[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20056-20057]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     DIRECTING SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 333, submitted earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 333) to direct the Senate Legal 
     Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the name of the Senate 
     in Bank Markazi, The Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah D. 
     Peterson, et al. (S. Ct.)

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Supreme Court has taken up a case 
presenting the question whether a provision of the Iran Threat 
Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, which provides terrorism 
victims in the case of Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 
10 Civ. 4518, filed in the Southern District of New York, with the 
right, notwithstanding any other law, to obtain money damages for 
existing judgments against Iran from certain Iranian bonds held in the 
United States, violates the separation of powers.
  The plaintiffs here are victims and families of victims of Iran-
sponsored terrorist attacks, including the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks 
bombing and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, who hold billions of 
dollars in unpaid compensatory damages judgments against Iran. In 2010, 
they initiated an action in Federal court seeking turnover of $1.75 
billion in bond assets held by Citibank in New York, which through two 
foreign intermediary banks were ultimately owned by Bank Markazi, the 
Central Bank of Iran, which is wholly owned by the Iranian Government.
  Plaintiffs argued they were entitled to the assets under the 
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, TRIA, which permits the 
satisfaction of terrorism judgments from ``the blocked assets of any 
agency or instrumentality of th[e] terrorist party.'' Pub. L. No. 107-
297, Sec. 201(a), 116 Stat. 2322, 2337. Bank Markazi argued the assets 
were not subject to execution under TRIA because they were held on 
behalf of intermediaries and therefore, under controlling state law, 
those assets could not be considered Iran's property.
  Against that backdrop and with plaintiffs' motion for seeking 
execution pending, Congress enacted section 502 of the Iran Threat 
Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. 22 U.S.C. Sec. 8772. That 
statute identified plaintiffs' case by name and docket number and 
directed that, ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' the 
assets ``shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of 
execution in order to satisfy any judgment to the extent of any 
compensatory damages awarded against Iran.'' 22 U.S.C. Sec. 8772(a)(1), 
(b). It also expressly disclaimed any effect on ``any [other] 
proceedings.'' 22 U.S.C. Sec. 8772(c)(1). Before permitting execution 
against the assets, the statute required the court to determine both 
whether Iran holds title or interest in the assets and whether any 
``other person possesses a constitutionally protected interest in the 
assets.'' 22 U.S.C. Sec. 8772(a)(2).
  Bank Markazi challenged section 502 as unconstitutional for violating 
the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches 
explicated in United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871), by 
effectively dictating the outcome of a single case.

[[Page 20057]]

After making the statutory determinations that Iran and only Iran held 
a beneficial interest in the assets, the district court rejected Bank 
Markazi's constitutional challenge. Peterson v. Islamic Republic of 
Iran, slip op (S.D.N.Y. March 13, 2013), 2013 WL 1155576. The court, 
noting it was required to determine whether Iran holds title or 
interest in the assets, as well as whether any other party holds a 
protected interest in the assets, held that ``[t]he statute does not 
itself `find' turnover required; such determination is specifically 
left to the Court.'' Id. at 31.
  On appeal, a unanimous Second Circuit panel affirmed. Peterson v. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, 758 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2014). The appellate 
court noted that ``while Klein illustrates that Congress may not 
`usurp[] the adjudicative function assigned to the federal courts,' 
later cases have explained that Congress may `chang[e] the law 
applicable to pending cases,' even when the result under the revised 
law is clear.'' Id. at 191 (citations omitted).
  Bank Markazi filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. 
After calling for and receiving the views of the United States 
Solicitor General, who filed an opposition to certiorari defending the 
constitutionality of section 502, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
  Title VII of the Ethics in Government Act authorizes the Senate to 
appear as an amicus curiae in any legal action in which the powers and 
responsibilities of the Congress under the Constitution are placed in 
issue. Appearance as an amicus curiae in this case would enable the 
Senate to respond to Bank Markazi's contention that this law infringes 
on the judiciary's constitutional power to decide cases and 
controversies and to present to the Court the basis for the Senate's 
conviction that the law is consistent with the Constitution.
  This resolution would authorize the Senate legal counsel to appear in 
this case in the Senate's name as amicus curiae to support the 
constitutionality of the statute.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed 
to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid 
upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 333) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record 
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________