[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1495-1496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                NSC APPOINTMENTS TO PRINCIPALS COMMITTEE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Murphy) for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce the 
Protect the National Security Council from Political Interference Act.
  I would like to thank my House colleagues who have signed on as 
original cosponsors of this legislation.
  I have worked at the Department of Defense, and I am a member of the 
Armed Services Committee. I believe the most solemn responsibility of 
Federal policymakers is to keep the American people safe, and to do so 
in a way that is faithful to the moral and ethical principles that have 
made this country exceptional, and a force for good in a dangerous and 
unpredictable world.
  Within the complex Federal bureaucracy, the National Security Council 
is, arguably, the most important institution when it comes to debating 
and deciding issues related to homeland security, foreign policy, 
intelligence collection, and the national defense. Choices about 
whether to deploy men and women into combat are made during the 
meetings of the NSC or its main subgroup, the Principals Committee. So, 
too, are decisions about how to defend the homeland against terrorism 
and how to support our allies and counter our adversaries across the 
globe. The NSC's deliberations are so serious because the stakes are so 
high.
  Since the creation of this body by Congress in 1947, Presidents from 
Truman to Obama have prescribed the organizational structure and role 
of the NSC according to their personal preferences within the broad 
parameters set by Congress. This is how it should be. The NSC is a 
policymaking instrument, and the President is entitled to utilize this 
instrument in the manner that the President sees fit.
  However, historically, there has been a bipartisan consensus that the 
NSC debates should be divorced from the world of electoral politics. 
The Presidents of both parties have sought to establish an NSC policy 
process that is not contaminated or perceived to be contaminated by 
political considerations.
  Josh Bolton, chief of staff to President George W. Bush, may have put 
it best while explaining why President Bush excluded political 
counselor Karl Rove from all NSC meetings: `` . . . the President . . . 
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.'''
  I am filing this bill because I believe that President Trump's 
directive organizing the NSC breaks from this longstanding, bipartisan 
tradition of constructing a wall to separate national security 
policymaking from domestic politics to the greatest extent possible.
  Specifically, the President's directive authorizes the Assistant to 
the President and Chief Strategist Stephen 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 has a strong 
political component. Indeed, it appears unprecedented for a political 
counselor so deeply enmeshed in politics to serve 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.
  Therefore, my bill will amend Federal law to ensure that no 
individual, whose primary responsibility is political in nature, shall 
be designated as a member of the NSC or be authorized to regularly 
attend meetings of the NSC or the Principals Committee. This language 
would apply to Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents alike. 
Our men and women in uniform, our intelligence and homeland security 
professionals, and our citizens should feel secure in their knowledge 
that the critical decisions made by the NSC are free from political 
considerations. The American people deserve a national security 
policymaking process that inspires confidence, not cynicism.
  My bill also contains a second provision. The President's directive 
prescribes a diminished role on the Principals Committee for the 
Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff. The directive limits their attendance to only those meetings 
where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to 
be discussed.
  While this language is not unprecedented, it has caused concern among

[[Page 1496]]

many experts of all political stripes, particularly when it is 
juxtaposed against the decision to give Mr. Bannon unfettered access to 
the NSC PC meetings.
  Accordingly, my bill will express the view of Congress that the DNI 
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, given their importance 
to national security, should have a standing invitation to attend all 
PC meetings.
  I invite my colleagues to support this legislation which seeks to 
protect the NSC from political interference, and to ensure that the 
President receives the best possible advice from his national security 
experts--experts who will recommend actions because they are in the 
best interest of the American people and not because they are 
politically expedient.

                          ____________________