Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018

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

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. 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. 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.

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.

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

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. 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. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 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.