Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act--Veto
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the Senate knows, today we are considering the President's misguided decision to veto a piece of legislation that passed this body unanimously by unanimous consent and likewise passed the House of Representatives with no dissenting votes.
In our polarized politics of today, this is pretty much a close-to- miraculous occurrence because Democrats and Republicans, Senators and House Members, have all agreed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which gives the victims of a terrorist attack on our own soil an opportunity to seek the justice they deserve--all of us have come together and agreed this is appropriate and the right thing to do.
At a time when international terrorism is spreading, FBI Director Comey yesterday warned of a terrorist diaspora. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act will send a strong message that those who sponsor terrorist attacks on American soil, including foreign governments, will answer to those victims and pay for the death and destruction they cause.
Current law already allows for American victims to sue foreign governments for many different offenses committed by their employees-- commercial wrongs, assault, drunk driving, rape, human trafficking, among others. That is already part of existing law.
JASTA would clarify that sponsoring an act of terrorism in America is added to that list. If we allowed lawsuits against foreign governments for bar fights, contract breaches, drunk driving, then we should allow the victims of a terrorist attack on our soil the opportunity for their day in court as well. This is an important piece of legislation, and it is straightforward. That is why I believe we got the unanimous support in both bodies that we have.
I want to make clear, though, that this has not been a quick process.
This legislation has been pending since 2009, and we have worked through a number of Members' concerns they have expressed along the way in order to modify the legislation and build the consensus we now have achieved. There have been many different drafts and feedback from Members, a lot of consultations with family members who have been affected, and a lot has gone into this legislation. That means this bill has been negotiated and hammered out over a long period of time, and that is the reason we were able to garner such strong support from both bodies to get the bill passed.
Last Friday, the President chose to ignore the voices of American terrorism victims by vetoing this legislation. Fortunately, today this Chamber will have a choice and have a chance to exercise our constitutional prerogative under article I, section 7 of the Constitution. We will have a chance to act as a check on President Obama to override his veto.
I have read President Obama's veto message, and it is not persuasive.
That is because it described a bill that doesn't exist and misrepresents the state of the law. He cites concerns that the bill would ``create complications'' with some of our close partners. The truth is, JASTA only targets foreign governments that sponsor terrorist attacks on American soil, plain and simple. I don't know how that would create complications with some of our close partners.
The financing of terrorism in the United States is not behavior we should tolerate from any nation, allies included. How can anyone look the families in the eye and tell them they shouldn't have the opportunity to seek justice against a foreign government responsible for the death of their loved one?
The President has claimed this legislation would result in a flood of lawsuits against Americans by foreign governments. What the President ignores is that we are already being sued by foreign nations under the current state of the law, but a law like JASTA applied reciprocally will open no such floodgates.
The President even had the audacity to claim this legislation might lead to lawsuits against members of the military, but had he read the plain text of the bill, he would know this bill only allows for lawsuits against foreign governments, not individuals. He would also know it contains a specific exemption for our Armed Forces.
Finally, JASTA is not a sweeping legislative overhaul that dramatically alters international law. It is an extension of law that has been on the books since 1976. Once again, there are numerous exceptions that prevent foreign governments from shielding themselves from litigation when they cause harm.
The President has also complained this applies to conduct committed abroad, but today and for 40 years our law has been replete with immunity exceptions that apply to conduct committed abroad. This bill just adds another exception.
At the end of the day, this vote is about doing what is right for the American people. Some of our colleagues have expressed concerns about how it might be interpreted by some of our allies, but the fact is, this legislation does not mention any particular country. All it does is it carves out an exception to this notion of sovereign immunity for conduct committed in a terrorist attack on American soil.
The whole idea of sovereign immunity comes from England and our Anglo-American inheritance in our law. The notion is that the King in England could do no wrong so you couldn't sue the government, but we have recognized the injustice that would cause, even in our own country, when Congress has passed numerous exceptions under which the U.S. Government can be sued in our own court, recognizing that equal justice under the law does not create a situation where it should not tolerate a situation where the government was simply immune from litigation and paying its fair compensation in individual lawsuits.
This legislation is about pursuing justice and the legal process it continues to serve as a foundation to our Republic. At its core, this bill is about respecting the voices and the rights of American victims.
I believe we have many important allies around the world with whom our interests are aligned, but when our interests diverge, and it is a question of protecting American rights and American values, I think we should always do that rather than somehow subjugate those rights and values to the interests of some foreign government.
This is not about severing our relationship with any ally. This is simply a matter of justice. This is about respecting the voices and the rights of the American victims. At about noon today, this Chamber should vote overwhelmingly to override President Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act because the families have already suffered too much. They have already suffered untold tragedy, and they deserve to find a path to closure that only justice can provide.
I, like many of my colleagues, have had a chance to meet with a number of the families of the victims of 9/11. Their stories are heartbreaking, and I know none of us will forget where we were on that fateful day.
Our country has changed undeniably, but for these families, that day and each day serve as a tragic reminder of deep, personal loss.
One of these family members whom I have had the chance to get to know is Marge Mathers, who now calls Texas home. Marge's husband Charles worked on the 99th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
She says she turned on the television that fateful day and watched in horror as the tower in which Charles was working collapsed.
Marge moved to Texas soon after September 11, but her grieving--and our Nation's grieving--continues and of course will never completely end. Long ago, I pledged to Marge and to other families I have met that I would do my very level best to help them right this wrong and to provide them an opportunity to make their case in a court of law. So we will fix this law by extending this 1976 provision, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, to allow the families and the victims of the 9/11 tragedy to seek justice in a court of law in an American court.
These families should have the right to make their case. These families should have the freedom to have their day in court, to have a judge hear their case, and to hold accountable those who played a role in their suffering. That is what this legislation is all about, providing them the freedom to do so.
The families of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that occurred in the United States have waited a long time, and I am hopeful they will not have to wait any longer for the opportunity to pursue justice. I hope every Member of this body will join me in supporting this bill one more time and we will vote to override the President's veto and further the cause of justice for these victims.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source