Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 177 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 177 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6898-S6907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MINERS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. President, last night Senator Manchin and I were on the floor of
the Senate with Senators Wyden and Donnelly and Casey, and we were
again asking our colleagues to honor the commitment Harry Truman made
seven decades ago to the mine workers of this country, to the retired
mine workers, and to their widows. We all know that the life expectancy
of mine workers is often less than the life expectancy of a teacher or
an elected official or an insurance agent or someone who works in many
other kinds of businesses. They are more likely to be injured on the
job. They are more likely, in some cases, to perish on the job. They
are more likely to contract an illness from the air they breathe and
the conditions in the mines, whether it is black lung or whether it is
some kind of heart disease. So this is particularly important to mine
workers and the widows, that we take care of their insurance.
Most of the mine workers I know got a notice in late November or
early this month saying their insurance would be cut off at the end of
December. What a Christmas present. We have asked Senator McConnell,
the Republican leader, who seems to be the only one standing in the
way, month after month after month to fix this so these widows and
these retired miners don't get this notice saying: Your insurance will
be cut off.
Finally, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, asked us to make
it bipartisan. We did. We have a number of Republican cosponsors,
including Senator Portman from my State, Senator Capito from West
Virginia, and a number of others. We did that.
Then Senator McConnell said: Go through regular order; put a bill
through committee. We did that 18 to 8 in the Senate Finance
Committee--every Democrat joined by a third or so of the Republicans.
We did that.
Then he said: That is not good enough; now we want you to find a way
to pay for it. We did. No tax dollars involved. This is money in the
abandoned mine funds assessed against the mine companies, accumulated
over the years.
We did all three of those things. Still, Senator McConnell, because
of his antipathy, apparently, toward the United Mine Workers union--if
he wants to have antipathy towards the union, if he

[[Page S6899]]

hates unions, that is his business. I would rather he didn't, but that
is his business. But to stand in the way of these widows and these
retired mine workers because of his animosity toward the union is
pretty troubling.
Last night, Senator Manchin and I, issue after issue after issue,
continued to object to other generally noncontroversial bills that we
support--some I cosponsored--until this body does its job. But if this
Senate doesn't act--it looks like a number of Senators, as House
Members, apparently have already gone home for Christmas, so I will
have plenty of colleagues go home and celebrate the holidays.
Regardless of their faith, they will celebrate the holidays in the 3
upcoming weeks. But these thousands of mine workers and thousand of
mine worker retirees and thousands of widows of mine workers--their
Christmas isn't going to be so good because now--Senator McConnell
offered a little bit and said: We will give you a 4-month extension.
But do you know what that means? That means they will get the letter.
They have already gotten the first letter saying their insurance runs
out at the end of December. Now they will get a second letter, if we do
the 4-month extension, in January or February saying: Sorry, it is
going to run out again in April.
How would we like to live that way? You are going to have insurance
until this date, and then we will give you a little extension and you
can have it until that date. That is simply not fair. Maybe it is OK
for us because we have good benefits and we have good insurance, but it
is not OK with them.
So I am hopeful that Senator McConnell and Republican leaders will
bring this to the floor, will support a 1-year--we want more. We would
like to see the pension problem fixed too. But before the holidays,
let's do a 1-year extension on the insurance. It is a commitment
President Truman made and Presidents of both parties for seven decades
have honored. It is the least we can do. I think we should stay here
and work up until Christmas if it doesn't happen.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with Senator McCain when he arrives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Right on cue, so I will start off here.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a colloquy
between myself and the Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Just to make sure.

JASTA

Very briefly, I will let Senator McCain lead off, but I want to talk
about the way forward regarding JASTA.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to join my friend and
colleague on this issue that is of transcendent importance to America's
relationship with our friends and allies--literally placing Americans
and American companies and corporations and governments in great
danger--particularly governments.
I would just like to mention in passing, if my colleague will indulge
me very quickly, because I have here in front of me--and I will ask
that it be included in the Record--statements from the President of the
United States, the Director of the CIA, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense,
all on this issue we are talking about.
The leaders of our government, from the President on down, including
the heads of our most important defense agencies, have expressed--and I
will quote them in just a minute.
My friends, Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism
Act, or JASTA. It was well-intentioned to allow claims against foreign
governments that might be complicit in terrorist attacks against the
United States. The spirit behind the legislation is noble. Any foreign
government behind the attack on our homeland or our citizens must be
held accountable. But it has become clear that the unintended
consequences of this legislation are quite grave.
As it exists now, JASTA presents a significant risk to the United
States and our military and diplomatic personnel serving across the
globe.
As it currently exists, as my colleague from South Carolina will
explain in greater detail, JASTA undermines a fundamental international
norm of sovereign immunity that protects governments from being sued in
court except in narrow circumstances. If this law is not narrow--and
please, my colleagues, understand, the Senator from South Carolina and
I are not for abolishing this law; we are for putting in a scope that
protects the United States of America; that is, if we allow our laws to
target governments indiscriminately, we will expose our country to
grave risk and undermine our ability to pursue justice in a complex
world.
No country in the world stands to lose more from an erosion of these
legal standards than the United States of America. The United States
has more bases and more forward-deployed personnel protecting peace and
security than any other country. JASTA now gives these countries an
incentive to bring these brave men and women to court to answer for
U.S. counterterrorism policies.
If other countries pass similar legislation, it means the United
States and American soldiers, diplomats, and intelligence officers
serving in some of the world's most dangerous and difficult countries
will be forced to justify their actions and defend the policies we have
made to defend this country before courts that may not share our
standards of due process and fairness. Our allies will wonder if it is
wise to join our coalitions to fight terrorism if they, too, will face
legal liability in courts around the world. Thus, we are faced with the
twisted irony that the men and women who put themselves in harm's way
to bring the 9/11 attackers to justice and to defeat those who still
seek to attack the United States are the people placed directly at risk
by JASTA.
We must be concerned with the diplomatic and economic fallout of this
law. Our allies and partners around the world, particularly those who
struggle with terrorism at home, now wonder when they might be hauled
in to courts for terrorist actions. They face potential court-ordered
damages and asset seizures. Their citizens and companies doing business
in the United States are at risk. It is only reasonable that these
countries will consider pulling their assets and resources out of the
United States out of fear.
In short, JASTA could cause our allies in the fight against terrorism
to distance themselves from us as a country that most needs their
support against those who mean to do us harm.
Now I would like to provide some quotes. Our Nation's top national
security officials have issued statements and written to Congress to
warn us about the unintended consequences of JASTA.
Let's begin with President Obama. I will quote from his letter from
White House. He wrote:

JASTA . . . would neither protect Americans from terrorist
attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such
attacks. Doing so would instead threaten to erode sovereign
immunity principles that protect the United States, including
our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas.

I will admit that Senator Graham and I have a special relationship
with the men and women who are serving--his 22 years as a member of the
U.S. Air Force Reserve and every year going to Iraq or Afghanistan; I
obviously have sons who have served. I don't want to see my sons or
anybody else's sons in court because they might have violated a
sovereign nation the way that we are saying JASTA affects our country.

Enacting JASTA into law, however, would neither protect
Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the
effectiveness of our response to such attacks. Doing so would
instead threaten to erode sovereign immunity principles that
protect the United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces
and other officials, overseas.

The Secretary of Defense wrote:

U.S. Servicemembers stationed here and overseas, and
especially those supporting our counterterrorism efforts,
would be vulnerable to private individuals' accusations that

[[Page S6900]]

their activities contributed to acts alleged to violate a
foreign state's law.

He continued to say that, whether guilty or innocent, ``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. . . . Our
servicemembers might be required to testify about or provide documents
on operations that they are obligated under U.S. law not to disclose,
exposing them to punishment for contempt by the foreign court,
including imprisonment.''
According to the Secretary of Defense, we could be risking
imprisonment for the men and women who are serving in our military
overseas.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--I think we all respect the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Here is his view:

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.
In those cases . . . the Servicemember could be held in
civil, or criminal, contempt should he or she refuse to
appear or otherwise comply with the foreign court's orders.

The Secretary of State, John Kerry, wrote:

JASTA could encourage foreign courts to exercise
jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials.

The same thing.
The Director of CIA wrote:

(JASTA) will have grave implications for the national
security of the United States. The most damaging consequence
would be for those US Government officials who dutifully work
overseas on behalf of our country. The principle of sovereign
immunity protects US officials every day, and is rooted in
reciprocity. If we fail to uphold this standard for other
countries, we place our own nation's officials in danger. No
country has more to lose from undermining that principle than
the United States--and few institutions would be at greater
risk than the CIA.

Which certainly makes sense.
So here we have the Director of the CIA, the Vice President of the
United States, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President
of the United States, the Secretary of Defense--all want us to narrow
the interpretation of this law. What does it require? Whose word more
do you want?
All I am saying is that we need to narrow the law. We must make it
clear that countries will not be held responsible for rogue actions of
their citizens. Unless we can show that a nation knowingly assists a
terrorist group, sovereign nations should not be dragged into our
courts.
If we don't fix JASTA, our ability to defend ourselves will be
undermined and the people we ask to go into harm's way on our behalf
will be placed in jeopardy. America must pursue justice, but in the
long run, JASTA will make it harder, not easier, to bring terrorists to
justice and prevent terrorism in the first place.
We need to fix this law.
I ask my colleague, let's make it clear, are we asking to have this
law repealed? Are we asking that people in countries that are
responsible for acts of terror to be let off the hook? Are we trying to
say committing acts of terror can be sponsored by any nation and we
will turn the other way? That is basically the argument that is being
mounted in sometimes hysterical fashion, and what we are trying to do
is to ensure that a government must knowingly--maybe not even have done
it themselves but knowingly. Isn't that the key, particularly coming
from someone with your background as an officer trained in the Uniform
Code of Military Justice and the International Rule of Law?
Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Senator McCain. Your overview was excellent
about the perils we face as a nation if we don't modify the law. I will
try to give you a couple of minutes of how did we get to here. After 9/
11--the most horrific attack on our homeland, maybe ever, I guess,
since the Civil War--the bottom line was that we responded as a nation
in many ways. The 9/11 families have a special place in American
history and our hearts. They have been pursuing legal claims against
those responsible for the attack.
Sovereign immunity is a concept that protects our government and
every other government from doing business because if you don't have
the sovereign immunity, you can't function as a government. There are
waivers to that concept--a tort. If somebody in Saudi Arabia is driving
a car down the streets of New York and they are working for the Embassy
and consulate and they hit you, there is a process where you can sue.
You can sue your own Federal Government--the Federal Tort Claims Act--
if you are injured as a result of being hit by a military vehicle. Even
though sovereign immunity applies, we waived that to allow citizens who
have been injured torturously to bring claims in a very controlled
process.
The 9/11 families, for well over a decade now, have been pursuing
nation-states like Saudi Arabia in court, trying to hold them liable
for the act of terrorism of the 19 hijackers. Under our law, a tort
does not include acts of international terrorism. I was very open-
minded to say, certainly, that is a tort. If you are injured or killed
because of an act of international terrorism, you have been harmed, and
I don't mind holding somebody responsible who caused that harm.
Now you are getting into the operation of a nation-state. If you
believe the Saudi Government collaborated with the 19 hijackers and
they knew or should have known about the attack and assisted in the
attack, not only should they be held liable in our courts as probably
an act of war under international law. Unfortunately, the way we have
structured this law, that requirement does exist.
Let me give you an example of how that can come back to haunt us. We
are engaged in a conflict in Syria today. We are training, providing
weapons, and training a lot of groups inside Syria to destroy ISIL. One
of those groups is the WPG Kurds. They are literally the cousins of the
PKK, a terrorist organization inside Turkey. There is friction between
the Kurds and Syria and the Turkish Government, and it is beginning to
bubble up.
We are knowingly providing training to Kurdish elements inside Syria
for the express purpose of enlisting them in the fight against ISIL.
What I don't want to have happen is that the CIA officer, the special
forces soldier, anybody in our government who is working in the
training, equipping process to be held liable if that training and
those weapons are used to go into Turkey or some other place where we
didn't intend for it to happen and didn't know about it.
As this law is written now, it is my fear the very act of helping
them do one thing could make you liable for everything they do. We are
trying to narrow the scope, and we are trying to make sure that
whatever claim against a foreign government lies for the 9/11 attack,
that we don't open the door to lawsuits, imprisonment, criminal
complaints, liability by us as a nation-state for all of the activities
we are doing throughout the world.
We are training people in Mosul, in Iraq today. We have been training
the Iraqi Security Forces. We have been training tribal militia. The
one thing I don't want to have happen is the people who provide the
weapons and training--that if a Sunni group, for some reason out of our
control, goes into a Shiite village and commits a genocide or the
reverse or we are helping the Shiites and they go on a sectarian binge,
I don't want us to be held liable unless you can prove that we
knowingly engaged in the act in question; that it wasn't enough just to
help the tribal leaders, Sunni tribal leaders, fight Al Qaeda; that if
they do something outside of what we intended, the only way we can be
liable and people working for us can be liable is if we knew about it
and we are involved in it. That is what is missing.
It may be harder for the lawyers representing the 9/11 families to
prove the case, but if we don't make the standard as I described, we
are opening ourselves up as a nation and all of those throughout the
world.
Nobody understands the world better than Senator McCain. I promise
you, we are providing aid and assistance to groups who are very
questionable at best, but that is the world we live in. The Mideast is
a complete mess. I don't want my country, our country, and those who
serve under our flag to ever be hauled into a foreign court because
they were doing the training and the equipping that our Nation ordered
them to do, and I don't want us as a nation to be responsible for acts
we did

[[Page S6901]]

not know about or intend to happen. Just simply helping somebody
doesn't make you liable for all the things they might do down the road.
If there is evidence that the Saudi Government knowingly or should
have known about the attacks of 9/11 and aided that attack, you can
bring a claim. If it is any less here for the 9/11 attack, then that
lesser standard would be used against us because countries, as I speak,
are adopting their version of JASTA. The one thing we don't want to do
is open up the international legal system to claims against America
based on what we did here at home and not have thought it through very
well.
I would end on this. We all voted for it because we are sympathetic
to the cause and want to make sure the 9/11 families can proceed in
court to hold those accountable for the horrific acts against their
families. I don't think we are helping those families by passing a law
that is not well thought out and putting other families at risk who are
in the fight today.
This is not suing for a war that is over. The damage is done after
the war. The war on terror is very much alive and well. As far as the
eye can see, America is going to be involved in equipping, training,
aiding, and assisting groups. I don't want our country to be held
liable and the people we ask to do the training and equipping to find
themselves in a foreign court unless we as a nation knew and intended
the consequence in question.
If we don't change this law, we will have not served those in the
fight very well. We can modify this law in a way to allow claims to go
forward post-9/11. All of us agreed to a process to allow the 9/11
families to move forward. I hope all of us can agree, or at least most
of us, to modify that process to make sure we don't have unintended
consequences that everybody in the national security infrastructure of
the United States is telling us we created.
No Member of the Senate, in wanting to help 9/11 families, I believe,
wants to expose other families and those who serve this Nation to being
hauled into foreign courts and being accused of a crime and being sued.
We have a chance to fix it. I will tell you this. If we don't fix it,
we are going to regret it because the activities we are engaged in
today, I am afraid, could be a basis of action against our Nation under
the law we passed.
If you did exactly what this law allows in another country and the
terrorist organization was helped by the United States, even if you
view them as terrorists, even though we didn't know about what they
did, we could be liable, and I don't want that.
Mr. McCain. May I ask my colleague one additional question?
We have heard from literally every Middle Eastern country on this
issue. No threats have been made. The conversation between us and
Ministers of various countries in the Middle East have been of grave
concern of support for the fundamentals of this law but also a deep
concern about the ramifications my colleague from South Carolina just
described.
Let's for a moment put yourself in their position. You face now the
possibility of a lawsuit brought against your country because some acts
of terror have taken place by citizens of your country without your
knowledge or assistance. You are about to go into court in the United
States of America, and you have significant assets--and you are the
lawyer and I am not, but it seems to me the first thing a good lawyer
is going to want to do is freeze the assets, pending the outcome of the
suit that is being brought. By the way, I have received no threats in
our conversations with these countries. Wouldn't anybody in their right
mind say, Hey, I am not going to risk having my assets frozen there and
maybe spend years in litigation in the courts.
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. I think the foreign policy of nations and the
willingness to assist us as a nation is very much up in the air if we
don't somehow modify this law because if you are doing business in the
United States--let's pick Saudi Arabia. The claims can be brought
against the Saudi Government. If there is a judgment, those assets can
be attached and they can be taken. If you are not doing business here,
you don't have to worry about your assets being taken by a court.
I want to stress this. There can be a claim, but that claim has to be
able to prove that the nation-state--example, Saudi Arabia--knew or
should have known of the attack itself and aided the attack. If you can
prove that, we not only should allow all lawsuits, we should rethink
our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Here is what the Saudis tell me. If we actually did that, I don't
blame you for rethinking the relationship with us. What you say is very
true, Senator McCain. If this law stands in the United States--and this
is an emotional time in the world. Juries render justice, but
Mideastern nations are not very popular right now, for sometimes good
reason. The Saudis are helping people in Yemen. They are helping people
in Syria. Sometimes they are helping people differently than we are
helping because they are more worried about Iran than Assad.
It is a complex world, and I think nation-states are going to be
reluctant to do business in America if they come from a complex part of
the world if we don't modify this law because all of their assets are
subject not only to being confiscated through a court process, it would
no longer be a safe place to do business.
I would stress this. The same thing could happen to us in other
countries. If some groups we are helping in Syria somehow want to take
on Saudi Arabia because they don't like their government, I don't want
us to be sued in Saudi court and the American business assets that lie
in Saudi Arabia be seized or attached if we didn't know the people in
question were actually going to attack Saudi Arabia and collaborate in
that attack.
Mr. McCAIN. I have another scenario--drone strikes. We commit drone
strikes literally everywhere in the Middle East where we find there are
terrorists who are capable of mounting attacks on the United States of
America. They are precision strikes, but on many occasions, civilians,
as collateral damage, have also been killed. Those are just facts.
What exposure are we subject to now?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, that is a really good question because the
purpose of this legislation is to hold nation-states responsible for
aiding terrorist organizations. The YPG Kurds, in the eyes of Turkey,
could be a terrorist group. Al Qaeda is certainly considered a
terrorist group in the eyes of everybody. We are now chasing terrorists
all over the world. We are receiving information from one organization,
taking that information, militarizing it, using it in a lethal fashion,
and hitting people we don't intend to hit.
Here is what would solve this problem. For a liability to exist on
any nation-state, including the United States, the only time you can be
sued is if you intended and knowingly engaged in the activity,
partnering with a terrorist group or separately, with the knowledge
that you meant for this to happen. If we don't have that knowing
requirement, we are going to open ourselves up to a lot of heartache
throughout the world.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, isn't it logical to say that you shouldn't
hold a government of a country liable if something happened by attack
from their country or by one of their citizens that we didn't know
about? I mean, this is why I am confused as to why that just doesn't
have a logical aspect to it. We don't want to hold people who are not
guilty liable for damages.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is a really good question. One of the
concepts we want to introduce into the new modification is
discretionary decisions by nation-states. The original bill said you
couldn't sue based on a discretionary decision--a planning activity, a
strategic decision. Apparently, there is some evidence that lower-level
Saudi officials or people in Saudi Arabia provided some money, helped
people get passports, helped people do this, helped people do that. We
don't want to be held liable if we have a rogue employee in a consulate
somewhere. It has to be that the nation-state at the highest level of
government--to be liable for the torturous act--knew or should have
known. If we don't want to be guilty by association, you don't want to
be held liable as an entire nation-state because you have one part of
the government doing a function that was not approved by the government
as a whole.
All I can say is we are making strategic decisions today. I don't
know how

[[Page S6902]]

much money we have given to the Kurds and other allies in Syria
fighting ISIL, but I can tell you some of these groups in the eyes of
other people in the region are terrorists, and they have an agenda
outside of fighting ISIL. I don't want to be liable because we helped
them in the cause of fighting ISIL if they go and do something else to
harm somebody else, some other nation, unless we knew about it, because
it will stop our ability to have partners. Unfortunately, in the war on
terror, you are not going to win the war if you don't make alliances,
and sometimes these alliances are with pretty unsavory people.
Saudi Arabia is in the same position we are. If you open the
floodgates and the United States is liable because of the activity that
occurred, people from your country are involved, but you don't have the
requirement of saying you knew about it and you wanted it to happen.
Then we are opening ourselves up to a liability all over the globe
because, unlike Saudi Arabia, we are all over the place. We are
everywhere--in the Philippines. I can't think of a region in the world
where there are not American operatives, intelligence officials, or
military officials who are not somehow joined in the fight against
different forms of terrorism, and all I am asking is that we modify
this law. You can bring a claim against anybody you think caused 9/11,
including a country like Saudi Arabia, but you have to prove that the
government knew about it, should have known about it, and aided in the
actual act. That is not in the law, and if we don't put that in the
law, it will bite us all, and everybody fighting this war is trying to
tell us we have gone too far.
Next year Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and hopefully others, will
make it a top priority to modify this law so we can conduct foreign
policy as a nation and not put our warfighters at risk and those we
rely upon to win this war, because we are not helping the 9/11 families
by putting people at risk for no good reason who are out there all over
the world trying to protect us. That is exactly what we have done if we
don't modify this law.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is not the opinion of the Senator
from South Carolina and myself. This is the opinion of the President of
the United States. This is the opinion of the Secretary of Defense.
This is the opinion of the Secretary of State. This is the opinion of
the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. This is the opinion of
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I have had a lot of support in my time on various issues. I cannot
remember a time in the last 30 years where literally every leader in
government has come out in the strongest possible fashion not to do
away with JASTA but to fix it so the United States of America itself is
not put in jeopardy as other nations adopt this same law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters from the
President of the United States, the Secretary of State of the United
States, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of
Defense be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The White House,

Washington.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for speaking with me about the
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. As I
noted in my message vetoing the bill and reiterated on our
call yesterday, I strongly believe that enacting JASTA into
law would be detrimental to U.S. national interests.
I am firmly committed to assisting the families of the
victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11. 2001 (9/11)
in their pursuit of justice. Over the last eight years, my
Administration has continued and expanded upon the U.S.
Government's unprecedented response to the 9/11 attacks. We
have relentlessly pursued al-Qa'ida, killed Osama bin Laden,
supported and signed legislation that provides treatment for
first responders and other survivors, and declassified
additional information on the attacks so the families of 9/11
victims can better understand the information investigators
gathered following that dark day.
Enacting JASTA into law, however, would neither protect
Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the
effectiveness of our response to such attacks. Doing so would
instead threaten to erode sovereign immunity principles that
protect the United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces
and other officials, overseas. This is why I vetoed the bill
and why I believe you should vote to sustain that veto.
In general, JASTA would allow lawsuits in U.S. Federal
Courts against foreign countries 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. We already have ways of addressing
state-sponsored terrorism. In fact, under existing law,
lawsuits may be brought for actions taken abroad that
contribute to acts of terrorism only against countries that
have been designated as state sponsors of terrorism. Under
JASTA, this very limited class of potential foreign state
defendants would be expanded to encompass every country in
the world. JASTA therefore threatens to upset immunity
protections that benefit the United States more than any
other Nation.
The consequences of JASTA could be devastating to the
Department of Defense and its Service members--and there is
no doubt that the consequences could be equally significant
for our foreign affairs and intelligence communities, as well
as others who work in furtherance of U.S. national security.
The United States relies on principles of immunity to prevent
foreign litigants and foreign courts from second-guessing our
counterterrorism operations and other actions that we take
every day. Other countries could attempt to use JASTA,
however, to justify the creation of similar exceptions to
immunity targeted against U.S. policies and activities that
they oppose. As a result our Nation and its Armed Forces,
State Department, intelligence officials, and others may find
themselves subject to lawsuits in foreign courts--for
example, Service members stationed here and overseas,
including those supporting our counterterrorism efforts,
would be vulnerable to accusations that their activities
contributed to acts that allegedly violated foreign laws.
Without immunity, we could be forced to defend ourselves in
foreign courts regardless of whether the United States or its
officials had in fact provided support for terrorist acts or
committed acts in violation of foreign laws. Such lawsuits
could subject the United States and its officials to
intrusive and time-consuming discovery, including demands
from foreign litigants and courts for sensitive U.S.
Government information or intelligence. Such lawsuits could
also lead to sizeable money damages and efforts to attach
U.S. Government property to satisfy those judgments--efforts
to which we would be particularly vulnerable given our
substantial worldwide presence. And foreign states could
create exceptions to sovereign immunity that do not directly
mirror those created by JASTA, which would exacerbate these
risks.
The JASTA also threatens to expose even our closest allies
and partners to litigation in U.S. courts. JASTA would go
well beyond 9/11 or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and a number
of our allies and partners have expressed serious concerns
about the bill. I am concerned that the enactment of JASTA
would risk eroding the cooperation we must have from partners
and allies to defend the Nation. And as I noted in my veto
message, JASTA threatens to take decisions concerning
potential foreign state involvement in terrorist attacks out
of the hands of national security and foreign policy
professionals and to place such decisions instead in the
hands of private litigants and courts. This is neither a
coordinated nor an effective way to respond to such concerns.
To be clear, my opposition to JASTA is based primarily on
its potential impact on the United States. Sovereign immunity
principles do protect all Nations. But the United States has
a larger international presence, by far, than any other
country--we are active in a lot more places than any other
country, including Saudi Arabia. This means we benefit more
from the principles that JASTA threatens to erode than any
other country and have more to lose if those principles are
eroded than any other country.
____

The Secretary of State,

Washington, April 15, 2016.
Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
Chairman, Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the Department
of State's concerns regarding S. 2040, the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA).
We deeply sympathize with all victims of terrorism and
appreciate the motivation behind this legislation. The U.S.
government condemns all acts of terrorism, and the Department
has long supported efforts of U.S. terrorism victims to
pursue compensation while also leading international efforts
to combat terrorism and prevent more attacks and more
victims.
However, as it presently stands, JASTA would strip
sovereign immunity protections from all nations (not just
designated state sponsors of terrorism as under current law)
for a wide range of actions taken outside the United States
that lead to injury or loss in the United States, including
but not limited to acts associated with terrorism. This broad
expansion of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's
jurisdictional provisions will be of deep concern to many
foreign governments with potentially grave repercussions for
U.S. national security interests. The United

[[Page S6903]]

States benefits significantly from the protection afforded by
foreign sovereign immunity given its extensive diplomatic,
security, and assistance operations around the world. JASTA
could encourage foreign courts to exercise jurisdiction over
the United States or U.S. officials--including members of our
military and intelligence community--for actions taken here
which may cause injury outside our borders. JASTA could also
expose U.S. allies and partners to litigation in U.S. courts
that will raise significant foreign policy sensitivities and
could limit their cooperation on key national security
issues, including counterterrorism initiatives. It could also
generate concerns about the security of foreign state assets
in the U.S. financial system.
I ask you to consider the unintended consequences of
passing this legislation in its current form. We remain
prepared to work with Congress on appropriate changes that
would mitigate the harmful impacts on U.S. foreign policy and
national security.
Thank you for your leadership on so many critical national
security issues.
Sincerely,
John F. Kerry.
____

Department of Defense, Chairman of the Joint of Chiefs of
Staff,
Washington, DC, 7 December 2016.
Hon. John McCain, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington. DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to offer
advice on congressional efforts to mitigate concerns I
expressed regarding legislation that may expose U.S. Service
members to the jurisdiction of foreign courts.
On 27 September 2016, I forwarded concerns regarding the
potential second- and third-order consequences of legislation
that erode the long-standing principle of sovereign immunity.
These were:
Any legislation that risks reciprocal treatment by foreign
governments would increase the vulnerability of U.S. Service
members to foreign legal action while acting in an official
capacity.
In those cases where a foreign government decides to
exercise jurisdiction over a U.S. Service member, the Service
member could be held in civil, or criminal, contempt should
he or she refuse to appear or otherwise comply with the
foreign court's orders.
If a U.S. Service member were to be sued in a foreign
court, it would be up to the foreign court to decide whether
classified or sensitive U.S. Government information would be
required as part of the litigation process. This could put
the United States in the position of choosing between the
disclosure of classified or sensitive information. and
subjecting a U.S. Service member to an adverse foreign court
ruling.
While any attempt to alleviate the above risks is
commendable, increasing the burden of proof required to
prevail in a civil matter would not alleviate the above
concerns as victims may still file suit against a foreign
state. If a foreign government enacted reciprocal
legislation, suits could be brought against the United States
and may implicate U.S. Service members. While at the end of a
trial such a suit may not prevail if the victim is not able
to meet a heightened standard of proof--a heightened standard
may not stop a suit from being filed. In such a situation.
Service members may be subpoenaed to appear in court and
prevented from departing the country.
My concerns would only be hilly alleviated by legislation
that restores the principle of sovereign immunity and
protects U.S. Service members from reciprocal legislation
that may subject them to the jurisdiction of a foreign court.
Sincerely,
Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.,
General, U.S. Marine Corps.
____

Statement Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, December 7, 2016.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide views on the
potentially harmful consequences that the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) may have on the United
States, the Department of Defense, and Service members.
As I stated in my testimony before the Senate Armed
Services Committee on September 22, 2016, I agree with the
intent of JASTA, which is to honor the families of 9/11
victims. However, the potential second-and third-order
consequences of JASTA could be devastating to the Department
and its Service members and could undermine our important
counterterrorism efforts abroad.
In general terms, JASTA allows 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 longstanding principles of
sovereign immunity. Under the law that existed before JASTA
was enacted, similar lawsuits were available for actions only
against designated state sponsors of terrorism. JASTA has
extended 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.
We have concerns that JASTA may cause foreign governments
to enact legislation to create exceptions to immunity for
conduct by the United States and its personnel. Such
legislation may not directly mirror, and may be more
expansive than, the exceptions 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 to 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.
The implications of JASTA are severe. I will highlight a
few of them.
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. For example, our service members might
be required to testify about or provide documents on
operations that they are obligated under U.S. law not to
disclose, exposing them to punishment for contempt by the
foreign court, including imprisonment.
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 significant 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 a foreign state under JASTA in U.S. courts or against
the United States or U.S. personnel in a foreign court. This
could include classified intelligence data and analysis, as
well as sensitive operational information.
Furthermore, if the United States or U.S. personnel 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 revealing classified or otherwise sensitive
information or suffering adverse rulings and potentially
large damage awards for our refusal to do so, and could even
result in the imprisonment of U.S. personnel for refusing an
order of a foreign court to disclose such classified or
sensitive information.
Finally, foreign lawsuits will divert resources from
mission crucial tasks; they could subject our servicemembers
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.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to pay attention to
the most respected individuals in this country and pay attention to why
they object, not to the entire bill but to the provisions that would,
as Director Brennan said, cause the most damaging consequences for
those U.S. Government officials who dutifully work overseas on behalf
of our country.
The Director of the CIA said that the principle of sovereign immunity
protects U.S. officials every day and is rooted in reciprocity. If we
fail to uphold the standard for other countries, we place our own
Nation's officials in danger. No country has more to lose from
undermining that principle than the United States. Mr. Brennan adds
that few institutions would be at greater risk than the CIA.
I urge my colleagues not to abolish JASTA, but let's fix it because
the people we respect and admire the most and to whom we give the
responsibilities to defend this Nation have unanimously argued that we
need this fixed.
I say to the President: I fear the profound consequences that may
arise if we, with the best of intentions, do great, great damage to
this Nation and its security.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their
thoughtful and informed analysis of an important national security
issue.

[[Page S6904]]

I ask unanimous consent to speak briefly, and I thank my colleague
from Delaware for allowing me to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering John Glenn

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today on a sad occasion, and that
is to talk about the loss of an American icon. He is a fellow Ohioan.
He held this seat in the Senate. He is one of our true heroes, as an
astronaut, fighter pilot, successful business person, Senator, and
later someone who helped young people throughout the State of Ohio by
establishing his own school at Ohio State University. I am talking
about John Glenn. We lost him today at age 95.
I was watching some of the coverage on television about his career,
and it focused a lot on his being the first to orbit the Earth on
Friendship 7, a capsule you can see at the Air and Space Museum. It is
not much bigger than two of these desks put together, but somehow he
wedged himself in and did something heroic and important at the time.
In a spaceflight competition with the Soviets, he was one who
succeeded.
What I didn't hear too much about was his career before being a
famous astronaut and that amazing flight that ended up with him
addressing a joint session of Congress or what he did after that
amazing feat. So I want to talk about that for a second and say that I
appreciate that tomorrow my colleagues will help me in joining to pay
tribute to him through a Senate resolution.

But prior to his being a famous astronaut, he was a famous American
hero in my mind because he was a fighter pilot who signed up after
Pearl Harbor, the 75th anniversary of which we celebrated this week. He
flew 59 missions as a fighter pilot in World War II. He later flew
about 90 missions in Korea. He was highly decorated as a fighter pilot.
He then was a test pilot, and actually he broke the transcontinental
flight time record as a test pilot. Then he decided to join the
astronaut corps. He was part of that group of friendship astronauts who
became famous later as being called ``The Right Stuff.'' He was the
right stuff.
He then had a successful career in business. He decided he loved
public service, and he wanted to be in the Senate. He won election to
the Senate and was actually reelected with historic numbers in my home
State of Ohio. I got to serve with him during part of his time here. I
was in the House; he was in the Senate. We worked on projects together.
He was on the same committee my colleague from Delaware was on, and
both of them have chaired it, the Governmental Affairs Committee. He
loved good government. One of his big issues was stopping unfunded
Federal mandates. I was the House sponsor on the Republican side; he
was the Democratic sponsor here. We ended up in the Rose Garden
together for a ceremony. He was tenacious. This was, by the way, an
issue that not all Democrats agreed with him on; yet he did what he
felt was right in the name of good government.
We also worked on other projects together, and I always found that
his focus was on his State, the people he represented, and how to make
their lives better.
After his Senate career, he started a new project. It was called the
Glenn School of Public Affairs at the Ohio State University. I had the
honor of teaching there for a few years before running for the Senate.
I was a co-teacher for four different courses and got to know John
Glenn in an entirely different way. He asked me to join their advisory
board, which I did join. I am still on the advisory board for now the
Glenn College. Last year we elevated the school to a college. This was
John Glenn's greatest single accomplishment in the latter years of his
life--creating an institution where young people can go and be inspired
to go into public service and given the tools to be able to succeed. He
loved that school. He loved those students. He chaired a board meeting
only last month. He did it with humor, as he always did, and passion.
One of his big issues he talked about last month was how he wanted to
have a leadership institute to ensure that more young people could
understand the importance of government service, which he felt was a
noble undertaking--military service, government service, service for
your country, service greater than yourself. We lost an American icon.
He was also a man who loved his family. His wife, Annie Glenn--many
of us here in this Chamber know her, and we love her because she is an
amazing woman in her own right. For 73 years, they were married. They
knew each other as little kids. They virtually grew up from the crib
until now together. Annie Glenn was at his side constantly. That
relationship, their partnership, is an example for my wife Jane and me
and for all of us here in this Chamber.
Earlier this year, my staff and I had a retreat in Ohio. We brought
all of our DC staff and Ohio staff together to talk about how to better
serve our constituents, how to define the mission. I asked John Glenn
to come address that group. What a treat. Our staff had the opportunity
to sit and talk to John Glenn about his career, but more importantly,
to talk about his passion for public service. The mission he gave us
was one of honor and respect and decency for our constituents and to
serve the people. That was his life.
John Glenn's life story touches our hearts today, and his life story
is also part of American history.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I just want to thank our colleague from
Ohio for recalling the memory, the life of John Glenn and his wife
Annie. I was privileged to know him. I am an Ohio State graduate, Navy
ROTC. I am a retired Navy captain and a huge admirer of John Glenn and
his bride.
One of my fondest memories of them was at an Ohio State football game
a few years ago. As the Senator from Ohio knows, one of the big
attractions at an Ohio State football game at halftime is to script
``Ohio,'' where the band spells out the word ``Ohio.'' Usually one of
the tuba players kind of dances around for a while and then dots the
``i.'' So fans are used to that happening. On this particular occasion,
no tuba player came forward to dot the ``i,'' but John Glenn and Annie
went onto the field and dotted the ``i,'' to the amazement and delight
of 100-and-some-thousand fans. Later on, they came up. I was up in the
President's box with President Gordon Gee. I am not sure; maybe my
friend from Ohio was there as well. But what a joyous memory that was.
He ran for President briefly too. I was pleased to support him. He
didn't stay in the race for long. I thought he was a great marine,
great pilot, great astronaut, great Senator, and would have been a
great leader for our country.
The last thing I will say is this. Who is it that said this? Maybe--
Alan Simpson, former Senator from Wyoming. He used to say this about
integrity: If you have it, nothing else matters. If you don't have it,
nothing else matters.
When you look up the word ``integrity'' in the dictionary--and
``courage'' as well--you see John Glenn's picture.
Thank you for your kind and wonderful words about John Glenn and
Annie. Thanks for letting me say a few words as well.

Tribute to Federal Employees

Mr. President, I have been coming to the floor, as the Senator from
Ohio knows, for months--a couple of years, actually. I come maybe once
a month. The Presiding Officer and I serve together, along with Senator
Portman, on a committee called Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. Part of our job is to do oversight over the Department of
Homeland Security.
I started doing something a couple of years ago. Instead of coming to
the floor to talk about some controversy or things we disagree on with
our colleagues across the aisle, I came to the floor for a different
purpose. I came to the floor in order to say thank you to some of the
240,000-some men and women who are part of the Department of Homeland
Security, who work hard to help secure our country and make it safer in
many ways.
Over the last 4 years, I have been privileged to serve with our
Presiding Officer and a number of others--Senator Portman and others--
as the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee, first as chairman for a couple of years with Tom
Coburn from Oklahoma as our ranking member and for

[[Page S6905]]

the last 2 years as ranking member of the committee while Ron Johnson
has been our chairman.
I am incredibly proud of the fact that our committee is filled with
hard-working men and women, Democrats and Republicans, who work across
the aisle and party lines to bolster our national security and to help
agencies and programs across government work better. We follow what I
call the three C's: Communicate. Compromise. Collaborate.
Those are things we do in Delaware, and on our committee I am happy
to report that the three C's hold forth as well.
Serving as the senior Democrat on our committee has truly been one of
the great honors of my 16 years in the Senate. During my time as
chairman and ranking member, I have had literally thousands of
Department of Homeland Security employees--I have seen firsthand the
exceptional work they do 240 hours a day--it probably feels that way--
24 hours a day, 7 days a week across our country and even around the
world. I am pictured here with some of them. They do extraordinary
things that some of us don't even know about.
What we do is every week we come to the floor, and one of the best
things you can do when people do great work is thank them. That is what
I like to do. Since my first speech on this front a couple of years
ago, I have come to the floor almost every month the Senate has been in
session just to say thanks to a lot of deserving individuals, to teams,
even entire agencies at the Department of Homeland Security that are
doing extraordinary work quietly, behind the scenes, without a lot of
attention, to enable the Department to carry out its vital missions--
actually its many vital missions.
To everyone who has allowed me to share their stories with our
colleagues here in Congress and the American people, thank you so much.
To all of those folks at DHS who I have not had an opportunity to talk
about or any agency I have missed, I want you to know that the work you
do every day makes a real difference and is truly appreciated. While
some of your accomplishments are hard to measure, they are nonetheless
important. They are reflected in lives saved, tragedies prevented, and
a sense of security that Americans feel as they go about their day.
Across the Department of Homeland Security, there is so much good
work going on each and every day that if I stood here every day for the
next 2 years, I would have no shortage of remarkable public servants to
highlight.
As some of you may recall, the Department of Homeland Security
employs over 240,000 Americans doing everything from securing our cyber
network from cyber attacks, to guarding our ports of entry, to helping
communities recover from natural disasters. Their mission is one of the
most diverse and challenging, I think, of any agency, any department in
the Federal Government. The diversity of the employees I have
highlighted these past many months is the best illustration of the
challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security every day and
facing our country every day.
Last month, I highlighted a U.S. Secret Service officer named Codie
Hughes, who patrols the White House grounds as a uniformed Secret
Service officer, and also Special Agent Tate Jarrow, who protects
Americans from cyber criminals and financial schemes that are designed
to cheat those Americans out of their hard-earned dollars.
In January, I highlighted a fellow named Milo Booth who serves as the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's tribal affairs officer, ensuring
our Native American communities are prepared for natural disasters too.
In September, I thanked Tito Hernandez, who travels around this
country--and he does that about 9 months out of the year--in the
aftermath of natural disasters to coordinate the support of State and
local officials as they work through some of the most trying
situations.
Last year, last July, I spoke of the Department of Homeland Security
Science and Technology Directorate and the state-of-the-art research
work being done by Dr. Michelle Colby and Jon McEntee, who are
researching how to protect us against, among other things, emerging
diseases, such as avian flu and foot-and-mouth disease, while helping
the Department develop the technologies of tomorrow.
This past July, I thanked LCDR Tiana Garrett and Ingrid Hope with the
Office of Health Affairs for their work to prepare our border agents,
doctors, medical professionals, and first responders for the emerging
threats posed by the Zika virus.
From the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which tracks radiological
materials across our country, to the National Cybersecurity &
Communications Integration Center, which monitors cyber security
attacks and coordinates Federal cyber security efforts with the private
sector, the Department of Homeland Security is truly remarkable in its
ability to work together as one cohesive unit to achieve its common
mission.
While it has not always been easy, the Department of Homeland
Security has matured by leaps and bounds in order to become more than
the sum of its parts in the 14 years since its creation. The Department
remains the youngest Cabinet-level agency in the Federal Government. It
is also the third largest agency in our Federal Government, behind only
the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. It
was created by bringing together more than 22 different Federal
agencies. Let me say that again--22 agencies sort of glommed together a
dozen or so years ago into one big Department, DHS.
The sheer scope of the extraordinary challenge DHS and its employees
face means that leadership across the Department is vital to the
success of that organization, as it is to any other organization but
especially one this large and unwieldy. I have always said that the key
to success for any organization, no matter what size, is leadership.
Just like integrity--if you have it, nothing else matters; if you don't
have it, nothing else matters.

Secretary Jeh Johnson

Thankfully, the Department of Homeland Security has been blessed with
enlightened, committed leaders since its creation. I, for one, cannot
begin to say enough about the leadership shown these past 3 years by
DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, pictured here on my left.
Soon after being sworn in, Secretary Johnston immediately made clear
that his highest priority would be management reform--he called it the
Unity of Effort Initiative--intended to promote the coordination and
cohesion throughout the Department. He also focused on employee
engagement and the Department's hiring practices. He wanted to make
sure that the good work at the Department was not going unnoticed.
Through his steady leadership, DHS has begun to slowly but surely
turn--kind of like an aircraft carrier in the Navy--improving morale by
3 percent across the Department in the last year alone--the first
increase in the Department I think in some 6 years. We are happy to see
them bottom out and the improvement of the morale--the Department is
heading in the right direction again. Jeh Johnson and his team deserve
a lot of credit for that. I think, frankly, so does our committee, the
Homeland Security Committee, and the good work we have done to try to
make sure there is a good leadership team in place at DHS and that we
convoy clearly our gratitude to those men and women who work there--
240,000 of them.
Being a change agent in the Federal Government can oftentimes be
difficult, but I am confident that Secretary Johnson's dedication and
his perseverance will make a lasting impact on the agency's greatest
assets--its dedicated employees.
To Secretary Johnson, to his family, to his bride, I just want to say
thank you for your extraordinary service. Every American is safer
thanks to your leadership and your tireless efforts. Thank you, Jeh.

Alejandro Mayorkas

Until recently, Secretary Johnson's right-hand man was a fellow named
Alejandro Mayorkas, a native of Cuba who came here a long time ago with
his family, on the run, if you will. I like to call him Ali; so do most
other people.
Ali recently stepped down as Deputy Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security--that is the No. 2 slot there--but for 7 years,
including one-third or so as the No. 2 person, Ali was working
tirelessly to improve the security of our Nation and improve the
operations of the Department before he

[[Page S6906]]

became Deputy Secretary. In that role, he was instrumental in
strengthening the Department's cyber security policies, as well as
developing critical immigration programs that cut down on fraud and
helped promote economic growth.
Ali was a dedicated and thoughtful leader. His impact on the
Department will continue to be felt for years to come in streamlined
DHS operations that allow employees to spend less time on paperwork and
more time on protecting Americans.

Russ Deyo

When Ali left the Department a month or two ago to return to the
practice of law, the Department's Under Secretary for Management, a
fellow named Russ Deyo--rhymes with Rio--stepped in to fill his shoes.
As Under Secretary for Management, Russ has proved to be an effective
leader also. With a strong but quiet demeanor, he is not afraid to make
tough decisions.
Russ has been responsible for overseeing the Department's efforts to
get the Department off of GAO's high-risk list. What is that? Well, the
high-risk list is something the GAO puts out every other year. It is a
high-risk list of wasting taxpayer money.
DHS, as well as a lot of other agencies, has been on it for quite a
while. Russ has made very clear, with the support of Jeh Johnson and
Ali Mayorkas, that they want to get off of that list the best they can.
I think one of the greatest accomplishments may have been overseeing
the creation of employee satisfaction programs in each and every
component. I think they also got a clean audit. I think the Department
of Defense, which has been around since the late 1940s, has never
gotten a clean financial audit. I think for each of the last 4 years,
the Department of Homeland Security has set a great example. It has
gotten a clean financial audit.
I wish to say if you can't manage your finances, how do you expect to
manage your whole department? That is just one aspect of the
improvements being made.
With this information, Secretary Johnson and his leadership team
across the Department can ask every single DHS employee: How are we
doing? How can we help? What can we do better?

Craig Fugate

Another DHS leader whom we all admire for his leadership and steady
hand during some of those challenging times is the Administrator of
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. His name is Craig Fugate
and he hails from Florida.
For the last 8 years, Administrator Fugate has admirably led Federal
responses and efforts through numerous disasters, including Superstorm
Sandy, which landed a direct hit on the east coast, including a hit to
my own State of Delaware. Throughout his tenure, Craig has used his
whole community approach to strengthen our national resiliency and help
millions get back on their feet after a disaster. I know I speak for
countless Americans when I say: Craig, thank you for your dedication to
the mission of FEMA, for your years of leadership to our country, and
the leadership you provided for a very good team across America.

Peter Neffenger

At the Transportation Security Administration, affectionately called
TSA, retired Coast Guard VADM Peter Neffenger has helped his agency
respond quickly and effectively to a historic surge in airline travel
and navigate some of the busiest travel days in American history. Last
month, over the course of just 7 days, TSA helped 16.5 million
Americans travel safely to visit family and friends over the
Thanksgiving holiday. His continued efforts to innovate while ensuring
uniform training for all TSA officers--we call them TSOs--have
streamlined security screening at our airports and ports of entry
without compromising passenger security. The millions of Americans who
travel through our airports each week are measurably safer, thanks to
Vice Admiral Neffenger's service and that of the men and women he
leads.
I just wish to say about the folks at TSA that whenever I go through
airport security, I always thank them. I tell them who I am, tell them
who the Senator is--the junior Senator from Nebraska--and tell them how
much we appreciate the work they do. When you see people doing a good
job, when you are going through an airport, just take a minute and
thank these folks. Thank these men and women. It goes a long way. They
have had a very tough job because over the course of Thanksgiving
weekend, they had 16.5 million people trying to get through security--
actually, get to the airport, get their families packed up, in their
vehicles, cab, Uber, or a transit bus, and try to get to the airport,
get a place to park, get through security, get on a plane--make their
plane.
For the folks at TSA, their job is to make sure that nobody with
malintent gets through security. You have all these people trying to
get through as fast as they can, get on their plane, and get going.
Then you have folks at TSA who are trying to make sure that nothing
tragic happens in the meantime. That is a tough job. It is a tough job,
and I urge you to give them a little bit of love and thank them for
what they are doing from time to time.
Every time I speak on the floor about TSA, I encourage people to say
thank you, and I have just done it one more time.
Our Nation is truly fortunate to have the Department of Homeland
Security we have today. The few men I mentioned just now are the tip of
the iceberg when it comes to truly great public servants at the helm of
DHS. There are many more. A number of them are charged with
organizations that work behind the scenes, quietly accomplishing their
missions so that the rest of us can go about our lives uninterrupted
every day.

Suzanne Spalding and Phyllis Schneck

At something called the National Protection and Programs Directorate,
Under Secretary Suzanne Spalding works with her great team to protect
our Nation from ever-evolving cyber attacks. Her diligent team includes
her deputy at the Directorate, Deputy Under Secretary Phyllis Schneck.
I kid her. She is from Georgia Tech. I call her ``Ramblin Wreck''--
Phyllis Schneck, the Ramblin Wreck from Georgia Tech. She is a dynamo.
She left the private sector where she was making a lot of money to come
to serve her country and help lead the cyber security efforts of the
Department of Homeland Security.

Joseph Clancy

Also over at the Secret Service, we have a Director named Joe Clancy,
who leads an organization of men and women who performed flawlessly as
the agency has protected dozens of officials during the recent election
season.

Kathy Brinsfield

Over in the Office of Health Affairs, Chief Medical Officer Kathy
Brinsfield leads some of the best and brightest scientists in the world
in their cutting research into emerging diseases.

Reggie Brothers

At the Science and Technology Directorate, Reggie Brothers has led
efforts across the Department to make smart investments in research and
development for DHS and their State and local partners.
To all of you and to your agencies, again, a big thank you. These are
just a few of the incredible leaders at the Department of Homeland
Security, just a few.

Sarah Saldana, Gil Kerlikowske, Leon Rodriguez, Admiral Paul Zukunft

There are so many more who deserve our thanks for steady leadership,
leaders such as Sarah Saldana, who leads Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, known as ICE.
Gil Kerlikowske at Customs and Border Protection is a terrific
leader.
Leon Rodriguez--I call him ``Leon Red Bone''--is director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services.
We have the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, ADM Paul Zukunft,
whom everyone understandably simply calls ``Admiral Z.''
We say a very big thank you to all of you for your service and the
hard work of those across your agencies. A retired Navy captain salutes
the Coast Guard.
After 4 years as the lead Democrat on the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, having met thousands of DHS employees,
I believe our country is in many more ways more secure today than it
was yesterday. However, given the evolving nature of the threats we
face, this is not the time to spike the football; this is not the time
to become complacent. We need to remain vigilant, continue

[[Page S6907]]

to work smarter, and continue to work harder.
With that thought in mind, I close by expressing the gratitude of all
Americans to the Presiding Officer and to everyone at the Department of
Homeland Security. I wish you and your families a very merry Christmas
and a joyous holiday, as well as a more peaceful New Year for all of
us. Keep up the good work. We are proud of you. Stay safe. God bless
you all.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

National Defense Authorization Bill

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, my friend the Senator from Delaware has
spoken very eloquently about the need to say thank you to our Members
who work within TSA. I wish to speak in terms of members of the Armed
Forces and to remind the people of America that we are free and we will
be able to enjoy a very precious holiday season coming up because the
men and women who wear that uniform are on the frontlines. It is their
families who are making that sacrifice as they are away from home. We
should keep all of them in our prayers and remember to say thank you to
their families for the sacrifices they have made. Thank you to the men
and women on the frontlines who keep us safe.
With that, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am
pleased that we came together once again to pass the National Defense
Authorization Act, a vital piece of legislation. It is a testament to
the leadership of the chairmen and ranking members in the House and
Senate that Members on both sides of the aisle have continued to work
together to pass the NDAA again this year, and I thank them for their
leadership.
It is important to continue this 55-year-plus tradition of passing
the NDAA to show our troops and their families that they have our full
support. As in years past, this year's NDAA includes policies to
support our wounded warriors, our troops, and their families. It also
provides our military with the tools needed to combat our enemies
around the globe.
However, it is also the most significant defense reform legislation
in decades. An example is its significant provisions to reform how the
Department of Defense acquires new weapons.
Given that the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is the
defense of our Nation to keep Americans safe, it is reassuring that
Congress has continued to pass the NDAA every year for over half a
century.
To many Americans and even Members of Congress, the most visible
manifestation of our NDAA is our combat vehicles, ships, and combat
aircraft that have, with our outstanding servicemembers, made our Armed
Forces second to none. Less visible are things such as training,
maintenance, and adequate munitions, without which success on the
battlefield would be in doubt.
I am pleased that this year's NDAA adequately authorizes funds for
the DOD's operations and maintenance account, which provides the
dollars for these vital but less visible functions.
The NDAA also stops the Department of Defense's proposed drawdown of
an additional 15,000 soldiers, 2,000 marines, and approximately 4,000
airmen for fiscal year 2017.
Additionally, it addresses munitions shortfalls and provides funds
for depot maintenance and facilities sustainment.
Importantly, it does not require women to register for the Selective
Service and does not contain TRICARE prescription drug co-pay
increases, both of which have been of concern to me and many other
South Dakotans.
I am pleased it includes a number of provisions which I offered to
address the serious cyber threat our Nation faces. One of those
requires the President to define when an act in cyber space requires a
military response. Another requires training for DOD hiring officials
on how to use the special authorities Congress gave them to expedite
the hiring of cyber security professionals and pay these civilian
employees more than what is normally authorized for civil service.
I am also pleased that the conference report includes my mental
health measure requiring the Department of Defense to more carefully
monitor prescriptions dispensed at military treatment facilities for
the treatment of PTSD.
I join my colleagues in urging the President to continue the decades-
long tradition of signing the NDAA into law. While we champion this
year's bill, the most significant defense reform legislation in
decades, we must extend our view beyond fiscal year 2017.
For the past 2 years, I have served as a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, bearing witness to potential challenges that could
threaten our national security if we do not address them now, including
arbitrary budget caps. These arbitrary budget caps have forced the
kinds of false choices that are potentially so devastating for our
Armed Forces. In particular, we must avoid the false choice of paying
for readiness while assuming risk for modernization or vice versa.
The American people expect us to adequately defend America next year
and for every year to come. Job one in that regard is to remove the
arbitrary budget caps and the threat of sequestration. Only by doing so
can Congress fulfill its No. 1 responsibility--keeping Americans safe.
In closing, I thank Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, my Armed
Services Committee colleagues, and all of our staffs for the great
legislation we had the honor to vote for today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the
objections raised by my colleague from Arizona, Senator Jeff Flake,
concerning the 2016 Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, conference
agreement.
I must express my dissatisfaction with the WRDA conference agreement.
While I applaud the hard work by the conferees to advance a number of
worthwhile flood control projects--some of which are located in my home
State of Arizona--my objection centers around the inclusion of a
massive drought relief package for California at the expense of drought
priorities for Arizona.
For the past 2 years, Senator Flake and I have been negotiating with
the committees of jurisdiction and certain offices of the California
delegation to ensure that any drought legislation that comes to the
Senate floor would be applicable to all Western States. We won
provisions in the Senate-passed WRDA bill and the energy bill to
expedite salt cedar removal and increase storage capacity for
reservoirs across the West. Unfortunately, our WRDA provisions have
been stripped by the conferees.
I cannot support a drought package that is overly California-centric
while my home State and other Western States are also suffering under
an oppressive 16-year drought.

____________________