Passed in November 1973 by the House and Senate over President Richard Nixon's veto -- and in direct response to his little conflict in Southeast Asia -- the War Powers Act is a tap-on-the-shoulder reminder of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which says: "The Congress shall have power to ... declare war." In an attempt to force the president to bring Congress to the decision-making table, the War Powers Act says "the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President" must decide when United States armed forces are introduced "into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances."

Generally, the law has been pretty theoretical. Modern warfare has evolved into a system in which the commander in chief leads, and Congress keeps its mouth shut unless and until things get too awful. Regardless of what went down in Vietnam and Korea, Congress hasn't actually declared war since 1941. And since 1973, the U.S. armed forces have been traipsing in and out of hot spots as volatile as Southeast Asia, the Middle East and the Balkans -- to say nothing of smaller danger zones like Haiti and Grenada -- without anyone forcing a major constitutional crisis.

Until now, perhaps. Rep. Tom Campbell, a quirky GOP moderate who represents California's Silicon Valley, last week introduced two bills designed to implement the War Powers Act, and force the Congress to vote on NATO's Kosovo intervention, up or down. One bill declares "a state of war between the United States and the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia," while the other directs President Clinton to remove troops from the region altogether.

Normally the introduction of a bill isn't necessarily that big a deal. The average House resolution never sees the light of day. But under the rules of the War Powers Act, any member of Congress can force a vote on any bill relevant to this issue. And Campbell just might. Of course, the president might be expected to oppose Campbell's maneuvers. But, maybe surprisingly, so do some of his GOP colleagues.

One GOP strategist described the conflict: "Campbell is saying that members of Congress should vote up or down on this, early. But in the current environment, that puts vise grips on people." Republican leadership, the strategist says, would prefer to take the position that "the president got us into this, he's the executive, and we'll see how it goes."

Campbell admits some members want to have it both ways. "It's a lot easier politically [to drop the issue]," Campbell told Roll Call, the biweekly newspaper of Capitol Hill. "If [the war] works out OK, you were with him, and if it doesn't, you saw it coming." (Campbell was unavailable for comment.)

As of Monday afternoon, word was that GOP leaders were trying to work with Campbell, getting him to introduce the vote on their terms, and not to force action in the immediate future. According to one senior GOP leadership aide, the resolution calling for a complete military withdrawal from the area should come up for a vote during the last week in April, while the one declaring war will hit the House floor in the first week of May.

Still, any prediction is premature, this aide cautions. "Today's really the first day we're getting into the nitty gritty of the procedures," he says. Monday's Roll Call reported that Minority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, is "working privately to derail Campbell's effort," and the aide acknowledged that "some are exploring various parliamentary options. But if you find someone today who says they know where we're heading, they're getting ahead of themselves. The game plan for the week is to figure out what are our options, [and] what are the rules ... The thing that's facing us is that under the [War Powers Act], members have rights."

Next page | A man Tom DeLay can respect?