[House Report 105-48]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     105-48
_______________________________________________________________________


 
    TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, 
     RELATING TO JURISDICTION FOR LAWSUITS AGAINST TERRORIST STATES

_______________________________________________________________________


 April 10, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Hyde, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1225]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1225) to make a technical correction to title 28, United 
States Code, relating to jurisdiction for lawsuits against 
terrorist states, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     2
Committee Consideration..........................................     2
Vote of the Committee............................................     2
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     2
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings............     3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     3
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     3
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     4
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     4
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     4

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R.1225 makes a technical correction to the foreign 
sovereign immunity provisions of the Antiterrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    In response to the revelation that the Libyan government 
assisted in blowing up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the 
``Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996'' added 
a new subsection to the foreign sovereign immunity provisions 
included in Title 28 of the United States Code. Section 221 of 
Public Law No. 140-132. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1605(a)(7). This new 
subsection provided that foreign sovereign immunity would not 
shield from liability certain countries that sponsor terrorist 
acts against American nationals, like the bombing of Pan Am 
103. Under the new subsection, American nationals who are 
victims of such acts or their surviving claimants could bring 
an action in federal court for money damages against the 
country that sponsored the terrorist act.
    The intent of the drafters was that a family should have 
the benefit of these provisions if either the victim of the act 
or the survivor who brings the claim is an American national. 
Due to a drafting error, the current law can be read to require 
that both the victim and the claimant must be American 
nationals before the claimant can use these provisions. H.R. 
1225 corrects this drafting error and makes it explicit that 
the correction should apply to cases arising before, on, or 
after the date of enactment. The correction will benefit 
several of the Pan Am 103 families who could potentially lose 
their claims if this correction is not passed.

                                Hearings

    Because H.R. 1225 involves only a technical correction, the 
Committee did not hold any hearings on it.

                        Committee Consideration

    On April 8, 1997, the full committee met in open session 
and ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 1225, by a voice 
vote, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    During full committee consideration of H.R. 1225, the 
Committee took no roll call votes.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

     Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 1225, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, April 9, 1997.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1225, a bill to 
make a technical correction to title 28, United States Code, 
relating to jurisdiction for lawsuits against terrorist states.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. 
Mehlman.
            Sincerely,
                                           June E. O'Neill, Director.  
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1225--A bill to make a technical correction to title 28, 
        United States Code, relating to jurisdiction for 
        lawsuits against terrorist states

    CBO estimates that enacting this bill would have no 
significant effect on the federal budget. Because the bill 
would not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply. H.R. 1225 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and would not impose any 
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    Enacting H.R. 1225 would enable U.S. citizens to sue 
terrorist states for committing acts of terrorism against a 
loved one even if the loved one was a foreign national. Under 
current law, a lawsuit against a terrorist state may only be 
brought if the victim was a U.S. citizen. Because the 
circumstances under which such lawsuits would be filed are 
rare, CBO expects that few additional cases would come before 
federal courts as a result of this bill. Thus, CBO estimates 
that enacting H.R. 1225 would not result in any significant 
cost to the federal court system.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susanne S. 
Mehlman. This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, 
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, clause 8 of the Constitution.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    H.R. 1225 consists of one section that corrects the 
drafting error described above by making it clear that the 
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1605(a)(7) and related provisions 
apply when either the victim or the surviving claimant is an 
American national. This section also makes it explicit that the 
correction applies to causes of action arising before, on, or 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

              SECTION 1605 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a 
                    foreign state

  (a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction 
of courts of the United States or of the States in any case--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (7) not otherwise covered by paragraph (2), in which 
        money damages are sought against a foreign state for 
        personal injury or death that was caused by an act of 
        torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, 
        hostage taking, or the provision of material support or 
        resources (as defined in section 2339A of title 18) for 
        such an act if such act or provision of material 
        support is engaged in by an official, employee, or 
        agent of such foreign state while acting within the 
        scope of his or her office, employment, or agency, 
        except that the court shall decline to hear a claim 
        under this paragraph--
                  (A) if the foreign state was not designated 
                as a state sponsor of terrorism under section 
                6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 
                (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) or section 620A of the 
                Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) 
                at the time the act occurred, unless later so 
                designated as a result of such act; and
                  (B) even if the foreign state is or was so 
                designated, if--
                          (i) the act occurred in the foreign 
                        state against which the claim has been 
                        brought and the claimant has not 
                        afforded the foreign state a reasonable 
                        opportunity to arbitrate the claim in 
                        accordance with accepted international 
                        rules of arbitration; or
                          (ii) [the claimant or victim was not] 
                        neither the claimant nor the victim was 
                        a national of the United States (as 
                        that term is defined in section 
                        101(a)(22) of the Immigration and 
                        Nationality Act) when the act upon 
                        which the claim is based occurred.
          * * * * * * *

                                
