No 9/11 Family Left Behind Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 18, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to ensure that all eligible 9/11 victims and their families receive equitable compensation from the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund by providing a specific "catch up" payment.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act to provide an additional lump sum "catch up" payment to certain eligible claimants, primarily those affected by the September 11th attacks who have not yet received a specific payment under prior legislation. It mandates the Special Master to notify eligible claimants and disburse payments equal to 5.8573 percent of their original judgment, with an open-ended appropriation for necessary funds.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill rectifies an inequity in compensation for victims of state-sponsored terrorism, particularly 9/11 families, who may have been left behind by previous payment structures. They contend it ensures all eligible claimants receive their fair share, upholding the government's commitment to those impacted by horrific acts of terror. The "No 9/11 Family Left Behind Act" title itself signals this intent to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the open-ended appropriation, arguing it could lead to unforeseen fiscal burdens on the Treasury without a clear cap. They might also question the specific percentage chosen for the catch-up payment or the administrative complexity of identifying and notifying eligible claimants years after the initial events, potentially leading to delays or further discrepancies.
The bill is very short and can be read and understood quickly, allowing ample time for evaluation.
Section 2, amending 34 U.S.C. 20144(d)(4) by adding subparagraph (E)
Additional Lump Sum Catch Up Payment for Certain Eligible Claimants
This provision directs the Special Master, within 90 days of the bill's enactment, to identify and notify individuals eligible for an additional payment. These eligible claimants, who have not received a specific prior payment, will receive a lump sum equal to 5.8573 percent of their original judgment from the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. The bill appropriates "such sums as may be necessary" from the Treasury to cover these payments.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this payment is crucial to ensure equitable treatment for all victims and their families, particularly those of the 9/11 attacks, who were intended to be compensated under the original Act but may have been overlooked or received less due to specific payment structures. It closes a perceived gap in justice.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that introducing new payment percentages and eligibility criteria years after the initial compensation framework could create administrative burdens and potentially reopen settled claims, leading to further complexities and expectations for future adjustments. Concerns about the uncapped appropriation could also be raised.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for comprehensive victim compensation and perceived equity against the potential for increased, uncapped federal expenditure and the administrative challenges of identifying and processing claims from a historical event.
Defines "eligible claimant" by referencing specific subsections of the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act (c)(1)(A) and (c)(2)(A), and either section 405(c)(2) of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (ATSASSA) or section 104.44 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 2, subparagraph (E)(v) "Eligible claimant defined."
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for brevity and consistency, avoiding reprinting lengthy definitions already established in law. It's not necessarily evasive.
Case for: Referencing existing law streamlines legislation and ensures consistency with established legal frameworks for victim compensation. It prevents redundancy and potential conflicts in definitions.
Case against: For a lay reader, understanding the full scope of eligibility requires significant legal research, making the bill's impact less transparent without external context.
Estimated impact: The impact is on the specific individuals who meet these complex, cross-referenced criteria, determining who receives the additional payment.