Motion to Discharge--S.J. Res. 39

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, while he is still on the floor, I just want to tell the Senator from South Carolina how much I appreciate his remarks. I agree with virtually everything he said. He is one of the most knowledgeable and articulate Members of the Congress on national security matters. He knows whereof he speaks and he speaks the truth. Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

Madam President, I have come to the floor a few times this last week to talk about another piece of legislation called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA. This might as well be known as the justice for the 9/11 families bill.

I support the position articulated by the Senator from South Carolina and will vote against the resolution of disapproval to block the Saudi arms sale. I believe that is the same position articulated by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, Senator McCain, and the majority leader, Senator McConnell, and I find myself in agreement with each of them. Some might say: Well, how can you agree to maintain the relationship with Saudi Arabia when it comes to providing them with the necessary arms they need in order to fight this proxy war by Iran against the Gulf State allies and at the same time support this Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which some say may be focused on the Saudis. I would like to explain that.

First of all, let me just say that when I think about the Senate, I am reminded of the comments made by Robert Byrd, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia who is no longer with us. He wrote books on Senate procedure. He wrote a history of the United States Senate. He was truly a remarkable man. He was also former majority leader of the Senate and a force to be reckoned with. When I came to the Senate, Senator Byrd said, among other things: In the Senate, you have no permanent allies. In the Senate, he said, you have no permanent enemies.

I believe what he meant by that was that on a case-by-case basis, people who come from different regions of the country, different States with different interests, will work together where their interests are aligned, and when they are not, they are going to differ--respectfully, I would hope--but they are not going to always do the same thing or see the world in exactly the same way. That doesn't mean we are enemies. That doesn't mean we are adversaries. That is just the way it works.

As I think about our relationship with countries such as Saudi Arabia--but it is not just Saudi Arabia, it is all of our international relationships--we are going to agree with them on matters of principle when our interests are aligned. We are. And certainly in the case of this arms sale, our interests are perfectly aligned.

Saudi Arabia finds itself in a very rough neighborhood, subjected to violence and war perpetrated by Iran, frequently through proxy groups such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other forces, but it is very much in the U.S. interest that Iran not continue to dominate the whole region in the Middle East. Obviously, they have made great strides in dominating and influencing Iraq.

Unfortunately, as a result of the misguided nuclear deal negotiated by the White House, Iran is now on a pathway toward a nuclear weapon. One can imagine what our other allies, such as Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States, are thinking. If our No. 1 adversary in the region is going to get a nuclear weapon, we may need to defend ourselves. By what? Well, by getting nuclear weapons. That makes the world a much more dangerous place.

My point is, when it comes to relationships between Senators from different States, representing different regions and different interests, even though we sometimes agree with each other, sometimes disagree with each other, that is just the way the Senate works, and that is the way I believe the world works. When our interests are aligned with countries such as Saudi Arabia, we will stand with them, and we hope they will stand with us. When they diverge, we are going to take a little different approach.

I believe it is absolutely imperative we override the forthcoming veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act so the families who suffered so much and lost so much on 9/11 can go to court and make the case, if they can, to hold whoever was responsible accountable. That is just as basic as anything in our system of justice. That is not for us to decide. We are not a court of law. The rules of procedure and the rules of evidence don't apply here. Sometimes I wish they did. In court, you can't just introduce hearsay or conspiracy theories and not back them up. They have to be based upon reliable testimony as determined by a judge.

That is what the 9/11 families are going to get, is the opportunity to make their case, if they can. I don't know if they are going to be successful, but I do believe one of the most fundamental things about our system of government is the opportunity to try. If you think you have a case to make, present it to the judge and try to make your case. You may win. You may lose.

I spent 13 years of my adult life as a trial judge and on an appellate court, the Texas Supreme Court. Maybe I just became too familiar with how courts operate. Maybe I have more confidence in the ability of the courts to sift through these matters and get to the bottom of them than some of my other colleagues do, but I have confidence, by and large, in the Federal judiciary, and I believe under the oversight of a good Federal judge, they are going to enter the appropriate sort of protective orders necessary to protect people sued against overreaching and fishing expeditions when it comes to discovery, for example. The judge is going to make sure everybody plays by the rules and does not take unfair advantage.

So enough about that. But I believe, unlike a few of my colleagues whose comments I have read about, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act does not target a specific country. As I have mentioned time and time again, we don't even mention a specific country in the legislation. All it does is extend a law dating back to 1978--the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act--and it says that in a narrow set of facts, you may be able to sue a foreign government. In this case, if you sponsor or facilitate a terrorist attack on American soil, you will have been deemed by law to have waived your sovereign immunity and you will be held accountable in court.

Again, I have read the 28 pages that remain classified from the 9/11 report. I have read other responses from our law enforcement and intelligence authorities. I can't talk about that here. I will not talk about that here.

I believe the families do deserve an opportunity to make their case, and I trust that we will override the President's veto once it arrives here after Friday. But it is absolutely imperative that we keep our promises to our allies like Saudi Arabia, particularly where it serves our own national security interests. They live in the region. They are working as a counterbalance and a check on Iranian hegemony. As the Senator from South Carolina noted, Iran is the biggest troublemaker, not only in the Middle East but maybe on the planet. They have been trying to wipe Israel off the map using proxy forces like Hezbollah and Hamas. Obviously, they have been working their mischief in Iraq. After Saddam Hussein was deposed, President al-Maliki was put in place, but unfortunately because of his favoritism toward the Shia Muslims and his opposition to Sunni Muslims, he essentially joined common cause with Iran. Now we find ourselves in the unenviable position, as U.S. military forces that are training and assisting Iranian security forces--as they march forward to Mosul to take that back from the Islamic State, we are literally going to be fighting side by side with Iranian militias directed by the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It is outrageous that we find ourselves in this situation.

I encourage our colleagues to vote against the resolution of disapproval. This bill would keep the United States from supporting Saudi Arabia in ways that benefit our country strategically. As we have heard, that includes tanks and other equipment to help the Saudis maintain control of their border in a very dangerous and tumultuous part of the world and most importantly to help them protect themselves from an emboldened Iran that is awash in cash as a result of the President's misguided, bad nuclear deal in lifting sanctions on the Iranians.

In the long run, I think voting for this bill would actually help Iran and strengthen its hand, and I certainly cannot and will not support that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source