Again, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment in principle because I support the legislation in principle. This amendment, in fact, in the matter of liability, is relevant and helpful. The amendment I was proposing, Mr. Chairman, and the rationale for it, is if a foreign state funds a terrorist body. We didn't have explanation as to why this amendment was moved. I just want to provide a background rationale for the government's own amendment, let me say, Mr. Chairman.
It's now just a choice of whether it's theirs or mine, but the rationale remains the same—that if a foreign state funds a terrorist body that commits a terrorist act, it is usually very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that those specific funds caused a specific attack. In other words, it's difficult to establish causation, which is a necessary element for a successful suit against terrorist sponsors. Therefore, our approach was to add a deeming provision, which establishes that supporting a terrorist entity will make one liable for the terrorist attacks that entity commits, even if it cannot be proved that a specific donated dollar brought about that specific bullet.
That was the purpose for my amendment, which appears on the next page, Mr. Chairman, but I'm prepared to go along with one that goes along with the presumption, rather than have the deeming clause, because it captures the essence of what I think I would like to have. I think the deeming clause is preferable, but we don't have to go through the whole debate, because it's not going to get accepted—