22810 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE, Vol. 154, Pt. 16 September 27, 2008 LOFGREN, as much time as she may constrained by the first amendment and thus It prohibits a federal or state court from en- need. may provide less protection to defamation forcing a defamation judgment entered in an- Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I defendants than our Constitution requires. other country for publication involving a matter would certainly like to commend Con- (5) While our Nation’s courts will generally enforce foreign judgments as a matter of of public concern, unless the court first deter- gressman RODRIGUEZ and Senator comity, comity does not require that courts mines that the judgment is consistent with the SCHUMER. This is a measure that I sup- enforce foreign judgments that are repug- free-speech clause of our Constitution’s First port. nant to our Nation’s fundamental constitu- Amendment. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note tional values, in particular its strong protec- H.R. 6146 responds to the problem of what there is another measure that we have tion of the right to freedom of speech. is sometimes called ‘‘libel tourism.’’ This is the marked up in the Judiciary Committee (6) Our Nation’s courts should only enforce disturbing practice of suing authors for defa- that would broadly assist our Amer- foreign judgments as a matter of comity mation in foreign countries rather than in the ican soldiers and their families. I hope when such foreign judgments are consistent United States, so as to avoid the speech-pro- with the right to freedom of speech. that in the same spirit of collaboration (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to tective features of defamation law enshrined in we see this evening, we will be able to protect the right to freedom of speech under our Constitution. achieve that wonderful advance for the the first amendment to the Constitution of A much-cited recent example is the lawsuit fathers, mothers, wives, spouses, and the United States from the potentially weak- filed by a Saudi billionaire against an Amer- sons and daughters of our brave Amer- ening effects of foreign judgments con- ican expert on terrorism, as a result of state- ican soldiers. cerning defamation. ments about his activities she made in a book Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DEFAMATION entitled Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Fi- back the balance of my time. JUDGMENTS. nanced and How to Stop It. (a) IN GENERAL.—Part VI of title 28, United The SPEAKER pro tempore. The States Code, is amended by adding at the end The Saudi billionaire sued the American au- question is on the motion offered by the following: thor not in the United States, where the book the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. ‘‘CHAPTER 181—FOREIGN JUDGMENTS was published, but in England, where a mere CONYERS) that the House suspend the 23 copies of the book had been sold to on-line ‘‘Sec. rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2840. ‘‘4101. Recognition of foreign defamation buyers. The question was taken. judgments. He sued in England to avail himself of The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the ‘‘§ 4101. Recognition of foreign defamation English libel law, which denies authors the im- opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being judgments portant free-speech protections of our First in the affirmative, the ayes have it. ‘‘(a) FIRST AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS.— Amendment. This kind of end-run on the Con- Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I Notwithstanding any other provision of Fed- stitution poses an obvious threat to free object to the vote on the ground that a eral or State law, a domestic court shall not speech rights in our country. quorum is not present and make the recognize or enforce a foreign judgment for H.R. 6146, which was introduced by our col- point of order that a quorum is not defamation that is based upon a publication league, STEVE COHEN of Tennessee, would go present. concerning a public figure or a matter of a long way toward eliminating this threat. At The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- public concern unless the domestic court de- the same time, it would not interfere with the ant to clause 8 of rule XX and the termines that the foreign judgment is con- sistent with the first amendment to the Con- judicial systems of other countries, or deprive Chair’s prior announcement, further stitution of the United States. plaintiffs of their choice of forum. proceedings on this motion will be ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sec- It would simply require that anyone who postponed. tion: seeks to enforce this specific type of defama- The point of no quorum is considered ‘‘(1) DOMESTIC COURT.—The term ‘domestic tion judgment in our courts to establish that withdrawn. court’ means a State court or a Federal the judgment does not offend our First court. f Amendment. Many U.S. courts already impose ‘‘(2) FOREIGN COURT.—The term ‘foreign this condition on the enforcement of foreign PROHIBITING RECOGNITION AND court’ means a court, administrative body, defamation judgments. ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN or other tribunal of a foreign country. I urge my colleagues to support this impor- DEFAMATION JUDGMENTS ‘‘(3) FOREIGN JUDGMENT.—The term ‘foreign judgment’ means a final judgment rendered tant bill. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move by a foreign court.’’. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the author of to suspend the rules and pass the bill (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.— The table of the measure, STEVE COHEN, the gen- (H.R. 6146) to amend title 28, United chapters for part VI of title 28, United States tleman from Memphis, Tennessee, as States Code, to prohibit recognition Code, is amended by adding at the end the much time as he may consume. and enforcement of foreign defamation following: Mr. COHEN. I want to thank the judgments, as amended. ‘‘181. Foreign Judgments .................... 4101’’. chairman for his courtesies and the The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- ranking member in helping bring this The text of the bill is as follows: ant to the rule, the gentleman from bill to the floor today. H.R. 6146 Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) and the gen- Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- tleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) each of H.R. 6146, which I introduced with resentatives of the United States of America in will control 20 minutes. Congressman ISSA of California. The Congress assembled, The Chair recognizes the gentleman bill is designed to address the phe- SECTION 1. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. from Michigan. nomenon of libel tourism, whereby (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the fol- GENERAL LEAVE plaintiffs seek judgments from foreign lowing: Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask courts from American authors and pub- (1) The first amendment of the Constitu- unanimous consent that all Members lishers for making allegedly defama- tion of the United States prohibits the tory statements. abridgment of freedom of speech. have 5 legislative days to revise and ex- (2) Freedom of speech is fundamental to tend their remarks and include extra- The fact is, these statements in these the values of American democracy. neous material on the bill under con- cases would not be considered defama- (3) In light of the constitutional protection sideration. tory in American courts where the first our Nation affords to freedom of speech, the The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there amendment gives our authors and peo- Supreme Court has modified the elements of objection to the request of the gen- ple the protection of the first amend- the common law tort of defamation to pro- tleman from Michigan? ment, but in certain jurisdictions, even vide more protection for defendants than There was no objection. countries that have similar legal sys- would be available at common law, including Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield tems to ours, the first amendment is providing special protections for political speech. myself such time as I may consume. not recognized, and the libel laws are (4) The courts of other countries, including Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes a limited, but much different, and plaintiffs have less those that otherwise share our Nation’s com- important, condition on enforcement of foreign burdens to prove to get judgments mon law and due process traditions, are not defamation judgments in our courts. against defendants. VerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Apr 05, 2011 Jkt 069102 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 0688 Sfmt 0634 E:\BR08\H27SE8.004 H27SE8 jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BOUND RECORD September 27, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE, Vol. 154, Pt. 16 22811 This threatens to undermine our Na- I would also like to thank the Asso- they started taking all of the books off tion’s core free speech principles, as ciation of American Publishers, par- the shelves, and they started destroy- embodied in the first amendment. U.S. ticularly former Congresswoman Pat ing the books. In fact, they sent word law places this higher burden on defa- Schroeder, the Media Law Resource throughout the world, if you have this mation plaintiffs to safeguard our first Center, and Professor Michael Brode of book, ‘‘Alms For Jihad,’’ destroy the amendment and protect our speech. We Emory University Law School for their book. Kind of like the burning of books have seen problems with this, particu- input on the bill. during World War II under the Nazis. larly in courts of England. The State of I urge the bill’s immediate passage. I So the Cambridge University Press New York has already acted to pass a thank my chairman from the bottom of gave in because the libel laws are dif- bill to protect authors and publishers my heart who I am fortunate to serve ferent than they are in the United in the first amendment, but there was with, and my ranking member who has States.