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/2016/09/10/us/politics/house-911-victims-saudi-arabia.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
House Expected to Pass Bill Allowing 9/11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia House Passes Bill Allowing 9/11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia; White House Hints at Veto
(about 7 hours later)
The House is expected to fast track a bill on Friday that would let the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the terrorist plot, ushering in a showdown with the White House, which has threatened to veto the legislation. The bill, which was passed unanimously by the Senate this year, was not debated on either chamber’s floor. WASHINGTON — The House on Friday approved a bill to allow families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the terrorist plot, setting up a rare bipartisan showdown with the White House.
President Obama has voiced his opposition to the measure for months, warning that it could expose the United States to a raft of lawsuits by people in other countries. A White House official said this week that the administration’s position had not changed. The measure, which was never debated on the House or Senate floors, reflects a growing desire to re-examine Washington’s alliance with the kingdom, which for decades has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Other measures, like a bipartisan one that would seek to block the sale of some tanks to the kingdom, are also on the horizon.
The measure highlights a growing desire to examine Washington’s alliance with Saudi Arabia, a relationship that has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy in the Middle East for decades. Lawmakers also appear to have felt intense pressure from families of the victims, who have pushed for the legislation to be passed before the 15th anniversary on Sunday of the attacks. But President Obama says he is strongly opposed to the measure and the White House has signaled that he would veto it.
The Saudi government, which has long denied any involvement, has warned that it might liquidate hundreds of billions of dollars of American assets if the bill becomes law, although many experts say they believe it is an empty threat. Lawmakers felt intense pressure from families of the victims of the attacks, who wanted the legislation passed before the 15th anniversary of 9/11 on Sunday, which may account for the bill jumping from a committee room to an expedited vote on the House floor.
“The families have been asking for this for over a decade,” said Terry Strada, whose husband, Thomas S. Strada, was killed in the attack on the World Trade Center towers, and has long lobbied Congress on the issue. “We don’t feel this is fast-track in any way shape or form.”
Mr. Obama has voiced opposition to the effort for months, fearing that it could expose the United States to lawsuits by individuals in other countries. A White House official said this week that the administration’s position has not changed even after some changes were made to the bill to mollify critics.
The bill “is a politically cost-free way for Congress to send a signal of seeming seriousness about terrorism on the dawn of the 15th anniversary of 9/11,” said Jack Goldsmith, a professor of law at Harvard who served in the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush. “Congress itself could have investigated lingering questions about 9/11, but instead is delegating those tasks to the unelected judiciary. The costs of the law will be borne by courts, which are an awkward place to ascertain Saudi responsibility for 9/11, and especially the president, who will have to deal with the diplomatic fallout with Saudi Arabia and other nations.”
The bill addresses a 1976 law that gives foreign nations broad immunity from American lawsuits by amending it to allow for nations to be sued in federal courts if they are found to have played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on home soil. It also allows Americans to direct financial damage claims against those who funded the attacks.
The administration has argued that it would put Americans at legal risk overseas. That position seemed at least somewhat validated when the French Parliament member Pierre Lellouche, who serves as chairman of the rough equivalent in France of the American Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would pursue legislation that would permit French citizens to sue the United States with cause.
“I have sympathy with the notion of hitting those countries which actively support terrorism,” Mr. Lellouche said Friday. But the American bill “will cause a legal revolution in international law with major political consequences.”
The Saudi government, which has denied any involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks, has warned that it might liquidate hundreds of billions of dollars worth of American assets if the bill becomes law, which many experts believe to be a false threat.
The bill was pushed by a bipartisan coalition in the House and Senate led by members from New York who have long felt the powerful and enduring passions of families who lost loved ones in the attacks.
“If a court proves the Saudis were complicit in 9/11, they should be held accountable,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. “If they’ve done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about. I hope for the sake of the families who have suffered such losses and fought so hard, the administration will not veto this bill.”
Several Republicans moved to block the bill in the Senate, but it ultimately sailed through by unanimous consent. In the House, there seemed little appetite for the bill this spring, when it landed in the House Judiciary Committee, but was then suddenly pushed to the House floor without any debates.
Last May, after visiting Saudi Arabia, Speaker Paul D. Ryan warned that Congress ought to make sure “we’re not making mistakes with our allies.” The Obama administration had counted on a firewall in the House against the bill. But Mr. Ryan was recently in New York where he saw many 9/11 families who pressed him to move forward.
To make the bill more palatable to critics, lawmakers added a provision that would allow the executive branch to halt the litigation if it proves in court that its members were engaged in good-faith settlement negotiation with a nation, preserving the executive branch’s purview over foreign policy while still giving a pathway for family members to sue.
Mr. Goldsmith said this was inadequate, noting that “a circumstance that may be hard to satisfy in important cases, especially concerning the 9/11 claims against Saudi Arabia.”
Based on the vote totals in the House and Senate, Congress has enough votes to override a veto should Mr. Obama issue one. But it is possible that members may have second thoughts, under pressure from the administration and foreign governments may be persuaded to change positions.
“We were able to get some changes to make it less damaging to potential dangers over time,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “We as a nation have got more to lose on sovereignty issues than any other nation in the world. If the White House actually vetoes this I think there will be whole levels of discussion.”
Still, many members of Congress expressed continued support this week for the bill. “Unanimous passage of this bill, I believe, sends an unmistakable message that we will combat terrorism with every tool we have,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, “And just as importantly, we will make sure that simple justice is available to the victims of terrorist attacks on our soil by not erecting any unnecessary roadblocks to their pursuit of justice in the courts of law.”