[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 123 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6616-H6618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANTI-TERRORISM CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2018

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5954) to amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the 
meaning of the terms ``act of war'' and ``blocked asset'', and for 
other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5954

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Terrorism Clarification 
     Act of 2018''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF THE TERM ``ACT OF WAR''.

       (a) In General.--Section 2331 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) the term `military force' does not include any person 
     that--
       ``(A) has been designated as a--
       ``(i) foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of 
     State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or
       ``(ii) specially designated global terrorist (as such term 
     is defined in section 594.310 of title 31, Code of Federal 
     Regulations) by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of 
     the Treasury; or
       ``(B) has been determined by the court to not be a 
     `military force'.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any civil action pending on or commenced after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS AGAINST TERRORISTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2333 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting at the end following:
       ``(e) Use of Blocked Assets To Satisfy Judgments of U.S. 
     Nationals.--For purposes of section 201 of the Terrorism Risk 
     Insurance Act of 2002 (28 U.S.C. 1610 note), in any action in 
     which a national of the United States has obtained a judgment 
     against a terrorist party pursuant to this section, the term 
     `blocked asset' shall include any asset of that terrorist 
     party (including the blocked assets of any agency or 
     instrumentality of that party) seized or frozen by the United 
     States under section 805(b) of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin 
     Designation Act (21 U.S.C. 1904(b)).''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any judgment entered before, on, or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. CONSENT OF CERTAIN PARTIES TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 2334 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Consent of Certain Parties to Personal 
     Jurisdiction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), for 
     purposes of any civil action under section 2333 of this 
     title, a defendant shall be deemed to have consented to 
     personal jurisdiction in such civil action if, regardless of 
     the date of the occurrence of the act of international 
     terrorism upon which such civil action was filed, the 
     defendant--
       ``(A) after the date that is 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, accepts--
       ``(i) any form of assistance, however provided, under 
     chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.);
       ``(ii) any form of assistance, however provided, under 
     section 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2291) for international narcotics control and law 
     enforcement; or
       ``(iii) any form of assistance, however provided, under 
     chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2349bb et seq.); or
       ``(B) in the case of a defendant benefiting from a waiver 
     or suspension of section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 
     1987 (22 U.S.C. 5202) after the date that is 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection--
       ``(i) continues to maintain any office, headquarters, 
     premises, or other facilities or establishments within the 
     jurisdiction of the United States; or
       ``(ii) establishes or procures any office, headquarters, 
     premises, or other facilities or establishments within the 
     jurisdiction of the United States.
       ``(2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     defendant who ceases to engage in the conduct described in 
     paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) for 5 consecutive calendar 
     years.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

                              {time}  1615


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous materials on H.R. 5954, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992 in order 
to help combat international terrorism and to provide some level of 
financial

[[Page H6617]]

justice to American victims of terrorism. The 1992 act added a civil 
remedy to the ATA's existing criminal regime, removing jurisdictional 
hurdles that often confounded terrorism victims' ability to get their 
day in court. The act has been largely successful.
  However, from time to time, the 1992 act has also needed 
modifications to ensure that it is fully serving its purposes. For 
instance, just last Congress, in the Justice Against Sponsors of 
Terrorism Act, I helped lead the charge in the House to amend the civil 
liability provision to make sure that those who aid and abet or 
conspire with foreign terrorist organizations are liable under the ATA.
  In addition, in 2012, the Judiciary Committee worked to lengthen the 
statute of limitations on civil ATA claims to provide victims with the 
time they need to file these often complex lawsuits.
  The bill we are considering today, the Anti-terrorism Clarification 
Act, builds on these previous technical amendments to the ATA. It makes 
three needed improvements in order to better ensure that victims of 
international terrorism can obtain justice in U.S. courts against 
terrorists and their supporters.
  First, the bill clarifies the ATA's act of war exception. Defendants 
accused of aiding and abetting acts of international terrorism have 
been attempting to use this exception as a means of avoiding civil 
liability, even in cases in which the plaintiffs' injuries were caused 
by the actions of designated terrorist groups.
  For example, in Kaplan v. Central Bank of Iran, the defendant 
financial institution successfully argued that rocket attacks against 
civilians carried out by Hezbollah, a designated foreign terrorist 
organization, were acts of war and, thus, outside the scope of the 
ATA's civil liability provisions.
  The act of war exception should not be a liability shield for those 
who aid or abet attacks carried out by designated terrorist 
organizations.
  This legislation amends the definition of ``act of war'' in the ATA 
to clarify that the exception does not apply to U.S. Government-
designated foreign terrorist organizations or specially designated 
global terrorists.
  Second, at the urging of Representative Posey, the author of the 
CAPTIVE Act, we included language in the bill to strengthen the ATA's 
civil enforcement regime by permitting victims of narcoterrorism to 
satisfy their court-awarded judgments with the assets of foreign 
narcotics drug kingpins. Assets blocked by the Federal Government under 
the Kingpin Designation Act are not currently available to victims, 
leaving victims of the FARC and other narcoterrorists without a 
meaningful method of getting compensation for their injuries.
  Finally, this legislation addresses recent Federal court decisions 
that have called into question the continued ability of victims to 
bring terrorists and their supporters to justice under the ATA's civil 
liability regime.
  The ATA was specifically designed to provide extraterritorial 
jurisdiction over terrorists who attack U.S. nationals overseas. 
However, these recent cases have severely limited the extraterritorial 
scope of the ATA.
  The Anti-terrorism Clarification Act amends the jurisdiction and 
venue section of the ATA to make clear that defendants who take 
advantage of certain benefits provided by the U.S. Government shall be 
deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in U.S. courts in ATA 
civil actions. No defendant should be able to accept U.S. foreign 
assistance while simultaneously dodging responsibility in U.S. courts 
for supporting or carrying out terrorist attacks that harm Americans.
  I want to thank Ranking Member Nadler, along with Senate Judiciary 
Committee Chairman Grassley and Senate Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee Ranking Member Nelson for joining me in 
introducing this bicameral and bipartisan bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support us in passing this legislation to 
clarify ambiguities in the ATA that terrorist sponsors have exploited 
to evade liability so that we can help ensure that Americans are able 
to hold terrorists and their supporters accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5954, the Anti-terrorism 
Clarification Act of 2018. This bipartisan bill, of which I am proud to 
be the lead Democratic sponsor, amends the Anti-Terrorism Act, or ATA, 
to make it easier for American victims of international terrorism to 
have their day in court, to obtain some measure of justice for their 
injuries, and to hold terrorists accountable for their heinous acts.
  The ATA provides that U.S. nationals, or their survivors or heirs, 
may recover treble damages and attorney's fees and costs for any civil 
action arising from an injury sustained by an act of international 
terrorism.
  H.R. 5954 seeks to minimize certain procedural obstacles that ATA 
plaintiffs have encountered in their attempts to obtain full relief for 
their injuries. For example, the ATA contains an exception for injuries 
caused by an ``act of war,'' which it defines, in relevant part, as 
including ``armed conflict between military forces of any origin.''
  Unfortunately, this ambiguous statutory language has led to 
considerable confusion among Federal courts as to the proper scope of 
the act of war exception, and even as to the proper kind of analysis to 
apply when the armed conflict at issue involves a terrorist group such 
as Hamas or Hezbollah.

  For example, in one case, the court found that the act of war 
exception prevented U.S. civilians injured by Hezbollah rocket attacks 
into Israel from pursuing their claims under the ATA. Yet, in another 
case, a different court concluded that gunshots fired into Israel by 
Hamas that resulted in injury to a U.S. civilian did not constitute an 
act of war and, therefore, was compensable.
  H.R. 5954 resolves this confusion by specifying, among other things, 
that a foreign terrorist organization or a specially designated global 
terrorist, as designated by the executive branch, is not a ``military 
force'' and, therefore, is subject to ATA liability.
  This change makes it clear that violent actions targeted at U.S. 
civilians by a terrorist group are acts of terrorism that could give 
rise to liability under the ATA. Indeed, to read the act of war 
exception otherwise, as some courts have done, threatens to undermine 
the ATA's entire purpose.
  Even if victims successfully obtain a judgment under the ATA, many 
plaintiffs find it impossible to obtain full compensation for their 
injuries because there are not sufficient assets available to satisfy 
the judgment. This bill would address that problem as well.
  Under current law, terrorism victims can reach assets blocked 
pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act or the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act to satisfy terrorism-related court 
judgments. This bill would simply allow terrorism victims also to 
attach assets that have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics 
Kingpin Designation Act.
  The final hurdle to bringing ATA claims that this bill helps overcome 
is an overly narrow reading of personal jurisdiction that some courts 
have applied, which has prevented some victims from bringing those 
responsible for their injuries to justice.
  Most recently, this occurred in the Second Circuit's misguided 
decision in Sokolow v. PLO. In Sokolow, several plaintiffs, including 
Morris and Eva Waldman, two of my constituents, sought relief under the 
ATA for injuries sustained as a result of various terrorist attacks in 
Israel that killed or injured U.S. citizens.
  Although a district court awarded the plaintiffs $655 million in 
damages, the Second Circuit reversed, wrongly concluding, in my view, 
that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the 
defendants in that case; namely, the Palestinian Liberation 
Organization and the Palestinian Authority. The court reasoned that the 
defendants' contacts, including maintaining offices in Washington and 
New York and the activities associated with those offices, were 
insufficient to support personal jurisdiction.
  This bill responds to the Second Circuit's decision by deeming a 
party to have consented to personal jurisdiction if the party accepts 
foreign assistance of any kind from the United States beginning 120 
days after the bill's enactment date. In the case of the PLO, or 
affiliated entities, it would also deem

[[Page H6618]]

consent if the defendant maintains an office in the U.S. jurisdiction 
120 days or more after the enactment date. By undertaking one of these 
acts, a potential defendant is sufficiently on notice that it is 
consenting to personal jurisdiction in an ATA case.
  My support for H.R. 5954 is part of my longstanding efforts to secure 
a measure of justice for terrorism victims, including leading House 
efforts to reauthorize the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. I was also 
the lead House Democratic sponsor of the Justice Against Sponsors of 
Terrorism Act, which helped ensure that 9/11 victims and other victims 
of terrorism on American soil can bring their claims in court, 
regardless of where the foreign conduct occurred. This bill is a 
natural extension of those efforts.
  For these reasons, I support this important bipartisan measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), who has been a real champion in 
protecting the rights of the victims of terrorism.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Chairman Goodlatte for 
introducing this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill we are considering is, obviously, as you heard 
from both sides, a great piece of legislation that will ensure American 
victims of international terrorism can obtain justice in U.S. courts by 
holding accountable those who commit, aid, or abet terrorist activity 
abroad.
  I have long been fighting for victims of terrorism. In fact, in 2014, 
I introduced legislation that would allow victims of narcoterrorism to 
recover court-awarded damages. A version of the bill, known as the 
CAPTIVE Act, passed the House by unanimous consent in 2016.
  I am ecstatic that we have a bill that seeks to help a number of 
victims, including those I have been fighting for since 2014.
  On February 13, 2003, four Americans who were Department of Defense 
contractors on a U.S. Government counternarcotics flight mission in 
Colombia were shot down by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, 
also known as FARC. It is a violent guerilla gang heavily involved in 
narcotics trafficking.
  The pilot, Tom Janis, who was immediately executed by the terrorists, 
and three Floridians, Keith Stansell, Mark Gonsalves, and Tom Howes, 
who is my constituent, were kidnapped, held hostage in the jungle, and 
tortured for more than 5\1/2\ years until they were rescued by the 
Colombian army. These heroes are seeking long-deserved justice for 
themselves and their families against those who carried out unthinkable 
acts of violence.
  Today, victims cannot access frozen assets under the Kingpin Act. The 
bill before us, the Anti-terrorism Clarification Act, would change that 
by finally closing the loophole to allow these former hostages and the 
family of the slain pilot access to the assets of narcotics-trafficking 
partners of the foreign terrorist organization FARC and other 
organizations that are frozen under the Kingpin Act. We owe it to these 
brave Americans and others, and their families, to make them whole 
again.

  Mr. Speaker, it is a simple piece of legislation. It would make it 
easier for all victims of narcoterrorism to recover court-awarded 
damages. I urge support.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, although nothing can ever bring back the lives lost to 
terrorism or repair the emotional scars of the survivors, terrorism 
victims deserve the chance to achieve some justice through our courts. 
Congress' purpose in passing the ATA was to give them that chance.
  I believe H.R. 5954 will help further that purpose by addressing 
procedural barriers that have unfairly stood in their way.
  In closing, I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman  Bob Goodlatte for 
his leadership on this important measure. I strongly support H.R. 5954, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge my colleagues 
to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5954, the 
Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018, which amends title 18 of the 
United States Code to clarify the meaning of the terms ``act of war'' 
and ``blocked asset.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we correctly classify terrorist 
activities.
  H.R. 5954 (1) clarifies ambiguities in the Anti-terrorism Act of 1992 
(ATA's) ``act of war'' exception that allow designated foreign 
terrorists and their supporters to avoid liability; (2) closes a 
loophole that prevents victims of narco-terrorism from enforcing their 
judgments against terrorist assets that have been blocked by the 
Treasury Department; and (3) addresses lower court decisions that have 
allowed entities that sponsor terrorist activity against U.S. nationals 
overseas to avoid the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
  This will amend the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) to make it easier for 
plaintiffs to pursue claims under that statute.
  H.R. 5954 has three principal provisions.
  First, it would clarify and narrow the ``act of war'' exception to 
liability under the ATA.
  Second, the bill would provide that ATA plaintiffs may reach the 
assets of a defendant That have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign 
Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act to satisfy an ATA judgment.
  Third, H.R. 5954 would establish that for purposes of any ATA civil 
action, a defendant is ``deemed to have consented'' to personal 
jurisdiction in such civil action regardless of when the act of 
international terrorism at issue took place if the defendant accepted 
U.S. foreign assistance funds or, in certain circumstances, the 
defendant maintains an office or other facilities within U.S. 
jurisdiction.
  H.R. 5954 legislation is necessary to allow injured persons to pursue 
their claims and I offer my support.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5954.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5954, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________