War Powers Resolution

The 1973 War Powers Resolution has been a disaster, a bipartisan group of senators said yesterday as they suggested some remedies. The senators - seeking an overhaul of the law intended to limit presidents' power to deploy U.S. military forces - want Congress to have a larger role in determining when troops go in and when they come out of potential battle zones. If President Abraham Lincoln had been saddled with the law, "we'd be meeting today in (the Confederate capital of)

WASHINGTON - The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution Tuesday authorizing U.S. involvement in the NATO-led mission in Libya, a small step forward for those in Congress seeking a path out of a stubborn legal stalemate with the White House. The resolution would give approval to U.S. engagement in the mission for up to one year, but puts new restrictions on deepening the U.S. role. Four Republicans joined the Democratic majority to pass the measure, 14-5. The resolution is one that President Obama has declared he "welcomes" but also insists he does not need under law - a point on which many in Congress, including Democrats, disagree.

Amid indecision and confusion, the Senate yesterday approved a bill that orders President Reagan to issue a detailed report on U.S. military strategy in the Persian Gulf but delays a congressional vote on the policy until at least January. The measure, billed as a compromise between those who wanted to force the President to comply with the 1973 War Powers Resolution and those who wanted to give him a free hand in the gulf, was approved after several confusing parliamentary maneuvers and votes.

WASHINGTON - Republicans and Democrats yesterday derided President Obama's claim that U.S. air attacks against Libya do not constitute hostilities and demanded that the commander in chief seek congressional approval for the 3-month-old military operation. In an escalating constitutional fight, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, threatened to withhold money for the mission, pitting a Congress eager to exercise its power of the purse against a dug-in White House. Boehner signaled that the House could take action as soon as next week.

Alarmed by the escalation in hostilities in the Persian Gulf, Senate Democratic leaders moved yesterday to sharply curb President Reagan's authority to continue U.S. military protection for Kuwaiti tankers. Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D., W. Va.) introduced legislation that would force the administration to abandon Navy escorts in the Persian Gulf unless Congress voted to approve their continuation. The vote would take place 90 days after enactment of the measure. The move, which could set in motion a bitter constitutional confrontation between Congress and the White House, came despite a letter from Reagan to congressional leaders that said the U.S. helicopter attack on an Iranian mine- laying ship Monday was an act of self-defense that should not prompt attempts to restrict the President's powers as commander-in-chief.

Senate Democratic leaders are behaving like petulant children in trying to give the Congress veto power over U.S. protection for Kuwaiti tankers. They are pushing a measure that would end the protection program in 90 days unless Congress votes to prolong it. Whatever their grievances with President Reagan's Persian Gulf policy, now is not the time, nor this the proper means, to change its course. What the Democrats really want is for President Reagan to abide by the terms of the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

Amid threats of retaliation from Iran for a U.S. naval attack in the Persian Gulf, the Senate yesterday ended a filibuster and began debating President Reagan's authority to keep American troops and ships in the war-torn gulf. As the Senate voted 67-28 to begin discussion of the War Powers Resolution, Iranian leaders warned of strikes that "will make the United States regret" its destruction Monday of two Iranian oil platforms in the gulf. The debate opened as Reagan notified Congress that American military forces in the gulf had returned to a lower state of alert following Monday's attack.

As fighting erupted in the Arab world, Congress was debating how much discretion a president should have to introduce America's military might into a conflict. "One only has to look at the raging conflict in the Middle East to realize that this is not a good time for us to be playing around with an attempt to restrict the President's authority," said Rep. Peter H.B. Frelinghuysen (R., N.J.). That was in October 1973, and the result of the debate - despite then-Rep. Frelinghuysen's warning - was the War Powers Resolution, a law limiting presidents' powers to commit U.S. forces abroad.

After an emotional debate over who has the power to send young men and women into war, the House voted last night to uphold a 22-year-old law that restricts a president's authority as commander in chief. The House, over the objections of the Republican leadership, voted 217-201 against repealing the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a controversial Vietnam-era measure that asserts congressional authority over presidential decision-making in a military crisis. GOP leaders attributed the outcome - a surprise - to skittishness by Republicans over giving President Clinton more authority during the Bosnia crisis.

The Senate again yesterday ducked a challenge to President Reagan's military policy in the Persian Gulf, voting 54-31 to reject a move to invoke the War Powers Resolution against the use of U.S. warships to escort Kuwaiti tankers. As some senators argued that the resolution, enacted to prevent presidents from plunging the nation into undeclared wars, was unworkable, others insisted that it would work if Congress would muster the courage to invoke it. "If we choose to make it work, it'll work," declared Sen. Claiborne Pell (D., R.I.)

By Bennett Ramberg The failure of the congressional Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, or "supercommittee," to reach agreement on budget cuts sets the stage for $1.2 trillion in automatic reductions, to begin in 2013. Should these cuts go into effect, the Defense Department, which already must implement $450 billion in reductions over 10 years, will take half the hit. But the resistance has already begun, with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta arguing that further reductions will present a "substantial risk" to America's national security.

WASHINGTON - The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution Tuesday authorizing U.S. involvement in the NATO-led mission in Libya, a small step forward for those in Congress seeking a path out of a stubborn legal stalemate with the White House. The resolution would give approval to U.S. engagement in the mission for up to one year, but puts new restrictions on deepening the U.S. role. Four Republicans joined the Democratic majority to pass the measure, 14-5. The resolution is one that President Obama has declared he "welcomes" but also insists he does not need under law - a point on which many in Congress, including Democrats, disagree.

Is the Libya war legal? Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, it is not. President Obama has exceeded the 90-day period to receive retroactive authorization from Congress. But things are not so simple. No president should accept - and none since from Nixon on has accepted - the constitutionality of the law, passed over a presidential veto. On the other hand, every president should have the constitutional decency to get some congressional approval when he takes the country to war. The model for such constitutional restraint is George W. Bush.

WASHINGTON - Two top senators rolled out a resolution Tuesday giving President Obama limited authority in the three-month-old war in Libya, warning that the drastic step - being considered in the House - of cutting off funds for the operation would be a lifeline to a weakened Moammar Gadhafi. Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D., Mass.) and John McCain of Arizona, the leading Republican on the Armed Services Committee, introduced the bipartisan resolution to allow the mission to continue.

WASHINGTON - Republicans and Democrats yesterday derided President Obama's claim that U.S. air attacks against Libya do not constitute hostilities and demanded that the commander in chief seek congressional approval for the 3-month-old military operation. In an escalating constitutional fight, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, threatened to withhold money for the mission, pitting a Congress eager to exercise its power of the purse against a dug-in White House. Boehner signaled that the House could take action as soon as next week.

WASHINGTON - Republicans and Democrats on Thursday derided President Obama's contention that U.S. air attacks against Libya did not constitute hostilities, and demanded that the commander in chief seek congressional approval for the three-month-old military operation against Moammar Gadhafi's forces. In an escalating constitutional fight, House Speaker John A. Boehner threatened to withhold money for the mission, pitting a Congress eager to exercise its power of the purse against a dug-in White House.

WASHINGTON - The House harshly scolded President Obama on Friday for launching U.S. military forces against Libya without congressional approval, fiercely disputing constitutional powers and flashing bipartisan frustration over a nearly three-month-old conflict with no end in sight. However, lawmakers stopped short of a more draconian resolution to order an outright end to U.S. involvement in Libya. They rejected that measure, 265-148, with antiwar Democrat Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio winning the votes of 87 Republicans and 60 other Democrats.

Despite misgivings, the House and the Senate voted solidly for a resolution granting President Bush the authority he has sought to wage war against Iraq. The House voted, 296-133, in support of the President yesterday. The Senate voted, 77-23, early today. On a somber day filled with many forceful words and a few tearful ones, lawmakers from both parties authorized Bush to send American troops into battle to enforce U.N. resolutions that prohibit Iraq from amassing weapons of mass destruction.

The Bush administration pressed lawmakers yesterday to give overwhelming support to a resolution backing a possible U.S. strike on Iraq, as the House and Senate debated the measure that congressional leaders expected to pass by next week. With approval of the war-powers resolution President Bush negotiated with congressional leaders all but assured, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell called for an endorsement without amendments and by wide margins to strengthen Bush's hand against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

After an emotional debate over who has the power to send young men and women into war, the House voted last night to uphold a 22-year-old law that restricts a president's authority as commander in chief. The House, over the objections of the Republican leadership, voted 217-201 against repealing the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a controversial Vietnam-era measure that asserts congressional authority over presidential decision-making in a military crisis. GOP leaders attributed the outcome - a surprise - to skittishness by Republicans over giving President Clinton more authority during the Bosnia crisis.