Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Virginia. First of all, with regard to some of the examples given by the gentleman from Texas, I want to make clear that this is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that is being amended--foreign sovereign, not individuals. So if another country were to flip this and take action under their laws to do something in their courts, it would only apply to governments, not to individuals. So with regard to the assertions made by the gentleman from Virginia, many countries have already done what we are proposing to do here today. The whole tort rule that is utilized in the United States which says, just as an example, if you provided a bag of money to a terrorist in the United States, you can sue that foreign government in our country right now, in our courts right now. It would change so that if they provided the bag of money in Paris, you could do it there. Right now it is a loophole. Guess what? Any foreign government that wants to sponsor terrorism in the United States, what is the first thing they are going to do right now under current law? They are going to make sure that the money is transferred outside the United States so they are not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Customary international law does not seem to require the entire tort limitation. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has expired.
On the recordSeptember 28, 2016
Share & report
More from Bob Goodlatte
Jul 18, 2022
the more opportunities that the consumer has to decide for themselves whether or not they want to make certain information available to Google or other companies and control how Google might utilize that information, the better.
Jul 18, 2022
I think that antitrust laws definitely should be utilized to promote competition.
Dec 20, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 499, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 450, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 451. ____________________
Dec 10, 2019
The charge is abuse of power, but what the majority is really upset about is the fact that the President and the administration is exercising its power under the Constitution, its authorized powers.





