Six National Security Challenges for the New Congress

Yesterday’s midterm elections and the new Republican majority in the Senate will pose great challenges to finding progressive solutions to a number of critical national security issues. In the upcoming lame-duck session and when the newly elected members of Congress enter office in January, Congress will need to work to overcome conservative obstructionism or risk potential damage to America’s national security. The elections stand to affect issues ranging from nuclear negotiations with Iran to trade negotiations with Europe and Asia, and from oversight of intelligence agencies in the United States to oversight of the U.S. strategy to combat the Islamic State. Here are six key issues Congress must address in the coming months.

Congress must refrain from passing new sanctions that could scuttle a nuclear deal with Iran. Conservatives in Congress have consistently threatened to pass new sanctions as American and other P5+1 diplomats try to reach a deal with Iran to limit its uranium enrichment and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon ahead of the Nov. 24 deadline. “Such a move, however, would be self-defeating,” notes a piece by Elizabeth Rosenberg of the Center for a New American Security and Zachary K. Goldman of the New York University School of Law in today’s New York Times. “Tougher United States sanctions at this juncture would nearly eliminate Iran’s remaining commerce with Asia and Europe, exacting a significant financial toll on America’s allies in those regions. That could destroy the international coalition that has so successfully isolated Iran, and erode the leverage it derives from presenting a unified front. It would also be unnecessary. The 25 percent decline in oil prices over the last four months, to about $82 a barrel, has already given Iran a stinging taste of how much worse off its economy could be if it fails to reach a deal. If negotiations were to fail definitively, the international community would be likely to condone sanctions that would squeeze Iran’s oil revenues to nearly zero. And Iran, which requires oil prices of $140 per barrel to balance its budget, is already experiencing shortfalls in the billions.” They conclude that “Punishing our allies now in a vain unilateral attempt to force Iran to capitulate is not smart policy” and that the result of new sanctions now would be “An undermining of our own national interests.” [Elizabeth Rosenberg and Zachary K. Goldman, 11/5/14]

Congress must still pass a narrow authorization for use of military force (AUMF) against the Islamic State. Conservatives are divided over what role they should play in the strategy to counter the Islamic State. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said in September that he would not encourage debating new AUMF legislation until after the lame-duck session unless President Obama asked for authorization, which the Administration claims it does not need. Boehner is delaying the debate on a new AUMF despite the fact that the President’s authority to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels will expire in December and the ongoing intervention has exceeded the time required for congressional action under the War Powers Act. But Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who is poised to become Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been pushing for a new AUMF for months. In August, Corker said that “We should, certainly, authorize this…Congress should own…military action,” and at a hearing in September he told Secretary of State John Kerry that he considers the Administration’s use of the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda and the 2002 Iraq AUMF simply a matter of “convenience and parsing legal words.” But what Corker has discussed is amending the outdated and dangerously broad 2001 AUMF in ways that could broaden it further. The 2001 bill was historically unprecedented in its scope and lack of limitations. A sounder approach would be legislation that would limit the scope of the current intervention to the Islamic State, prohibit the deployment of American ground forces, and include a sunset clause that would force the renewal or expiration of the authorization on an annual basis.

Congress should not interfere in the responsible process of closing Guantanamo by preventing the release or transfer of detainees, including those cleared for release. The midterm election yesterday came just days after a new push from congressional conservatives for a ban on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees. This latest call for a ban came in response to an unsubstantiated report that claimed that released detainees are joining the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra. As we noted last week, congressional advocates of a ban ignore the fact that detainee transfers and releases are the result of a prudent and cautious process. “Demanding that all transfers from Guantanamo should be suspended because the remaining detainees are too dangerous is craven and irresponsible,” Wells Dixon, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, told National Security Network last week. “More than half of the remaining men have been approved for transfer, which means that all of the relevant agencies with a stake in Guantanamo have determined unanimously that they pose no threat to the United States or its allies.” As of today, there are 148 detainees still being held at Guantanamo, 79 of whom have been approved for release. The prison at Guantanamo is a national security threat and a blight on America’s human rights record, and banning transfers will allow it to remain open indefinitely. [Wells Dixon, 10/31/14]

Congressional approval and modification of trade deals hangs in the balance, with serious concerns about labor protections. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) are the flagship initiatives of the Obama Administration’s economic statecraft strategy towards sustaining American global economic advantage. The trade and investment agreements are massive, with the TPP encompassing roughly 40 percent of global trade and the T-TIP encompassing about half of global GDP. While both agreements are still being negotiated, final deals would require congressional approval. But a good deal that strengthens America’s economy will require significant labor protection. It’s unclear that the Administration is negotiating with U.S. labor fully in mind – but it’s even more doubtful that a conservative Congress can advocate on labor’s behalf, though the room for constructive engagement remains. Speaking on the T-TIP, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka voiced his union’s point of view, “Trade policy for the privileged few must end. TTIP must work for the people, or it won’t work at all.” On the TPP, the AFL-CIO has laid out that the have “provided the administration with ideas about how to improve the U.S. trade positions so they work for the 99%, not just the 1%… And while negotiations are not yet complete, the publicly available information is concerning for workers.” The AFL-CIO has voiced more specific concerns about the TPP as well, for example that “It is not yet clear that all the TPP countries will commit to enforceable labor standards. But America’s workers can’t go backward: we expect labor commitments that significantly improve upon the Bush-era deals.” [Richard Trumka, 5/21/14. AFL-CIO statements on labor rights and the TPP, accessed 11/5/14]

Congress needs to preserve publicly transparent oversight of intelligence agencies – most immediately ensuring the responsible release of the CIA’s report on Bush-era torture. With Republicans taking the Senate, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) is expected to become the Chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. This comes at a time when the 6,800-page report on Bush-era torture practices is to be unclassified and released by the CIA, and has run into indefinite delays due to the extent to which the Agency has redacted its contents. The report, which was subject to a scandal involving allegation of CIA spying on Senate staffers responsible for oversight, is thought to confirm that torture has little to no value in producing useful intelligence. However, there is some doubt that Sen. Burr will press the CIA for a final release copy that does not include excessive redacting of its contents. Foreign Policy reports, “Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), an outspoken defender of enhanced interrogation techniques and broad government surveillance powers, is next in line for the chairmanship. Unlike the current Democratic head of the committee, Dianne Feinstein of California, Burr has been harshly critical of a yet-to-be-released report on the Bush administration’s post-9/11 torture practices — a view shared by many in the agency.” Sen. Burr has also indicated a cold attitude towards public, transparent oversight of the CIA, saying “I personally don’t believe that anything that goes on in the intelligence committee should ever be discussed publicly…If I had my way, with the exception of nominees, there would never be a public intelligence hearing.” [Foreign Policy, 10/30/14. Richard Burr via Foreign Policy, 10/30/14]

Congress needs to quickly confirm large numbers of State Department nominees who remain unconfirmed, tying the hands of America’s diplomacy. As of late October, it was reported that “47 ambassadorial nominees are awaiting confirmation for assignments in 54 countries such as Argentina, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Norway, Rwanda and Jamaica,” many of whom have been waiting for more than a year due to conservative obstructionism.  Beyond the immediate and serious problem of undermining the effectiveness of American diplomacy, “We’re deeply concerned about this becoming the new normal, and we don’t want to see it take 400, 300, 200 days to get people to their posts,” said Kristen Fernekes of the American Foreign Service Association. If the lame-duck Congress does not confirm the nominees, then the problem would persist into the next Congress and the nominees would have to be re-nominated. When Congress does take up the nominations, “The vast majority of our nominees could be confirmed quickly in one en bloc vote just like military nominees as soon as the Senate returns to Washington,” said Alec Gerlach, a State Department spokesman. [McClatchy, 10/30/14. Kristen Fernekes and Alec Gerlach via McClatchy, 10/30/14]

Sunset at the U.S. Capitol.  U.S. Capitol Flickr, 7/2012