This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/senate-votes-to-override-obama-veto-on-9-11-victims-bill.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill
(about 4 hours later)
WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority in Congress on Wednesday overturned President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot, the first successful override vote of his presidency. WASHINGTON — Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.
The 9/11 override is a remarkable yet complicated bipartisan rebuttal, even as some of its supporters conceded that they did not fully support the legislation they had just voted for. Mr. Obama and his allies vowed to find a way to tweak the legislation later. Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the Sept. 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government.
In recent days, Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all wrote letters to Congress warning of the dangers of overriding the veto. The new law, enacted over the fierce objections of the White House, immediately alters the legal landscape. American courts could seize Saudi assets to pay for any judgment obtained by the Sept. 11 families, while Saudi officials have warned they might need to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars in holdings in the United States to avoid such an outcome.
The law “could be devastating to the Department of Defense and its service members,” Mr. Obama wrote, “and there is no doubt that the consequences could be equally significant for our foreign affairs and intelligence communities.” The White House and some lawmakers were already plotting how they could weaken the law in the near future. The override comes at an already freighted moment in America’s relations with the kingdom. The Saudi government has vigorously denied that it played any role in the Sept. 11 attacks, and the commission investigating the attacks found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.” But the commission left open the possibility that some Saudi officials may have played roles.
Yet most of Mr. Obama’s greatest allies on Capitol Hill, who have labored for nearly eight years to stop most bills he opposes from even crossing his desk, turned against him, joining Republicans in the remonstrance. Mr. Obama angrily denounced the outcome, saying lawmakers had been swayed to cast a political vote for legislation that set a “dangerous precedent” with implications they did not understand and never debated.
“This is a decision I do not take lightly,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and one of the authors of this legislation. “This bill is near and dear to my heart as a New Yorker, because it would allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice, finally giving them a legal avenue to pursue foreign sponsors of the terrorist attack that took from them the lives of their loved ones.” “I think it was a mistake, and I understand why it happened,” Mr. Obama said at a CNN town hall-style meeting with military personnel in Fort Lee, Va. “It’s an example of why sometimes, you have to do what’s hard, and frankly, I wish Congress here had done what’s hard. I didn’t expect it, because if you’re perceived as voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that’s a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do.”
Only one senator, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, sided with the president as 97 others voted Wednesday to override. In the House, the veto override was approved a few hours later, 348 to 77. There were swift complications. Within hours of their vote, nearly 30 senators signed a letter expressing some reservations about the potential consequences of the law, including the prospect that the United States could face lawsuits in foreign courts “as a result of important military or intelligence activities.”
The bill succeeded not with significant congressional debate or intense pressure from voters, but rather through the sheer will of the victims’ families, who seized on the 15th anniversary of the attack and an election year to lean on members of Congress. That effort was aided by the waning patience of lawmakers with the kingdom in recent years. The White House and some lawmakers were already plotting how they could weaken the law in the near future, although there was general pessimism on Wednesday that Congress would agree to any changes. “You got to find consensus,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, after the vote. “Then you need a vehicle.”
The Senate vote also represents another White House miscalculation on Capitol Hill, where it was once again slow to pressure members and to see the cracks in its firewall against the bill. It is unclear whether the Saudis will make good on warnings that the kingdom could unload hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets inside the United States, and some economists have said that such a sell-off would do far more damage to Saudi Arabia’s economy than America’s.
Further, the veto override, while thrilling to many Republicans, came on a bill that was far from the Republicans’ priorities of unraveling the health care law and pushing back on government regulations. Nor was it a measure they had hoped to secure with the president’s help, like overhauling the tax code or passing a major trade agreement. But legal experts say there is cause for concern in Riyadh.
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, gave voice to the unusual ambivalence that many members of Congress have expressed since they together unanimously passed the bill. The law allows families of the Sept. 11 victims to alter lawsuits already underway — or file new suits — to directly sue Saudi Arabia and to demand documents and other evidence. It amends a 1976 law that grants foreign countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. Now nations can be sued in federal court if they are found to have played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on United States soil.
“I do want to say I don’t think the Senate nor House has functioned in an appropriate manner as it relates to a very important piece of legislation,” said Mr. Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who presumably could have played a role in the hearings and debate he said went lacking. “I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote,” which he then cast. “From there, the ball goes squarely into the Obama administration’s court,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
The measure would amend a 1976 law that granted other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits, allowing nations to be sued in federal court if they are found to have played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on United States soil. As Mr. Vladeck noted, a little-discussed provision of the bill allows the attorney general to intervene in the lawsuits and get a judge to stay any settlement as long as there are continuing discussions with the Saudis about a possible resolution.
For several weeks this summer, a handful of Republican senators blocked the bill as they worked to soften its impact. The provision was added earlier this year to soften the legislation — preserving the executive branch’s purview over foreign policy while still giving family members a path to sue.
They managed to add a provision that would allow the executive branch to halt the litigation if the executive branch proved in court that good-faith negotiations for a settlement with a nation were underway. This would preserve the executive branch’s purview over foreign policy while still giving a pathway for family members to sue. But the prospects of such discussions ever beginning are uncertain. The Saudi government has long denied any role in the Sept. 11 plot, and any negotiation with the United States could be viewed as acknowledging culpability.
The Senate then voted unanimously to pass the bill and send it to the House, with many lawmakers and many White House officials believing that the House would never take up the legislation. Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin has made skeptical remarks about the measure, and Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the House Judiciary committee, did little with it. At the same time, lawyers for the families will no doubt push for judges to carefully scrutinize any attempt by the attorney general to delay court proceedings.
Then earlier this month, Mr. Ryan, who had encountered families of the Sept. 11 victims at a fund-raiser on Long Island, reversed suddenly his usual position of bringing no major bill to the House floor that had not passed muster with the relevant committee, and put the bill on a fast track. The House voted hastily and overwhelmingly in favor, sending it to Mr. Obama’s desk. “The families would of course expect that in the event the provision is invoked, that the courts exercise their inherent authority to assure good faith negotiations are in fact taking place and that the courts not simply rubber stamp executive branch requests for delay in resolution of their claims,” said Allan Gerson, who is part of a team representing many of the Sept. 11 families.
This led to some of the bill’s co-sponsors to express fear that it would actually become law. Mr. Gerson filed the lawsuit against Libya on behalf of families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which was shot down over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.
The bill’s path reflects a growing desire to re-examine Washington’s alliance with Saudi Arabia, which for decades has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy in the Middle East, and deep ambivalence, especially among Republicans, of how to move forward. In recent days, Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all wrote letters to Congress warning of the dangers of overriding the veto.
Shortly before the vote to override, for instance, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, fast-tracked a vote on a measure that sought to block the sale of some tanks to the kingdom, which failed, signaling to Saudi Arabia that Congress had not turned its back on the nation. John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, released his own statement saying, “Any legislation that affects sovereign immunity should take into account the associated risks to our national security.”
Saudi Arabia has warned the Obama administration and members of Congress that the law could force them to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets to avoid them from being seized in court settlements. Next came the argument, made by the kingdom’s phalanx of lobbyists, that the law would expose the United States to lawsuits abroad and possibly cause complications for its armed forces. Yet even most of Mr. Obama’s strongest allies on Capitol Hill turned against him.
That view was rejected on the Senate floor Wednesday. “This is pretty much close to a miraculous occurrence,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and one of the biggest champions of the measure, noting how divided Congress is generally along partisan lines. “All of us have come together and agreed that this is appropriate and the right thing to do,” he said. “This is a decision I do not take lightly,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, one of the authors of the legislation. “This bill is near and dear to my heart as a New Yorker, because it would allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice, finally giving them a legal avenue to pursue foreign sponsors of the terrorist attack that took from them the lives of their loved ones.”
The Senate vote was less a swipe at Saudi Arabia, he added, and more about giving victims a voice. “When our interests diverge and it’s a question of protecting American rights and American values, I think we should do that,” he said. “This is not about severing our relationship with any ally. This is simply a matter of justice.” Only one senator, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, sided with the president.
The bill succeeded not with significant congressional debate or intense pressure from voters, but rather through the sheer will of the victims’ families, who seized on the 15th anniversary of the attack and an election year to lean on members of Congress. That effort was aided by lawmakers’ waning patience with the kingdom in recent years.
The override also represents a White House miscalculation about Capitol Hill, where it was slow to pressure members and see the cracks in its firewall against the bill.
The Senate voted unanimously in May to pass the bill and send it to the House, but many lawmakers and White House officials believed the chamber would never take up the legislation.
Then this month, Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who had encountered families of the Sept. 11 victims at a fund-raiser on Long Island, decided to put the bill on a fast track. The House voted overwhelmingly in favor, sending it to Mr. Obama’s desk.
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, gave voice to the unusual ambivalence that many members of Congress have expressed since they passed the bill.
“I do want to say I don’t think the Senate nor House has functioned in an appropriate manner as it relates to a very important piece of legislation,” said Mr. Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote.” Still, it was a vote he cast.