一个由三个党派组成的参议员小组周二提出了旨在收回的立法国家安全力量宪法中描述的行政部门，参议院三人组称，在立法者几十年的不作为后，行政部门已经从国会流失。
“创始人设想在政府的行政和立法部门之间实现权力平衡国家安全重要的是。但随着时间的推移，国会已经默认了行政部门在决定美国在世界上的足迹轮廓方面越来越大的、通常不受限制的权力。总统们比以往任何时候都更需要在没有公开辩论的情况下将男人和女人送上战场，并在没有国会参与的情况下做出重大政策决定，比如大规模的武器销售，”外交关系委员会的高级成员克里斯·墨菲(Chris Murphy)说，他是一项法案的共同提案人，他与佛蒙特州参议员伯尼·桑德斯和犹他州参议员李政颖一起。
三管齐下的《国家安全权力法》将使国会处于更加积极的角色，必须确认对更具争议的武器销售采取行政行动，特别是致命武器，包括空对地弹药、坦克和装甲车，而不是目前要求立法者以不可否决的多数否决销售的方法;将以新政策取代1973年的《战争权力法》，新政策将要求国会在仅仅20天后授权总统进行军事行动，而不是目前的60天;并要求国会在总统法令颁布30天后批准国家紧急状态声明。
“总统可以宣布国家紧急状态，并在30天内就此采取行动，但在此之后，如果国会选择不颁布法律来批准这一举措，(称为联合批准决议)——总统的这一能力将在30天后到期，”参议院共和党高级助手就该提议向记者介绍说。
唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)总统在2019年采取了一项极具争议的举措，宣布南部边境进入国家安全紧急状态，以在该地区修建隔离墙。当时有两党的支持来阻止他，但没有一个可以否决的多数。墨菲-桑德斯-李法案将“颠覆剧本”，让国会更容易阻止此类行政行为。
参议员们当时还发现，大约30项国家紧急状态声明在几十年前仍然有效。拟议的立法将在没有国会明确批准的情况下撤销这些声明，对未来的举措设定五年的限制。
这一三党派的提议正值美国政府准备撤销2002年在伊拉克战争前批准的《使用军事力量(AUMF)授权》。也有越来越多的人支持修改或可能结束2001年AUMF战争，那场战争导致了美国在阿富汗最长的战争，美军刚刚被遣送回国。根据新出台的立法，那些AUMF的将到期，所有未来的AUMF将需要一个到期日期。
新的立法肯定会在鹰派人士和那些怀疑国会在涉及国家安全的情况下控制行政权力的人之间引发激烈的辩论——尽管宪法规定国会只有宣战的权力——将更严格地将“敌对行动”定义为任何需要美国军队的行动，而不是目前基本上需要美国军人在地面上靴子的不成文规则。
“两党总统都篡夺了国会决定我们是否、何时以及如何开战的特权。现在，美国的全球地位、财富和勇敢的服务成员正在人民立法者从未辩论过的冲突中迷失。在宪法赋予国会广泛权力的领域，国会被忽视了。《国家安全权力法案》将改变这种状况，并将这些制衡交还给我们的政府。
目前还不清楚国会，尤其是领导层对该提议的支持程度，接近此事的参议院助手表示，没有与白宫或政府官员进行磋商。
不过，该组织表示，现在是采取行动的时候了。
“在为时已晚之前，国会需要恢复其在战争和国家安全事务中作为平等分支的合法角色。两党合作的《国家安全权力法案》将确保对所有重大的国家安全决定进行充分、公开和公开的辩论，如战争决策、武器销售和紧急声明，”墨菲说。
Senators propose reclaiming national security powers for Congress
A tri-partisan group of senators on Tuesday introduced legislation designed to claw backnational security powers, delineated in the Constitution, from the executive branch that the Senate trio says have been flowing away from Congress after decades of inaction by lawmakers.
“The founders envisioned a balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government onnational securitymatters. But over time, Congress has acquiesced to the growing, often unchecked power of the executive to determine the outline of America's footprint in the world. More than ever before, presidents are sending men and women into battle without public debate, and making major policy decisions, like massive arms sales, without congressional input,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee a bill cosponsor, along with Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Mike Lee, R-Utah.
The three-pronged National Security Powers Act would place Congress in a more proactive role of having to affirm executive action on more controversial arms sales -- particularly of lethal weapons, including air to ground munitions, tanks, and armored vehicles, as opposed to the current method requiring lawmakers to reject a sale with a veto-proof majority; would replace the 1973 War Powers Act with new policy that would require congressional authorization of military operations by a President after just 20 days instead of the current 60; and require that Congress approve a national emergency declaration after 30 days from presidential enactment.
"The president can declare a national emergency and act on that for a 30-day period, but after that, if Congress chooses not to enact a law to approve of the move, (called a joint resolution of approval) -- that ability for the president would expire after 30 days," according to a senior Senate GOP aide briefing reporters on the proposal.
President Donald Trump, in a highly controversial move in 2019, declared a national security emergency on the southern border to build his wall in that space. There was bipartisan support at the time to stop him but not a veto-proof majority. The Murphy-Sanders-Lee legislation would "flip the script" and put Congress in a position to more easily stop such executive action.
What senators also discovered at the time was that some 30 national emergency declarations were still in effect going back decades. The proposed legislation would sunset those declarations without explicit Congressional approval, putting a five-year limit on future moves.
The tri-partisan proposal comes as Washington is moving to rescind a 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) approved ahead of the Iraq war. There is also growing support to rework or possibly end the 2001 AUMF that led to America's longest war in Afghanistan where U.S. troops have just been sent home. Under the newly-introduced legislation, those AUMF's would expire, and all future AUMF's would require an expiration date.
The new legislation, which is sure to spark heated debate among hawks and those who doubt Congress' authority to rein in executive powers where national security is concerned -- despite the Constitution's delineation that Congress has the sole power to declare war -- would more strictly-define "hostilities" as any that require U.S. troops, as opposed to the current unwritten rule that basically requires U.S. service member boots on the ground.
“Presidents of both parties have usurped Congress’s prerogative to determine if, when, and how we go to war. Now America’s global standing, treasure, and brave service members are being lost in conflicts the people’s legislators never debated. In areas where the Constitution grants broad powers to Congress, Congress is ignored. The National Security Powers Act will change that and return these checks and balances to our government," Lee said.
It is unclear where support lies for the proposal in Congress, particularly among leadership, and Senate aides close to the matter say that there was no consultation with the White House or Administration officials.
Still, the group says the time to act is now.
"Before it's too late, Congress needs to reclaim its rightful role as co-equal branch on matters of war and national security. The bipartisan National Security Powers Act will make sure that there is a full, open and public debate on all major national security decisions, such as war making, arms sales and emergency declarations," Murphy said.
