Water Resources Development Act of 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, shortly the two leaders of this Chamber will be headed to the White House to update the President on discussions over keeping the government funded and up and running past the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30. I want to briefly remind our colleagues how we ended up in this situation, why it is we are talking about a short-term continuing resolution from this point until December 9 and then revisiting the issue beyond that by December 9.
It is pretty clear everybody understands that a CR, as we call it around here--a continuing resolution--is really a stop-gap spending bill to fund the government, and it is the result of our Democratic colleagues filibustering the regular appropriations process. As the Presiding Officer knows, there are 12 appropriations bills that need to be considered by each of the appropriations subcommittees, then they are voted on by the committee itself, and then they come to the floor of the U.S. Senate, where we take them up in a transparent and orderly sort of way--each of those 12 bills--or at least that is the plan. We brought up bill after bill to do just exactly that this year, and this is the first time since 2009 that all 12 bills have been voted out of the committee and are now available for us to act upon.
That is the way the legislative process is supposed to work and that is the way that is transparent to the American people so they know exactly what we are doing, and they can call us and say: We don't like that or they can call us and say: Well, I do like that. The point is, this is far superior to short-term continuing resolutions or the dreaded omnibus bill that we had to deal with last year; again, as a result of our inability to get the appropriations process to work.
This year, our Democratic colleagues stopped the regular orderly process of passing appropriations bills. One might ask: For what purpose? Well, it is pretty obvious their purpose was to make sure they had maximum leverage in order to force the Federal Government to spend more money--not just on national security matters, which would enjoy a lot of support on this side of the aisle, but to use any increase in national security spending to leverage more nondefense discretionary spending, breaking the caps that have been agreed upon in a bipartisan way previously.
So this is the reason we find ourselves in this distasteful and unpleasant position--Democratic obstruction. Now we are forced to deal with a short-term stopgap bill, which is nobody's first solution. It is not my second or third, but it is something we must deal with, and we will. Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
Mr. President, separately, yesterday our country observed the 15th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon and in a field in Pennsylvania, where brave patriots brought down this plane rather than allow it to come to the Capitol and create or cause other damage and perhaps loss of life. We know that about 3,000 Americans died just in the attack on the World Trade Center.
All of us remember where we were on that day. I certainly do. The only other time in my life that I can tie back to a historic and sad event like that was when John F. Kennedy was killed when I was in junior high school. I remember exactly where I was when President Kennedy was assassinated. So it is that I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when those planes hit the World Trade Center and those 3,000 Americans lost their lives.
It is important for us to send a message that evil shall not prevail. Americans from all backgrounds came together in a beautiful display of patriotism and fraternity following that terrible day of September 11, 2001. Of course, following those attacks, the United States took military and diplomatic action to bring justice not only to those families but to demonstrate the consequences of attacking the American homeland, but the truth is, the victims and their families still don't have the ability to get justice from the people--including the governments--who helped fund those terrorist attacks. That is where the bill, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, comes into play because if this legislation is signed by the President, it will become the law of the land. It will amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in a way that will allow Americans to sue State sponsors of terrorism when the terrorist attack occurs on American soil. Believe it or not, under current law, that can't happen. So this law is one that is designed to make sure these families who are still grieving and still don't have closure will be able to seek justice in a court of law against the people who killed their loved ones on September 11.
This is a bipartisan bill. My primary cosponsor in the Senate is Senator Schumer from New York. As a matter of fact, this is so bipartisan as to be nonpartisan. It passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent. So by unanimous consent, we passed this legislation in the U.S. Senate. Last Friday, in the U.S. House of Representatives, it passed without any objection. It passed unanimously. I know it is pretty hard for people to actually believe anything gets passed unanimously here in Washington in this polarized political environment, but this bill was passed unanimously.
Now, just after the anniversary of these tragic attacks, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act is headed to the President's desk, perhaps as early as today. This legislation will give victims of terror attacks and their families the opportunity to seek justice in a court of law from those who fund and facilitate terrorist attacks.
I want to make clear that contrary to some of the reports, this legislation doesn't mention any foreign government at all. It is agnostic. What it says is, if you fund and facilitate a terrorist attack on American soil, you can be hauled into court to answer for your crimes, and the families can seek compensation as they would in any other personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit.
This is a straightforward piece of legislation. It simply provides the mechanism to help victims of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil find the justice they need. The American people, through their elected representatives, have been clear in their support for this legislation.
Unfortunately, President Obama has already threatened to veto it, and for what reason I simply am at a loss to say, but I want to point out that this veto threat isn't about a President and his soured relationships with Congress; it is about the victims of 9/11 who have made clear they deserve to have this avenue of justice made into law.
Again, this legislation doesn't mention any particular country, and it doesn't decide the merits of any claim these family members may have. That is left to our justice system, as it should be.
Just yesterday, the families of the 9/11 victims sent a letter imploring President Obama to sign this bill. This is a powerful letter.
The families speak openly in this letter about the grief they still feel not just on the anniversary of 9/11 but every single day. They talk about why justice is so important and how this legislation would help ensure that ``justice delayed for the 9/11 families will not become justice denied.'' And they are right. That justice may have been delayed, but it will not be denied under this bill.
At the end of the letter, they plead with President Obama and ask him not to ``slam the door shut and abandon us. We need the Executive Branch to join Congress and protect us and all future victims of terrorism.''
They say: ``Please sign JASTA.''
These victims have certainly been through a lot and they certainly have the strength of their conviction. I admire the courage they display every single day to get up in the morning and go on about their lives in the aftermath of so much loss and so much tragedy. The least we can do is to make JASTA law so they and others in the future can have access to the courts and a path to justice.
Again, this bill doesn't decide the case; that is left to the court of law. It doesn't target an individual country; it says that any country who sponsors and facilitates and funds terrorist activities on American soil can be called to answer for it in court.
Frankly, I find it baffling that President Obama would rather make life easier for State sponsors of terrorism than he would lend support to the families of 9/11. He should sign this bill. It has an overwhelming display of support in Congress on behalf of the American people. I hope he reconsiders his previously threatened veto, but if President Obama does veto it, I hope he doesn't leave the American people and the victims of terrorism in limbo. If he is going to veto this legislation, he should not delay so Congress can quickly consider whether to override that veto and make the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act the law of the land. There is a way, if the President decided to play games with the victims of 9/11 and these families who have suffered so much, that he could make it hard, if not impossible, for Congress to vote to override the veto, but one thing he can do, out of respect for them and the memory of their lost loved ones, is to go ahead and veto it, if that is his determination, and then send it back here and then let Congress vote to override the veto, which I am confident we will.
The President, The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are all mothers, fathers, wives, husbands or children who lost loved ones in the cruel and devastating attack on America fifteen years ago today.
We miss them. And we grieve at what they have missed in lives cut short by terrorists whose immediate targets were innocents and whose ongoing target is everything America has stood for, fought for and promised to protect and defend since our union was formed. And we anguish especially as we witness the spread of the poisonous ideology that is determined to ensure that 9/11 was only the beginning.
This is a hard day for all of us. But, as we are sure you must know, they are all hard, not just the anniversaries. For some of us, though, this day is harder than any since the attack and we want you to understand why.
We and so many other families have fought for years to know all of the truth about 9/11. We have fought to ensure that anyone and any entity that may have had a responsible role in the murder of 3000 people in New York, at the Pentagon and across a field in Pennsylvania is held to account for their actions. And, we have struggled to make sure that our laws-- and those who are sworn to uphold them--leave nothing undone in our battle against terrorism.
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act addresses a missing piece of America's antiterrorism campaign--a piece that is missing because of grievously errant misconstructions of earlier laws meant to ensure that the families of Americans harmed or killed as a result of terrorist attacks with respect to which foreign governments may be complicit will be able to seek justice in our courts. That right is important for our Nation, because it will help to deter state-sponsored terrorism. It will help uncover truth--such as the mysteries surrounding the ability of 19 hijackers-- barely educated, not speaking much English and without visible resources--to come to America, learn to fly, set up camps in several cities and hijack four commercial airliners, crashing them spectacularly into the heart of our Government and the heart of our economy.
You have had your differences with us about JASTA. And we have been supportive of the reasonable efforts Congress has made to address your misgivings. But, now, Congress is done, and the result is legislation that both the United States Senate and the House of Representatives passed without a single dissenting voice.
JASTA will be delivered to you soon, perhaps tomorrow. And, here lies the reason this day is made even harder than past anniversaries: we don't know what you will do. We are left to wait, to hear remembrances and reassurances and regrets.
Mr. President, we don't need your comfort. We have each other. We don't need words--other than the words ``I will sign JASTA into law when it reaches my desk.'' We need those words and a simple action--the stroke of the only pen that can give us and the American people the assurance they need that your foreign policy and your defense of this great Nation include a determination that truth be our guidepost, that victims of terrorist attacks also have rights in our courts and that the justice delayed for the 9/11 families will not become justice denied.
Please, Mr. President, don't slam the door shut and abandon us. We need the Executive Branch to join Congress and protect us and all future victims of terrorism. Please sign JASTA. Sincerely,
Terry Strada, widow of Tom Strada, North Tower; Sylvia Carver, sister of Sharon Carver, Pentagon; Veronica Carver, sister of Sharon Carver, Pentagon; Bill Doyle, father of Joseph Doyle, North Tower; Gordon Haberman, father of Andrea Haberman, North Tower; Alice Hoagland, mother of Mark Bingham, Flight 93; Emanuel Lipscomb, survivor, civilian rescuer, NYC; Marge Mathers, widow of Charles W. Mathers, North Tower; Ellen Saracini, widow of Capt. Victor Saracini, pilot of Flight 175.
Kristen Breitweiser, widow of Ronald Breitweiser, South Tower; Curtis F. Brewer, widower of Carol K. Demitz, South Tower; Gail Eagleson, widow of John B. Eagleson, South Tower; Lisa Friedman, widow of Andrew Friedman from World Trade Center; Tim Frolich, personal injury survivor, North Tower; Monica Gabrielle, widow of Richard Gabrielle, South Tower; John Jermayn, personal injury survivor FDNY; Mindy Kleinberg, widow of Alan Kleinberg, North Tower; Kathy Owens, widow of Peter J. Owens Jr, North Tower; Melissa Raggio Granato, daughter of Eugen Raggio, South Tower; Charles G. Wolf, widower of Katherine Wolf, North Tower.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source