Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, all of us remember the horrible events of September 11 and the grief and pain so many people went through in New York. Roughly 3,000 people lost their lives. Obviously, the family members have not forgotten that, and the Nation hasn't forgotten their loss either.
The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, and I have introduced legislation called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. This is bipartisan legislation which would enable Americans and their family members who lost loved ones on that horrible day to pursue their claims for justice against those who sponsored those acts of terrorism on U.S. homeland.
This bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without objection, and similar legislation passed the Senate unanimously last Congress. I believe that kind of unanimous support sends a clear message: that we will combat terrorism with every tool we have available and that the victims of terrorist attacks in our country should have every means at their disposal to seek justice.
I am grateful for the work of the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, in introducing this bill along with me and Chairman Grassley for shepherding it through the Senate Judiciary Committee. I also appreciate the support of a large bipartisan group of like-minded Senators in this Chamber. We worked with a number of Senators, including the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from South Carolina, who expressed concerns about earlier versions of the legislation. I appreciate their willingness to work with us to deal with their concerns in a way that now has gained their support.
This legislation amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act passed in 1976. So we already have a piece of legislation on the books that waives sovereign immunity under some circumstances, but the problem is that it does not extend to terrorist attacks on our homeland by countries and organizations that have not already been designated as state sponsors of terrorism. This makes some small changes in that legislation that first passed in 1976 to expand the scope of that to allow the families of the 9/11 tragedy to seek justice in our courts of law.
Mr. President, there are some aspects of the bill that I would like to discuss in particular, and to that effect I would like to enter into a colloquy with my friend on a number of points.
Senators Sessions and Graham had expressed concern that earlier versions of this legislation might be interpreted to derogate too far from traditional principles of foreign sovereign immunity and put the United States at risk of being sued for our operations abroad. We worked extensively with them on this issue.
To alleviate the concerns they raised, the substitute amendment to S. 2040 narrowly tailors the immunity exception in several way.
First, it is limited--like the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's ``tort exception''--to physical injury ``occurring in the United States.'' The act of international terrorism that causes the injury must also take place ``in the United States.''
This focus on U.S. territory avoids the issues raised by the State Department regarding section 1605A, the ``State Sponsor of Terrorism'' exception to the FSIA passed decades ago by Congress. Section 1605A permits jurisdiction over acts that occur anywhere, but is limited to certain states.
Second, jurisdiction can only be predicated on acts of terrorism and not on acts of war, as both terms are defined under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Third, the injury must be ``caused by'' the tortious act or acts of the foreign state. This language, which requires a showing of jurisdictional causation, is drawn from decisions of Federal courts interpreting section 1605A. Courts interpreting new section 1605B should look to cases like Kilburn, Rux, and Owens, the analysis of which we intend to incorporate here.
Finally, this new version adopts the language of 1605A regarding the conduct of officials, employees, and agents of foreign states. This language incorporates traditional principles of vicarious liability and attribution, including doctrines such as respondeat superior, agency, and secondary liability.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would also like to say a few words about secondary liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which JASTA addresses.
This bill is called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It helps fulfill the promise of the original Anti-Terrorism Act, which was intended to ``interrupt, or at least imperil, the flow of money'' to terrorist groups. So, while JASTA clarifies the rule for secondary liability, which may attach to terrorism sponsors, it doesn't impact other aspects of the ATA that may also make them liable. For example, this bill is not intended to alter how violations of sections 2339A-- material support--or 2339C--terrorist financing--can be the basis for direct liability under the ATA.
Mr. President, I would add, there is already litigation pending by the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, and right now there appears to be somewhat of a split in the Federal courts with regard to the scope of sovereign immunity and whether it applies. This legislation would basically clarify that both for pending cases and for future claims.
At this point, I would defer to my friend, the Senator from New York, for any statement he would care to make, and then I would be happy to offer a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for his comments and for his partnership in working on this important legislation.
362, S. 2040.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the measure.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source