Congress votes to override Obama veto
Legislation allows families to sue Saudi Arabia.
The first successful override of his presidency means families of those killed in 9/11 could sue Saudi Arabia.
An overwhelming majority in Congress on Wednesday overturned President Barack 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.
The Sept. 11 override was a remarkable yet complicated bipartisan rebuttal, even as some its supporters conceded that they did not fully support the legislation they had just voted for. Obama and his allies vowed to find a way to tweak the legislation later.
In recent days, Obama, Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all wrote letters to Congress warning of the dangers of overriding the veto.
The law “could be devastating to the Department of Defense and its service members,” 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. Yet most of 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.
“This is a decision I do not take lightly,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., 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.”
Only Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid sided with the president as 97 others voted Wednesday to override. In the House, the veto override was approved a few hours later, 348-77.
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 Saudi kingdom in recent years.
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.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., gave voice to the unusual ambivalence that many members of Congress have expressed since they together unanimously 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 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.
The measure would amend a 1976 law that granted other countries broad immunity from U.S. 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 U.S. soil.
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 U.S. assets to avoid having them seized in court settlements. The kingdom’s phalanx of lobbyists has also argued that the law would expose the United States to lawsuits abroad and possibly cause complications for its armed forces.
That view was rejected on the Senate floor Wednesday.
“This is pretty much close to a miraculous occurrence,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, one of the biggest champions of the measure, noting how divided Congress usually is. “All of us have come together and agreed that this is appropriate and the right thing to do.”
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.”