[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6936-H6938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM ACT

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3485) to modify the enforcement of certain anti-terrorism 
judgments, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3485

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, 

     SECTION 1. ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN ANTI-TERRORISM JUDGMENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Justice 
     for Victims of Terrorism Act''.
       (b) Definition.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1603(b) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3) by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;
       (C) by striking ``(b)'' through ``entity--'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) An `agency or instrumentality of a foreign state' 
     means--
       ``(1) any entity--''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) for purposes of sections 1605(a)(7) and 1610 (a)(7) 
     and (f), any entity as defined under subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (1), and subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--Section 1391(f)(3) 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``1603(b)'' and inserting ``1603(b)(1)''.
       (c) Enforcement of Judgments.--Section 1610(f) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``(including any agency 
     or instrumentality or such state)'' and inserting 
     ``(including any agency or instrumentality of such state)''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, moneys 
     due from or payable by the United States (including any 
     agency or instrumentality thereof) to any state against which 
     a judgment is pending under section 1605(a)(7) shall be 
     subject to attachment and execution with respect to that 
     judgment, in like manner and to the same extent as if the 
     United States were a private person.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), upon determining on 
     an asset-by-asset basis that a waiver is necessary in the 
     national security interest, the President may waive this 
     subsection in connection with (and prior to the enforcement 
     of) any judicial order directing attachment in aid of 
     execution or execution against any property subject to the 
     Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna 
     Convention on Consular Relations.
       ``(B) A waiver under this paragraph shall not apply to--
       ``(i) if property subject to the Vienna Convention on 
     Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
     Relations has been used for any nondiplomatic purpose 
     (including use as rental property), the proceeds of such use; 
     or
       ``(ii) if any asset subject to the Vienna Convention on 
     Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
     Relations is sold or otherwise transferred for value to a 
     third party, the proceeds of such sale or transfer.
       ``(C) In this paragraph, the term `property subject to the 
     Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna 
     Convention on Consular Relations' and the term `asset subject 
     to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the 
     Vienna Convention on Consular Relations' mean any property or 
     asset, respectively, the attachment in aid of execution or 
     execution of which would result in a violation of an 
     obligation of the United States under the Vienna Convention 
     on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
     Relations, as the case may be.
       ``(4) For purposes of this subsection, all assets of any 
     agency or instrumentality of a foreign state shall be treated 
     as assets of that foreign state.''.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 117(d) of 
     the Treasury Department Appropriations Act, 1999, as enacted 
     by section 101(h) of Public Law 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681-492) 
     is repealed.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any claim for which a foreign state is not 
     immune under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States 
     Code, arising before, on, or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 2. PAYGO ADJUSTMENT.

       The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     not make any estimates of changes in direct spending outlays 
     and receipts under section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(d)) for 
     any fiscal year resulting from the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO IMPROVE LITIGATION PROCEDURES 
                   AND REMOVE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY.

       (a) General Exceptions to Jurisdictional Immunity of 
     Foreign State.--Section 1605 of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) If a foreign state, or its agency or instrumentality, 
     is a party to an action pursuant to subsection (a)(7) and 
     fails to furnish any testimony, document, or other thing upon 
     a duly issued discovery order by the court in the action, 
     such failure shall be deemed an admission of any fact with 
     respect to which the discovery order relates. Nothing in this 
     subsection shall supersede the limitations set forth in 
     subsection (g).''.
       (b) Modification of Limitation on Liability.--Section 
     1605(a)(7)(B)(i) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) the act occurred in the foreign state against which 
     the claim has been brought and the foreign state has not had 
     a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim in a neutral 
     forum outside the foreign state in accordance with accepted 
     international rules of arbitration; or
       (c) Extent of Liability.--Section 1606 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``No Federal or State statutory limits shall apply to the 
     amount of compensatory, actual, or punitive damages permitted 
     to be awarded to persons under section 1605(a)(7) and this 
     section.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any claim for which a foreign state is not 
     immune under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States 
     Code, arising before, on, or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from

[[Page H6937]]

Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3485.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we consider H.R. 3485, the Justice for Victims of 
Terrorism Act legislation introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum). This bill would finally provide justice for the victims of 
State-sponsored terrorism. These victims are entitled to compensation 
out of the frozen assets of the guilty terrorist state once the victim 
obtains a legitimate judgment. Sadly, these victims have been denied 
that justice that they so richly deserve.
  In the 1980s, several Americans were kidnapped in Beirut and held 
hostage in deplorable conditions by agents of the Islamic Republic of 
Iran including Terry Anderson who resides in my home State of Ohio. Mr. 
Anderson, as we all recall, was barbarically held by Iranian terrorists 
for over 7 years.
  In 1995, an American college student was killed in the Gaza strip 
when a terrorist from the Iranian backed Islamic Jihad rammed his car 
loaded with explosives into a bus.
  In February 1996, two Americans studying in Israel were killed in a 
suicide bombing of a bus in Jerusalem. Those responsible were provided 
training, money, and resources by Iran.
  Also in February of 1996, Cuban MiG aircraft shot down two aircraft 
flown by the Brothers to the Rescue organization in international 
airspace over the Florida Straits. Three American citizens were killed 
in that attack.
  After the Brothers to the Rescue incident, President Clinton publicly 
encouraged Congress to pass legislation to provide compensation to the 
families out of Cuba's blocked assets in the U.S.
  In 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act became 
law. That law allowed American citizens injured in an act of terrorism 
or their survivors to bring a private lawsuit against the terrorist 
state responsible for that act.
  All of the victims of terrorism that I have mentioned went to courts 
and received judgments awarding them millions of dollars in damages. 
Each time a judgment has been awarded, the administration has fought to 
block the attachment of the assets of the countries that sponsored 
these terrorist acts to satisfy the awards.
  In 1999, the Congress passed section 117 of the fiscal year 1999 
Treasury Department Appropriations Acts, mandating that the executive 
branch must allow Americans to attach the assets of terrorist states in 
the U.S. in order to collect judgments won in Federal court. At the 
insistence of the administration, that legislation included a provision 
for a Presidential waiver to block the attachment of assets if it was 
in the interest of national security.
  The President determined that the authority granted by section 117 
for the attachment of assets of terrorist states in general would not 
be in the interest of national security and Presidential Determination 
No. 99-1. This determination effectively applied the Presidential 
waiver in section 117 to all judgments attempting to attach terrorist 
state assets.
  In March 1999, a Federal judge upheld a $187 million judgment against 
Cuba for its attack against the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft. In 
that judgment, Federal District Court Judge Lawrence King stated, ``The 
court notes with great concern that the very President who in 1996 
decried this terrorist action by the Government of Cuba now sends the 
Department of Justice to argue before this court that Cuba's blocked 
assets ought not to be used to compensate the families of the U.S. 
nationals murdered by Cuba. The executive branch's approach to this 
situation has become inconsistent at best. It now apparently believes 
that shielding a terrorist foreign state's assets is more important 
than compensating for the loss of American lives.''
  The President's broad use of his waiver power has frustrated the 
legitimate rights of victims of terrorism. That is why H.R. 3485 would 
amend the law to specifically deny blockage of attachment of proceeds 
from any property which has been used for any non-diplomatic purpose or 
of proceeds from any asset which is sold or transferred for value to a 
third party.
  Also, it specifically provides that a judgment against a foreign 
state that sponsors terrorism can be executed against assets of an 
agency or instrumentality of that foreign state even if there is no 
proof of fraud or any proof that the agency or instrumentality has an 
alter ego of the foreign state.
  We bring this bill to the floor today with a manager's amendment. 
This amendment was born from issues brought to the attention of the 
committee and language offered and withdrawn in committee by the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member.
  The compromised language, motivated by the compassion of the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for victims' rights has further 
improved the intent of this legislation, providing a legitimate remedy 
to American citizens harmed by terrorist states.

  The amendment includes compromised language to make it easier for 
victims of state-sponsored terrorism to provide to court after a 
foreign state has had an opportunity to proceed to court after a 
foreign state has had an opportunity to arbitrate the claim.
  The burden on the claimant under current law to allow arbitration by 
the terrorist state prior to a claim going forward under the Foreign 
Sovereign Immunities Act is often very difficult to meet given the fact 
that the foreign state is a known terrorist country where the claimant 
may not be offered the same rights as in other countries.
  The amendment simply requires that the foreign state have a 
reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the case in a neutral forum that is 
outside the foreign state, and removes the burden on the victim to 
provide that opportunity. A provision to clarify that the costs 
estimated for this legislation are not appropriate funds has also been 
included.
  The President has exercised what was intended to be a narrow national 
security waiver too broadly and, as a consequence, those who have 
admitted acts of terror resulting in the death of American citizens are 
effectively going unpunished and Americans are not receiving just 
compensation after favorable court verdicts.
  These families have not only suffered the pain and loss of life 
associated with these terrorist acts, they have suffered the 
abandonment of their government in their pursuit of justice, justice 
that their President said they deserved. This legislation will make 
sure that they finally get it, that they finally get the justice that 
they deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to pass H.R. 3485.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for all of 
his fine work in this matter. I also want to recognize the great work 
of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman McCollum) and the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member, who made this 
very important bill even better and brought it to this point in its 
legislative process.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, I stood in Teaneck, New Jersey at the 
dedication of a monument that I wish was never built, a monument built 
to honor the memory of Sarah Duker, a 22-year-old American citizen from 
my congressional district who was killed in 1996 in a bus bombing 
incident in Jerusalem, a bombing masterminded by Palestinian 
terrorists. At the time of her death, Sarah was a graduate student at 
Barnard College and she was working as a research technician in 
microbiology at the Hebrew University.
  Last September, I also had a meeting with Steven Flatow, a meeting 
that I also wish never had to take place. See, Mr. Flatow's daughter 
Alisa was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist in the Gaza strip in 
1995. Mr. Flatow had come to meet me in Washington to try

[[Page H6938]]

to get justice from those who had killed his daughter. At the time of 
her death, Alisa Flatow was a student at Brandeis University in 
Massachusetts, and she was spending a semester abroad in Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor today to speak in support of 
this bill because I believe that Sarah Duker's mother, Arline; Alisa 
Flatow's family; the families of the victims of the Brothers to the 
Rescue shoot-down; and all Americans who have had family members 
victimized by terrorists abroad, all of these Americans deserve one 
thing, justice.
  See, the sponsors of terrorism, and by that I do not just mean the 
individuals committing the acts, I mean the states sponsoring those 
individuals, they must pay for their crimes. They must first pay a 
diplomatic price for supporting the murder of Americans, and that means 
isolating those states which sponsor terrorism.
  But I also believe that state sponsors of terrorism must pay more 
than just a political price. They must pay literally for their cold-
blooded murders of Americans.
  So it should be the policy of the United States of America to seize 
the U.S.-based nondiplomatic assets of states which are involved in the 
murder of Americans.
  It is critically important that this bill be enacted into law because 
this measure delivers a powerful and essential message to state 
sponsors of terrorism around the world who target American citizens.
  If one conspires in the murder of innocent Americans and tear our 
families apart, the United States of America will demand and receive 
justice. Justice, Mr. Speaker, can wait no longer. Terrorists will 
never win, and state sponsors of terrorism will always pay a price if 
we pass this legislation. They will pay a political and economic price. 
That is not too great a burden to place upon them and their assets for 
the killing of innocent Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3485, the Justice 
for Victims of Terrorism Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor 
of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and rise to speak in 
support of it.
  Terrorism, defined as the systematic use of terror and violence as a 
means of coercion and intimidation, has become a global problem. It 
knows no boundaries--geographical or political. It does not 
discriminate among its victims. The damage it inflicts upon society 
extends far beyond the immediate physical destruction of each attack. 
The emotional and psychological scars are far greater. The question is 
not only how many lives have been lost in each terrorist attack, but 
how many futures were lost in their aftermath.
  In the last 15 years, the United States has experienced in vivid 
terms the effects of terrorism, as our citizens have been targeted over 
and over again--in Beirut, over Lockerbie, in Saudi Arabia, in Israel, 
over international waters, in New York, and in Nairobi and Dar es 
Salaam, where Americans who devoted their lives to building better 
relations between the U.S. and other nations, died in a campaign of 
hatred against this country.
  There is no justification for terrorism, and the United States must 
be committed to finding those who prey on innocent victims and put an 
end to their reign of terror.
  The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act is critical to achieving 
this goal. This bill allows the victims--our constituents--to seek 
justice for the crimes committed against them and their families by 
making their attackers--the terrorists--pay for their crimes.
  The bill before us allows for the execution of judgements and 
recovery of punitive damages from pariah states such as Iran which 
sponsor terrorist groups that kill and maim hundreds of Americans, 
Israelis, and other innocent human beings each year.
  It would punish the Castro regime for shooting down two U.S. 
registered civilian planes over international waters, killing Carlos 
Costa and Mario de la Pena (two U.S.-born citizens in the prime of 
their youth); Armando Alejandre (a decorated Vietnam veteran); and 
Pablo Morales (a U.S. resident who, years before, had escaped Castro's 
island prison in search of freedom in the U.S.)
  Some would argue that terrorism is not about money. Certainly it is 
about life and the right to live free of fear. But, while terrorism 
requires a multifaceted approach, one of the key elements to curtailing 
the proliferation of terrorism and limiting its capabilities, is by 
cutting off the flow and access to financial resources.
  By upholding and enforcing the right of American victims of terrorism 
to sue foreign states, in court, for damages, this bill would have a 
chilling effect on terrorist activities and would help deter future 
aggression against American citizens.
  In the last few months, there have been numerous attempts to trade 
with terrorist states, which would afford them increased financial 
resources and would enable them to, not only continue their reign of 
terror over their own people, but to expand their campaign of violence 
against our allies, our neighbors, and our own U.S. citizens.
  These states have even been down-graded to ``states of concern''--
despite the overwhelming evidence of their support for terrorist 
attacks against Americans.
  In spite of this, I hope my colleagues will listen to their 
conscience. I ask my colleagues to pause for a moment. They will hear 
the cries of anguish and despair of little Alisa Flatow from New 
Jersey, who was killed in a Palestine Islamic Jihad suicide bombing in 
April 1995.
  I ask my colleagues to understand the frustration of Alisa's parents; 
of the relatives of Carlos, Armando, Mario, and Pablo; of the families 
of the servicemen who died during the attack on the Kovar Towers; of 
all the victims' families.
  Let us demonstrate our resolve to the sanctity of human life and 
principles of justice; our commitment to fundamental legal standards; 
and our dedication to the welfare of the American people. Support the 
Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the first duty of our Government is to 
protect American citizens. This bill would help meet that 
responsibility by assisting the victims of terrorism. The Clinton 
administration has been quick to offer words of comfort to the bereaved 
relatives of those who have been killed by international violence. 
Their actions, however, have done little to hold the vile regimes 
responsible for such crimes accountable. It may be hard to believe, but 
the Clinton Justice Department has actively worked to stop terrorism 
victims from receiving just compensation out of the seized assets of 
terrorist states. This administration has thwarted the efforts of 
victims as they tried to collect court-ordered compensation from 
countries like Iran, Libya, and Fidel Castro's evil regime in Cuba. 
Held in even the most favorable light, this policy is unacceptable. It 
is a policy that smacks not only of appeasement, but capitulation to 
perpetrators of international terrorism.
  And of this administration's poor foreign policy decisions, this is 
truly one of the most contemptible and distressing. The President of 
the United States should not be protecting the assets of foreign terror 
states. This bill would stop the Treasury Department from continuing to 
withhold these assets from victims' families.
  The President gave his word to help injured parties collect 
compensation from terrorist states. Now, the foot-dragging of his 
administration requires us to pass legislation that would simply 
fulfill his promises to those victims. We look forward to the day when 
a handshake in the Oval Office is enough to guarantee justice for 
victims of terror. Unfortunately, the President's handshake apparently 
isn't enough. Therefore, we must pass this bill to ensure that terror 
victims don't first have to fight their way past their own government 
before they can receive the compensation owed to them.
  To understand the importance of this proposal, consider the following 
example. In 1996, Fidel Castro gave the order to murder American pilots 
who were searching the Gulf of Mexico for refugees from his repressive 
dictatorship. Four years later, the pilots' families still haven't been 
compensated. This sad reality should spur the House to action. We ought 
to pass this bill and put terrorists on notice.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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. 3485, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________