The bipartisan effort to restore Congress’ constitutional role in issues of war and peace continued today with the introduction of an expansive effort to reign in the executive’s power on a number of national security questions.
Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) are leading the National Security Reforms and Accountability Act (NSRAA), a wide-ranging initiative that tackles reforms to war powers, arms exports, and national emergencies.
Lawmakers have looked to restore balance of power between the legislative and executive branches in the recent past in more narrow ways, but the recently-introduced legislation takes on structural reforms across the board.
"Allowing administration after administration – presidents from both sides of the aisle – to usurp Congressional authority on matters of national security without check is irresponsible," said McGovern in a statement. "The Constitution of the United States is clear: the power to declare war rests solely with the Congress and it is crucial we reassert our body’s power to make the tough decisions about when, where, and how to put American troops in harm’s way.”
"The American people are tired of endless foreign wars, and want to know they have a say via their elected representatives," added Mace. "This important piece of legislation goes a long way to restoring the authority the Founding Fathers gave Congress and ensuring our men and women who volunteer to serve and protect our nation are not needlessly sacrificed.”
A similar bill was introduced by McGovern and then-Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.) during the 117th Congress, but the legislation was never taken up for a vote.
The NSRAA aims to strengthen some of the requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act — which requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying armed forces and, absent Congressional approval, forbids armed forces from being deployed for more than 60 days — by automatically cutting off funding in the absence of a positive vote of Congressional approval.
The War Powers Act has been invoked once in legislation that passed both chambers of Congress. A bipartisan 2019 bill called for an end to U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen — but it was eventually vetoed by President Donald Trump. This year, members of Congress have unsuccessfully used War Powers Act resolutions to force a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Somalia and Syria.
McGovern and Mace’s bill would require future authorizations of force (AUMFs) to include a clearly defined mission, and clearly defined countries or armed entities against whom the use of force is permitted, along with the automatic end of any future such authorizations after two years.
Currently, U.S. military operations overseas are justified by broad AUMFs passed more than two decades ago. The Senate voted to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War authorizations earlier this year, and Speaker Kevin McCarthy has reportedly pledged to take up AUMF related legislation on the House floor in the near future. There have also been Congressional attempts to repeal the broader 2002 AUMF, including a recent amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act introduced by Rep. Dan Bishop, but that law also remains on the books.
“The NSRAA reflects the lessons learned from the past two decades of forever wars and executive branch overreach...” Heather Brandon-Smith Deputy Director for Foreign Policy at FCNL, told RS. The bill “would ensure that Congress, as the branch most responsible to the American people, is put back in the driver’s seat on matters of war and peace. After more than 20 years of unchecked war, we welcome these much-needed reforms that would restore the constitutional balance of national security powers.”
The NSRAA would also impose guardrails on what policies could be enacted under the National Emergencies Act and would require Congress to approve the renewal of emergencies after one year and would impose a five-year limit on states of emergency.
National emergencies — of which there are 41 currently in effect, dating back as far as the Jimmy Carter administration — have also been the target of more narrow Congressional action recently, with Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Eli Crane (R-Ariz), and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), all putting forth unsuccessful attempts to end presidential emergency declarations that allow for sanctions against Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya and the Democratic Republic of Congo earlier this month.
When it comes to arms sales, the bill would require Congress to actively approve for the sales of air-to-ground munitions, tanks, armored vehicles, manned and unmanned aircraft, and more arms valued at $14 million or more, as well as firearms and ammunition with more than $1 million in value. As of 2019, presidents have approved at least $145 billion worth of weapons sales since 1986, according to the Washington Post.
“The American people deserve a voice on where, when, and against whom the U.S. wages war, and to whom it sells lethal arms,” said Lora Lumpe, CEO of the Quincy Institute, in a statement. “By requiring a congressional vote on these decisions, this bipartisan bill democratizes foreign policy—ensuring that the people have a say on matters of war and peace through their representatives in Congress.”
![Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share. If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality. Experts say Washington needs to start projecting a long-term strategy toward Russia and its war in Ukraine, wielding its political leverage to apply pressure on Putin and push for more diplomacy aimed at ending the conflict. Only by looking beyond short-term solutions can Washington realistically move the needle in Ukraine. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the U.S. has focused on getting aid to Ukraine to help it win back all of its pre-2014 territory, a goal complicated by Kyiv’s systemic shortages of munitions and manpower. But that response neglects a more strategic approach to the war, according to Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who spoke in a recent panel hosted by Carnegie. “There is a vortex of emergency planning that people have been, unfortunately, sucked into for the better part of two years since the intelligence first arrived in the fall of 2021,” Weiss said. “And so the urgent crowds out the strategic.” Historian Stephen Kotkin, for his part, says preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty is critical. However, the apparent focus on regaining territory, pushed by the U.S., is misguided. “Wars are never about regaining territory. It's about the capacity to fight and the will to fight. And if Russia has the capacity to fight and Ukraine takes back territory, Russia won't stop fighting,” Kotkin said in a podcast on the Wall Street Journal. And it appears Russia does have the capacity. The number of troops and weapons at Russia’s disposal far exceeds Ukraine’s, and Russian leaders spend twice as much on defense as their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine will need a continuous supply of aid from the West to continue to match up to Russia. And while aid to Ukraine is important, Kotkin says, so is a clear plan for determining the preferred outcome of the war. The U.S. may be better served by using the significant political leverage it has over Russia to shape a long-term outcome in its favor. George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, says that Russia’s primary concerns and interests do not end with Ukraine. Moscow is fundamentally concerned about the NATO alliance and the threat it may pose to Russian internal stability. Negotiations and dialogue about the bounds and limits of NATO and Russia’s powers, therefore, are critical to the broader conflict. This is a process that is not possible without the U.S. and Europe. “That means by definition, we have some leverage,” Beebe says. To this point, Kotkin says the strength of the U.S. and its allies lies in their political influence — where they are much more powerful than Russia — rather than on the battlefield. Leveraging this influence will be a necessary tool in reaching an agreement that is favorable to the West’s interests, “one that protects the United States, protects its allies in Europe, that preserves an independent Ukraine, but also respects Russia's core security interests there.” In Kotkin’s view, this would mean pushing for an armistice that ends the fighting on the ground and preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, meaning not legally acknowledging Russia’s possession of the territory they have taken during the war. Then, negotiations can proceed. Beebe adds that a treaty on how conventional forces can be used in Europe will be important, one that establishes limits on where and how militaries can be deployed. “[Russia] need[s] some understanding with the West about what we're all going to agree to rule out in terms of interference in the other's domestic affairs,” Beebe said. Critical to these objectives is dialogue with Putin, which Beebe says Washington has not done enough to facilitate. U.S. officials have stated publicly that they do not plan to meet with Putin. The U.S. rejected Putin’s most statements of his willingness to negotiate, which he expressed in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February, citing skepticism that Putin has any genuine intentions of ending the war. “Despite Mr. Putin’s words, we have seen no actions to indicate he is interested in ending this war. If he was, he would pull back his forces and stop his ceaseless attacks on Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council said in response. But neither side has been open to serious communication. Biden and Putin haven’t met to engage in meaningful talks about the war since it began, their last meeting taking place before the war began in the summer of 2021 in Geneva. Weiss says the U.S. should make it clear that those lines of communication are open. “Any strategy that involves diplomatic outreach also has to be sort of undergirded by serious resolve and a sense that we're not we're not going anywhere,” Weiss said. An end to the war will be critical to long-term global stability. Russia will remain a significant player on the world stage, Beebe explains, considering it is the world’s largest nuclear power and a leading energy producer. It is therefore ultimately in the U.S. and Europe’s interests to reach a relationship “that combines competitive and cooperative elements, and where we find a way to manage our differences and make sure that they don't spiral into very dangerous military confrontation,” he says. As two major global superpowers, the U.S. and Russia need to find a way to share the world. Only genuine, long-term planning can ensure that Washington will be able to shape that future in its best interests.](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/media-library/following-a-largely-preordained-election-vladimir-putin-was-sworn-in-last-week-for-another-six-year-term-as-president-of-russia.jpg?id=34283894&width=600&height=600&quality=90&coordinates=483%2C0%2C483%2C0)
