before world war ii even ended under the statute of limitations. arbitrary statutes of limitations should not be used to guard these claims. the federal courts have ruled that states cannot provide a remedy and that is why the act is an immensely needed. ..

it helped recognize at least the courage and strength of survivors. in this room echoing perhaps unseen and invisible our voices and faces of people who could not be here. and their losses are very much with us now. you give them the advocacy that they deserve and need. and i think everyone of you for being here. thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. chairman grassley. >> thanks is without a long time for opening remarks i will put my statement in the record but i should thank all the witnesses for participating, and one seconds from my speech will kind of some of where i was going to end up with. the bottom line, we need to fulfill our commitment to make sure that the artwork is returned to its rightful owners.

in addition, when the authors of this legislation feel it is ready to be put on the agenda i will put on the agenda. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we very much appreciate that and appreciate your leadership. at this point i want to welcome and introduce each of our five witnesses today. first witness testifying will be ambassador ronald lauder, ma former ambassador to austria and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for european and nato policy during the reagan administration. is to the chairman of the council of the world jewish restitution organization which was established in 1993 to address the unfinished work of returning jewish property that was stolen by the nazis during the holocaust. a graduate of the wharton school of the university of pennsylvania, ambassador lauder a certain prominent roles in government, philanthropy and community service. helen mirren is a prolific theater, television and film

actress. she won an oscar for her portrayal of queen elizabeth ii, a marvelous over and 2015 she portrayed maria altman in the women in going from a film about the efforts to reclaim from the austrian government a famous painting. portrait. that was taken from her family during the holocaust. ms. monica dugot is a senior vice president of the international director of restitution for the world renowned auction house christie's where she works 12 investigate and resolve restitution claims. she is a graduate of the cardozo law school. prior to joining christie's, she served for almost eight years as deputy director of the state banking department holocaust lanes assessing officers.

>> ms. agnes peresztegi at the president for the commission for art recovery which was established in 1997 to advocate for and assist with efforts to restitution art that was wrongfully taken by the nazis. she is a graduate of university of law in budapest and as has masters degrees in law from the university of pennsylvania and mcgill university. she has over 20 years experience regarding holocaust era property claims and litigation. she is currently of counsel to the paris affirmed. mr. simon goodman is a descendent of a german jewish family that lost many works of art during the holocaust and have spent decades in a quest to recover them. he is a graduate of munich university and author of a book about his efforts to reclaim his family's heritage. what that would ask each of the members of the panel to stand and be sworn in.

if you would raise your right hand. [witnesses were sworn in] >> you may be seated and ambassador lauder, we will begin with your opening statement. welcome. >> thank you, senator cruz. you for i make my remarks, i am president of the world congress and on behalf of the jewish people, not only in the united states but everywhere, we say to the senate thank you for this law. it's been long overdue but we thank you very, very much on behalf of the jewish people. chairman cornyn, chairman cruz, ranking member kunz, senator schumer, senator blumenthal, members of the committee. to many americans, the fall of nazi germany and the end of world war ii is a matter for the history books.

we know about the mass and actual murder of millions of human beings, but few people know about the mass theft of victims property, and even fewer know about the confiscation priceless works of art by nazi leaders including hitler, goering and other top officials. what makes this particular crime even more despicable is that this part that probably the greatest in history, was continued by governments, museums and many known collectors in the decades following the war. this was the dirty secret of the postwar art world, and people who should have known better were part of it. in many cases, legal barriers like arbitrary statutes of limitations, were imposed on

families that had not been aware that their father's paintings was hanging in a private home or a state museum. that is the issue which brings us together today. how to find the best way to render fair and just decisions for the artworks that are still in dispute, and those still missing? make no mistake, this crime continues to stay in the art world. i commend helen mirren for bringing this massive crime to the publics attention in the wonderful film woman in gold. unfortunately, most art cases do not end as positively as maria altman struggle to retrieve her

uncle's paintings, the portrait, from the austrians. in spite of everything, this remains a very complex problem. with each of us here today, we would like to see every piece of stolen art returned to the rightful owner. we recognize that we victim might decide isn't equitable outcome is often quite different from what the respected possessor of stolen art believes is there. in many cases, a confiscated piece of art may have been purchased with all good intentions since the buyer was unaware that the work was stolen. 18 years ago in 1998, those of us committed to restitution concluded that international operation and standards were necessary to help how this art

can be recovered. along with representatives from 45 nations, we developed what are today is referred to as the washington principles. i was there in the amount of excitement happened is truly spectacular. 11 years later, 2009, 46 nations including the united states issued a declaration which urged the signatures, adecco, to ensure that the legal systems, alternative processes while taking into account the different legal traditions facilitate just and fair solutions with regard to nazi confiscated included are prepared to make certain that claims to recover such art are resolved expeditiously and based on the facts, and merits of the claims.

end quote. for the united states endorse the washington principles in 1998 and a declaration of 2009, the u.s. committed itself to the recovery of art that was confiscated by the nazis during the holocaust. our commitment requires that resolution of such cases be based on the merits of each case and not on procedural technicalities of the capacity of one party to outspend are outweighed the other. there are museums in the united states that have been waiting out the clock to pass a statute of limitations. this also forces claimants to spend enormous amounts of money on legal fees, another strategy, to make them give up.

this is not justice. stalling claims is abuse of the system. sadly, there are museums that feel no need to behold, to uphold the washington principles. many other institutions do the very least that is required, and not much more. the fundamental question posed by to hear act is, have we here in the united states .nl to ensure fair and equitable solutions? i believe we have done a great deal, but they're still good and should do much more. to hear act creates a uniform national statute of limitations rule for claims to nazi confiscated art work. the bill provides an existing claims should not be denied simply because of the passage of time, especially if the claimant

did not have actual knowledge of the artworks location and the facts necessary to make a claim. once a claim does have the requisite knowledge, he or she can not and should not sit on their rights. we are suggesting that once a claim has actual knowledge, they must bring the case to court within six years. this bill is also important for what it does not do. it does not prejudicehe merits of each case one way or the other. it simply allows claimants to have their day in court, and not be thwarted by procedural technicalities. the bill does not create a new legal theory or rule of liability under which case can be brought. in other words, it does not create any new causes of action.

they here ask purpose is to advance the cause of justice before the law. the bill's aim is not to inflict punishment or pass judgment on any individual who may have unsuspected ally acquired artwork that was confiscated during the holocaust. rather, the hear act's goal is to ensure that people with claims are afforded an opportunity to have their cases heard on their merits. mr. chairman, some may ask why should we care now? this grand larceny of hard work by nazis was part and parcel of the evil that was the holocaust, and it took place before most people alive today were born. but i believe we should care deeply, because denying victims of the holocaust and the families access to a just hearing based on the merits of each case is wrong, plain and simple.

there's another reason as well. the ninth of justice continues the crimes of the nazis and that is unconscionable. it gives a victory to the nazis 71 years after their unconditional defeat your we must always keep in mind that for practicality every piece of stolen art, a murder was committed. seven decades after the end of world war ii and the holocaust, resolving this problem is long overdue. if people are truly interested in justice, if they really want to solve this issue, then they should support this legislation. we cannot go back and change what happened. all they can do is stop the continuation of this crime. after more than 70 years, it is time to put these ghosts to rest. it is, in fact, long overdue. thank you, mr. chairman, for the

opportunity to speak before the committee today. i want to personally thank richard chairman and senator schumer, senator cruz and the senator blumenthal for introducing this important, bipartisan legislation. thank you very much. >> thank you, ambassador lauder. dame mirren. you have to press the red button spirit that makes sense but anyway, i'm helen mirren and i'm an actor who portrayed the role of maria altmann in the film one in gold. and excuse me if some of you have seen this but i'll just explain a little bit. this is a true story of a woman who overcame enormous odds and why did it wrong that it's there for decades. 60 years after fleeing vienna during the nazi era, this is all bound with an elderly jewish woman begin a many years long journey to reclaim family possessions seized by the nazis. among them was the famous

painting portrait of adele bloch bauer which was a painting of her art. so the fight to reclaim what was rightfully hers was forced her to fight the austrian establishment and to take her case to the u.s. supreme court. on a more personal level, maria had to confront those terrible memories of the end of her family life in the nick of returning to the country she'd been forced to flee by the nazis and reliving the pain of having everything she held dear being ripped away from her. of the people she loved murdered in the death can't. so i personally had to go on a journey portraying maria altmann, and the journey, i'm a child of the second world war. i was born in 1945 and then at the second world war was very much a part of my history.

but i never really truly confronted the absolute reality of what had happened in those days and employing maria altmann i had to put her memories into my mind. entity that i had to read a lot of research material and really relive those moments. and that is why honestly i'm here now. it was that journey of playing maria that made absolute reality of those days so relevant to me today at this moment in time. it's a terribly sad fact that more than 70 years later, victims of the holocaust and their families are still contemplating whether to seek restitution for what was stolen from them and lost under the most horrible of circumstances. but a lack of transparency, a lack of access to information concerning the location of

stolen art, and a lack of legal assurances at least they can have their say in court. this discourages them from taking action. so when considering this issue it's essential to understand what is preventing the victims of nazi to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. logically i think we'd all agree that the right thing to do in every instance is to return the art to its rightful owners, the very act of nazi expropriation was not only unjust, but it was unconscionably inhumane. and yet still today it seems that are some of their who lack the will to recognize victims and the families as the rightful owners. as the senators pointed out, art lost in the holocaust is not just important for its aesthetic and cultural value.

restitution is so much more, much more than that, then reclaiming a material good. and this is what i learned by playing maria album. restoring physical parts of lost heritage to holocaust victims and the families is a moral imperative. for me, maria altmann, for many families fighting to reclaim what rightfully belongs to them art restitution has very little to do with potential financial games. art restitution is about preserving the fundamental human condition. it gives jewish people and other victims of the nazi terror the opportunity to reclaim their history, their culture, their memories. and most importantly, their families. the generation of jewish people that were burned by the cruel acts of the nazi regime had little choice but to carry on with their lives. after what he experienced,

tremendous loss, deep sorrow, moving forward was the only viable path, because the past held such unbearable pain. today with a in a free world where a new generation has emerged with the resources and time to finally begin to deal with this issue and pursue justice. it was incredible to me, i was doing a play in new york. every night when i came out, you know, from the stage door, every night people would approach me because the film is out at the time and say that's my family's story. that's the story of my family. that happened to us. it's extraordinary how many people share maria's story. their mothers and grandmothers, mothers and grandmothers. so for what it's worth, maria altmann's star is one of noble justice, one i believe is important to be told, and one that should be continue to be

told by future generations. and it is a story that is not made possible without this incredible country, the united states of america. these are american stories, stories that capture the integrity and the power of the united states. it's justice system and its rule of law. maria altmann's story as a refugee in the united states, it was finally granted justice through retaining what was rightfully hers, at the hands of the u.s. supreme court. but victims of nazi that should not have to demonstrate the boldest and capacity to commit the resources that maria altmann had in order to recover what is rightfully theirs. art is a reflection of memories that are shared across the mr. litt and cultural lines. when the jewish people were dispossessed of the art, they lost their heritage. memories were taken along with

the art, and have no memories is like having no family, and that is why art restitution is so imperative. the lives of so many people could be rejuvenated through the actions and the leadership of the u.s. congress to ensure that fair and equitable solutions in these cases are shared. greed, cruelty, self-interest, domination will always be with us. it's an easy option. justice is so much more difficult, so much more complex. but we all dream of justice. we are incapable of changing the pass, unfortunately we have the ability to make change today. thank you for your leadership and your efforts to address this issue in these modest reforms contained in the hear act thereby ensuring that at least

here in the united states, access to justice and the courts will be ensured. thank you very much for this opportunity. >> thank you for your testimony. ms. dugot? >> thank you, mr. chairman, numbers of the committee. good afternoon. i am monica dugot. for the last 12 years i've overseeing the company's responsibilities for giving with the continued circulation of not deluded part i doing our best to keep lid objects off the markets. i have been asked to appear in the individual capacity as a special suggest with nazi looted art i did visit to offer what concept and it's a taken it to the current state of restitution matters in this country. while chris is as a corporate entity takes no position on the proposed legislation at handgun it is probably supportive of measures that enable and promote the fair and just resolution of restitution claims for the 1990 washington conference principl principles. today my goal is to buy what

help i can from personal experience and perspective by exploiting three key concepts. wonder why restitution issues persist in the art market today, hocrisy delegates these issues through our own due diligence and research processes, and how interest of restitution disputes win a title claim arises. let me start with a bit of background from a market perspective. for many reasons art restitution was a close chapter for many decades after world war ii. not deluded or questionabl quesr maybe and in plain sight in museums and national collections and much, much more was quietly absorbed into private collections or passed the dealer to get over to the looted art became unshackle from its history especially for struggling financially modest artwork and poorly documented works. the circulation of looted artwork by which i mean not just painting and drawing some objects in books and so and has been inevitable. i wish to emphasize this is not just a problem for jews but is much broader.

even many people who do not consider themselves jewish were persecuted under one base or another. just as the scope of looting was enormous to the point of being unimaginable, the scope of these legacy issues is also enormous. estimates range was little as a few hundred thousand objects to si 7 million. the monetary value ranges from tens of dollars to tens of millions of dollars. the emotional value to the rightful owners and the families who do these objects as part of the heritage may be beyond estimated so how then does christies navigates those artwork? christie's handles a large volume of art and collectibles and has been evolving not to air restitution for about 20 years. we hav have a dedicated restitun team enters a strong thread of responsibility running through our entire business operation. as the global market leader we set high standards for the profession and that any self policing capacity to a system of checks and balances. we conduct a thorough due diligence as a service to our consign his and ours to protect

our good reputation in the commercial market. we also engage with issues of art restitution because we have a moral and ethical responsibility to do so. we respect the heirs and claimants to looted collection to we respect the position of collectors and future collectors buying and selling services. christie's will in the marketplace is that of an intermediary or broker. we do not take title to the art we sell. we act on behalf of our consign. insiders are good faith purchasers have no direct connection to any theft or for sale in the past year therefore in a practical level we need to ensure a source what they were not taken on a consignment of an artwork or objects which the unresolved nazi terror ownership claim. if to our research we find we can't convict a title ii into the artwork we will decline to silicate in cases where becomes clear this outstanding ownership claim, christie's can act as a neutral third party work into the facts of the case toward an amicable resolution and a result

of physical return of the work or a negotiated settlement agreement which sometimes result in the sale of the rest of the item and division of the proceeds. by remaining a neutral intermediary and been committed to voting solutions to restitution matters chris etesse to maintain a safe and trusted marketplace where buyers and sellers all know we are committed to addressing the need not to air issue in the province of the works we offer. let me explain the province research process. christie's that's almost everything i can prevent artwork can find was for sale for possible issues. this means we're looking at 100,000 items a year. in our due diligence work would look for sensitive names, names indicating an artwork made in any victims collection or in the possession of the notorious nazi collector our pass defense of complicity. we look for physical signs of compensation, markings and is assigned to work changed hands at this sensitive time.

we check artwork against up to it doesn't database it. where we find an issue we undertake whatever research we think necessary to address concerns. complete information is rarely available in the fragmented presentation and lack of centralization of information greatly increases the challenges to our limited resources. in the last decade we've had over 200 claims. the majority for financially modest artworks which nonetheless have real emotional sentimental or cultural resonance for the clinic. when these claims do arise, christie's models a preferred approach which is to advocate for a negotiated settlement between partie the parties basee facts of the case rather than pop potential cost and time-consuming litigation. our approach is that an in form an expert intermediary. we try to each party understand the other's position and to interpret information, especially at a sensitive and

often upsetting time. our goal is to establish a fair come amicable, transparent dialogue to bring about a fair, faircome amicable transparent claims resolution. having an ethical moral and ethical discussion between clinton and holder is often the most productive route. there's often some legal, ethical and moral correctness as well as a high degree of emotionality. we try to navigate these troubled waters acting as a neutral party to protect the market and to bring some semblance of fairness and perhaps closer to both sides. i hope this is your sense of the scale of the legacy issues active in the art market today at a christie's seeks to navigate them with care and attention to work with parties on both sides to reach fair and equitable agreement. thank you, mr. chairman and the committee for inviting me to join this distinguished panel today and for continuing to draw attention to the issues that affect all of us into a national restitution community. >> thank you very much. ms. peresztegi.

>> chairman cruz, senator blumenthal, members of the committee. i would like to join the other members of the panel in thanking you for the opportunity to testify in support of the hear act. the united states has assisted with the restitution of nazi terror confiscated art for over 70 years, and i commend you for introducing a bill that is the next up to uphold that commitment in the spirit of the washington conference principles. in agenda 2016 decision, the d.c. circuit court found that clarification was donated regarding holocaust era property looting. and simon versus the republic of hungary, the court went as far as to state that the illicit taking apart during the holocaust did more than effectuate genocide or serve as a means of carrying out genocide. rather, we see the expropriation as themselves and genocide.

just like the prosecution of genocide should never be barred by statute of limitations, in the same manner works of art and value property taken during a campaign of genocide should be deemed as forever tainted. since the establishment of the washington conference principl principles, assessors of nazi terror artwork have attempted to this correct the policy. although this policy has been clear and consistent since the 1940s. it is important that in working to address concerns raised by others, the hear act retains the main elements of this policy. a bill aimed at ensuring claimants to have access to justice should not become a vehicle to federally protected those who have been fighting all along to keep these cases out of course. therefore, not to air confiscated art should be returned to the rightful owner, like of knowledge are good faith

acquisition should not be restitution. nazi terror confiscated art our holocaust era art are all of the other terms generally used to describe the cultural annihilation of that during a campaign of genocide means all types of property loss by people persecuted during the nazi terror regardless of the reason for the persecution or three geographic locations. the committee should consider that the hear act would not achieve its purpose of enabling claimants to come forward if it eliminates one type of procedural obstacle in order to replace it with another. despite some concerns, narrowing the definition of looted art, shifting the burden of proof unnecessary in some instances to the clinic and generally adding or confirming other procedural obstacles. cases related to holocaust looted art should only be adjudicated on the merits. statute of limitations on

intended to abort the adjudication of failed claims. these procedural doctrines are not designed to do with the greatest art theft in history. one of the main justifications for limitations concerns of the unfair burden of imposing on the current process of the obligation to conserve evidence of legitimate ownership for decades. in the case of nazi looted art the burden is on the claimant to produce evidence of legitimate ownership that maybe not decades but a century old. a task dramatically complicated by the fact that the original owner often disappeared along with the proof of ownership. province recession is almost impossible right after liberation but today there is much more information available. to be clear, becaus accountablet create a new cause of action and does not redirect it in nature. however, those claims have not

been adjudicated should now be heard on their merits only. for example, take the cases where under applicable state law, statute of limitations has already passed before the end of world war ii. is it really reasonable to die or restitution cases because of thaa tip failed to file the case while he or she were enslaved in a nazi death camp? some states have statute of limitations rules that are more favorable to claims. the hear act should not operate to extinguish claims that are valid under the laws of the state. i, therefore, urge the senators to ensure that this is also reflected in the final version of the act. i thank the committee for this opportunity to share my experience and knowledge in support of the hear act. i hope to serve as a resource to the committee as you consider this legislation, and i hope we can all celebrate the 80th anniversary of the washington conference together with the passage of the hear act.

>> thank you very much. mr. goodman. >> thank you, chairman cruz, senator blumenthal, senator tillis, all the members of the committee. i am grateful for this opportunity to testify in support of the holocaust expropriated art recovery act. my name is simon goodman and for the last 20 years i've dedicated my life to recovering my grandfathers art collection lost between 1940-1945. fritz was murdered in apri april 1944. but it was not until 1994 when my father died and i inherited his correspondent that i became aware of my father's solitary, and largely unsuccessful, quest to regain his own father's dispersed collection. my father never shared with me what he was doing. it was probably too painful. my father did survive obviously

the war in britain. although badly wounded during the war. as soon as it was declared he returned to the netherlands only to find his parents gone and the family home stretch there. in addition almost all my grandfathers letters, documents, photos concerning the art collection of been destroyed by the nazis. his library was also shipped to germany. my father's only recourse was to try to sketch an inventory from memory. meanwhile, the governments effecting my family at least those of the netherlands, france and west germany erected severe bureaucratic barriers making restitution next to impossible. and that usually insisted on being paid before returning anything, but more often they send absorbed artworks into their own national collection. the west germans denied knowledge of any pieces from my family's collection, dean and west germany as suggested my father looked behind the iron curtain.

today we know that many works were, in fact, smuggled through switzerland at the end of the war and gradually filtered into the world art market, including the united states. my quest began in earnest in 1995 when, 50 years after the war, the allies began to be classified world war ii documents, including thousands relating to or colluding to graduate the u.s. archives and those of britain, france, holland and germany again to make available transcripts of depositionofthe depositions maji looters to get allies at the end of the war. only in 2002 was able to uncover the room by room inventories hitler's art pages made of my grandparents home. to this day these archives are still being updated and digitized. digitized. just too much about the dutch archives finally made available an actual image of a painting that had eluded my family for over 75 years, ma since been

removed from our home in 1942 10 during the occupation. after 20 years of research i have by no means finished populating the well over a thousand artworks and antiques lost by my family during the holocaust. all of which brings me to the concept of statute of limitations and any potential delay implied by latches. after my father died, the first painting i found was in chicago at the end of 1995 in a case that followed, the defendant claimed the statute of limitations had expired to give the painting had been hidden from view for 30 years, then exhibited briefly twice, and in hidden again for another 20 years. they also claim we should act sooner after the painting was first exhibited, despite the fact that they changed the title of the painting. another defense was that my family had not been duly diligent, despite my father's

five decade of endless search. in contrast, no particular diligence is required from the purchaser of an artwork. than mere assumption of good faith is often sufficient for declaring a buyer to be in good faith. furthermore, under swiss law a good-faith purchaser of stolen property automatically acquires good title. in addition it was not until the 1990s that the art trade begin to track seriously the provenance of art works. i would like to think that i represent all claimant families in saying that the removal of the unfair restrictions, which under the claims of holocaust victims and their heirs, would be long overdue but most welcome. i am truly grateful to the senate judiciary committee for enabling me to voice the difficulties they claimant family, such as mine, has endured ever since the end of world war ii. thank you. >> thank you very much. and i would like to thank all of the witnesses for your very powerful testimony.

ambassador lauder, it's astounding that seven years later we are still working to reunite families and holocaust victims with their stolen family. could you share for the committee some light on why it has taken so long, and what remains to bring justice to this issue? >> thank you for that question. the first aspect we just heard about is the fact that a great many of the records were destroyed, and the descendents of these families that had looted art really had no record going on. we had to really work on a record pace. we started with the organization

that i had around 1990. and it took us literally 10 years to reconstruct many of the records it wasn't until almost the year 2000 that we have necessary records. the problem was that although we have necessary records and we knew where many of the pieces were, most museums that had records started to stonewall us your in each case became an actual fight. and the result was that it wasn't until very recently, and i think dame mirren's appearance in "woman in gold" and mr. weinstein for having made the movie, that the public really got more aware of it. i wonder, frankly, if it wasn't for this movie, if it wasn't for what was happening with this

hearing, with this law ever come forth? so it is a question of time. it's a question of knowledge of what happened. and today we are seeing something remarkable. i wish this legislation would've happened 10 or 20 years ago. but the fact is it's happened. it would have a major effect on the future, and many, many works of art that have been, i use the expression the last prisoners of world war ii, will finally find the rightful owners. and again i think the senate and i thank the congress for what they are doing. >> thank you, ambassador. let me ask you, do you believe the united states has lived up to our commitment as set forth in the terezin declaration to make certain that claims do not delude art our resolve expeditiously and based on the facts and merits of the claims?

>> the answer is yes and no. yes, we have in many cases. i know we have in certain cases. there have been organizations and art that has been returned correctly, and there's been other art that's been, let's say found a way to make either the statute of limitations or other factors stopping it. and very often it's very difficult for a museum when they are told that one of the best pieces of art is a piece of stolen or they try to find ways to stop it. the other question is provenance research. many paintings is a question of what happened to them between 19, let's say 39 and 1945? and sometimes the germans kept very good records but other times the records were destroyed. it's a question of trying to put together the things.

but in the will, the united states has tried to live up to the washington declaration and that there is and declaration. but at times there's been stopped by the lack of necessary laws. if this is what the hear act i think does. >> thank you. dame mirren, you testified that a lot of people approached you and shared their families stories were like the reason stories, their mother's story and the's stories. are there any conversations that were particularly memorable and compelling that you would be able to share with the committee? [inaudible] >> idiot. i think that it wasn't so much specifically one story, but the fact that there was so many of them. as i said, every night, i would say every night the stage door someone would approach me with great emotion and say how much

this film had meant to them. i think it was finally, to see the telling of the story, revealed to the world that they felt so deeply moving, exciting, and utterly meaningful. just the fact that their stories that had been secret and suppressed, or if, even if they try to tell people, nobody wanted to listen. the fact that finally someone was listening to and i think that was what was so very important. >> thank you. let me finally mention, ms. peresztegi come in your testimony, you said that it would be, that the hear act would not achieve its purpose of enabling claimant to come forward if it eliminates one type of procedure obstacle in order to replace it with another. i can service a that is not my

intention, and i'm confident it is not the intention of the office of this legislation. so let me invite you into deep invite every member of this panel to work with our staff, you can work with my chief counsel, and get their specific revisions that you believe would improve this legislation, in particular, prevent the inadvertent creation of additional obstacles, we would certainly invite you to share that with our team. because it is my intention and doubly the intention of all of the authors of this legislation to remove the procedural barriers and allow an adjudication on the merits so that justice may be serve. it has been far too long and justice needs be carried out. so i would invite everyone on the panel to work with our team to make sure that there is not any inadvertent barriers put in place. with that, senator blumenthal. >> thanks, senator cruz. and i want to join in thanking everyone of you for very powerful and eloquent testimony.

ambassador lauder, i know that your work on this issue begin long before this movie. in fact, i think we discussed this issue long before the movie. and actually held meetings publicly in rooms a fraction of the size of this one, because at the time there was little or no public attention to it. and so the great work of dame mirren and the movie i think has been to greatly elevate the visibility and profile and give us the support that we need for this profoundly important cause. and dame mirren, you used the word modest to describe this proposal. it is indeed exceedingly modest. all it does is unlock the courthouse door to thousands of people who are seeking their day

to present their case against some of the most powerful institutions in this country. and, in fact, as i listened to you and to mr. goodman, what i really felt was anger and outrage at the nazis, but also at the museums and other very reputable institutions that have repeatedly invoked these technical, legal obstacles. let's not be too polite about it. in case after case after case around the country, i'm not going to name the museums but they are among the leading institutions in our nation, and in some sense they have been complicit in this injustice. they have indirectly aided and

abetted the thuggery of the nazis who were completely immoral. in fact, amoral, but these institutions have made a pretense of absorbing the rules of morality -- observing. so let me ask you, ambassador lauder, do you think we can enlist the museums in this cause and other institutions that perhaps ought to be on the right side here, the right side of justice and the right side of history speak with yes, we can, and we should. the question is, no museum wants to be looked on as keeping nazi looted art. and i think that the more that we can expose that there's museums who are holding it, i think we win the battle.

i think this question of having the claimants be able to talk about their merits is the right thing to be done. too often these museums have hid behind statute of limitations. but more importantly what they have done is they have made it so expensive for so many claimants to do the work for our committee of art recovery. we have had dozens of claimants come to us and say, please help us. the museum is causing us to chip amounts of money that we can't afford to get a piece back. very often we've had to speak to the museums and tell them that unless they really and truly stop doing this, they would've been have the publicity of having nazi stolen art in their museum. that's worth many cases, by making each case is a fight. and this changes the whole, this

makes it a level playing field for the first time. >> mr. goodman, you had your head up and i would be happy to yield to you. >> just a very short note from a legal perspective. i think one of the problem today is what they claim is presented to museum, they will take it to the legal department. and as long as the legal department will give the advice that this is not a claim that could be successful in court, then the museum feels that their main duty is to the collection, to preserve their collection. and since there is no viable legal claim, they feel already hesitant to even review the claim. so i think if the hear act would remove that obstacle and would allow the leaders of the museum to hear legal advice which would be yes, this is a valid claim and you may lose it in court, then it would be much more

willing to sit down and reached a fair and reasonable resolution. >> mr. chairman, i have one more quick question for mr. goodman and dame mirren. hearing your story and being very familiar with the story that is told in the movie, i take it that in neither of these cases was there any kind of delay, which is the purpose of f the statute of limitations, to prevent, in other words, delays in making claims are taking advantage of the passage of time. both of the stories from the one depicted in your movie, dame mirren, and yours in your own life, indicates to me that there was just no way that it was delay or postpone it of claims. am i correct in that observati observation? >> yes. that is absolutely true.

in every case my family ask just as soon as we can. the problem is was gathering sufficient evidence to get a case to court, or if not a settlement. been an uphill battle to gather the information, most of which didn't become available until the end of the last century. and then i have to add that despite all this, it is extreme expensive for what families like mine do. so i do this despite the obvious unnatural obstacles. it's a point of honor that i have to resolve what is outstanding of my families. >> and dame mirren, in the story that you detect, there was hardly delay. in fact, it's a story of determination and incredible courage. >> yes. i mean, the minute that nobody understood come as far as i understand, she read a newspaper article talking about restitution.

she was not aware, you know, in her life up to that point about what apple is going to be a possibility and suddenly it was revealed i guess a lot was changed to something happened and she realized now that there was a possibility to do that. intimated she understood that, she started many, many years, i think it is 10 or more years that it took her to get to the point of the art coming back to her. and it was a very, very long and very difficult battle. but i think the minute come and again, this was a woman who had a little boutique in los angeles. she wasn't a rich woman, but she had the advantage of a young lawyer. we tell the story and the movie, randy schomburg, who came on board, and that was really how she managed it. otherwise even if she'd wanted to comment that would've been impossible because the lawyers fees and all the rest of it

would have been very, very difficult. >> and she lit a fire under him. >> my god, she did, absolutely. she was an extraordinary woman. unfortunately, i never met her but i saw a film over and she was, really, we all over a great deal i think all of us sitting in your dealing with this issue. >> it was 12 years and almost $4 million worth of time and effort and travel that she did it. i must say i met her at the beginning, and she was the most determined human being i've ever met. and dame mirren really portrayed perfectly. but it was 12 years of her work, huge amounts of money that were involved before this time. and the last thing the austrian said is before, before you can bring a claim in austria on you had to put down something like

$5 million or some huge number if we could do it, before you could bring a claim. and that's why the claim came to the time it instead of in austria. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. i would note in your exchange between you and the witnesses describe our legislation as modest. that may be the first time in history toward modest has been used in the united states senate. senator lee. >> thank you very much. thank you going to sing and thanks to each of you for your testimony today. ms. peresztegi, i would like to start with you if that's okay. palace at the outset why is that the doctrine of laches should not apply in this circumstance? into this type of case covered by this legislation. >> i think we heard from dame mirren's testimony that holocaust survivors, when they came to the united states, were not an ordinary citizens in

terms of going after the rightful property. i think that it would be unjust to put the burden on the court to have a different level of due diligence aside to holocaust survivors because of all the horror statements spirit right. in other words, laches being an equitable doctrine, is there to take care of certain unfairness is that might otherwise be brought about in the law. and in this circumstance, ironically, the application of the equitable doctrine would be, which is a, manifestly an equitable? >> yes, i would say that. >> talk to us a little bit about the federal hook in this. of course, when we are looking at that, most of the time that is an issue of state law. it is not in the order he circumstance a matter of federal law.

federal law can govern fast in a federal law claim. that the federal property come, intellectual property fort sumter those are federal issues. standarstandards garden varietyd would including glenwood artwork would be a matter for state law. both as the substance and has to procedural issues like statute of limitations. tell us why this is an appropriate use of federal law in this circumstance or what it is that gives congress jurisdiction to do this. >> well, the state of california, tried to address this issue and enacted a statute of limitation law that covered holocaust misappropriation. that law was struck down by the ninth circuit in a decision it was held that addressing this issue is a federal issue, and the state had no power to carve

out that exception to that exception could only be carved out of the federal level. >> and the reasoning of the ninth circuit used was what? by creating this special designation. >> the united states has a consistent foreign policy about restitution artworks. since 1943. so this is more a commitment and obligation of the united states in general to address these issues and, therefore, it's a federal right to carve out that exception. >> given that consistent foreign policy, it would be impossible for any one state to recognize a special rule relative to this type of dispute involving this type of art without engaging in foreign policy? >> yes. i would say that. >> that makes sense. now one question that might be raised by some would be, this

applies with respect to art taken in connection with one particular type of genocide, one particular very episode that doesn't do with others but there are other genocides around the world, other mass confiscations of life and property that might have occurred so why focus on this one rather than others your you want to address that question? ..

chicago, we won the first motion to dismiss. however, my family felt obliged to settle out of court because we had no guarantee we would win or that the judge would not throw the case out based on our case having expired statutes of limitation. so we had to accept second best because we were on strong moral ground, but weak legal ground and also, it is my belief that if the senate here can further our cause, the move that would be sad would be sending a message and they are business in general that a settlement is welcome and long overdue appeared yes, next time i end up in court, no doubt that would be

a great help. there's a few paintings i'm trying to track. it is worth mentioning there are still 20 good paintings missing from my family's collections. several gold renaissance sculptures of at least 300 antique spirits of the search goes on. we're talking about statutes of limitations. i've been working on this for 20 years and i uncovered a lot, but there's still a lot more to find. so i don't know where i'll be next year. they certainly if this passes would be a huge help to my family and establishes a moral record as well that we should follow. >> thank you, mr. gooden in. ms. tran 11, what would you imagine that claimants would have to offer from an evidentiary standpoint it would be different in future actions? >> well, and some of these

cases, previous family members, ancestors or question better they did the right thing, the right research, whether they negotiated too long or too short. a lot of issues came out that i think was open to interpretation. and what i think is actually searching today. the best way to resolve these claims because you can sit down and reach a resolution. >> do you think the art world would respond in a constructive and positive way or do you think there might be other vehicles found for delay or are their real concerns about this legislation? >> i can only state with regards to christie and i believe we see ourselves aligned with the spirit of the bill. but from an art market dave, and

we need to be able to convey good title, so therefore we need to look at the facts of the case and make sure there isn't any taint on the artwork. without commenting specifically on the bill, -- by washington. >> thank you. mr. mirren, the looting of art at the nazis was somehow a piece of their larger, horrific campaign to destroy an entire

people and their culture. today we are engaged in conflict with isis, which is doing similar things. looting and destroying cultural artifacts of an entire region. how do you see the impact not just on those who are the big guns and have been dedicating so much of their time and life to undoing injustices. one impact do you think this might have on the appreciation and world of the value of cultural treasures >> i absolutely agree with you. when i was engaged in the film and having a match and lived in the world that maria had to live in and her memories, i thought my god, this is happening to

people as we speak. this is happening to people. people are banging on doors and walking in and taking lives, but also trying to take people's history away from them. as a sort of horrors of what happened in the second world war -- as i grew up and began to learn about them and understand more and more, the thing that really affected me the most and dusted this day is the idea of losing all trace of your existence on this planet, all trace. even if you personally survived. to live in a world with absolutely no family, no history, no memories, no photograph albums, no one to talk to and say what was grandma like, not to have a picture of grandma. just the simple human name. this is why i feel very strongly this has nothing to do with money. it so happens that yes some of

these works of art are worth a lot of money, but it's so much more to do with reclaiming your place in human history. i was thinking today it was like someone going into this beautiful cage in the south of france where you have the cave paintings. that's all we know those people at the painting and scratching and not insanely don't want to remember you. you are god, you are finished. so yes, it is happening as we speak and it is something that must be eternally. >> thank you. i would like to thank the hold him all. >> thank you, senator koontz. >> thank you, senator cruz. i want to thank you for working on this bill. ambassador lauder, do we have been a rough ideas of how many pieces are still outstanding the number of people that are still waiting to take action like

mr. goodman has taken? >> there was no good numbers obviously. we can say there is probably two to 300,000 works of art somewhere in the world that have been unaccounted for. talking about major works of art. the minor ones will never know. the major ones we have seen from the record that the nazi cap with a soul. it doesn't touch the amount of drawings and prints and furniture that was never recorded. the closest we can phase a couple hundred thousand works of art. still out there somewhere. >> mr. goodman, you were saying there were several more pieces. how many have you recovered to this point and what are your prospects. they been identified, trying to work it out for you so that searching to do? >> i have a lot of searching to

do. in new york in 1955, iannelli survived the war and i know what came over here. beyond that, the testimony of two different art galleries that conflict. one is publicly blind to me and i can't yet figure out which. it's an ongoing presence. i have uncovered at least receive settlements so far for about 20 painting. i received about 300 antiques from the dutch government of 10 years ago. i've had settlements from the french government and most recently have an important settlement from germany for two gold renaissance clocks. so it's kept me very busy the last few years. it is by no means finished. >> mr. goodman, when you talk about settlements, give me settlements, giving i.t. about the nature of a settlement would

look like. >> in some cases i have to settle for maybe 40%, 50% of the real value. but i have to weigh that against what legal action might cost if i was actually entitled msn to get to court and then it all depends where i find them in. i recently found a painting in switzerland where legally i don't have a leg to stand on. for emotional reasons i actually got the containers to give me 50% of the proceeds. i would like to get something back. i found a painting in los angeles where i live about a mile from where my home and that collector after he talked to them for about a year voted in the back of my car. >> if you think about the

h.e.a.r. act, it wouldn't be a terribly politically charged debate. but what about in europe and other originating countries? what sorts of challenges do we have our opposition is there to let the senators are trying to do with the h.e.a.r. act. >> between europe and the u.s. legal system. one of the fundamental differences that statutes of limitation in europe, what it means is that after the passage of time, the title actually transfers to the disaster. while in the united states come the statute of limitation is procedural, which means that the claimant would be barred to recover the artwork, but the title would never pass. in europe, if someone is holding art after certain years, even if he gives it back to the original

owner, he can go to court and reclaim it from the original owner. in the united states, and that the current possessor gives it back to the original owner and goes to court, they'll never be able to reclaim it. the legal systems are completely different. one of the reasons why europe, most of the countries in europe, france, germany, austria, holland, the u.k. took the option to establish conditions by special laws or adjudicating bodies. it is because they couldn't change the statute of limitations in europe. in the united states, the last 16, 18 years, there've been tom hall meetings and also it's about to publish. but in the united states, most of them are privately owned in europe they are publicly owned. so if the culture in germany or france decide they are supposed

to behave in certain ways in the statute of limitation defense and have the power to do so. they do not need to change the law. in the united states, you don't have such a government body who can direct museums for these defenses and therefore you need to change the law and in the united states you can't. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator klobuchar. thank you, mr. chairman. will come back. thank you, everyone for being here for this hearing. i guess i would start with a story for minnesota. in 1961 the minneapolis institute of art was bequeathed in a 1911 painting by for not much shea called smoke over rooftop, over 40 years later the institute determined that the painting valued at 2.8 million have actually been stolen from the home of a jewish art collector during world war ii.

the institute did the right and by returning stolen art and the heirs of the jewish art collector, but the process for determining it was stolen was long and arduous, which i'm sure you are used to starting in 1997 and took 10 years of research to ensure that the claim was legitimate. how can we work to make this process work more effectively and quickly for the parties involved? >> i think that a lot has changed in the last several years in terms of access to information as well. been able to support claims and documentation. so in that sense, that claim might be resolved differently now in terms of access to supporting a claim. in terms of the loud or a think i should probably let you

respond. >> about the research aspect? >> yes. >> well, the time at the washington conference principles, if you read the principles at the end would call for the original database. at that time, there is hope that the computer i.t. possibilities would quickly innovatively could put all the information together and have a major database and click about and have been answered. it never happened because this is not how information is processed. but it did not stop many institutions, countries, national archives and other information to develop their own local databases. today you can say that your task and look at the auction catalog during this relevant. you do have another one where you have the collection

digitized. you have the restitution files in germany digitally accessible. so you have tremendous amount of information today. what would have taken enormous amount of time or maybe not ever even be completed. today you can go quite quickly. >> thank you good mr. ambassador, i was thinking the statute of limitations a house. how has that level of international cooperation improved over time or has been improved? >> it depends by country. some countries have improved. some countries like germany have not done enough research, so now we are starting to do it in countries like the hydra we can truly almost all molded. but you spoke about i believe it was originally sold into switzerland and the records were very difficult.

unfortunately, many people knew it was stolen. the question is between now and it is stolen and finding a piece of paper that says here it is, it is very difficult. but the question is many countries have started to become better at it. certain european countries have not. >> thank you i'm impressed you know about the one painting. i'm impressed. >> i collect art. >> really? no, i'm kidding. we were late because we had lunch. maybe events of this. i love that movie. could you talk about how is the most surprising thing you've learned about this issue from a policy political standpoint by doing the movie. >> you know, as an actor, you have to enter into that world. you can look at it from the outside.

you have to actually live in that world. and so, i had to put her memories into my mind and therefore had to know exactly what that world was like tissue is coming from. as i was playing the role and thinking about the role and subsequently now being here. i am here because -- because the emotional -- i mean, you know, all the time playing the role as thinking suppose someone came to my door tonight, a group of guys broke it in, walked into my house and took all of everything that i found her first mate, which is that they also did of course, forced me to sign a piece of paper giving it to them all, selling it for a very small amount of money. nothing to do with the value. i don't own a anything of great

value like that. but the pure emotional thing. why was it wrong than and suddenly today only because his words -- and five years later, we'll forget about it. no, we don't forget about it. it is as strong today as it was then and the just as we should be seeking for them should be sought for now. i don't see any difference. anyway, it was not like that this would've made me feel very emotionally involved with a particular subject. i'm not jewish. this didn't happen to my family. but i have to imaginatively live in that world and i feel very strongly about it. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. senator hatch. thank you, mr. chairman. i would be cosponsored this bill if you will. >> without objection.

>> i want to compliment everybody on the panel or the testimony is given. i am honored to serve along with the distinguished senator from minnesota on the united states holocaust museum board of trustees. the museum's website says that its primary mission in close encouraging visitors to reflect upon the moral and spiritual questions raised by the events of the holocaust as well as their own response ability of citizens of democracy. and even though the holocaust wait years ago, the legislation is part of the responsibility in my opinion and shows how the job of the many effects is still not over. ambassador lauder, i have great respect for you. is it there to say one component of this that the result was a systematic and paid his bill arts and cultural objects that was unprecedented scope.

>> the question is, is it fair to say that one component of the regime -- it was a major part of the regime for two reasons. again as i said it destroys the memory. the other aspect is that they wanted very, very much to use that are both to make museums and give to various collectors and the regime hitler and others. hitler wanted to make a major museum, but the fact is i was a very critical part of what they've done and we will never know all the things that have been stolen. senator hatch, i also thank you for all the years he worked on

the subject, all the years you've been with the holocaust museum and your workday or is exemplary. on behalf of jewish people, we thank you for what you've done. >> you are so nice. i just got back from israel where it went all over and i have to say i had such inspiration for the jewish people and israelis throughout the world come to you in particular. helen mirren, you're one of my favorite people. i think you are one of everybody's favorite people. you are a terrific actress. i just want you to know that i feel very deeply towards you. stories about real people and experience can powerfully communicate the reality of some might the holocaust of books like mr. goodman and the film of which you start to raise awareness in ways nothing else

could. more than 70 years after the war ended, how can we tell the stories in order to keep alive what you described as a moral imperative. >> well, i'll just speak for a moment about that. art is incredibly important in our lives today. i believe i am an artist, then our history as a people, as the legal system, you know, will be told through our art ultimately in 1000, 2000 years time. our existence on this land will be communicated to future generations through our art. i think that was what was so extraordinary specifically about maria altman's world here at the world that i'd read about in history books at this glorious time in vienna that was so full of culture and art.

been in vienna and shooting the film and seeing the beautiful houses that were built by the jewish community, i realized it was a jewish culture. this beautiful memory of vienna in the music and the painting was actually created by the jewish people. so you know, to try and take that away from them was just so underplayed crawl and unfair. i guess that's what i'm saying is our memory as a people people on this planet is created by our artistic contribution. >> i agree. thank you. mr. chairman, one more question. >> thank you. ms. tran 11, am i pronouncing

that right? i hope so. one concern is the impact of federalism because many of these claims would be rather than state law, senator lee did raise this to a degree. i want to understand why congress may legitimately step in and preempt the state rules. not only is their long-standing official federal interest in getting these claims resolved, but that federal interest might actually prevent states from next and his statutes of limitations for holocaust era claims. did i get that right? >> yes. there was a state, california, who tried to press the issues by state legislation. the legislation was upheld unconstitutional at the ninth circuit because it was approaching federal policy. as a result, california had to enacting new legislation without

carving out especially holocaust era. another issue may be is the interstate travel artwork, depending on where the thief what jobs we are, depending where the art -- at our travels across state boundaries. so this is done in that i think needs to be addressed on the federal level. also, united states has a clear college days on restitution issues. since 1943, up three, onto the terrace terrace declaration of 2009, underwhich the united states undertake the obligation of these issues. so i think it's proper to on a federal level. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hatch. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, all for your

testimony. i was born in 1951. my parents as american jewish, the holocaust was something i was profoundly -- that my parents taught me a tremendous amount about on this powerful subject for me and my family and agnes peresztegi, thank you for being here and for your tireless work on behalf of the terms of the holocaust and their families. in your testimony, you reference the prague conference and a review. >> you can watch more of this hearing on c-span.org. this morning the u.s. continues work on his 2017 defense programs and policy bill. it authorizes sobers expander

$2 billion includes language that it requires women to register for the draft and continues current restrictions on the president's ability to close guantánamo bay detention center. they will recess for 10:30 a.m. to join a house in a meeting where indian prime minister modi was addressed congress. returning for more work on the defense bill. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, who blesses us beyond what we deserve, we place

our trust in you. because of you, our future is brighter than we can imagine. thank you for your unfailing love and compassion, which you have shown from long ages past. continue to protect our nation and world. lord, give our lawmakers the grace to cherish and cultivate the virtues and values that make a nation great. save our senators from those transgressions that bring national ruin. may they keep ever before them

your vision for the people they serve and strive to leave the world better than they found it. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. mcconnell: we all agree that the zika virus is a real threat and needs to be addressed. republicans and democrats worked together to pass a bill here in the senate to provide funding and resources. the house passed its own version. we're now ready to go to conference and complete a final bill. i'll have more to say on that soon, but i appreciate the hard work of members on both sides of the aisle in crafting the senate's response. now, mr. president, on another matter, after months of hard work and collaboration between both chambers, last night we were able to pass the first major environmental reform bill in two decades. i know bonnie lautenberg has waited for this day for a very long time. the lautenberg act bears her husband's name and will go a long way toward modernizing our nation's chemical regulations. it will look out for regulation, enhance transparency, help

support manufacturing and our economy. it is good legislation that languished for year until the new senate majority made it a renewed priority. i want to thank senators inhofe and vitter for all their work with senators udall and markey to move this legislation forward. its passage represents the latest example of how the senate is back to work for the american people. on another important matter, the issue before us today, there are an array of threats facing our country. as the chairman of the armed services committee recently observed, instead of one great power rival, the united states now faces a series of transregional, cross functional, multidomain and long-term strategic competitions. there are the conventional military challenges like those who have been modernizing

missiles, airframes, ships and ground forces. there are the asymmetric threats like cyber warfare and espionage. there are nations like china, iran and russia which represent both conventional and asymmetric threats at the very same time. if we're going to keep americans safe, we have to prepare for all of these challenges. we have to modernize defenses, keep up technological advances and recognize threats. passing the national defense authorization act before us will put our country on the path to doing these things. it's a reform bill that will encourage defense innovation. it's a forward-looking bill. it will upgrade our missile defenses and modernize our military equipment. and it's a responsible bill that will ensure america's men and women in uniform receive more of the resources they need to confront the challenges of today and the threats of tomorrow.

as i said before we should use the remaining months of the obama administration to prepare the next administration whether republican or democrat for the variety of challenges it will inherit. these are complex challenges without simple answers. passing a proreform, proinnovation, pro modernization defense bill like this one will leave us better equipped to solve it. it will leave us better equipped to keep americans and our allies safe in the face of ever evolving security challenges. now finally, mr. president, later today we'll welcome the prime minister of indian as he visits the capital. though this is norendi modi's fourth trip to the united states it marks the first time he will address a session of congress. it marks the fifth time a prime

minister has done so since the 1980's. it shows how far we have come in recent decades. mutual misgivings have given away to mutual benefits in the economic and security spheres. we're now key trading partners. we're the two largest democracies in the world. our relationship is an important one and there are more benefits to be shared from future cooperation. today's address by prime minister modi provides an important opportunity for all involved. it shows how he feels we can strengthen strategic partnership before our countries. how we can pursue areas of common ground and advancing shared interests. and an opportunity to better understand his view of the challenges currently facing indian and his outlook for overcoming them. we welcome prime minister modi.

we're interested in learning more about his vision both for india and for the country's continued partnership with the united states in the years ahead. mr. reid: mr. president, i join with the republican leader in welcoming the prime minister of india to america. very briefly, mr. president, in my office a short distance from here, i have a wonderful me men tow of my -- momento of my first meetings with indians. i went to school at utah state university. it was so cold, and my wife and i lived off campus and we would drive a couple miles up a hill to utah state campus. along the way i would see these indian students walking to school. they were engineering students,

agricultural students. it used to be called the agricultural college of utah. and i would give them rides. i did that for a couple of years. when it came time for me to graduate, one of the indians that i had gotten to know asked if landra and i would be willing to stay over an extra day and they would do us a traditional indian feast. and we did that. and it was sure a feast. they were dressed in their indian garbs. they worked a lot on that food. first indian food we had eaten. it was a wonderful, warm occasion that we will always remember. they gave us some presents. and with five children and moving quite a bit, most of those presents are history, don't know what they were, but one i have always protected. i have a little bone carved that they gave me statue of gandhi.

he in his regular clothes that we see him in. he has a staff in his hand like he had most all of the time, and it's so finely carved, you can pull that staff out even today. now it's a miracle that that made it through my five children but we did everything we could to protect that. and i have it in my office in a little glass enclosure. and i show my indian guests that meanful memento of mine. the other reason i'm glad to meet with the prime minister with senator mcconnell and the speaker and leader pelosi, i hope i have the opportunity to tell him of my opinion fondness for indians. but especially those named modi because the spokesperson of the little group of indians that i

met, his name was modi. i've come to the realization in recent years that that was his last name. everybody called him modi. and for many, many decades he was in engineering and he moved to new jersey and we kept in touch. so, mr. president, i'm happy that the prime minister is going to be able to address our nation in the house of representatives, and i'm sure his people look forward to that. again, i tell everyone here my warmness for indian, this great democracy, second largest muslim population in the world is in india. so it's a friend that we have, and we must maintain that -p friendship. mr. president, i just left a meeting a few feet in back of us. stunningly important meeting. every one of the guests were prominent but the two i want to refer to briefly here is dr. frieden, head of the centers for disease control; and faucie

from the national institutes of health. he's in infectious diseases, among other things. it was very frightening what they told us. as we speak there are three confirmed cases of babies born in the united states with the zika virus. of course they're all very, very sick. the life expectancy is not very much. they said in unison how vitally important it is and has been for months to get them some money so they can do the research needed to stop the spread of this. they borrowed money from malaria research, t.b. research, alterably difficult problems we're -- alterably difficult problems we're having in the world and in the united states to take care of funding for research on zika. they've taken huge amounts of

money, more than $500 million, out of the ebola fund which is still really a serious, serious problem. there are active cases as we speak. this is not an effort that we can just walk away from. this money has been needed for a long, long time, and it's sad that the presidential request of $1.9 billion has been opposed. the senior senator from florida was there today talking about every day there's new cases in florida. yesterday five new ones. so we need to do something on that yesterday. not wait until the fall, as has been suggested here by my republican colleagues. mr. president, senate republicans are waiting with gleeful anticipation for donald trump to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. donald trump who last week attacked a federal judge because of his mexican heritage, even though the judge was born in indiana, he said that district

judge curiel couldn't be, shouldn't be allowed to preside on his case because of his ethnicity. donald trump moments later said he would feel the same way in the judge were muslim. this is the man, donald trump, for whom senate republicans are blocking a supremely competent man from the supreme court, merrick garland. this is the man, donald trump, for whom republicans are abdicating their constitutional responsibility the. this is the man, donald trump, whom senate republicans want to determine the makeup of the supreme court for at least the next generation. senate republicans are united in blocking judge merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court. republicans are united in refusing to provide their advice and consent on president obama upon his nominee to the supreme court. republicans are united in doing it for donald trump. they say so. and they should be ashamed. it's hard to imagine anything more humiliating than holding the supreme court seat open so

donald trump can fill that seat. is t -- is this why my republican colleagues entered public service, to march lock step behind a man to spews hate on the basic law of america? the republican leader says -- and i quote -- "we know that donald trump will make the right kind of supreme court appointments." close quote. this is sad for the republican party. if my republican colleagues aren't embarrassed, they aren't thinking very well. president obama has nominated a moderate, experienced, brilliant jurist to the supreme court, but instead of giving judge garland the impartial treatment he deserves, republicans are refusing to do their jobs. for what? so donald trump, who routinely insults republican senators to their faces, among others, who denigrates senator mccain's

heroism, who say people's heritage makes them unable to do their jobs, and all the terrible stuff about withers handicap -- about women, handicap people ... we want this man a point someone to the supreme court? the republicans should come to their senses. it is time to drop the charade and give garland a hearing and a fair vote. on another subject, mr. president, morons share many -- americans share many common values. one of the most fundamentals is if you make a commitment, you should keep it. if you reach an agreement, abide by it. simply put, a promise is a promise. the pending amendment from the chairman of the armed forces committee would undermine this basic tenet. last year republicans and democrats made an agreement. the democrats were committed to helping the middle class. republicans were focused only on the pentagon. ultimately we reached a compromise that was based on the principle of parity. they want to help the military, they should be helped. but there should also be help

for programs that are also important for our national security that are not the pentagon. we provide additional rears to -- resources to the pentagon, as said, but we also provided the same level of help to the middle class. that included improving our security through efforts of domestic agencies like the f.b.i., dreg enforcement -- drug enforcement administration, department of homeland security and others. that was our agreement but now some republicans want to break their word. senate republicans are demanding billions more for the pentagon but refuse to give an extra penny for the middle class. that's inconsistent with last year's agreement and blind to the many serious needs here at home that the republicans continue to ignore. zika is one. that's why i support the amendment offered by the distinguished senator from rhode island, jack reed, along with the leader we have on the o. appropriationappropriations apps committee, barbara mikulski. the reed amendment, the mikulski

amendment would provide the same extra support for the middle class that senator mccain is demanding for the pentagon. and it recognizes that our security depends on more than just the defense department. the reed amendment has in our funding to fight the zika virus and would also fight the lead in flint, michigan. this amendment strengthens domestic security through the department of homeland security and will improve airport security and community policing and will address the threat of cybercrime and terrorism. the amendment of the senator from rhode island and the senator from maryland will create jobs and address our nation's crumbling infrastructure. it will improve not only our transportation system but medical facilities for our veterans and our national park system. but the reed amendment is also an investment in our future. the legislation will promote science and innovation through support for the national institutes of health, national science foundation, among

others. it will support education. i urge my colleagues to support this important proposal, which will make america better and a stronger country. the bottom line is this: a promise is a prosm the middle class needs help, at least much as the pentagon. the republicans should keep their promise to hardwork being american families. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 2943, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 46, s. 29 34erbgs a bill to authorize aappropriations for fiscal year 2017 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes.

mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to discuss my amendment, which would provide partial relief from the caps imposed by the bipartisan budget act of 2015 on both the defense and non-defense portions of the budget for fiscal year 2017. the chairman has interest in them, and that would provide relief for department of defense activities. mine would provide a comparable amount of relief for activities that are beyond the department of defense but critical to our national security and national economy. it's long past time to replace the senseless sequestration with

a balanced approach that keeps america safe and strong at home and abroad, and senator mccain and i both believe that sequestration has to be eliminated. what i would suggest, it has to be done in balanced way. it has to keep the intent of the bipartisan budget act and the budget control act by treating p defense and non-defense spending equally. let me also be clear, the bill before us provides the amount outlined in the current law as well as. they certainly would like more, but they have testified that for this year these resources are at least adequate. they have also made it very clear that if we do go into sequestration in the next year, it would be absolutely devastating to the department of defense. and as a