Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act

Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 4086, the ``Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act,'' as amended. This is a bipartisan bill that the Judiciary Committee ordered favorably reported by voice vote.

This bill contains a narrowly tailored fix to the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 that would clarify that the exception is not available in cases where:

artwork or a cultural object is imported into the United States for temporary exhibit or display pursuant to an agreement between a foreign state that owns or has custody of the work and a U.S. cultural or educational institution;

the work has been granted immunity from seizure by the President pursuant to the Immunity from Seizure Act because it is of cultural significance and its temporary exhibit or display is in the national interest; and

the President's determination has been published pursuant to IFSA.

The bill also clarifies that its provisions do not apply to Nazi-era claims regarding the ownership of art or cultural objects.

In short, this bill immunizes foreign states from lawsuits that seek damages for artwork that is already immune from seizure pursuant to a Presidential determination when the work is in the U.S. for temporary exhibition.

I am an original cosponsor of this bill for several reasons.

First, H.R. 4086 will make the FSIA consistent with the purpose underlying the Immunity from Seizure Act.

The IFSA was intended to encourage foreign states to lend their artwork and other cultural property to American museums and educational institutions for the cultural and educational benefit of the American people.

We enacted the IFSA in 1965 at the height of the Cold War to immunize certain artwork owned by the Soviet Union so that the Soviets would lend the artwork to the University of Richmond for a temporary exhibit.

We recognized then, and continue to recognize now, that as a general matter, the benefits of the cultural exchange fostered by temporary exhibits or displays of artwork outweigh the provision of a U.S. forum for disputes about the ownership of cultural property that is held by a foreign government.

The benefits of cultural exchange include an increased understanding of and appreciation for foreign cultures, a decrease in xenophobia and prejudice, and perhaps even some diplomatic benefit in fostering mutual respect between our Nation and other nations.

IFSA worked well for 40 years. Unfortunately, the court's decision in Malewicz [MA-le-vich] v. City of Amsterdam broadened the scope of the FSIA's expropriation exception to the point where it undermined IFSA.

The court construed the term ``commercial activity'' as used in the FSIA to include the temporary exhibit of artwork in the United States. This triggered the expropriation exception to sovereign immunity even though the works at issue in Malewicz had been immunized from seizure by the President.

The Malewicz case has had a chilling effect on loans of cultural property from foreign states.

According to a letter urging my support for this bill that I received from Graham W.J. Beal, Director of the Detroit Institute of Arts, both the Russian and Czech governments are refusing to lend works of art to American museums in the wake of this court decision.

Additionally, the Metropolitan Museum of Art withdrew a loan request to a Middle Eastern museum out of fear that once the works were in the U.S., their presence would be used as grounds for a lawsuit.

H.R. 4086 resolves the inconsistency between the IFSA and the FSIA created by the Malewicz decision by ensuring that any work that the President has immunized from seizure pursuant to IFSA will also immunize the foreign government owner of that work from a suit for damages under FSIA.

Second, the sovereign immunity provided for under this bill is limited to a very specific set of circumstances.

H.R. 4086 does not cover every possible claim concerning the ownership of artwork owned by a foreign government. For instance, the expropriation exception could be available for any claim concerning works that have not received immunity from seizure under IFSA.

Similarly, the expropriation exception remains available for a work that is not in the United States on temporary exhibit or display pursuant to an agreement.

Additionally, H.R. 4086 leaves untouched the other exceptions to sovereign immunity provided for in the FSIA, including the general ``commercial activity'' exception.

Third, I can support H.R. 4086 because it makes an exception for Nazi-era claims.

This carve-out is consistent with longstanding American policy to seek restitution when possible for victims of the Nazi government, its allied governments, and its affiliated governments.

In light of the unique historical sensitivities surrounding the Nazi government's deliberate campaign to steal artwork from its victims, H.R. 4086 rightfully ensures that victims of the Nazis are not foreclosed from pursuing damages for stolen art, even at the cost of foreclosing cultural exchange.

H.R. 4086 is an exceedingly modest bill that will nonetheless foster tremendous benefits for the American people.

I applaud Representative Steve Chabot, the sponsor of this bill, as well as my fellow co-sponsors, Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith and Representative Steve Cohen, for their leadership on this issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4086) 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, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4086 currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a leader on the Judiciary Committee, for introducing this legislation. I also want to thank Mr. Conyers and Mr. Cohen for their support as well.

This bill preserves the ability of U.S. museums and educational institutions to continue to borrow foreign government-owned artwork and artifacts for temporary exhibition or display. The

United States has long recognized the importance of encouraging a cultural exchange of ideas through exhibitions of artwork loaned from abroad. Cultural exchanges produce substantial benefits to the educational and cultural development of all Americans. The future success of these exchanges depends on foreign lenders having confidence that loaning artwork to U.S. institutions 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 caused that confidence to unravel. In these decisions, the courts have determined that the Immunity from Seizure Act does not preempt the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which provides U.S. courts with jurisdiction in cases against foreign countries.

The effect has been to open foreign governments up to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts simply because they loaned artwork to an American museum or educational institution. This has seriously threatened the ability of U.S. institutions to borrow foreign government-owned artwork. It has also resulted in cultural exchanges being curtailed as foreign government lenders have become hesitant to permit their artwork to travel to the United States.

The bill addresses this situation. It provides that if artwork is granted immunity by the State Department under the Immunity from Seizure Act, then the loan of that artwork 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 of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It requires the State Department to grant the artwork immunity under the Immunity from Seizure Act before the provisions of the bill 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 to American museums and educational institutions, we must enact this legislation. Without the protections this bill provides, rather than lending artwork to U.S. institutions, foreign governments will simply deny American loan requests. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the author of this legislation and an active member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, we have no other speakers on this side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I would like to thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Smith of Texas) for yielding the time. He explained it much better than I can, but I'll take a stab at it myself.

H.R. 4086 is really a straightforward bill which would better clarify the relationship between the Immunity from Seizure Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Since 1965, the Immunity from Seizure Act has provided the executive branch with authority to grant foreign artwork and other objects of cultural significance immunity from seizure by U.S. courts. The purpose of this was to encourage loaning and sharing exhibitions between U.S. and foreign museums.

However, there is now a conflict between the Immunity from Seizure Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that has interrupted this friendly exchange. Essentially, a provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allows U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over foreign governments when their artwork is temporarily imported into the U.S., putting foreign artwork and artifacts at risk of seizure.

Unfortunately, this has led, in many instances, to foreign governments declining to import into our country artwork and cultural objects for temporary exhibitions. In order to maintain the exchange of government-owned artwork and artifacts, Congress should clarify the relationship between these two acts in question.

This bill would do just that, ensuring that American museums like the Cincinnati Museum Center and the Cincinnati Art Museum, two in my district, can continue to enjoy international artwork and cultural artifacts. Enacting this legislation will remove a major obstacle to foreign loans and exchanges to American museums.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4086, and I would also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their leadership and their support in this effort.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, this bill arises from a tension between a 1963 statute providing foreign art collectors immunity from seizure and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It specifically stems from a 2007 court decision that broadened the expropriation exemption under the FSIA and allowed for suits on artwork already immunized under the 1963 law. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art and other museums have made clear to me the chilling effect of that decision on artistic exchanges.

This bill resolves the inconsistency between the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the 1963 statute and protects critical cultural exchanges. Specifically, the bill would clarify that foreign states are immune from lawsuits that seek damages for artwork that may already be immune from seizure pursuant to a Presidential determination.

I support this bill for several reasons:

First, cultural and artistic exchanges are a powerful form of democracy that foster mutual understanding, and this bill would remove obstacles to such exchanges;

Second, the bill is narrowly crafted. It provides sovereign immunity only in cases in which the President already immunized the artwork in question;

Third, H.R. 4086 includes an exception for Nazi-era claims. This carve-out is consistent with longstanding American policy to seek restitution when possible for victims of the Nazi government, its allied governments and its affiliated governments.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.