Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. (Mr. ROGERS of Alabama asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THORNBERRY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the conference report to accompany S. 2943.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the House the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Once the President signs this measure into law, it will be the 55th consecutive year in which Congresses of both parties and Presidents of both parties have enacted a defense authorization bill. I want to start by thanking the distinguished gentleman from Washington, Ranking Member Smith. Not only has he focused on what is good for the troops and good for the country in this bill, that has been his focus throughout this Congress. It has certainly been my pleasure to work with him toward that end. We do not always agree on what is good for the troops and what is good for the country, but we always agree that that comes first. Our work together has certainly been productive, and I appreciate that opportunity. Ranking Member Smith and I have a terrific team on the Armed Services Committee; 63 outstanding members, all of whom have contributed to this product. I certainly appreciate the contributions they have made that have made such a large bill possible. Mr. Speaker, this bill does good things for the men and women who serve our Nation in the military, and it supports our country's national security. I want to just touch on a few of the highlights, starting with the fact that this bill authorizes spending of $3.2 billion more than the President has requested. Now, that is not nearly enough, and my great hope is that the new incoming administration will submit to Congress a supplemental request that can really get about the job of rebuilding the military, which is so essential. The $3.2 billion, in addition to what the President has requested, is focused on people; and that is exactly what the primary focus of this bill is. So, for example, it provides the full pay raise to which the troops are statutorily entitled for the first time in 6 years; that is in this bill. It stops the layoffs of military personnel, which have been going on, and, at least, prevents it from getting any worse. It starts to stabilize the readiness problems that are making it more and more difficult for our troops to accomplish their mission and increasingly represents a danger to their lives. It improves the military healthcare system for the benefit of our troops and their families so that they will have a more consistent experience, that they will get better care, more convenient hours, and a number of things that are in this bill. In addition to the reforms related to military health care, there are a number of very significant reforms in other areas. For example, in acquisition, we try to make sure that not only we get more value for the taxpayer dollars but that we are more agile in being able to get new technology into the hands of the warfighters faster. We have commissary reform, which maintains the benefit but reduces the burden on the taxpayers. We have the first comprehensive rewrite of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 30 years, and that is a big part of the reason that this bill is the size that it is. We have organizational reform that streamlines the bureaucracy and helps reduce the overhead so more resources can go to the front lines. There are many items in this bill, Mr. Speaker, from replenishing munitions of which we have shortages to dealing with the California National Guard repayment issue that has come up in recent weeks. Other speakers will give more detail about many of those provisions. I just want to take this moment, first, to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their work in producing this product. We have a unified staff on the Armed Services Committee. We work together to solve problems. And through the ups and downs of the political calendar and all of the other issues that impact our bill, they have done a terrific job in getting us to this point and have served the Nation by doing so. I want to express my appreciation to staff on both sides for that work. Finally, I also want to pay tribute to the members of our committee who will not be with us in the next Congress for a variety of reasons. They include the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson), the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Graham), and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Ashford). I particularly want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes, Subcommittee Chairman Joe Heck, and Ranking Member Loretta Sanchez for their leadership and years of contributions to the military of our country. We will miss them. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 937, I call up the conference report on the bill (S. 2943) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson), a member of the conference committee and a combat veteran who has played a key role in formulating this bill.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the distinguished ranking member that to produce this bill requires a great deal of effort by a number of people, starting with him, other members of the committee, and other Members of the House. It is also essential that our staff, who support our work, be thanked, and he has done a great job of doing that. I agree with him also about the leadership of Senator John McCain, a man who, I think, is unique in the country's military history at this point. His leadership, along with the ranking member, Senator Jack Reed, has been obviously essential, not only in this bill but in Congress being able to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. I know there are disappointments with this bill, Mr. Speaker. There are things that people would like to see in here, a lot of them not really core defense issues, but those matters had to be dropped to get this bill to this point. I am confident that the new administration will review the executive orders that the ranking member was talking about and that those unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment will be reviewed, modified, or repealed. All of that facilitated getting this bill before us today. I am also hopeful that the new administration will send us a supplemental request, because there are desperately needed modernization items from ships, airplanes, munitions, and other things that are not authorized in this bill but are needed desperately by our troops. So I hope--and I expect--that we will do better in the coming year to, again, fulfill our responsibilities under the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I would just end with this: I believe the first job of the Federal Government is to defend the country. The Constitution puts specific responsibilities on our shoulders to raise, support, provide, and maintain the military forces of the United States. The most important part of that responsibility deals with the people, and this bill, if it is nothing else, supports the men and women who volunteer to risk their lives to defend us and protect our freedoms. For that reason alone, it deserves the support of every Member of the House. I hope it will receive that support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), a valued member of the committee.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding, and, secondly, commend him for his work to try to tailor this measure in as narrow a way as possible. I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) for his strong, persistent advocacy for the families of the victims of 9/11. All of us share in their grief. The country has not gotten over that horrible incident, and all of us have contempt for those who carry out terrorist attacks and those who support them. My concern for this legislation, however, is more related to the unintended consequences that it may have because one of the key protections that the military, diplomats, and intelligence community of the United States has around the world is this doctrine of sovereign immunity. Once that doctrine gets eroded, then there is less protection, and we, the United States, has more at stake in having our people protected than any other country because we have more people around the world than anyone else. So, in this Congress, we can control the laws of the United States, and we can write them narrowly in a fine-tuned way to just achieve our objective. But then other countries respond. They may not have their laws narrowly defined in such a fine-tuned way. They may make them broader. Their practice may not have the protections that ours do. So the concern is that this starts a series of unintended consequences that will increase the risk to U.S. military personnel around the world, U.S. intelligence community personnel around the world, and diplomats around the world. That is the reason you have widespread concern that has been voiced in each of those communities for this legislation. Let me just read briefly from a letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that has been available to all Members. It says: ``Any legislation that risks reciprocal treatment by foreign governments would increase the vulnerability of U.S. Servicemembers to foreign legal action while acting in an official capacity.'' That is the concern, that we lower the protections that our people have around the world. Remember, when we send our military out, they have to follow orders. They are implementing U.S. policy. They have no choice. If they are called before a foreign court, if they are required to give testimony in a foreign court, even if they are not the defendant, then they are jeopardized, as is sensitive information from the United States. Mr. Speaker, so my point is that I understand totally the sympathies for the victims as well as the desires many people have to override this veto, but we also should keep in mind the longer term consequences for our military who serve our Nation all around the world. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Secretary of Defense and a letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this issue. Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC, September 26, 2016. Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of September 23, 2016, regarding the President's veto of S. 2040, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). I support the President's position. We appreciate the opportunity to provide views on this important issue. As I stated in my testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 22, 2016, I agree with the intent of the bill, which is to honor the families of 9/11 victims. While we are sympathetic to the intent of JASTA, its potential second- and third-order consequences could be devastating to the Department and its Service members and could undermine our important counterterrorism efforts abroad. In general terms, JASTA would allow lawsuits in U.S. Federal Courts against foreign states for actions taken abroad that are alleged to have contributed to acts of terrorism in the United States, notwithstanding long-standing principles of sovereign immunity. Under existing law, similar lawsuits are available for actions taken abroad only by designated state sponsors of terrorism. JASTA extends the stripping of immunity to states that are not designated sponsors of terrorism, potentially subjecting many of the United States' allies and partner nations to litigation in U.S. courts. JASTA has potentially harmful consequences for the Department of Defense and its personnel. Adoption of JASTA might result in reciprocal treatment of the United States and other countries could create exceptions to immunity that do not directly mirror those created by JASTA. This is likely to increase our country's vulnerability to lawsuits overseas and to encourage foreign governments or their courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials in situations in which we believe the United States is entitled of sovereign immunity. U.S. Service members stationed here and overseas, and especially those supporting our counterterrorism efforts, would be vulnerable to private individuals' accusations that their activities contributed to acts alleged to violate a foreign state's law. Such lawsuits could relate to actions taken by members of armed groups that received U.S. assistance or training, or misuse of U.S. military equipment by foreign forces. First, whether the United States or our Service members have in fact provided support for terrorist acts or aided organizations that later commit such acts in violation of foreign laws is irrelevant to whether we would be forced to defend against lawsuits by private litigants in foreign courts. Instead, the mere allegation of their involvement could subject them to a foreign court's jurisdiction and the accompanying litigation and intrusive discovery process that goes along with defending against such lawsuits. This could result in significant consequences even if the United States or our personnel were ultimately found not to be responsible for the alleged acts. Second, there would be a risk of sizeable monetary damage awards in such cases, which could lead to efforts to attach U.S. Government property to satisfy those awards. Given the broad range of U.S. activities and robust presence around the world, including our Department's foreign bases and facilities abroad, we would have numerous assets vulnerable to such attempts. Third, it is likely that litigants will seek sensitive government information in order to establish their case against either a foreign state under JASTA in U.S. courts or against the United States in a foreign court. This could include classified intelligence data and analysis, as well as sensitive operational information. While in the United States classified information could potentially be withheld in certain narrow circumstances in civil lawsuits brought by private litigants against our allies and partners, no legislation specifically protects classified information in civil actions (unlike protections afforded in criminal prosecutions) or under JASTA. Furthermore, if the United States were to be sued in foreign courts, such information would likely be sought by foreign plaintiffs, and it would be up to the foreign court whether classified or sensitive U.S. Government information sought by the litigants would be protected from disclosure. Moreover, the classified information could well be vital for our defense against the accusations. Disclosure could put the United States in the difficult position of choosing between disclosing classified or otherwise sensitive information or suffering adverse rulings and potentially large damage awards for our refusal to do so. Relatedly, foreign lawsuits will divert resources from mission crucial tasks; they could subject our Service members and civilians, as well as contractor personnel, to depositions, subpoenas for trial testimony, and other compulsory processes both here and abroad. Indeed, such personnel might be held in civil or even criminal contempt if they refused to appear or to divulge classified or other sensitive information at the direction of a foreign court. Finally, allowing our partners and allies--not just designated state sponsors of terrorism--to be subject to lawsuits inside the United States will inevitably undermine the trust and cooperation our forces need to accomplish their important missions. By damaging our close and effective cooperation with other countries, this could ultimately have a chilling effect on our own counterterrorism efforts. Please let me know if there is any additional information the Department can provide. Sincerely, Ash Carter.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with a local, unique issue involving privately owned cabins on privately owned land near Lake Kemp in Texas. When reconstructing the dam in the late 1960s, the city of Wichita Falls entered into an agreement with the Corps of Engineers that the city would require all of these privately owned cabins owners below a certain elevation to be removed by January 1, 2000, because there was concern it could potentially flood. But 50 years later, there has never been a flood, and there never will be a flood, because the lake has been full several times. The 2007 WRDA bill prevented the Corps from requiring the city to evict the landowners until at least 2020, and, at the same time, the U.S. and the Corps were released from any liability. This amendment would simply extend that time period for an additional 5 years. The amendment also preserves the full property rights for the landowners. You have got some of these cabin owners who have been there for years, and the city does not have the desire or the funds to force them off the land. So the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is this is a local situation. This amendment gives local folks an added opportunity to solve their issues. I hope Members will support it as well as the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 809, I offer a motion.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a motion to request a conference on S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act. This is a procedural motion, which will allow the House and the Senate to conference our differences. The House passed its bill on May 18, by a vote of 277-147. The Senate subsequently passed its bill. I hope that the House will support this motion and allow us to proceed to conference. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule XXII, I move that meetings of the conference between the House and Senate on S. 2943 may be closed to the public at such times as classified national security information may be broached, provided that any sitting Member of Congress shall be entitled to attend any meeting of the conference.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 13, 2016, because of airline delays I missed roll call votes No. 297 ``To increase engagement with the governments of the Caribbean region, the Caribbean diaspora community in the United States, and the private sector and civil society in both the United States and the Caribbean, and for other purposes'' and No. 298 ``To amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 to authorize activities for support of networking and information technology research, and for other purposes.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both bills.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I ask that the following exchange of letters be submitted on H.R. 4909: House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, April 29, 2016. Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write to confirm our mutual understanding regarding H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. This legislation contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. However, in order to expedite floor consideration of this important legislation, the Committee waives consideration of the bill. The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action only with the understanding that the Commission's jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your placing this letter in the committee report on H.R. 4909 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4909 on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Bob Goodlatte, Chairman.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I ask that the following exchange of letters be submitted on H.R. 4909: Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 2, 2016. Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Thornberry: I write to confirm our mutual understanding regarding H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. This legislation contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. However, in order to expedite floor consideration of this important legislation, the committee waives consideration of the bill. The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs takes this action only with the understanding that the committee's jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4909 on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Jeff Miller, Chairman.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, no one can contest the gentlewoman from California's sincerity on this issue. On September 14, 2001, when this House passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that she is talking about, 3 days after 3,000 Americans had been murdered on 9/11, the vote in this House was 420-1, and the one person who voted against this AUMF was the gentlewoman from California who offered this amendment. So her sincerity cannot be questioned. I also, by the way, happen to agree with her that we need to update this AUMF. As a matter of fact, this House passed, twice, provisions that I had authored to update the 2001 AUMF. We passed it in 2011; we passed it in 2012. Unfortunately, the administration says: No, we are opposed to that; the one we have got is just fine. And the Senate took that position, and so it did not get passed into law. But to say, now, to unilaterally repeal the 2001 AUMF on which the administration is relying for all its counterterrorism activities not only against al Qaeda, but against ISIS and others, to repeal it now, I believe, would be a mistake. There are still real dangers in the world from terrorists. I don't think I need to remind Members of Paris, of Brussels, of San Bernardino, and just today, of Baghdad. The other point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is I think we all underestimate the catastrophes that have been avoided--in other words, the terrorist plots, what they wanted to do, what they tried to do-- that were thwarted. Sometimes they were thwarted just because we were lucky, but a lot of times they were thwarted because of the work of the men and women in the military, the men and women in the intelligence community, the men and women in law enforcement doing a lot of hard work, sacrificing, some of them losing their lives to make sure that we did not have a repeat of the 3,000 people murdered on 9/11. We owe them, Mr. Chairman, more than just a thank-you. We owe them whatever preparation, whatever equipment, whatever support they need to continue to battle terrorists today. That is what this bill tries to do: to make sure that we don't send people out in the Middle East to bomb terrorists on airplanes that cannot fly, that cannot be maintained, that we don't wear our pilots and our mechanics out. That is readiness. That is what we are talking about in this bill. That is what we have an obligation in this House to do for them who do so much for us. I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. As I say, I have tremendous respect for her views and the sincerity with which she holds them. I think it results in a more dangerous world. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).