Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of JASTA. I am proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill, alongside my friend from New York (Mr. King), and I appreciate all of his hard work on this legislation.

On Sunday, we will observe the 15th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, when thousands of Americans were brutally murdered in my district in New York, as well as at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. JASTA would help ensure that those responsible for aiding and abetting those attacks are held accountable for their actions.

Unfortunately, because of certain court decisions misinterpreting the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Anti-Terrorism Act, the 9/11 victims and their families have been unable to pursue their claims in court against some of the parties they believe were responsible for funding the attacks.

JASTA simply reinstates what was understood to be the law for 30 years, that foreign states may be brought to justice for aiding and abetting acts of international terrorism that occur on American soil, whether or not the conduct that facilitated the attack occurred in the United States.

Think of it this way: some courts have held that if a foreign government agent hands over a $1 million check to al Qaeda in a cafe in New York in order to fund a terrorist attack in the United States, that government can be sued in an American court. But if that same foreign agent funds the same attack by handing over the same $1 million check in a cafe in Geneva, his government should be immune from liability.

That makes no sense, and it flies in the face of what had been settled law for many years. We must correct these erroneous court decisions so that anyone who facilitates a terrorist attack on our people can be brought to justice.

Let me be clear. This legislation does not prejudge the merits of any particular case. It simply ensures that the 9/11 families, or anyone who may face the same situation, can plead their case in court.

Some critics of this bill have argued that if we pass it, other nations may retaliate by enacting similar laws that could subject Americans, or the United States itself, to liability in those countries. I find this argument unpersuasive. The United States does not engage in international terrorist activity and would not face any legal jeopardy if a law like JASTA were enacted anywhere else.

Furthermore, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and its well- established tort exception, have been the law for 40 years. In that time, we simply have not seen the parade of horribles that some critics imagine would happen if this bill were to become law.

We cannot allow threats from a country that fears being held to account for its actions, and may threaten retaliation of some sort, to deny victims of terrorist attacks their day in court. Moreover, this legislation contains a reasonable provision allowing for a stay of court proceedings if the President is engaging in good faith negotiations to resolve the claim through diplomatic channels.

We need not fear retaliation from another country. This is not the 1790s. The United States is a major power and can hold our own.

JASTA is a narrow bill that has been carefully negotiated over the last 6 years, and which passed the Senate unanimously in May. It would provide clarity to the courts, and justice to the victims of 9/11, and it deserves swift passage today.

I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source