WASHINGTON — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution Tuesday authorizing U.S. involvement in the NATO-led mission in Libya, a small step forward in a stubborn legal stalemate between Congress and the White House over the war.
If adopted by both chambers of Congress, the resolution would give approval to U.S. involvement for up to one year but would restrict any expansion of the U.S. role. Four Republican members of the committee joined the Democratic majority to pass the measure on a 14-5 vote.
The White House said President Barack Obama “welcomes” the resolution but also insists he does not need it under the federal War Powers Act, a point on which many in Congress, including Democrats, disagree.
That disagreement has left the 3-month-old conflict in a legal limbo, as the White House maintains U.S. involvement is too limited to require congressional authorization and congressional leaders insist that the president is in violation of the War Powers Act.
While the committee action demonstrated bipartisan interest in the Senate in settling the issue, the dispute is unlikely to be resolved soon. The full Senate is not expected to vote on the measure until after it returns from the July Fourth break. Meanwhile, the House has already rejected an authorization bill, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers is backing an amendment that would defund the effort.
The Vietnam-era War Powers Act requires a president to get authorization from Congress within 60 days of sending U.S. forces into hostilities, or else begin to pull out.
At a hearing before the committee vote, State Department legal adviser Harold Koh acknowledged that law’s interpretation is often disputed. He outlined the White House position that current conditions do not meet the law’s legal definition of hostilities but appeared to win few sympathizers from either party.
Koh acknowledged that the White House might have handled the situation better.
“There were perhaps steps we should have taken or could have taken to foster better communication on these very difficult legal questions,” he said.
