claim than a documented insurance claim, remember the policies, the documents are there, in most cases. The companies have 

the documents in most cases. The re-insurers have the documents 

in most cases. 

So, why there should be a legal or moral nexus between slave 

labor payments and the property claims, like insurance claims, is 

a very serious, fundamental policy issue that this Congress should 

look at. It is also clear, from Mr. Eizenstat’s book, that the Germans demanded that the President agree to abolish people’s rights 

to sue for insurance policies. It was equally clear that the President 

does not have the authority to do that, and that the German then, 

in effect, gambled that the so-called ‘‘legal peace’’ that was agreed 

to, would somehow prevail in the courts. 

And the Solicitor General, Mr. Waxman, evidently wrote a letter 

outlining that, under no circumstances, did the United States have 

the ability to abolish people’s rights to sue for insurance policies. 

So, the agreement provided, that was in the ‘‘foreign policy,’’ that 

they would file a statement of interest that it was in the foreign 

policy interest of the United States, for cases to be dismissed on 

any valid legal ground. 

Today, it is the interpretation of that, in the courts, that has 

caused the problem. It is the courts’ interpretation of the executive 

agreements that now bars survivors from going to court. They said 

it is not the agreements that matter. So, when the State Department says here that we didn’t agree to keep people out of court, 

that is disingenuous, because the courts have said there is a Federal policy that operates separately from these executive agreements, from the language of the agreements, that they have relied 

upon to bar Holocaust survivors and heirs from access to the courts 

for insurance claims. 

So, those who now oppose the legislation want to give Germany 

more than it was able to bargain for, in connection with that executive agreement. Now, so, the question is who decides Federal policy 

about how Holocaust survivors’ rights ought to be determined in 

the United States of America. The question is, did the President 

38

have the authority to negotiate away the rights of survivors to go 

to court, as a practical matter? 

The language of the agreement is more restrictive than what 

they have obtained today. The courts have interpreted that as embodying a policy. This is not about foreign policy, this is about 

international commerce, and it is about access to the courts of the 

United States. And those are areas that this Congress has jurisdiction over, pure and simple. And to the extent that there is an argument that there is a foreign policy element to that, there is no case, 

and no principle where, in the absence of a grave international crisis, and congressional authority, that based upon the President’s 

word alone, people have had their rights to go to court denied. 

But that is the effect of the agreement, and the subsequent court 

decisions. That is why the access to courts provision of this legislation is so important. So, that leaves to the Congress the question 

of who sets policy about whether or not companies that do business 

in this country, who sold insurance to people who live here today—

and believe me, these policies, as I put in my statement, they were 

very explicit, when Victoria, and Generali and the others sold insurance, it said, ‘‘You can collect this policy anywhere in the world 

where you demand payment.’’ 

And that meant something very special to Jews in Europe in the 

1930’s, because they sure hoped they would be somewhere else, or 

thought they might be, when it came time to collect. So, this is not 

about foreign transactions, this is about global companies at the 

time. They had assets in the United States at the time, and people 

today want to redeem those policies. These are contract rights, and 

to think that there is one class of people in this country today who 

do not have the right of access to courts, to obtain compensation 

for contracts that were sold to their parents under, admittedly, unusual circumstances. 

But those circumstances, as you have heard from many people, 

shouldn’t justify the denial of access. If anything, it should demand 

more favorable treatment, such as the publication of names, which 

is justified under the conditions, and the statutory extension of the 

statue of limitations. Is Congress willing to abide by the executive’s 

judgement? There are two questions. Legally, there is no question 

that Congress has the authority. Morally, do you accept the judgment that, as a condition of allowing the German companies to 

make slave labor payments, that people’s insurance rights should 

be obstructed the way they are? That is a decision for Congress to 

make. 

I would just close by saying ICHEIC, in spite of the accomplishments that it had, and there were some, its overarching purpose 

was to limit the financial exposure of the insurers, and the moral 

exposure of the insurers. And by that, I mean there are records 

that show what the companies did when the Nazis came to collect 

people’s policies. Those files exist, and the survivors have a right 

to know what someone who sold their parents insurance did at the 

time the Nazis came knocking, what they did to identify their Jewish customers. That is as much a part of this as the compensation. 

And for that truth, and frankly, for fair compensation to be denied 

as a result of those transactions, is really a travesty, and it is not 

39

the kind of thing that this Congress should associate itself with, as 

far as, the policy of the United States of America. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dubbin can be found on page 66 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Next, we will hear from Roman Kent. 

STATEMENT OF ROMAN KENT, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN 

GATHERING OF JEWISH HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS 

Mr. KENT. Thank you, Chairman Frank, and members of the 

committee, for allowing me to appear here. I am a Holocaust survivor. I received a bachelors degree in the Lodz Ghetto, and I received a Ph.D. degree in Auschwitz. Presently, I am chairman of 

the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, and officer 

of the Conference of Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, 

known as the claims conference. 

I participated in the negotiation leading to the establishment, 

and was commissioner of, the International Commission of Holocaust-Era Insurance Claims, known as ICHEIC. I also participated 

in the negotiation involving the German foundation, and am presently also involved in the ongoing claims conference negotiation 

with the German government, which has provided hundreds of millions of dollars annually for Holocaust survivors. 

For 25 years, I fought for justice, in memory of the Holocaust 

survivors. For this reason, I believe that I have a unique perspective from which to comment on the issues which are the subject of 

this hearing. At the outset, I want to highlight three key points. 

First, the ICHEIC process has concluded, however, insurance companies which worked with ICHEIC continue to accept and process 

Holocaust-era insurance claim, applying ICHEIC standard in their 

decision, at no cost to claimants. 

In addition, a number of organizations, including the Holocaust 

Claim Processing Office of New York State, will assist survivors filing such claims at no charge. Second, H.R. 1746 would generate 

huge expectations among survivors that will not be met. The cost 

in time—above everything time—and effort required to engage in 

litigation will be excessive, if not prohibitive. 

Even if European data protection hurdles could be overcome, the 

mandatory publication of the companys which work with ICHEIC, 

of all policyholders name will, at that point, yield little new information regarding policyholders who were victims of Nazi persecution. 

Third, H.R. 1746, by effectively reopening previous agreements, 

will certainly, and I want to emphasize the word ‘‘certainly,’’ damage ongoing negotiation with Germany, among others, and will put 

at risk hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial funding, which is 

required now, for the Holocaust survivors. 

Since the beginning of World War II, and for the next 60 years, 

few survivors recovered the proceeds of their unpaid Holocaust-era 

insurance policies. They faced enormous obstacles, including the resistance of insurance companies to pay or even give a fair hearing, 

the virtual impossibility of obtaining relevant documents, and the 

statue of limitations. Moreover, many companies were no longer in 

40

business after the war. A communist regime banned any sort of recovery for survivors in many countries. 

Clearly, there was a vacuum in post-war insurance resolution effort. No effective forum existed. This is precisely why the ICHEIC 

agreements were reached. ICHEIC developed a process and methodology to identify and compensate previously unpaid individual 

Holocaust-era insurance claim, at no cost to claimants. 

Working with the insurance companies that had agreed to participate, ICHEIC made great strides to fill this void, and attained 

a measure of justice for claimants, which up to that point, had not 

existed. However, only five European companies, which signed the 

agreement to work with ICHEIC, and the German companies, 

which were part of the German foundation agreement, provided 

funding for ICHEIC. ICHEIC received no other funds from any 

companies which were part of the European insurance market. 

Nonetheless, ICHEIC developed a special process to make payment, even for policies issued by such companies. Moreover, many 

complications arose with the companies that did work with 

ICHEIC. For example, the different data protection of privacy law 

of Germany, Italy, France, and Switzerland had to be addressed individually. ICHEIC also developed a liberal approach towards evidence to make it possible, and easier for claimants to recover. 

Only a small percentage of claims named a specific company, and 

fewer still included any documentation linking the policy to the 

specific company named in the claim. Yet, ICHEIC did something 

no court would do, and developed a way to pay claimants who did 

not produce an insurance policy, or name a specific company. 

Thus, to address the ineffectiveness of lawsuits, ICHEIC became 

the first, and indeed, the only one organization to offer Holocaust 

victims, and their heirs, a way to pursue Holocaust-era insurance 

claim at no cost, without regard to any statue of limitation, even 

if the policy in issue could not be produced. An assertion had been 

made on a number of occasions that less than the 5 percent of the 

total value of Jewish Holocaust-era insurance policies was paid 

through the ICHEIC process. This is a figure without any solid 

basis. 

As I have noticed, ICHEIC paid claimants for insurance policies 

issued by companies in Eastern Europe which no longer exist. Beyond that, the ultimate percentage of the Holocaust-era insurance 

market, paid through ICHEIC, depends on the valuation of Jewish 

purchases policies in question, and that, in turn, will vary depending on which values out of the broad range of possibilities, are used 

in the relevant calculation. 

The factors involved in the complex calculation required included 

the following: One, the total pre-war face value of all insurance 

policies in the local currency at the time; two, the Jewish share of 

such policies; three, the propensity of Jewish individuals to purchase insurance in greater numbers and at a higher value than the 

rest of the population; four, an adjustment for policies which were 

paid; and five, the method used to convert the value of unpaid Holocaust-era policies in today’s value. 

There is no single correct measure for any of these factors. The 

final conclusion one can reach, will radically, and I say radically 

differ, depending on which values, out of the extensive range of 

41

possibilities, were selected for their relevant component factors. To 

summarize, was ICHEIC perfect? Hell no. Excuse me for saying, 

‘‘Hell no.’’ Let me correct it by saying clearly not. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would instruct the recorder that ‘‘Hell’’ can 

stand. 

Mr. KENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nothing, nothing can remedy the wrongs perpetrated during the Holocaust. The life of one 

child, and one-and-a-half million children, and I was a child, cannot 

be measured in dollars and cents. The most that can be achieved 

is an imperfect justice. Imperfect justice on this planet, we do not 

have a perfect justice on this planet yet. I hope maybe sometime 

we will. Yet, as imperfect as ICHEIC was, what it accomplished 

was without precedent. 

One, ICHEIC provided a forum for all of— 

The CHAIRMAN. We have to speed this up, Mr. Kent. 

Mr. KENT. Yes, one more minute please. ICHEIC provided a 

forum for Holocaust-era insurance claims where before, practically 

speaking, there was nowhere to go. Second, ICHEIC did not charge 

survivors, nor was it bound by any statue of limitation. Third, 

ICHEIC paid on policies issued by insurance companies which no 

longer exists. Four, insurance which worked with ICHEIC, continued to accept, and process claim, while the Holocaust Claim Processing Office will assist applicants with filing claims. Fifth, based 

on ICHEIC research, an archive consisted of over 520 most likely 

Jewish insurance policy holder, is now available to survivors, historians and other researchers. 

And finally, about $600 million of Holocaust-era insurance policy 

was paid to policyholders, and heirs, and to programs benefiting 

survivors, and it was paid based on ICHEIC’s standards. ICHEIC— 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kent can be found on page 119 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. That will have to do Mr. Kent. 

Mr. KENT. Yes, I just— 

The CHAIRMAN. You said another minute, and we are over that. 

Mr. KENT. I do appreciate, I just have to finish it though. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have 10 seconds. 

Mr. KENT. I cannot do it in— 

The CHAIRMAN. Then we will get back to you in the questioning. 

We are going way over on all these, and I did try to advise you. 

Mr. KENT. Can I just finish my conclusion? 

The CHAIRMAN. No, we will get to you in the questioning. 

Mr. Zabludoff? 

STATEMENT OF SIDNEY ZABLUDOFF, FORMER CONSULTANT, 

CONFERENCE ON JEWISH MATERIAL CLAIMS AGAINST GERMANY, INC. 

Mr. ZABLUDOFF. Thank you for allowing me to present the facts 

relating to the restitution of Holocaust victim assets. My basic conclusion after examining the issue for more than 10 years is that extraordinary events require extraordinary solutions. Clearly, the 

murder of two thirds of continental European Jewery and the compensation of nearly all Jewish assets by the Nazis who were collaborators was such an event. Despite the extraordinary circumstances, only about 20 percent of the stolen property and other 

42

assets has been returned, as of 2007. Two bold actions could be 

taken to rectify this sizeable and unconscionable shortfall. They are 

the passage of H.R. 1746 and ensuring that the remaining unpaid 

stolen assets are used to assist needy Holocaust survivors. 

In the first case, H.R. 1746 would help restore to Holocaust victims or their heirs the value of policies never paid by insurance 

companies or companies. This amount is conservatively about $17 

billion in today’s prices. 

The bill’s important first step is to ensure the names of policyholders are published. ICHEIC started this process, and some 

500,000 names were placed on its Web site. Germany produced 

about 80 percent of these policyholder names. In the ICHEIC context however, the German list was of little use since it was made 

public only a few month before ICHEIC’s filing deadline. For all 

other countries, the number of Jewish policyholders published is 

minimal. The most notable shortcomings are in Hungary, Poland, 

and Romania, all of which had large pre-Holocaust Jewish populations. Even in most west European countries, the number of published names is extraordinarily small. To deal with the shortcoming, non-German archives need to be further examined, and 

most importantly, companies doing business outside Germany 

should publish the names of the policyholders. 

The proposed legislation also provides victims and their heirs a 

means to receive a fair value for policies taken out in the Holocaust 

period. This recognizes that there is still a long way to go for life 

insurance companies to meet their Holocaust era obligations. At 

most, about 11 percent of the fair value of outstanding policies was 

paid during the post-war and ICHEIC years. H.R. 1746 provides 

the last opportunity to increase that percentage. 

Again there are differences between Germany and other countries. Germany is the only entity that has pledged or continued to 

accept claims and pay them under ICHEIC guidelines. There are, 

however, very serious negative aspects of the seemingly benevolent 

action. The German Association will not accept claims that do not 

name companies. This is an enormous drawback. Nearly all the 

400,000 German names of policyholders listed on the Web site do 

not indicate a company name, and ICHEIC experience clearly demonstrates that two thirds of the claimants did not know the company name. Thus this German action is of little benefit to the 

claimant. 

Also on the downside is the method Germany insisted upon in 

using in determining a policy’s current value. It produces an 

amount that is only about 15 percent of similar valued policies paid 

under ICHEIC guidelines for all other West European countries. In 

special arrangements with other European countries ICHEIC 

achieved little in settling claims. A number of these shortcomings 

are illustrated in my written presentation. 

The chief reason for ICHEIC’s problems were inept governance 

and poor management. Governance became akin to secret diplomacy in which those who ran ICHEIC relied heavily on dealing 

only with those who favored their views, while making promises to 

others that were not fulfilled or long delayed. Judge Michael 

Mukasey succinctly summed up the problem when he described 

ICHEIC as ‘‘the company store.’’ 

43

But no matter what steps are taken to find claimants, many policies will remain unpaid. Those working on ICHEIC and other restitution efforts recognized this outcome from the start. This is because whole families were wiped out by the horrific events of the 

Holocaust, leaving only distant relatives with knowledge of their 

policies, especially when dealing with events over half a century 

ago. It is also understood that many records no longer exist. For 

example, the extensive search of life insurance records in Germany 

yielded about 8 million policies, or only about a quarter of the policies outstanding in the late 1930’s. 

Recognizing this fact, ICHEIC attempted at one time to calculate 

the overall value of policies, called the top down approach. The 

companies would then pay the difference between the overall estimate and the amount actually paid to claimants to a fund that 

would support needy survivors and other causes. This approach, 

however, was quickly forgotten as ICHEIC proceeded, and relatively small amounts were provided for such a humanitarian fund, 

mostly under the accord with Germany. Insurance companies failed 

completely to deal with this issue. 

This brings me to my last point. Besides pressing individual 

claims, I would suggest an international remembrance fund to support needy Holocaust survivors who are in their autumn years. 

Currently, there are approximately 600,000 Holocaust survivors 

worldwide, and actuarial data indicate that the number will decline 

sharply during the next 10 years. 

A review of available studies indicates that there are numerous 

survivors who lack adequate income to meet their daily expenses 

and health requirements. For example, one study of the United 

States indicates the income of more than half of the survivors falls 

within the poverty or near poverty bracket. Clearly, what is urgently required is an in-depth study to determine more precisely 

the likely financial requirements of needy survivors. 

Simultaneously, we must reach a global accord to establish an 

international remembrance fund. This will require innovative financial structure, but again extraordinary measures are essential 

in dealing with an extraordinary event, such as the Holocaust. 

Thank you. 

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

148 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Before we get to the questions, we 

have received several letters. I will read them into the record. 

The World Jewish Congress expresses its position on H.R. 1746—

it says that negotiations in the future will be irreparably harmed. 

The B’nai Brith International expresses reservations and asks 

that we take these considerations into account: ‘‘We worry that the 

legislature will unfairly raise the hopes of survivors without being 

able to satisfy the negotiations,’’ It also expresses concerns about 

future negotiations. 

The American Jewish Committee says that the bill could adversely affect similar negotiations in the future, and says that it 

believes current measures are adequate. 

And the Anti-defamation League says that H.R. 1746 is unnecessary and does not serve the needs of Holocaust survivors, nor answer the credibility of agreements on these matters. 

44

They will be made a part of the record. The record remains open 

if others wish to submit anything, and copies of these letters will 

be available, if anyone wishes to comment on them. 

One technical question as to timing, Mr. Eizenstat. When did 

this all finally get done? The agreement? You referred to a period 

of my being the ranking member. I became the ranking member in 

2003. 

Mr. DUBBIN. In 1998, February 12— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I said Mr. Eizenstat, Mr. Dubbin. 

Mr. DUBBIN. I’m sorry. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I testified in September of 1999. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I was not the ranking member. I just wanted to—I know that Mr. Leach and I—he was the chairman. You 

said I was the ranking member. I didn’t become the ranking member until of January of 2003. Mr. LaFalce was then the ranking 

member. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. You are correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me raise one question for those who are opposed to the bill. Mr. Zubludoff referred to the fact, and I’m told 

by some of the staff, that there is a different response from countries. That Germany, in fact, has been more responsive than some 

of the others. If we don’t do anything legislatively, what can be 

done about those countries that have not been responsive? I’m told 

the Netherlands, Austria, and maybe Switzerland. Is there something that can be done about countries which have not been responsive, even if you think the terms were acceptable? Any of the 

three? 

Ms. KOKEN. Well, I would only mention that with regard to 

ICHEIC, we did archival research in quite a few countries. And we 

entered into agreements— 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you disagree with the notion that there has 

been a differential level of response? 

Ms. KOKEN. I do believe that in many of those countries there 

are mechanisms in place— 

The CHAIRMAN. No. No. Ms. Koken, I’m sorry, but I’m tired. I 

have been here all day. That’s not what I asked you. I’m sure there 

are mechanisms. Do you agree or disagree that there has been a 

differential level of response? 

Ms. KOKEN. I believe that some of those countries have not completed their work yet in their process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Is that just a timing thing? They were 

busy that day and couldn’t get to it? I mean why are some slower 

than others? 

Ms. KOKEN. The two countries that I know that have not completed would be Switzerland and Austria, and they are still working on their processing. I would not be an expert— 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I don’t mean to be rude, but if you’re 

not, don’t answer the question. I was unfair to the Netherlands apparently. I guess the problems are in Austria and Switzerland. Mr. 

Kent, did you want to respond to that about Austria and Switzerland? 

Mr. KENT. Yes. I would like to first, with your permission, finish 

what you said— 

45

The CHAIRMAN. If you can do it in 30 seconds, Mr. Kent. You had 

over 10 minutes for a 5-minute period. 

Mr. KENT. I am extremely concerned that the legislation would 

certainly—this was your question—certainly damage critical ongoing negotiations, especially with Germany, involving hundreds of 

millions of dollars in Holocaust-related compensation, which is 

needed now, not tomorrow or next year, but now. I also feel that 

the support the United States Government provides Holocaust survivors will be undermined as other governments lose faith in the 

ability of the United States to keep its promises. Reimbursement— 

The CHAIRMAN. No. I’m sorry, Mr. Kent. That’s enough. You’re 

abusing the privilage of the committee. You had over 10 minutes. 

I’ve listened a lot. I now want to get to the questions. What about 

Austria and Switzerland? Are they a problem, and if they are do 

we—do they get left undone? 

Mr. KENT. I cannot tell you. But Eastern European countries, 

yes. We have spent over $31 million to pay claims for Eastern European countries. You, as the Congress, can do something. You can 

help us to collect from them the money. That you, as Congress, 

could do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. And that’s an important point. But I still 

went to get back to—does anyone have any response to the question that even within the terms of this agreement, Austria and 

Switzerland have not been responsive, I’m told. And if people think 

that is not true, they should tell us. Can we do anything about it? 

Mr. Zabludoff? 

Mr. ZABLUDOFF. You raised the question about Austria and Swit- zerland, and in the case of Austria, they allocated $25 million for 

life insurance. That was in relationship to ICHEIC. Because it was 

only $25 million, they have just sent out notices—or fairly recently—that they are only going to pay 15 percent of that, because 

they don’t have the money. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Well then let me raise that question to 

people who are opposed to the bill. Where does that leave people 

who have a claim against Austria, even under this procedure? 

Mr. ZABLUDOFF. People have— 

The CHAIRMAN. No. I don’t mean— 

Mr. ZABLUDOFF. I’m sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. A strong argument has been made that Germany 

has acted in good faith and made a deal, but there are other countries. And the question is, what do we do about these other countries? 

Ms. KOKEN. Well, I would say that ICHEIC did pay a number 

of the claims of the Austrian, about $10 million, because we wanted 

to make sure those claimants were not left behind. But I might 

suggest that might be a level of inquiry for this committee, is to 

ask each of the countries to set out what they have done. I know 

in— 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s not my question. My question, is can we 

do something to make them do it? You’re saying we made good because Austria wouldn’t. Is that what ICHEIC did? Yes, Mr. 

Eizenstat? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. The issues that I have raised, and perhaps Mr. 

Kent as well, refer— 

46

The CHAIRMAN. Please answer my question or else we’ll pass on. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I’m answering the question. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. I’m talking about Austria and Switzerland. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. —Refer only to those companies that have participated in ICHEIC or adopted ICHEIC policies. It did include certain Swiss and Austrian companies. If there are Eastern European 

companies that did not participate in ICHEIC the legal peace 

issue— 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. But with regard to Austria 

and Switzerland, maybe again— 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. There are a number of Swiss companies that—

Winterthur and Zurich, and so forth, which were part— 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there companies in Austria and Switzerland 

as a whole? And are they doing less than they should be under the 

agreement? Because the fact that some companies are doing well 

doesn’t answer the question about others. It’s not a trick question. 

I’m trying to get information. 

Ms. KOKEN. I guess the question is the agreement, when you 

refer to the agreement. With regard to ICHEIC, the companies all 

applied the standard equally. So to the extent that Zurich and 

Winterthur were in ICHEIC, we’re very satisfied with the work 

that they did. 

The CHAIRMAN. What about all of the other companies? You just 

said that Austria was not living up to its agreement. 

Ms. KOKEN. To the extent that there are separate entities that 

were created, the Swiss Bank settlement, which is what the Swiss 

are participating in. And the Austrian, they haven’t completed 

their settlement work, so we can’t say— 

The CHAIRMAN. What’s the timetable? When are they going to do 

it? We have been doing this for a long time. 

Ms. KOKEN. That’s a good question. That’s a very good question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that sounds to me like some problem might 

be— 

Mr. KENT. Mr. Chairman, if I can say something to you. Several 

years ago, I testified here in the Congress, and I told them if you 

want to do something, that means if the Congress wants to do 

something, stop giving licenses to the insurance companies that do 

business, and do nothing to help Holocaust survivors. Unfortunately, I must tell you it’s easier to sit here and hear the critics. 

But Congress didn’t do anything about it. I gave them a strict report— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I don’t remember that. I would say this, 

though. Excuse me, Mr. Kent, I’m going to respond. Congress 

doesn’t license insurance companies. The States license insurance 

companies. I will look into that specifically. But I don’t know what 

licensing that we at Congress would have been involved in. In fact, 

my European friends complain to us all the time that if they want 

to sell insurance in America, they have to go to 50-some-odd different jurisdictions. So I don’t believe the Congress has been allowing that, but I will look further into what you said. Still, I am 

somewhat disappointed. I thought I was asking a fairly straightforward question about a differential level of compliance, and 

whether or not that’s something that needs to be addressed. We’ll 

now move on to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. 

47

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again 

for letting me participate. One multi-level question for Mr. Dubbin, 

if you can answer in the allotted time. Some opponents of H.R. 

1746 have stated that it is premised on inaccurate estimates of the 

unpaid value of Holocaust victim’s policies. Secondly, that it violates deals to provide legal peace for German and other insurance 

companies that participated in ICHEIC. And thirdly, that H.R. 

1746 isn’t likely to produce enough successful claims by survivors 

to justify the political cost of the ill will that it would engender 

among foreign governments whose insurance companies profited 

from the Holocaust. If you could refute those, or not refute them. 

Mr. DUBBIN. On the value, Mr. Zabludoff, who participated in the 

ICHEIC group analysis—there was a consensus that at the time 

the value of—there was a consensus about what the value of Jewish policies was. He calculated the amount that had been paid after 

the war in various programs and then taking the remainder, which 

was slightly under $600 million, he multiplied that by the yield of 

a 30-year U.S. bond, from 1938 until the present. And with that 

he got—in 2004—$15 billion. Now it’s $17 billion. A 30-year bond 

yield is extremely conservative, because most insurance companies 

invest it in stocks, real estate, and other much more high-yielding 

investments. So there is no dispute about the underlying numbers. 

And ICHEIC never undertook to go to the next step, which was 

to take the value in 1938 and bring it up to current levels. So the 

$17 billion figure is very solid. But if you, as Mr. Waters said, if 

you accept the $3 billion level, what ICEIC paid out would still 

only be 15 percent. But under Mr. Zabludoff’s conservative numbers, which are not challenged in any—I have not seen a theoretical objection, or a factual objection to what he said. 

The second question was legal peace. The U.S. Government does 

not have the power to waive a citizen’s right to go to court. Germany demanded that. They were told that they couldn’t have that. 

What the United States agreed to do was very limited, and it said 

that we will file statements of interest in court, which would say 

that it’s in the foreign policy interest of the United States Government for the case to be dismissed on some—if there is a valid legal 

ground for doing that. And the Germans accepted that, understanding that they were not getting everything they asked for. 

So today to say that we agreed that survivors would not have the 

right to go to court is disingenuous. In fact, it’s giving the Germans 

more today than they bargained for then. And the reason it’s necessary is because the courts have interpreted that commitment 

more broadly than the language the Germans were actually able to 

negotiate for. Because the courts have said, ‘‘It doesn’t matter what 

the language in the agreement says (which is limited) we think 

there is, addition to the language—in addition to the contractual 

language, there is a ‘Federal policy’ of the Executive Branch that 

Holocaust victims’ insurance policies should be resolved in a nonadversarial setting.’’ 

So the question for you is now, because the legal landscape is 

clear, do you agree with that policy? Does Congress agree that 

someone today, who has a piece of paper from Generali or Allianz, 

which was denied through ICHEIC, do you agree that person 

should not have the right to go to court and have a judge force the 

48

company to disgorge all of the relevant information? Because I can 

tell you from ICHEIC experiences, and I can give you many examples, those companies were able to deny claims without providing 

the information to the claimant, so you have a star chamber system 

where the claims were denied. The rules might have said one 

thing, but the practical application was thousands of people were 

denied claims without getting any documentation, including people— 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. If I can interrupt you because our time is 

limited. 

Mr. DUBBIN. So the last question is the cost-benefit analysis. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Right. 

Mr. DUBBIN. I don’t believe that human rights are subject to a 

cost-benefit analysis. The right to go to court, to pursue your documented insurance claim or to pursue a company you believe sold 

you a policy, if you can convince a lawyer to bring that case, in the 

United States of America, it is a fundamental human right. It is 

enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and in the constitutions of every 

State. And to say that we are not going let some people be able to 

avail themselves of that right because of what other groups did—

and by the way, I don’t care what groups sat in the room. Izzy 

Arbeiter, David Mumbelstein, Jack Rubin, Alex Moskovic, and hundreds of survivors whom I personally have come in contact with did 

not authorize any organization, did not authorize the State Department, did not authorize the Secretary of the State, did not authorize the President to negotiate for their insurance rights. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 

although I’m not a member of this committee, and you’ve been very 

kind to me— 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. May I respond to this— 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I will ask a member of the committee if they could introduce for the record some of 

the letters that I have gotten from constituents who— 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I have been informed Mr. Wexler will also 

be putting material into the record. Anyone who wants to can get 

it. Mr. Eizenstat? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Congressman, the good faith of the United States 

Government is at stake here. We negotiated in the open with congressional understanding and support $8 billion worth of agreements. Companies paid billions of dollars for slave labor payments, 

for insurance, for a variety of other claims, in return for which we 

gave a legal peace agreement, which the courts have upheld. And 

we did say it was in the foreign policy interest of the United States 

to dismiss claims, if there was a valid legal ground. That is what 

the Germans accepted. That’s what we gave them. The courts in 

their own wisdom, including the United States Supreme Court, 

have upheld that. If we now try to vitiate that, the whole negotiation posture that we took would be undercut. The whole reliance 

that companies which had paid billions of dollars—and governments, the Austrian government contributed; the German government contributed, would be vitiated. This involved not just their 

private sectors . 

Second, this is not an all or nothing thing. I have suggested in 

my testimony that we should hold the companies who have pledged 

49

to continue to honor claims on an ICHEIC basis with loose rules 

of evidence, which would not have existed in court. Mr. Dubbin’s 

remedy would have left—if we would not have gotten this $8 billion, he would have been trying to bring a class action approved 

back under rules of evidence when they didn’t even names of insurance companies oftentimes, let alone the policies themselves. That’s 

why we set this administrative process up. 

What I suggested is let’s hold the companies to their commitment 

to continue to handle claims in an ICHEIC-like process. Force them 

to report to the Congress and to the State Department. Hold oversight hearings. Get the German Insurance Association to submit 

regular reports on the number of claims that were filed and so 

forth. So there is something that can be done here. 

Mr. KENT. I fully agree with Secretary Eizenstat but Chairman 

Leach and Chairman Frank I will ask you to do something now. 

I really would beg you to do something. Close your eyes, Members 

of Congress. Don’t see me as I look right now. You should see me 

right now, as you talk in your bill, as the needy survivor who needs 

help. This is what we talking about. The needy survivors who need 

help, and let us consider for a second, I am here as one of the survivors, the only one except Izzy Arbeiter, who happens to be a good 

friend of mine. I would like to see what is the motivation of the 

bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m sorry Mr. Kent, that’s not something that 

we’re going to go into at this point. I will tell you this, I believe 

the motivation to be that members of the committee feel that they 

can do things to help people, but the motivation of individual members is not the subject of the hearing. I’m sorry, and I understand 

your anguish Mr. Kent, but there is a limited amount of time. You 

have had a great deal of time to speak but getting into an examination of the motives of the members is just not something we’re 

going to do. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and all, I 

want to thank you for your testimony. Because time is of the essence, I’d like to start with you Mr. Secretary. You indicated that 

there was and is, I think, congressional understanding associated 

with this agreement. Could you please explain what congressional 

understanding means? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Yes, sir. I testified time and again before this 

committee, before Senate committees, before the House Foreign Relations Committee, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 

and before the Senate Banking Committee about these and other 

agreements, about legal peace, about what we were trying to do, 

about what we were trying to accomplish in very extensive hearings. Now, no one sought legislation because legislation wasn’t appropriate. We did this under the foreign policy powers of the President of the United States. But we did it in full consultation. 

Second, it was not done in a dark room with a few parties. We 

had plaintiff’s attorneys. Not Mr. Dubbin; he didn’t want to participate. We had dozens of plaintiff’s attorneys, the best class action 

lawyers—Mel Weiss and others—around the country. Bob Swift in 

Philadelphia, people in Washington, major class action lawyers who 

decided to drop their cases because they realized that those cases 

did not have much of a chance and indeed the two major slave 

50

labor cases were dismissed by judges on the grounds of statute of 

limitations problems. We had major Jewish organizations who participated in negotiations. We had representatives from the State of 

Israel and we brought the Congress into it by our testimony. So 

this was done in very broad daylight. Obviously, the actual details 

were done in private negotiations, but this was not an unknown 

quantity that was just dropped on the Congress or dropped on survivor groups. They were part and parcel. The American Gathering, 

The World Jewish Congress, and The Jewish Claims Conference 

were all involved in every stage of the negotiation. 

Mr. GREEN. Did Congress ever have an opportunity to in some 

way sign off on the agreement that was— 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. They had every opportunity if they wanted to object because I testified. I laid out what the agreements were. If 

they had any criticism, they weren’t heard. What I heard was 

praise and bipartisan support for doing something promptly. The 

courts wouldn’t have permitted it. If you look at these cases, what 

court in the world would have granted jurisdiction to companies 

that didn’t even do business here? What court would have allowed 

payment of policies when the claimants didn’t know the names of 

the companies? When there wasn’t evidence? I mean, of course the 

tragedy is that there was no evidence because it was burned along 

with the people. 

Mr. GREEN. Let me intercede for just a moment. I think you 

raised a good question. Mr. Durbin? 

Mr. DUBBIN. Dubbin, yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Would you—excuse me, I’m sorry for—would you 

please respond to the question that was just posed about the 

courts? 

Mr. DUBBIN. Of course. Well, let me address a couple of the 

points if I might. The lawyers who sued the German companies 

who were part of those negotiations had filed suits on behalf of individuals, so those cases had not been certified as a class action, 

and that is important. They voluntarily dismissed their cases, their 

individual cases, but they said at the time they dismissed them 

that the court should satisfy itself at the end whether or not the 

German Foundation is capable of providing compensation to insurance claimants. 

So now you are looking at, even those lawyers understood that 

this was still contingent on a successful outcome. Now several 

Members of Congress, 47 to be exact, wrote letters to the Attorney 

General in the year 2000 rejecting the notion that insurance claims 

estimated to be worth billions could be satisfied by the arbitrary 

$300 million Deutsche Marks set aside in the German Foundation 

Agreement. They said they were shocked to learn that the recent 

slave labor settlement between the U.S. Government and Germany 

included insurance. That’s what members of the Congress said and 

what the Justice Department responded by saying was, ‘‘Hey we 

didn’t waive anybody’s rights. We were just going to file a limited 

statement of interest.’’ That’s what the Assistant Attorney General 

for legislation said. 

And he also said that if this doesn’t work out, we reserve the 

right to revisit our views on the constitutional issues. So Congress 

objected in the only way they could at the time. It is true that they 

51

could have passed legislation, but the fact of the matter is there 

were objections from Congress and the Justice Department attempted to solve those objections by saying if this doesn’t work— 

Mr. GREEN. Let me intercede. I have one more question I have 

to ask Mr. Zabludoff. Is that correct, am I pronouncing your name 

correctly, sir? Please forgive me. You mentioned congressional—

pardon me, that claims that do not have—can not name an insurance company, you spoke about that and how they would be rejected. Would you and this is my final question so could you please 

explain that again for me? 

Mr. ZABLUDOFF. Sure. In the case of Germany, Germany did publish a lot of names; 400,000 names, 360,000 names were from the 

German Accord and was published by the German authorities. Another 40,000 came from ICHEIC archives, so you have about 

400,000 policies all together. Now the real problem is that when 

you look at that list, it doesn’t list the company. So you have to 

name a company the GDV which is the German overall of regulator 

of companies. They basically said you have to name a company but 

the list doesn’t show the company so how could you do that? And 

we know from ICHEIC experience that two thirds of the people 

who sent in claims did not—from years and years before—did not 

know the name of the company. So how could you expect a claimant to know the name of a company? 

Mr. GREEN. My time is up, sir. 

Mr. DUBBIN. May I have 15 seconds? Because Congress did in 

2003 pass the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act of 2003 which required the State Department to get reports from ICHEIC about its 

performance, and for 4 years ICHEIC refused to provide the State 

Department anything even though statutorily mandated by Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Green, do you want to finish up with him? 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman now that you’re back. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have been joined by our colleague again from 

California, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There has been a lot 

of discussion here about how we did the best we could under current law. We’re in the business of changing laws here in Congress 

and I have approached this from a consumer protection standpoint. 

Neither the State Department nor the Jewish Claims Conference 

has a responsibility to make sure that people in the 27th District 

are not sold life insurance policies by grave robbers, pirates, or 

their affiliates. That is a responsibility of myself and my colleagues 

on this committee and there are so many reasons why somebody 

might buy an insurance policy. Their family would be unaware of 

it, and they might lose all contact with the company, and then according to the company’s own records, they have an insured who 

is 100 years old, 110 years old, or 120 years old, and there has 

been no claim. 

Mr. Eizenstat, would you ever buy a life insurance policy from 

a company that didn’t have it as its policy that if there had been 

some great social disruptions so families and records were destroyed that they wouldn’t put up on a Web site your name on your 

100th birthday so that your next of kin could make a claim, but 

would instead want to in effect be grave robbers, to hope that 100 

52

years would pass after your birth, 200 years, or 300 years, and 

there just wouldn’t be any claim. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. The answer is ‘‘no’’ and that is not what happened here, Congressman Sherman; 519,000 names were published 

on a— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well I’m not just talking about the victims of the 

Holocaust here. We have the victims of the Armenian genocide but 

we have millions of people who are not targeted for genocide whose 

families were destroyed in World War II and you have all of the 

consumers in the United States. Why would any company not post 

on a Web page the name of an insured under the following circumstances; the insured is over 90 years old and the company 

hasn’t any contact with them or their family for 30 years. Why 

wouldn’t we require that of domestic companies, international companies, World War II companies, World War I companies, Ottoman 

Empire companies, companies that sold policies in Poland or Albania. Why wouldn’t we require that of anybody who would come into 

my district and say we have clean hands, we should be allowed to 

do business in the United States? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. That’s certainly not what this legislation does. 

This legislation is applied to European insurers who have privacy 

laws that preclude them in their own countries from doing so but 

the way in which that was avoided to the extent possible was that 

of their 8 million— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Excuse me, Mr. Eizenstat. I have such limited 

time. So these companies get privacy laws passed in their own 

countries. You know, a lot of insurance companies get— 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Mr. Sherman, of the 8 or 10 million policy holders, those were all given to the ICHEIC process. They were used 

by Yad Vashem to vet out— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Eizenstat, you’re giving me the details of 

what was done and I’m asking a much broader consumer policy 

issue because what you’re describing is a policy that did nothing 

for Albanian families or Armenian families. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Well I’m not here to—I can’t answer a broad consumer question. I’m here to defend an agreement which got $8 billion for survivors in return for legal peace. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I’m not here to— 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I’m not an expert on consumer protection for insurance policies. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I’m not here to attack that agreement. I’m here 

to say that we ought to have an overall policy starting with the 

Holocaust of requiring placing on the Web the names of insureds 

whose families obviously are owed money. These are folks who are 

well over 90 years old. They have lost attention and your response 

is well, these companies might have to comply with privacy laws 

in their home country. 

I can’t imagine a home country privacy law that wasn’t there at 

the behest of the insurance company if its sole effect is to simply 

deny the payment to families where the insured is 100 years old, 

or 110 or 150 years old. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. No, sir. My response was that 519,000 names 

were supplied after they were vetted of 8 million by Yad Vashem. 

53

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank you for your work. I would hope that this 

would be the first step in requiring us to use the new technology 

of the Web to publish the names of those insureds. I can’t see how 

a life insurance executive could go to sleep at night knowing that 

they have in their files unclaimed policies of insured people who 

obviously died in the World War II era and they still have not 

made payment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Arbeiter wanted to respond in part to that 

question. 

Mr. ARBEITER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing here about 

legal peace, legal peace for Germany, for the insurance companies. 

What about justice for the Holocaust survivors? What about the insurance policies that were written on behalf of our parents, our 

families who were murdered. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Arbeiter, I appreciate that. That’s substantial, I mean we understand that. I want to ask Mr.—if the gentleman had concluded—two questions, one to each side. The privacy issue is concerning and I would ask the proponents of the bill 

what if I am somebody in the Netherlands who doesn’t want my 

family’s insurance policy out there for everybody to see. What’s our 

response to that? I mean there is a legitimate privacy concern. So 

as I understand it, we’re talking about putting everybody’s insurance policy on there. What if I had a relative I didn’t like and I 

didn’t want her to know that I had an insurance policy? What’s our 

answer to that, Mr. Dubbin, Mr. Arbeiter? 

Mr. DUBBIN. Well, this bill calls for policies that are over—that 

were issued prior to 1945 to be published. Those are—to think that 

is going to infringe on anyone’s current privacy rights, I think, is 

a stretch. You know, our State Treasurer puts out names of dormant bank accounts and things all the time. I mean I think it’s fatuous to make that argument from the other side because insurance 

companies control—we know that those privacy laws are there to 

protect much deeper, darker secrets. Mr. Eizenstat said they published 519,000 names. They managed to publish those names, okay, 

even though there were privacy— 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, let me ask you this, is this only uncollected claims? 

Mr. DUBBIN. The legislation calls for all policies to be published. 

All of the policies that were sold. The reason for that— 

The CHAIRMAN. Including if they were collected on or not? 

Mr. DUBBIN. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Because they might have been collected—well, I 

understand your argument but I would disagree with your dismissal of those as fatuous. 

Mr. DUBBIN. I retract that statement, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s 

not— 

The CHAIRMAN. You have retracted, my advice; leave it with the 

retraction. Don’t characterize any further. But I have to tell you, 

I think that is a legitimate issue that we have to take into account. 

Mr. Kent, did you want to comment on that? 

Mr. KENT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. On the question of the privacy. 

Mr. DUBBIN. I’d like to see the law. 

54

Mr. KENT. Just in privacy. I give you an example of the United States. I mentioned that we have about $30 million of policies that 

we paid out and we want to collect the money. Now, the privacy 

law in the United States is right now—we cannot get the names 

of the people because they are right now subject to United States 

privacy laws. So I cannot even collect the money here that we paid 

out, ICHEIC paid out, because of the privacy laws. 

The CHAIRMAN. You can’t collect from Austria? 

Mr. KENT. But from Poland, from Czechoslovakia 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand, yes, from other countries. All right 

thank you. Let me now ask, on the other side if I’m not as—my 

memory is not as refreshed about law school and I haven’t ever 

practiced law. But on class action suits, in general, in the United 

States, I am a member of a class that has suffered harm. A class 

action suit has been brought in which I have had no involvement. 

I have not been given the option of opting out, am I precluded, Mr. 

Eizenstat or Ms. Koken, am I precluded by the results or do I retain a separate to right to sue? Ms. Koken? 

Ms. KOKEN. In the ICHEIC process— 

The CHAIRMAN. No, no, no, I know my diction isn’t great. But let 

me try again. In general, in the United States, if there is a class 

action suit brought and I’m a member of the class that suffered the 

harm but I was not involved in the suit. I was not given a chance 

to opt out, am I concluded under American law by the results of 

that class action suit? Mr. Dubbin you may be the only practicing 

lawyer among us, so— 

Mr. DUBBIN. If the suit—if the settlement is subjected to a rule 

23 fairness process where there’s notice to the class of the terms 

of the settlement and the judge approves it as being fair, and then 

it’s either appealed and the Court of Appeals upholds it or if it’s 

not appealed, then if you’re a member of that class you are precluded. Now that’s what happened in the Swiss Bank case but that 

did not happen— 

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule 23, what is the rule 23 procedure? 

Mr. DUBBIN. That’s the rule that authorizes class actions. 

The CHAIRMAN. What’s the procedure that they would have to go 

through? Notify me and I can opt out, is that what— 

Mr. DUBBIN. The rules says that all class members who can be 

identified through reasonable effort need to be given— 

The CHAIRMAN. Right, it’s one thing to get notice. What can I do 

with the notice? Can I opt out? 

Mr. DUBBIN. You can opt out. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. DUBBIN. It has to inform you of your right to opt out. 

The CHAIRMAN. So there is—you are concluded only if it can be 

reasonably assumed that you were notified and declined to opt out? 

Mr. DUBBIN. And there was a full rule 23 fairness process— 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dubbin, if we all knew what rule 23— 

Mr. DUBBIN. —only the Swiss Bank case did that— 

The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me. 

Mr. DUBBIN. I’m sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. If we all knew what rule 23 was, we wouldn’t be 

going through this step by step. Stop with the specific—I want to 

55

get this done clearly. In general, if you were notified, and had a 

chance to opt out, and you didn’t opt out, you are precluded? But 

if you did not get that notice or if you opted out, you are not precluded? 

Mr. DUBBIN. The law says that— 

The CHAIRMAN. But did make a good effort to— 

Mr. DUBBIN. Right. If the court says the notice was reasonable 

under the circumstances, you could be precluded even though you 

didn’t get notice. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right, but the error made about Mr. Eizenstat. 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Just to clarify, as Mr. Dubbin correctly said here, 

the Swiss Bank case was such a class action settlement. It did preclude it. But the others did not. They’re subject to this, but they 

did not preclude you— 

The CHAIRMAN. But the question then is, why should some Holocaust survivor who did not agree with the settlement be precluded 

from pursuing his or her rights independently? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. They are not precluded. They can still sue, but 

they would be subject to the statement of interest. 

The CHAIRMAN. Statement of interest by whom? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. By the United States Government pursuant to 

our agreement and— 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, so they would be, in effect, precluded? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. And the court could— 

The CHAIRMAN. Would that in fact preclude them? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. It effect— 

The CHAIRMAN. Come on, yes or no? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. The courts have said yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, well that wasn’t so hard was it? Just to 

say yes? Okay, then that’s what I disagree with, at least that’s my 

other issue. That is, a government-to-government deal takes away 

my right to sue if I don’t like what the government did and those 

are offsetting, troubling concerns. I do think privacy is real, but I 

also think the principle of me being precluded by a deal that the 

government set, because you know, when governments make deals, 

let’s be clear, governments have a lot of interest at stake. We’re 

told by the German government, for instance, and the State Department argued this as well, that what is at stake here is not this 

particular deal, but German American relations in general. That if 

we were to allow something which the Germans feel violates the 

deal, it maybe does violate the deal. Because I don’t think you’re 

not violating it if the people aren’t bound by it, that can affect 

other things. So that’s the point that I make. What’s the justification for precluding the rights of people who didn’t like the deal 

when they were part of it? 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. They were—if we had not done this legal peace 

in the way we did it and the limited form which we did it, which 

of course is accepted, we wouldn’t have gotten $8 billion in— 

The CHAIRMAN. And I understand that and I’m glad that you did 

but why should that stop other people from also— 

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Because then the companies wouldn’t have paid the $8 billion if they had known they were going to pay $8 billion, 

and they would still be subject to suit—nobody in his right mind 

would have done that. 

56

The CHAIRMAN. Then maybe what you should have told them— 

Mr. DUBBIN. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I’m going to finish. Maybe their lawyer 

should have told them that there was a possibility that this wasn’t 

going to be final. Mr. Kent. 

Mr. KENT. I can answer your question from a practical point of 

view. Just recently we have a recent agreement, part of the agreement from the German government. They are giving right now to 

survivors $150 million; 50,000 survivors are going to get $3,000. I 

have meetings with the German Ambassador and people who came 

from Germany to our office and they told me point blank, Mr. Kent, 

why should we make any agreements with the Jewish side for Holocaust survivors if we cannot depend on the word of the— 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ll give you the answer that I would give them. 

I’ll call them up and I’ll tell them, here’s the deal—why should you 

make the deal? Because your country, not you personally, did the 

most vicious thing in the history of the world and if I were you I 

would lean over backwards to fix it, and I must tell you this, I will 

live up to this agreement. I’ll urge other people to do, but I don’t 

speak for every one of the victims and I would tell you this, if 

you’re going to tell me that you think this is the right thing to do 

but because 100 people or 1,000 people disagree, and you’re mad 

at them—you’re going to deny the money that you think you ought 

to give to these other people. That’s not nice. That’s what I would 

tell them. 

Mr. KENT. I talked to the German government and the German 

Foundation was not signed for a few months because I said to the 

Germans that I will not sign, as a Holocaust survivor, an agreement unless we will get a full apology from your government. So 

the money—I agree with you, is not the key issue for me. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m not saying the issue is—I would say to them 

you do the right thing because it’s the right thing, and you hope 

you get the best. But you don’t say I’m only going to do the right 

thing and by that get immunity from every other possible victim. 

And you know what I think that they are probably in reality than 

they are in the negotiations. In a negotiation situation, we tend to 

be a little nastier than we might be in the reality. Sometimes we 

threaten to do things that we’re not really going to do because you 

know, we’ll see what happens. Is there any further— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do think privacy is important but 

if we were to limit this— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let’s not debate this among ourselves. The 

committee can do that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I just need 20 seconds. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very quickly. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay, if we were to limit the bill to those policies 

where the company hadn’t had any contact with the insured or the 

family for 20 years— 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s mark-up talk. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay, sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, those are areas that with the bill and everybody should understand, this does not come before us as yes or no. 

This is a bill which is subject to amendment. There are two different sections. There are different countries. I am certainly conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Apr 08, 2008 Jkt 041176 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\41176.TXT TERRIE
57

vinced that further action is relevant, but we will have a lot of conversations with people and any of the issues that anyone listening 

feels could be further elaborated upon, please feel free to elaborate. 

Yes, Ms. Koken, you get to have the last word. 

Ms. KOKEN. I know it’s risky to do this but I would say that I 

would want to point out that there was matching done of these 

records against all of the archival research so that we would be 

sure that we— 

The CHAIRMAN. You said that already. Didn’t somebody say that 

already? 

Ms. KOKEN. I don’t know. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thought somebody did. All right, go ahead. 

Ms. KOKEN. And that through that process we were able to also, 

in our Pomeroy report, get to these heir-less claims so that that 

was dealt with and I would also ask that I could put into the 

record— 

The CHAIRMAN. No, you don’t have to ask. Anybody who wants 

to put anything into the record can put it in. 

Ms. KOKEN. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s the—Mr. Kent, what is it? 

Mr. KENT. I’d just like to say in many times I heard here reports 

about the 15 billion, 200 billion and so on and I’d like to say Willard Rogers said that there are three lies. There is a lie that is a 

big lie— 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kent you already said there was no reality 

to the numbers. If this is repitition of things already said— 

Mr. KENT. Yes, and I’d like to add to it. I was for a few years 

with Mr. Zabludoff of the Commission. He never said to me— 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a whole new subject that we’re not going 

to get into now and start a whole new debate. You all had a lot 

of time; nobody was held to the 5-minute rule. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X

February 7, 2008

60


41176.001
61


41176.002
62


41176.003
63


41176.004
64


41176.005
65


41176.006
66


41176.007
67


41176.008
68


41176.009
69


41176.010
70


41176.011
71


41176.012
72


41176.013
73


41176.014
74


41176.015
75


41176.016
76


41176.017
77


41176.018
78


41176.019
79


41176.020
80


41176.021
81


41176.022
82


41176.023
83


41176.024
84


41176.025
85


41176.026
86


41176.027
87


41176.028
88


41176.029
89


41176.030
90


41176.031
91


41176.032
92


41176.033
93


41176.034
94


41176.035
95


41176.036
96


41176.037
97


41176.038
98


41176.039
99


41176.040
100


41176.041
101


41176.042
102


41176.043
103


41176.044
104


41176.045
105


41176.046
106


41176.047
107


41176.048
108


41176.049
109


41176.050
110


41176.051
111


41176.052
112


41176.053
113


41176.054
114


41176.055
115


41176.056
116


41176.057
117


41176.058
118


41176.059
119


41176.085
120


41176.086
121


41176.087
122


41176.088
123


41176.089
124


41176.090
125


41176.091
126


41176.092
127


41176.093
128


41176.060
129


41176.061
130


41176.062
131


41176.063
132


41176.064
133


41176.065
134


41176.066
135


41176.067
136


41176.068
137


41176.069
138


41176.070
139


41176.071
140


41176.072
141


41176.073
142


41176.074
143


41176.075
144


41176.076
145


41176.077
146


41176.078
147


41176.079
148


41176.080
149


41176.081
150


41176.082
151


41176.083
152


41176.084
153


41176.112
154


41176.113
155


41176.114
156


41176.115
157


41176.116
158


41176.117
159


41176.118
160


41176.119
161


41176.094
162


41176.095
163


41176.096
164


41176.097
165


41176.098
166


41176.099
167


41176.100
168


41176.101
169


41176.102
170


41176.103
171


41176.104
172


41176.105
173


41176.106
174


41176.107
175


41176.108
176


41176.109
177


41176.110
178


41176.111
179


41176.120
180


41176.121
181


41176.122
182


41176.123