[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 16917]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. BILL McCOLLUM

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 25, 2000

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3485, the 
Justice of Victims of Terrorism Act, which I introduced and which has 
strong bipartisan support in Congress. This bill amends law first 
passed in 1996 to allow justice for the victims of state sponsored 
terrorism and to hold terrorist states accountable for their conduct. 
Under current law, these victims are entitled to compensation out of 
frozen assets in the United States of the guilty terrorist state once 
the victim obtains a federal court judgment. Sadly, however, the 
Administration is denying these victims, such as Stephen Flatow, the 
Brothers to the Rescue families, Terry Anderson and the other victims 
of terrorism in Lebanon, the justice they deserve.
  In response to the President's urging, Congress passed in April 1996 
a provision in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act [28 
U.S.C. 1605(a)(7) and 1610(a)(7)] which gave victims of terrorist acts 
the ability to sue the state sponsors of those acts in federal court. 
This is one of seven exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a 
foreign state. The 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act also made an exception to 
U.S. sovereign immunity in order for such victims who are awarded 
judgments to proceed against the frozen, or blocked, commercial assets 
of that terrorist state that are held in trust by the United States 
government. The Act gave victims the ability to proceed against 
terrorist-owned assets regardless of whether those assets were involved 
in the terrorist act itself.
  In October 1998, Congress passed Section 117 of the Fiscal Year 1999 
Treasury Department Appropriations Act to clarify the assets of 
terrorist states available to victims of terrorism for attachment and 
execution of judgments. At the insistence of the Administration, 
however, that legislation gave the President a waiver to block the 
attachment of certain assets, if he deemed it to be in the interest of 
national security. Instead, the President exercised that waiver to 
essentially nullify the law and deny compensation out of frozen assets 
in every case to date.
  H.R. 3485 remedies the Administration's failure to enforce the law in 
two ways. First, the bill amends the definition of ``agency or 
instrumentality of a foreign state'' to allow victims to proceed 
against assets that are majority owned by terrorist states. This gives 
victims a practical remedy in collection upon terrorist assets. Second, 
the bill narrows and clarifies the President's national security waiver 
to explicitly allow the President to protect diplomatic property, but 
not commercial assets.
  I am concerned that the President has exercised what was intended to 
be a narrow national security waiver too broadly and contrary to the 
clear intention of Congress both in the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act and 
particularly, in the FY99 Treasury Department Appropriations bill. In 
Section 117 of the FY 99 Appropriations bill, Congress intended a 
narrow waiver as interpreted in the case of Alejandre v. Republic of 
Cuba. Let me make it absolutely clear on top of any reading of past 
statements or reading of the Committee Report in relation to H.R. 3485 
that the waiver is a narrow one, and this bill replaces that waiver 
with language that limits the President's power to protect only 
diplomatic property as defined under the Vienna Convention.
  I am also concerned about the difficulty that victims of terrorism 
have had in executing against the blocked assets of terrorism 
sponsoring states because of the lack of information available from the 
foreign state. H.R. 3485 is intended to make it easier for victims to 
execute against these assets by clarifying that the victims are not 
required to meet additional hurdles of proof, including the alter-ego 
test or a showing of a daily control as has been applied based on the 
Supreme Court's 1983 decision in Bancec. Again, let me make it clear 
that H.R. 3485 eliminates any of these additional hurdles not intended 
to be imposed under Section 117, and instead allows for a showing of 
majority ownership by terrorist states.
  The President and Administration officials encouraged victims to take 
terror states to court under the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act. Yet now, in 
contradiction to the President's words, the Administration refuses to 
allow compensation out of the frozen assets of terrorist states against 
whom judgment have been rendered. As a consequence, those who have 
committed acts of terror resulting in the death of American citizens 
are effectively going unpunished.
  In addition to the Brothers to the Rescue families who suffer from 
Cuba's 1996 shootdown of civilian aircraft, this legislation assists 
two well-known victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism. In a tragic 
case, the family of Alisa Flatow won a judgment against the government 
of Iran for its involvement in a bus bombing in Israel in April 1995 
that took her life. Months after Stephen Flatow received his judgment 
in federal court, the President exercised the national security waiver 
to prevent the Flatow family from attaching Iranian assets in the 
United States. Another example is the horrific story of Terry Anderson, 
who as we all recall, was barbarically held in Beirut by terrorists 
sponsored by Iran for over seven years. Several months ago, Terry 
Anderson won a judgment against Iran and he now joins other former 
Iranian hostage sin seeking compensation and justice. Recently, the 
Eisenfeld and Duke families own a judgment for the murder in a bus 
bombing in Israel of their son and daughter, who were engaged to be 
married at the time. Also, Robin Higgins whose husband, U.S. Marine 
colonel, was brutally murdered by terrorists sponsored by Iran in 
Lebanon is currently in the process of seeking her judgment.
  The Administration has used a variety of evolving arguments to deny 
these victims the justice they deserve. These arguments were presented 
before a Committee hearing in the other body, discussed in a hearing I 
chaired in the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, and enumerated 
in responses to questions I submitted to Treasury Deputy Secretary 
Stuart Eizenstat. I have considered the Administration's arguments and 
have determined, along with other colleagues of mine, they do not hold 
up.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this 
important and necessary legislation to finally bring justice to the 
victims of terrorism and to deter terrorist acts against U.S. citizens 
by making those state sponsors of terrorism pay.

                          ____________________