Shifting Gears for a Minute... Last Month, the House Successfully Voted to Override the Administration's Veto of a Bill - the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

Statement

Shifting gears for a minute...last month, the House successfully voted to override the administration's veto of a bill - the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act - that would, in essence, allow family members of those killed on 9/11 to sue the government of Saudi Arabia. This was the first successful House override vote of the Obama presidency with a final count of 348 to 77. I voted yes.

On this front, this bill wasn't about whether or not Saudi officials had been involved in 9/11; there's certainly evidence that suggests some were, but it is by no means conclusive. It was about keeping government limited.

Government has a legitimate role in curtailing our freedoms only when there is an overwhelming national interest for doing so. This is why I have come out as I have with regard to travel to Cuba. Not because of an interest one way or another in Cuba, but because there is no longer a compelling national reason to infringe on an American's choice to travel to whatever country they so chose. Cuba is the only country on the globe for which there has been such a prohibition. The same logic applies here. Unless there is an overwhelming national interest reason to prohibit it, American's should be allowed to bring suit, or not bring suit, as they see fit.

It was also about being careful not to shelter allies who we aid and protect from what could be the consequences of their own action. I don't know if they are guilty or not, but often where there is smoke, there's fire. And if that is the case, it's another reminder that our aid around the world too often buys neither friendship nor loyalty.

The biggest debate in the bill was over this idea of "sovereign immunity." In very short form, what this means is that the federal government created the courts and, as a result, can't be sued in them. We extend that privilege to other governments in exchange for those countries giving us the same courtesy and privilege under their laws. The concern some opponents had with this bill was that if we make it easier to sue foreign governments in our country, it could put our servicemen and women at greater risk of a lawsuit when they work abroad. If I thought that was the case, I would have voted no.

The evidence here strongly points in the direction of no. There are already eight different exceptions to this concept in U.S. law...from bad faith to the ability to sue if the federal government doesn't fulfill a contract. This new legislation would merely add a ninth exception in the case of a foreign government helping to perpetuate a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In the eight exceptions that now exist, we have not seen the stream of cases and challenges that opponents to this bill suggest. For what does occur, the Department of Justice already has an Office of Foreign Litigation in place.

Finally, just because citizens of another country sue our government doesn't mean that the judgement would be enforced. The Cuban judicial system has awarded over $120 billion in damages against our country, and we haven't paid them a dime. The bottom line here would be that people will sue our government with or without this legislation in place.

Accordingly, I voted as I did.

Source