Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act--Veto Message From the President of the United States

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to uphold President Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (S. 2040).

All Americans were deeply affected by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, none more so than the families who lost loved ones on that terrible day. President Obama has been unyielding in his pursuit of those who perpetrated the attacks. Since day one of his Administration, President Obama has made the destruction of Al-Qaeda a top national security priority. He has delivered on this promise, systematically devastating Al-Qaeda's leadership and killing Osama bin Laden.

I am profoundly sympathetic to the families of victims who were lost on September 11, 2001 and while I understand the intent behind S. 2040, I remain concerned that this legislation would be damaging to our national security. Not only would it not prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States, it would expose U.S. personnel serving overseas to lawsuits in the civil and criminal courts of foreign countries. For these reasons, I vote to uphold President Obama's veto of S. 2040.

The United States government has an array of legal tools that it uses to deal with nations that sponsor terrorism. This includes listing the offending nation as a state sponsor of terrorism, imposing sanctions, and the forfeiture of that nation's right to sovereign immunity in U.S.

courts. However, these measures are intended as an extreme consequence for nations that act outside of international norms. S. 2040 would allow terrorism related lawsuits in U.S. courts against any nation, not only those designated as a sponsor of terrorism by our government, which is alleged to have contributed to an act of terrorism in the United States. This would begin an erosion of the principle of sovereign immunity for every nation, including U.S. allies, and expose their government and personnel to lawsuits in U.S. courts.
The reciprocal effect that this erosion of sovereign immunity could have on U.S. personnel overseas, including our men and women in uniform, is deeply concerning. Were S. 2040 to become law, it would set an international precedent for other nations to follow. U.S. personnel serving in foreign countries could be subjected to civil and criminal lawsuits in foreign courts, putting them at risk and potentially exposing sensitive national security information in the process. These are the people we depend upon in our fight against terrorist organizations like ISIL, and we must ensure that proper legal safeguards are in place to protect them.

As a Member of Congress, it is my duty to ensure that our service members and diplomatic personnel overseas are afforded the proper legal protections that allow them to do their jobs and protect this nation.
S. 2040 unfortunately fails to ensure these protections and subsequently I will vote to sustain President Obama's veto.

I am attaching an editorial from the New York Times on this issue.

[Sept. 28, 2016]

The Risks of Suing the Saudis for 9/11

The Senate and the House are expected to vote this week on whether to override President Obama's veto of a bill that would allow families of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role it had in the terrorist operations. The lawmakers should let the veto stand.

The legislation, called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, would expand an exception to sovereign immunity, the legal principle that protects foreign countries and their diplomats from lawsuits in the American legal system. While the aim--to give the families their day in court--is compassionate, the bill complicates the United States' relationship with Saudi Arabia and could expose the American government, citizens and corporations to lawsuits abroad. Moreover, legal experts like Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law and Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School doubt that the legislation would actually achieve its goal.

Co-sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, the measure is intended to overcome a series of court rulings that have blocked all lawsuits filed by the 9/11 families against the Saudi government. The Senate passed the bill unanimously in May, and the House gave its approval this month.

The legislation would, among other things, amend a 1976 law that grants other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits--unless the country is on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism (Iran, Sudan and Syria) or is alleged to have committed a terrorist attack that killed Americans on United States soil. The new bill would clarify that foreign governments can be held liable for aiding terrorist groups, even if that conduct occurred overseas.

Advocates say the measure is narrowly drawn, but administration officials argue that it would apply much more broadly and result in retaliatory actions by other nations.

The European Union has warned that if the bill becomes law, other countries could adopt similar legislation defining their own exemptions to sovereign immunity. Because no country is more engaged in the world than the United States--with military bases, drone operations, intelligence missions and training programs--the Obama administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.

The legislation is motivated by a belief among the 9/11 families that Saudi Arabia played a role in the attacks, because 15 of the 19 hijackers, who were members of Al Qaeda, were Saudis. But the independent American commission that investigated the attacks found no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the terrorists.

Proponents of the legislation cite two assassination cases in which legal claims were allowed against Chile and Taiwan.

Administration officials, however, say that those cases alleged the direct involvement of foreign government agents operating in the United States.

The current debate is complicated by the fact that Saudi Arabia is a difficult ally, at odds with the United States over the Iran nuclear deal, a Saudi-led war in Yemen and the war in Syria. It is home of the fundamentalist strand of Islam known as Wahhabism, which has inspired many of the extremists the United States is trying to defeat. But it is also a partner in combating terrorism. The legislation could damage this fraught relationship. Riyadh has already threatened to withdraw billions of dollars in American-based assets to protect them from court action.

The desire to assist the Sept. 11 families is understandable, and the bill is expected to become law. The question is, at what cost?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source