Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2017--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the weekend, we were reminded once again of the threat that terrorism poses to our communities all across this country. I know we are all grateful the explosions that occurred in New Jersey and Manhattan and the knife attack in Minnesota did not hurt more people.

I am thankful for the authorities, the law enforcement officials, the emergency medical officials and others who have responded so heroically. I am grateful there has already been a suspect detained in the New York and New Jersey incident before he could attempt additional attacks.

This is just another reminder, as if we needed more reminders, of the importance of remaining vigilant to the threat of terrorism in the United States. Our values and our way of life seem to be under near constant attack, certainly under constant threat. We have a responsibility to do everything we can within our power to support and protect those affected by the evil of terrorism within our borders.

Last week, the Senate sent a piece of legislation, an important piece of legislation from my perspective, called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act to President Obama for his signature. He has until Friday to act on it.

I want to clarify for my colleagues exactly what is contained in this legislation because I have heard from some stories that make me think they are being misled by some but also maybe there is just some confusion I can help clear up. This legislation, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or sometimes called the 9/11 families bill, makes some narrow amendments to a longstanding Federal statute, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and the anti-terrorism act. What it does provide is for Americans to be able to seek recourse in a court of law from governments or people who sponsor terrorist attacks on American soil.

You would think that would not be particularly controversial. Put another way, this bill does not allow a lawsuit to proceed against a foreign nation unless they are alleged to have been behind a terror attack on American soil. As I said, this is pretty straightforward, which is why it passed the Senate and the House unanimously.

I want to be clear what the bill does and does not do. First of all, the legislation does not single out any particular country for some kind of unfair treatment. It stands for the simple proposition that Americans should have recourse against those involved in terrorist attacks on our homeland, just as they do against others who commit other wrongs.

I have had some of my colleagues say: Yes, but perception is reality. Well, misperception is not reality. The fact is, there is no country mentioned in the legislation, this extension of existing law. To the extent it singles out anybody, it only singles out countries, without naming any, that fund terrorists who commit terrorism on our soil.

Some have suggested this could hurt our relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in particular. This bill has nothing to do, on its face, with our strong partnership with Saudi Arabia, which is based on mutual interests. The reality is, the nuclear deal struck by President Obama involving the country of Iran has done far more to damage our relationship with our allies in the Middle East, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

It has caused many of our allies, not just the Saudis but others in the Middle East, to question whether we are a reliable ally in the areas where we do share a common interest.

We know many of our Gulf State allies, including the Saudis, believe the President has not done enough to achieve his own stated goal of defeating the terrorist army of ISIS, which threatens Saudi Arabia from Iraq, just across its northern border. Quite to the contrary, we know President Obama ignored the advice of his own military advisers and unwisely withdrew all combat forces from Iraq in a precipitous way before that country was ready and able to defend itself, only to see ISIS rush in and fill the vacuum left after the departure of American leadership and ground forces.

The bottom line is that this legislation should not upset our relationships with any country with which we share common interests, including the Saudis. They should not take passage of this legislation as a reason to somehow question our commitment to an alliance based on shared values or shared interests.

This bill targets those who fund terrorist activity against us--plain and simple. I should also add that all this bill does is to give victims an opportunity to have their case heard in court. It doesn't decide the merits of the case. It simply gives them an avenue for justice.

Second, I want to debunk this idea that somehow the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act will suddenly result in lawsuits being filed against Americans by foreign governments. The reality is this already happens. We have an entire office at the Justice Department--the Office of Foreign Litigation--that defends the United States in foreign courts.

As its Web site explains, that litigation includes ``litigation arising from U.S. agency or military activities in foreign countries,'' which is one reason why, before we pulled out all of our troops from Iraq, President Obama and his administration should have done a better job pursuing a status of forces agreement with the country of Iraq. But because they did not negotiate that, they decided to pull out, and we have reaped the whirlwind as a result.

While likely a minority, there are cases, in fact, brought abroad that implicate our own overseas activity. For example, in 2010, CBS News reported on a case in Pakistan in which the CIA was sued for an alleged drone strike. This is a matter of public record that CBS News reported. The point is that today foreign governments allow suits against the United States from time to time, and they are defended based on international law and based on the merits of the case. That is because of their legal systems and domestic politics. Our laws are simply not consulted as a determining factor. Why would a foreign country apply American law or precedent or procedure?

But let me also make clear: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act makes only modest changes to current foreign sovereign immunity laws--laws that have already been passed by the U.S. Congress--and it has been written in a narrow manner to prevent such suits should any reciprocal law be passed.

Finally, I remind my colleagues that this legislation was crafted and created through consensus. Before the Senate passed it several months ago, my colleagues and I took great care to address concerns from Members on both sides of the aisle, as you would expect. Working with other Members, we made changes to the legislation they requested so we could keep support for this legislation and support for the families of victims strong. It then unanimously passed the Senate in May.

Over in the House, it passed without dissent. I have to say that it is hard to find any piece of legislation that can pass unanimously in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. It just doesn't happen very often.

But even with so much bipartisan, bicameral support, President Obama still says he intends to veto the legislation. As I have said before, that is his prerogative, but I hope he does so soon so that Congress has the opportunity to vote to override his veto. Once he does veto it, I hope Congress will quickly act.

I have been reminded of a passage in Henry Kissinger's book called ``World Order,'' where he talks about how the West, in particular, often views the world as an orderly rules-based system. Of course, the problem with that is reality. The world does not all acknowledge a rules-based system, no matter who imagines it. Other countries will take actions based on what they perceive to advance their own interests, not because they just want to follow a certain set of rules that somebody else wrote up. That will remain true for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia even after the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act becomes law. That is why our relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will continue, because they have been fighting terrorism on their own soil and we know that we share other interests as well.

But at the end of the day, we need to do what is right for the American people, just as other countries would do right for their own citizens. We should not change our domestic laws because of our concerns about other countries perhaps being offended or because they have other interests other than what we are trying to vindicate here, which are the rights of the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 due to a terrorist attack on American soil. They should have the opportunity to make their case if they can, and nothing in this judges the merits of the case or makes any conclusion about whether they will be successful or not. But, certainly, they represent part of the American people who we work for, and they are entitled to get access to the courts for the purpose of making the case if they can.

This bill sends a clear signal to every country that the United States is not afraid to stand and ensure that our countrymen and countrywomen have the ability to pursue justice here in our courts. That is nonnegotiable.

I hope the President will act quickly. The President can string this out into next week if he wants, but he has already said he is going to veto it. So why put the families through any more delay, anguish, and uncertainty? The President should go ahead and veto the legislation. Then the Senate and the House of Representatives should take up a veto override vote. I am confident of what the outcome of that would be, based on the unanimous consent to the bill in the Senate and the unanimous vote in the House of Representatives.

Madam President, I don't see any other Senator interested in speaking.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source