DATE=4/22/99 / BACKGROUND REPORT

CONGRESS-KOSOVO-WAR POWERS: BY PAULA WOLFSON / CAPITOL HILL

/// NOTE TO EDITORS: NO DATE FOR THE WAR POWERS VOTE HAS BEEN SET, BUT UNDER THE TIMETABLE ESTABLISHED IN LAW, BY REPUBLICAN
LEADERS SAYS IT WILL LIKELY COME TO THE FLOOR WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY. ///

INTRO: HISTORY IS HAUNTING THE U-S CONGRESS AS IT CONSIDERS THE CONFLICT IN THE BALKANS. A CONTROVERSY AS OLD AS THE NATION
ITSELF HANGS OVER THE LEGISLATURE: CAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPLOY TROOPS INTO HOSTILE SITUATIONS WITHOUT THE
EXPRESSED CONSENT OF CONGRESS? SOME LAWMAKERS SAY “NO” AND ARE CHALLENGING THE NATO MISSION AGAINST YUGOSLAVIA ON LEGAL GROUNDS.

V-O-A’S PAULA WOLFSON REPORTS THEY ARE DEMANDING A VOTE ON A DECLARATION OF WAR.

THE DRAFTERS OF THE U-S CONSTITUTION SET THE STAGE FOR THIS VOTE. THEY GAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THE ROLE
OF COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES. BUT THEY GAVE CONGRESS THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR. THE RESULT HAS BEEN AN ONGOING TEST OF WILLS BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. IT CULMINATED IN THE 1973 WAR POWERS RESOLUTION.

PASSED BY A LEGISLATURE ANGRY AND FRUSTRATED BY THE LONG UNDECLARED WAR IN VIETNAM, THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION WAS DESIGNED TO GIVE CONGRESS A LOUD SAY IN MAJOR DEPLOYMENTS ABROAD.IT BECAME LAW OVER THE VETO OF PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON, AND HAS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL FROM THE VERY START. EVERY OCCUPANT OF THE WHITE HOUSE SINCE 1973 HAS DISPUTED THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION, AND REFUSED TO ABIDE BY ITS PROVISIONS.

THE RESOLUTION HAS MANY ELEMENTS. BUT IN ESSENCE, IT SAYS A PRESIDENT CAN ONLY SEND TROOPS TO FIGHT ABROAD IF THERE IS A
DECLARATION OF WAR OR OTHER LEGAL AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS. CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS HAD HOPED TO AVOID A WAR POWERS CONFRONTATION OVER THE BALKANS. BUT A LONE REPUBLICAN LAWMAKER FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAD OTHER PLANS.

TOM CAMPBELL INVOKED HIS RIGHT UNDER THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION TO DEMAND A VOTE ON THE MILITARY OPERATION IN YUGOSLAVIA. HE INTRODUCED TWO RESOLUTIONS. ONE DECLARES WAR. THE OTHER ORDERS THE PRESIDENT TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME.

///CAMPBELL ACT///
IF CONGRESS DOES NOT STAND UP FOR ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DECLARE WAR IN THIS INSTANCE THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT CONGRESS AND ONLY CONGRESS DECLARE WAR.
///END ACT///

MR. CAMPBELL IS A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR AND A FORMER LAW PROFESSOR. HE SAYS HE IS WILLING TO TAKE ON THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE HIS POINT.

///CAMPBELL ACT///
IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT CONGRESS MUST DECLARE WAR IF WE ARE TO CONDUCT THE OPERATIONS WE ARE IN KOSOVO...BECAUSE
IT IS WAR AND BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE INHERENT POWER OF THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
///END ACT///

APPEALS FROM FELLOW LAWMAKERS DID NOT CONVINCE MR. CAMPBELL TO WITHDRAW HIS LEGISLATION. NOR DID THESE WORDS FROM SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT.

///ALBRIGHT ACT///
WE THINK THAT A DECLARATION OF WAR WOULD HAVE A NUMBER OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS SUCH AS (ON MATTERS SUCH AS) NATO COHESION, REGIONAL STABILITY AND OUR RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA.
///END ACT////

MR. CAMPBELL ACKNOWLEDGES HIS LEGISLATION IS LIKELY TO FAIL AND LAWMAKERS WILL OPT TO KEEP TROOPS IN THE BALKANS WITHOUT A FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR. HE SAYS IF THAT HAPPENS, HE WILL FILE A LAWSUIT AND CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DEPLOYMENT IN COURT. (SIGNED)

22-Apr-99 4:20 PM EDT (2020 UTC)

Source: Voice of America
--------------------------------------------
Tom Campbell’s email address --- campbell@haas.berkeley.edu