New Legislation Introduced To Remove Bannon From Trump Cabinet

2-8-2017 National:

This week, Congresswoman Murphy will introduce the Protect National Security Council from Political Interference Act of 2017 (HR 804). Below is the letter sent to her fellow congressional colleagues asking for support on this bill:

Dear Colleague,

I respectfully invite you to become a cosponsor of legislation I will introduce early this week, entitled the Protect the National Security Council from Political Interference Act of 2017. The bill is a response to the President’s January 28, 2017 national security memorandum organizing the National Security Council (NSC).

The NSC was created by the National Security Act of 1947 as an inter-agency body to advise the president “with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security so as to enable the Armed Forces and the other departments and agencies of the United States Government to cooperate more effectively in matters involving the national security.” In 1989, President George H.W. Bush established three NSC sub-groups, including the NSC Principals Committee, which is chaired by the National Security Advisor. Since that date, the Principals Committee has served as the senior interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security.

My bill contains two provisions.

First, the bill amends the 1947 law to ensure that no individual whose “primary or predominant responsibility is political in nature” shall be designated as a member of the Council or be authorized to regularly attend meetings of the Council or meetings of sub-groups within the Council like the Principals Committee. This is a response to language in the January 28th memorandum authorizing the “Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist”—a title held by Stephen K. Bannon—to be a permanent member of the NSC and to attend all NSC and Principals Committee meetings. Mr. Bannon’s role in the administration clearly has a strong political component, in addition to a policy component. According to David J. Rothkopf, the author of what has been called the “definitive history” of the NSC, there appears to be no precedent for a political advisor so deeply enmeshed in domestic politics serving as a permanent member of the NSC. Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, described Mr. Bannon’s appointment as a “radical departure from any National Security Council in history.”

To be sure, presidents should have broad discretion to shape the NSC according to their preferences. However, there should be limits to this discretion, particularly if the proposed changes inject, or could reasonably be perceived as injecting, domestic politics into the process of making national security policy. During a 2016 panel discussion, Josh Bolten, who served as chief of staff to President George W. Bush, made this precise point:

[U]nder the Bush NSC, one thing that I found incredibly important and valuable was that there was a separation between debate over policy and domestic politics.I don’t think in the many years that I was there . . . . [T]he reason you never saw Karl Rove in a national security meeting was that the President told Karl Rove, you may never come to a National Security Council meeting. . . . We didn’t advertise that, but the President made that clear right at the beginning. If it’s an NSC meeting, you may not appear. And it wasn’t because he didn’t respect Karl’s advice or didn’t value his input.He valued it enormously, and Karl is one of the—one of the brightest and most eclectically informed and bright individuals I’ve ever known, who could have substantially useful input on almost any issue. But the President also knew that the signal he wanted to send to the rest of his administration, the signal he wanted to send to the public, and the signal he especially wanted to send to the military is that the decisions I’m making that involve life and death for the people in uniform will not be tainted by any political decisions.” (emphasis added)

Second, the bill expresses the Sense of Congress that there should be no limit on the ability of the Director of National Intelligence (the chief intelligence advisor to the president) or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the principal military advisor to the president, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council) to attend Principals Committee meetings. This is a response to language in the January 28th memorandum limiting the attendance of these two individuals to only those meetings “where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.” This language is not unprecedented—similar language appeared in the 2001 memorandum issued by President George W. Bush—but it has caused concern among experts of all political stripes, particularly when it is juxtaposed against the decision to give Mr. Bannon unfettered access to NSC and Principals Committee meetings. The DNI and the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, given their importance to national security, should have a standing invitation to attend all Principals Committee meetings.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Murphy ..Source..