July, 20 2021, 02:24pm EDT
Sanders, Murphy, Lee Introduce Sweeping, Bipartisan Legislation To Overhaul Congress' Role In National Security
The National Security Powers Act Safeguards Congressional Prerogative in Use of Military Force, Emergency Powers, and Arms Exports by Cutting Off Funding for Activities Lacking Authorization
WASHINGTON
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) Tuesday introduced bipartisan legislation to reclaim Congress' critical role in national security matters. The National Security Powers Act specifically safeguards congressional prerogatives in the use of military force, emergency powers and arms exports. In each of these cases, the president is required to consult congressional leaders and obtain congressional authorization before exercising the powers in question. Any congressional authorization will have to meet specific requirements, including an automatic sunset. Under the National Security Powers Act, any activities lacking such authorization will face an automatic funding cutoff after a specified number of days. Rep. James P. McGovern (D-Mass.) will introduce companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives in the coming weeks.
"I believe that we have become far too comfortable with the United States engaging in military interventions all over the world, and the time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in matters of war and peace," said Sen. Sanders. "Article I of the Constitution clearly states that it is Congress, not the president, which has the power to declare war. The Framers gave that power to Congress, the branch most accountable to the people, but over many years Congress has allowed its oversight authority to wane and executive power to expand. This legislation is an important step toward reasserting that constitutional power, and I hope it will lead to a larger discussion, both in the Congress and among the public, about the uses of military force in our foreign policy."
"The founders envisioned a balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government on national security matters. But over time, Congress has acquiesced to the growing, often unchecked power of the executive to determine the outline of America's footprint in the world. More than ever before, presidents are sending men and women into battle without public debate, and making major policy decisions, like massive arms sales, without congressional input," said Sen. Murphy. "Before it's too late, Congress needs to reclaim its rightful role as co-equal branch on matters of war and national security. The bipartisan National Security Powers Act will make sure that there is a full, open and public debate on all major national security decisions, such as war making, arms sales and emergency declarations."
"Presidents of both parties have usurped Congress' prerogative to determine if, when, and how we go to war. Now America's global standing, treasure, and brave service members are being lost in conflicts the people's legislators never debated. In areas where the Constitution grants broad powers to Congress, Congress is ignored. The National Security Powers Act will change that and return these checks and balances to our government," said Sen. Lee.
"Everything has changed over the last few decades: when we fight, how we fight, and why we fight. I'm proud that there is now a bicameral, bipartisan effort in the House and Senate to reform our national security apparatus so it works in the modern age, for a modern Congress, and for a modern military. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Biden administration to put an end to endless wars, reexamine broad executive powers, and build a more safe and peaceful world," said Rep. McGovern.
The National Security Powers Act is divided into three parts--war powers reform, arms export reform, and national emergencies reform --all unified by a set of standard rules and procedures that reassert and safeguard congressional prerogatives. In each case, the president is required to consult congressional leaders and obtain congressional authorization before exercising the powers in question. Any congressional authorization will have to meet specific requirements, including an automatic sunset. Any activities lacking such authorization will face an automatic funding cutoff after a specified number of days.
Title I: War Powers Reform
- Defines key terms left undefined in the original War Powers Resolution (WPR), especially the term "hostilities", which over the years has been interpreted so narrowly by the Executive branch that key aspects of the WPR became almost meaningless. Defining "hostilities" is necessary to make the War Powers Resolution, and especially the termination clock, meaningful.
- Shortens the 60-day "termination clock," after which the President must terminate hostilities that aren't authorized by Congress. Shortening the period before automatic termination from 60 days to 20 days makes it harder for the Executive branch to start hostilities that are not defensive in nature.
- Adds teeth to the WPR by automatically cutting off funding if the President does not secure the necessary congressional authorization. Under current law, Congress must seek a veto-proof majority to terminate an unauthorized military action; this legislation 'flips the script' so that funding automatically cuts off unless the President secures authorization from Congress.
- Outlines requirements for future authorizations for use of military force, including a clearly defined mission and operational objectives, the identities of groups or countries targeted, and a two-year sunset. A subsequent authorization is required to expand the list of objectives, countries or targeted groups.
- Sunsets existing AUMFs, and specifies that future authorizations must meet the requirements in this legislation.
Title II: Arms Export Reform
- Requires an affirmative vote to approve certain types of arms sales. Under current law, all arms sales are approved automatically unless veto-proof majorities of both Houses of Congress pass a resolution to block the sale. This legislation requires Congress to affirmatively authorize foreign military sales and direct commercial sales of the most destructive and potentially destabilizing weapons that reach a certain monetary threshold.
SS Air to ground munitions of $14,000,000 or more
SS Tanks, armored vehicles, and related munitions of $14,000,000 or more
SS Firearms and ammunition of $1,000,000 or more
SS Fixed and rotary, manned and unmanned aircraft of $14,000,000 or more
SS Services and training above a certain value of $14,000,000 or more
- Allows sales to be packaged together to minimize individual votes, but allows controversial items to be removed from a proposed package.
Title III: National Emergencies Reform
- Requires Congress to proactively approve emergency declarations. Currently, Congress cannot override a national emergency declaration without a veto-proof majority. This legislation requires Congress to approve (1) an emergency declaration and (2) specific emergency powers within 30 days.
- Prevents the President from exploiting a crisis to increase executive authority. Under existing law, the President can unlock a vast array of "emergency powers" by simply declaring a national emergency. This legislation requires that powers invoked must be related to nature of, and be used only to address, the declared emergency, and makes clear that powers may not be used to take actions Congress has considered and rejected.
- Ends "permanent" emergencies. There are currently 37 so-called "emergencies" on the books, some dating back to the 1970s. This legislation requires renewal of emergencies after one year to be approved by Congress, and imposes a 5-year total limit on states of emergency.
- Prohibits use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, although it can still be used to bar imports entirely.
Read the bill here.
LATEST NEWS
'We Need to Tax the Rich So Much More': Musk Spent Quarter of a Billion Backing Trump
"If your income was $274 million per year, you'd make more than 99.9% of Americans," wrote one activist. "Elon Musk spent that buying the 2024 elections for Republicans."
Dec 06, 2024
Federal filings released Thursday revealed that Elon Musk spent significantly more than previously known to help secure a second White House term for Donald Trump and boost GOP congressional candidates, making the world's richest man the nation's largest political donor and perhaps the most influential figure involved with the incoming administration.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings showed that Musk, the CEO of Tesla and owner of the social media platform X, spent around $270 million this year in support of super PACs backing Trump's reelection bid.
The filings also exposed Musk as the mysterious funding source behind RBG PAC, a Republican organization named after the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Musk pumped more than $20.5 million into the super PAC, which aimed to paint Trump as more moderate on abortion than other Republicans and falsely claimed Trump shared Ginsburg's views on reproductive rights.
"In reality, RBG unequivocally supported abortion rights, believing it was a fundamental matter of equality," notedRolling Stone's Andrew Perez. "Trump, on the other hand, pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to ban abortion—and his justices did just that. When Ginsburg died late in Trump's first term, he replaced her with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, creating a 6-3 conservative supermajority on the court that overturned Roe and ended the federal right to an abortion."
Musk's ability to convert his extreme wealth into political influence underscored the need for far higher taxes on the nation's economic elites, progressives said in response to the FEC disclosures. In 2018, Musk paid nothing in federal income taxes even as his wealth soared, largely due to Tesla stock appreciation.
"We need to tax the rich so much more," activist Jonathan Cohn wrote on social media. "Not just so that we can fund programs to benefit everyone, but to prevent them from rigging the political system in their favor."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, noted that "if your income was $274 million per year, you'd make more than 99.9% of Americans."
"Elon Musk spent that buying the 2024 elections for Republicans," she wrote. "Tax the oligarchs."
Musk's spending on the 2024 elections outpaced that of Timothy Mellon, the secretive heir to a Gilded Age fortune who pumped $197 million into races in support of Republican candidates, Bloombergreported.
Musk, whose wealth jumped substantially following Trump's victory, is one of more than a dozen billionaires set to be either a member or close adviser to the incoming administration. The president-elect has tasked Musk and fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy with leading a commission whose goal is to gut federal regulations and slash spending.
"It's not hyperbole to call this a government of billionaires," Axiosreported Friday. "Trump's projected Cabinet alone is worth at least $10 billion... Trump's gilded Cabinet is the product of an election in which billionaires spent like never before in U.S. history—mostly on behalf of Republicans."
The billionaires in Trump's inner circle are set to play central roles in crafting policy over the next four years, including another tax-cut package that's expected to disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans. The 2017 Trump-GOP tax law that Republicans are looking to extend and expand helped boost the collective wealth of U.S. billionaires by over $2 trillion.
"The looters and polluters who are swarming around Trump bear careful watching," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said earlier this week. "Looks like no one's too rich to want to steal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nothing Is Sacrosanct': GOP Floats Social Security Cuts After Musk Capitol Hill Visit
"They're going to put everything on the table," one Republican lawmaker said of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Dec 06, 2024
Republican lawmakers on Thursday signaled a willingness to target Social Security and other mandatory programs after meeting with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaire pair President-elect Donald Trump chose to lead a new commission tasked with slashing federal spending and regulations.
Though the GOP's 2024 platform pledged to shield Social Security, the party has reverted to its long-held position in the weeks since Trump's election victory, with some lawmakers openly attacking the program while others suggest cuts more subtly by stressing the supposed need for "hard decisions" to shore up its finances. (Progressives argue Social Security's solvency can be guaranteed for decades to come by requiring the rich to contribute more to the program, a proposal Republicans oppose.)
On Thursday, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) emerged from a meeting with Musk and Ramaswamy with the message that "nothing is sacrosanct."
"They're going to put everything on the table," said Norman, one of the wealthiest members of Congress.
After airing Norman's remarks, Fox Business reported that Musk and Ramaswamy told lawmakers that no federal program is safe from cuts, "and that includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."
Fox Business reports that cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is "on the table" for Republicans pic.twitter.com/ETUjJHbt3h
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 5, 2024
NBC News congressional correspondent Julie Tsirkin said Thursday that after meeting with Musk, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)—who was recently elected Senate majority leader for the upcoming Congress—told her that "perhaps mandatory programs are areas that they're looking to make cuts in, like Social Security, for example."
"But again, no specifics were laid out there," Tsirkin added.
Thune has previously voiced support for raising Social Security's retirement age, a change that would cut benefits across the board.
🚨🚨🚨
BREAKING: After meeting with Elon Musk, Republican leader Sen. John Thune announces plans to cut Social Security
HANDS OFF OUR EARNED BENEFITS! pic.twitter.com/eTX8wpHuwr
— Social Security Works (@SSWorks) December 5, 2024
In the days leading up to their Capitol Hill visit, both Musk and Ramaswamy took swipes at Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and made clear the programs would be in the crosshairs of their advisory commission, which is examining ways to slash federal spending without congressional approval.
Earlier this week, Musk amplified a series of social media posts by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who once said he hopes to "get rid of" Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Defenders of Social Security saw Lee's thread, and Musk's apparent endorsement of it, as a declaration of war on the New Deal program.
Days later, Ramaswamy said in an interview with CNBC that "there are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings to extract" from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, claiming the programs are rife with waste, fraud, and abuse.
"People love to have lazy armchair discussions about, oh, are you going to make cuts to entitlements or not, when, in fact, the dirty little secret is that many of those entitlement dollars aren't even going to people who they were supposed to be going to in the first place," said Ramaswamy, advancing a narrative that observers warned could be used to justify additional bureaucratic barriers making it harder for eligible people to receive benefits.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said Thursday that the Trump-GOP agenda is "so predictable."
"Tax cuts for billionaire donors; benefit cuts for people on Social Security—how the billionaires loot our country (what, not rich enough already, fellas?)," Whitehouse wrote on social media.
In a column on Thursday, MSNBC's Ryan Teague Beckwith wrote that "Republicans somehow keep coming back to the idea of cutting Social Security" despite widespread opposition to such cuts among the American public.
"Would Trump try to cut Social Security? It's hard to say. Over the years, he has staked out every possible position on Social Security—sometimes within hours of each other," wrote Beckwith, noting that Trump previously called the program a "huge Ponzi scheme" and backed calls to raise the retirement age.
"So if Republicans—or Musk—decide to propose changes to Social Security benefits," Beckwith added, "it's possible that he might go along with it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Progressive Caucus Chair Ready to 'Fight Billionaires, Grifters, and Republican Frauds'
"Our caucus will make sure the Democratic Party stands up to corporate interests for working people," said Rep. Greg Casar.
Dec 05, 2024
The Congressional Progressive Caucus on Thursday elected its leaders for the next term, including Rep. Greg Casar as chair.
"The members of the Progressive Caucus know how to fight billionaires, grifters, and Republican frauds in Congress. Our caucus will make sure the Democratic Party stands up to corporate interests for working people," said Casar (D-Texas), who will replace term-limited Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
"I'm honored to build on the legacy of Chair Jayapal," Casar continued. "I've fought back against extremist, egocentric autocrats in Texas for my entire adult life. The Democratic Party must directly take on Trump, and it'll be CPC members boldly leading the way and putting working people first."
Casar, who is currently the CPC whip and ran unopposed, will be joined for the 119th Congress by Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) as deputy chair and Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.) as whip.
"The Congressional Progressive Caucus has always served as an incredible vehicle for transformative change, justice, and movement building," noted Omar. "I am honored to have the support of my colleagues to serve another term as the deputy chair of the Progressive Caucus. Over the next term, we are going to fight to build an inclusive movement that meets the moment."
García said that "I am proud to join incoming Chair Casar, Deputy Chair Omar, and all members of the newly elected executive board as we prepare for the 119th Congress—in which I believe the role the CPC plays will be more critical than ever."
"We are a caucus that gives platform to ideas deeply popular across the political spectrum, and a caucus that builds diverse coalitions to get things done," he continued. "I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress and partners across the country who believe in people-centered policies rooted in equity and justice for all."
The CPC, first led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 1991, when he was still in the U.S. House of Representatives, has nearly 100 members. The new caucus leaders are set to begin their terms on January 3 and will face not only a Republican-controlled House and Senate, but also U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to be sworn in on January 20.
"It is my great honor to pass the torch to the next class of elected leadership of the Progressive Caucus: My dear friends and trusted colleagues Reps. Greg Casar, Ilhan Omar, and Chuy García," said Jayapal.
"I was proud to establish term limits when I became chair in 2018, and have full confidence in the abilities of our new class to lead this caucus in the fight against the worst of the incoming Trump administration while rebuilding our party with a focus on economic justice for working people," she added. "I will be cheering these three new leaders and our new vice chairs at every turn as chair emerita come next year, and my heart is very full knowing we will have them at the helm of the CPC."
Speaking with NBC News on Wednesday, 35-year-old Casar said that "the progressive movement needs to change. We need to re-emphasize core economic issues every time some of these cultural war issues are brought up."
"So when we hear Republicans attacking queer Americans again, I think the progressive response needs to be that a trans person didn't deny your health insurance claim, a big corporation did—with Republican help," he explained. "We need to connect the dots for people that the Republican Party obsession with these culture war issues is driven by Republicans' desire to distract voters and have them look away while Republicans pick their pocket."
According to NBC:
That means the Democratic Party needs to "shed off some of its more corporate elements," to sharpen the economic-populist contrast with Republicans and not let voters equate the two parties, he said. He predicted Trump and the Republican-led Congress will offer plenty of opportunities to drive that distinction, including when it pursues an extension of tax cuts for upper earners.
"The core of the Republican Party is about helping Wall Street and billionaires. And I think we have to call out the game," Casar said. "The Democratic Party, at its best, can hold people or can have inside of its tent people across geography, across race and across ideology. Because we're all in the same boat when it comes to making sure that you can retire with dignity, that your kids can go to school, that you can buy a house."
Others—including Sanders, who sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2016 and 2020—have issued similar calls since Democrats lost the White House and Senate in last month's elections.
"In the recent elections, just 150 billionaire families spent nearly $2 billion to get their candidates elected," Sanders said Saturday. "Our job in the coming months and years is clear. We must defeat the oligarchs and create an economy and government that works for all, not just the few."
On Thursday, both Sanders and Jayapal, who have led the congressional fight for Medicare for All, reiterated calls for a single-payer healthcare program in response to a social media post by Elon Musk, who is set to co-lead Trump's forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular