House Rejects Saudi Sale in Lopsided Vote : Reagan Veto Likely; Foes Fear Terrorists Might Get Missiles

The House, fearful that American-made weapons might fall into the hands of Middle East terrorists, joined the Senate on Wednesday in disapproving President Reagan’s proposed $354-million arms sale to Saudi Arabia--the first time Congress has ever rejected a foreign military sale.

The lopsided 356-62 House vote--a far wider margin than expected--precipitates an unprecedented foreign policy confrontation between Congress and the President. Although Reagan has vowed to veto the resolution of disapproval, his opponents appear to have the two-thirds majority needed to override his veto and permanently block the sale.

However, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, speaking before the House cast its ballots, expressed doubt that the Senate would be able to muster the two-thirds vote. “I believe the sale will go through,” he said on a flight between Tokyo and Seoul, South Korea.

131 GOP Votes

The House revolt, which included 225 Democrats and 131 Republicans, reflected a growing dissatisfaction in Congress with Saudi Arabia’s continued alliance with radical Arab nations such as Libya and a strong fear that the lawmakers themselves might be blamed if U.S.-made missiles are ever used by terrorists against Americans in the Middle East.

California Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica), who led the fight in the House, noted that the arms package being sought by the Saudis includes the shoulder-fired Stinger missile--a weapon he characterized as “a terrorist’s delight.” He questioned why the United States should provide such missiles to an Arab nation that resists American efforts to bring peace to the Middle East.

“If the Saudis want our cooperation, then let them give us theirs,” he said.

Levine noted that the overwhelming margin in both chambers proves that opponents of the sale can easily muster the two-thirds majorities needed to override Reagan’s threatened veto. “It’s clear that this margin is veto-proof,” he said.

In the House, opponents need a maximum of 290 votes to override--or 69 fewer than were cast against the sale Wednesday. The Senate vote exceeded a two-thirds majority by six votes.

Under law, the President has the power to proceed with any foreign military sale unless both chambers of Congress vote against it. Then, if he vetoes the resolution of disapproval, it can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both chambers.

Similar Battle in 1981

The arms sale dispute arises just a few months before the Saudis are expected to take possession of five AWACS radar surveillance planes that were approved by Congress in 1981 after a tumultuous legislative battle. Opponents of this sale are expected to mount a similar battle against the AWACS (airborne warning and control system) transfer, which Congress also has the power to stop.

The proposed $354-million sale would provide the Saudis with additional supplies of three types of weapons that they already have in their arsenal: 1,666 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, 200 Stinger ground-to-air missiles with 600 reloads, and 100 Harpoon air-to-sea missiles.

These are only a fraction of the weapons that the Administration originally had hoped to sell to the Saudis. The package was scaled down because of anticipated congressional opposition. Earlier this year, the President withdrew his request to sell arms to Jordan instead of suffering a defeat.

Although Israel opposes all arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington--known as the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee--did not work against the sale. Nor did opponents argue against it on grounds that it would jeopardize Israeli security.

Opposition Underestimated

“Israel, AIPAC or the Jews of this country--of which I am one--have nothing to do with it,” Rep. Lawrence J. Smith (D-Fla.) said. “This is a foreign policy issue.”

But the lack of opposition from the pro-Israel lobby apparently caused Reagan to underestimate the congressional opposition to the sale, and he did nothing to lobby for it. Rep. Gerry E. Studds (D-Mass.) noted that the President did not even mention it in one of his weekly radio speeches.

The House vote found many usual supporters of the President, such as California Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), voting against him and frequent Reagan critics like Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) voting for the sale. In fact, Dornan announced that the debate had persuaded him to oppose selling Stinger missiles not only to Saudi Arabia but to rebels in Angola and Nicaragua as well.

“If sometime in the next decade a Stinger missile traceable back to the United States knocks down a jumbo jet, it will be a sad day for the members of this House,” Dornan said.

Available Elsewhere

But Hamilton argued that there was no point in halting the sale because the Saudis already have Stingers and easily could buy them elsewhere. He added that the sale is necessary for the United States to continue to play a dominant role in the Middle East.

Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) added that the United States has an obligation to help defend an area that includes 25% of the world’s oil reserves.

The issue split rival California Republican Reps. Bobbi Fiedler of Northridge and Ed Zschau of Los Altos, both of whom are seeking the GOP nomination to oppose Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.)--who led the battle against the sale in the Senate.

While Fiedler co-sponsored the resolution of disapproval, Zschau argued that it would undermine the President’s foreign policy. “I believe there is only one issue--can the word of the President of the United States be relied upon in the Middle East?” Zschau said.

Levine predicted that the sentiment expressed in the House against Stinger sales might lead to passage of legislation barring such sales to any country or insurgency in the future. Stingers are also a part of the President’s request for $100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, known as contras.