Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act--Veto
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee. I know he comes at this with the best of intentions and spirit. We disagree, but he is an expert on foreign policy, and we all respect his judgment.
I rise to speak on behalf of my bill, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. Soon we will vote on whether to override the President's veto of this bill. This is a decision I do not take lightly, but as one of the authors of this legislation and a firm believer in its purpose, I believe the Senate should confidently vote to override, and I will lay out the reasons why as clearly as I can.
The bill is near and dear to my heart as a New Yorker because it would allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice, finally giving them the legal avenue to pursue the foreign sponsors of a terrorist attack that took the lives of their loved ones.
Unfortunately, the courts in New York have dismissed the 9/11 victims' claims against certain foreign entities alleged to have helped the 9/11 attacks. These courts are following what I believe is a fundamentally incorrect reading of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Do we want it established inflexibly in precedent that foreign countries, directly responsible for financing terrorist acts on U.S. soil, are beyond the reach of justice? I don't think so. I don't think that. In an age where we have state sponsors of terrorism, I don't think that is what the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ever intended.
For the sake of these families, it should be made clear--beyond a shadow of a doubt--that every entity, including foreign states, will be held accountable if they are sponsors of heinous acts like 9/11. It is very simple. If the Saudis were culpable, they should be held accountable. If they had nothing to do with 9/11, they have nothing to fear.
I might add, the families are not simply seeking justice for themselves. They want to make sure Saudi Arabia or any other country in the future knows they will pay the consequences if they aid and abet terrorism. In a certain real sense, they are lighting a candle.
When tragedy befalls somebody in a horrible and irrational way, a vicious way--as has befallen these families--the natural instinct the Scriptures tell us is to curse the darkness--why me?--to be angry, to turn inward, to wish the world would go away, but these families, with amazing fortitude, persistence, and courage, are lighting a candle.
They are trying to make the world a better place, even though it will never bring their loved ones back, so it will never happen again. I so respect that, among many other things, about them.
Let me address the foreign policy concerns some may have about the bill from which the veto arises. Senator Cornyn and I have discussed in depth many times on the floor how we have narrowed the bill to strike the proper balance between our interests abroad and the right of our citizens to obtain redress when they are victims of terrorism on U.S.
soil. In fact, we penned a joint op-ed on that question in USA TODAY.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
[From USA TODAY, Sept. 27, 2016]
Give 9/11 Families a Legal Avenue: Opposing View
(By Chuck Schumer and John Cornyn)
The Senate will vote Wednesday on whether to override the president's veto of our bill, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). As the authors of this legislation and firm believers in its purpose, we believe the Senate should confidently vote to override the veto. JASTA was written for one main purpose: to clarify under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Anti-terrorism Act that every entity, including foreign states, must be held accountable if they are found to be sponsors of heinous acts of terrorism on U.S. soil.
If the veto is overridden, this legislation would provide a legal avenue for the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks to seek justice in a court of law for the terrorist attacks that took the lives of their loved ones. And it would deter foreign entities from sponsoring terrorism in the future.
The concerns we've heard about the legislation don't hold up to scrutiny. JASTA's opponents claim that the bill will subject U.S. diplomats and other government officials to a raft of potential lawsuits in foreign courts. Not true; JASTA simply builds on well-established principles under FSIA.
It returns the law to the way it was before a 2008 court case that granted sovereign immunity even in terrorism cases where citizens are murdered on U.S. soil. In the decades before this, there was no flood of lawsuits against U.S. interests.
Consistent with FSIA, as designed by Congress, victims can sue a foreign government if one of its employees causes damage arising from drunken driving, assault or breach of contract. If U.S. victims can sue a foreign government for these reasons, they should be able to sue a foreign government that harms their loved ones by financing a terror attack on our homeland.
There is always an excuse not to do something, but the chief argument used by JASTA's detractors is flimsy. When weighed against the moral imperative to do right by the families of the 9/11 victims--who continue to strongly advocate for this bill--the choice is clear: Senators should vote to override.
Mr. SCHUMER. I wish to read a section of the op-ed that addresses the chief concern of JASTA's opponents:
JASTA's opponents claim that the bill will subject U.S. diplomats and other government officials to a raft of potential lawsuits in foreign courts. Not true; JASTA simply builds on well-established principles under [the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act].
It returns the law to the way it was before a 2008 court case that granted sovereign immunity even in terrorism cases where citizens are murdered on U.S. soil. In the decades before this, there was no flood of lawsuits against U.S. interests.
Consistent with FSIA, as designed by Congress, victims can sue a foreign government if one of its employees causes damage arising from drunken driving, assault or breach of contract. If U.S. victims can sue a foreign government for these reasons, they should be able to sue a foreign government that harms their loved ones by financing a terror attack on our homeland.
Senator Cornyn and I have worked very hard over the course of 6 years and several iterations of the bill to strike the right balance. It has been a long work in progress, and I believe the measure of our success is reflected by the unanimous support the bill received in both Houses of Congress. In this body, not a single person objected when it was brought to the floor to be voted on.
Democrats and Republicans don't agree on much these days, but we agree on JASTA. Both parties agree the families of the 9/11 victims deserve justice. That, more than anything else, should weigh most heavily on our minds today.
It has been 15 years since that awful day--a day that changed every New Yorker, every American. We will never forget the shock, the fear, the holes in our hearts, the friends and neighbors and loved ones we lost, the first responders and union workers and firefighters and policemen who bravely rushed to the towers searching for signs of life in that smoldering rubble. I was there the day after. The smell of death was in the air. As a nation, we came together. We rebuilt. As New Yorkers, we did the same thing, but we will never ever forget. In this debate, we cannot forget what this legislation means to the families of victims.
It has been 15 years since Ms. Terry Estrada lost her husband Tom, who worked in the North Tower. Terry didn't just lose a husband, she lost a father to a young son 7, daughter of 4, and a newborn baby boy.
She lost a loving father and her best friend. Terry and her children have championed this bill for over a decade. I thank them and all the other families--especially Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken, Kristin Breitweiser, Patty Casazza--for their tireless advocacy and patience. Of course, no compensation could ever repair the broken hearts of a family who lost a loved one to such mindless hate, but as Jane Bartels, a mother from Staten Island who lost her husband Carlton on that sunny morning 15 years ago put it recently, ``We just want our day in court.'' ``We just want our day in court.''
The victims of 9/11 and other terrorist acts have suffered such pain and heartache, but they should not be denied their day in court. They should not be denied their pursuit of justice.
There is always an excuse not to do something, but as Senator Cornyn and I have explained, the chief argument used by JASTA's detractors is not strong. In fact, it is flimsy. When weighed against the moral imperative, we have to do right by the families of the 9/11 victims.
The choice is clear. I urge my colleagues to override.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source