American Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 24, 2025
Bottom line
The American Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act aims to ensure consistent and substantial compensation for U.S. victims of state-sponsored terrorism by securing new, ongoing funding streams and improving the transparency and timeliness of distributions from the USVSST Fund.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act to significantly increase and clarify funding for the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism (USVSST) Fund. It mandates specific transfers from forfeited assets, including a large sum from the Binance Holdings Limited forfeiture, and establishes annual transfers of 50% of the excess unobligated balances from the Department of Justice and Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Funds. The bill also sets clear deadlines for victim payments, expands the definition of forfeitures that contribute to the fund, and institutes new reporting requirements for fund activity and financial oversight.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is crucial for providing long-overdue justice and consistent financial relief to American victims of state-sponsored terrorism and their families. They contend that the current funding mechanisms have been insufficient and inconsistent, leading to delays and uncertainty for claimants. By clarifying funding sources and mandating annual payments, the bill ensures that victims receive meaningful distributions in a timely manner, leveraging significant forfeited assets to fulfill a moral obligation.
Opponents contend
While direct opposition to compensating terrorism victims is rare, potential concerns could be raised by federal agencies regarding the diversion of substantial funds from the Department of Justice and Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Funds. Critics might argue that these funds are vital for supporting ongoing law enforcement operations, investigations, and other victim services, and that significant annual transfers could impact the operational capacity of these agencies or reduce resources for other critical programs.
The bill is moderately complex due to its technical nature, specific financial mechanisms, and references to existing law, requiring careful reading to understand the full implications of its funding and reporting provisions.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'American Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act'. This title is used for easy reference and identification of the legislation.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a clear and concise short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill's purpose immediately recognizable.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is a standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None apparent, as this is a standard procedural element.
Section 2(a)(1) and (2)(C)(i)
Mandated Fifth-Round Payments and Binance Forfeiture Transfers
This provision mandates that all fifth-round payments to eligible claimants from the USVSST Fund must be distributed by March 14, 2025. Furthermore, it directs the transfer of specific funds from the Binance Holdings Limited forfeiture to the USVSST Fund: $898,619,225 already deposited, an additional $1,912,031,763, plus all earned interest. It also allocates $1,505,475,575 from the same forfeiture to the Crime Victims Fund. Agencies are required to deposit these amounts within 30 days of receipt or 15 days of the bill's enactment.
Section 2(a)(2)(C)(ii) and (iii)
Annual Transfers from DOJ and Treasury Forfeiture Funds
This provision mandates annual transfers of 50% of the excess unobligated balance from both the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund and the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to the USVSST Fund. These transfers are to occur annually after January 31 or the enactment of a final appropriations Act, along with 50% of any interest earned on the investment of these funds. The bill clarifies that these transfers do not count against existing limitations on the use of excess unobligated balances and defines 'excess unobligated balance' for the Treasury fund.
Section 3(a)(3)
Clarification of Forfeited Funds for the USVSST Fund
This section clarifies and expands the types of forfeited funds and property that must be deposited into the USVSST Fund. It specifies that all funds and net proceeds from property forfeited to the United States after the bill's enactment, arising from violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) or the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), or involving a state sponsor of terrorism (regardless of the specific offense), must be deposited. It also clarifies that this applies if the state was designated a sponsor of terrorism at the time of penalty, during legal proceedings, or at the time of related conduct. The provision includes rules of construction to protect direct crime victim restitution rights and acknowledges ongoing litigation regarding the scope of penalties/fines.
Section 4
Establishment of Annual Payments to Claimants
This section amends the existing law to establish a new schedule for annual pro rata payments to eligible claimants. Beginning January 1, 2026, and each calendar year thereafter, the Special Master or Attorney General must authorize additional payments based on all amounts received by any U.S. agency that qualify for deposit into the Fund, including interest. These authorized payments must be distributed as soon as practicable within the calendar year of authorization, or within one year if authorized earlier.
Section 5
Enhanced Reporting and Oversight of Fund Activity
This section significantly enhances transparency and oversight for the USVSST Fund. It requires the Special Master to submit an annual report to Congress (published online by the Attorney General) detailing the Fund's balance, deposits (sources, case names, amounts), disbursements (victim compensation, administrative costs), and explanations for any non-deposited amounts. Additionally, it mandates a GAO report by April 1, 2025, listing all criminal/civil forfeitures/payments over $10 million since January 1, 2020, their disposition, and statutory basis. A triennial GAO report is also required, evaluating fund administration, sufficiency, payment trends, and outstanding claims.
Section 6
Administrative Costs and DOJ Personnel Cap
This section amends the law to cap the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) Department of Justice personnel that the Special Master may utilize to assist in carrying out duties at no more than 10. It also explicitly states that any costs associated with the use of such personnel, and any other administrative costs of carrying out the section, shall be paid from the USVSST Fund.
Section 7
Supplemental Fifth-Round Distribution from Reserve Fund
This section mandates that all remaining amounts in the lump sum catch-up payment reserve fund, in excess of certain specified amounts, plus all earned interest, must be deposited into the USVSST Fund within 30 days of the bill's enactment. These funds are then to be included in a supplemental fifth-round distribution, which the Special Master must authorize by April 1, 2025, and distribute by June 30, 2025, to all claimants who received fifth-round distributions.
This rule of construction clarifies that nothing in the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to harm, jeopardize, or impair any amounts previously identified for equitable sharing with law enforcement or to limit the right of a direct crime victim to receive restitution ordered by a court before the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include clarifying language that protects existing rights or allocations when new funding mechanisms are introduced, ensuring the bill does not inadvertently undermine other legal frameworks.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures the bill does not create unintended negative consequences for other law enforcement entities or direct crime victims, maintaining the integrity of existing legal and financial arrangements.
Case against: No specific case against this protective clause is typically made, as it is designed to prevent harm.
Estimated impact: Protects an unspecified but potentially significant amount of funds for equitable sharing and court-ordered restitution, preventing conflict with the bill's new allocations.
This rule of construction clarifies that nothing in the Act limits rights to court-ordered restitution for direct crime victims. It also states that the Act's clarification of forfeiture proceeds for the Fund does not impact the scope or interpretation of criminal or civil penalties/fines required for deposit under existing clauses, noting that this scope is the subject of pending litigation and may be addressed by future legislation or a GAO report.
Section 3(a)(3)(III)
Why it matters:This is a technical legislative maneuver to provide clarity on the bill's intent regarding ongoing legal disputes without prejudging the outcome of litigation, while also protecting other victim rights. It acknowledges a complex legal landscape.
Case for: Proponents argue this clause is crucial for legal precision, ensuring the bill's intent is clear regarding its interaction with existing legal cases and other victim compensation mechanisms.
Case against: No specific case against this clarifying clause is typically made, as it addresses legal complexities.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the legal landscape for potentially hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in future forfeiture proceeds, acknowledging ongoing legal disputes that could affect the Fund's long-term resources.
This subclause provides a specific definition for 'excess unobligated balance' for the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. It defines it as the difference between the unobligated balance as of September 30 of the prior fiscal year and the amount required to be retained to ensure availability for authorized purposes in the subsequent fiscal year. It also excludes rescissions for the next fiscal year when determining this balance.
Section 2(a)(2)(C)(iii)(III)
Why it matters:This level of detail is necessary for precise financial accounting and legal clarity when dealing with federal fund transfers, ensuring that the calculation of 'excess' funds is consistent and defensible.
Case for: Proponents argue that a clear and consistent definition of 'excess unobligated balance' is essential for predictable and legally sound transfers, preventing disputes over the amount to be transferred annually.
Case against: No specific case against this technical definition is typically made, as it serves to clarify the mechanism.
Estimated impact: Determines the exact amount of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars that will be transferred annually from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to the USVSST Fund.