H.R. 4086 (112th): Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act

Introduced:
Feb 24, 2012 (112th Congress, 2011–2013)
Sponsor:
Rep. Steve Chabot [R-OH1]
Status:
Died (Passed House)
See Instead:

S. 2212 (same title)
Referred to Committee — Mar 20, 2012

The bill’s title was written by the bill’s sponsor. H.R. stands for House of Representatives bill.

(About Ads | Go Ad-Free for $5)
Status

This bill was introduced in a previous session of Congress and was passed by the House on March 19, 2012 but was never passed by the Senate.

Progress
Introduced Feb 24, 2012
Referred to Committee Feb 24, 2012
Reported by Committee Feb 28, 2012
Passed House Mar 19, 2012
Cosponsors
3 cosponsors (2D, 1R) (show)
Committees

House Judiciary

Senate Judiciary

The committee chair determines whether a bill will move past the committee stage.

Full Title

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.

Summary

No summaries available.

Text

Read Bill Text »

Last updated Mar 20, 2012.
4 pages

Primary Source

View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.

Citation

Click a format for a citation suggestion:

GovTrack’s Bill Summary

We don’t have a summary available yet.

Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.

3/19/2012--Passed House amended.
Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act - Amends the federal judicial code with respect to denial of a foreign state's immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. or state courts (under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) in cases where rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property (or any property exchanged for it) is:
(1) present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on by the foreign state in the United States; or
(2) owned by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state, and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States. Prohibits consideration as a commercial activity (excluded from jurisdictional immunity) any activity in the United States of a foreign state, or of any carrier, associated with a temporary exhibition or display if:
(1) the work of art (or other object of cultural significance) in question is imported into the United States from any foreign country pursuant to an agreement for its temporary exhibition or display between a foreign state that is its owner or custodian and the United States or cultural or educational institutions within it; and
(2) the President has determined, with notice in the Federal Register, that such work is culturally significant and its temporary exhibition or display is in the national interest.
(Thus grants jurisdictional immunity to the foreign state and associated carrier for such works.) Denies application of this prohibition to cases in which:
(1) the civil action filed is based upon a claim that the work was taken in Europe in violation of international law by the Nazi government of Germany or governments occupied, assisted, or allied by the Nazi government between January 30, 1933, and May 8, 1945;
(2) the court determines that the activity associated with the exhibition or display is commercial; and
(3) that determination is necessary for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the foreign state.

House Republican Conference Summary

The summary below was written by the House Republican Conference, which is the caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives.

This summary can be found at http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr4086.

Background

According to the House Committee on the Judiciary, the Immunity From Seizure Act (IFSA) provides the President with authority to grant a work of art or other object of cultural significance immunity from seizure by U.S. courts whenever he determines that its temporary exhibition or display is within the national interest of the United States.  The intent of the IFSA is to encourage the cultural and educational exchange of artwork and other culturally significant objects which, in absence of the legislation, would not be made available for cultural exchange.  In enacting IFSA, Congress recognized that cultural exchange can produce substantial benefits to the United States, both artistically and diplomatically.  

However, for artwork and cultural objects owned by foreign governments, the intent of IFSA is being frustrated by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).  A provision of FSIA opens foreign governments up to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts if foreign government owned artwork is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity and there is a claim that the artwork was taken in violation of international law.   Courts have determined that the display or exhibition of the artwork can be “in connection with commercial activity” even if the display or exhibition is done by a non-profit entity.

According to the American Association of Museum Directors, this has led, in many instances, to foreign governments declining to import artwork and cultural objects into the United States for temporary exhibition or display.  Thus future cultural exchanges of may be seriously curtailed by foreign lenders’ unwillingness to permit their works of art and cultural objects to travel to the United States.  In order to keep the exchange of foreign government-owned art flowing, Congress needs to clarify the relationship between IFSA and the FSIA.

Summary

H.R. 4086 would amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to restore the protections that the Immunity From Seizure Act (IFSA) was intended to provide.  This bill would clarify that foreign government lenders will once again be assured that if they are granted immunity from seizure under IFSA, the loan of artwork or other objects of cultural significance for temporary non-profit exhibition or display in the United States will not open them up to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

Cost

There is no CBO cost estimate available for this bill.

House Democratic Caucus Summary

The House Democratic Caucus does not provide summaries of bills.

So, yes, we display the House Republican Conference’s summaries when available even if we do not have a Democratic summary available. That’s because we feel it is better to give you as much information as possible, even if we cannot provide every viewpoint.

We’ll be looking for a source of summaries from the other side in the meanwhile.

The bill contains the following citations to other parts of U.S. law:

Slip Laws

Slip laws refer to enacted bills and joint resolutions in their original form as enacted by Congress, that is, before other laws amend them. Slip laws are cited as “Public Law XXX-YYY”, where XXX is the number of the Congress in which the bill or resolution was introduced.

United States Code

The United States Code is the compilation of permanent laws enacted by Congress. Temporary and other non-permanent laws do not appear in the United States Code. (About half of the United States Code is the law itself, called positive law. The other half is merely a compilation of the laws but has no legal significance.)

Other Citations

  • 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97