[Go To Best Hit] Title:  TEXT: EIZENSTAT ON PROPERTY RESTITUTION IN CENTRAL, EAST EUROPE (August 6 testimony before HIRC) Date:  19980806 Text: Washington -- Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat testified before the House International Relations Committee August 6 on property restitution to victims of the Holocaust in Central and Eastern Europe. Eizenstat noted that he has worked on this issue since 1995, when he was named the State Department's Special Envoy on Property Restitution in Central and Eastern Europe. Efforts are continuing "not only in the area of property restitution, but also in the related areas of compensation for Holocaust victims and in the efforts by some 16 countries at searching for the truth and coming to terms with their role in World War II." In all of these areas, he told the committee, "we are trying to bring an element of morality and justice that will allow us to enter a new millennium having completed the unfinished business of the 20th Century." Eizenstat detailed the ways in which his office and the State Department are cooperating with and urging other governments to make fair and just restitution of property. He noted that property claims are divided into three major categories: communal property, private property, and heirless property. "In many of the countries I have visited, they have in place procedures for the restitution of confiscated communal property. However, most of these countries have only just begun to resolve this issue. Nevertheless, in the past year, we have continued to see progress, albeit slowly and painfully, in many of these countries. Restitution of private property, including heirless property, is much farther behind." Eizenstat explained what is being done to address each of the major claim categories, as well as the difficulties encountered in property restitution efforts. In visits to the countries involved, he said, "I have seen first hand ... the diversity of laws, policies, and circumstances we have to deal with. Yet I do perceive a constructive attitude on the part of the officials of many of these newly democratic countries toward addressing the injustices of the past, and a recognition that this includes restitution of property. "It is our hope and expectation that as the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union increasingly enter international institutions -- whether NATO, the European Union, the OECD, the WTO, the Council of Europe, or OSCE, as the case may be -- they will adopt Western standards of property restitution and ownership." This effort, he said, "is not just for history's sake. It is so we can learn the lessons of the past and use them in ways that are helpful today and tomorrow to build a more just world.... It is our hope that we can act at this time and provide belated justice to aging Holocaust survivors who so richly deserve it before we enter a new millennium." Following is the prepared text of Eizenstat's testimony: (Begin text) Testimony by Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat Before the House International Relations Committee Property Restitution in Central and Eastern Europe August 6, 1998 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today as part of our shared pursuit of truth, and in our quest for justice for the victims of the Holocaust. Mr. Chairman, you recognized several years ago the importance of dealing with these difficult and pressing moral and material questions. The Holocaust was the greatest crime of this or any other century and its cost in human tragedy incalculable. But, the Holocaust was also the greatest theft in history -- dehumanizing people by depriving them of the right of possession and taking from them and their communities their property and institutions. Property restitution, therefore, must be a central element in dealing with the leftover legacy of this period. Your continuing support has been important in our efforts to achieve progress in these important and sensitive areas. Mr. Chairman, I began to focus on these issues in early 1995 when, as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, I became the State Department's Special Envoy on Property Restitution in Central and Eastern Europe. In this role, I traveled to 11 countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union meeting with lay and religious leadership in Jewish communities. Since then, the State Department has dedicated the full-time services of a senior Foreign Service Officer to assist me, first Victor Comras and now Ambassador Henry Clarke. In fact, I traveled to Lithuania and Poland again just last month to pursue the restitution process. It is important to recognize that our efforts at communal property restitution is integral to the rebirth and renewal of Jewish life in the region. But it is also important to recognize that as a result of these activities, a constructive synergy has developed that has produced results: not only in the area of property restitution, but also in the related areas of compensation for Holocaust victims and in the efforts by some 16 countries at searching for the truth and coming to terms with their role in World War II. In each case -- property restitution for those whose property was stolen by the Nazis and/or Communists; compensation for Holocaust victims; and the historic search for truth -- the thread connecting these three activities is coming to terms with history and acting upon it to produce a measure of justice for thousands who suffered most as we end the 20th Century and begin a new millennium. While this synergistic action has created a positive momentum, still more needs to be done. We are reaching out in an accelerated way to the Romani/Gypsy community that was also victimized by the Nazis. I. Restitution -- The Challenge Property claims are divisible into three major categories: communal property; private property; and heirless property. In many of the countries I have visited, they have in place procedures for the restitution of confiscated communal property. However, most of these countries have only just begun to resolve this issue. Nevertheless, in the past year, we have continued to see progress, albeit slowly and painfully, in many of these countries. Restitution of private property, including heirless property, is much farther behind. The United States supports a process of property restitution in Central and Eastern Europe that reflects our commitment to religious freedom and tolerance, our sense of justice, and our concept that property can be expropriated only through due process and for prompt and effective compensation. We believe that Americans and others who suffered egregious losses during the Holocaust and its aftermath, as well as during the Communist era, should have some redress on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis. While we seek consistent standards for restitution, we also recognize the widely divergent circumstances among these countries -- and adopt our approaches accordingly. While I will fully explain our efforts in each of these major claim categories, I would first like to outline the difficulties we encounter in our property restitution efforts: First, some countries are returning state-held communal properties pursuant to national legislative action or executive decrees. Yet property is often under the control of municipal authorities; Second, citizenship or residency requirements present a stumbling block thwarting the return of private property; A third difficulty is the distinction drawn in the laws of several countries between religious and non-religious properties; A fourth problem is that restitution of personal and communal properties to religious groups -- both Jewish and church groups -- or to private parties could affect vast tracks of land in those countries; Fifth, there is the universal problem when dealing with the bureaucracy of any government in any country. Property restitution is no exception; Finally, the problems created around changes in postwar boundaries and populations. I will begin with the challenges created by territorial changes. These include World War II boundary changes and population movements and communist-era nationalizations. Unlike gold or bank accounts, real estate is bound to the specifics of each country's territory and history, and every country in Eastern and Central Europe has had a significantly different history during the periods of Nazi and communist domination. These new democracies are trying to deal with their own past, the urgent needs of the present, and their hopes for the future. Consequently, each country has devised its own individual approach to property restitution. This means that no single grand solution can be devised that would work effectively throughout Europe. It may also mean that absolute justice is unobtainable for either the original owners or the current occupants of real property. Communal property in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe generally refers to properties originally held by various Christian denominations and Jewish communities. The challenges to returning this property inherent in this diversity depend in part upon when the expropriation took place -- after the Russian Revolution, during the Second World War, or during the Cold War. For Jewish communities, the scale of the problem also depends on the size of the communities before the war and the extent to which they were destroyed in the Holocaust. The modest pre-war Jewish community in Estonia rented most of its communal facilities, so restitution is not so much at issue. However, in Poland, where 3.5 million Jews held thousands of communal properties before the Holocaust, restitution is a paramount issue and a difficult challenge for its small remaining Jewish population. Russia and Ukraine still have two of the largest Jewish populations in the world, but many of their former communal properties were seized by the communists long before World War II, along with the property of other religious groups. We will do our best to ensure that property is returned in a non-discriminatory manner. Laws governing the return of religious property exist in almost every country, and most countries have returned at least some of these properties. Yet in many countries, laws are narrowly drawn. For example, in Lithuania only "religious" properties are eligible for restitution rather than communal secular properties owned by religious communities; this is a severe limitation. The process for return is often slowed by bureaucracy or by the objection of local authorities, often complicating our efforts. Municipalities own much of the communal property, for example in the Czech Republic, and are reluctant to return it or pay even a fraction of its worth. But our effort and this process are important contributions to the rebirth of pluralistic societies throughout Central and Eastern Europe, including countries in the former Soviet Union such as Ukraine. The U.S. Government encourages the return of communal property, and supports the revitalization of religious and other communities. We want to see schools and community centers included in the process. We encourage governments in Central and Eastern Europe to establish equitable and non-discriminatory procedures to evaluate specific claims, and to work closely with local religious communities to resolve them. International Jewish organizations and other groups can help local communities identify and document claims, and help maintain the restituted property. They may also have an important role in representing Holocaust victims wherever they may have settled. Restitution of private property is even more complex, since it entails proof of ownership, inheritance, liens, debts and tenant rights. The vast amount of property involved, and the changes in postwar boundaries, have slowed this process. We are encouraging the governments of Central and Eastern Europe to work constructively on these issues while remaining sensitive to their fiscal constraints. We have urged them to establish equitable, non-discriminatory procedures to evaluate specific claims, and not to exclude otherwise legitimate claims through residence or citizenship requirements. Yet most of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have residence and citizenship requirements that make it impossible for U.S. citizens -- such as Czech Americans -- to reclaim their family property, even with clear proof of title. While we can formally espouse specific claims against expropriation in foreign countries only on behalf of those individuals (or firms) which were U.S. citizens at the time of expropriation and continuously until the date of presentation of the claim, as a policy we believe that any American citizen with a valid claim has the right to restitution or fair compensation. A vast amount of private property was nationalized in the early years of the Soviet Union, and governments such as Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are not seriously considering trying to return that property to its original private owners, even when the property is privatized. In countries where private property was seized by Communist governments after World War II, there are some laws -- for example, in Lithuania, Romania, Czech Republic -- which place limitations on the citizenship of the claimant or the dates of nationalization. We feel that American citizens from those countries should also be entitled to restitution of their pre-war property, or some reasonable compensation in lieu of the property, since many were forced to leave their country and some barely survived the war and the Holocaust, and others had their property confiscated by the Communists. But electorates in many of these countries find this hard to accept. They are reluctant to share nationalized property with people who spent the years of Communism in what they consider the relative safety and prosperity of the United States, and fear having to turn over property they now use. In many countries, including the United States, if an owner dies without legal heirs, this heirless property goes to the state. In post-War Germany, however, restitution procedures allowed Jewish organizations to make claims for heirless property. Jewish groups had sought such procedures on the belief that a nation should not retain property that it had gained by spoliation of minorities whom it had persecuted. Considering the disaster that was the Second World War, most countries in Europe consider themselves victims of the Nazis, and not perpetrators of the Holocaust. Thus most have not attempted to return or compensate for heirless property. We support approaches which seek to provide some measure of compensation for heirless property that can be used to assist needy Holocaust victims or otherwise promote the revival of Jewish or other communal activities that were destroyed or victimized in the Holocaust. In a few countries such as Hungary, Romania and the Czech Republic, heirless property in some form is being returned to religious communities. But in most it remains with the state. Mr. Chairman, in my visits to these countries, I have been able to discuss these property restitution issues with senior government officials and with some of the people most affected. I have seen first hand, through these visits and meetings, the diversity of laws, policies, and circumstances we have to deal with. Yet I do perceive a constructive attitude on the part of the officials of many of these newly democratic countries toward addressing the injustices of the past, and a recognition that this includes restitution of property. It is our hope and expectation that as the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union increasingly enter international institutions -- whether NATO, the European Union, the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development], the WTO [World Trade Organization], the Council of Europe or OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] as the case may be -- they will adopt Western standards of property restitution and ownership. In many cases property wrongfully seized by a regime in the past is presently being used by those who had no hand in its original expropriation. Elected governments must consider what happens to the present occupants, if property is to be returned. They would often be financially responsible for compensating either the owners or the occupants -- and this often puts a strain on budgets. Local authorities may actually control much of the nationalized property, and their views may differ from those of the central government. Our efforts can help, but at the end of the day, foreign governments must act according to their own moral and political judgments. Given the many sweeping changes that these governments are attempting to bring about in their countries, a constructive approach to property restitution requires both courage and leadership. But all this having been said, at bottom, we believe these new democracies, on a moral basis, and, in many instances to follow their own restitution laws, should promptly and expeditiously return or pay compensation for communal property and private property wrongfully expropriated by the Nazis and/or the Communists. This effort would be commensurate with their own passage from totalitarianism to democratic states. Restitution -- Progress and Challenges In July, I traveled to Lithuania and Poland, where I had meetings on property restitution. In Lithuania, laws for restitution of communal and private property were passed some years ago, and do not cover as many potential claims as in some other countries. Some but by no means most religious property has been returned. For the Jewish community, this has meant the return of some synagogues and religious schools where the small residue communities continue to exist. The question of the return of other religious properties, particularly in areas where there is no longer a Jewish community, remain unresolved. The restitution law does not cover secular property owned by the Jewish community before the Holocaust. Even some approved claims have not yet been resolved. U.S. citizens can claim private property only if they also have Lithuanian citizenship, and they must have made their claim several years ago. We would urge a broader interpretation of communal property, a relaxation of the citizenship requirement, and a reopening of the deadline for claims. The Lithuanian government is in the process of establishing an historical commission to examine the World War II and Cold War periods. President Adamkus expressed to me his strong interest in dealing with these issues, giving us grounds for optimism that there will be further progress on restitution issues in Lithuania. Poland's 1997 law on communal property does permit the return of both religious and secular property, and much Catholic and Lutheran property has been returned. This law established a joint government-Jewish Federation Commission to review and adjudicate claims. The Jewish community has just begun the process of claiming communal property, and lacks funds with which to prepare claims on the thousands of synagogues, schools and cemeteries of prewar Poland. A proposed agreement between the Jewish community in Poland and the World Jewish Restitution Organization, to establish a foundation to manage the return of restituted property, has not yet been concluded. We are encouraging them to work more cooperatively together. Because of the difficulties in gathering required documentation, only a relatively small number of claims has been submitted so far. We have urged all parties to find ways to speed up the claims process so the Jewish community can meet the deadline for claims in the year 2002. Poland's government is considering legislation for restitution of private property, which may also permit non-Polish citizens to make claims if they were Polish citizens at the time the property was seized. Given the vast amount of formerly private property, passing and executing the law may prove controversial, and the financial implications are very great. But I was assured by senior Polish officials, including the Foreign Minister, that a broad, non-discriminatory private property bill would be submitted by the government this Fall and was a significant priority. In both Lithuania and Poland, I was encouraged by the interest of these two democratic governments in coming to terms with their agonizing past. Progress in other countries is gradual but continuing. Ukraine has returned some communal properties by decree. But, in the absence of a restitution law, the Jewish community has numerous claims outstanding, and owns only half of the communal properties it is using. There is also no law providing for the return of communal property in Belarus, and only a few properties have been returned to the Jewish community. In Latvia, some communal property has been returned and other claims are in dispute. We would like to see laws which permit religious communities to obtain full title to communal property and which return or adequately compensate for all their previous property, whether strictly religious or not. Bulgaria has a series of laws for restitution of communal property, but the rate of return has been slow, requiring the approval of the city mayor or national ministry that controls the property. Private property confiscated during the fascist or communist periods can be reclaimed. Forest and farm land can only be returned to Bulgarian citizens; other property can be returned to non-citizens, but if they are not residents of Bulgaria they must dispose of the property within three years. We would urge that the return of communal property be accelerated. In Romania, where the government is preparing a new law on communal property, a court challenge to the establishment of a foundation to handle returned Jewish community property was recently overcome. A separate Romanian decree has awarded to the Jewish community the apartments and other dwellings of Jews who died without heirs after the 1990 democratic revolution. We hope this means that the process of reclaiming Jewish communal property will now move ahead more smoothly. Existing laws on private property restitution now permit former citizens to claim their property if they have also applied to restore their Romanian citizenship. It is not yet clear how well this approach is working. Hungary's approach is a model for Europe. The government has returned over 2000 communal properties to religious groups and schools, and expects that some 3500 additional claims will be settled by 2001. Hungary's law permits compensation for private property taken from 1939 to 1989, payable to victims and their heirs, whether they live in Hungary or abroad. The Hungarian Parliament has approved the establishment of a foundation to receive assets of Hungarian Jews who died without heirs, and has provided for life annuities for survivors of the Holocaust. In the Czech Republic, most of the communal properties claimed by the Jewish community in Prague have been returned, but various other municipalities have declined to return property in the absence of a law requiring it. Czech laws permit the return or compensation for private properties seized during the 1938-45 period, provided the claimant has Czech citizenship. Many World War II refugees, including U.S. citizens, have been able to reclaim Czech citizenship and their property. However, many Czech-Americans have not been able to do so because of the Czech citizenship requirement. We have raised this on many occasions and at high levels of the Czech Government and officials have indicated that they will try to address the problem. Other cases are still before the courts. We would like to see the citizenship restriction relaxed -- or some other measures adopted to bring relief to these Czech-Americans -- but Czech officials maintain that the citizenship restriction is necessary to prevent restitution to ethnic Germans expelled at the end of World War II. The Czech and Slovak governments have provided compensation to the Slovak Jewish community of about $950,000 for private gold and jewelry seized from Slovak Jews in 1940. The funds, administered by the Ezra Foundation, are being used to construct an old age home and hospice, and to refurbish communal property. Some 70 synagogues and 620 cemeteries have been returned to the Jewish community in Slovakia, and maintaining them remains beyond the means of the small community. We believe that the return of former community-owned agricultural lands, now controlled by local authorities, could generate more funds for this purpose. II. Understanding and Coming to Terms with History This important work on property restitution expanded in scope when I was appointed to lead an interagency effort to confront the largely hidden history of Holocaust-related assets, especially looted Nazi gold, after five decades of neglect. In September of 1996, we launched an interagency research effort and declassified a massive body of documents to fill the historical record on the role of the U.S. Government and other governments during and after World War II regarding looted Nazi gold. This work has resulted in two U.S. Government reports on the role neutral countries played in accepting looted Nazi gold and supplying the German war machine. These studies, which followed a landmark British Government study in late 1996, are part of a broader international effort to shed light and increase understanding on these issues. Last year, our preliminary U.S. government report disclosed the full implications of the Nazi gold issue. We found that on a vast scale -- $4 billion in today's values -- the Nazis plundered gold from European central banks, and from individual Jews, Gypsies and other victims, which was resmelted and disguised as central bank gold. These gold bars were transferred to Switzerland, and converted into Swiss francs which the Germans used as the essential way in which they funded their war machine. We discovered that some of this victim gold was inadvertently swept up by the Allied armies after the war and mistakenly returned to European central banks. In early June 1998, we released our supplemental report on Nazi gold which focused on the economic relationships Nazi Germany had with neutral and non-belligerent countries other than Switzerland, which was extensively covered in our first report. These countries include Argentina, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. We also included a brief additional chapter on Ustashe Gold in Croatia and the role of the Vatican. This supplemental study is the substantively logical follow-up to the first report. The preliminary report focused on how Nazi Germany financed its war effort using looted gold. Switzerland figured so prominently because our focus was on looted gold and the key role it played in the German war effort. The second report focuses on the uses to which that looted gold was put that is, the ability of the Nazis to use the Swiss francs they obtained in exchange for the gold they looted to purchase, in turn, critical war supplies from the other neutral countries necessary to sustain the war effort. In this way, by illuminating the trade as well as the financing side of the equation, our two reports together provide a comprehensive view of the important part the wartime neutrals cumulatively played in the structure of the German war economy. Our research effort, along with the pioneering efforts of the British Government, laid the historical foundation for research into the issue and inspired further efforts from a number of countries and organizations. Remarkably, over a dozen countries, in addition to the U.S. and the U.K., have now established truth commissions to examine their roles during World War II and dealings in looted assets, including Argentina, Brazil, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Switzerland, France, Turkey, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. France, for instance, has pledged to return all looted art work, much of it in Paris museums, and to examine for the first time the role of Vichy France in collaborating with the Nazis. These research efforts culminated in the London Conference on Nazi Gold that was held in early December. This conference was, in a word, remarkable -- 42 countries, the former Allies, Axis and neutral countries as well as the Vatican -- came together to share information and pledge further work on this important issue. No country is undertaking more comprehensive research on the history of its relationship with Nazi Germany than Switzerland through the Bergier Commission. The Commission was established to examine thoroughly and objectively Switzerland's political, economic and financial dealings with Germany prior to and during the Second World War. The Commission's second interim report released on May 25, "Switzerland and Gold Transactions in the Second World War" was rigorous, bold, and extraordinarily candid. The Bergier Commission's report provides a detailed overview of Swiss gold transactions with Nazi Germany, and in fact demonstrates that Switzerland received greater amounts of looted gold than we were able to establish in our reports. The report also sheds additional light on the movement of "victim gold" to Switzerland. In comes to the harsh conclusion that the Swiss National Bank knew as early as 1941 that it was accepting looted Nazi gold and categorically rejects the Bank's claim they dealt in good faith on Nazi gold. The importance of the Bergier Commission's efforts should not be underestimated: it is a process which the Swiss themselves have established, of which they can be proud and which the Swiss people should assess and absorb in their own way. Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets In order to build on the landmark London Nazi Gold Conference and continue the international search for truth, the Department of State and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum will co-host from November 30 to December 3 the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets. The objective will be to review our progress on the gold issue, to share research on other assets -- especially artworks and insurance -- and to renew the drive to open archives. As at London, the Washington Conference will not be a forum for governmental decision-making. But we plan to use the Conference and our preparations to work with a wide range of governments and non-governmental organizations to help shape a non-binding international consensus on principles and processes for redressing injustices in these categories of assets. We hope that this consensus can give new impetus to the encouraging initiatives already underway in many countries and that this intergovernmental forum can be a catalyst for many other related efforts to address this great unfinished business of the twentieth century. To help shape the agenda for November, I hosted a day-long preparatory meeting in Washington on June 30 attended by 38 countries and 11 NGOs. The U.S. Government has a great interest in seeing issues related to Nazi-confiscated artwork addressed fairly and expeditiously. We want the international art market to be open, stable, and free of uncertainty that it might be trading in works whose history is tainted by Nazi depredations. And we also have a great responsibility to Holocaust survivors, and their heirs and families, to shed light on these issues and to encourage appropriate means of addressing them. Similarly, on insurance, there is also a grave responsibility to see justice done, and there is legislation, either passed or under consideration, in several states which reflects widespread concern with this issue in the United States. In response to such concern, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has formed a task force, which will represent all fifty states, to address Holocaust-era claims. The NAIC has been working with European insurance companies, the World Jewish Congress, and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims to establish a process for doing so. Negotiations on a formal Memorandum of Understanding are ongoing. While the NAIC's work is separate from what we are doing to prepare for the Conference, we support their efforts and will continue to be as helpful to them as we can. I have met on several occasions with NAIC representatives, who are engaging in a searching, fair and vitally important effort to examine a wide range of insurance issues -- ranging from the Nazi plunder of the cash surrendered, the value of victims' insurance policies to the denial of insurance claims by heirs of the victims of Nazi atrocities on questionable grounds. III. Compensation This effort at greater understanding of the past has galvanized the international community to do justice in the present in ways that provide both material and moral justice to the victims and survivors of the Holocaust. Attention to the fate of Holocaust assets over the last two years in particular has led to a number of positive initiatives aimed at providing material and moral compensation. At the June 30 seminar, I reported that we are concluding the work of the Tripartite Gold Commission, have established an international Nazi Persecutees' Relief Fund, agreed with most of the countries which had gold on deposit with the TGC that they would donate their shares to the Fund, obtained further pledges for contributions from other countries, and are now arranging for transfer to the Fund of the first portion $4 million of a total U.S. contribution of $25 million. Fourteen countries have now made commitments totaling $57 million to the Fund with more likely to come. I want to commend our international partners and especially thank the U.S. Congress for its support in this endeavor. There are other recent examples of progress in the area of compensation to Holocaust survivors. One of the remaining injustices suffered by the double victims in Central and Eastern Europe was addressed earlier this year by the German Government. These double victims never received compensation from Germany. The German government has agreed to establish a fund of 200 million marks or $110 million., which will, for the first time, directly compensate Jewish victims of Nazism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The Conference on Jewish Material Claims is setting up the fund for Jewish victims of the Nazis who are in need and have not yet received compensation. Some of the survivors will begin receiving pension payments later this year. We welcome this historic step forward. The US government has long encouraged the German government to move forward on compensation for these "double victims" and I raised it on several trips to Bonn. That this is now coming to pass is a tribute to the leadership of German Chancellor Kohl and his government, and to the Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Committee, the World Jewish Congress and the Claims Conference, which have so faithfully pursued the interests of all Holocaust victims. The Government of Hungary reached a historic agreement with the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) and the federation of Hungarian Jewish Communities to establish the Jewish Heritage Public Foundation, which will use government funds and compensation for confiscated properties to provide over 20,000 survivors with between $20 and $40 per month. This is an important step, but we recognize that there are still outstanding cases and we will continue to support efforts to resolve them. As the financial center of Europe during World War II, Switzerland has received the greatest attention on the issue of Holocaust-related assets. The Swiss have also taken the lead in terms of providing compensation for victims and survivors. The Swiss commercial banks established an Independent Committee of Eminent Persons under the direction of Paul Volcker in 1996 to redress past injustices in the recovery of dormant accounts. This Commission intends to complete the major elements of its investigation of Swiss Bank records relating to dormant accounts by the end of this year. Audits have led so far to the publication of 5,570 names of dormant account owners. Those dormant accounts contain about 70 million Swiss francs (or $47 million), although not all are Holocaust related. About 7,000 individuals have filed claims to the dormant accounts published last year. The Volcker process is an enormous and unprecedented undertaking and a process that will lead to the return -- plus appropriate interest -- of dormant bank accounts to their rightful owners. They also established a Special Fund for Holocaust Survivors. This $200 million fund from contributions from the major Swiss banks and from other Swiss private sector companies, as well as the Swiss National Bank has already made an initial allocation of $53 million for individual survivors and distributed $20 million. Finally, the Swiss Government remains committed to the establishment of a $4.7 billion Solidarity Foundation, subject to a referendum, to address a wide range of humanitarian issues -- including victims of poverty, hardship and violence and of the Holocaust. The Swiss Federal Council explicitly included Holocaust survivors among the recipients of the Foundation and recently reaffirmed their eligibility. Such possible projects would include programs to help survivors deal with their traumatic experiences, but also education for successor generations and research projects connected with the Holocaust. Congressional Action Mr. Chairman, the reasonable degree of justice following the massive thefts of property in the 20th Century is not just a task for the State Department. Congress has already done a great deal and can continue to play a valuable role in these efforts. In the area of property restitution, I hope the Congress will speak out this session by a resolution of both houses on the importance of Central and Eastern European countries and those of the former Soviet Union making rapid progress on this issue. European institutions have already acted -- resolutions by the Council of Europe and by the European Parliament have called upon Central and Eastern European countries to return or compensate for religious, communal and personal property wrongfully taken by the Nazis and by the Communists after World War II. Congress has already taken great steps to administer justice to individuals through compensation by authorizing the $25 million contribution for the Nazi Persecutee Relief Fund. We realize that if we are to ask our friends and allies to increase awareness and understanding of these issues and to come to terms with their past, we too must do all we can to uncover the truth in matters related to Holocaust assets. To that end, in March 1998 legislation was introduced in Congress to create a Presidential Commission to examine the fate of Holocaust assets in the United States and has now been passed and signed by President Clinton who championed it. The bill was introduced by Senator Alfonse D'Amato and Representative Jim Leach, with bipartisan support and the strong backing of the Clinton Administration. The substantive mandate of the Commission will focus on two key areas: first, to conduct original research on the collection and disposition of Holocaust-era assets that came under the control of the U.S. Government after Hitler came to power in 1933 (assets such as gold, gems, bank accounts, financial instruments, and art works); and second, to review research being conducted more broadly in the public and private sectors. The Commission will be charged with issuing a final report to the President summarizing its findings and making recommendations no later than December 31, 1999. Establishing a strong Commission that can meet its mandate by this deadline will send a message that the United States Government is determined to address the fate of Holocaust assets here at home. In contrast to the international focus of the interagency effort I have coordinated, the Commission will focus its research on the collection and disposition of Holocaust-era assets in the United States, especially assets which came into the possession of or under the control of the U.S. government. With its limited time frame, the Commission will focus its research on areas in which a Presidential Commission, with the backing of key federal agencies, can have the greatest impact without duplicating work already underway elsewhere. Much attention both here and abroad has been focused on the issue of dormant bank accounts. The Commission's mandate will allow it to work with State officials throughout the United States to review the States' ongoing efforts to identify dormant accounts in the States and to develop best practices for identifying those accounts. In the U.S., bank accounts that are not claimed for a period of time are turned over to State governments. That is why it will be important for the Commission to encourage State banking officials to look into the disposition of these assets. Establishing a strong Commission that can meet its mandate by this deadline will strengthen further our moral authority and diplomatic credibility around the world. We will send a message: that the United States Government will leave no stone unturned in our determination to address the fate of Holocaust assets as we enter the new millennium. The President is expected to appoint members to the Commission and we look forward to cooperating and supporting their work to ensure that its goals are met and objectives achieved. Conclusion Mr. Chairman, in all three of these areas -- our efforts in property restitution; our search for truth and greater understanding of this painful period; and our quest for justice through compensation to victims and survivors -- we are trying to bring an element of morality and justice that will allow us to enter a new millennium having completed the unfinished business of the 20th Century. This effort is not just for history's sake. It is so we can learn the lessons of the past and use them in ways that are helpful today and tomorrow to build a more just world. These issues have naturally had a vast public political impact beyond the academic and diplomatic arenas. They have come to command the attention of the world and touch the conscience of humanity. It is our hope that we can act at this time and provide belated justice to aging Holocaust survivors who so richly deserve it before we enter a new millennium. Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to discuss these important and related issues and I would be happy to answer your questions. (End text) NNNN Product Name:  WASHINGTON FILE Document Type:  TEXT Keywords:  HOLOCAUST; EIZENSTAT; 3b/jm/lf/mac Thematic Codes:  3b Languages:   ENGLISH Originating Team:  98080605.GWE