[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 152 (Thursday, November 12, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4328, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL P. FORBES

                              of new york

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                       HON. ERNEST J. ISTOOK, JR.

                              of oklahoma

                          HON. ANNE M. NORTHUP

                              of kentucky

                        HON. ROBERT B. ADERHOLT

                               of alabama

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 12, 1998

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Istook, Ms. 
Northup, Mr. Aderholt and I, as members of the House Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, 
strongly support Section 117 of the Treasury Appropriations Conference 
Report, now part of the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which was 
passed by the House of Representatives on October 20, 1998 and signed 
into law shortly thereafter. Section 117 expands existing law to allow 
American victims of terrorism, who have been granted judgements against 
terrorists states, to attach the assets of those terrorist states that 
are located here in the U.S. It then requires the Secretary of State 
and Secretary of Treasury to assist victims of terrorism in locating 
assets of terrorist states here in the United States.
  This provision was made necessary because of the Administration's 
repeated efforts in Federal Court to block terrorism victims from 
attaching assets of terrorist states to help satisfy judgments they had 
received by such courts. This misguided policy has sent exactly the 
wrong message to terrorist states by telling them that, in the event 
they are found liable for killing Americans, the U.S. government will 
spare no effort to prevent the seizure of their assets.
  In 1996 Congress passed and the President signed the ``Anti-Terrorism 
and Effective Death Penalty'' Act (P.L. No: 104-132). This Act allowed 
victims of state-sponsored terrorism to sue foreign governments in 
Federal Court for damages arising from acts of terrorism. In 1997, an 
amendment to the Committee Report for the Omnibus Consolidated 
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1997 (Comm. Rept. 104-863) allowed 
victims of state-sponsored terrorism to recover punitive damages from 
states that sponsor terrorism. In enacting these two laws, Congress 
surely foresaw that victims would prevail in Court, and would 
thereafter seek to attach and execute terrorist-state assets. However, 
what was not foreseen was that the Administration would seek to block 
such attachments by arguing that such attachments violated 
international agreements. As a result, it was necessary to once again 
revisit this issue, and create Section 117.
  Section 117 has a Presidential waiver, inserted only at the 
insistence of the Administration, which allows the President to issue a 
waiver over the ``requirements'' of the section in the interest of 
``national security.'' The intent of this waiver was to allow the 
President, only in limited circumstances, to waive the requirement that 
the Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury, under Subsection 
(f)(2)(A), cooperate with victims in locating terrorist assets. It was 
never intended to allow the President to waive Subsection (f)(1)(A), 
the change in the law which allows victims to attach such assets they 
are able to find on their own. Unfortunately, shortly after signing the 
Omnibus Appropriations Bill, the President issued a blanket waiver, in 
which he invoked a national security waiver over the application of 
both Subsection (f)(1)(A) and Subsection (f)(2)(A).
  It should be clear that the waiver provision of Section 117 only 
applies to Subsection (f)(2)(A). This reading of legislative intent is 
crucial in order to allow the victims of Pan Am 103, the families of 
the Brothers to the Rescue, the Cicippio and Jacobsen families and the 
Flatows, to go forward with their respective cases. The Court should 
not permit the expansive reading of Section 117 the President is 
attempting to invoke. Nor should the Court mistake the intent of 
Congress in allowing this waiver to be inserted.
  It is clear to us that, at no time, did Congress intend to give the 
President the absolute veto power he would have over the application of 
Section 117 should his expansive interpretation hold.
  The intent of Congress is clear. We will not tolerate the murder of 
our citizens in acts of state sponsored terrorism without a serious 
price to pay. The President has clearly exceeded his authority in 
exercising a blanket waiver over the application of Section 117, which 
would affect the victims' attempts to attach not only diplomatic assets 
of terrorist states, but commercial assets as well. It is our view that 
the Court should firmly and swiftly reject the President's 
interpretation of legislative intent and permit the victims to go 
forward in attaching and executing all property of terrorist nations 
they are able to locate.

                          ____________________