[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6901-6903]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  FOREIGN CULTURAL EXCHANGE JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY CLARIFICATION ACT

  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4292) to amend chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code, 
to clarify the exception to foreign sovereign immunity set forth in 
section 1605(a)(3) of such title.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4292

       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 ``Foreign Cultural Exchange 
     Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY OF FOREIGN 
                   STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1605 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Jurisdictional Immunity for Certain Art Exhibition 
     Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--If--
       ``(A) a work is imported into the United States from any 
     foreign country pursuant to an agreement that provides for 
     the temporary exhibition or display of such work entered into 
     between a foreign state that is the owner or custodian of 
     such work and the United States or one or more cultural or 
     educational institutions within the United States,
       ``(B) the President, or the President's designee, has 
     determined, in accordance with subsection (a) of Public Law 
     89-259 (22 U.S.C. 2459(a)), that such work is of cultural 
     significance and the temporary exhibition or display of such 
     work is in the national interest, and
       ``(C) the notice thereof has been published in accordance 
     with subsection (a) of Public Law 89-259 (22 U.S.C. 2459(a)),

     any activity in the United States of such foreign state, or 
     of any carrier, that is associated with the temporary 
     exhibition or display of such work shall not be considered to 
     be commercial activity by such foreign state for purposes of 
     subsection (a)(3).
       ``(2) Nazi-era claims.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in 
     any case asserting jurisdiction under subsection (a)(3) in 
     which rights in property taken in violation of international 
     law are in issue within the meaning of that subsection and--
       ``(A) the property at issue is the work described in 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(B) the action is based upon a claim that such work was 
     taken in connection with the acts of a covered government 
     during the covered period;
       ``(C) the court determines that the activity associated 
     with the exhibition or display is commercial activity, as 
     that term is defined in section 1603(d); and
       ``(D) a determination under subparagraph (C) is necessary 
     for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the foreign state 
     under subsection (a)(3).
       ``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `work' means a work of art or other object 
     of cultural significance;
       ``(B) the term `covered government' means--
       ``(i) the Government of Germany during the covered period;
       ``(ii) any government in any area in Europe that was 
     occupied by the military forces of the Government of Germany 
     during the covered period;
       ``(iii) any government in Europe that was established with 
     the assistance or cooperation of the Government of Germany 
     during the covered period; and
       ``(iv) any government in Europe that was an ally of the 
     Government of Germany during the covered period; and
       ``(C) the term `covered period' means the period beginning 
     on January 30, 1933, and ending on May 8, 1945.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to any civil action commenced on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4292, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and 
my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for cosponsoring this legislation.
  This is simple, straightforward legislation. It clarifies the 
relationship between the Immunity from Seizure Act and the Foreign 
Sovereign Immunities Act to encourage the foreign lending of art to the 
United States.
  Currently, artwork loaned by foreign governments is commonly immune 
to Federal court decisions and cannot be confiscated if the President 
finds that their display is in the national interest. However, foreign 
governments do not have immunity when commercial activity is involved. 
This bill seeks to clarify that artwork imported into the U.S. for 
temporary display is not commercial activity and should thus be immune 
from seizure. Specifically, my legislation would revise the United 
States Code and make clear that the import of artwork is not legally 
considered commercial activity if three elements are met:
  First, the United States, or an educational institute therein, and a 
foreign government must agree to the exchange of artwork;
  Second, the President must determine that such work is of cultural 
significance and the temporary exhibition of such work is in the 
national interest;
  And third, the President's determination must be published in the 
Federal Register.
  In enacting the Immunity from Seizure Act, Congress recognized that 
cultural exchange would produce substantial benefits to the United 
States, both artistically and diplomatically. Foreign lending should be 
allowed to continue to aid cultural understanding and increase public 
exposure to archeological artifacts. This bill reaffirms our country's 
commitment to the foreign lending of artwork to American museums.
  However, for artwork and cultural objects owned by foreign 
governments, the intent of the Immunity from Seizure Act is being 
frustrated currently by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. A 
provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act opens foreign 
governments up to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts for court actions if 
foreign government-owned artwork is temporarily imported into the U.S.
  Similar to its Senate companion, this bill includes a Nazi-era 
exception which provides that immunity does not apply to cases in which 
property was taken in violation of international law, and those are 
things which are in question, and the action is based upon a claim that 
such work was taken in connection with acts of the German Government 
during the period of January 30, 1933, through May 8, 1945.

                              {time}  1745

  According to the American Association of Museum Directors, current 
law has led to, on several occasions, foreign governments declining to 
exchange artwork and cultural objects with the United States for 
temporary exhibitions.
  In 2010, for example, the Russian Federation imposed a ban on state-
owned

[[Page 6902]]

art loans to American museums on the grounds that such works could be 
subject to legal action. As a result of this ban, several U.S. museums, 
which had loan agreements with the Russian national institutions, were 
forced to cancel long-planned Russian art exhibits.
  In order to keep the exchange of foreign government-owned art 
flowing, Congress needs to clarify the relationship between these two 
acts that I previously described.
  This legislation does just that: ensuring that museums, like the 
Cincinnati Museum Center and the Cincinnati Art Museum--both in my 
district--and other similar museums all across the country, may 
continue to present first-class exhibits and educate the public on 
cultural heritage and artwork from all around the globe.
  Through the enactment of this legislation, we can secure foreign 
lending to American museums and ensure that foreign art lenders are not 
entangled in unnecessary litigation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is nice to see a Tennessean in the chair. James Knox Polk might 
have been the last one who was more permanent as Speaker of the House. 
Yes, it is good to see you.
  To my friend, Mr. Chabot, it is an honor to rise and to cosponsor 
this bill with you and with Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Conyers.
  Madam Speaker, I do rise in support of H.R. 4292, the Foreign 
Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act, also known 
as the FCEJIC Act.
  This makes a modest, but important amendment to the expropriation 
exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
  Specifically, it ensures that foreign states are immune from suits 
for damages concerning the ownership of cultural property when that 
property is in the United States pursuant to an agreement between the 
foreign state and the U.S. or a U.S.-based cultural or educational 
institution, when the President has granted the work at issue immunity 
from seizure pursuant to the Immunity from Seizure Act, and when the 
President's grant of immunity from seizure is published in the Federal 
Register.
  The expropriation exception remains available to all claims 
concerning misappropriated cultural property to which these factual 
circumstances do not apply.
  Additionally, H.R. 4292 ensures that the expropriation exception 
remains available for all Nazi-era claims. This is appropriate in light 
of the particularly concerted effort of the Nazis to seize artwork and 
other cultural property from citizens at that time, victims of the 
Holocaust and others.
  There have been quite a few movies recently about some of the people 
in our armed services who helped rescue some of that artwork, which is 
to be commended, and it really brought out the horrific things in that 
area that the Nazis did. They did so many horrific things, but they 
just wanted to destroy all culture, so any artwork that might be part 
of those claims would still be available.
  With this finely and narrowly tailored amendment, we will have more 
opportunities to see art from Europe and from around the world. It is 
important to have exchanges of culture, so that people around the world 
understand the other cultures and so that it maybe makes the planet a 
little more safe. I support the bill as I understand that it still 
makes available redress for those who committed acts of expropriation 
during the Nazi era.
  I thank Mr. Chabot, who is my friend and who has done a great job, 
and we hope to keep the river flowing and the Delta Queen alive. I 
thank the Judiciary Committee chairman, Bob Goodlatte, and our ranking 
member, the esteemed John Conyers, for their leadership.
  I urge the House to pass the bill, and I would like to offer for the 
Record a letter from the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against 
Germany, which speaks for itself, and for the American Jewish Congress 
in their stating that they would not oppose the passage of this bill.

                                     Conference on Jewish Material


                                  Claims Against Germany, Inc.

                                  New York, NY, December 19, 2013.
     Mr. Timothy Rub,
     President, Association of Art Museum Directors, The George D. 
         Widener Director and CEO, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 
         Philadelphia, PA.
       Dear Mr. Rub, Anita Difanis has now sent us the language of 
     the most recent draft of the immunity bill (the ``Foreign 
     Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification 
     Act'') that the AAMD is asking be introduced to the Congress. 
     We have reviewed the points that concerned us, namely those 
     in regard to Nazi Era claims.
       While we are not persuaded of the need for this special 
     legislation, we have no objection to it. The American Jewish 
     Committee concurs with this view.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Greg Schneider,
                                         Executive Vice-President.

  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Chabot for 
introducing this legislation and by thanking Mr. Conyers and Mr. Cohen 
for their support as well.
  Madam Speaker, the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity 
Clarification Act strengthens the ability of U.S. museums and 
educational institutions to borrow foreign government-owned artwork and 
cultural artifacts for temporary exhibition or display.
  The United States has long recognized the importance of encouraging 
the cultural exchange of ideas through exhibitions of artwork and other 
artifacts loaned from other countries.
  These exchanges expose Americans to other cultures and foster 
understanding between people of different nationalities, languages, 
religions, and races. Unfortunately, the future success of cultural 
exchanges is severely threatened by a disconnect between the Immunity 
from Seizure Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
  Loans of artwork and cultural objects depend upon foreign lenders 
having confidence that the items they loan will be returned and that 
the loan will not open them up to lawsuits in U.S. courts.
  For 40 years, the Immunity from Seizure Act provided foreign 
government lenders with this confidence. However, rulings in several 
recent Federal cases have undermined the protection provided by the 
Immunity from Seizure Act.
  In these decisions, the Federal courts have held that the Immunity 
from Seizure Act does not preempt the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 
The effect has been to open foreign governments up to the jurisdiction 
of U.S. courts simply because they loaned artwork or cultural objects 
to an American museum or educational institution.
  This has significantly impeded the ability of U.S. institutions to 
borrow foreign government-owned items. It has also resulted in cultural 
exchanges being curtailed as foreign government lenders have become 
hesitant to permit their cultural property to travel to the United 
States.
  This bill addresses this situation. It provides that, if the State 
Department grants immunity to a loan of artwork or cultural objects 
from--under the Immunity from Seizure Act, then the loan cannot subject 
a foreign government to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts under the 
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
  This is very narrow legislation. It only applies to one of the many 
grounds for jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 
Moreover, it requires the State Department to grant the artwork 
immunity under the Immunity from Seizure Act before its provisions 
apply, and in order to preserve the claims of victims of the Nazi 
government and its allies during World War II, the bill has an 
exception for claims brought by these victims.
  If we want to encourage foreign governments to continue to lend 
artwork and other artifacts to American museums and educational 
institutions, we must enact this legislation.

[[Page 6903]]

  Without the protections this bill provides, foreign governments will 
avoid the risk of lending their cultural items to American 
institutions, and the American public will lose the opportunity to view 
and appreciate these cultural objects from abroad.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, in closing, I just want to comment that Mr. 
Goodlatte's committee has now produced this bill and the next bill, the 
Lummis-Cohen bill, and we came together to work against sex trafficking 
last week.
  So the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Mr. Goodlatte, is 
starting to produce a lot of good, bipartisan legislation. I commend 
him for that work, and I hope we see more of it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will be very brief. I would like to, first of all, thank the 
Cincinnati Museum Center and the Cincinnati Art Museum for bringing 
this matter to my attention.
  I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) 
for his leadership on this bill, as well as to thank the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, and also the ranking member, 
Mr. Conyers, for their leadership.
  Without having any additional speakers, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 4292.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________