Rancor Scars House Debate Over GOP Foreign Policy Bill

The House bitterly debated the Clinton Administration’s national security policies Wednesday as Democrats mounted a full-scale attack on a GOP proposal to limit the President’s authority to send U.S. troops on U.N. peacekeeping missions.

Brandishing letters of opposition from President Clinton and a spate of former top generals and admirals, Democrats--led by Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.)--accused Republicans of trying to impinge on the President’s constitutional powers.

They prepared amendments to dilute the proposed restrictions on peacekeeping and to weaken other provisions, which call for speeding deployment of antiballistic missile defenses and quickly accepting Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Partisan rancor was so intense that, even before debate on the GOP bill started, Democrats began procedural maneuvers intended to force the chamber to adjourn before any floor action. All were defeated on largely party-line votes.

The House, which continued debate late into the evening, is expected to complete action on the measure today and send it to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future.

Clinton has hinted that he will veto the legislation, warning in a letter that it “contains numerous flawed provisions that are simply unacceptable.”

Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Defense Secretary William J. Perry also oppose it.

The measure, part of the House GOP’s “contract with America,” contains Republican-crafted solutions to several longstanding--and deep-seated--GOP complaints about Clinton’s foreign policies, from his cutback in defense spending to his refusal to seek rapid expansion of NATO.

On peacekeeping, the bill would prohibit the President from sending U.S. troops to take part in U.N. ventures without obtaining approval from Congress.

The bill would also deduct the cost of deploying those forces from America’s annual contribution to the U.N. peacekeeping fund.

Perhaps the most politically volatile provision would technically prohibit the President from placing any U.S. troops under U.N. command--a reaction to the U.S. experience in Somalia, where 18 Army Rangers were killed in a firefight with Somalis after the United Nations took over command of the mission.