[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 176 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7710-S7711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kyl, 
        Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 1894. A bill to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, and 
for other purposes, to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Justice 
Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. JASTA is a bipartisan 
effort to make modest changes to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 
or FSIA, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, or ATA, in order to ensure that 
the victims of terrorism in the United States can hold the foreign 
sponsors of that terrorism to account in American courts.
  I am especially proud to be introducing this measure with such a 
bipartisan and diverse group of Judiciary Committee colleagues: Myself 
and Senator Whitehouse on the Democratic side, and Senators Graham, 
Hatch, Kyl, and Cornyn on the Republican side.
  This legislation has become necessary due to flawed court decisions 
that have deprived the victims of terrorism on American soil, including 
those injured by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, of their 
day in court. Unfortunately, and contrary to the clear intent of 
Congress, some courts have concluded that Americans who were injured 
due to terrorist attacks in the United States have no recourse against 
the foreign states that sponsor those attacks. This conclusion is 
contrary to the plain language of the FSIA and ATA, and it is bad 
policy.
  Let me explain the legal background. Originally passed in 1976, the 
FSIA abrogates the sovereign immunity of foreign countries and permits 
suit against them in Federal court when, among other things, a foreign 
country or its instrumentalities commit a tort that results in injury 
on our soil, this is known as the ``tort exception'' to the FSIA. In 
addition, the ATA authorizes suit in Federal court by any U.S. national 
injured ``by reason of an act of international terrorism'' and permits 
the recovery of damages in U.S. courts.
  Thus, taken together, the FSIA and ATA were designed to enable 
terrorism victims to bring suit against foreign states and terror 
sponsors when they support terrorism against the United States. I am 
introducing this bill because I want the survivors of the 9/11 tragedy 
to have their day in court--and they were deprived of this by a court 
ruling that contorted the language and purpose of the FSIA and the ATA. 
As we all know, nearly 3,000 innocent victims died that day, and the 
Nation suffered $10 billion in property and other commercial damage 
alone--all at the hands of al-Qaeda and its funders.
  In 2002, these plaintiffs sued, among other defendants, the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia, several Saudi officials, and a purported charity under 
the control of the Kingdom known as the Saudi High Commission for 
Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Substantial evidence establishes that 
these defendants had provided funding and sponsorship to al-Qaeda 
without which it could not have carried out the attacks.
  But the Second Circuit threw out this case, based on two flawed 
conclusions. First, the court ruled that the tort exception to the FSIA 
did not apply, and barred their case because the Saudi entities and 
individuals were not on the State Department's list. Second, the court 
ruled that there was no personal jurisdiction over the Saudis because 
while they certainly could ``foresee'' that their support would lead to 
terrorist acts, they did not ``direct'' the terrorist acts. There is 
another reason that I am introducing this bill. I am introducing this 
bill because we need to cut off the flow of money to terrorists by 
shutting down the reservoir--not just turning off the faucet. We need 
to use every tool at our disposal to hit terrorism at its very root, 
including the United States Federal courts.
  You don't have to take my word for it. This focus on terrorist 
financing channels has been a major national security priority since 
the September 11 attacks. As the Treasury Department's former Under 
Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has observed, ``the 
terrorist operative who is willing to strap on a suicide belt is not 
susceptible to deterrence, but the individual donor who wants to 
support violent jihad may well be,'' Testimony of Stuart Levey, Under 
Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, before the Senate 
Committee on Finance, April 1, 2008.
  It should be clear that the public interest is served when American 
citizens have the right to seek compensation for their injuries and 
that this right serves a dual purpose of deterring bad conduct. Yet we 
are here today introducing this bill, JASTA, because the courts have 
misconstrued our statutes.
  Before closing, let me address one concern I have heard that deserves 
a response. There are those who worry that restoring Americans' right 
to bring these suits will interfere with our foreign affairs. I simply 
do not think that is the case. First of all, if Americans have been 
injured in the United States by foreign terrorism, they have the right 
to seek redress. But it is also important to remember that this law 
does not prevent the Executive Branch from espousing claims brought by 
Americans against foreign states and settling them through an executive 
agreement. This is an executive authority that has been recognized and 
utilized going back to the administration of George Washington, and 
nothing in JASTA interferes with it. Nothing in this act would 
interfere with the execution of our foreign policy.
  To conclude, JASTA will restore the rights of the victims of 
terrorism and deter international terrorist financing, and it will have 
the related benefit of enabling the victims of the September 11 Attacks 
to proceed with their case, as Congress had intended. It does so 
without in any way threatening sensitive National security or 
diplomatic priorities of the nation. In fact, it makes the Nation 
stronger.

[[Page S7711]]

  I urge my colleagues to support these modest, but critical, 
amendments.
                                 ______