Senate Rebuffs Reagan on Arms Sale to Saudis : Proposal Is Defeated, 73-22, in Unprecedented Action; Rejection by House Could Force Veto

The Republican-controlled Senate, entering into an unprecedented confrontation with President Reagan, voted Tuesday to reject the Administration’s request to sell $354 million worth of arms to Saudi Arabia.

The 73-22 vote marked the first time in history that the Senate has ever acted to block a foreign arms sale supported by the President. The Democratic-controlled House was expected to vote against the sale today, forcing Reagan to exercise his veto to keep the sale alive.

Reagan is authorized to proceed with the sale unless both houses of Congress adopt a resolution to block it. If the resolution passes, Reagan has a right to veto it, although Congress can override that veto if it can muster two-thirds majorities in both houses.

Veto Override Uncertain

Although the number of senators opposing the sale comfortably exceeded the 67 necessary for a two-thirds majority, it was by no means certain that both the House and the Senate could actually override a veto. Some legislators who voted the first time to kill the arms sale might, under pressure from the White House, switch sides on the more extraordinary step of overriding a presidential veto.

In Tokyo, Reagan sounded confident. When asked at his press conference about the Senate vote, Reagan quipped, “Well, let them just wait until the old man gets home and see what happens to them.”

However, Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), who is leading the congressional battle against the Saudi arms sale along with California Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica), hailed the vote as “the strongest message that the President has ever gotten on a foreign policy issue” and predicted that he would have almost as much support for a veto override.

Cranston said the example of former Sen. Robert W. Jepsen (R-Iowa), who was defeated for reelection in 1984 after first denouncing a controversial sale of AWACS radar surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981 but then voting for the sale, had “sort of struck terror in the hearts of senators about switching.”

Among the 29 Republicans who voted against the President was Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.).

The strength of Senate sentiment against the sale was even more surprising because the powerful pro-Israel lobby had not strongly opposed it. Senate GOP sources said that Administration officials also failed to lobby effectively in favor of the sale and miscalculated that the opponents would not be able to win enough votes for a veto override.

May Be Encouraged

If opponents of the Saudi arms sale succeed, they may be encouraged in a threatened effort to block the final delivery to Saudi Arabia later this year of AWACS (airborne warning and control system) planes that were approved by Congress in 1981.

In the past, Presidents have always withdrawn unpopular arms sale proposals before they reached the point of a confrontation with Congress--as Reagan did recently with a proposed sale to Jordan. In fact, the current Saudi sale was scaled down from an originally contemplated $1-billion request because of expected opposition in Congress.

The proposed arms package is considered controversial primarily because it would include shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Although the Saudis already have such weapons in their arsenal, opponents note that the missiles would be extremely dangerous if they fell into the hands of Middle East terrorists.

Constitutional Obligation

Speaking in defense of the sale, Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) argued that Congress has a constitutional obligation to support the President on important national security matters such as this. “I think we have to give the President, in this case President Reagan, the flexibility he needs to conduct foreign policy,” Dole said.

But Cranston asserted that the President has failed to prove that the sale is necessary to the security needs of the United States or Saudi Arabia. On the contrary, he said, the Saudis persistently have blocked U.S. peace efforts in the Middle East and have supported Libya in confrontations with the United States.

“Now is not the time to send such a weapon to an uncertain friend in the Middle East--a friend who has sided frequently with a terrorist,” Cranston said. “The United States has many interests in the Middle East region beyond blocking Communist advances and keeping the oil flowing.”

Clouds U.S. Mideast Role

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said the United States would be relinquishing its role as the predominant force for peace in the Mideast if the sale were defeated. “It would be an invitation to the Soviet Union to play a more active role in the region,” he said.

Rebutting Cranston’s argument, Lugar said that the Saudis have helped to serve U.S. policy interests in the Middle East by acting as a U.S. emissary in Lebanon, working for settlement of the Iran-Iraq war and aiding the anti-Communist rebels fighting in Afghanistan.

$20-Billion Loss Argued

Lugar contended that the United States lost $20 billion in foreign trade a few years ago when it refused to sell jet fighters to Saudi Arabia, forcing that nation to buy planes from the British. With a $150-billion trade deficit, he said, such decisions cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

“How amazing that the subject of jobs disappears,” he said, speaking directly to the Democrats opposing the sale. “How amazing that the balance of payments is an incidental point. Normally, I think it would be important.”

Lugar accused the Senate of “voting in a headlong plunge” in opposition to the President, who sees the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia as vital to U.S. foreign policy. “Normally,” he noted, “that would have a lot of weight.”

The President’s request was submitted to Congress on April 8, and Congress has 30 days under law to pass a resolution blocking it.