Two conservative lawmakers plan to fight for term limits in the next Congress, saying the effort will foster accountability and complement President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., announced they will introduce a constitutional amendment that would limit members of the House to three two-year terms and members of the Senate to two six-year terms.

“This is the same amendment that Donald Trump endorsed during his campaign,” DeSantis said in a phone interview Tuesday with The Daily Signal. “It is the same amendment that is supported by groups like U.S. Term Limits Inc.”

Enacting term limits, DeSantis said, will “force new blood into the Congress.”

DeSantis and Cruz formally unveiled the initiative in an op-ed published Friday by The Washington Post.

The lawmakers said their goal is to end an era of career politicians.

“We believe that the rise of political careerism in modern Washington is a drastic departure from what the founders intended of our federal governing bodies,” Cruz and DeSantis wrote. “To effectively ‘drain the swamp,’ we believe it is past time to enact term limits for Congress.”

If Republicans really want to #DrainTheSwamp, here’s how to do it: congressional term limits https://t.co/DirnYqbuKA

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 9, 2016

It’s a long road, as Heritage Foundation scholars Hans von Spakovsky and Elizabeth Slattery have written about amending the Constitution.

A constitutional amendment may be proposed by two-thirds of both the House and Senate or by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Either way, three-fourths of the states must ratify an amendment—and Congress decides whether state legislatures or state ratifying conventions take those votes.

Term limits will help address the issue of establishment politicians, DeSantis told The Daily Signal.

“The fact of the matter is the election system is designed and the rules are designed by incumbents to protect incumbents, that’s just the reality,” DeSantis said, adding:

So, if you look at the House of Representatives, for example, 90 percent of the seats are going to go to one party over the other just because of demographics and other issues. The only chance you have to really defeat an incumbent … is in a primary.

Term limits already enjoy substantial public support, DeSantis and Cruz said in their op-ed.

They cite a Rasmussen Reports survey finding that 74 percent of likely voters support congressional term limits. Only 13 percent oppose term limits and another 13 percent say they are undecided.

Unlike some initiatives introduced by conservative lawmakers, this one may enjoy bipartisan support.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., reportedly said she would support a discussion of term limits. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., former chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, praised the precedent set by Republicans in enforcing term limits for lawmakers who lead committees, Politico reported.

“A number of people would say Republicans have struck a better formula for advancement,” Larson said, according to Politico. “And I don’t think it’s a bad thing for leadership at all.”

DeSantis told The Daily Signal that lawmakers who don’t support term limits will have to answer to their constituents:

The problem is that when you get up to the political class there are some members that don’t want to be term-limited, and I think there had been a lot of Democrats who have kind of pooh-poohed term limits over the years. The question will be, if we keep it up and get a public vote, are they going to listen to their constituents or are they going to basically just say that we don’t need term limits?

With term limits, lawmakers will have a better shot at reforming the system, the Florida Republican said.

“So, if you have a reform impulse, I think with term limits it will be much easier to be able to enact reform,” DeSantis said. “When you have people that have been around for 40 years, they kind of have their own ways, and it’s much harder to get them to change.” (For more from the author of “Term Limits Would Infuse Congress With ‘New Blood,’ Lawmakers Argue” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In 1971, military veterans composed 73 percent of Congress. By 2014, when the 114th Congress began, the number of veterans had diminished to its lowest number ever — just 18.7 percent.

Why?

One reason, the WWII draft. Overall, 16.1 million Americans served during WWII. According to the latest numbers at the Department of Defense, 1.3 million Americans are serving in the military right now. The proportion of veterans in Congress to the general population, therefore, isn’t out of whack. But nevertheless: Does the shrinking number of veterans in Congress affect debates about foreign policy and defense?

According to Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz. (F, 20%), the only female Republican veteran in the House of Representatives, yes. “I am very concerned,” she told Conservative Review. McSally served in the Air Force for 26 years, and has the distinguished title of being the first female combat pilot.

In Congress, Rep. McSally is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which is responsible for Department of Defense oversight, debates about war, as well as the drafting of the National Defense Authorization Act to establish the yearly Pentagon budget. McSally said people “can’t imagine how hard it is to be on these [House] committees if you don’t have any background in the military.”

Congressman Joe Wilson, R-S.C. (D, 65%) who famously shouted “You lie!” at President Obama during a 2009 address on his signature health care law, told Conservative Review: “My service in the Army reserves and the South Carolina Army National Guard has shaped my foreign policy experience by understanding the importance of having our allies trust us and our enemies respect us. It has also shown me firsthand the value of peace through strength.”

It makes total sense that military experience gained on the ground, especially in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, where McSally was deployed, would give a member of Congress valuable insight into what the American military is doing in the respective theaters, and what is or isn’t working.

“I think [veterans] are going to be more thoughtful and strategic, and ask questions like, ‘What’s our objective here?’” said Rep. McSally. “That’s our mindset.”

But Rep. Joe Wilson thinks that even if a member didn’t serve in the military, having a family relation who did also has an effect on one’s thinking. “While I think that veterans provide excellent firsthand perspective, I believe that many members of Congress who did not serve rely on their strong connections to the military — the service of a parent, child, other family member, or constituents they speak with when in their district — an equally valuable perspective.”

“An excellent example of this,” he added, “is chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Jeff Miller, R-Fla. (C, 73%). Though Chairman Miller never personally served, he is a strong advocate for our troops, veterans, and military families throughout his distinguished career in Congress.”

There is still some firsthand war insight in Congress, even if the number of veterans has declined from its post-WWII and Cold War heyday. That’s the good news.

Here’s the bad news: Congress rarely debates what military action we need to take—or not take. Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility to debate and declare matters of war when necessary. Is it because the number of veterans in Congress is declining, or has the internal structure within Congress changed?

ISIS has been a force of evil in the Middle East for three years. The United States has already been at war against Islamist extremists in the Middle East for 15 years, and with no end in sight. When the Obama administration was considering military intervention in Syria to fight ISIS, it claimed it didn’t need congressional authorization to engage in airstrikes because the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Afghanistan gave it authority.

Per the War Powers Act, the president only has 60 days (with a 30-day withdrawal period) to engage American troops in a conflict without congressional authorization. According to the Constitution and federal statute, the White House has no authority after that window to keep troops in a conflict without congressional authorization. The War Powers Act was introduced to reiterate the constitutional check on the president’s authority, and Congress absolutely could have stopped President Obama’s actions in the Middle East. But they have not.

Apart from a few dissenting voices, most of Congress didn’t want to touch the issue. Debates over sending American men and women in harm’s way is never a fun one, and it’s always politically charged. Some members want to grant the president broad authority to fight ISIS indefinitely, and some members think his authority should be limited and only exerted within a time frame. For former Speaker John Boehner and now Speaker Paul Ryan, the easy route has been to avoid the issue entirely.

So to this day, over two years after President Obama initiated airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, there hasn’t been a real debate in Congress about how to combat ISIS, and whether the president’s power should be limited or expanded in his efforts there. The Obama administration has put 5,000 troops on the ground in Iraq — without congressional authorization. And there’s been barely a peep about it in Congress.

President Obama also put troops on the ground in Libya in 2011 without congressional authorization. As The Atlantic reported this year, “In recent interviews with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg on the ‘Obama Doctrine,’ the president bluntly said that the mission in Libya ‘didn’t work.’ Behind closed doors, according to Goldberg, he calls the situation there a ‘shit show.’”

Where was Congress?

To constitutional scholar Lou Fisher, Congress’ lack of action is nothing new. In his book, “Presidential War Power,” Fisher points out it has been happening since President Harry Truman sent troops to Korea in 1950. “Truman in Korea, Bush in Iraq, Clinton in Haiti and Bosnia — in each instance a president circumvented Congress by relying on either the UN or NATO,” for approval.

When asked why Congress has become inert on issues of war in the past few decades, Fisher (a former researcher at the Library of Congress) told Conservative Review, “In working with members of Congress and their staff from 1970 to 1994, it was a pleasant experience to be in close touch with lawmakers and their staff who fully appreciated the checks and balances and were proud to defend their institution. To me, that commitment declined when the House decided to shift power away from the independent committees and subcommittees and place it with the Speaker. The commitment was now not to the institution but to a single individual, who could use that power of the Speaker’s office to decide who were placed on committees and subcommittees.”

Basically, Fisher sees Congress’ inertia as a result of a restructuring of how Congress works, and not so much the decline of the number of veterans in Congress. The historical timeline he lays out in “Presidential War Powers” buttresses his argument — presidents were going to war without congressional authorization before the drastic decline of veterans in Congress.

All things considered, Fisher said, “It’s a complicated subject.”

But to veterans like Rep. Martha McSally, who is currently serving in Congress, “We need as many veterans as possible at the table.” (For more from the author of “Congress Never Debates Matter of War Anymore. Is It Because There Are Fewer Veterans in Congress?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

It’s an all too familiar sight: It’s the end of the fiscal year, and Congress is scrambling to keep the government open after it has shirked its responsibility to pass the requisite 12 appropriations bills all year.

The end of the fiscal year is when Congress tends to throw fiscal responsibility out the window in order to avoid taking tough votes, especially before an election—and this year is no exception.

In recent Congresses, an end of the fiscal year continuing resolution has become a routine maneuver to push back the spending debate until the holidays in December. That’s when Congress usually scrambles to come to an agreement before the deadline (positioned just as everyone wants to get home to their families), which characteristically takes the form of an immense spending package that blows through the discretionary spending caps Congress set in 2011.

Indeed, since 2013, this breakdown in the budget process has led to Congress busting through its budget caps by a total of $174 billion. That’s billions in spending that would not have happened if Congress had stuck to its normal appropriations process and abided by the caps it instituted under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

So even though Congress promised to return to “regular order” this year by passing all its spending bills before Sept. 30, it’s not surprising to find members in the same position as the past few years. President Barack Obama likewise deserves a great deal of the blame for threatening to veto any appropriations bill that does not bust the caps that he himself signed into law.

Though this year-end breakdown has become routine, Congress is in an even worse position this time around.

Some members have proposed a continuing resolution that would put the funding decisions in the hands of the next Congress, but the more likely result will be to punt the debate into the lame-duck period following the results of the election. Purposefully positioning important long-term decisions for this period is especially egregious, as members of Congress face little accountability during a lame-duck session. This has the potential to further undermine the trust that the public has bestowed on Congress.

Moreover, due to the various budget gimmicks employed in last year’s funding bill, just maintaining current spending levels in a clean continuing resolution would end up exceeding the amended fiscal year 2017 budget cap by $10 billion.

As Heritage Foundation scholar Paul Winfree commented, that means Congress has effectively set itself up for failure. By teeing up spending levels that exceed the already increased budget caps, lawmakers must either utilize more spending gimmicks—flying in the face of fiscal responsibility—or face a politically harsh across-the-board cut in spending. Given the choice between the two, it is probable that members will take the politically expedient route and simply elect to spend more.

Worst of all, by caving to higher spending levels for 2017, breaking the budget caps again in fiscal year 2018—which are set to $16 billion below current levels—almost becomes a foregone conclusion for the big spenders in Congress.

This sets up the next Congress to go back on its promise to rein in spending once again, erasing the one modicum of fiscal restraint imposed on spending during the Obama administration. Continuing this vicious cycle would squander the opportunity to return to normal order during the next presidency and Congress.

Is this the only way forward? Not at all. Congress has options to maintain integrity in the budget process. It should:

Avoid considering any funding bills during the lame-duck session. If Congress is unable to agree on funding measures for fiscal year 2017 prior to the election, a partial year appropriation to move the decision to the 115th Congress is the best option.

Cut programs, eliminate corporate welfare, and pursue policy riders to reduce nondefense discretionary spending and improve upon current policy. Heritage’s 110 recommendations for discretionary spending reforms are a good place to start.

Consider a continuing resolution that reduces nondefense discretionary spending across the board.

After years of shirking the budget process and disregarding its self-imposed fiscal controls, Congress has the opportunity to break the cycle. It should seize it instead of positioning the next Congress yet again to spend more than is necessary to fulfill the federal government’s essential responsibilities. (For more from the author of “Congress Is Set to Cave in to Higher Spending Again” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.