In this task, you are given text for US Congressional and California state bills, your task is to generate a summary for this bill.

Let me give you an example: SECTION 1. LIABILITY OF BUSINESS ENTITIES PROVIDING USE OF FACILITIES 
 TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

 (a) Definitions.--In this section:
 (1) Business entity.--The term ``business entity'' means a 
 firm, corporation, association, partnership, consortium, joint 
 venture, or other form of enterprise.
 (2) Facility.--The term ``facility'' means any real 
 property, including any building, improvement, or appurtenance.
 (3) Gross negligence.--The term ``gross negligence'' means 
 voluntary and conscious conduct by a person with knowledge (at 
 the time of the conduct) that the conduct is likely to be 
 harmful to the health or well-being of another person.
 (4) Intentional misconduct.--The term ``intentional 
 misconduct'' means conduct by a person with knowledge (at the 
 time of the conduct) that the conduct is harmful to the health 
 or well-being of another person.
 (5) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit 
 organization'' means--
 (A) any organization described in section 501(c)(3) 
 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from 
 tax under section 501(a) of such Code; or
 (B) any not-for-profit organization organized and 
 conducted for public benefit and operated primarily for 
 charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or 
 health purposes.
 (6) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
 Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern 
 Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the 
 United States, or any political subdivision of any such State, 
 territory, or possession.
 (b) Limitation on Liability.--
 (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business 
 entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to any 
 injury or death occurring at a facility of the business entity 
 in connection with a use of such facility by a nonprofit 
 organization if--
 (A) the use occurs outside of the scope of business 
 of the business entity;
 (B) such injury or death occurs during a period 
 that such facility is used by the nonprofit 
 organization; and
 (C) the business entity authorized the use of such 
 facility by the nonprofit organization.
 (2) Application.--This subsection shall apply--
 (A) with respect to civil liability under Federal 
 and State law; and
 (B) regardless of whether a nonprofit organization 
 pays for the use of a facility.
 (c) Exception for Liability.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to an 
injury or death that results from an act or omission of a business 
entity that constitutes gross negligence or intentional misconduct, 
including any misconduct that--
 (1) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is 
 defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act 
 of international terrorism (as that term is defined in section 
 2331 of title 18) for which the defendant has been convicted in 
 any court;
 (2) constitutes a hate crime (as that term is used in the 
 Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note));
 (3) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable 
 State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any 
 court; or
 (4) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been 
 found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law.
 (d) Superseding Provision.--
 (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection 
 (e), this Act preempts the laws of any State to the extent that 
 such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except that this Act 
 shall not preempt any State law that provides additional 
 protection from liability for a business entity for an injury 
 or death with respect to which conditions under subparagraphs 
 (A) through (C) of subsection (b)(1) apply.
 (2) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
 supersede any Federal or State health or safety law.
 (e) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This Act shall 
not apply to any civil action in a State court against a business 
entity in which all parties are citizens of the State if such State 
enacts a statute--
 (1) citing the authority of this subsection;
 (2) declaring the election of such State that this Act 
 shall not apply to such civil action in the State; and
 (3) containing no other provision.
The answer to this example can be: Shields a business entity from civil liability relating to any injury or death occurring at a facility of that entity in connection with a use of such facility by a nonprofit organization if: (1) the use occurs outside the scope of business of the business entity; (2) such injury or death occurs during a period that such facility is used by such organization; and (3) the business entity authorized the use of such facility by the organization. 
Makes this Act inapplicable to an injury or death that results from an act or omission of a business entity that constitutes gross negligence or intentional misconduct, including misconduct that: (1) constitutes a hate crime or a crime of violence or act of international terrorism for which the defendant has been convicted in any court; or (2) involves a sexual offense for which the defendant has been convicted in any court or misconduct for which the defendant has been found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law. 
Preempts State laws to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except State law that provides additional protection from liability. Specifies that this Act shall not be construed to supersede any Federal or State health or safety law. 
Makes this Act inapplicable to any civil action in a State court against a business entity in which all parties are citizens of the State if such State, citing this Act's authority and containing no other provision, enacts a statute declaring the State's election that this Act shall not apply to such action in the State.
Here is why: This Bill focuses on shielding business entities from civil liability relating to an injury or death depending on the conditions of injury, hence the generated summary is correct.

OK. solve this:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State-Owned Entity Transparency and 
Accountability Reform Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) As Congress expressed when it enacted the Foreign 
        Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-583; 90 Stat. 
        2891), under international law, foreign states are immune from 
        the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the 
        States, subject to certain exceptions. One of these exceptions, 
        the ``commercial activity'' exception, generally subjects 
        foreign states to the jurisdiction of courts of the United 
        States in actions relating to a foreign state's commercial 
        activities.
            (2) As the Supreme Court observed 7 years after Congress 
        enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 
        ``increasingly . . . governments throughout the world have 
        established separately constituted legal entities to perform a 
        variety of tasks''. First National City Bank v. Banco Para El 
        Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983) (referred to in 
        this section as ``Bancec''). These state instrumentalities are 
        ``typically established as . . . separate juridical entit[ies], 
        with powers to hold and sell property and to sue and be sued''. 
        Run by states as ``distinct economic enterpris[es]'', they 
        operate ``on an enterprise basis'' while enjoying ``a greater 
        degree of flexibility and independence from close political 
        control than is generally enjoyed by government agencies. These 
        same features frequently prompt governments in developing 
        countries to establish separate juridical entities as the 
        vehicles through which to obtain the financial resources needed 
        to make large-scale national investments''.
            (3) Because government instrumentalities ``established as 
        juridical entities distinct and independent from their 
        sovereign should normally be treated as such'', courts have 
        accorded them ``a presumption of independent status'' for 
        purposes of assessing jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign 
        Immunities Act of 1976.
            (4) However, the Supreme Court explained in Bancec that 
        courts have ``consistently refused to give effect to the 
        corporate form where it is interposed to defeat legislative 
        policies''. As a result, courts will refuse to presume an 
        instrumentality's independence from a foreign state if ``a 
        corporate entity is so extensively controlled by its owner that 
        a relationship of principal and agent is created'' or 
        respecting the corporate form ``would work fraud or 
        injustice''. Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. La Republica de 
        Venezuela, 200 F.3d 843, 848-49 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
            (5) As state instrumentalities have developed over time, 
        their corporate structure has commonly become more complex. In 
        many cases, the structure of state instrumentalities has also 
        become more opaque. At the same time, as a result of 
        globalization, such entities are increasingly involved in 
        commerce and trade involving companies and consumers of the 
        United States. The result is that companies and consumers of 
        the United States seeking to sue a foreign state-owned entity 
        under the ``commercial activity'' exception of the Foreign 
        Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 may struggle to determine 
        which juridical entity--for example, which member or affiliate 
        of an instrumentality--to sue.
            (6) As they have grown larger, more opaque, and more 
        involved in commercial activity with companies and consumers of 
        the United States, state instrumentalities have continued 
        aggressively to assert that they are immune to suit in courts 
        of the United States.
            (7) In some cases, courts also have struggled to determine 
        the correct juridical entity subject to their jurisdiction 
        based on the ``commercial activity'' exception. In others, 
        courts have rejected claims against instrumentalities for 
        failure to show an intra-instrumentality alter ego 
        relationship.
            (8) In light of the sometimes opaque structure of state 
        instrumentalities and their increasing interactions with 
        companies and consumers of the United States, it is necessary 
        to preserve potential claims of people of the United States 
        against such entities based on their commercial activities. 
        Therefore, for purposes of determining jurisdiction under the 
        ``commercial activity'' exception to the Foreign Sovereign 
        Immunities Act of 1976 only, companies and consumers of the 
        United States should not be required to prove an alter ego 
        relationship between members of an instrumentality to establish 
        subject-matter jurisdiction, as follows.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT.

    Section 1603(d) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``A''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) For purposes of section 1605(a)(2), a commercial activity of 
an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state shall be attributable 
to any corporate affiliate of the agency or instrumentality that--
            ``(A) directly or indirectly owns a majority of shares of 
        the agency or instrumentality; and
            ``(B) is also an agency or instrumentality of a foreign 
        state.''.
Answer:
State-Owned Entity Transparency and Accountability Reform Act of 2016 This bill amends the federal judicial code to allow U.S. courts to hear cases against a foreign state's corporate affiliates under the exception to foreign sovereign immunity that subjects a foreign state's commercial activities to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. In determining whether a U.S. court has jurisdiction to hear a case based on the commercial activity of a foreign state, a commercial activity of an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state is attributable to any corporate affiliate of the agency or instrumentality that: (1) directly or indirectly owns a majority of shares of the agency or instrumentality, and (2) is also an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.