American Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 25, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to provide more consistent and substantial compensation to victims of state-sponsored terrorism by securing additional and recurring funding streams for the USVSST Fund.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act to significantly enhance and clarify the funding sources for the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund (USVSST Fund). It mandates the transfer of over $2.8 billion from the Binance Holdings Limited forfeiture case, along with annual transfers of 50% of the excess unobligated balances from both the Department of Justice and Department of the Treasury Assets Forfeiture Funds. The bill also establishes firm deadlines for victim payments and introduces new, comprehensive reporting requirements for transparency and oversight.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is crucial for ensuring that victims of state-sponsored terrorism receive the compensation they are owed, addressing past delays and insufficient funding. They emphasize that establishing robust and predictable funding streams, particularly by leveraging significant forfeiture proceeds, upholds the nation's commitment to these victims and their families, providing long-overdue justice.
Opponents contend
No direct opposition is explicitly stated in the bill text. However, federal agencies whose forfeiture funds are being redirected might express concerns that these funds are vital for ongoing law enforcement operations, asset seizure programs, or other crime victim compensation initiatives, potentially impacting their operational flexibility or resource allocation.
The bill is relatively short but contains technical legal and financial language, requiring careful reading to understand its full implications for funding mechanisms and victim compensation.
Section 2(a)(1), amending 34 U.S.C. 20144(d)(4)
Mandated Deadline for Fifth-Round Payments
This provision sets a firm deadline of March 14, 2025, for the Special Master to distribute all fifth-round payments to eligible claimants from the USVSST Fund. If an eligible claimant has not provided the necessary payment information, the distribution should occur as soon as practicable after that information is received. This aims to expedite compensation for victims awaiting these specific payments.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures timely compensation for victims, addressing past delays and providing a clear expectation for payment, which is critical for those who have waited years for justice.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against expediting payments to victims, as it aligns with the humanitarian goals of the fund.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for timely victim compensation with the administrative capacity of the Special Master to process and distribute a large volume of payments by a specific date.
Section 2(a)(2)(C)(i), amending 34 U.S.C. 20144(e)(2)
Transfer of Binance Holdings Limited Forfeiture Funds
This provision mandates the transfer of specific amounts from the Binance Holdings Limited forfeiture case into the USVSST Fund. It includes $898,619,225 already deposited, an additional $1,912,031,763, and all earned interest. It also directs $1,505,475,575 from the same case to the Crime Victims Fund. Federal agencies must deposit these funds within 30 days of receipt or 15 days of the bill's enactment, ensuring a rapid infusion of capital.
Section 2(a)(2)(C)(ii) & (iii), amending 34 U.S.C. 20144(e)(2)
Annual Transfers from DOJ and Treasury Assets Forfeiture Funds
This provision mandates the annual transfer of 50% of the excess unobligated balance from both the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund and the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund into the USVSST Fund. These transfers are determined annually on January 31st or the date of a final appropriations act and include 50% of any interest earned. Importantly, these transfers do not count against existing limitations on the use of these excess balances, aiming to provide a consistent and substantial recurring funding stream.
Section 3, amending 34 U.S.C. 20144(e)(2)(A)
Expanded Scope and Timing for Forfeited Funds Deposit
This section clarifies and expands the types of forfeited funds and property that must be deposited into the USVSST Fund. It now explicitly includes all funds and net proceeds from sales of property forfeited after enactment, arising from violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) or Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), or any matter involving a state sponsor of terrorism, regardless of the nature of the offense. It also specifies that funds are included if the state was designated a sponsor of terrorism at the time of penalty, during proceedings, or at the time of related conduct, and sets a 60-day or 30-day (after enactment) deadline for deposit.
Section 4, amending 34 U.S.C. 20144(d)(4)(A)
Annual Pro Rata Payments to Claimants
This provision amends the schedule for payments, requiring the Special Master or Attorney General to authorize additional pro rata payments to eligible claimants on January 1st of each calendar year, starting in 2026. These payments must include all amounts received by any U.S. agency that qualifies for deposit into the Fund, plus interest, that has not yet been distributed. Payments must be distributed as soon as practicable within the calendar year of authorization, providing a predictable schedule for victims.
Section 5, amending 34 U.S.C. 20144(b)(1)(A)
Enhanced Reporting Requirements for Fund Activity
This section adds new, comprehensive reporting requirements. The Special Master must submit an annual report to Congress by January 31st, detailing the Fund's balance, deposits (including sources and case names), disbursements, amounts from DOJ/Treasury Forfeiture Funds, and explanations for any non-deposited funds. This report must be published online by March 1st. Additionally, the Comptroller General (GAO) must submit a report by April 1, 2025, listing all criminal and civil forfeitures over $10,000,000 since January 1, 2020, their disposition, and earned interest. A triennial GAO report is also mandated, evaluating fund administration, funding sufficiency, payment trends, and outstanding claims.
This clause ensures that the new funding transfers to the USVSST Fund do not negatively impact existing equitable sharing agreements with law enforcement or court-ordered restitution for direct crime victims. It explicitly protects these prior allocations from being 'harmed, jeopardized, or impaired' by the amendments.
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify legislative intent and prevent unintended consequences or conflicts with existing legal frameworks, thereby reducing potential legal challenges or disputes.
Case for: Supporters argue this clause is essential to protect the interests of other stakeholders, such as law enforcement agencies and direct crime victims, ensuring that the bill's primary goal of funding the USVSST Fund does not inadvertently undermine other important justice initiatives.
Case against: There is no direct case against this protective clause, as its purpose is to prevent harm to existing legal rights and agreements, which is generally viewed as a positive aspect of legislative drafting.
Estimated impact: This provision prevents potential legal disputes and ensures continuity for existing financial obligations, potentially safeguarding millions in other allocations that might otherwise be challenged or delayed.
When determining the 'excess unobligated balance' for annual transfers from the DOJ and Treasury Forfeiture Funds, any rescission of amounts in the fund for the *next* fiscal year (as included in an appropriations act) shall be disregarded. This means the calculation of the balance available for transfer to the USVSST Fund is not reduced by anticipated or potential future rescissions.
Section 2(a)(2)(C)(ii)(III) and (iii)(III)(bb)
Why it matters:This is a technical legislative drafting choice designed to ensure the intended amount is transferred to the USVSST Fund, preventing accounting maneuvers or future legislative actions (like rescissions) from diminishing the transfer amount.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is crucial to ensure the USVSST Fund receives the full intended amount from the forfeiture funds, preventing legislative or administrative actions from reducing the transfer based on future budget decisions.
Case against: Agencies managing the forfeiture funds might argue this limits their flexibility in managing balances, especially in anticipation of future rescissions, potentially impacting their ability to plan for future expenditures or respond to unforeseen operational needs.
Estimated impact: This provision could protect hundreds of millions or more in transfers to the USVSST Fund by preventing reductions based on future rescissions, thereby ensuring greater financial stability for victim compensation.
This 'Rule of Construction' clarifies that the Act's amendments regarding the scope of *forfeiture proceeds* to be deposited into the Fund do not impact the scope or interpretation of *criminal or civil penalties or fines* required to be deposited under existing law. It explicitly notes that the scope of penalties/fines is subject to pending litigation and future legislation, indicating an unresolved area of funding.
Section 3(a)(3)(III)
Why it matters:This clause is a legislative carve-out that acknowledges ongoing legal disputes regarding the interpretation of existing law concerning penalties and fines. It allows the bill to move forward with clarifying forfeiture proceeds without prejudicing or interfering with complex, ongoing litigation, which can be addressed separately.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision allows the bill to proceed with clarifying one aspect of funding (forfeiture proceeds) without getting bogged down in complex, ongoing legal battles over another (penalties and fines), thereby ensuring timely progress on victim compensation.
Case against: Critics might argue that by leaving an important area of funding ambiguity unresolved, the bill misses an opportunity to provide full clarity on all potential funding sources for the USVSST Fund, potentially delaying comprehensive solutions.
Estimated impact: This provision prevents the bill from inadvertently affecting potentially significant amounts of funds currently under litigation, which could be billions, thereby avoiding new legal complications while maintaining the status quo for those specific funds.