Senate Passes $924.7 Billion National Defense Authorization Act 77-20 Amidst Government Shutdown and Debates on Executive Power

The case for

Senator Wicker, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, highlighted the bill's bipartisan nature, having passed committee 26-1, and its focus on rebuilding and reforming the military. He emphasized the bill's $924.7 billion top line, which he stated was needed to close gaps in military systems and technologies. He also pointed to significant acquisition reform, including the repeal of 86 outdated policies, and the inclusion of 1,098 Member-driven items, demonstrating collaborative legislative work. Senator Reed, the ranking member, echoed the sentiment of bipartisanship and the bill's forward-looking nature, aiming to provide necessary resources for national security threats.

The case against

Senator Van Hollen stated his intention to vote against the NDAA, citing concerns about the Trump administration's alleged authoritarian power grab, misuse of the military for domestic law enforcement, and attacks on civil liberties. He argued that authorizing nearly a trillion dollars in defense spending for an administration engaged in such actions was unacceptable, especially given the Pentagon's failure to pass independent audits and the significant increase in defense spending over recent years. He emphasized that the military should protect democracy from foreign threats, not be used by the Commander in Chief against American citizens.

The case for

Senator Sullivan and Senator Murkowski argued that the Biden administration's Central Yukon Resource Management Plan was overly restrictive, disregarding local voices and undermining multiple-use management. They stated it threatened Alaska's self-determination and resource development, particularly impacting Native land rights and economic opportunities. They highlighted that the plan, covering 13.3 million acres managed by BLM, imposed sweeping restrictions, designated 21 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) over 3.6 million acres, and failed to lift outdated Public Land Orders (PLOs) like 5150, which is crucial for settling Alaska's land entitlements. They asserted that the plan contradicted federal laws like ANILCA and ANCSA, and that the administration had broken promises regarding addressing PLO 5150 outside the RMP process. They also noted that the plan would hinder critical mineral development and infrastructure, which are vital for national security and local communities.

The case against

No opposition to the passage of H.J. Res. 106 was aired in the Record, though the vote tally indicates opposition to the resolution itself.

The case for

The Minority Leader, Mr. Schumer, argued that the government shutdown was caused by Republicans and that President Trump and Republican leaders needed to negotiate seriously with Democrats to fix healthcare and reopen the government. He stated that Democrats wanted to end the shutdown as quickly as possible and that the case for fixing healthcare and ending the shutdown was getting stronger as families faced higher premiums. He criticized the President for not taking the shutdown seriously and for House Republicans being on vacation.

The case against

The Majority Leader, Mr. Thune, stated that the government shutdown was due to Democrats, who had multiple opportunities to support a clean, nonpartisan CR to reopen the government. He highlighted that 55 Senators, a House majority, and the President supported the clean CR, and that a handful more Democratic votes could end the shutdown. He emphasized the negative impacts, particularly that servicemembers would start missing paychecks if the government was not funded by the end of the day. He accused Democrats of playing a political game, citing the Minority Leader's comment that 'Every day gets better for us' as evidence of prioritizing politics over the well-being of federal employees and the military.

The case for

The Majority Leader, Mr. Thune, argued that H.R. 5371 was a clean, nonpartisan continuing resolution that had already passed the House and was supported by 55 Senators and the President. He asserted that its passage would immediately reopen the government, ensure federal employees and servicemembers get paid, and end the shutdown. He criticized Democrats for refusing to support it, accusing them of playing a political game and prioritizing their 'far-left base' over the needs of the American people and military families.

The case against

The Minority Leader, Mr. Schumer, stated that Democrats wanted to end the shutdown but insisted that Republicans needed to negotiate seriously to fix healthcare premiums, which he argued were set to skyrocket due to Republican policies. He accused President Trump of not taking the shutdown seriously, citing reports of the administration negotiating a $20 billion bailout for Argentina while neglecting domestic issues. He also criticized Speaker Johnson for keeping the House on vacation for weeks during the crisis, calling it a 'middle finger to hard-working Americans.'

The case for

No specific arguments in favor of the nomination were aired in the Record, beyond the vote itself indicating support.

The case against

Senator Durbin opposed the nomination, stating that Ms. Mascott was selected for her loyalty to President Trump and her extreme views on expansive Presidential power. He cited her past statements agreeing that the independence of independent agencies is 'too much' and that the Supreme Court should overrule precedent to allow the President to fire heads of independent agencies. He also noted her characterization of the Supreme Court's decision granting sweeping immunity to President Trump as 'modest.' Senator Durbin also raised concerns about her selection process for a Delaware seat, noting she has never lived in Delaware or the Third Circuit, is not licensed to practice there, and was only admitted to the Third Circuit in May, despite Delaware Senators suggesting other qualified conservative jurists with strong local ties.

The case for

Senator Schumer argued that the amendment would prevent the waste of taxpayer dollars on retrofitting a $400 million luxury Boeing 747, previously owned by a foreign government, that President Trump accepted for use as Air Force One. He stated that retrofitting this foreign-owned jet would cost hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, which he deemed wasteful, especially when Americans are facing economic hardships. He asserted that the amendment would ensure the security and reliability of the Air Force One fleet and urged support from colleagues who care about responsible spending.

The case against

Senator Fischer opposed the amendment, arguing it would have a significant negative effect on U.S. nuclear deterrence. She stated that the amendment, as drafted, would impact the Survivable Airborne Operations Center (the 'Doomsday Plane') program, which purchased a Boeing 747 from Korean Air. She explained that this program is crucial for ensuring command and control for the President in the event of a nuclear attack and is an important part of the nuclear deterrent, and that the amendment would prevent the program from spending appropriated money.

The case for

Senator Van Hollen argued that the amendment would prevent the Governor of one State from deploying its National Guard to another State without the consent of the recipient State's Governor. He cited Republican Governor Kevin Stitt's agreement that 'one governor against another governor, I don't think that's the right way to approach this,' emphasizing the principle of voluntary cooperation over unilateral deployment. He stated that no Senator would appreciate another state's Guard being deployed to their state without consent, upholding a core principle of federalism.

The case against

Senator Schmitt opposed the amendment, arguing it would weaken federal authority over the DC National Guard and hinder its ability to respond to a crisis. He stated that while cooperation with the Mayor of DC is valuable, granting the Mayor Commander-in-Chief powers over a federal military force is inappropriate. He asserted that the President must retain authority to ensure unity in command and a rapid, coordinated federal response when most needed.

The case for

Senator Duckworth argued that the amendment would reduce the misuse of the military for nonmilitary purposes and install commonsense congressional oversight. She stated that President Trump has forced military troops, uninvited, into American cities, which she characterized as an authoritarian move that tramples civil rights, instills fear, and distracts troops from their core mission. Her provision would require congressional approval for any redirection of military assets to support law enforcement for longer than 30 days, protecting against civil rights abuses, military base detentions, and DOD surveillance for policing on U.S. soil. She emphasized that the National Guard signed up to protect the country, not 'one man's thin skin.'

The case against

Senator Cramer opposed the amendment, arguing that protecting American people and property is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government. He stated that the use of the military to support local law enforcement, not to become law enforcement, is legal and that President Trump has proven it to be effective. He asserted that simply disliking the current President is not a reason to make dramatic changes to laws that restrict him from fulfilling his promises.

The case for

Senator Scott of Florida argued that the amendment would bring accountability and transparency to the Federal Reserve, which he claimed had mismanaged monetary policy, overseen regulatory and bank failures, and disregarded the interests of American families. He asserted that the Fed's inspector general, being handpicked and paid by the Fed Chairman, represented a clear conflict of interest, leading to a lack of accountability for ethics scandals. Senator Warren supported the amendment, stating that while she believes in Fed independence, it does not mean insulation from following rules. She highlighted that the Fed's in-house IG investigated ethics scandals involving high-level Fed officials and found 'nothing to see here,' suggesting a need for a truly independent, Senate-confirmed watchdog.

The case against

Senator Peters opposed the amendment, arguing it would increase political control over an independent central bank by allowing the President to hire and fire the Federal Reserve's inspector general at will. He stated that this was part of the administration's broader attack on the Fed's independence, which he deemed integral to the economy's success. He warned against giving any President increased powers to politicize the central bank's monetary decisions, whether through the OMB, partisan investigations, or appointing a political operative as IG.

The case for

Senator Paul argued that the amendment would end subsidies to big banks by prohibiting the Federal Reserve from paying interest on overnight funds deposited by financial institutions. He stated that this practice amounted to a 'big bank bailout' of over half a trillion dollars over 5 years, causing the Fed to operate at a loss and preventing it from remitting profits to taxpayers. He cited economist Judy Shelton, who suggested that ending these payments would lead banks to buy Treasury securities and lower interest rates. Senator Warren supported the amendment, calling the payments a 'taxpayer subsidy for giant banks' and noting that the Fed managed interest rates without such payments before 2008. She emphasized that the banking industry, with its high profits, does not need this subsidy.

The case against

Senator Reed opposed the amendment, arguing it would remove one of the primary tools used by the Federal Reserve to implement monetary policy. He stated that the Fed used these tools effectively to contain damage during financial crises in 2008 and 2020. He warned that in the current uncertain economic moment, handcuffing the Fed would be a grave mistake, potentially forcing it to conduct a fire sale on Treasury and mortgage-backed securities and losing control over the monetary system. He emphasized the need for the Fed to retain all its tools to prevent future crises without waiting for congressional action.

The case for

Senator Young argued that the Iraq war started 22 years ago and the Gulf war 34 years ago, and that Iraq is now a partner, not an adversary, making the existing Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) outdated. He stated that the Department of Defense has assured Congress that operations can continue without these expired AUMFs, and clarified that the amendment does not implicate the 2001 AUMF, which is critical for ongoing operations. Senator Kaine added that the Pentagon recently stated a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq reflects combined success against ISIS and a transition to a lasting U.S.-Iraq security partnership. He emphasized that both Chambers have previously passed the same repeal on a bipartisan basis, and that this would be the first congressional repeal of a war authorization since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1971.

The case against

Senator Wicker stated his intention to vote against the amendment, believing that keeping the AUMF would help assure continued success, but acknowledged the sentiment of the body and consented to a voice vote.