House Sets Conditions for Troops in Nicaragua : Angered by Terrorism Generally, Lawmakers Adopt Enabling Amendments for a U.S. Role

The Democratic-controlled House, angered by terrorist assaults on American citizens abroad, passed a measure Thursday that specifies for the first time the circumstances under which Congress would permit President Reagan to send U.S. troops to Nicaragua.

Specifically, the House-passed measure states that the President may commit troops to Nicaragua when--but only when--there is “a clear and present danger” to the United States, its allies, embassies or citizens; in response to acts of terrorism, or in the event that Soviet MIG aircraft or nuclear weapons are introduced in Nicaragua.

“It really is a Gulf of Tonkin resolution for Nicaragua,” said California Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), referring to the 1964 congressional resolution that marked the beginning of the U.S. military buildup in Vietnam. “The House of Representatives is saying, ‘Go to war, Mr. President.’ ”

Adopted by a vote of 312 to 111 after a highly emotional, four-hour debate, the measure was attached as an amendment to a bill authorizing the Defense Department to spend $292 billion in fiscal 1986. The entire bill later passed by a vote of 278 to 106. Differences with the Senate, which has passed a $302-billion version, will be worked out later in a conference committee.

The amendment governing the use of U.S. troops in Nicaragua was offered initially by House Assistant Majority Leader Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) as a vehicle to restrain the President. But Republicans succeeded in amending it so substantially that opponents characterized the final version as an invitation for U.S. military involvement in Central America.

Although Reagan did not immediately comment on the House action, the President has said in the past that he does not intend to send troops to Central America. The White House recently won approval of both the House and Senate to aid Nicaraguan rebels.

Debate on the issue was charged with emotional recollections of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, disagreements over the constitutional powers of the presidency and anger stemming from the current hostage crisis in the Middle East and the slaying of four Marines in El Salvador. Rep. Dan Daniel (D-Va.) condemned Foley’s original proposal, implying it was inadequate. It “puts into law what the murderers are writing in blood,” he said.

Voting for the amended version were 213 Democrats and 99 Republicans, including many who had expressed opposition to the original proposal. Opposing it were a coalition of liberals who want no military involvement in Nicaragua and conservatives who assert that Congress should have no role in this decision.

Foley argued that despite the GOP-proposed changes, the House amendment still sends “a signal” to the President that Congress should be consulted before troops are committed. But he acknowledged that it puts no new restrictions on Reagan.

Foley’s original amendment prohibited the commitment of U.S. forces except in the event of a declared war; a hostile attack on the United States, its embassies or citizens, or circumstances of mutual defense, as called for in the so-called Rio Treaty adopted in 1947 by the United States and most Latin American nations.

The House defeated the most provocative change proposed Thursday by the Republicans, which would have approved U.S. troops “if the President determines Nicaragua is directly or indirectly supporting terrorist or guerrilla actions against El Salvador, Honduras or Costa Rica.” It was sponsored by Rep. Dan L. Burton (R-Ind.).

Three Other Amendments

Supporters of the Burton amendment, which failed 235 to 186, agreed with Foley’s assertion that it would have allowed Reagan to send troops to Nicaragua immediately because the government already claims to have evidence that the Sandinista regime is aiding guerrillas in El Salvador. Thirty-five Democrats joined 151 Republicans in voting for the proposal.

Three other amendments were accepted, all of them adding conditions under which the President could send troops. Two were sponsored by California Rep. Duncan L. Hunter (R-San Diego), who voted against the final version. Hunter’s amendment stipulating that troops could be committed in response to the introduction of MIGs to Nicaragua passed by a vote of 377 to 45; the others were adopted by voice vote.

House Assistant Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who also voted against the final version, said that as a result of these amendments, the Foley proposal had been “defanged and denuded.” He predicted that it would be “summarily thrown out” when a House-Senate conference committee convenes to iron out differences in the defense bills passed by the two chambers.

Mood of the Nation

The action suggested that the mood of the House has changed since last year, when it readily accepted an amendment similar to Foley’s original proposal. Until just a few weeks ago, the House had also consistently opposed aid to the Nicaraguan rebels. In the Senate, a proposal similar to Foley’s sponsored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) was defeated last month.

But Foley argued that the mood of America has not changed, even if House sentiment appeared to be growing more militant. Foley’s co-sponsor, Rep. Silvio Conte (R-Mass.), cited a recent ABC-Washington Post poll indicating that 76% of Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in Nicaragua.

Before his amendment was altered, Foley argued for it on grounds that it would do nothing more than write into law a pledge that Reagan himself has made not to send troops to Nicaragua. He quoted Deputy White House Press Secretary Larry Speakes as saying that any suggestion of a U.S. invasion was “wrong, wrong, wrong” and “dumb.”

Narrowing Prerogatives

But Republicans replied that the Foley amendment would undercut the President at a time of crisis. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) described it as “a raw political statement designed to cripple and embarrass the President at a particularly crucial time when we are under siege around the world by state-sponsored terrorism.”

Hyde and other Republicans also objected to it as narrowing the constitutional prerogatives of the President to conduct foreign policy, making Reagan what he described as “commander in chief emeritus.”

But Democrats argued that the Foley amendment did nothing but assert the rights of Congress to be involved in times of crisis.

“What we are telling the President is, before charging up San Juan Hill, why not stop on Capitol Hill first?” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

Tempers flared when Rep. David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) accused the Republicans of abdicating their role in world affairs. “You don’t have the guts--you don’t have the nerve--to take the responsibility the Constitution gave you,” he said.

HOW HOUSE, SENATE DIFFER ON DEFENSE HOUSE Total spending: Would freeze new military spending authority for fiscal 1986 at $292.6 billion, the same as this year’s level. MX missiles: Would authorize no new missile production beyond the 42 already authorized and impose a permanent limit of 40 on the number of missiles that could be deployed. “Star Wars”: Would provide $2.5 billion for contunuing research on the Administration’s proposed space-based shield against nuclear missiles. Anti-satellite weapons: Would ban the testing of ASAT weapons against objects in space, including retrials scheduled for later this year by the Reagan Administration. Chemical weapons: Would provide $124.5 million to produce binary chemical weapons such as nerve gas after Sept. 30, 1987, if NATO accepts the weapons. SENATE Total spending: Would allow spending to grow with expected inflation to about $302 billion, compared with the $322 billion sought by President Reagan. MX missiles: Would authorize 12 more missiles to be produced next year and directs that no more than 50 missiles be deployed in existing silos. “Star Wars”: Would provide nearly $3 billion, compared with President Reagan’s request of $3.7 billion. Anti-satellite weapons: Would authorize the President to conduct unlimited ASAT tests if he certifies he is trying to negotiate a limit on such weapons with the Soviets. Chemical weapons: Would provide $163 million to produce such weapons after this Sept 30, ending a 16-year moratorium.