William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this amendment. It would require the President and the Secretary of Defense to certify to Congress with demonstrable evidence that a State is unwilling or unable to suppress civil unrest prior to invoking the Insurrection Act.

What is demonstrable evidence? How do we define that?

At that point, who knows how much time would go by before help is given to the city or State that needs it.

Also, the limitation placed on military personnel in this amendment is concerning. We are telling our military that, if you go in, then you either do nothing or you use extreme force. There is no in between.

Unfortunately, too many elected officials don't understand the difference between emergency response, peacekeeping, and peacemaking.

We are setting the military up for failure. This amendment is dangerous and unnecessary, not to mention the entire debate on the Insurrection Act is just another attack on the President. Because we don't like something the current President said--not even what he did, but something he said--we are going to punish not just this President, but every President after this and all the States that may need help in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this amendment.

The Unfunded Priorities List is critical for services to convey their needs to adequately capture emerging requirements.

The budgets submitted through an annual budgeting process are constructed over the course of a year, but combat is a daily evolution. Adversaries are really not concerned about our budgeting process.

As someone who has been responsible for creating a significantly broad military budget, I know the challenges in planning for future fights while recognizing the fluidity and uncertainty surrounding current operations.

UFRs allow services to convey to Congress which budget sacrifices were made and the associated consequences. More importantly, the Armed Services Committee rightfully added the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the UFR's list this year. This amendment would strike that language and impede the Guard in adjusting for the unexpected.

Undercutting the National Guard in a year in which they have been asked to do so much for our country is not--I repeat not--a wise course of action.

This amendment should not be supported, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BERGMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment included in this en bloc package.

My amendment would create a cyberattack exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to remove the immunity of foreign states-- including foreign officials, employees, or agents--with regard to money damages sought by a national of the United States for personal injury, harm to reputation, or damage to or loss of property resulting from cyberattacks.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act was passed in the seventies before anyone could fathom what our technology capabilities would be today, and under that law, if a foreign national commits a cyberattack against a U.S. citizen, our citizen has no legal recourse here in the U.S. to defend themselves.

With this blanket immunity, our adversaries in North Korea, Russia, and China have a free hand to attack Americans from the comfort of their own homes without consequence.

For decades, foreign governments have been using cyberattacks to influence politics and policy in our country. Now, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, we have this hacking activity ramp up against U.S. medical institutions and vaccine development.

We can't sit back and do nothing. It is time for Congress to update its laws to reflect modern technology and modern national security threats.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source