Reagan Vetoes Saudi Arms Rejection; Showdown Due

President Reagan on Wednesday vetoed legislation blocking the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, setting the stage for a high-stakes showdown in the Senate early next month.

Reagan had expected the Republican-controlled Senate to sustain his veto shortly after it was sent to Congress on Wednesday afternoon, but a threatened filibuster by his Democratic opponents succeeded in forcing a delay of the vote until June 5, after a Memorial Day holiday recess.

It is not clear whether the Republicans will be able to secure the necessary votes next month to reverse what has amounted to an embarrassing foreign policy setback for the President. Both the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly against the package earlier this month, marking the first time in history that Congress has rejected a foreign arms sale.

Stunned by the earlier vote, Reagan mounted a ferocious lobbying drive to revive the sale--even pledging Tuesday to drop shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles from the package. His efforts were supported by former President Jimmy Carter, who lobbied several Democrats.

Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), the leading opponent of the sale, said Reagan would have won approval for the package if the Senate had voted Wednesday, but only because seven senators opposing it were absent when the GOP leadership wanted to vote.

“I have reason to believe we can win in June,” Cranston predicted.

At the White House, spokesman Larry Speakes said Reagan was “very disappointed” by the delay.

Opponents of the sale need a two-thirds majority of the senators present and voting to override the veto. If either the House or Senate fails to muster the necessary two-thirds, the veto will be sustained and the sale will proceed as scheduled.

When the Senate originally voted against the arms sale, the margin was 73 to 22. That presented Reagan with the task of persuading 12 opponents to switch their votes to gain approval for his package. White House sources said that when the vote was delayed Wednesday, the President was just one vote short of the number needed to sustain his position.

Reagan vetoed the legislation at 2:26 p.m., and a White House messenger arrived on the Senate floor about half an hour later, clutching the veto message in a big manila envelope. But Senate GOP leaders intentionally ignored the messenger while they searched for the one extra vote they needed. They refused to acknowledge his presence because Senate rules dictate that once a veto message is accepted, it must be voted upon immediately.

Brunt of Senate Jokes

The messenger, Tim Saunders, 30, a White House employee, quickly became the brunt of jokes as he stood for more than four hours in the rear of the Senate chamber waiting for recognition. He was not recognized until about 7 p.m.

At one point during the afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), his back turned toward Saunders, joked, “I understand that the President has vetoed the legislation and somewhere there is a messenger who has the information.”

Everyone in the chamber laughed, including Saunders.

Without the Stingers, which would cost an estimated $89 million, the proposed $265-million sale package includes only Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and Harpoon ship-to-ship missiles--weapons that the Saudis already have.

Decades-Old Ties

In his veto message, Reagan argued that denying the sale would undermine a relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia dating back to 1943. He insisted that the arms package is in U.S. interests and does not undermine the security of Israel.

“It is not just a favor to our friends in Saudi Arabia,” he said. “Moreover, it is not being done at anyone’s expense. . . . This sale will not endanger Israel’s defenses--a fact that is underscored by Israel’s decision not to oppose the sale.”

Reagan argued that the Saudis are a key factor in maintaining the stability of the oil-producing Persian Gulf region.

“In a region living in the shadow of the gruesome Iran-Iraq War and threatened by religious fanaticism at its worst, we cannot afford to take stability for granted,” he said.

The President also sought to counter the contention of his opponents that the Saudis have aided terrorism and failed to keep the commitment to peace that they made in 1981 when Congress agreed to sell them AWACS radar surveillance planes.

Working Behind Scenes

He said the Saudis recently refused to aid Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi and have been working “behind the scenes” to combat terrorism.

“Several times in recent months,” he added, “they have been helpful in offsetting unjust criticism of the United States and preventing radical states from taking joint action against our country.” He did not elaborate on this point.

Senators said that Carter, who negotiated the Camp David Mideast peace accord between Israel and Egypt during his term, offered to help Reagan’s lobbying drive because he believes that the Saudis are committed to bringing peace to the region. Among those who heard from Carter was Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.), who agreed to switch his vote to support Reagan.

Bentsen said Carter argued that the United States must have a relationship with moderate Arab states.

‘Kick Them in the Teeth’

“If we just continue to kick them in the teeth, we won’t have influence with the moderate Arab nations,” the senator said.

But a telephone call from Carter apparently failed to sway Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), who was said to be maintaining his opposition to the sale.

Although the Israeli lobby did not get involved in the matter, many opponents of the sale acknowledged privately that they were assuming that their Jewish constituents and contributors would look favorably on a vote against the arms sale. Reagan tried without success to persuade Sen. Rudy Boschwitz (R-Minn.), who is Jewish, to agree to abstain from voting.

Cranston and California Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica), who led the opposition to the sale in the House, issued a statement saying: “The fact is that this is not a Jewish issue. The attempt by the President to pinpoint the Jewish community as responsible for the Administration’s foreign policy failure is irresponsible and insensitive.”