[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22121-22122]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as we adopt this valuable legislation, 
I consider it important to clarify the history and intent of subsection 
1(f) of this bill, as amended, in the context of the bill as a whole.
  This is a key issue for American victims of state-sponsored terrorism 
who have sued or who will in the future sue the responsible terrorism-
list state, as they are entitled to do under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 
1996. Victims who already hold U.S. court judgments, and a few whose 
related cases will soon be decided, will receive their compensatory 
damages as a direct result of this legislation. It is my hope and 
objective that this legislation will similarly help other pending and 
future Anti-Terrorism Act plaintiffs when U.S. courts issue judgments 
against the foreign state sponsors of specific terrorist acts. I am 
particularly determined that the families of the victims of Pan Am 
flight 103 should be able to collect damages promptly if they can 
demonstrate to the satisfaction of a U.S. court that Libya is indeed 
responsible for that heinous bombing.
  More than 2 years ago, I joined with Senator Connie Mack to amend the 
fiscal year 1999 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill to help victims of 
terrorism who successfully sued foreign states under the Anti-Terrorism 
Act. That amendment, which became section 117 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, made the 
assets of foreign terrorist states blocked by the Treasury Department 
under our sanctions laws explicitly available for attachment by U.S. 
courts for the very limited purpose of satisfying Anti-Terrorism Act 
judgments.
  Unfortunately, when that provision came before the House-Senate 
Conference Committee, I understand the administration insisted upon 
adding a national security interest waiver. The waiver, however, was 
unclear and confusing. The President exercised that waiver within 
minutes of signing the bill into law.
  The scope of that waiver authority added in the Appropriations 
Conference Committee in 1998 remains in dispute. Presidential 
Determination 99-1 asserted broad authority to waive the entirety of 
the provision. But the District Court of the Southern District of 
Florida rejected the administration's view and held, instead, that the 
President's authority applied only to section 117's requirement that 
the Secretaries of State and Treasury assist a judgment creditor in 
identifying, locating, and executing against non-blocked property of a 
foreign terrorist state.
  The bill now before us, in its amended form, would replace the 
disputed waiver in section 117 of the fiscal year 1999 Treasury 
Appropriations Act with a clearer but narrower waiver of 28 U.S.C. 
section 1610(f)(1). In replacing the waiver, we are accepting that the 
President should have the authority to waive the court's authority to 
attach blocked assets. But to understand how we intend this waiver to 
be used, it must be read within the context of other provisions of the 
legislation.
  A waiver of the attachment provision would seem appropriate for final 
and pending Anti-Terrorism Act cases identified in subsection (a)(2) of 
this bill. In these cases, judicial attachment is not necessary because 
the executive branch will appropriately pay compensatory damages to the 
victims from blocked assets or use blocked assets to collect the funds 
from terrorist states.
  This legislation also reaffirms the President's statutory authority 
to vest foreign assets located in the United States for the purposes of 
assisting and making payments to victims of terrorism. This provision 
restates the President's authority to assist victims with pending and 
future cases. Our intent is that the President will review each case 
when the court issues a final judgment to determine whether to use the 
national security waiver, whether to help the plaintiffs collect from a 
foreign state's non-blocked assets in the U.S., whether to allow the 
courts to attach and execute against blocked assets, or whether to use 
existing authorities to vest and pay those assets as damages to the 
victims of terrorism.
  Let me say that again: It is our intention that the President will 
consider each case on its own merits; this waiver should not be applied 
in a routine or blanket manner.
  I hope future Presidents will use the waiver provision only as 
President Clinton will use other provisions of the current bill: to aid 
victims of terrorism and make its state sponsors pay for their crimes.
  Mr. MACK. I thank Senator Lautenberg for making a point with which I 
strongly agree: the waiver authority in this legislation is intended to 
be used on each case or for each asset, but not to be used as a de-
facto veto.
  In drafting this language and negotiating with the administration 
over the past several months, we believe firmly that using blocked 
assets of terrorist states to satisfy judgments is completely 
consistent with the intent of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, and more 
significantly, is consistent with our national security interest. 
Simply stated, making the terrorists who harm or kill Americans in acts 
of international terrorism pay for their acts makes for good policy. It 
should deter future acts of terrorism, as well as provide some small 
measure of justice to current victims.
  Mr. KYL. I thank Senators Mack and Lautenberg for their leadership on 
this issue. I would like to add that from the beginning of my 
involvement on this issue in 1998, I have sought to help Senator Mack 
provide a mechanism which would not only help current victims, but also 
set in place a procedure to ensure future victims will be able to 
attain justice, provided blocked assets are held in the U.S. I would 
therefore first like to associate myself with the interpretation of the 
waiver as expressed by Senators Lautenberg and Mack. I do not 
appreciate seeing laws in effect vetoed through a waiver authority 
interpreted overly broadly. Indeed, the waiver used in this language 
should be exercised on a case-by-case basis only.
  Second, I would also like to point out the precedent being set and 
the reaffirmation of authority. The administration assures us via a 
private letter that the judgment creditors already holding final 
judgment will be paid their compensatory awards within 60 days of the 
enactment of this act. The administration will do so using executive 
authority to vest and pay from blocked assets. In addition, the 
Congress statutorily reaffirms the President's authority to vest and 
pay from blocked assets in the future to help future victims of 
terrorism. Let me state very clearly that there is no way, based upon 
the procedure now in place, that future victims will be forced to 
suffer the prolonged battle with their government that these first 
victims were forced to bear. I am pleased with the justice being 
delivered today; but I am especially pleased by the process in place to 
help any future victims. Hopefully, with this process, the deterrent 
capability of this law will become more powerful.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am pleased have worked with Senators Lautenberg, 
Mack, and Kyl in getting this legislation to this point. The national 
security interest waiver should be used only when there is a specific 
national

[[Page 22122]]

security interest greater than the interest in taking effective action 
to combat terrorism against American citizens; and it should be 
exercised on a case-by-case basis. The judiciary Committee never 
intended to divide victims, helping some and not others. We must ensure 
that all American victims of terrorism able to successfully hold 
foreign states responsible to the satisfaction of U.S. courts are 
treated fairly and aided by this and future administrations to collect 
their damages.
  Mr. HELMS. I congratulate Senators Mack, Kyl, Lautenberg, and 
Feinstein, for their fine work on getting this anti-terrorism 
legislation through the Congress and passed. I would like to point out 
the conferees agree with the comments mentioned by my colleagues and 
this has been so stated in the conference report to accompany this 
bill.

                          ____________________