Showdown: Congress looks to override Obama veto of 9/11 bill
Congress is poised to override President Barack Obama‘s veto of a bill that would allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for the kingdom’s alleged backing of the terrorists who carried out the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The showdown is expected this week. Proponents of the legislation say they have enough votes for what would be a first: During his nearly two full terms in office, Obama has vetoed nine bills. None has been overridden. While there is broad and bipartisan support for bucking the president, the bill’s opponents also are pushing hard to keep the measure from being enacted. They’re warning the U.S. will become vulnerable to retaliatory litigation in foreign courts that could put American troops in legal jeopardy. Here’s a look at the key issues surrounding the bill, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, as the veto override vote nears: — WHAT WOULD THE LEGISLATION DO? The legislation, known as JASTA, gives victims’ families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks that killed thousands in New York, the Washington, D.C., area and Pennsylvania. Under the terms of the bill, courts would be permitted to waive a claim of foreign sovereign immunity when an act of terrorism occurs inside U.S. borders. Saudi Arabia has objected vehemently to the bill. — WHY DID OBAMA VETO THE BILL? In his veto message issued on Friday, Obama said the bill would disrupt longstanding international principles on sovereign immunity and could create complications with even the closest allies of the United States. Foreign governments would be able to act “reciprocally” and allow their courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States and its employees for allegedly causing injuries overseas through American support to third parties, according to Obama. As examples, Obama cited actions taken overseas by U.S.-backed armed militias, the improper use of U.S. military equipment, and abuses committed by U.S.-trained police units. The bill’s proponents have disputed Obama’s rationale as “unconvincing and unsupportable,” saying the measure is narrowly tailored and applies only to acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil. — WHAT’S THE CONCERN FOR AMERICAN TROOPS AND SECRETS? Rep. Mac Thornberry, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, said that even if none of the potential lawsuits against the United States succeeded, “the risks of discovery or trial in foreign courts, including the questioning of government employees under oath, will disclose sensitive information and subject Americans to legal jeopardy of various kinds.” Thornberry is opposed to the bill and is urging his colleagues not to override Obama’s veto. But attorneys for the 9/11 families said U.S. military personnel are not at risk of lawsuits. Should a foreign government enact a law that allows a claim against American service members, that nation would not be reciprocating but engaging in a “transparent and unjustifiable act of aggression” that the U.S. should respond to, they said. — IS THERE HEIGHTENED TENSION WITH A KEY MIDDLE EAST ALLY? An override of Obama’s veto is stoking apprehension about undermining a longstanding yet strained relationship with Saudi Arabia, a critical U.S. ally in the Middle East. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir had previously warned lawmakers they were on a path to turning “the world for international law into the law of the jungle.” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., last week advised his congressional colleagues against alienating Saudi Arabia at a time when the U.S. needs the kingdom’s support to defeat Islamic State militants. “If you want to lose Saudi Arabia as an ally, be careful what you wish for,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “They’re the heart and soul of the Islamic world.” — HOW MANY VOTES ARE NEEDED TO OVERRIDE A VETO? A two-thirds majority of lawmakers present and voting is required in the House and Senate to override a veto. Obama has vetoed the fewest bills – just nine – since President Warren G. Harding was in office more than 90 years ago, according to a web page maintained by the offices of the House clerk and historian. By comparison, President Bill Clinton vetoed 37 bills and George W. Bush vetoed a dozen. Lyndon Johnson is the last president to never have a veto overridden. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Robert Bentley announces plans to veto General Fund budget
Gov. Robert Bentley has released a statement announcing his plans to veto the recently passed General Fund budget, which fails to adequately fund the state’s Medicaid program. “The General Fund Budget is unacceptable because it lacks adequate funding for essential government services,” Bentley said in the Thursday statement. “The proposed appropriation falls short of what the Medicaid Agency will require to provide services for the over one million Alabamians, most of them children, covered by Medicaid.” Bentley also noted that the current budget will render Medicaid reform measures passed in 2013 “unsustainable.” “The state has already made great progress to remodel and streamline the Medicaid model to a regional managed-care system,” Bentley remarked. “That progress will be lost without adequate funding from the General Fund.” In the statement, Bentley also mentioned his concerns about funding for the Alabama Department of Corrections, which he says is necessary to “address the prison crisis long-term.” “We have made strong reforms in the prison system; however, insufficient funding hinders the department’s efforts for further reform,” Bentley said. “We have witnessed the dangerous conditions inside our state-operated prisons, and the Alabama Legislature must prioritize prison system safety with adequate appropriations.” Bentley further chastised lawmakers for using “millions” in one-time BP settlement money to pay for “recurring expenses,” a move the governor claims is “fiscally irresponsible and shortsighted.” “Because of these concerns, I will veto the General Fund Budget and send it back to the Legislature on April 5th when they return,” Bentley said in closing. “I am committed to working with the Legislature to address our General Fund budget challenges.” Unlike other states, which require a two-thirds vote to overturn a veto, Alabama only requires a simple majority in both houses to override the governor’s veto. Because of that, the Republican majority in the state legislature will easily be able to undo Bentley’s action.
Senate passes General Fund budget with $85 million Medicaid shortfall
The Alabama Senate approved a $1.8 billion General Fund budget Wednesday that will provide level-funding to most state agencies, despite a threat from Gov. Robert Bentley that he would veto any budget that did not adequately fund Medicaid. The budget passed by the Senate leaves Alabama’s Medicaid program about $85 million short of the money it had requested. The point of contention for Alabama lawmakers was Bentley’s plan to pull $181 million from education to fund the increase in Medicaid allocations. Senate Pro Tem Del Marsh has said repeatedly throughout the session that there is no appetite among lawmakers to pull from the education budget or to raise taxes any further. The House passed the budget last week and House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) echoed much of Marsh’s sentiments. Hubbard said that the requested increase to Medicaid’s coffers would come at the expense of other state agencies. A failure to provide Medicaid with adequate funding would obliterate the state’s earlier announced plans to institute a Regional Care Operation (RCO) programs. With the RCO plan in jeopardy, many state lawmakers have backed out of their previous promises to see the program come to life. “Alabama took bold steps towards improving healthcare in our state with our plan for regional care organizations and today’s announcement proves our efforts are paying off,” Hubbard said when the plan was announced. “This investment could lead to a more streamlined and localized system, produce better outcomes, and save millions of taxpayer dollars in the long-term.” “The Federal government has determined that Alabama has been innovative with our plan to transition to regional care organizations,” Marsh said at the time. “Over time it will save the taxpayers millions of dollars and will serve as a potential model for states as an alternative to expanding Medicaid.” Despite Bentley’s repeated threats to veto the budget, Alabama Republicans who favor the bill would easily be able to override such a move by the governor.
House OKs General Fund despite opposition, threat of veto
The Alabama House of Representatives passed a General Fund budget Tuesday, which leaves in place a roughly $85 million budget shortfall for the state’s Medicaid program. Gov. Robert Bentley has already signaled that a failure to fully fund Medicaid would cause him to veto the bill and likely call for a special session. House Democrats fought vehemently against bringing the budget to the floor, noting that a failure to fully fund Medicaid would obliterate the state’s recently announced Regional Care Organization (RCO) program and leave millions of needy Alabamians with no healthcare. Despite that, the bill made it to the floor and was debated for several hours. In the chamber, Democrats again railed against the legislation in the five-hour skirmish and members of both parties chastised Bentley for providing some Cabinet members with a significant raise while the state’s General Fund crumbles. Republicans struck back, claiming that the additional money for Medicaid just is not there and there is little to no appetite for raising taxes in an effort to collect more revenue. After passage of the bill, the Arise Citizens’ Policy Project (ACPP) released a statement condemning the General Fund budget’s failure to fully fund Medicaid. “These Medicaid cuts would be devastating for Alabamians, our economy and our entire health care system,” said ACPP Executive Director Kimble Forrister. “They could force many rural hospitals to close and prompt many pediatricians to leave the state. They would end coverage of essential services like outpatient dialysis and adult eyeglasses. And they would end promising new Medicaid reforms that would save money and keep people healthier.” “We simply can’t afford these Medicaid cuts,” Forrister continued. “It’s wrong to put health care at risk for children, seniors, and people with disabilities in Alabama. It’s time to get serious about raising the revenue needed to invest in a healthier Alabama for all.” With its passage in the House, the bill will go before the Senate. If the Senate passes the measure, Bentley has said he will veto the legislation and require lawmakers to take it up again.
