September 25, 2016 Dear Democratic Colleague: One of the most important consequences of any bill is the impact it would have on the men and women who serve our country in military, diplomatic, intelligence, and other capacities around the world. All of us are deeply committed to supporting the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11, and equally determined to punish those who commit acts of terror. But I am concerned that S. 2040, the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)," would unacceptably increase the risks to our personnel by weakening the international protections that shield them against prosecution in civil and criminal courts around the world. We must protect the people we rely on to carry out U.S. policy, and these legal safeguards are essential in doing so. As you determine your vote on JASTA, I urge you to consider the repercussions this bill would have for those individuals and for their ability to do their jobs. The bill would substantially weaken the doctrine of sovereign immunity that provides legal protection for U.S. personnel serving abroad. If we abrogate the protections we afford to other countries by making it easier for U.S. citizens to sue those countries and their officials in an American court, other countries will likely do the same to us. That would put our personnel at risk. It would also make it more difficult for the President to carry out U.S. foreign policy—and hamper the ability of our personnel to represent our interests abroad—by limiting our capacity to ensure their safety and empowering individual litigants to make decisions that affect U.S. policy in the courts. If other countries respond by adopting similar policies, it would not only threaten U.S. personnel with any number of foreign civil and criminal penalties, but also subject U.S. servicemembers to the risks inherent in foreign trials and discovery processes, including requirements to risk disclosing sensitive information and testify under oath. Taking this policy path will end up doing the United States more harm than good. Because of the reach of our global interests and commitments, U.S. personnel are present all over the world. We have far more at stake as a result, and it is our personnel who will incur the most risk if we erode their legal protections. For their sake, I am obligated to oppose this bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith Ranking Member House Armed Services Committee