John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we continue to learn more and more about the terrorist attacks that occurred last weekend on American soil. In just a short time span, on Saturday a number of innocent people became the targets of attacks in Manhattan, New Jersey, and Minnesota. In Manhattan, as we know, a bomb went off in the Chelsea neighborhood, injuring almost 30 people. Thanks to a very alert citizen, a second device--found just a few blocks away--was dismantled and did not cause any additional damages. If that hadn't happened, obviously many more casualties would have been likely. In neighboring New Jersey, a bomb exploded near the site of a charity race to benefit marines and their families. More bombs were found in a backpack near a train station in Elizabeth, NJ. As we have seen in the news in Minnesota, also on Saturday, it was reported that a man with a knife began attacking innocent passersby in a mall. He stabbed nine people. The day after the attack, the Islamic State, or ISIS, took credit. A news outlet associated with the terrorist army called the jihadist a ``soldier of the Islamic State.'' Thank goodness no lives were lost in that attack. In every case, law enforcement authorities and first responders acted swiftly in order to minimize the damage. But the point is that we are living in dangerous and tumultuous times. Just last week we celebrated the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on our country. I shouldn't use the word ``celebrated.'' We actually memorialized those terrible attacks that took the lives of about 3,000 Americans. This week we find ourselves trying to make some sense of the violence carried out last weekend. The only rational thing for us to do here at home is to remain vigilant. As the Department of Homeland Security likes to say, if you see something, say something. Situational awareness is always important for public safety, but we could do a lot more than just equipping the American people with a slogan that allows them to maintain situational awareness. In Congress, we need to make sure we provide all the tools necessary to our military, to our law enforcement, and to our first responders to protect the men and women whom we represent--the American people. That means we need to consider legislation that supports the victims of terrorism and their families as well. While I am not suggesting this is going to be a deterrent to terrorist attacks, just maybe it will provide some measure of justice to the families who have lost loved ones as a result of terrorist attacks on American soil. Yesterday I talked about one small piece of that effort, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. This is one way we could do that and help these family members find some measure of closure and justice. Simply, what it would do is to extend existing law that has been on the books since the late 1970s that would allow these families to hold foreign governments--that have helped finance and facilitated attacks on American soil--accountable in our courts of law. In just a few minutes, I will have the chance to meet with several of the families of the victims of 9/11. I have to tell you that these men and women have been a remarkable example of courage and resilience for all of us. They want and they deserve a path to justice. I hope the President stops holding up Congress from voting to override the veto he promised on this legislation. Better yet, I would hope the President would reconsider his stated intention to veto the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It makes no mention of any particular country. It doesn't decide the merits of the lawsuit that will be brought. All it does is give these families access to a court of law where they can make their case if they can. The President said he is going to veto it, but my question is this: What is he waiting for? It has been on his desk since about a week ago. Why is he making these families wait even longer for justice? If he is going to veto it, he should do it--to stop making everybody wait on his timeline. I hope that when the President does veto this legislation--if he is determined to do that--we will quickly vote to override. I am confident we will, given the fact that this legislation passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and was supported by all Members of the House of Representatives. Another way we could help guard against homegrown extremism in our country is by better equipping our law enforcement personnel to track down and ultimately detain potential terrorists to stop the acts of terror before they occur--not just after they occur--and conducting an investigation and holding the person responsible accountable. Wouldn't it be great and better if we could actually stop these attacks before they occur? One way we could do that is by fixing the current gap in our laws for what is called the electronic communications and transactions records. That is a mouthful. Basically, what that would do is allow the FBI to use national security letters, which they can already do in a terrorism investigation, to access not just financial, not just phone records but also computer metadata--not content but just the Internet protocol addresses on computers in terrorist investigations--in order to put together the pieces to be able to make the case to stop terrorist attacks in the first place. As I have said before--and I will say again--we expect our law enforcement personnel to prevent these attacks by connecting the dots. But before you can connect the dots, you have to collect dots, and that is what this important tool would help to do. In today's Internet age, our law enforcement personnel need these tools to fight terrorists, plain and simple. Our friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, has been a great leader on this issue. I hope this Chamber acts on this and other similar legislation before an attack occurs, not after. Fundamentally, at the root of the problem with the Islamic State operating in the Middle East in Syria, Iraq, and in a number of other countries, is that our President--the Commander in Chief of our military--doesn't have a strategy to combat and defeat this threat. We let them establish a de facto state in the heart of the Middle East by precipitously withdrawing our military personnel from Iraq and leaving a vacuum. We should have learned what happens from the horrible lesson of 9/11 and Al Qaeda when we create power vacuums in the Middle East. Ultimately, this will provide a place for the terrorists to train, organize, and ultimately find a way to attack us here at home. When they can't physically come here, what they do is they radicalize people on the Internet, encouraging them to kill Americans here in place. President Obama has called the Islamic State the JV team. Well, how in the world can a JV team resist the most powerful military in the world--the United States military? That is because the President has tied the arm of our military behind its back and basically is fighting a war of containment--not a war where victory and defeat of our opponents is the objective. It really looks as if the President is trying to run out the clock for the remainder of his term without doing the hard work and the necessary work to implement a strategy to actually defeat this threat. Because the President didn't take ISIS and its affiliates seriously, we now see them export their dangerous ideology to our shores. We saw that again just recently last Saturday in Minnesota. We saw that in Orlando with a shooter who killed 49 people and injured 50 more, who declared allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State. Unfortunately, this joins the list of other ISIS- inspired attacks throughout the country, as I said, from Orlando to San Bernardino and now to Minnesota. We simply cannot sit back and just let them do their deadly deeds. We must have a strategy. We have to implement that strategy, both abroad and here at home. Unfortunately, the President is exercising extreme reluctance in terms of addressing the threat. We know his wait-and-see approach has not worked, and we continue to see the dangerous consequences here at home. Syrian Refugees Mr. President, there is another consequence to the President's failure to deal with this threat in the Middle East. This has to do with what Amnesty International has called the worst refugee crisis in over 70 years. What happens overseas doesn't necessarily stay overseas. America is the most generous country in the world when it comes to accepting refugees, when it comes to naturalizing people as American citizens who were born elsewhere. But the President has stated an intention to settle about 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States just this year. He is conducting a conference today, Tuesday, where he will lead a summit on the need to take in additional Syrian refugees. He has now stated that his administration's goal is to raise the 10,000 limit of Syrian refugees to 110,000 Syrian refugees by next October. Not to be outdone, Secretary Clinton has said she wants to have at least 65,000 additional Syrian refugees. We all believe in being humanitarian and compassionate in dealing with the needs of refugees, but I would bet that every single one--or the overwhelming majority of these refugees--would rather live in place in the country of their birth than be displaced to a new and strange country as refugees. We know the danger of improperly vetting refugees is a real threat to our safety and security here at home, but apparently the President is not paying any attention to that--calling now for an additional 100,000 Syrian refugees by next October. Sadly, about 5 million people have been displaced by the war in Syria. We know that after the President said Bashar al-Assad would be held accountable after he crossed a red line, using chemical weapons against his own people, basically nothing happened. That emboldened Russia, our adversary, to get a toehold in Syria. It allowed them to ally with the country of Iran and terrorist groups such as Hezbollah to actually try to maintain Bashar al-Assad in office--something this President and his administration said shall not stand. In Syria alone, nearly 5 million refugees have left that country. We know they have gone to bordering countries such as Turkey. I visited some of those refugee camps. They have been to Jordan. They are relocating in places such as northern Iraq, where the financial burden is shaking the very foundations of the regional government there. And we know that many of these refugees have made their way into Europe, causing instability there--a potential danger when refugees are not particularly well vetted to determine whether they bring with them a dangerous ideology which will be perhaps deadly to people living in those areas, places such as Germany and France, just to mention a couple. This President seems to be absolutely blind to the consequences of his failure to have any effective strategy to deal with the Islamic State, whether it is abroad or here at home, or consequences he may not even tie to his failure to deal with this threat, such as the refugee crisis we have seen in Europe and elsewhere. The answer to dealing with this evil is not just to accept more refugees, the answer is to have an effective strategy to provide no-fly and no-drive zones where Syrians can actually continue to live in Syria without fear of being murdered by either Bashar al-Assad and his allies, Iran and Russia, or Al Qaeda affiliates or the Islamic State. That would be a better answer, and I bet they would agree. Most of these refugees would rather live in the country of their birth rather than be displaced in the Middle East, Europe, or even the United States. Unfortunately, under the leadership of this President, what we have seen is one consequence after another. I hope the President will finally come up with a strategy to dismantle and defeat ISIS, but I am not holding my breath. And obviously his days as President of the United States are numbered. There are, however, things we could do here in the Congress to draft solid legislation that will at least protect the American people here in our homeland by providing additional tools for our law enforcement personnel to collect the dots so they can connect the dots. It is not enough to just prosecute the guilty once people are murdered or injured by a terrorist attack; we need to make sure our law enforcement personnel--the FBI and others--have the tools they need to stop these attacks before they occur, if it is humanly possible to do so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a news article from today's Washington Examiner entitled ``Days after attacks, Obama pitches more refugees.''

Mr. CORNYN

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. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, reserving the right to object--if my friend from Oregon wants to discuss transparency and bring the Presidential election to the floor of the U.S. Senate, I think the person we should start with is the former Secretary of State. She has had, to put it charitably, innumerable challenges on the topic of transparency. Let's just look at one. All we need to do is look at the way she exposed some of our Nation's most highly classified information by setting up a private email server in her home. The ensuing investigation produced nothing but stonewalling, obfuscation, and misleading statements she made to the American public. When FBI Director James Comey announced the agency was closing the investigation, his statements made clear that Hillary Clinton had not been telling the truth. She did send and she did receive classified information, again, at some of the various highest levels. Director Comey said she and her staff who aided and abetted her were ``extremely careless in their handling of this highly sensitive information.'' In response, I have introduced legislation with the junior Senator from Colorado, Senator Gardner, to help hold her and her staff accountable. The bill is called the Trust Act and it would revoke the security clearance of any person found to have been extremely careless in the handling of classified information, and it would keep them from receiving a security clearance in the future. It would also clarify that when someone has been found by investigators to have been extremely careless in handling classified information, that is tantamount to gross negligence. So I would ask the Senator from Oregon to modify his request so S. 2979 and S. 3135 be discharged from their respective committees and the Senate proceed to their immediate consideration. I would ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Just a few moments ago, the Senate passed a piece of legislation that some might ask: Well, what is the big deal? The Water Resources Development Act--what we call around here WRDA by the acronym--this bill is enormously important for States like North Dakota, places like Texas that have experienced flooding, in particular, but this bill will help us maintain and expand our infrastructure related to our most precious natural resource, and that is water. Like I said, that might sound a little boring, not particularly interesting, but it actually has a lot of relevance to every American. Like I said last week, this legislation includes provisions that will help my constituents in Texas in a number of ways, from drought and flood protection to carving out deeper ports to enhance our ability to do international trade, but the passage of this bill serves as another example of what can happen when the Senate is actually working the way it is supposed to. I am not going to suggest to you that just because the 2014 election gave Republicans the majority in the U.S. Senate that automatically made it possible for the Senate to begin functioning again, but the fact is, leadership does make a difference. I know it was absolutely key to Majority Leader McConnell's agenda that we would actually work in the committees to build consensus on legislation, and then they would come to the floor and people would have an opportunity to offer amendments and other constructive suggestions and we would work until we built that consensus and accomplished our goal of passing legislation. It is worth reminding our colleagues that the Senate, under Senator McConnell's leadership, passed the first bicameral budget that we have passed since 2009 and the first balanced budget since 2001. Under a Republican-led Senate, all 12 appropriations bills were approved by their respective subcommittees and by the Appropriations Committee itself. As the Presiding Officer knows, the only way that happens is for the chair and the ranking member of the appropriate Appropriations subcommittee to work together on a bipartisan basis and then work with colleagues on the whole Appropriations Committee to come up with legislation they will support or that an overwhelming majority--in some cases unanimously--of the committee supports. This is the first time since 2009 that we have actually seen all 12 appropriations bills approved by the subcommittees and then by the entire Appropriations Committee. That is the good news. The bad news is, our Democratic colleagues wouldn't let us proceed with actually voting on those appropriations bills to get them done one at a time, in a transparent sort of way, where we would be held accountable for what we did, and it would be open to the American people to see exactly what we were doing. The reason we are talking about a continuing resolution this week and next is because of the filibuster of the appropriations process. It didn't have to be that way. In fact, we were on track to funding the government the way we were supposed to, bill by bill. In spite of the filibuster on the appropriations bill, we have been able to find consensus on a number of other important pieces of legislation. This is legislation that will help American families, strengthen our economy, and help keep the American people secure. Importantly, these were bills that furthered what I believe to be the appropriate philosophy of the government; that is, Washington does not always know best, and that power needs to be devolved from the Federal Government in Washington back down to the States and back down to individual citizens. For example, we passed the first major education reform bill since No Child Left Behind, a piece of legislation called the Every Student Succeeds Act. This bill does exactly what I just described. Under the chairmanship and the leadership of Senator Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, what this legislation did was it transferred more power with regard to public education, K-12, from Washington back to the States and back to parents and teachers--people who actually understand best what the educational needs of their students are and how to make sure they achieve their potential. We also passed the first multiyear highway bill since 2005. Why is that important? Well, if you come from a fast-growing State like mine, a big State, the quality of highways and bridges are pretty darn important--not only important to public safety, they are important to the environment and they are important for the economy. But this is the first time we passed a multiyear highway bill since 2005. As I said, this legislation will help us maintain and build our infrastructure so we can keep up with economic and population growth and make the most of it. It will also provide certainty to our States and communities so they can actually plan for the future. As long as we were passing 6- month or yearlong Transportation bills, there was no way they could do long-term planning, which is more efficient and more cost-effective. We also have done other important things. We passed trade promotion authority--working with the President--that defines the parameters of what Congress and the White House would agree to when it comes to trade agreements. I know ``trade'' has kind of become a little bit of a dirty word lately in Presidential politics, but I can tell you, in my State we see the benefits of our international trading ability every day. Six million jobs depend on binational trade with Mexico alone, and NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which basically tied together Canada, Mexico, and the United States, has been seen as a very positive move and has created a lot of jobs and economic growth. We also reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration--pretty darn important if you happen to fly. We passed another piece of important legislation called the POLICE Act to support our local law enforcement officials and to make sure they get the training they need to respond to an active shooter situation--something that, sadly, more and more police find themselves confronted with these days. We also had a tremendous vote--99 to 0--in the Senate on a bill called Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. I have said many times that sadly the profile of a victim of human trafficking is a girl between the ages of 12 and 14 years old, many of whom run away from home, only to find themselves living a life of literally modern-day slavery. This legislation was designed to make sure there were more resources available to help rescue those victims of human trafficking and to better equip law enforcement to track down their captors. We also passed legislation that promotes a more transparent and open government and protects intellectual property rights, just to name a few. Again, these may seem like small things in isolation, but they represent a major change in the way we do business here in the Senate-- actually working together on a bipartisan basis to solve problems and to get legislation on the President's desk and have him sign it. Now, you won't read very much about that because the news covers conflict. That is just the nature of the beast. When we fight like cats and dogs, it is all over the newspapers and on the Internet and on TV, but when we actually appear to be doing the work the American people sent us here to do, frankly, it is not particularly newsworthy, sadly enough. We have other important work that is still outstanding as the Senate continues to make progress on a conference report on the Energy Policy Modernization Act, a bill this Chamber passed months ago thanks to the leadership of Senator Murkowski of Alaska and Ranking Member Cantwell. We also are close to finishing up our work on the National Defense Authorization Act. This is the major defense authorization bill that has been passed out of the Senate every year for more years than we can remember. Then the work we have to complete this week and next is to find a way to keep the government up and running and provide resources to communities to fight the Zika virus and to prevent the horrific birth defects that unfortunately are part of that disease. I point out these accomplishments in an effort to just remind our colleagues and anybody who happens to be listening that we do try--not all the time but most of the time--to put politics aside, to focus on results, and to try to do things that benefit the American people. I am thankful for the leadership of the majority leader. As I said earlier, leadership matters. Senator McConnell has worked hard to try to bring bills to the floor that did enjoy bipartisan support and, to the extent possible, to make sure everybody had a chance to participate in the process. It is that sort of vision and that sort of pragmatism which has brought us this record of success. I hope we continue to do that in the time we have left between now and the election and then when we return after the election to work together. I know it is tough work. It is frustrating. But it is worthwhile, and it is worth doing. I don't see anybody ready to speak. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wasn't expecting to be on the floor when the Senator from Alaska was talking about Father Elliott. What a great story, and what a great life he lived. I am glad I happened to be here and had a chance to listen.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is always good to hear our friend and colleague Senator Whitehouse and see his chart. I know he has given that speech or something like it many times, and I am tempted to respond to some of the things he said, but I will not because there is something else I want to talk about. Yesterday I came to the floor to talk about President Obama's domestic policy legacy, and the No. 1 attribute of that is ObamaCare and how ObamaCare failed to deliver on the promises the President and the people who supported it made in terms of bringing down costs, making care available, not disrupting people with coverage they already had and liked. The verdict is in on ObamaCare. The costs are up, access to care is down, and I have talked about the huge premium increases my constituents in Texas are going to experience because the masters of the universe who dreamed this up simply did not reflect reality or anticipate unintended consequences of their actions. Today I would like to talk a little bit about President Obama's foreign policy and national security legacy. After almost 8 years of this administration, the main takeaway is, the world is more dangerous and the world is less stable than it was when President Obama took office 8 years ago. As the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has pointed out, the array of threats confronting us and threatening our national security has never been greater--at least, he said, in his 50 years in the intelligence community. Last month, I had a chance once again to visit Afghanistan and Iraq. I wanted to go back and get up to speed on exactly what the conditions were, the challenges we were facing there, and meet with our military leaders as well as constituents from Texas. I had a chance to also visit with a number of foreign leaders and of course discuss our ongoing efforts to combat terrorism and help those countries achieve some sort of stability. Obviously, the biggest focus right now is ISIS. The Islamic State is known in Arabic, I am told, as Daesh, which is more of a pejorative connotation. People resist the Islamic State because they say it is not a state, and indeed what I learned in Mosul and Raqqa, efforts are underway to basically destroy what ISIS now claims is its burgeoning caliphate. The good news is we have some of the best and brightest patriots in the world working in very difficult places to advance our interests. The bad news is, they are not getting the strategic guidance and leadership we need from the White House. Because of that, success in the region is limited. Because our goals appear to be not actually disrupting and destroying the threat of Islamic radicalism, manifest in the name of ISIS or Al Qaeda, it appears to be more of a containment approach--let's do the best we can to contain it but let the next President and the next Congress worry about it. We just completed a major offensive against ISIS in Afghanistan, but the Taliban and its ally, the Haqqani Network, are kidnapping Americans and overrunning regional outposts that had been held by the Afghans. One of the biggest problems in Afghanistan, I was reminded once again, is the fact that we have an unreliable partner in Pakistan because what happens is many of the Taliban come from Pakistan, where they have safe haven, and they come over into Afghanistan and attack Afghan security forces and the police and then they go back to this protective hideout in Pakistan. We know ISIS still holds large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq. If you look at a map, you actually see a line between Syria and Iraq, but that border has essentially been obliterated. We know ISIS continues to export its terrorist ideology to Europe and the West, where there have been spectacular and deadly attacks either instigated by or inspired by this dangerous ideology. The strategic and humanitarian crisis in Syria continues unabated, and it is beyond horrible. Now, because of our weakened strategic hand and diminished credibility in the eyes of friend and foe alike, we have apparently been forced to rely on the Russians to negotiate a ceasefire. Last week, 4 years after President Obama promised that using a chemical weapon would constitute a redline that must not be crossed and that would result in a firmer U.S. response, it was reported that the Syrian Government has once again carried out gas attacks, this time with chlorine. Many were wounded. Two civilians were killed, one including a 13-year-old girl. Obviously, the threats of redlines that must not be crossed because there were no consequences associated with crossing the redline, obviously Bashar al Assad feels he has impunity to do whatever he wants in order to maintain power because he probably realizes the alternative to doing that is not very good for him. The line President Obama drew has now been repeatedly crossed by the murderous Assad regime. ISIS is still strong and the war criminal al Assad continues to use those chemical weapons against civilians. We also have seen that when we don't do everything in our power to root out and extinguish a serious jihadist threat abroad--like the one posed by ISIS in Syria and Iraq--that threat can make its way to our shores through ISIS-inspired attacks right here, the most recent one being the Orlando shooter who killed 49 people and wounded many more, who claimed allegiance to the leader of ISIS, al-Baghdadi. That explains why, according to a recent poll, a majority of voters feel less safe today than they did before 9/11. Unfortunately, on national security issues, President Obama has spent most of his time cutting a deal with the foremost state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, and prioritized our relationship with this enemy over longstanding allies like Israel and Gulf States. Now, I am afraid, those birds have come home to roost, and we are all paying a terrible price. Unfortunately, the families of the victims of the single biggest terrorist attack on American soil, September 11, 2001, are paying a price too. We will be hearing more about this, but recently the Senate and the House unanimously passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. This is bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate by unanimous consent and passed with every single Member of the House of Representatives voting for it just last Friday. To refresh everyone's memory, this bill would provide victims of terrorism an avenue--really access--to justice to seek restitution from those who fund terrorist attacks on American soil. Some have said this is fighting terrorism by lawsuit. No, it is not. That is not the goal. The goal is simple justice for those injured and the families who lost loved ones as a result of the largest terrorist attack on American soil on 9/11/2001. President Obama, for some reason, has said he intends to veto the legislation because he thinks it will somehow interfere with his U.S. diplomatic relations with other countries. All this legislation does is amend a law that has been on the books since the late 1970s, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Over time, we have had a number of exceptions carved out to this doctrine of sovereign immunities. All this does is give people an opportunity to make their case in court without being summarily thrown out based on the invocation of this doctrine of sovereign immunities. It is really inexplicable to me that the President would talk about vetoing this opportunity for the victims of 9/11 and their families to be able to make their case in court, but if he does so, I hope he will do so quickly. We sent the legislation over to him on Monday, and I hope he does whatever he is going to do. I would love to have him sign the legislation into law, but if he decides to veto it, I hope he does it quickly so we can just as quickly vote to override that veto. There is no reason why we need to make these families wait any longer. It is worth noting that the Middle East isn't the only region of the country that is more unstable since President Obama took office. Just over the weekend, it was reported that North Korea completed yet another nuclear test--its fifth. According to reports, the warhead that was detonated was about twice as large as what they tested in the beginning of the year in January. President Obama called the test a threat and that is about all, giving lipservice to two of our strongest allies, Japan and South Korea, but with no visible or tangible commitment to do anything about it. He said our commitment to them was unshakeable, and so it is, but you couldn't tell that by the reaction to this fifth nuclear test by North Korea. But just like our partners in the Middle East, not to mention Europe, these two East Asian allies don't have reason to put much faith in the Obama doctrine, whatever it is, because unfortunately our timidity in supporting our friends and allies emboldens our adversaries, while causing our friends and allies to wonder whether we will keep our commitments to them. North Korea has accelerated its missile testing. It has already conducted close to two dozen tests this year. Eventually, of course, the concern is that they will be able to mount nuclear warheads onto missiles that could not only hit our allies in the region but also the mainland United States at some point. Even as enemies of America attempt to grow their arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, this administration is reportedly considering handing a gift to North Korea and other rogue regimes by adopting a no first use policy on nuclear weapons. Why in the world would you tell your adversaries beforehand what your intentions would be? This weakens, of course, the effectiveness of our own nuclear deterrent in furtherance of a fantasy goal of a world without nuclear weapons. I wish that it could be true, but it is a fantasy. The loss of deterrence caused by an announcement like that indeed creates an even more frightening and dangerous world. Throughout his time in the White House, President Obama has done next to nothing to counter the threat posed by North Korea, and that is dangerous. President Obama has just a few more months left in the Oval Office. At this point, it would be unrealistic to hope he uses the time to promote a solid foreign policy and national security agenda that reflects the best interest of the American people. Instead, we can only hope he does no further harm to our national security interests. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 14, 2016, at 2 p.m., in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Maximizing Your Social Security Benefits: What You Need to Know.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 14, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protection Internet Freedom: Implications of Ending U.S. Oversight of the Internet.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, and Global Women's Issues be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 14, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Girls: Global Efforts to End Child Marriage.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 14, 2016, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 14, 2016, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``NATO Expansion: Examining the Accession of Montenegro.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 14, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Future of the VA: Examining the Commission on Care Report and VA's Response.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while the Democratic leader is still on the floor, let me express my gratitude to him for his remarks earlier. It is true that for better or for worse, we both have to bear the burden of legal training and experience in courtrooms where we learned that adversaries don't necessarily have to be enemies and to disassociate the arguments we are making from any personal animus or animosity, which, I think, is a very healthy and constructive thing to do. I always remember the excerpt from ``The Taming of the Shrew'' where one of the speakers said: ``Do as adversaries in law; strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.'' So I think that kind of civility is an important admonition for all of us. It is one that maybe we don't always live up to but one that I think we should continue to strive to emulate. So let me just say to the Democratic leader that I appreciate his comments and perhaps we can all do a little bit better in that category. ObamaCare As the minority leader also pointed out, we have some very big disagreements. It seems as though each day is likely to bring more news about the awful side effects of President Obama's signature health care legislation, ObamaCare, as it has come to be called. The truth is that the implementation and the reality of ObamaCare has been nothing short of a disaster for many of the people who I represent in Texas, but it is not limited to the 27 million people or so who live in Texas. The problem has been visited on many people, as the majority leader commented about earlier with some of the statements he made with regard to its implementation in various other States. Unfortunately, when Congress and Washington make a mistake, it is the American people who have to pay the price, and it seems as though the consequences of ObamaCare are only getting worse. I think it is worth remembering--I certainly remember--that it was on Christmas Eve in 2009, at 7 o'clock in the morning, when the Senate passed the ObamaCare legislation with 60 Democrats voting in favor of it and all Republicans voting against it. I think that was the beginning of the failure of ObamaCare. What our Democratic friends, including the President, failed to learn is that any time signature legislation that affects one-sixth of the economy and every American in this country--any time we pass a law like that, in the absence of some political consensus where each side gets something and gives up something and that builds consensus, then that law is simply not going to be sustainable, beyond the policy problems the law has obviously manifested. I still remember as if it were yesterday, when the President said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. He said: If you like your policy, you can keep your policy. He said that the average family of four would save $2,500 on their health care costs. None of that has proven to be true. In fact, just the opposite is true. That is, unfortunately, part of the legacy of the broken promises of ObamaCare. It was essentially sold under false pretenses. Back in my old job, before I came to the Senate, I was attorney general of Texas, and we had a consumer protection division that sued people who committed consumer fraud, who represented one thing to consumers and delivered another. We sued them for consumer fraud. Unfortunately, the American people can't sue the Federal Government for consumer fraud. They would have a pretty good case because of the trail of broken promises known as ObamaCare. I just want to point out a few instances of how ObamaCare has proven to be such a disaster for the folks I represent in Texas. Under the so-called Affordable Care Act--which really should be called the un-Affordable Care Act--many of my constituents in Texas are paying more for their insurance. Of course many remember the PR campaign the President and his administration rolled out to the American people. He promised better coverage, more choices, and lower prices. The one component we would think health care reform would deliver and that ObamaCare has been a complete failure on is lower costs for consumers. In fact, because of the mandates in ObamaCare, such as guaranteed issue--which is an arcane topic, but because of the way it was structured, it was bound to cost more money, not less--how in the world are we going to get more people covered by charging them more than they currently pay for their health care? We are not, unless we are going to come in the back door and use taxpayer subsidies to sort of cushion the blow, but even then, many people are finding ObamaCare simply unaffordable or maybe they can get coverage, but they find out they have a $5,000 deductible. So when they go to the hospital or when they go to the doctor, while they may think they have coverage, they basically are self-insured. Unfortunately, my constituents have learned that ObamaCare has simply failed to deliver. Many people in my State are suffering. Over the past 2 months, it seems as though every week I read another headline in the Texas newspaper about the way it is hurting my constituents. I brought a few of those with me today. First of all, here is the headline in the San Antonio Express-News: ``Obamacare hitting Texas hard as insurers propose steep rate increases.'' One might say: Why are you upset with ObamaCare when it is the insurance companies that are raising rates? The reason the insurance companies are raising rates is because people aren't signing up for ObamaCare if they can avoid it, unless they happen to be older and subject to more illnesses, which means the cost goes up for those who are buying those policies. The article talks about how insurance companies are losing hundreds of millions of dollars under ObamaCare. Again, why would we care about insurance companies losing hundreds of millions of dollars? As we found out, many of them simply can't sustain themselves in the States so they are leaving. The majority leader talked about that a moment ago. Just to make ObamaCare viable, many of them are raising premiums by as much as 60 percent next year, just to stay in business. Unfortunately, Texas is not unique. Other States such as New York and Illinois are looking at double-digit premium increases in 2017 as well. That is because, under the President's signature health care law, insurers are forced to pass along higher costs to customers. If they can't do it, their only other choice is to leave, leaving consumers with fewer choices and maybe only one choice in a State. That happens when the government--when the masters of the universe in Washington, DC,--think they know better than the market. It is basic economics. The bad headlines don't stop there. Here is one from the Austin American-Statesman: ``Thousands affected in Texas as Aetna rolls back Obamacare plans.'' Aetna alone has more than 80,000 customers in Texas. It is one of the biggest health care providers in the country. Their leaving means that thousands of people will have to find a new health care plan. So much for ``if you like what you have, you can keep it,'' assuming they have a plan they liked, which now is more expensive than what many were paying before ObamaCare was passed. Again, it is not just my constituents in Texas who are hurting. Starting next year, Aetna will offer plans in only 4 States--4 States--down from the current 15. So consumers will have even fewer choices starting next year. Aetna wasn't the only company to leave the State. This poster shows the headline from the Waco Tribune-Herald. Scott & White is one of our premier hospitals and health care systems in central Texas. The headline says: ``Scott & White Health Plan leaving Obamacare.'' According to the article, more than 44,000 Texans will have to find another insurance plan in 2017. Again, because of the extra costs burdening these companies, they simply can't afford to offer coverage, and they have no alternative but to pack up and leave. Finally, here is a headline from the Texas Tribune: ``Health Insurers' Exit Spells Trouble for Obamacare in Texas.'' In this story, the Tribune reports that in addition to Scott & White and Aetna, an insurance startup called Oscar Insurance also announced it would withdraw from Texas exchanges in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The Dallas-Fort Worth area is one of the most populous parts of the State. This is absolutely unacceptable. With so many insurance companies pulling out of Texas, Texans will have less health care options, plain and simple. I am beginning to wonder whether the conspiracy theories we heard early on about ObamaCare, that it was built to fail because what the advocates wanted is a single-payer, government-run system, and this was just a predicate or prelude to that because it could not work as structured. We can draw our own conclusions, but, the fact is, consumers will have less choice and their health care coverage comes at a higher price. According to one estimate, 60 counties out of 254 counties in Texas will have just one option in 2017 unless other insurance companies decide to enter the market, which is highly unlikely given the way ObamaCare is structured. That means prices will continue to go up. And you wonder why people are frustrated in America, why our politics seem too polarized, and why people seem so angry at what is happening in Washington? At a time when their wages have remained flat because of this administration's economic policies--and overregulation being a large part of it--the costs for consumers continue to go up. That means people's real disposable income is going down, and they are not happy about it--and they shouldn't be. Texas is a big State. We have very highly populated areas like the Metroplex in Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston and Austin, but we are a big rural State as well. People who live outside of the major cities are the very demographic that ObamaCare was supposed to help, but they will be disproportionately hurt as fewer companies are able to offer insurance away from major population centers. Company after company is packing up and leaving the exchanges in Texas because ObamaCare simply will not work as structured. It can't deliver on its promises. At the end of the day, hard-working Texas families have to pay for the partisan policies of this administration and our Democratic colleagues who jammed this through Congress rather than trying to build some consensus, on a bipartisan basis, that would make this sustainable. I remember being at a program where James Baker III, who obviously served in the Reagan administration, and Joe Califano, former Secretary of Health and Human Services--a Democrat who served in the Carter administration, a Democratic administration--made the commonsense observation that any time you pass legislation as big as ObamaCare, it is bound to fail because you can't expect people who opposed the legislation from the very beginning to say: Let me try to rescue you from a bad decision in the first place, when they were essentially frozen out of the process. For example, when Social Security became the law, consensus was reached, and that is the way it should be done. Unfortunately, my constituents in Texas and the American people are paying the price for a bad decision made in 2009 and 2010 to make ObamaCare a purely partisan piece of legislation. I get letters from my constituents all the time who liked their insurance before it was cancelled because of ObamaCare, they liked their doctor whom they could see under their existing health care policy, and they even liked the price they were paying for it--it was affordable before the mandates of ObamaCare, but one by one they lost their coverage when ObamaCare became the law of the land. I have had some of my constituents tell me they feel terrorized by ObamaCare. Strong words. Others have told me bluntly, they need relief from it: Please, help us. We are drowning in higher costs and fewer choices and we don't like what we have under ObamaCare. The bottom line is, for all of the purported benefits the Democratic leader talked about--more people on Medicaid, more people with some form of coverage--we know a huge majority of people feel as though they got a raw deal, and we knew it would be that way from the beginning. That is the reason many people, including myself, opposed it. That is also the reason why just this year Senate Republicans passed a bill under the budget reconciliation process to repeal ObamaCare, because we feel the American people deserve better. Not surprisingly, President Obama vetoed it. What we demonstrated is, the political support in the Senate, working with the House, to, hopefully under the next President, build a health care system the American people can afford, giving them the choices they want because unfortunately ObamaCare did not deliver on its promises. We have our work cut out for us in 2017. We demonstrated there are enough votes there to repeal ObamaCare. All we need now is a President who will sign it, as we work together to repeal it and give a more affordable alternative to ObamaCare that gives people the choices they want and deserve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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. Any individual Senator who wanted to, could stand up and say: I object, and it wouldn't have happened, but nobody did. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks. 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. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''