Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 113 (Tuesday, September 10, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 113 (Tuesday, September 10, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6133-H6137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3210, TERRORISM RISK PROTECTION
ACT

Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees
on the bill (H.R. 3210) to ensure the continued financial capacity of
insurers to provide coverage for risks from terrorism.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Fossella moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3210 be
instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section 11
of the Senate amendment, relating to satisfaction of
judgments from frozen assets of terrorists, terrorist
organizations, and state sponsors of terrorism.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XXII, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

General Leave

Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3210.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, as we all know, tomorrow marks the first anniversary
of the greatest attack on the soil of the United States of America. In
that attack, both at the Pentagon in Virginia, in Pennsylvania, and in
downtown Manhattan, the Nation lost thousands of innocent human lives.
Since then I think our Nation has been on full alert and in the field
combating the war on terrorism, seeking out those evil ones who
committed those dastardly acts, so we can ensure that we can keep the
peace for future generations. But at the same time, we need to get at
the heart of these terrorist organizations in those states that sponsor
terrorism.

[[Page H6134]]

Believe it or not, if an American citizen seeks a judgment in a court
of law and is successful against some of these terrorist organizations
or states that sponsor terrorism, and assets are frozen by the United
States Government, some of those victims who are successful in a court
of law may not and indeed are not recovering those assets.
It is a little ironic that American citizens can sue their neighbor
for a mild act, obtain a judgment and recover, and yet we cannot sue a
terrorist organization that killed people, and in this case thousands,
and not recover unless the Federal Government on a petition or a case-
by-case basis determines that those successful plaintiffs should
recover. This motion to instruct will attempt to right that wrong.
Under current law, Americans who have been victimized by terrorist
and state-subsidized terrorism and are eligible to enforce court
judgments against the assets of a terrorist state have had to wait
until Congress acts before they can receive their awarded funds. Some
victims have gotten compensated, and many have not. As I mentioned
today, thousands of Americans and their families are considering and
have joined the class action lawsuit aimed at recovering and
undermining the ability of these groups to perpetuate their acts of
evil.
American victims of international terrorism will all have equal
access to the courts and to block assets of terrorists, terrorist
organizations, and state sponsors of terror as a small but important
token of justice. We impose immediate financial costs on terrorists and
states that sponsor terrorism, freezing assets for 20 years or 25 years
or 30 years or even 5 years, and then giving them back to the terrorist
state does not impose such costs, and that seems to be the policy
today, dangling this carrot before these evildoers as if they are going
to stop their evil ways.
At present, terrorism is a cheap way to pursue war against Americans.
Unless America finds ways to make it more costly, terrorists and those
states that sponsor terrorism have no economic incentive to stop. By
imposing a direct and immediate cost, this provision represents one
effective financial tool, one of many, against terrorists and those who
help them, and this will seek to help the victims.
Finally, terrorist-sponsored states will no longer be able to use
their diplomatic and intelligence agencies to support terrorists with
financial impunity. In other words, hiding behind this veil of
diplomatic or intelligence immunity, something that is too often abused
and flies in the face of justice.
Terrorism-sponsoring states use those wholly owned and controlled
agencies and instrumentalities to raise, to launder, and to distribute
funds to terrorist cells, sometimes even in the United States of
America. Ironically, these agencies and instrumentalities can claim
foreign sovereign immunity against victims in U.S. courts because of
their relationship with the terrorist-sponsoring states.
By exposing these agencies and instrumentalities to liability, the
U.S. further increases the cost of sponsoring terrorism, and goes after
the sources of funding for these organizations and cells.
Madam Speaker, tragically and regrettably, I lost a lot of friends
and a lot of neighbors; and America lost a lot of friends and a lot of
neighbors and brothers and sisters, more than 200 people from Staten
Island and almost another 100 from the Brooklyn portion of my district.
Those families right now are suffering the shock of it, the shock of
losing a father or a mother or a sister or brother or uncle or aunt,
and tomorrow marks the anniversary.
The notion that while brave men and women are fighting the war
overseas in seeking out these terrorists and those who help them and
harbor them and finance them because they are thinking of doing it
again, the notion that this government, our government, could prevent
my neighbors and friends one day, if successful in a court of law in
obtaining judgment, to be unable to recover assets of a terrorist
organization or a state that sponsors terrorism to me is the most
unjust thing in this Nation.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this motion to instruct,
to be compatible with the other body and bring justice to these
families, these victims of terrorism.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella)
for bringing this motion to instruct forward and pursuing a very good
idea. I see that the gentleman has a number of speakers, so I am going
to reserve my comments until some of his speakers can proceed.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cannon), a man who deserves much, if not all, of the credit
for bringing this to the floor today.
Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Fossella) for moving this issue today and giving me an opportunity to
speak.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees
on H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, which provides for
continued availability of insurance against terrorism risks and
addresses multiple insurance and liability issues arising from the
September 11 attacks.
The Senate passed a similar version overwhelmingly supported by the
House, and this motion will allow the House to show its support for the
issue with a vote to instruct conferees. I would like to talk
particularly about what I think is one of the most important issues in
that bill which fell within the Committee on the Judiciary's
jurisdiction.
Under current law, Americans who have been victimized by state-
subsidized terrorism and are eligible to enforce court judgments
against the assets of a terrorist state have had to wait for Congress
to act before they could collect their awarded funds. Some victims have
gotten compensated. However, most have not.
Under the Fossella-Cannon language in section 15(e) of the Terrorism
Risk Protection Act passed by the House, American victims of
international terrorism will have equal access to the courts and to
blocked assets of terrorists, terrorist organizations, and state
sponsors of terror as a small but important token of justice.
This language imposes immediate financial costs on the states that
sponsor terrorism. Freezing assets for 20 years and then giving them
back to the terrorist states does not impose such costs. At present,
terrorism is a cheap way to pursue war against Americans. Unless the
U.S. finds ways to make it more costly, terrorists and states which
sponsor terrorism have less economic incentive to stop. By imposing a
direct and immediate cost, this language represents one effective
financial tool against terrorists and also helps their victims.
After the Senate pulled the language from their version of the
Terrorism Risk Protection Act, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Fossella) and I introduced a stand-alone bill to ensure a solution to
this problem. However, language identical to the bill introduced by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and me was added to the Senate
bill on the floor by a vote of 81-3. With this provision now included
in both the Senate and the House version of the Terrorism Risk
Protection Act, there is no reason why we should not be able to
preserve the express will of both houses in conference by maintaining
this language.
Madam Speaker, there are many people who would benefit from this, and
with recent attacks on the World Trade Center, there are many from the
district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) which this
legislation would directly affect.

{time} 1030

Others affected by it include people like Terry Anderson and other
former hostages held by Hezbollah who successfully sued and won
judgments against Iran but have not been able to collect from the
seized assets. The provision in this bill today will allow access to
the frozen assets of terrorists, terrorist organizations and terrorist-
sponsored states, and American victims of international terrorism who
obtain judgments against those terrorists.
I would like to once again thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman

[[Page H6135]]

Oxley); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner); my
colleague and friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella); and
my colleague and friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt),
for their efforts on this issue.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees.
Allowing victims to go directly after the frozen assets of terrorists
and their sponsors will help us to allow our Nation and economy to go
forward.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, again I would like to thank the
gentleman from Utah for his leadership.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Grucci).
Mr. GRUCCI. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt), for their leadership on this. I would like to thank our
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for his guidance and
leadership on the Committee on Financial Services for bringing many
pieces of legislation to reality that will help us to not only track
the assets, to track the money of terrorists, but now, with this piece
of legislation, hopefully we will be able to access that for the
victims.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3210, in an
attempt to locate the assets, to seize the assets, and to deliver them
back to the victims of terrorists, terrorist nations, et cetera.
Tomorrow we will stand around and we will be in solemn prayer in some
places, we will be at services at other places, and remember the tragic
attacks on America of almost a year ago. Many of us have borne the pain
of seeing families torn apart by this terrible, terrible tragedy. I
myself have had over 70 families in my district torn apart. Two of them
I knew personally.
It is a terrible ordeal for the families, not only to lose the ones
they love, but then to face the uncertainty of what is going to happen
to them economically. Their financial needs have all been torn apart.
Their communities are reaching out to them, but they still do not have
the strength of knowing what they have to go forward with.
Hopefully, if we can get this legislation moving forward, if we can
move this piece of legislation forward, hopefully we can bring some
peace to their minds, knowing that they will have access to not only
the love and the compassion that has been contributed from Americans,
but also they will be able to punish the terrorists even more by
seizing their assets, seizing their money, which in turn will slow down
their operations.
Madam Speaker, I could not be more in support of this legislation.
Once again, I thank my colleagues for their leadership on this.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, one
who has been leading this effort, both before and after September 11,
in tracking down the assets of terrorists and states that sponsor
terrorism.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, let me first recognize the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt) for their leadership on this very, very important issue.
The whole concept of taking terrorist assets that have been seized
and compensating victims seems so elemental to our system of justice
that it has clearly been one that has been incorporated in this
legislation, both in the House and in the Senate; and I would say
without the leadership of these two gentlemen, we would not be here
today.
As we know, the House passed our version of the terrorism insurance
legislation back last year. The Senate finally moved in June. We just
appointed conferees right before the August recess. We are ready to go
to work on this side.
I will say I have had some discussions with participants from the
other body. They seem ready and prepared to move forward. There is no
reason why we cannot get this legislation, this conference committee
work, completed and on the President's desk as quickly as possible, I
would hope certainly by the end of September. That is not an
unrealistic possibility.
I just saw a study the other day that the amount of construction
sites that are standing idle and the amount of money in those
construction sites now is over $10.5 billion. That is an awful lot of
jobs that we are losing as a result of this. Somebody once predicted
without terrorism insurance we could have a loss of 1 percent of our
Gross Domestic Product off the growth numbers. That is an awful lot of
jobs, an awful lot of economic activity.
So, Madam Speaker, let us dedicate ourselves today to first passing
this excellent motion to instruct conferees. I want to assure both
gentlemen that my main task over the next few weeks will be to bring
this conference report to the floor of the House and get it signed by
the President.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who again has been at the forefront and working
closely with all of us to bring the terrorists to their heels.
Mr. BAKER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and wish to express my appreciation to both the gentleman from New York
and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) for their leadership on
this important issue.
Madam Speaker, in this country when we find someone engaged in the
sale of drugs to minors, we think it is such a terrible offense that we
not only give them jail time when convicted, we seize all their assets.
We take the car from which the material was hauled; we take anything we
can find related to that activity.
How more appropriate when some state-sponsored activity takes the
life of or tortures innocent individuals for no apparent reason, that
we should go after not only those who commit the acts of terror, those
who engage in it, but their assets as well?
The United States Government has seized millions of dollars of assets
that could be made available to the victims of these heinous acts, but
the Congress must act.
So I commend these individuals for taking the leadership in bringing
forth this motion to instruct, which will, in some small way, bring
relief to those who have been gravely harmed, and, more importantly,
send a very strong message to those who engage in acts of terror: when
you engage in these acts, there will be a very high price to pay. Money
is not enough. We need more.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to express my thanks again to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fossella), to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Grucci), to the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Baker), and to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), all of whom have
viewed this issue as being important enough to come and support this
motion to instruct conferees.
I am personally not a big proponent of motions to instruct conferees,
because our experience has shown that when we instruct the conferees,
they seldom pay much attention to what we are instructing them to do
anyway. They kind of have minds of their own. But this seems to me to
be one of those situations where there is a growing sense of unanimity
that this is a good idea; and I want to thank my friend, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fossella), for picking up the idea and running with
it.
Let me kind of trace the history of how we got here so that my
colleagues will understand it. There have been several kinds of odd
references to me as one of the moving forces in this. My colleagues
should know that this was an idea that I originated in a very crude
amendment which I offered to the terrorism bill when it was being
considered a year or so ago in the Committee on Financial Services.
I had two objectives in offering the crudely drawn, quickly drawn
amendment to that bill. One of those was the obvious kind of
frustration and feeling of helplessness that all of us had in the
aftermath of the events of September 11 and the feeling that, as the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) said, this was a pretty elementary
notion, that if the Federal Government was going to freeze assets of
terrorists

[[Page H6136]]

and terrorist groups, that it should not necessarily be the Federal
Government that benefited from freezing those assets, but that those
assets ultimately should be available to the individuals whose lives
had been taken, the families of those individuals and the individuals
who had been injured by acts of terrorism.
So the first reason that I had was just a sense of frustration and
wanting to do something in response to the acts of September 11 and to
other acts of terrorism.
The second rationale I had, really I have to reveal to my colleagues
in honesty, was kind of to make a point, because when we were debating
the terrorism reinsurance bill, one of the issues that came up in the
committee was whether we would do some kind of tort reform in the
context of the terrorism reinsurance bill.
I was frustrated by the notion that my colleagues would take a
terrorism reinsurance bill and inject a highly political issue of tort
reform in that bill, and I wanted to try to demonstrate to my
colleagues how unreasonable I thought this whole concept of tort reform
was. I thought the best way to do that was to point out to them that if
they did tort reform, they would be capping as part of that tort reform
the recoveries that individual citizens could obtain for acts of
terrorism.
I could not imagine that my colleagues would want to put an arbitrary
cap of $250,000 in punitive damages, or any kind of arbitrary cap, on
the recovery by the family of a constituent of mine who had been killed
in the violence on the U.S.S. Cole. My constituent, Lakeina Francis,
who had lost her life, her family was there in North Carolina, and my
colleagues were playing politics with this bill. I thought that one of
the ways I could illustrate to them that what they were doing was
unreasonable was to offer this amendment in the context of that
terrorism reinsurance bill, and I did.
Of course, as I thought, it did put my colleagues who were supporting
tort reform in a pretty tough position. They finally started to
understand that these arbitrary caps that they were talking about in
this bill did not make sense when somebody gets blown up, or when
somebody gets injured by extreme negligence of another party. My
colleagues thought this was a good idea, and they adopted this
amendment in the terrorism reinsurance bill. They adopted my amendment
to the bill.
Well, I conceded at the outset that this was a crude effort, an
effort that started to build steam right there in the committee. After
the committee markup and the passage of the House terrorism reinsurance
bill, I am happy to say that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella)
and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) picked up on this idea and
introduced a free-standing bill that was much, much better than the
crude language that I had offered in the committee; and when the bill
was considered in the Senate, the Senators put the language in the bill
which was much better than I had introduced in the Committee on
Financial Services and much better even than the free-standing bill
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cannon) introduced, which is why we are here with the motion
to instruct conferees, to leave the provision in the bill.

{time} 1045

That is how we got here. This is a great idea. Not because I started
with the idea but just because of what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley) said, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, this
is so elemental. Why would we freeze the assets of a terrorist group, a
terrorist country, terrorist, and not make those assets available to
satisfy a judgment that an individual who has been injured or the
family of an individual who has been killed in a terrorist attack, why
would we freeze the assets if we were not doing it for this honorable
purpose?
So I just think this is something whose time has come. I do not think
it is going to be controversial. The U.S. Treasury has blocked over $3
billion from organizations or countries designated as terrorists or
state sponsors of terrorism. Blocking this money may cripple these
organizations and these terrorist states, but it does little to assist
the victims of their terrorist acts unless we put this provision in the
bill. The bill allows Americans who have suffered as a result of
terrorist acts to receive compensation from these blocked assets.
Compensating victims will not end terrorism as we know it, but it does
raise the price, and it sends a message to terrorist organizations and
the states that sponsor them, we will not stand for the murder of
innocent Americans. Those who target Americans will be punished and not
only will you be punished criminally, you will be punished financially
as a result of this language. Using terrorists' assets to compensate
victims punishes terrorists and deters future acts of violence,
hopefully; maybe, may not, but whether it does or does not, we want
them to pay for what they have done. Terrorist states and organizations
should not go unpunished for murdering innocent Americans.
Just this past summer, five Americans were murdered in the cafeteria
at Hebrew University, and the organization that claims responsibility
for that has funds blocked by the U.S. Treasury. Those people ought to
have access to those funds and be able to get to them.
The gentleman from New York's bill is fair. It gives all American
victims of terrorism an opportunity to receive compensation from
terrorist assets, and I urge my colleagues to retain this important
provision in the final version of the terrorism insurance bill. By
doing so, we demonstrate our commitment to the victim of terrorist acts
and show our resolve to punish those states and organizations that
sponsor terrorism. This language holds terrorists accountable for their
crimes against Americans. It is a great idea. I applaud the gentleman
from New York and all of the people who picked it up and ran with it.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
At the outset, let me really thank the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Watt). We really would not be here but for his efforts, his ideas,
his support, and his leadership. And the victims of terrorism owe
thanks to the gentleman from North Carolina as well as the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Grucci), and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), who
really brought us here today.
And underscore what we have all said, and I am not going to repeat
it, but every day and especially tomorrow, September 11, 2002, we honor
the heroes and the victims who perished last year, our fellow American
citizens, those who just want an ordinary way of life, a peaceful life,
who sought to raise a family in this great Nation, who sought to do a
job and do it right, and those valiant heroes from EMS and the police
department and the port authority and especially the firefighters, 78
of whom were from Staten Island alone, and names like Egan and Olsen
and Curatola and Esposito and Siller and Leahy and Doyle, and
tragically thousands of others. They are names, yes, but they are
families. They have left behind children, they have left behind wives,
husbands, parents, and grandparents, and what they were seeking is all
what I think we are all about, the right to live in freedom with
liberty and in peace, and that was robbed from them. That was robbed
from them. It was robbed from their families. And, yes, we are a
stronger and better country, and we are fortunate to have brave men and
women to wear the uniform to go get those people, wherever they may be
across the globe, with the commander in chief, President Bush, leading
the way.
But at the same time, I think it is unbelievable that these families
down the road, in the event that they will obtain a judgment, would
have to come back to Congress or to their own government to petition
against a terrorist organization or a state that sponsors terrorism to
recover some of those assets.
We should not be here next year or 10 years from now debating this.
We should end the subject right now, put it to a close, and bring
justice to those victims who suffer today and will be suffering for a
long time. But at least this Congress is speaking with one

[[Page H6137]]

voice and saying that we are going to right that wrong and provide
equity for all.
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion
offered by the gentleman from New York and the gentlemen from North
Carolina.
Now and then, a proposal comes before Congress that makes such good
sense, it's a wonder no one though of it sooner. We have just such a
proposal before us today.
Under Section 11 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, Americans who
are victims of cowardly terrorist acts will get the justice they
deserve--not just an IOU.
Allowing victims to enforce judgments against terrorists and state
sponsors of terrorism will serve two vital purposes. First, it will
compensate the victims of terrorism and their families. These brave men
and women have suffered unimaginable losses, and they shouldn't have to
worry about whether the State Department will release frozen terrorist
assets in the event they prevail in a lawsuit and be awarded funds.
Second, this provision will cut financing for terrorism off at the
knees. The assets of terrorist states shouldn't simply be frozen--they
should be seized. That's what we're doing here today.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Mike Oxley for his
commitment to this legislation, and urge all of my colleagues to vote
for this common-sense motion to instruct.
Mr. FOSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________