[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H6023-H6032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JUSTICE AGAINST SPONSORS OF TERRORISM ACT--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the Senate:
The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the bill (S.
2040) entitled ``An Act to deter terrorism, provide justice
for victims, and for other purposes.'', returned by the
President of the United States with his objections, to the
Senate, in which it originated, it was
Resolved, That the said bill pass, two-thirds of the
Senators present having voted in the affirmative.
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto
message from the President of the United States:
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 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.
In 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,
[[Page H6024]]
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be
spread at large upon the Journal.
The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1345
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers),
the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 2040, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Senate voted 97-1 to
override the President's veto on the Justice Against Sponsors of
Terrorism Act. I rise to urge my colleagues to follow the Senate's
action and vote to override this veto so that Americans may seek
judicial redress against any foreign government that chooses to sponsor
a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
The question that this veto override vote poses is whether we should
allow those who harm our citizens to hide behind legal barriers that
are required by neither the Constitution nor international law, or
whether we should permit U.S. victims to hold those who sponsor
terrorism in our country fully accountable in our courts. I think that
the answer to this question is clear, and I hope that my colleagues
will join me in overwhelmingly overriding the President's veto of
JASTA.
The changes JASTA makes to existing law are not dramatic, nor are
they sweeping.
JASTA amends the Anti-Terrorism Act to make clear that any person who
aids, abets, or conspires with a State Department designated foreign
terrorist organization is subject to civil liability for injury to a
U.S. person.
In addition, the legislation amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act to add an exception to foreign sovereign immunity for acts of
international terrorism sponsored by a foreign government that cause
physical harm within the United States.
The President objects to this change to the law on the grounds that
it upsets principles of foreign sovereign immunity and that, by so
doing, our national interests will be threatened by reciprocal
treatment from abroad. The President's objections, however, have no
basis under U.S. or international law.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act already has nine exceptions to
sovereign immunity, including the territorial tort exception. This
exception provides that a foreign country is not immune from the
jurisdiction of our courts for injuries that it causes that occur
entirely within the United States.
Consistent with customary international law, JASTA, for terrorism
cases, removes the current requirement that the entire tort occur
within the United States and replaces it with a rule that only the
physical injury or death must occur on U.S. soil. JASTA makes this
change because, under current law, a foreign nation can provide
financing and other substantial assistance for a terrorist attack in
our country and escape liability so long as the support is provided
overseas.
For example, under current law, if the intelligence agency of a
foreign government handed a terrorist a bag of money in New York City
to support an attack on U.S. soil, the country would be liable under
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's tort exception right now.
However, if we change the fact pattern slightly so that rather than
giving a terrorist money in New York City the money is provided in
Paris, the foreign state will not be subject to liability in U.S.
courts. This is a troubling loophole in our antiterrorism laws.
When Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in 1976,
it put in place a broad set of exceptions to sovereign immunity,
including an exception for tort claims involving injuries occurring in
the United States. However, the courts have not consistently
interpreted those exceptions in such a manner that they cover the
sponsoring of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. JASTA addresses this
inconsistency with a concrete rule that is consistent with the nine
longstanding exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity already provided
for under U.S. law.
JASTA ensures that those, including foreign governments, who sponsor
terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are held fully accountable for their
actions. We can no longer allow those who injure and kill Americans to
hide behind legal loopholes denying justice to the victims of
terrorism.
I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United
States constituted the deadliest foreign attack on American soil in our
Nation's history. Their impact has been immeasurable, as evidenced by
the fact that we are still grappling with their cultural and policy
implications.
Fifteen years later, their powerful emotional effect on Americans
remains as strong as ever. Those who lost loved ones or were injured as
a result of this horrific attack deserve our deepest sympathy and our
help.
It is in this vein that we consider whether to override the
President's veto of S. 2040, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism
Act, which, among other things, amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act of 1976 to create a new exception to the act's general grant of
foreign sovereign immunity.
The bill's supporters present compelling and sympathetic arguments in
favor of ensuring that the 9/11 families have access to a well-deserved
day in court.
[[Page H6025]]
In his veto message, however, the President raised a number of
serious substantive concerns about the potential unintended
consequences of this legislation.
First, the President stated that S. 2040 could undermine the
effectiveness of our Nation's national security and counterterrorism
efforts. For instance, other nations may become more reluctant to share
sensitive intelligence in light of the greater risk that such
information may be revealed in litigation.
Moreover, the President raised the concern that this legislation
would effectively allow nonexpert private litigants and courts, rather
than national security and foreign policy experts, to determine key
foreign and national security policy questions like which states are
sponsors of terrorism.
Second, the President's assertion that enactment of S. 2040 may lead
to retaliation by other countries against the United States given the
breadth of our interests and the expansive reach of our global
activities.
So while it seems likely at this juncture that S. 2040 will be
enacted over the President's veto, I remain hopeful that we can
continue to work toward the enactment of subsequent legislation to
address the President's concerns.
I understand the moral imperative of enacting legislation in this
matter, but I am sensitive to the seriousness of the concerns that the
President raised.
I had expressed the hope, during floor debate on this bill, that
Congress and the President could work together to find a better balance
that would still enable 9/11 victims to seek justice while tempering
the President's concerns.
There is no doubt as to the passion that the bill's supporters bring
to advocating for the victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks, a
passion that I share.
As legislators, however, we must be driven not only by understandable
emotions but by thoughtful consideration of the long-term interests of
our country. And for this reason, the expected outcome of today's vote
should not be the end of this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. King), the chief sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for
yielding. Let me, at the outset, thank him for the outstanding work
that he has done in bringing this bill, this legislation, to this
historic moment where I certainly hope and urge the House of
Representatives to override--to join the Senate in overriding the
President's veto of JASTA.
I take very seriously the objections the President has raised, but
this bill wasn't drawn in a vacuum, and it hasn't reached this stage in
a vacuum.
Primarily led by people like Chairman Goodlatte, Congressman Nadler,
who is the chief cosponsor of the bill, and also by the leading
sponsors in the Senate, all of the President's objections, I believe,
were addressed. Changes were made.
This bill is not going to put American soldiers at risk. It is not
going to put American diplomats at risk. What it is going to do is
finally allow the 9/11 families to have their day in court to seek the
justice they have long been denied. And if the Government of Saudi
Arabia has no involvement, if there is no liability, they have nothing
to worry about.
But the fact is, those of us who live in New York, who live in New
Jersey, and all Americans, no matter where you happen to live, those of
us who were alive on that day know how much this affected all of us.
But just think about how it affected those families, those who lost
their husbands and wives and children and grandchildren and mothers and
fathers.
So it is really essential that this House today stand on the side of
those who seek justice, realizing that we are doing nothing in any way
at all to put any American lives at risk. What we want to do is seek
justice against those who did cause Americans to die.
Again, I thank the Senate for their override vote today. I thank
Chairman Goodlatte for his outstanding work. I thank my good colleague,
Jerry Nadler. Dan Donovan has done so much since he has come to the
Congress.
I urge the House of Representatives to join with the Senate in
overriding the veto of the President of the United States.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking Peter King and Bob Goodlatte
for their role in bringing this bill to the floor as the sponsor and
committee chairman.
I rise in strong support of overriding the President's veto of JASTA.
JASTA is a carefully crafted, narrow bill that would hold accountable
foreign governments that knowingly provide substantial assistance to a
designated foreign terrorist organization that launches an attack in
the United States.
Despite the overblown rhetoric of some critics of this bill, JASTA
will not pose a threat to American military personnel or diplomats.
They would be absolutely protected if another country passed
legislation mirroring this bill because JASTA applies only to
governments.
To the extent that a foreign government might pass broader
legislation that would make American personnel subject to liability,
that country would not be reciprocating. It would be engaging in a
transparent and unjustifiable act of aggression.
The economic, diplomatic, and military strength of the United States
makes such action unlikely, and any rogue state inclined to target U.S.
interests can already do so. We must not hold justice for the 9/11
families hostage to imagined fears.
Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, on September 11, we suffered the most
deadly terrorist attack on our soil in this Nation's history. My
district in New York was the epicenter of this attack, but its effects
were felt across the country, including, of course, at the Pentagon and
in Pennsylvania. We all have an interest in ensuring that the 9/11
victims and their families can bring to justice anyone who was
responsible for this vicious attack.
JASTA simply reinstates what was understood to be the law for 30
years; that foreign states, not individuals, not soldiers, foreign
states, may be brought to justice for aiding and abetting acts of
international terrorism that occur on American soil, whether or not the
conduct that facilitated the attack occurred in the United States.
Some courts have recently held that if a foreign government agent
hands over a check to al Qaeda in a cafe in New York to fund a
terrorist attack in the United States, that government can be sued in
an American court. But if that same foreign agent funds the same attack
by handing over the same check in a cafe in Geneva, the government is
immune from suit.
That makes no sense, and it flies in the face of what had been
settled law for many years. Longstanding U.S. law, under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, provides jurisdiction to sue foreign states
that cause a tortious injury on American soil. That is current law.
{time} 1400
This is the international norm, and it has never prompted retaliatory
conduct by other nations. This bill simply clarifies that if a foreign
state murders thousands of Americans on American soil or provides
substantial assistance to a designated terrorist group that murders
thousands of Americans on American soil, that government cannot hide
from justice merely because its actions occurred abroad.
This bill does not target any particular country or prejudge the
merits of any particular case. Any government brought before a U.S.
court will have every defense available to it, as well as extensive
protections and government privileges during discovery to protect
against disclosure of its sensitive information. What it will not be
able to do is hide behind erroneous court decisions and jurisdictional
loopholes to avoid the legal process altogether.
We have heard a parade of horribles stemming from a hypothetical fear
that other nations would use JASTA as an excuse to target American
citizens. Again, if a foreign government passes legislation that
mirrors JASTA, American citizens would still be absolutely protected
because JASTA applies only
[[Page H6026]]
to governments. A foreign government is highly unlikely to pass
legislation that goes beyond JASTA. If a rogue state does, in fact,
authorize suits against American personnel abroad, we have a well-
established process for defending such actions. According to the Office
of Foreign Litigation at the Department of Justice, ``at any given
time, foreign lawyers under the direct supervision, represent the
United States in approximately 1,000 lawsuits pending in the courts of
over 100 countries.'' This is not a new issue for the United States,
and we are well equipped to deal with any consequences.
We are warned that Saudi Arabia will be very angry if we approve this
bill, that the Saudis may retaliate against the United States, may
perhaps withdraw some investments. History shows that the Saudis will
do what is in their interests. They need American support and American
arms in the volatile Middle East where they fear and fight Iran and its
proxies. They are not going to prefer their emotions to their interests
and act against the United States.
If the Saudi Government was not complicit in the attack on 9/11, the
plaintiffs will fail to prove such complicity in an American court.
Justice will have been served, and the Saudis will be vindicated after
years of suspicion. But if it is proven in an American court that the
Saudi Government was complicit in the attacks on 9/11, justice will
have been served and we--not the Saudis--will have justification to be
very angry.
Mr. Speaker, this bill was carefully negotiated over more than 6
years. It passed the House and Senate unanimously, and earlier today,
the Senate voted 97-1 to override the President's veto. All that stands
in the way of justice for the 9/11 victims and their families is a vote
in this House. I urge my colleagues to stand with them and to override
the veto.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from
Virginia for yielding, and, secondly, commend him for his work to try
to tailor this measure in as narrow a way as possible.
I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) for his
strong, persistent advocacy for the families of the victims of 9/11.
All of us share in their grief. The country has not gotten over that
horrible incident, and all of us have contempt for those who carry out
terrorist attacks and those who support them.
My concern for this legislation, however, is more related to the
unintended consequences that it may have because one of the key
protections that the military, diplomats, and intelligence community of
the United States has around the world is this doctrine of sovereign
immunity. Once that doctrine gets eroded, then there is less
protection, and we, the United States, has more at stake in having our
people protected than any other country because we have more people
around the world than anyone else.
So, in this Congress, we can control the laws of the United States,
and we can write them narrowly in a fine-tuned way to just achieve our
objective. But then other countries respond. They may not have their
laws narrowly defined in such a fine-tuned way. They may make them
broader. Their practice may not have the protections that ours do. So
the concern is that this starts a series of unintended consequences
that will increase the risk to U.S. military personnel around the
world, U.S. intelligence community personnel around the world, and
diplomats around the world. That is the reason you have widespread
concern that has been voiced in each of those communities for this
legislation.
Let me just read briefly from a letter from the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff that has been available to all Members. It says: ``Any
legislation that risks reciprocal treatment by foreign governments
would increase the vulnerability of U.S. Servicemembers to foreign
legal action while acting in an official capacity.''
That is the concern, that we lower the protections that our people
have around the world. Remember, when we send our military out, they
have to follow orders. They are implementing U.S. policy. They have no
choice. If they are called before a foreign court, if they are required
to give testimony in a foreign court, even if they are not the
defendant, then they are jeopardized, as is sensitive information from
the United States.
Mr. Speaker, so my point is that I understand totally the sympathies
for the victims as well as the desires many people have to override
this veto, but we also should keep in mind the longer term consequences
for our military who serve our Nation all around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Secretary of
Defense and a letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on
this issue.
Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, September 26, 2016.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of September
23, 2016, regarding the President's veto of S. 2040, the
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). I support
the President's position. We appreciate the opportunity to
provide views on this important issue.
As I stated in my testimony before the Senate Armed
Services Committee on September 22, 2016, I agree with the
intent of the bill, which is to honor the families of 9/11
victims. While we are sympathetic to the intent of JASTA, its
potential second- and third-order consequences could be
devastating to the Department and its Service members and
could undermine our important counterterrorism efforts
abroad.
In general terms, JASTA would allow lawsuits in U.S.
Federal Courts against foreign states for actions taken
abroad that are alleged to have contributed to acts of
terrorism in the United States, notwithstanding long-standing
principles of sovereign immunity. Under existing law, similar
lawsuits are available for actions taken abroad only by
designated state sponsors of terrorism. JASTA extends the
stripping of immunity to states that are not designated
sponsors of terrorism, potentially subjecting many of the
United States' allies and partner nations to litigation in
U.S. courts.
JASTA has potentially harmful consequences for the
Department of Defense and its personnel. Adoption of JASTA
might result in reciprocal treatment of the United States and
other countries could create exceptions to immunity that do
not directly mirror those created by JASTA. This is likely to
increase our country's vulnerability to lawsuits overseas and
to encourage foreign governments or their courts to exercise
jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials in
situations in which we believe the United States is entitled
of sovereign immunity. U.S. Service members stationed here
and overseas, and especially those supporting our
counterterrorism efforts, would be vulnerable to private
individuals' accusations that their activities contributed to
acts alleged to violate a foreign state's law. Such lawsuits
could relate to actions taken by members of armed groups that
received U.S. assistance or training, or misuse of U.S.
military equipment by foreign forces.
First, whether the United States or our Service members
have in fact provided support for terrorist acts or aided
organizations that later commit such acts in violation of
foreign laws is irrelevant to whether we would be forced to
defend against lawsuits by private litigants in foreign
courts. Instead, the mere allegation of their involvement
could subject them to a foreign court's jurisdiction and the
accompanying litigation and intrusive discovery process that
goes along with defending against such lawsuits. This could
result in significant consequences even if the United States
or our personnel were ultimately found not to be responsible
for the alleged acts.
Second, there would be a risk of sizeable monetary damage
awards in such cases, which could lead to efforts to attach
U.S. Government property to satisfy those awards. Given the
broad range of U.S. activities and robust presence around the
world, including our Department's foreign bases and
facilities abroad, we would have numerous assets vulnerable
to such attempts.
Third, it is likely that litigants will seek sensitive
government information in order to establish their case
against either a foreign state under JASTA in U.S. courts or
against the United States in a foreign court. This could
include classified intelligence data and analysis, as well as
sensitive operational information. While in the United States
classified information could potentially be withheld in
certain narrow circumstances in civil lawsuits brought by
private litigants against our allies and partners, no
legislation specifically protects classified information in
civil actions (unlike protections afforded in criminal
prosecutions) or under JASTA. Furthermore, if the United
States were to be sued in foreign courts, such information
would likely be sought by foreign plaintiffs, and it would be
up to the foreign court whether classified or sensitive U.S.
Government information sought by the litigants would be
protected from disclosure. Moreover, the classified
information could well be vital for our defense against the
accusations. Disclosure could put the United States in the
[[Page H6027]]
difficult position of choosing between disclosing classified
or otherwise sensitive information or suffering adverse
rulings and potentially large damage awards for our refusal
to do so.
Relatedly, foreign lawsuits will divert resources from
mission crucial tasks; they could subject our Service members
and civilians, as well as contractor personnel, to
depositions, subpoenas for trial testimony, and other
compulsory processes both here and abroad. Indeed, such
personnel might be held in civil or even criminal contempt if
they refused to appear or to divulge classified or other
sensitive information at the direction of a foreign court.
Finally, allowing our partners and allies--not just
designated state sponsors of terrorism--to be subject to
lawsuits inside the United States will inevitably undermine
the trust and cooperation our forces need to accomplish their
important missions. By damaging our close and effective
cooperation with other countries, this could ultimately have
a chilling effect on our own counterterrorism efforts.
Please let me know if there is any additional information
the Department can provide.
Sincerely,
Ash Carter.
____
Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Washington, DC.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your 23 September 2016
letter regarding the President's veto of the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act. I have read Secretary Carter's
response, and share his concerns on the potential second- and
third-order consequences of such legislation. As you
deliberate, I would ask that you consider the following
issues that affect the Joint Force.
Any legislation that risks reciprocal treatment by foreign
governments would increase the vulnerability of U.S. Service
members to foreign legal action while acting in an official
capacity. For example, U.S. Service members, especially those
supporting counterterrorism operations, could be subjected to
a foreign court's jurisdiction if it is alleged that they
took actions that violated a foreign state's law. Whether the
allegations are ultimately proven to be without merit is not
an adequate guide, as the service members will have already
been subjected to the foreign court's litigation process.
In those cases where a foreign government decides to
exercise jurisdiction over a U.S. Service member, the Service
member could be held in civil, or criminal, contempt should
they refuse to appear or otherwise comply with the foreign
court's orders. This concern would extend to cases where the
United States would be at risk of substantial monetary
damages, which could lead to attempts to seize U.S. military
property overseas in order to satisfy any monetary awards.
If a U.S. Service member were to be sued in a foreign
court, it would be up to the foreign court to decide whether
classified or sensitive U.S. Government information would be
required as part of the litigation process. This could put
the United States in the position of choosing between the
disclosure of classified or sensitive information, and
subjecting a U.S. Service member to an adverse foreign court
ruling.
Finally, regardless of the specific legislation being
considered, any legislation that effects the long-standing
principles of sovereignty should carefully consider any risks
to the close security cooperation relationships between the
United States and our allies and partners.
Sincerely,
Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.
General, U.S. Marine Corps.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott). Mr. Scott is a former member of the Judiciary
Committee. He is now the ranking member on the Education and the
Workforce Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attacks perpetrated against our Nation 15
years ago killed nearly 3,000 people. No one can fully fathom the grief
still felt by families to lose their loved ones in such a horrific way.
We understand the need to continue to seek justice against those who
may have aided and abetted the individuals that orchestrated these
attacks. However, this legislation is not the right way to go about
achieving that justice.
JASTA abrogates a core principle in international law--foreign
sovereign immunity. There are already several exceptions to this
immunity recognized by our Nation and others, but JASTA goes much
further than any present exception or recognized practice of any
national law. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas just suggested,
one fundamental indication of fairness of legislation is not how it
would work to our benefit, but what we would think if it were used
against us.
If the United States decides to allow our citizens to haul foreign
nations into American courts, what would we think of other nations
enacting legislation allowing their citizens to do the same thing to
us?
Obviously, we would not want to put our diplomats, military, and
private companies at that risk.
Consider our Nation's actions in Iraq. While there may be questions
about Saudi Arabia's indirect involvement in 9/11, there is no question
about who the state-sponsored actor was in 2003 when we bombed Baghdad
and killed and injured hundreds of thousands of people with little or
no evidence that Iraq was any immediate threat to the United States or
our allies.
What would we think if Iraq enacted legislation similar to JASTA,
allowing their citizens to sue the United States for acts perpetrated
during the Iraqi war?
American soldiers and contractors living and working in Iraq today
could be hauled in to Iraqi court, tried by an Iraqi judge, held
responsible by an Iraqi jury that would assess the amount of money owed
to each and every Iraqi citizen killed or maimed.
Furthermore, if they adopted similar legislation to this, other
nations could sue the United States and our citizens for sponsoring
organizations they deem as terrorist organizations. Unfortunately,
these discussions are already taking place in capitals around the world
because of this legislation.
JASTA does not make clear how the evidence would be gathered to help
build a credible case against a foreign nation.
Would the plaintiffs be able to subpoena foreign officials? Or would
the U.S. Department of State officials have to testify? Would we be
required to expose sensitive materials in order to help American
citizens prove their case? Again, how would we feel about foreign
judges and juries deciding whether or not the United States sponsored
terrorism?
There are also questions about how the judgment under JASTA would be
enforced. The legislation does not address how a court would enforce
the judgment.
Could foreign assets be attached? How would this process work if
other countries enacted similar legislation? Would U.S. assets all over
the world be subject to attachment to satisfy the foreign jury
verdicts?
Mr. Speaker, there are many other more responsible mechanisms that
this body could enact to hold foreign actors accountable for their
involvement in international terrorism without exposing the United
States or our citizens to lawsuits all over the world.
We should do the responsible thing, Mr. Speaker, and sustain the
President's veto of this legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the
gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Virginia.
First of all, with regard to some of the examples given by the
gentleman from Texas, I want to make clear that this is the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act that is being amended--foreign sovereign, not
individuals. So if another country were to flip this and take action
under their laws to do something in their courts, it would only apply
to governments, not to individuals.
So with regard to the assertions made by the gentleman from Virginia,
many countries have already done what we are proposing to do here
today. The whole tort rule that is utilized in the United States which
says, just as an example, if you provided a bag of money to a terrorist
in the United States, you can sue that foreign government in our
country right now, in our courts right now. It would change so that if
they provided the bag of money in Paris, you could do it there.
Right now it is a loophole. Guess what? Any foreign government that
wants to sponsor terrorism in the United States, what is the first
thing they are going to do right now under current law?
They are going to make sure that the money is transferred outside the
United States so they are not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S.
courts.
Customary international law does not seem to require the entire tort
limitation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
[[Page H6028]]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on
Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Properties would apply
the territorial tort exception if the act or omission occurred in whole
or in part in the territory of the state exercising jurisdiction.
Most nations that have codified the exception appear to require some
act or omission in their territories, but it is not clear that these
nations have done so from a sense of international legal obligation
rather than from comity. Even if customary international law were
properly read to preclude a nation from applying the territorial tort
exception solely on the basis of death and damage within its territory,
the application of JASTA to the 9/11 cases, as an example, would still
not violate international law since the 9/11 attacks clearly involved
tortious acts in the United States.
JASTA requires that the physical harm occur in the United States. But
to have an exception that says that if people aid and abet from outside
the United States, their government--the government--aids and abets
from outside the United States, that government can evade the courts of
the United States. That is wrong.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds
to point out one additional thing. Under JASTA, the President or his
representative, the Secretary of State, can appear in the court where a
lawsuit is brought and delay the proceedings for a period of time, but
not forever.
Then, if that time expires and whatever effort the United States has
made to resolve this with a foreign government does not change the
circumstances, they can still go back to the court and they can ask the
court to delay further. But then it is up to the court to make that
decision.
Again, I urge my colleagues to override the President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Lance).
{time} 1415
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of overriding
the President's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
This is our constitutional prerogative. We in Congress can override
the veto of a President, and in this case a strong bipartisan majority
disagrees with the President. Earlier today, the Senate of the United
States voted 97-1 in favor of an override.
It is right and just that the victims of the horrific terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, be able to pursue full justice in our
courts of law. I am a lawyer, and I have worked with constitutional and
statutory issues. I also represent a congressional district in New
Jersey that lost 81 people on 9/11.
Opposing views fear repercussions against the United States if this
legislation becomes law, but the United States does not support,
finance, or condone international terrorism. We are the Nation that
historically has helped rid the world of evil, and we have nothing to
fear from truth and justice. Nations around the world should recognize
the fundamental justice in legal remedies against a terrorist network
that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.
It is our duty to provide the victims of 9/11 this legislative remedy
by which they can seek the facts, and the Federal Government should be
as transparent as possible with the evidence and the intelligence. The
still grieving families of 9/11 deserve their day in court--they have
waited long enough--and this narrowly tailored legislation will give
them recourse for full justice and compensation.
Mr. Speaker, any override of a Presidential veto is a serious and
sober matter. I do not advocate an override lightly. I deeply respect
the Office of the President of the United States. This President has
never been overridden by the Congress. I believe, however, that an
override is the better public policy in this momentous situation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who serves both on the
Homeland Security Committee and Judiciary Committee with great skill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
I think it is important to state on the floor of the House that
President Obama has been an outstanding Commander in Chief.
I have served on the Judiciary Committee proudly for the tenure I
have had in the United States Congress and on the Homeland Security
Committee since the tragedy of 9/11. I am committed to engaging in
efforts to develop policies that anticipate and respond to new and
emerging challenges to the security of our Nation and to the peace and
safety of the world.
However, I will never forget September 11. 2,977 men, women, and
children were murdered by 19 hijackers who took commercial aircraft and
used them as missiles. I stood on the front steps of the Capitol and
sang with Members of this Congress ``God Bless America.'' I visited the
World Trade Center in the months and weeks after this heinous tragedy
and grieved continuously each year as we commemorate, sadly, 9/11.
9/11 will always be remembered, and the loss of these families will
always be painful and piercing. Just recently, the Judiciary Committee
had a hearing on the bill the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism
Act. The supporters of the bill offered powerful and compelling
testimony in favor of ensuring that 9/11 families have access to their
day in court against the parties directly and vicariously liable for
the injuries that they suffer.
Now, I also take into consideration the concerns of the
administration, which deal with undermining sovereign immunity and
opening up U.S. diplomats and military servicemembers to legal action
overseas if foreign countries pass reciprocal laws. In addition, the
President has said that JASTA would upset longstanding international
principles regarding sovereign immunity, putting in place rules that,
if applied globally, could have serious implications.
However, 9/11 families may sue a country designated as a state
sponsor of terrorism, such as Iran today. The only thing that this bill
would allow is that U.S. citizens be able to sue countries without that
designation.
Let me suggest to our friends that, under the facts that we know, 19
of these attackers on 9/11 were Saudi citizens. They did not represent
the government. This is not giving permission to sue the government
under its government actions as much as it is to recognize that these
were citizens who operated outside of that realm and to allow these
citizens of the United States to have relief. You cannot deny the
citizenship of these individuals. I would also suggest that these
individuals are common criminals, and why should individuals who have
been harmed be prevented from addressing the common criminality because
they are from a different country?
I would make the argument that we are not finished with this at this
point. I hope there will be further discussions. I do believe that if
countries decided to take up and sue legitimate actions of the United
States in defense of their nation, they would have the full power and
force of law of the United States to be defended. I don't believe that
will happen.
I do believe that we should continue further discussion on this very
important topic. But as well, having been a senior member, again, on
the Homeland Security Committee during the many meetings that we had
with the 9/11 families and ultimately passing the 9/11 legislation as I
chaired the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I believe that
listening over and over again to the devastation and the need to ensure
there are laws to protect this Nation, that this measure provides the
extra opportunity to address the common criminality of individuals
whose citizenship lies in one place or another.
We should stand, however, in protecting U.S. diplomats, military
service, and intelligence community members, and I believe this country
has the power to do so. I believe, at this point, the matter of the 9/
11 families should be addressed, and we should address it today.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Donovan).
Mr. DONOVAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for yielding.
[[Page H6029]]
Foreign threats should never dictate American policy, but that is,
unfortunately, what happened with President Obama's veto of this
legislation.
That a foreign government can hide behind sovereign immunity after
slaughtering Americans in our own homeland is an outrage, so it is no
wonder that this bill was passed by Congress unanimously. Terror
victims can already sue individuals for complicity in an attack. A
foreign government shouldn't be immune from justice simply because it
is a government.
For those of my colleagues who may be reluctant about voting for an
override of this veto, I think Chairman Goodlatte's explanation of the
bill should give them peace. There are already nine exemptions to the
sovereign immunity law, and JASTA will not create a tenth. It modifies
one of those nine.
JASTA is about 9/11 victims who have waited more than 15 years to
have their day in court. It is about the families of over 300 people
killed that day who lived in my congressional district. It is about my
friend, Lori Mascali, whose husband, firefighter Joseph Mascali, died
that day saving other people's lives.
I urge my colleagues to put American victims of terror first by
voting to override the President's veto.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Conyers
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for overriding the
President's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
I understand and give weight to the President's concerns, but I
believe that this bill is focused on and applies to only those attacks
that are committed on U.S. soil that harm U.S. nationals. The attacks
of 9/11 were singular acts of appalling cruelty. They were targeted
knowingly and specifically at civilian noncombatants. They were
barbaric crimes that violated all norms of civilized conduct and all of
the international conventions of armed conflict.
Though the hijackers of those planes died that day, it is virtually
indisputable that there are people who conspired with them in the
planning, preparation, execution, and financing of those horrific acts
who walk the streets freely in foreign capitals today. They walk
comfortably, securely, smugly, believing that because of a peculiar
interpretation of international law, they are safe from the long arm of
justice, immune to any consequences.
JASTA, as it is called, is needed to correct some shortcomings in
previous legislation and lower court decisions. The bill is needed to
make it possible for the survivors and for the families of the victims
of savage acts of international terrorism to seek a measure of justice
through the civil courts.
This bill is needed because both Congress and the executive branch
have affirmed that civil litigation against terror sponsors, including
foreign governments, can have an important deterrent effect.
The attacks of 9/11 were roundly condemned by people and governments
around the world. So this bill is needed not just by the families of
those who died in New York and at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania; it
is needed to send a message to people all around the world, a message
that the long arm of American justice will not be deterred, will never
tire, and will never falter.
As we have done in the past, we will pursue the perpetrators of such
savage acts of inhumanity, as we saw on 9/11, to their very graves.
There is no loophole and there will be no escape.
Yes, it may be true that there are risks in passing a bill like this
that may have some unintended consequences, but compare that to the
risks of doing nothing and the risks that are very real that are all
too present.
I urge my colleagues to not forget and to overturn the President's
veto. It is in America's interest, and it is a deterrent to future
crimes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend,
Mr. Goodlatte, for yielding; and I want to thank Mr. Goodlatte and Mr.
King for their extraordinary leadership on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the President of the United
States, the central argument in this veto message accompanying the
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, reciprocity is weak,
unsupported, and egregiously flawed.
The White House drafters of the veto message either didn't read the
carefully crafted bipartisan bill or are seeking to conflate the plain
legislative text since JASTA only permits access to U.S. courts by
waiving immunity from foreign governments, not foreign government
officials or employees, and corrects conflicting case law, except in
the cases where someone knowingly aids, abets, or conspires with a
State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization.
Thus, the President is wrong to assert that, under the hallowed
principle of reciprocity, U.S. officials and military personnel could
be subjected to lawsuits. It is worth noting that nothing precludes
that now or ever, but as an argument for veto, it simply doesn't pass
muster.
While sovereign immunity has its place in the conduct of responsible
diplomacy, it is not absolute, as even the 1976 Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act contains nine exceptions.
In 2008, Mr. Speaker, as you know, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit dismissed legal action against Saudi Arabia and other
defendants, holding U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction. Other actions by
the courts have thwarted the full accountability Americans expect and
deserve.
JASTA corrects that.
The victims of 9/11 and their grieving families deserve what JASTA
empowers: a judicial process to discover the unfettered and ugly truth
that, to this day, remains cloaked, concealed, and covered up. JASTA
provides a way to hold perpetrators and enablers of terrorism to
account.
Anyone who has read the recently declassified 28 pages of findings
from the House-Senate Intelligence Committee's joint inquiry in 2002,
despite the heavy redactions, knows the provocative evidence of Saudi
complicity in 9/11, and that remains unexamined. The 28 pages are
filled with names and suspected associations with the Government of
Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Speaker, I have worked with and befriended many of the 9/11
surviving family members--many who died on 9/11 were from my district--
and I can state unequivocally that there would have been no 9/11
Commission and other historic policy initiatives without the 9/11
family members. They have been extraordinary, tenacious, committed, and
courageous.
On September 20, many family members gathered outside the White House
to appeal to the President to sign JASTA. Two of the remarkable widows
from New Jersey, Lorie and Mindy, carried this sign to my left, your
right, with a picture of President Obama and Saudi King Salman from the
front page of the New York Daily News.
{time} 1430
The headline read: ``Don't choose them over us''--the U.S., the
United States.
The President chose the king, and he vetoed the bill. We can correct
that today. Vote to override.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
There is no doubt that there is so much passion involved in this with
the bill's supporters; but, as legislators, I would like to urge that
one carefully and thoughtfully consider the long-term interests of our
country.
For the foregoing reasons, I am pleased to indicate that the scholars
and others who will be voting to sustain the President's veto are
Michael Mukasey, the former Attorney General under George W. Bush;
Stephen Hadley, the former National Security Adviser for that
President; Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism
adviser for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; and Thomas Pickering, the
former United States Ambassador to the United Nations. They all agree
that we must be considerate of the long-term interests of our own
country.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated by the national security
experts, the international law scholars, and the President of the
United States, I find that I must vote to sustain the President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H6030]]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to override the
President's veto. It is the right thing to do. Justice is the right
thing--to let American citizens have access to their courts for torts
for terrorist attacks that occur on American soil. This bill is a
modest amendment to already existing exemptions to the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act. It is the right thing to do. I urge my
colleagues to join me in overriding the President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my concerns with S.
2040, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. The
President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, the CIA Director, and the Chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee have all issued statements against this legislation,
and after having spoken with local veterans in Pinellas County who have
retired from the armed services, I have come to the decision to support
the President's veto.
`Terrorism' at the hands of a foreign government is simply another
term for an act of war, and we should respond to these acts with every
ounce of resolve our nation can muster. We have done so for
generations, relying on military, diplomatic and political leadership
to respond appropriately and deploy our men and women in uniform to
defeat our enemies. Countless men and women have sacrificed their last
full measure for the cause of our freedom and security.
But we don't litigate acts of war in civil courtrooms. We litigate
them on battlefields, with valor and with overwhelming force.
By authorizing courtroom litigation of acts of war, we empower other
nations to do the same. And we imperil the security of our military and
diplomatic personnel, as well as our assets in regions around the
globe.
Consider the number of times our nation intervenes for the cause of
freedom and security around the globe. Now consider if our personnel
and assets on the ground were subject to civil liability in those
nations. It compromises our mission, and it compromises the security of
our men and women in uniform and those in our diplomatic corps.
Mr. Speaker, when the President vetoed this legislation, he stated
that the United States already has means to act against nations who
would wish to commit acts of terrorism against the United States by
designating them as State Sponsors of Terrorism. When this designation
is made, all sovereign immunity protections for individuals are
removed, subjecting the violating country to a multitude of sanctions.
Likewise, on Monday Defense Secretary Ash Carter sent a letter to the
Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee stating that, while he
``agrees with the intent of the bill, which is to honor 9/11 victims,''
the potential second- and third-order consequences of the legislation
``could be devastating to the Department and its service members.''
Secretary Carter shared concerns that other nations might enact
reciprocal policies, threatening the sovereign immunity of our service
members based on justifications that are far less stringent.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also stated that ``any
legislation that risks reciprocal treatment by foreign governments
would increase the vulnerability of U.S. service members to foreign
legal action while acting in an official capacity,'' and that any court
proceedings could ``put the United States in the position of choosing
between the disclosure of classified or sensitive information, and
subjecting a U.S. service member to an adverse foreign court ruling.''
Today, CIA Director Brennan added his concerns, that he believes this
action ``will have grave implications for the national security of the
United States. The most damaging consequence would be for those U.S.
Government officials who dutifully work overseas on behalf of our
country.''
These concerns are affirmed by many national security experts who
penned an open letter asking for the veto to be upheld. The letter was
signed by many prominent former members of the executive branch,
including Stephen Hadley, Richard Clarke, and Thomas Pickering.
Nothing can heal the wounds of the surviving families of September
11, 2001. Nothing can heal the wounds of a nation whose heart breaks
for those innocent lives lost at the hands of our enemies. We can honor
their legacies by making the world more secure--by exerting our
national security leadership, our military force, around the globe to
contain the threat of terror. I believe JASTA would ultimately
undermine our ability to secure freedom and to secure our homeland.
We will never forget the tragedy and loss of that day. We will never
forget the heartbreak. And let us never weaken our resolve to defeat
the forces of terror, so that we may ensure that we as a nation, and
our brothers and sisters who suffered such loss, never face such a
tragedy again.
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
[[Page H6031]]
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?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
express my opposition to the veto override vote that occurred earlier
today in the U.S. Senate on S. 2040, the Justice Against Sponsors of
Terrorism Act, and that will take place shortly in the U.S. House.
While 9/11 will continue to haunt Americans and loved ones will always
mourn those lost during the terrorist attacks on that day, this
legislation is not the solution. I am deeply concerned for the future
implications of this measure.
JASTA would allow U.S. nationals to sue foreign governments in
federal court even if that country is not on the Department of State's
list of state sponsors of terrorism. Lawsuits must involve death,
injury, or property damage and must be caused by an act of
international terrorism in the U.S. The bill also allows civil claims
to be brought against foreign states or officials that are state
sponsors of terrorism if their conduct contributes to an attack that
kills an American outside of the United States.
This legislation would not protect Americans from future attacks nor
would it improve national security. This bill would remove reciprocal
agreements that now protect not only other allies, but also the U.S.,
from such lawsuits in other countries. The long-term impact on our
country's national security is at stake. This bill would place not only
our close security cooperation relationships at risk, but also U.S.
service members abroad.
Families are looking for accountability in the ability to sue foreign
governments, specifically Saudi Arabia. I have deep sympathy for these
families who have suffered so much. However, I do not believe that this
is the most viable path to justice. This bill could unfortunately
backfire and cause more concern to the counterterrorism community.
While we still have the chance, I urge my House colleagues to listen to
our experts who have given us many warnings about the implications of
this legislation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I fully sympathize with the families of
9/11 victims and understand their desire to hold people accountable for
that horrific, senseless, cruel attack.
This sympathy, understandably, prompted many of my colleagues to
approve S. 2040 when it was first before Congress. Yet, I am convinced
that the Presidential veto of this legislation should be upheld.
Everyone should read his veto message on S. 2040 to understand the
complications and the risks.
We already have a mechanism to deal with state-sponsored terrorism--a
mechanism to pursue it. When it is designated, we have very strong
sanctions that we can employ.
The purpose of such a mechanism is to ensure those sanctions and
other steps are brought to bear only after there has been a careful
review that establishes state-sponsored terrorism. In the case of this
legislation, the authority is transferred, not just to the attorneys of
the 9/11 families, but to any individual who wants to file a lawsuit.
This opens the United States up to a wide range of repercussions that
could have negative consequences for Americans.
Not only would it potentially compromise our security efforts and our
diplomatic relationships, but it also invites retaliation by other
countries. Millions of Americans travel overseas every year and
hundreds of thousands of Americans work overseas including soldiers and
diplomats, all of whom could now be subjected to harsher activities by
other governments without the due process afforded by the United States
government. It's not just that we could have foreign action against
American assets, but foreign action against Americans.
I think the President's veto decision is wise, and I support it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the House now has before it the
President's Veto Message accompanying S. 2040, the ``Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act,'' which would authorize private litigation
against foreign governments in the federal courts of the United States
based on allegations that such foreign governments' actions abroad made
them responsible for terrorism-related injuries sustained on U.S. soil.
I have stated on numerous times that I believe that President Barack
Obama is one of the best and most consequential presidents in American
history; his stewardship of American foreign and national security has
kept our nation safe and restored its reputation as the most respected
nation in the world.
President Obama has been an outstanding Commander-in-Chief exhibiting
exceptional judgment, judgment marked by vision and purposeful, conduct
that has been steady and restrained.
Mr. Speaker, I take seriously the decision whether to override a
presidential veto, particularly one relating to national security and
foreign policy but, as it is a duty imposed on the Congress by the
Constitution, I do not shrink from the responsibility.
I have not voted to override a veto during his tenure.
Mr. Speaker, seventeen days ago, we observed the 15th anniversary of
the day our nation faced the greatest loss of life on U.S. soil from a
terrorist attack.
The years that have passed since that day have not dimmed my memory
or diminished my resolve to see an end to terrorism not only in the
United States, but around the world.
As a Member of Congress and a senior Member of the Committees on
Homeland Security and the Judiciary, both of which deal with national
security issues, I have long been committed and engaged in efforts to
develop policies that anticipate and respond to new and emerging
challenges to the security of our nation and the peace and safety of
the world.
I will never forget September 11, 2001 when 2,977 men, women and
children were murdered by 19 hijackers who took commercial aircraft and
used them as missiles.
I stood on the East Front steps of the Capitol on September 11, 2001,
along with 150 members of the House of Representatives and sang ``God
Bless America.''
I visited the site of the World Trade Center Towers in the aftermath
of the attacks and grieved over the deaths of so many of our men,
women, and children.
I want to thank and commend the work of our first responder community
on that day and every day since September 11 for their efforts to
protect their communities and our nation from acts of terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001 will always be remembered as a day of
tragedy and heroism, heartbreak and courage, and shared loss.
But the loss remains especially painful to those whose loved ones
died or were injured by the criminal acts of terrorists on that fateful
day.
On numerous occasions in the months and years after September 11, I
met with family members of 9/11 victims and witnessed their devotion to
our nation and empathized with their pain, loss, hurt, and desire to
obtain justice for their loved ones.
Mr. Speaker, in 2007, after many years of tireless struggle, Congress
passed H.R. 1, the landmark ``Implementing 9/11 Commission
Recommendations Act of 2007,'' the first bill passed by the Democratic-
led 110th Congress after regaining the majority. As a member of the
Homeland Security Committee, I worked very hard in getting this bill
passed.
H.R. 1 was signed into law on August 3, 2007 and implemented the 33
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, a body comprised of ten of the
most distinguished citizens in this country. Many of the families
fought hard for this bill.
As a senior member of the Homeland Security, and Chair of its
Transportation Security Subcommittee, I worked closely with my
colleagues across the aisle and in the Senate to strengthen the
provisions in H.R. 1 designed to improve transportation security
planning, information sharing, and to prevent terrorist from travelling
to our country.
After passage of H.R. 1, several 9/11 families brought suit if U.S.
courts seeking relief for injuries alleged to have been caused by
perpetrators of the September 11 attacks and allegedly sponsored by
certain nation-states.
Each of their law suits were dismissed by the courts for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction since under current law such actions were
barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity except those brought
against nation-states listed by the U.S. Department of State as ``state
sponsors of terrorism.''
This is what led to the introduction of the ``Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act,''
[[Page H6032]]
which 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.
Thus, the ``Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act,'' amends the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 to create a limited new
exception to the Act's general grant of foreign sovereign immunity.
Mr. Speaker, this past July the Judiciary Committee, upon which I
sit, held a hearing on S. 2040, the ``Justice Against Sponsors of
Terrorism Act,'' at which the bill's supporters offered powerful and
compelling testimony in favor of insuring that 9/11 families have
access to their day in U.S. courts against the parties directly and
vicariously liable for the injuries they suffered.
As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigation, I am committed to
doing all that I can to ensure that they receive their day in court.
I am sensitive, however, to the concerns raised by the Administration
regarding unintended consequences that may result if the bill is passed
in its current form.
In particular, the Administration, allied nations, and others point
out that enactment of S. 2040 in its current form may lead to
retaliation by other countries against the United States.
Additionally, the Administration raises the legitimate concern that
if enacted in its current form, S. 2040 may hamper cooperation from
other nations because they may becqme more reluctant to share sensitive
intelligence out of fear that such information may be disclosed in
litigation.
I am hopeful, however, that after this vote, these legitimate
concerns can be addressed and resolved no matter the outcome and I look
forward to continuing to work with the Administration, the bill's
sponsors and supporters, and representatives of the 9/11 families to
ensure that the 9/11 victims receive justice without substantial harm
to our national security interests.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I will vote to override the
President's veto of S. 2040.
I thank the House and Senate sponsors of this important legislation,
my colleagues Congressmen Peter King and Jerrold Nadler of New York,
and Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Charles Schumer of New York, for
their tireless efforts on behalf of fairness and justice for the 9/11
families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passing S.
2040, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding,
will be followed by 5-minute votes on ordering the previous question on
House Resolution 897; adopting House Resolution 897, if ordered; and
suspending the rules and passing S. 3283.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 348,
nays 77, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 564]
YEAS--348
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Cleaver
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Connolly
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Knight
Kuster
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Price, Tom
Rangel
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vela
Velazquez
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--77
Bass
Benishek
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Buck
Capps
Carson (IN)
Chaffetz
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Edwards
Ellison
Farr
Frankel (FL)
Garamendi
Grayson
Grijalva
Grothman
Hartzler
Heck (WA)
Hinojosa
Issa
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kind
King (IA)
Kline
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Lewis
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Moore
Moulton
Nunes
O'Rourke
Perlmutter
Quigley
Ribble
Richmond
Ruppersberger
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Turner
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky
Waters, Maxine
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Castor (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Black
Kirkpatrick
Poe (TX)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
{time} 1501
Messrs. RICHMOND, DesJARLAIS, CARSON of Indiana, GROTHMAN, and Ms.
WILSON of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. COURTNEY, McNERNEY, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Messrs. JODY B. HICE of
Georgia, HIGGINS, and KELLY of Mississippi changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the bill was passed,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will notify the Senate of the
action of the House.
____________________