[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 145 (Monday, September 26, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6078-S6079]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE

                                 ______
                                 

    REPORT OF THE VETO OF S. 2040, THE JUSTICE AGAINST SPONSORS OF 
 TERRORISM ACT, RECEIVED DURING ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE ON SEPTEMBER 
                            23, 2016--PM 56

  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the President of the United States which was ordered to be printed 
in the Record, spread in full upon the Journal, and held at the desk:

To the Senate of the United States:
  I am returning herewith without my approval S. 2040, the ``Justice 
Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act'' (JASTA), which would, among other 
things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign 
governments that

[[Page S6079]]

are not designated state sponsors of terrorism.
  I have deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), who have suffered grievously. I 
also have a deep appreciation of these families' desire to pursue 
justice and am strongly committed to assisting them in their efforts.
  Consistent with this commitment, over the past 8 years, I have 
directed my Administration to pursue relentlessly al-Qa'ida, the 
terrorist group that planned the 9/11 attacks. The heroic efforts of 
our military and counterterrorism professionals have decimated al-
Qa'ida's leadership and killed Osama bin Laden. My Administration also 
strongly supported, and I signed into law, legislation which ensured 
that those who bravely responded on that terrible day and other 
survivors of the attacks will be able to receive treatment for any 
injuries resulting from the attacks. And my Administration also 
directed the Intelligence Community to perform a declassification 
review of ``Part Four of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 
Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist 
Attacks of September 11,'' so that the families of 9/11 victims and 
broader public can better understand the information investigators 
gathered following that dark day of our history.
  Notwithstanding these significant efforts, I recognize that there is 
nothing that could ever erase the grief the 9/11 families have endured. 
My Administration therefore remains resolute in its commitment to 
assist these families in their pursuit of justice and do whatever we 
can to prevent another attack in the United States. Enacting JASTA into 
law, however, would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks 
nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks. As 
drafted, JASTA would allow private litigation against foreign 
governments in U.S. courts based on allegations that such foreign 
governments' actions abroad made them responsible for terrorism-related 
injuries on U.S. soil. This legislation would permit litigation against 
countries that have neither been designated by the executive branch as 
state sponsors of terrorism nor taken direct actions in the United 
States to carry out an attack here. The JASTA would be detrimental to 
U.S. national interests more broadly, which is why I am returning it 
without my approval.
  First, JASTA threatens to reduce the effectiveness of our response to 
indications that a foreign government has taken steps outside our 
borders to provide support for terrorism, by taking such matters out of 
the hands of national security and foreign policy professionals and 
placing them in the hands of private litigants and courts.
  Any indication that a foreign government played a role in a terrorist 
attack on U.S. soil is a matter of deep concern and merits a forceful, 
unified Federal Government response that considers the wide range of 
important and effective tools available. One of these tools is 
designating the foreign government in question as a state sponsor of 
terrorism, which carries with it a litany of repercussions, including 
the foreign government being stripped of its sovereign immunity before 
U.S. courts in certain terrorism-related cases and subjected to a range 
of sanctions. Given these serious consequences, state sponsor of 
terrorism designations are made only after national security, foreign 
policy, and intelligence professionals carefully review all available 
information to determine whether a country meets the criteria that the 
Congress established.
  I contrast, JASTA departs from longstanding standards and practice 
under our Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and threatens to strip all 
foreign governments of immunity from judicial process in the United 
States based solely upon allegations by private litigants that a 
foreign government's overseas conduct had some role or connection to a 
group or person that carried out a terrorist attack inside the United 
States. This would invite consequential decisions to be made based upon 
incomplete information and risk having different courts reaching 
different conclusions about the culpability of individual foreign 
governments and their role in terrorist activities directed against the 
United States--which is neither an effective nor a coordinated way for 
us to respond to indications that a foreign government might have been 
behind a terrorist attack.
  Second, JASTA would upset longstanding international principles 
regarding sovereign immunity, putting in place rules that, if applied 
globally, could have serious implications for U.S. national interests. 
The United States has a larger international presence, by far, than any 
other country, and sovereign immunity principles protect our Nation and 
its Armed Forces, officials, and assistance professionals, from foreign 
court proceedings. These principles also protect U.S. Government assets 
from attempted seizure by private litigants abroad. Removing sovereign 
immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not 
designated as state sponsors of terrorism, based solely on allegations 
that such foreign governments' actions abroad had a connection to 
terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil, threatens to undermine these 
longstanding principles that protect the United States, our forces, and 
our personnel.
  Indeed, reciprocity plays a substantial role in foreign relations, 
and numerous other countries already have laws that allow for the 
adjustment of a foreign state's immunities based on the treatment their 
governments receive in the courts of the other state. Enactment of 
JASTA could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow 
their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States 
or U.S. officials--including our men and women in uniform--for 
allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties. 
This could lead to suits against the United States or U.S. officials 
for actions taken by members of an armed group that received U.S. 
assistance, misuse of U.S. military equipment by foreign forces, or 
abuses committed by police units that received U.S. training, even if 
the allegations at issue ultimately would be without merit. And if any 
of these litigants were to win judgments--based on foreign domestic 
laws as applied by foreign courts--they would begin to look to the 
assets of the U.S. Government held abroad to satisfy those judgments, 
with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States.
  Third, JASTA threatens to create complications in our relationships 
with even our closest partners. If JASTA were enacted, courts could 
potentially consider even minimal allegations accusing U.S. allies or 
partners of complicity in a particular terrorist attack in the United 
States to be sufficient to open the door to litigation and wide-ranging 
discovery against a foreign country--for example, the country where an 
individual who later committed a terrorist act traveled from or became 
radicalized. A number of our allies and partners have already contacted 
us with serious concerns about the bill. By exposing these allies and 
partners to this sort of litigation in U.S. courts, JASTA threatens to 
limit their cooperation on key national security issues, including 
counterterrorism initiatives, at a crucial time when we are trying to 
build coalitions, not create divisions.
  The 9/11 attacks were the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil, and 
they were met with an unprecedented U.S. Government response. The 
United States has taken robust and wide-ranging actions to provide 
justice for the victims of the 9/11 attacks and keep Americans safe, 
from providing financial compensation for victims and their families to 
conducting worldwide counterterrorism programs to bringing criminal 
charges against culpable individuals. I have continued and expanded 
upon these efforts, both to help victims of terrorism gain justice for 
the loss and suffering of their loved ones and to protect the United 
States from future attacks. The JASTA, however, does not contribute to 
these goals, does not enhance the safety of Americans from terrorist 
attacks, and undermines core U.S. interests.
  For these reasons, I must veto the bill.
                                                        Barack Obama.  
The White House, September 23, 2016.

                          ____________________