Panel to Vote on Declaring the War a War

The air campaign in Yugoslavia has reignited debate in Congress over the controversial War Powers Resolution--the Vietnam-era legislation that gives lawmakers the power to halt a move by any president to launch military operations on his own.

The issue will face a test today when a key House committee is slated to vote on a pair of proposals--filed under the resolution commonly referred to as the War Powers act--to force a choice between a declaration of war by Congress and a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the NATO-led campaign within 30 days.

Most analysts predict that the panel will oppose both measures, which are sponsored by Rep. Tom Campbell (R-San Jose), either altering them substantially or recommending they be voted down.

But no matter what action the panel recommends, the full House will be required to consider the two measures in balloting expected later this week. The Senate will face similar votes in mid-May. Eventually, the resolution could prompt a court ruling on the legality of President Clinton’s dispatch of warplanes and ships to the Balkan region.

A congressional challenge to Clinton’s policy may seem like the last thing the nation needs in trying to grapple with the complex situation in Kosovo, a war-torn province of Serbia, the dominant Yugoslav republic. But it’s precisely what the authors of the War Powers Resolution had in mind when they voted in 1973 to write the measure into law.

The legislation, sparked by President Nixon’s decision to bomb Cambodia and enacted by Congress over his veto, sought to give lawmakers a tool to ensure that no president would again be able to plunge the nation into the kind of military quagmire the Vietnam War turned out to be.

Over the past 26 years, however, the act has had little, if any, impact. Presidents of both parties have ignored it, launching a broad array of military operations--including invasions of Grenada, Panama and Iraq--without the resolution’s coming into play.

Some critics charge that the act is extraneous, arguing that lawmakers already have the power to block presidential military incursions by refusing to appropriate the funds required to carry them out. But Congress has rarely used that power, particularly if the move might endanger U.S. forces overseas.

In the current case, the handling of NATO’s limited air war combined with the dramatic television footage of refugees being forced out by Serbian forces in Kosovo clearly has left lawmakers conflicted over what to do.

“Everybody’s in a quandary,” says Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), a critic of Clinton’s handling of the Yugoslavia operation, who nevertheless is reluctant to do anything that might undermine U.S. forces in the region.

In brief, the War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours after launching any large-scale military operation, and establishes strict procedures by which Congress can challenge the president’s decision to use military force.

Supporters point out that under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. But both Republican and Democratic presidents--including Clinton--have branded it unconstitutional and an infringement on the president’s authority as commander in chief.

The Congressional Research Service reports that while the United States has launched hundreds of military actions since the country was founded, Congress has declared war only five times--none of them since World War II.

Moreover, this time the lawmakers themselves are reluctant warriors in the battle over the War Powers act.

The measure was hardly even mentioned until Campbell introduced the pair of proposals that the House International Relations Committee will take up today. Even House GOP leaders, no friends of Clinton, are reluctant to see the measures come to a vote.

“I think it’s a dumb law, I think it’s a dangerous law, I think it’s an unconstitutional law,” Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) said last week. “Nobody follows the law. . . . We should have gotten rid of it years ago.”

Campbell insists that he acted only to force what he calls the larger issues--that the Constitution requires that Congress declare war before a president commits U.S. forces to any military operation abroad, and that lawmakers should stand up and be counted.

Opposed to U.S. involvement in Yugoslavia, Campbell also plans to use the floor votes to bolster a planned lawsuit designed to force Clinton to pull U.S. forces out.

Not surprisingly, the Clinton administration opposes both of Campbell’s resolutions. The State Department told the international relations panel last week that the declaration of war was unnecessary and that pulling out now would “cede victory” to Yugoslavia.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) have both been exploring possible compromise legislation in an effort to head off the up-or-down choice that Campbell’s proposals would foist on lawmakers.