[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Page S108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  FOREIGN CULTURAL EXCHANGE JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY CLARIFICATION BILL

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the final hour of our legislative 
business early last December 10, we passed a remarkable bill. It had no 
ideological division, did not cost the taxpayers a dime, and will 
benefit Americans in every part of the country. And, like the House 
did, we passed it unanimously.
  This bill had the somewhat unwieldy title of the Foreign Cultural 
Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act. While not lending 
itself to a catchy acronym, it is accurately descriptive. For more than 
50 years, a Federal law has provided legal protection for art loaned by 
foreign governments for exhibition in the United States. Confidence in 
that protection is an essential piece of the complex arrangements that 
can take years to complete in order to bring wonderful exhibits to 
American museums for everyone to enjoy.
  America has hundreds of museums of all sorts. The art museum at 
Brigham Young University, for example, is one of the largest and best 
attended in the Mountain West. When it began working on a major 
exhibition of art from Islamic countries, some of its loan requests 
were unexpectedly denied. It turns out that a 2007 Federal court 
decision had made such loans risky, rather than secure. After that 
court decision, the act of lending, even after State Department review 
and approval, could actually lead to a new category of lawsuits against 
the foreign lenders.
  This legislation, now signed into law, reverses that court decision 
and clarifies that lending art after State Department review does not 
raise the possibility of new litigation. Foreign governments can once 
again have confidence that lending art for exhibition will improve 
cultural understanding and enrich people's lives without the threat of 
new lawsuits.
  The bill has two narrow exceptions. I want to thank Dr. Wesley 
Fisher, director of research at the Conference on Jewish Material 
Claims against Germany, and Rabbi Andrew Baker, director of 
International Jewish Affairs at the American Jewish Committee, for 
their help in drafting the exception for Nazi-era claims. The second 
exception covers comparable state-sponsored coercive campaigns of 
cultural plunder. Art that was looted in such a campaign should not be 
given protection for exhibition in the United States.
  The senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, was my principal 
partner in this effort. She and her staff have been patient, 
thoughtful, and dedicated; in particular, I want to thank her chief 
counsel, Eric Haren, and counsel Lartease Tiffith for working so 
diligently with my own chief counsel, Tom Jipping. The problem to be 
solved was clear, but it was challenging to find the right language to 
solve that problem without unintended consequences.
  I also want to thank the Association of Art Museum Directors, their 
director of government affairs Anita Difanis, and their special counsel 
Josh Knerly. They have been committed to this goal from the start, and 
their effort began with educating many of us about this unique area of 
law and policy. They mobilized hundreds of art institutions and 
associations to support this bill. And they were flexible about many 
things while staying focused on the essentials.
  I gratefully acknowledge the consistent support for this legislation 
from the BYU Museum of Art, the Utah Fine Arts Museum, and the Utah 
Museums Association. We have a vibrant art community in Utah, and this 
legislation means that these fine institutions have additional 
opportunities to bring new experiences to the people in our great 
State.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
following my remarks a letter from James S. Snyder, director of The 
Israel Museum in Jerusalem. He writes that the risk of new lawsuits has 
been ``a disincentive to lend works to American museums,'' but that 
this legislation ``will ensure that museums worldwide can continue to 
lend to American museums in the precise spirit of international 
cultural cooperation that U.S. Immunity from Seizure protection was 
intended to provide.'' That, in a nutshell, is the problem and the 
solution we are enacting today.
  This legislation restores the confidence that foreign governments 
need to lend art for exhibitions that Americans across the country can 
enjoy. That is something we can all be proud of.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            The Israel Museum,

                                        Jerusalem, March 17, 2013.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: I am Director of The Israel Museum, 
     Jerusalem, an encyclopedic museum embracing the history of 
     material world culture from pre-historic archaeology of the 
     ancient Holy Land through the rise of Judaism, Christianity, 
     and Islam; Jewish world culture; and the fine arts of the 
     Western and non-Western traditions. Our collections comprise 
     over 500,000 objects, and our 600,000 sq. ft. campus sits on 
     a signature 20-acre site in Jerusalem. We are internationally 
     active as producers of temporary exhibitions in Jerusalem and 
     internationally and as major borrowers and lenders from 
     sister institutions worldwide.
       Our international museum community, which enjoys a close 
     and collegial relationship with our American counterparts, is 
     concerned about the trend toward a weakening of the Immunity 
     from Seizure protection customarily offered by U.S. museums 
     when they request loans from foreign museums. These concerns 
     are two-fold:
       First, that foreign museums risk being sued in connection 
     with works loaned to an American exhibition if there is a 
     question that works on loan are held by their lending 
     institutions in violation of international law. The act of 
     lending can therefore be used as the basis to seek damages in 
     a U.S. court, which is counter to the premise that Immunity 
     from Seizure protects works on loan from legal action while 
     they are on loan; and
       Secondly, foreign museums that loan works with clear 
     provenance to an American exhibition may nonetheless be sued 
     with regard to other works in their collections that may lack 
     full provenance. In this regard, the simple act of lending, 
     in the spirit of international exchange, opens us to possible 
     claims with regard to any and all works in our collections.
       Each of these potential circumstances raises troubling 
     concerns, and, taken together, they are a disincentive to 
     lend works to American museums, given the potential risk of 
     suit in U.S. courts. And this prospect is exactly what U.S. 
     Immunity from Seizure was originally established to avoid.
       Anything that you can do to strengthen Immunity from 
     Seizure in the U.S. will ensure that museums worldwide can 
     continue to lend to American museums in the precise spirit of 
     international cultural cooperation that U.S. Immunity from 
     Seizure protection was intended to provide.
       Please let me know if I can answer any further questions in 
     this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James S. Snyder,
     Director.

                          ____________________