[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.
____________________