[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 139 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





               JUSTICE AGAINST SPONSORS OF TERRORISM ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. PETER T. KING

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 9, 2016

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, as the lead sponsor of the House 
companion to this legislation, I would also like to address two 
technical items in the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act that 
deserve clarification.
  The first issue deals with Section 4 of JASTA. Section 4 amends the 
Anti-Terrorism Act to create a cause of action for aiding and abetting 
terrorism. It is a narrowly crafted provision aimed at any ``person,'' 
as defined in section 1 of title 1 of the U.S. Code. After the Senate 
passed JASTA, one commentator speculated that the definition of 
``person'' in this section was too limited and would not permit such a 
cause of action against a foreign government. This would be an 
inaccurate interpretation of the text. Section 3 of JASTA expressly 
authorized jurisdiction for claims made under section 2333 of title 18 
and made clear that such claims would be permitted against foreign 
states in any case in which the new jurisdictional exception of JASTA, 
proposed section 1605B, might apply. This language should be 
interpreted as controlling. This point should be obvious given the 
underlying purpose and structure of JASTA, but I wanted to make it 
emphatically clear here.
  The second item addresses Section 5 of JASTA, the provision 
authorizing a stay of actions in appropriate circumstances. When the 
Senate passed JASTA on May 17, Senator Charles Schumer emphasized that, 
should the government pursue a stay pursuant to this provision, it 
should be prepared to provide substantial evidence of good faith 
negotiations to the court such as details about those involved in the 
discussions and their authority to reach a resolution, where and when 
the discussions occurred, and a timeline for resolving the matter.
  I agree with Senator Schumer that these factors are important, but I 
also understand the concept of ``good faith'' to include additional 
requirements that the court should consider. First, we expect that good 
faith settlement discussions will include appropriate representatives 
of the plaintiffs in any litigation, such as the lead counsel 
designated by the court or otherwise. Second, as the court evaluates 
whether good faith discussions are ongoing, it should also remember 
that those discussions are designed to achieve a fair and equitable 
resolution of the disputes, taking fully into account the gravity of 
the harm and scope of the claims in issue, the length of the pendency 
of the claims, and other relevant factors. In other words, the purpose 
of negotiations is not simply to come to a settlement, but to come to a 
fair and equitable one.
  Third and finally, given the realities of international terrorism and 
the sometimes murky relationship between private and state parties, any 
discussions occurring pursuant to a stay may properly encompass the 
resolution of claims against private parties, so as to enable a 
comprehensive resolution of disputes arising under JASTA that implicate 
foreign relations.

                          ____________________