Clinton Set to Veto Security Policy Bill : Legislation: The GOP measure would restrict presidential powers. Curbs would include limiting U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations.

WASHINGTON —  President Clinton and Congress appear headed for a veto confrontation over legislation designed to limit the President’s ability to set national security policy, including the deployment of U.S. troops for U.N. peacekeeping operations.

The measure, part of the House Republican “contract with America,” contains GOP solutions to longstanding complaints about Clinton’s foreign policies, from his cutback in defense spending to his refusal to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization rapidly.

The bill is to go to the House floor Wednesday and Clinton is expected to warn today that he will veto it if it passes in its present form. Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Defense Secretary William J. Perry already have said that they would recommend a veto.

The measure would limit U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations by requiring Clinton to deduct part of the cost of the troops from U.S. cash contributions to the peacekeeping effort and would prohibit the placement of U.S. troops under foreign command.

It also would speed deployment of ballistic missile defenses now being developed, set up an independent commission to set new priorities for U.S. military spending and speed the entry of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia into NATO.

Administration policy-makers said that most of the provisions are superfluous; Clinton already has issued a policy directive prohibiting U.S. troops from serving under foreign commands. And the job of setting spending priorities for the military lies with the secretary of defense.

Republicans have diluted some provisions. The bill now seeks deployment of ballistic missile defenses as soon as “practical” rather than as soon as “possible” and it no longer calls for boosting defense spending, as did the original version of the measure.

Even so, Democrats warned that several of the proposals, from the peacekeeping measure to the one that would speed expansion of NATO membership, would encroach on a President’s power to make foreign policy.

“Rather than revitalize U.S. national security . . . the cumulative effect would be to undermine our foreign policy and damage our national security,” Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) said in a statement.

By far the most serious threats to presidential power are provisions affecting peacekeeping, which analysts said would undermine international peacekeeping operations and fundamentally alter the United States’ relations with the United Nations.

Since the early days of the Korean War, the United States frequently has used the United Nations for political “cover” for U.S.-led military operations. The 1991 Persian Gulf War against Iraq was one example. The current U.S. occupation of Haiti is another.

But the new GOP measure would clamp a lid on such ventures by requiring the President to give Congress 15 days’ notice before the United States takes part in a peacekeeping operation and to deduct the cost from the annual U.S. cash contributions to the United Nations.

With U.S. operations abroad currently running at $1.7 billion a year, deducting such costs would quickly eat up the estimated $1 billion a year that Washington contributes to the $3-billion U.N. peacekeeping budget.

The United States already has served notice that it will cut its cash contributions to the U.N. peacekeeping fund to 25% of the total, down from 31.7% now. Deducting the cost of U.S. military operations as well would deplete the fund, experts said.

Administration analysts also warned that any such move by the United States would prompt similar actions by Britain, Japan, Germany and other countries that contribute heavily to U.N. peacekeeping ventures--effectively killing the entire operation.

Critics said that the GOP legislation is little more than a campaign document, designed to enable Republicans to claim that they did something to counter the Administration’s often-criticized foreign policies. “Most of it is hortatory,” one congressional staff member contended.

But Anthony H. Cordesman, analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan policy-monitoring group, said that the dispute goes back beyond the November election, reviving the debate over who has the power to wage war--the President or Congress.

“There’s a significant difference between Congress and the Administration on how to use the armed forces,” Cordesman says. “We never really resolved the basic issues of the War Powers Act. This fight is over the effort to legislate a change in strategy.”

Veto threat aside, there’s little doubt that Congress will pass legislation. Republicans, who want to push the measure through quickly as part of their campaign manifesto, have a clear majority in both houses and House Democrats plan only a few key amendments.

The Senate is considering a similar bill, introduced by Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.). Its fate there is somewhat less certain, however, since the Senate traditionally has been reluctant to tie the President’s hands on foreign policy issues.

Just the same, it’s still far from clear whether there are enough Republican votes to override a presidential veto and analysts said that, barring a major foreign policy gaffe, there is a good chance that a Clinton veto would stick.