[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 47 (Monday, March 16, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2497-H2500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT OF 2025
Ms. LEE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (S. 1884) to clarify the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery
Act of 2016, to appropriately limit the application of defenses based
on the passage of time and other non-merits defenses to claims under
that Act.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 1884
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Holocaust Expropriated Art
Recovery Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT OF 2016
IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery
Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note) is amended--
(1) in section 2--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (10);
(B) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
``(8) The intent of this Act is to permit claims to recover
Nazi-looted art to be brought, notwithstanding the passage of
time since World War II. Some courts have frustrated the
intent of this Act by dismissing recovery lawsuits in
reliance on defenses based on the passage of time, such as
laches (for example, Zuckerman v Metropolitan Museum of Art,
928 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2019)) or adverse possession,
acquisitive prescription, or usucapion (for example, Cassirer
v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Foundation, 89 F.4th 1226 (9th Cir.
2024)) or on other non-merits discretionary defenses, such as
the act of state doctrine (for example, Von Saher v Norton
Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 897 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir.
2018)), forum non conveniens, international comity, or
prudential exhaustion. In order to effectuate the purpose of
the Act to permit claims to recover Nazi-looted art to be
resolved on the merits, these defenses must be precluded.
``(9) This Act also is intended to allow claims in
accordance with the procedures under this Act for the
recovery of artwork or other property lost during the covered
period because, or as a result, of Nazi persecution,
including by a covered government (as defined in section
1605(h)(3)(B) of title 28, United States Code) or an agent or
associate of a covered government, regardless of the
nationality or citizenship of the alleged victim,
notwithstanding the `domestic takings' rule under Federal
Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. 169 (2021).''; and
(C) in paragraph (10), as so redesignated, by striking
``will yield just and fair resolutions in a more efficient
and predictable manner'' and inserting ``may, in some
circumstances, yield just and fair resolutions as well'';
(2) in section 3(2), by inserting ``and other non-merits
defenses'' after ``statutes of limitation'';
(3) in section 5--
(A) by striking subsection (g);
(B) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(h) and (i), respectively;
(C) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
(D) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Relation to Foreign State Immunities.--
Notwithstanding any other law or prior judicial decision, any
civil claim or cause of action covered by subsection (a)
shall be deemed to be an action in which rights in violation
of international law are in issue for purposes of section
1605(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, without regard to
the nationality or citizenship of the alleged victim.'';
(E) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, in the matter
preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``subsection (e)'' and
inserting ``subsection (h)'';
(F) in subsection (e), as so redesignated--
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``Subsection (a)'' and inserting ``Subsections (a), (b), (f),
and (g)''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``during the period''
and all that follows and inserting ``on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.''; and
(G) by inserting after subsection (e), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(f) Defenses Based on Passage of Time and Other Non-
Merits Defenses.--With respect to any claim that is otherwise
timely under this Act--
``(1) all defenses or substantive doctrines based on the
passage of time, including laches, adverse possession,
acquisitive prescription, and usucapion, may not be applied
with respect to the claim; and
``(2) all non-merits discretionary bases for dismissal,
including the act of state doctrine, international comity,
forum non conveniens, prudential exhaustion, and similar
doctrines unrelated to the merits, may not be applied with
respect to the claim.
``(g) Nationwide Service of Process.--For a civil action
brought under subsection (a) in any State or Federal court,
process may be served in the judicial district where the case
is brought or any other judicial district of the United
States where the defendant may be found, resides, has an
agent, or transacts business.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.
``If any provision of this Act, or the application of a
provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held
invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the application of
such provision to other persons and circumstances, shall not
be affected thereby.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to any civil claim or cause of
action that is--
(1) pending in any court on the date of enactment of this
Act, including any civil claim or cause of action that is
pending on appeal or for which the time to file an appeal has
not expired; or
(2) filed on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
General Leave
Ms. LEE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1884.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. LEE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this
legislation before the House today. I thank my bipartisan colleagues in
both Chambers who have worked to advance this important effort.
In the House, I thank Ranking Member Jamie Raskin and Representatives
Scott Fitzgerald, Jerry Nadler, and Maggie Goodlander.
In the Senate, I thank Senators John Cornyn, Ted Cruz, Richard
Blumenthal, and Chuck Schumer.
The Nazi regime committed unimaginable atrocities during the
Holocaust, murdering millions of Jews and destroying families,
communities, and livelihoods.
The regime also carried out a systematic campaign of cultural theft.
Hundreds of thousands of works of art and cultural objects were
confiscated or misappropriated from Jewish families and other
persecuted groups across Europe. These were not simply possessions.
They were pieces of family history, identity, and legacy.
After World War II, the United States and our Allies attempted to
return stolen artwork to their rightful owners, yet many pieces were
never reunited with the families from whom they were taken.
In the decades since, these works have surfaced in museums,
galleries, and private collections around the world.
In 1998, the United States convened the Washington Conference on
Nazi-Confiscated Art with more than 40 nations. The conference produced
the
[[Page H2498]]
Washington Principles, which called on governments and institutions to
take steps to achieve just and fair solutions for families seeking
return of their stolen property. Congress took an important step toward
that goal in 2016 when it enacted the Holocaust Expropriated Art
Recovery Act.
That law was designed to ensure that Holocaust survivors and their
heirs would have a fair opportunity to pursue claims in court and that
those claims would be decided on their merits, not dismissed because
too much time had passed.
Unfortunately, courts have sometimes applied technical defenses in
ways that undermine Congress' intent. This means that families who lost
everything during the Holocaust can still be denied their day in court
because of procedural barriers. This bill fixes that problem.
This bill removes the upcoming expiration date in the original law
and clarifies that these cases should be decided on the facts, not
dismissed on technicalities.
As someone who previously served as a judge in Florida and now serves
on the Judiciary Committee, I believe deeply that Congress must speak
clearly and provide judges with standards and guidance to apply in
their courtrooms.
Justice should not depend on procedural loopholes or arbitrary
decisions when families are seeking the return of property that was
stolen during one of history's greatest crimes. Behind every claim is a
family story.
Even today, descendants of Holocaust victims are still searching for
works of art that once hung in their grandparents' homes. In some
cases, families spent a generation preserving photographs, letters, and
fragments of evidence in hopes of one day recovering a painting or a
sculpture that represents their family's past.
For many of these families, these cases are not about the monetary
value of the artwork. They are about restoring a piece of history that
was taken from them.
The Nazi regime stole not only lives but legacies. They stole
hundreds of thousands of artwork pieces in what has been termed the
greatest displacement of art in human history. The Nazis looted over
600,000 works of art and artifacts. To this day, more than 100,000 of
these works are not yet recovered. More than 100,000 works of art and
artifacts are still missing.
This legislation helps to ensure that survivors and their heirs have
the opportunity to reclaim those legacies and that their claims are
heard fairly in American courts.
I thank the many organizations that are supporting this effort,
including Art Ashes, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation
League, Jewish Women International, the Florida Holocaust Museum, and
many others who continue working to preserve memory and pursue justice.
Despite the passage of time since the horrors of the Holocaust, it is
never too late to do the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ensure
that families seeking the return of their stolen heritage are given the
justice that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1520
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1884, the Holocaust
Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025, or the HEAR Act.
As the lead House Democratic sponsor of this bipartisan legislation,
I am proud to have helped bring together my colleagues to ensure this
bill is passed and sent to the President's desk.
During the Holocaust, the Nazis stripped Jewish families of countless
works of art, culture, and heritage. The effects of these atrocities
are still being felt today by survivors and their families.
In 2016, former Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and I
introduced the first HEAR Act, which was a landmark bill that aimed to
aid these victims and their families in recovering their rightful
property, a small act of light in the memory of the darkest period in
human history. I am grateful that Congress passed that measure
unanimously and that President Obama signed it into law.
Unfortunately, time has demonstrated that the original HEAR Act was
not sufficient. In addition to the bill's impending expiration, more
than 100,000 of the over 600,000 works of art looted by the Nazis
remain unrecovered. We must confront this unacceptable and repugnant
reality, which continues to allow entities and individuals to profit
off the Jewish people's pain.
We must reaffirm that, in the United States, every family member with
a credible claim deserves to have their day in court, with their case
heard on the merits alone. Justice must not be denied due to procedural
technicalities and legislative sunset provisions.
While we cannot reverse the horrors of the Holocaust, we can ensure
that in an American courtroom, the truth of a family's legacy carries
more weight than a legal loophole.
Some might have you believe, Mr. Speaker, that this bill addresses a
problem mostly for Europe to resolve, but they would be wrong. In fact,
the September 2025 report from the World Jewish Restitution
Organization found that U.S. museums hold well over 100,000 objects
that were in Europe during the Holocaust, yet only about 10 percent of
those objects have been made publicly accessible online for provenance
research. Additionally, among 160 major museums in the United States,
only 21 percent provide easily accessible object-level Nazi-era
provenance information.
If relevant pieces are not made available for research, how can we
even know the true scope of this problem? What do the holders of these
pieces have to hide?
This is not an issue that is relevant only to decades-old legal cases
or an issue faced only by a few dying survivors and their families.
Nazi-looted art is still being discovered regularly.
Just a few months ago, an online auction was intercepted in Ohio for
two 17th century floral paintings by a famous Dutch still-life painter
with original Nazi inventory numbers, S-16 and S-17, still on the back.
The works had been sitting in an abandoned safe deposit box in Texas
for decades before surfacing.
In 2023, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office seized seven works
by a famous Austrian expressionist painter, valued at nearly $10
million, that had for decades been displayed in a variety of museums
and collections in New York. The DA's office rightfully returned the
pieces to the heirs of Fritz Grunbaum, a Jewish collector murdered at
Dachau concentration camp in 1941.
That is why we must reauthorize and improve the HEAR Act of 2016 by
passing the bill before us today, to ensure that the provenance of
pieces that can be proven are able to be fully litigated on their
merits alone, and to send a clear message from the Halls of Congress to
those who knowingly hold Holocaust-looted art that the United States
will no longer tolerate such barbaric behavior.
It is important for us to be abundantly clear about what this bill
does and does not do.
Fundamentally, this bill seeks to ensure that claims regarding Nazi-
looted art are decided on their merits alone, without hiding behind
procedural technicalities.
The bill also eliminates the original HEAR Act sunset provision,
which is scheduled to expire in December 2026. That deadline was
intended to encourage museums and holders to complete provenance
research on the relevant pieces and to resolve any applicable claims.
Unfortunately, this limited time frame has allowed some institutions
to delay, withhold information, and run out the clock. I hope we can
all agree, Mr. Speaker, that justice for victims of the Holocaust and
their families should not come with an expiration date.
Here is what this bill does not do. It does not decide who wins and
loses any case. It does not undermine, in letter or intent, any
agreements made by any entity regarding any Holocaust-related or other
matters. It does not impact or seek to influence any other categories
of Holocaust claims outside of those that are art-related and
specifically described in the legislation.
The issues this legislation seeks to address are not new. In fact, it
even appeared in the early 2000s popular TV show ``The West Wing.'' In
a second-
[[Page H2499]]
season episode, a Jewish woman on a White House tour begins screaming
after recognizing a painting that had belonged to her father in France
before it was seized by the Vichy regime during the Holocaust and later
gifted to the White House. In the television show, the painting is
swiftly and voluntarily returned to the woman and her family.
The show is obviously a work of fiction, but if all similar claims
were resolved in such a way in reality, there would be much less need
for this legislation. Unfortunately, like much of ``The West Wing,''
such a resolution is too good to be true.
Finally, there are many individuals and organizations that have
worked hard to draft and promote this legislation. I thank all of them,
and especially the Art Ashes organization. Without their tireless
advocacy, this day would not be possible.
I also thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lee) for her
partnership in introducing this bill in the House.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to ensure
that victims of the Holocaust and their families are able to have their
claims heard on their merits alone.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Representatives
Lee and Nadler, for bringing this very important piece of legislation
to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support, as a cosponsor, of the
Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act, the HEAR Act.
Mr. Speaker, during the Holocaust, the Nazi regime and its
collaborators systematically looted hundreds of thousands of works of
art and cultural treasures from Jewish families across Europe. These
were not simply valuable objects. They were pieces of family history,
family identity, and family heritage.
For decades, many survivors and their heirs have fought simply for
the chance to have their claims heard in court. The original HEAR Act,
passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in this Chamber in 2016,
tried to ensure that these claims would be decided only on their
merits, rather than being dismissed because of technical objections,
such as the passage of time.
Mr. Speaker, however, the courts did not follow Congress' intent on
many issues, and new legal barriers have emerged that threaten to close
or have closed the courthouse doors once again.
This legislation expressly reverses the ability of defendants to use
non-merit-based offenses, such as the Supreme Court's decision in
Germany v. Phillipp, which held that Germany's expropriation of German
Jews' property in the Holocaust was simply a ``domestic taking'' and
not a violation of international law under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act.
If not corrected by Congress, that decision would prevent Holocaust
survivors and their heirs from recovering most of the art held by
foreign governments and their museums. It would excuse the historical
and moral culpability of Nazi Germany and its allies and collaborators
for perpetrating the Holocaust. An affirmative vote today closes that
huge loophole.
Mr. Speaker, time is not on our side. Roughly 30,000 Holocaust
survivors remain alive today in the United States of America, many now
in their nineties, some of whom live in my district. They deserve to
see in their lifetimes--and the world needs to hear--that in these
times of rising anti-Semitism, Congress wishes to right these
historical wrongs.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does not guarantee outcomes. It simply ensures
that claims are heard fairly and decided on their merits. Passing this
legislation reaffirms our Nation's commitment to justice, historical
truth, and the memory of those who suffered one of history's darkest
crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support the HEAR Act.
{time} 1530
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the distinguished ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Nadler for his extraordinary
leadership on this legislation and on this issue.
I rise in strong support of S. 1884, the Holocaust Expropriated Art
Recovery Act of 2025. This bill, which has already passed the Senate by
unanimous consent, amends the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act
of 2016 in a number of key ways to ensure that Holocaust survivors and
their heirs have a fair opportunity in court to recover all of the
artwork that was stolen by the Nazi regime or what is left of it. In
doing so, this bill will provide these victims the chance to obtain
some small measure of justice for the horrors and the injustices and
indignities their families have endured.
During its reign of hatred and terror, the Nazis committed theft and
murder on a mass industrial scale through the relentless killings of
the Einsatzgruppen in the Bloodlands of Europe and through the death
camps they established at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and
many others.
For the victims' families, these pieces of art are both stolen
objects and stolen connections to their own family members whose
memories the Nazis have tried to permanently erase from history.
In many cases, the artwork serves as the final tangible connection of
the victims' families to their lost family members, providing proof of
their existence and a testament to their suffering and their loss.
Congress passed the 2016 HEAR Act, which established a 6-year Federal
statute of limitations for claims arising from Nazi-stolen artwork out
of concern that the State statutes of limitations would prevent most
litigation. In its findings, Congress observed that the unique and
horrific circumstances of World War II and the Holocaust make statutes
of limitations especially burdensome to the victims and their heirs. It
further noted the difficulty of piecing together their cases from a
fragmentary historical record ravaged by persecution, war, and
genocide. This costly process often cannot be done within the time
constraints imposed by what was then the existing law.
Alas, several court decisions since the 2016 HEAR Act's passage have
undermined the statute's purpose of trying to give victims a fair
hearing on the merits of their cases regardless of the passage of time.
These decisions have dismissed numerous cases precisely based on
passage of time defenses like laches or adverse possession or other
non-merits defenses like forum non conveniens, the act of state
doctrine, or foreign sovereign immunity.
This bill addresses these court decisions and related concerns. It
eliminates the HEAR Act's sunset provision so that defendants no longer
have an incentive to simply run out the clock on victims' families. It
also prohibits courts from dismissing lawsuits on grounds related to
the passage of time or other non-merit defenses. Finally, it clarifies
that claims for recovery of the artwork fall within an existing
expropriation exception to foreign sovereign immunity regardless of the
victim's citizenship or nationality.
This bill will help give victims and their heirs the chance to obtain
a small measure of justice for the grave and dehumanizing wrongs they
suffered as a result of the Holocaust. It will also give victims'
families a chance to recover at least a partial connection to their
loved ones, a connection that was stolen in every single way possible
by the Nazis.
I applaud Representative Lee, and I applaud our Senate colleagues who
have worked to advance this bill. I especially recognize my colleague
Representative Nadler for his longtime aggressive and unswerving
leadership on seeing justice done in this case and to see passage of
both the 2016 Act and this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly advocate for this legislation, and I urge all
of our colleagues to support it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support
this measure. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is just for Holocaust survivors
and their heirs to continue to have their claims relating to art stolen
from them
[[Page H2500]]
by the Nazis heard in court. These claims should be decided on the
merits, not dismissed due to technical defenses. The Holocaust
Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 will ensure just that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lee) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, S. 1884.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________