Sens. Lee, Sessions Call For Higher Defense Spending By NATO Members
WASHINGTON – Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to President Obama Tuesday stating that the viability of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is contingent upon a more equitable distribution of the collective defense burden, and requesting that this be a top priority of the administration at next month’s NATO Summit in Warsaw
According to NATO’s own figures, the United States’ defense spending accounts for 73% of defense spending in the alliance as a whole despite the fact that the combined GDP of all other allies is higher than that of the United States.
Nearly half of the alliance members have failed to meet long-standing goals for defense spending as a proportion of GDP despite the pleas of both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations. Lately, the United States has been forced to spend emergency funds to enhance European defenses in the face of new Russian aggression even though the combined economies of European nations are vastly larger and more stable than that of Russia. The letter states:
“In lieu of giving our highly capable European allies a crutch of defense aid for years to come, we must begin making this aid contingent upon real investment from their governments starting with adjustments to their national budgets now.”
NATO stands to play a beneficial role for the United States and Europe as it did in the 20th Century, but important reforms and budgetary policies must be enacted by our allies to keep up with the geo-political and economic changes since the end of the Cold War.
You can read a PDF version of the full letter here.
------------
June 24, 2016
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life." --Abraham Lincoln
Chairman's Note: Bill of Rights is a Feature - Not a Bug - of our Government
Since the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida nearly two weeks ago – the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 – Congress has been engrossed in a debate about what can be done to prevent something like this from happening again.
In their grief for the victims, and in their concern about the safety of our communities, many Americans have come to the same conclusion: “something must be done.” Unfortunately, many of members of Congress believe that those four words – “something must be done” – give the federal government permission to do whatever it wants.
But the government can’t do whatever it wants, not even at a time of great anxiety and insecurity. In fact, there are several things that the government is expressly prohibited from doing under any circumstances.
The government may not infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” It may not violate the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Nor may it deprive any person “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
These are just a few of the explicit limitations on government action – a few of Americans’ core civil liberties – listed in the Bill of Rights. They are not negotiable. Yet many of the legislative proposals that have emerged in recent days run roughshod over these basic constitutional rights.
One such measure would give law-enforcement agencies power to access Americans’ Internet browsing history and email metadata – which can be analyzed to reveal intimate details about a person’s life – without a warrant, probable cause, or judicial review by a federal court. Another measure, the Terrorist Firearms and Prevention Act, would prohibit individuals on the government’s secret No Fly List or Selectee List from purchasing firearms.
Everyone agrees that terrorists should be prevented from purchasing guns, but this proposal would deny Americans their Second Amendment rights based on a mere suspicion from the FBI that they are engaged in terrorist activity. The denial of a constitutional right should require more proof than a reasonable suspicion – a standard so low that it doesn’t even justify an arrest.
In defending these measures, some proponents have lamented the difficulty of working around the core civil liberties listed in the Bill of Rights. But this is a feature, not a bug, of our constitutional system.
Americans’ constitutional rights are not nuisances that the government must accommodate. Protecting these rights is the reason that government exists. As we continue consideration of these measures next week, we must work to ensure that Congress fulfills this purpose.
Issue in Focus: The Brexit Opportunity
Yesterday the people of Britain won a major victory for democracy and sovereignty by voting to leave the European Union (EU).
Many on the left, along with their allies in the media, are predicting that this “Brexit” will lead to economic disaster for Britain, if not all of Europe and the rest of the world. These doomsayers should take a deep breath and a fresh look at the reality of the situation beyond the initial disruptions caused by this momentous decision.
To hear many American elites talk about the Brexit decision, you would think the EU is the equivalent of Europe’s version of the North American Free Trade Agreement – a liberalized commercial area for a small group of foreign nations in close geographic proximity designed to facilitate economic cooperation. But it is much more than that. By submitting to the EU, Britons have been subjected to the laws, decisions, and regulations of a centralized legislature, court, and bureaucracy located in a distant capital and out of touch with the local needs and priorities of the people – an arrangement that many Americans would recognize as similar to our own over-centralized, unaccountable federal government.
Moreover, yesterday’s vote only begins the process of Britain leaving the EU. When announcing his resignation today, Prime Minister David Cameron said his successor should decide when and how to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. And even after the next prime minister is elected, Article 50 provides a two-year process for Britain to negotiate both its own terms for leaving the EU and new trade deals with the rest of the world, including the United States.
That is what the United States should be doing now to support the people of Britain as they continue the work of disentangling themselves from the clutches of the EU’s centralized power structure in Brussels. We should be doing everything we can to negotiate new treaties with Britain to ensure a smooth, prosperous, and secure transition for both countries.
Prior to yesterday’s vote, President Obama indicated he wants to go a different path. Earlier this year, he threatened Britain that they would have to go to “the back of the queue” in any trade negotiations with the United States if they were to vote to leave the EU. This threat was ill-advised at the time and would be harmful to both countries if adhered to going forward.
Instead, Congress should pass new legislation both requiring the United States to honor our current agreements with the United Kingdom until new bilateral agreements can be negotiated, and directing the U.S. Trade Representative to begin negotiations on new bilateral agreements as soon as possible. There is no better way to honor America’s special relationship with Great Britain.
Lee, Cotton Introduce United Kingdom Trade Continuity Act
WASHINGTON – Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced the “United Kingdom Trade Continuity Act” Wednesday, a bill designed to promote economic stability and growth as the United Kingdom transitions out of the European Union.
“Our nation’s special relationship with the United Kingdom has promoted economic prosperity and security in both countries for over a hundred years,” Sen. Lee said. “This relationship can and should be preserved,” Lee continued, “which is why we have introduced legislation that would minimize uncertainty and promote stability as the United Kingdom declares their independence from the European Union.”
“The United Kingdom has stood with us at the front lines of battle, and it should therefore be at the front of the line for a free trade agreement that benefits both our nations,” Sen. Cotton said. “At this time of transition for our ancestral ally, it is in our deepest interest to reaffirm the Special Relationship. And it is my hope that our other European allies will also move in the spirit of magnanimity, generosity, and continued friendship as they negotiate new partnerships with the United Kingdom.”
The United Kingdom Trade Continuity Act preserves and promotes our special relationship with the British in two ways:
First, the bill obligates the United States to continue all existing commercial agreements with the United Kingdom as if the United Kingdom were still part of the European Union.
Second, the bill calls on the President to initiate negotiations for new bilateral agreements with the United Kingdom 30 days after the bill is enacted.
You can read the full bill here.
--------------------
July 1, 2016
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life." --Abraham Lincoln
Chairman's Note: Make Congress Responsible Again
Washington is broken. And American politics in 2016 seems to be a competition to assign blame for the federal government’s dysfunction, rising costs, and habitual failure to perform even its most basic responsibilities. The usual suspects offer up their favorite villains: Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and progressive, insiders and outsiders all accuse each other.
But in this case the problem is not partisan or ideological; it’s structural. The reason the federal government isn’t working today is that it isn’t working properly.
The constitutional order set up by our Founders is breaking down. Specifically, the awesome powers of the federal Legislative Branch are increasingly being exercised by the Executive and Judicial Branches.
Conservatives have been warning about this for years, but it seems to me we don’t take the argument to its logical conclusion. Ultimately, the problem with unchecked executive and judicial hyper-activism isn’t the activism; it’s the “unchecked” part.
The pillars of Congress’s power are its core constitutional functions: legislating, budgeting, and oversight. That’s the work Representatives and Senators get hired to do, and – more to the point – get fired for doing poorly. But actually using these powers – especially in an era now of real-time electronic transparency - exposes Representatives and Senators to the ruthless public accountability embedded in Article I.
So the safest course for Congress is not to do that work well; it’s to get out of having to do it at all, by delegating our legislative power and surrendering our authority over federal spending to the Executive Branch, and by relinquishing our constitutional oversight powers to the Judicial Branch.
Congressional weakness costs us much more than dollars. The greater loss is to our culture, measured in the distrust, even contempt, Americans now express toward our public institutions.
Despite repeated so-called “change” elections, the casual abuse and dysfunction that defines modern Washington stays the same. Problems go unsolved. Corruption is ignored. Incompetence seems, if anything, to be rewarded. With Congress’s every new abdication, our entire system of government loses a little more of its citizens’ respect, a little more of its moral legitimacy.
The only good news in all this is that what a weak Congress has broken a strong Congress can fix. But only a strong Congress.
There is no substitute. There is only the House and Senate, their 535 members, and Congress’s collective will to do its duty to our Constitution and countrymen.
First, Congress should reassert its constitutional authority over federal regulations by requiring legislative approval of new major rules and regular re-assessments and re-authorizations of existing ones.
Second, Congress should modernize its obsolete budget process to get ourselves – and more importantly, the American people - out from under the false choice of Caesarism or shutdown.
And third, Congress should rein in Executive discretion. We should empower federal judges – who now defer to Executive agencies’ interpretations of laws and regulations - to conduct traditional judicial review in challenges against the Administrative State.
Sage Grouse Management Must Include Local Input
Issue in Focus: NATO Defense Spending Needs
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that “an armed attack against one” member of the treaty “shall be considered an attack against them all.” This principle of collective deterrence is the cornerstone of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is a major reason why the United States and our allies in Europe have enjoyed over 60 years of peace and prosperity since the end of World War II.
Just as important, but less well known, is Article 3 of the Treaty, which obligates all NATO members to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”
In 2006, NATO members agreed to fulfill this commitment by pledging to spend at least two percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense spending every year. Ten years later, less than half of NATO members have honored that pledge.
As a result, the United States has taken on a disproportionate amount of the defense related burden compared to what was originally contemplated in the North Atlantic Treaty. According to NATO’s own figures, even though the GDP of the United States is smaller than the combined GDP of all other NATO member countries, the United States contributes an astonishing 73 percent of all NATO member defense spending.
This does not mean the U.S. is paying 73 percent of all NATO related costs, like running the headquarters in Brussels. But it does mean that NATO and its member nations are overly dependent on U.S. intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, ballistic missiles, and air-to-air assets.
In fact, while some NATO members like Poland are pulling their own weight (Poland spends about 2.18 percent of GDP on defense), 14 NATO member nations spend less on defense than the city of New York spends on its police department.
This pattern of shirking shared responsibilities not only departs from the original intent of the North Atlantic Treaty, it also jeopardizes the peace and security that the alliance has helped maintain for more than 60 years. Today, NATO member nations face a host of new security challenges – from an increasingly antagonistic Russia to a burgeoning immigration crisis (largely of their own making). In order to meet these challenges, they must increase their defense spending.
That’s why Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and I sent a letter to President Obama this week, asking him to make increased NATO defense spending a top priority at next month’s NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland.
“It is simply inconceivable to most Americans,” the letter reads, “that their hard-earned tax dollars are used to reassure financially capable allies who have failed to meet decade-old commitments.”
Ultimately, the elected officials of NATO member countries, and the people they represent, must choose to change course and once again invest in the defensive resources that keep us safe. But as the commander in chief, President Obama has a unique responsibility to encourage our allies to reaffirm their commitment to the collective security of Europe and the United States.
Washington, D.C. Office
361A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C., 20510
Phone: 202.224.5444
Fax: 202.228.1168
Salt Lake City
Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building
125 South State, Suite 4225
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Phone: 801.524.5933
Fax: 801.524.5730
St. George
Office of Senator Michael S. Lee
285 West Tabernacle, Suite 200
St. George, UT 84770
Phone: 435.628.5514
--------------------
