开云体育

I ran across the following today. I realize that it is a little dated but I
suggest that we review it.
I will not comment on this in the future but we are faced always with
pressure to give.
My point is when will the US (in this case) give to those (Poland and
others) it sold down the river?
Note this is as of 2001 not 60 years ago.

Congressman
Gary Ackerman
5th District - New York
Queens, Nassau, Suffolk


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



ACKERMAN'S STATEMENT ON POLISH HOLOCAUST ASSETS

Statement of the Honorable Gary L. Ackerman
before the Assembly Standing Committee on State-Federal Relations and the
Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

March 22, 2001

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, Madame Chairwoman, Members of the Committees,

It is privilege for me to appear before you today to discuss the actions of
the Government of Poland concerning the restitution of Holocaust-era assets.
Like yourselves, I am deeply concerned about this issue, which affects so
many of my own constituents, as well as survivors throughout New York and
the entire United States.

The basic question before us is: What can be done at the state and federal
levels to provide incentives for the Government of Poland to do the right
thing; which is , to adopt a property restitution and reprivatization law,
on a timely basis, that allows Holocaust survivors and their decedents to
either receive fair compensation or the prompt return of their rightful
assets-especially for those assets held by the Republic of Poland itself.

One principle that must be borne in mind throughout consideration of this
issue: Restitution of assets is a fundamental human right. Justice is not a
unique desire of Jews, or ofHolocaust survivors. Poland has an indisputable
moral obligation to provide compensation and to return property, not because
the owners are Jews, or were victims of persecution and genocide, but
because the protection of property rights is a basic obligation for all
civilized governments. If governments do not protect property, if they do
not conscientiously and assiduously provide restitution when assets are
unjustly seized, then they become accomplices to those wrongs. In this case,
they become, in effect, indirect agents of the Nazis.

The Polish National Assembly, the legislative branch of the Polish
government, has unfortunately a made satisfactory resolution of this issue
considerably more difficult. Only about a week ago, a law was sent to Polish
President Aleksander Kwasniewski that would provide no restitution at all
for many claimants. Whether this was done out of avarice, ignorance, or
stinginess, I can't say. What is clear, however, is that the legislation
approved by both the Sejm (the lower house) and the Senate (the upper house)
would effectively preclude thousands of wronged families and individuals
from recovering property first stripped from them by the Nazis, then seized
by the Communists, and now held by a recalcitrant Polish state.

The question of reprivatization is not of concern only to the community of
Polish Holocaust survivors. Current estimates suggest as many as 170,000
former property owners, and their heirs, are waiting for proper restitution
legislation. But in the campaign for justice for all of these wronged
parties, it is imperative that the rights and interests of Poland's
Holocaust survivors, and their families, not be in anyway
disadvantaged-which, unfortunately, appears to be exactly what is occurring
today.

The property law that has been presented to President Kwasniewski is a
disgrace. The act requires, as a prerequisite for compensation or recovery,
that the claimant possess Polish citizenship, either at the time the
property was seized, or for heirs, as of December 31, 1999. This provision
is an undisguised effort to cut off the right of Holocaust survivors and
their families-people who fled from genocide and a Polish state rife with
violent anti-Semitism-to recover their own property. And it is their
property that is at question. It is incomprehensible that Holocaust
survivors, and their rightful heirs, should be arbitrarily disenfranchised
by the law. Fleeing from genocide should hardly be considered a reason to
overturn legitimate property rights.

The act also unfairly limits the circle of heirs, blocking restitution of
property from rightful inheritors, especially for families decimated by the
Nazis. Demanding that survivors or their heirs prove the deaths of all other
possible inheritors is thinly veiled effort to utilize the thorough
destruction of Polish Jewry to avoid moral obligations. Asking people to
substantiate the incineration of their relatives by the Nazis as
pre-condition to restitution of family assets and property is at best
mean-spirited. More reasonably, it could be described as perverse.

Finally, the law would allow restitution of only 50 percent of the value of
assets, and then, only in the form of Polish government bonds, some payable
only after 10 more years. I have no problem with the Polish National
Assembly taking into account Poland's economy and their government's fiscal
stability. As a federal legislator, I have a deep appreciation of these
factors as unavoidable components in making national decisions about funding
entitlements. But restitution of property is an entitlement, and one which
Poland is faced with as surely as their debts to international creditors.

Difficulty making repayments is understandable, and can typically be
resolved through reasonable negotiations. Outright rejection of obligations,
however, is not understandable, and is an assault on the spirit of
compromise. The high-handed effort to eliminate half the obligations of the
Government of Poland is not just a clever bit of accounting, it is also a
grave decision to write off a moral imperative in the hope that boldness can
substitute for integrity. As we all know, it can't.

Alternatives and ameliorative amendments to the law that was adopted were
considered, debated, and rejected by a coalition of the left and the right.
What remains now is an opportunity for President Kwasniewski to protect
Poland's honor as a state, and Poland's reputation in the international
community, by vetoing this awful legislation.

I take no pleasure in saying that Poland's continued integration in the
Atlantic alliance and Warsaw's entry into the European Union will be
jeopardized by the failure to suitably address the issue of restitution.
With the exception of Belarus and Ukraine, every post-Communist country in
Europe has taken notable steps to provide restitution. As a leading
post-Communist state, Poland's example is critical for similarly situated
countries in Europe. Warsaw's failure to adopt legislation providing fair
compensation of legitimate claims will hurt the Polish government's standing
with the Polish people, who overwhelmingly favor a robust reprivatization
law, and with the community of nations, who expect Warsaw to pay its
historic moral debts.

The United States, as the preeminent international leader, has an
unmistakable obligation to raise this issue forcefully with Poland, a nation
with which America wants to have a warm and close relationship. The question
of restitution, however, is not one of concern only to Poland. The United
States, and our own state of New York in particular, have become the home
for thousands of former Poles, many of them Jews who fled the nightmare of
genocide in the 1940s. Protecting their rights and their interests is our
clear obligation.

Many of these individuals are aging, adding additional urgency to our
efforts. In the last Congress, as a senior Member of the House International
Relations Committee, I asked for hearings in the full Committee to review
this issue. I was told the time wasn't right; that the Polish Government was
taking steps to resolve the issue fairly; that public attention would hurt
the interests of survivors. It is now clear that public attention is the
only the thing that will protect the interest of survivors, and I commend
Speaker Silver and Chairman Klein and Chairwoman Weinstein for scheduling
this hearing.

I am again asking the Chairman of the House International Relations
Committee to schedule hearings on this critical issue, and I have asked all
of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in this request.
On the International Relations Committee, I will be raising this issue with
the Polish Ambassador and with high-level officials in the Executive Branch.
Depending on the decision made by President Kwasniewski, other steps may be
contemplated by the United States Congress.

As a new member of NATO, Poland's health and prosperity is of considerable
concern to the United States. But before interests come obligations. Poland'
s obligation is to meet the legitimate claims of Holocaust survivors and
their heirs, regardless of nationality, in a fair and thorough manner. Our
obligation is to continue to work for the interests of our constituents and
their quest for justice.

Julek